Why do they have to be mutually exclusive

[brodyhyde]

Why couldn't God have Created Evolution?

[the_nihilist]

What if evolution creates (or has created) God (Goddess or It)... or Gods (Goddesses or They)???

[brodyhyde]

What if evolution creates (or has created) God (Goddess or It)... or Gods (Goddesses or They)???


But was started the evolution that created God or It?

[the_nihilist]

But was started the evolution that created God or It?
Alright... let's be serious and, I dare say the word the religious fear the most: RATIONAL. Evotlution and Creationism ARE mutually exclusive. If you accept Evolution... as an astounding amount of the scientific community does with the support of vast amounts of objective, empirical evidence... you accept that every living thing on the planet has evolved through natural processes... no more, no less. All living things that we see today, that we have seen from fossil records, and that will ever be seen in the future have evolved from single-cell organisms over the course of hundreds of millions of years. In other words, there was no supernatural process involved in any creation process for humans. Humanity is no different from other animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that are evolved... that are without a soul. So, in the same way that bacteria is without a soul, human beings as evolved life also are without souls. The biochemistry of life powers evolution. Such biochemistry never ceases to amaze with its unfathomable complexity... and science every day makes it more and more fathomable.... but such biochemistry is nothing more than a set of soulless chemical reactions. And when those chemical reactions cease... life ceases. End of story. Did God magically create the first cell? No.. life commenced via a soulless chemical reaction. The scientific evedence of abiogenesis is quite clear and undeniable. Life begins and ends in soulless chemical reactions. The origin of life and evolution are supernatural-free processes. Let's leave the the magic to Santa and Walt Disney... and let's wake up from the Delusion.

9D8AeiAamjY

[Crimepunisher]

In other words, there was no supernatural process involved in any creation process for humans. Humanity is no different from other animals, plants, bacteria, etc. that are evolved... that are without a soul. So, in the same way that bacteria is without a soul, human beings as evolved life also are without souls.

I don't recall the exclusion of supernatural processes or talks of the soul being part of the debate. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it deny the existence of a God (To my knowledge, correct me if wrong). Personally I do believe in the theory of evolution but I cannot outright say there were no supernatural forces or abilities at work. Simple point is: I wasn't there.

[brodyhyde]

I don't recall the exclusion of supernatural processes or talks of the soul being part of the debate. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it deny the existence of a God (To my knowledge, correct me if wrong). Personally I do believe in the theory of evolution but I cannot outright say there were no supernatural forces or abilities at work. Simple point is: I wasn't there.

Right on Brother.

Science can only measure the physical world anyway. I believe in evolution. You cant deny that. But, something doesn't start from nothing.

[DontBeAfraid]

I accept both the fact of evolution and the fact of abiogenesis. Neither of which say anything about the existence of "souls" or the existence of "gods". They do cast heavy doubt on any special creation stories though. And ID is a special creation story. Not in its purest form, but if you can find a documentary about ID going on trial you will see that it IS creation repackaged... And not even neatly.... Major proponents of it simply changed the word creation to Intelligent design in their texts..... and missed a few.

[the_nihilist]

I don't recall the exclusion of supernatural processes or talks of the soul being part of the debate. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it deny the existence of a God (To my knowledge, correct me if wrong). Personally I do believe in the theory of evolution but I cannot outright say there were no supernatural forces or abilities at work. Simple point is: I wasn't there.

Yet nowhere in the theory of evolution and the mountains of evidence that support it can be found any evidence of supernatural processes. And, of course, t does so far deny the existence of a God as defined by the great monotheistic religions of today... namely that humans have souls and all other living things do not... Jesus didn't die on the cross for the soul of bacteria. And I wasn't there when the dinosaurs walked the Earth... but the scientific process has proven to me and millions of others via vast empirical evidence that they have existed.

[Crimepunisher]

Yet nowhere in the theory of evolution and the mountains of evidence that support it can be found any evidence of supernatural processes. And, of course, t does so far deny the existence of a God as defined by the great monotheistic religions of today

If you're expecting proof of the divine your expectations are far greater than mine. As far as I'm concerned "proof" as it stands he to be sought individually, whether you lend yourself to faith or science. There may be a lack of evidence to support supernatural forces at work but there's also a lack of evidence to disprove it outright.

[the_nihilist]

Right on Brother.

Science can only measure the physical world anyway. I believe in evolution. You cant deny that. But, something doesn't start from nothing.

So far as we know, there is only a physical world. Perhaps one day through scientific methods, a non-physical world will be realized. But religion is full of stories taken to be truth by adherents of God manipulating the physical world... yet, so far, there is no scientific evidence to support that any of these stories are nothing more than fairy tales.

[the_nihilist]

If you're expecting proof of the divine your expectations are far greater than mine. As far as I'm concerned "proof" as it stands he to be sought individually, whether you lend yourself to faith or science. There may be a lack of evidence to support supernatural forces at work but there's also a lack of evidence to disprove it outright.

There's a lack of evidence supporting the existence of Care Bears living on the planet Rainbow on the other side of side of the universe... but there's also a lack of evidence to disprove it outright.

[Crimepunisher]

There's a lack of evidence supporting the existence of Care Bears living on the planet Rainbow on the other side of side of the universe... but there's also a lack of evidence to disprove it outright.

Now you're getting the picture.

[the_nihilist]

Now you're getting the picture.
Wow... I'm relatively speechless!

[Crimepunisher]

Just wait until we discover them

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=00eb0097d06a011fb7252a888a3c113a

[the_nihilist]

Just wait until we discover them

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=00eb0097d06a011fb7252a888a3c113a

Now I can say to my five-year-old daughter, "Yes, Sweetie... if you get good grades in school, you can go to college and be a care bear biologist."

[Crimepunisher]

Tell her to get in on some of that rainbow...which apparently leads directly to a liquor store

[Cartesiantheater]

Sorry the nihilist, but you are making a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[the_nihilist]

Sorry the nihilist, but you are making a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Please... enlighten me.

[Cartesiantheater]

Well, unless you've changed your position...

By reasoning that because there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural therefore no supernatural exists, you are making the logical fallacy described in the link I posted.

An example of this would be:

"You can't prove God does exist, therefore God doesn't exist"

We have zero evidence that life is anything more than chemicals. However, that does not therefore imply that life is notthing more than chemicals.


Additionally, it is entirely possible that the Christian God exists, because it is entirely possible for that God to exist even if the Bible is shown to be wrong about many things (it could be that the Bible is a collection of half truths derived from real, but unrecorded (at the time), encounters with the Christian God, etc).

So, again, the logical fallacy is of the same group: assuming because there is no evidence of something necessarily implies that that "something" does not exist apart from a word or human thought.

(for the record though, I am a practical athiest and do NOT believe in any sort of "God" aside from the universe itself insomuch as it fills the roles "God" was invented to fill)

[Nu Kua]

When I was first introduced to the concept of evolution, maybe around age 7 or 8, at the time I reasoned that God must have used evolution to create life on Earth, and that the days mentioned in Genesis really were hundreds of thousands of years each.
For several years that is the belief I had; of course at the time I also did not know of the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe and I also still had a belief in an all powerful God.

But if I still believed in that God, I could still be comfortable with combining creationism with evolution.

[jeffweeder]

Why couldn't God have Created Evolution?

Why would he?

I rather see him as taking care and personal interest in everything he has made...and it shows.
Special, love driven creation..fine tuning that sense of smell and vision,..getting the colours right..Attention to detail,..sort of placing his fingerprints on everthing that lives.
Man was a special creation , made in Gods own image...not some evolving image of the kong clan.

[Mezurashi]

a question for the Scientists out there ... where is the center of consciousness?

we Know it exists in the sense that each and every one of us has one, supposedly, yet outside of telepathy there is no way for me to Prove my consciousness to anyone but myself - as there is no way for anyone to prove it to me.

external evidence could simply be mimic behaviour or learned traits, the way that bugs can build multi-level structures of apes can be taught to discern between the numbers and the alphabet.

Show me where the Center of Consciousness lies in physical form, point to the Spot in The Brain where our thoughts emanate -- otherwise Consciousness Does Not Exist.

or, maybe, Consciousness, like the existence of God, is just something that each individual person has to define for themselves ...

[Cartesiantheater]

Show me where the Center of Consciousness lies in physical form, point to the Spot in The Brain where our thoughts emanate -- otherwise Consciousness Does Not Exist.



I give you, the Cartesian Theater...

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/11/cartesian-theatre.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Drafts_Model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

Good place to start. :0.02:

The "I" can be an emergent property of information processing in our brains, just like the final picture in a video game is an emergent property of a computer.

[Nu Kua]

Next, you'll need to explain love. (of the affectionate nature, not so much the universal concept, as in agape, which is a state of being and not an emotion)
I have begun to wonder if love is not so much a spiritual thing as it is a particular mode of consciousness.

[DontBeAfraid]

Why would he?Why wouldnt IT? Please, unless you have some very good reason for believing that your god has testicles can you please use a proper discriptor.


I rather see him as taking care and personal interest in everything he has made...and it shows.You still have not come to any real understanding of just how fucking huge the universe is.


Special, love driven creation..fine tuning that sense of smell and vision,..Most animals smell an order of magnitude better than you or me or any human... And Vision....! Hey asshole, I couldnt SEE the E let alone read it before a few very modern scientists created a great deal of technology based on konwledge of evolution, biology, light and probably a great deal of thermodynamics FIXED my eyes.... And something like a quarter of all men are COLORBLIND! What the fuck is up with people not considering what they have typed before they hit post recently?


sort of placing his fingerprints on everthing that lives.What about the 99.9 percent of species that have gone extinct? Did it burn its fingerprint off of them?



we Know it exists in the sense that each and every one of us has one, supposedly, yet outside of telepathy there is no way for me to Prove my consciousness to anyone but myself - as there is no way for anyone to prove it to me.Its about time you started asking yourself these kinds of questions. Congratz, you have earned the right to post in philosophy.... But beware, lots of people who havent earned the right post there so... As to where it originates.... I cant say, I know the brain is a vital part of it though.... Screw with the brain and you get a different person. For a practical example that you can sort of prove to yourself, go try some E.

[jeffweeder]

Why wouldnt IT? Please, unless you have some very good reason for believing that your god has testicles can you please use a proper discriptor.

Of course...Ill rephrase-----.Why would God?
Now answer the qu.
Why would God want to wait around 4 billion years ,to see his finished work?

I believe that God was motivated by the idea, that he would create a being in his image and likeness, for the purpose of a genuine fellowship experience with something that had its own volition and could give something genuine of its own accord back.
Everything else was created for us to look after and enjoy...and what a beautiful place it is.
Food tastes great, things are appealing to the eye..I mean this place should be perfect...............so what the fuck happened?



You still have not come to any real understanding of just how fucking huge the universe is.

Rather it is you that has no understanding at all at how big or what ,OR who God is.

God created time...he dont need it to make a masterpiece, he has had an eternity with all the masterpieces of the living world that he has designed beyond our piddeley comprehension that seems to be trapped in a brain of flesh matter.

[DontBeAfraid]

Why would God want to wait around 4 billion years ,to see his finished work?What else does it have to do? And isnt one of the tenets of your faith that your god operates outside of our time?


I believe that God was motivated by the idea, that he would create a being in his image and likeness, for the purpose of a genuine fellowship experience with something that had its own volition and could give something genuine of its own accord back.You tred dangerously close to removing one of your god omni-traits in this thought experiment.


Everything else was created for us to look after and enjoy...and what a beautiful place it is.Jeff, HOW MANY STARS ARE IN THE UNIVERSE? You must come to terms with just how small we really are before we can begin pretending that the univerise wsa tailor made for us.


Food tastes great, things are appealing to the eye..I mean this place should be perfect...............so what the fuck happened?Do I need to explain to you the main mechanism by which a thing goes extinct? Or can You just think back to the last hundred times this has been explained to you on this board? You decide.... either way I am going to take this opportunity to insult your intelligence. As you choose to be WILLFULLY ignorant though, there can be no doubt that you deserve it. Anyways fuckhead, did you miss the part about the LARGE percentage of humans who are color blind or in my case legally blind without the help of the evil scientists?


Rather it is you that has no understanding at all at how big or what ,OR who God is.Indeed, but the difference between our two situations is that we both have very real proof that the universe exists..... So while I am tasked with spending my time fruitlessly searching for your god in order to gain some god perspective, you have but to LOOK UP in order to gain some perspective on just how small you are. You choose ignorance, and I choose to ridicule you for it.


God created time...he dont need it to make a masterpiece,"Created" implies that there was some moment before during and after some event.... Should this "god" you speak of have any way of distinguishing between instances after ir suppoosedly created time and instances before it supposedly created time then TIME existed the entire TIME. A passing of time , of some sort, is required for ALL motion.

And again, for humilities sake(yours) I must remind you that if you remove your god from having to obey any sort of time constructs then you entirely remove any shred of an argument in which you ask "why would god take millinos of years to create something?" In the argument that your god operates outside time you do not remove yourself from having to act within times restraints. This will make some sense to you after you go count a few stars.


he has had an eternity with all the masterpieces of the living world that he has designed beyond our piddeley comprehension that seems to be trapped in a brain of flesh matter.Please do tell me why it designed over 99.9
5 of biological lifeforms in such a manner that they went extinct? Why could 99.9% of life not survive in this oh so finely crafted universe? And why is much much much more than 99.9 percent of the universe so entirely DEADLY to not only us but ALL biology?

[Mezurashi]

Its about time you started asking yourself these kinds of questions. Congratz, you have earned the right to post in philosophy.... But beware, lots of people who havent earned the right post there so... As to where it originates.... I cant say, I know the brain is a vital part of it though.... Screw with the brain and you get a different person. For a practical example that you can sort of prove to yourself, go try some E.

hey dude, I've been asking myself these kinds of questions since I was in the womb (according to the psychic who told me I house a 12000 yr old Spirit Horse, lol)

CT - you haven't answered with absolute proof, only a well developed theory, of which I am not only familiar but I kind of like, myself (like the "Palace Of Memory" concepts). what I was getting at was the Singular Node of Consciousness -- the Locus or Nexus of the origin of basic thought -- and not a Partitioned Network as that Multiple Locus idea simply says, "Because We Cannot Find A Single Spot We Assign Value To General Zones." this is also like saying, "We didn't know Exactly where the Terror Cell was so we carpet bombed the neighbourhood."

but thanks to both of you for reminding me of some of the more metaphysical stuff centered around self awareness that I'd forgotten. this sort of weird, subjective topic always has a way of gettin' my mental juices flowin' ... or am I just mimicing a more advanced ape? lol

[the_nihilist]

Well, unless you've changed your position...

By reasoning that because there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural therefore no supernatural exists, you are making the logical fallacy described in the link I posted.

An example of this would be:

"You can't prove God does exist, therefore God doesn't exist"

We have zero evidence that life is anything more than chemicals. However, that does not therefore imply that life is notthing more than chemicals.


Additionally, it is entirely possible that the Christian God exists, because it is entirely possible for that God to exist even if the Bible is shown to be wrong about many things (it could be that the Bible is a collection of half truths derived from real, but unrecorded (at the time), encounters with the Christian God, etc).

So, again, the logical fallacy is of the same group: assuming because there is no evidence of something necessarily implies that that "something" does not exist apart from a word or human thought.

(for the record though, I am a practical athiest and do NOT believe in any sort of "God" aside from the universe itself insomuch as it fills the roles "God" was invented to fill)

OK... I see where you are coming from. The supernatural... the soul... God or Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, It, They, the Eternal Spirit of Larry Craig's Wide Stance, Whatever... can't be entirely disproved by scientific method. But I deem the existence of the supernatural a scientific hypothesis just like any other. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is merely a scientific fact. Even if the existence of the supernatural is never, ever entirely proved or disproved via scientific method, the existing mountains of overwhelming evidence and simple reasoning allows any rational person to conclude that the probabilty that the supernatural exists is very, very, very unlikely. So I can say that I can't know for certain, but based on empirical observation and scientific evidence, the existence of the supernatural is very unlikely... and I can be justified in my assuming the supernatural does not exist... let alone deny that the supernatural is responsible for creating everything we know.

[lycanox]

The problem with your ideas is that we don't call things supernatural anymore once we can explain them.
But we have no idea which other tales of supernatural experiences are really supernatural (like mermaids and goblins) or just natural (like Thor's lightning.)

[the_nihilist]

The problem with your ideas is that we don't call things supernatural anymore once we can explain them.
But we have no idea which other tales of supernatural experiences are really supernatural (like mermaids and goblins) or just natural (like Thor's lightning.)

I believe I was clear what I meant by the word, Supernatural. Or perhaps I wasn't:
"The supernatural... the soul... God or Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, It, They, the Eternal Spirit of Larry Craig's Wide Stance, Whatever..."

[Cartesiantheater]

OK... I see where you are coming from. The supernatural... the soul... God or Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, It, They, the Eternal Spirit of Larry Craig's Wide Stance, Whatever... can't be entirely disproved by scientific method. But I deem the existence of the supernatural a scientific hypothesis just like any other. The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is merely a scientific fact. Even if the existence of the supernatural is never, ever entirely proved or disproved via scientific method, the existing mountains of overwhelming evidence and simple reasoning allows any rational person to conclude that the probabilty that the supernatural exists is very, very, very unlikely. So I can say that I can't know for certain, but based on empirical observation and scientific evidence, the existence of the supernatural is very unlikely... and I can be justified in my assuming the supernatural does not exist... let alone deny that the supernatural is responsible for creating everything we know.


Speaking of which, have you read Richard Dawkins' "The God Dellusion?" Wonderful book, IMHO. It makes a similar claim that 'God" is a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, though. God in general, I'm not so sure. But a specific God could perhaps, if thought of carefully enough, constitute a scientific hypothesis.



I think that if you consider "God" (in general) to be a scientific hypothesis, I'd have to say its a really bad one- because the claim is immensly broad. Is God a supernatural being watching our every move? Is it nothing but a creative force? Or a thinking creator? Does it interfere with the world?

And so on.

For it to be a good hypothesis, it has to make specific claims about the universe that can be (in principle) shown right or wrong by experimental or observational means (or at least a quantified probability). You'd have to "groom" a specific "God hypothesis" before it would be decent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Of course...Ill rephrase-----.Why would God?
Now answer the qu.
Why would God want to wait around 4 billion years ,to see his finished work?

What would it matter to an eternal being? You act like 4 billion years is a long time to the being who "a thousand years is like a day."

EDIT- and in the same vein of reasoning you are using, why would God create a cosmos so ridiculously, unimaginably, incredibly, and stupifyingly larger than what he needed if we were the central purpose for existence?

(hint- you know this one already, but if you suppose that God used evolution to create human beings, both of these two questions are answered very very easily. The universe is big because that garauntees the existence of intelligent life with as little divine interference as possible. All you have to do to be able to accept this one is hypothesis a God of reason instead of a God of magic) :0.02:


:gravity: vs :palpatine:


-----------------------------------------------------------------


CT - you haven't answered with absolute proof, only a well developed theory, of which I am not only familiar but I kind of like, myself (like the "Palace Of Memory" concepts). what I was getting at was the Singular Node of Consciousness -- the Locus or Nexus of the origin of basic thought -- and not a Partitioned Network as that Multiple Locus idea simply says, "Because We Cannot Find A Single Spot We Assign Value To General Zones." this is also like saying, "We didn't know Exactly where the Terror Cell was so we carpet bombed the neighbourhood."

but thanks to both of you for reminding me of some of the more metaphysical stuff centered around self awareness that I'd forgotten. this sort of weird, subjective topic always has a way of gettin' my mental juices flowin' ... or am I just mimicing a more advanced ape? lol

Yes, but there is one good reason to consider the "non-centralized" theories: When we think, we use many different spots all over the brain.

One of the links I posted said it well:


The immediate problem, as I understand it, is that such a 'special center' is neurologically implausible. Cognitive processing is spread throughout the brain, there is no specific region containing all and only the information we are consciously aware of.

[the_nihilist]

Speaking of which, have you read Richard Dawkins' "The God Dellusion?" Wonderful book, IMHO. It makes a similar claim that 'God" is a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, though. God in general, I'm not so sure. But a specific God could perhaps, if thought of carefully enough, constitute a scientific hypothesis.

Alright... I hypothesize that the Judeo-Christian God and His Son do not exist. It would be silly to hypothesize that HEL the Goddess of Death in Norse Religion doesn't exist (Daughter of Loki. Ruler of Niflheim, the land of mists. Heroic souls go to Valhalla. Those who die of disease or old age come to Niflheim. Surrounded by high walls and strong gates, Niflheim is impregnable; not even Balder could return from there without Hel's permission). We all know she doesn't... come-on now.



I think that if you consider "God" (in general) to be a scientific hypothesis, I'd have to say its a really bad one- because the claim is immensly broad. Is God a supernatural being watching our every move? Is it nothing but a creative force? Or a thinking creator? Does it interfere with the world?

And so on.

For it to be a good hypothesis, it has to make specific claims about the universe that can be (in principle) shown right or wrong by experimental or observational means (or at least a quantified probability). You'd have to "groom" a specific "God hypothesis" before it would be decent.


What if we statistically analyze the effects of prayer as an experiment to determine whether or not the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus exists? Jesus makes sweeping and objective claims about the veracity and power of prayer and certain objective effects of prayer. Would this be a good experiment? I think so.

[DontBeAfraid]

What if we statistically analyze the effects of prayer as an experiment to determine whether or not the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus exists?That could only determine whether or not a god answers prayers.... not its existence.


esus makes sweeping and objective claims about the veracity and power of prayer and certain objective effects of prayer. Would this be a good experiment? I think so.It could only prove that the statements were made in error.... It would not determine if any jesus actually ever existed or actually ever made the claims that others claim he claimed.

The controls have to be tight in order for the results of an experiment to mean anything.

[Nu Kua]

An article from the New York Times, 2006, regarding STEP, the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

From Harvard regarding the study
Prayers don't help heart surgery patients
Some fare worse when prayed for
(http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html)

...In a clear setback for those who believe in the power of prayer, their prayers were not answered. Prayers offered by strangers did not reduce the medical complications of major heart surgery. Not only that, but patients who knew that others were praying for them fared worse than those who did not receive such spiritual support, or who did but were not aware of receiving it....

Here is a PDF outlining the methods used and such
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory
Prayer (STEP): Study design and research methods
(http://www.mjain.net/spirituality/STEPpdf.pdf)

[the_nihilist]

That could only determine whether or not a god answers prayers.... not its existence

Duly note that at this point in our conversation, I'm not speaking regarding a god... I'm hypothesizing that the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus does not exist.... God with whom a relationship is established and maintained through prayer.



It could only prove that the statements were made in error.... It would not determine if any jesus actually ever existed or actually ever made the claims that others claim he claimed.

The controls have to be tight in order for the results of an experiment to mean anything.
Statements were made in error by whom? God? So it would prove that statements were made in error by God who is without error?

Regardless... you are over-reaching, I must humbly tell you. It would simply prove that if it is assumed Jesus existed and made the claims that the Christian religion claim he made... the claims he made regarding prayer can be determined to be false based on sound scientific empirical observation and evidence. What other claims about the Judeo/Christian God and Jesus can be scientifically nullified? I say most... if not all of them. If we can scientifically prove that the claims about the Judeo/Christian God and Jesus are overwhelmingly false... we then have alot of evidence to support a hypothesis that the Judeo/Christian God and Jesus does not exist.

nGhGICJCjR4

[the_nihilist]

And now for this thread's musical intermission brought to us by the Westboro Baptist Church.....
WGONbZsozVc

[Cartesiantheater]

What if we statistically analyze the effects of prayer as an experiment to determine whether or not the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus exists? Jesus makes sweeping and objective claims about the veracity and power of prayer and certain objective effects of prayer. Would this be a good experiment? I think so.

That actually has been done in some double blind experiments, to the best of my knowledge. And of course, God didn't show up. (I'm pretty sure this is referenced in Dawkin's book, but it's been a while since I read it, so I may be mistaken).

EDIT- silly me, Nu Kua has already posted some references to them. :P

[Godsgifttomankind]

One of the greatest mistakes ever perpetrated upon human understanding has been the misrepresentation of the lack of need for evidence for the existence of God.

The simple understanding that all you have to do is believe and God is there, many people in the name of God have demanded adherence to ideas and theories that have no physical merit and called it FAITH.

Young religious adherents have walked into the arena of examination wearing nothing more than the emperor's new clothes and wondered "Why are we defenseless?" Is it any wonder that the existence of God is in question?

Any rational person will demand evidence and fail to realize just by asking the question they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the exact order and organization of the world of existence. The very measured composition and interaction of elements that bring into being those things that exist around us. Let us look at a simple example within the biosphere such as a rabbit at the point of conception all the traits of that animal can be known and studied, there is not one trait that is left to chance for all are determined by it's genetic make-up. Many of it's actions are instinctual or preprogrammed that have repetitively been shown in case studies to exist without prior experience.

A study of the development from conception to birth shows the changes that are undergone in the development process, a process that is repeated time and time again to the specific details and requirements of that animals DNA any derivation or anomaly is specifically recorded within the DNA.

Science is on the verge of being able to take DNA of extinct animals and recreate those very animals that ceased to exist thousands of years ago. This is quite a feat but it is only possible because of the order and organization of things around us.

To argue the case for evolution the very evidence that is used to argue the facts exists because of the created order of things. When you deny the created order of things you are denying evolution.

It is only a matter of time before this age old debate is given up in favor of something far more substantial

WHY DID GOD PUT US HERE?!

[DontBeAfraid]

To argue the case for evolution the very evidence that is used to argue the facts exists because of the created order of things. When you deny the created order of things you are denying evolution.Nobody denies that there is an oder to the universe. The debate is whether or not that order is circumstantial or deliberate.

[Cherisa]

Why couldn't God have Created Evolution?

he most certainly could've, perhaps he did ( I use the term He, because Jesus called him "my Father" And if it's good enough for Jesus well, it's good enough for me)
Did he? well that is another story.. Many scientists have recently discovered a theroy they refer to as intelligent design. Given the highly complex nature of most life forms, it is unlikely that life could have resulted from chance ocurrences. They believe that complicated molecules and structures show a design far too intelligent to be random.
AND if Evolution were even remotely possible(by chance) wouldn't we be getting better not worse and IF we did evolve from primates would there still be primates around???

:::Sigh:::It is impossible for any scientific theroy to disprove the existance and workings of the absolute..

idiotic debate

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello DBA and thank-you for your orrery,


Nobody denies that there is an oder to the universe. The debate is whether or not that order is circumstantial or deliberate.

To say that it is circumstantial is to say that it is produced by means of x number of circumstances, in order to prove it is not deliberate, you would also need to prove that it is non circumstantial; that at some point in time something beyond some ordered measure happened to begin the process.

You see the shoe is in fact now on the other foot, no matter how you relate the equation the only reasonable answer is that something far more intelligent than us brought order to this universe of ours.

The question is where you created out of LOVE or a narcissistic desire to create suffering.

[Cherisa]

An article from the New York Times, 2006, regarding STEP, the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

From Harvard regarding the study
Prayers don't help heart surgery patients
Some fare worse when prayed for
(http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html)

...In a clear setback for those who believe in the power of prayer, their prayers were not answered. Prayers offered by strangers did not reduce the medical complications of major heart surgery. Not only that, but patients who knew that others were praying for them fared worse than those who did not receive such spiritual support, or who did but were not aware of receiving it....

Here is a PDF outlining the methods used and such
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory
Prayer (STEP): Study design and research methods
(http://www.mjain.net/spirituality/STEPpdf.pdf)

Not true, according to Physistst Russell Stannard at Open University In Eng.
In his studies, the patients that were prayed for did better, regardless of the religious background of the pray-er. Granted there are not enough studies done, because of disbelief! Until adequate scientific studies of intercessory prayer arrive, doesn't mean it doesn't work. Prayer doesn't require science to validate it. But there are MANY, MANY ,MANY scientists researching it. Just as little as we know about quantum physics we know about "quantum praying"
Andre malraux said the 21st century will be spiritual or it will not be at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Malraux

[the_nihilist]

I deem it amazingly easy... and light-years beyond the verge of a cop out... to insist that the incredible order (which is merely apparent to our still evolving and highly inadequate senses, in my humble opinion) is pointing toward a Creative Intelligent Influence. It belittles everything... the universe, life, humanity... everything. Insipid!

[the_nihilist]

Prayer doesn't require science to validate it.
Gravity doesn't require science to validate it either, but it can. The question of the existence of God or whether or not prayer works is a scientific question that can be answered in principle... even if not in a very practical way, today. Either God exists or He doesn't... either prayer works or it doesn't.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your protestations,


I deem it amazingly easy... and light-years beyond the verge of a cop out... to insist that the incredible order (which is merely apparent to our still evolving and highly inadequate senses, in my humble opinion) is pointing toward a Creative Intelligent Influence. It belittles everything... the universe, life, humanity... everything. Insipid!

My apologies for disintegrating your delicate order.

How is it that you feel a Creative Intelligent influence would at all belittle the vast complexity of all that exists?

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your protestations,



My apologies for disintegrating your delicate order.

How is it that you feel a Creative Intelligent influence would at all belittle the vast complexity of all that exists?

Perhaps the vast complexity is just a vast complexity, in and of itself... not created by an Intelligent Creative Influence. To say it must have been created is to severely retard critical thinking and underestimate the wonder and nature and essence of the universe, life, and humanity.

[Cherisa]

Gravity doesn't require science to validate it either, but it can. The question of the existence of God or whether or not prayer works is a scientific question that can be answered in principle... even if not in a very practical way, today. Either God exists or He doesn't... either prayer works or it doesn't.

I'd have to say it works because God healed me of cancer, and many other people including Scientists, mathematicians, researchers, physicists and those of that ilk are starting to agree..There is PLENTY of literature on the subject

http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/174
http://www.1stholistic.com/Prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm
http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald7/articles-2.shtml

Just don't pray for complete healing as that will certianly lead to your passage to the other side

[the_nihilist]

I'd have to say it works because God healed me of cancer, and many other people including Scientists, mathematicians, researchers, physicists and those of that ilk are starting to agree..There is PLENTY of literature on the subject

http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/174
http://www.1stholistic.com/Prayer/hol_prayer_proof.htm
http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald7/articles-2.shtml

Well, God didn't heal my wife's ex-husband of testicular cancer. Cancer killed him. He was a faithful Christian... he prayed faithfully to live... he had a three-year-old son that desperately needed and wanted his Daddy to stop suffereing and play with him. Why did God answer your prayer and not his?

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your clarification,


Perhaps the vast complexity is just a vast complexity, in and of itself... not created by an Intelligent Creative Influence. To say it must have been created is to severely retard critical thinking and underestimate the wonder and nature and essence of the universe, life, and humanity.

I would argue to the contrary, if we were looking at a simplistic man like being then such would be the case but it is the power and authority of such a creative being that desires to have a personal relation with each and all of His creations that is further point of amazement. To know that not only create the order of the entire universe but has a plan that includes the whole of humanity, a plan that know neither beginning nor end and requires the entirety of all that exists to fulfill that plan.

The retarding of critical thinking is due to a lack of desire to have further understanding of an infinite being and remain within the realms of finite understanding.

Your apprehension in this matter, I can respect for it is a product of the debate that has existed between science and religion for centuries. A debate that religion has darked the understanding of the truth about God and left most scientists with a bad taste in their mouths.

Time for a little mouth wash and a new kick at the cat!

[Cherisa]

Well, God didn't heal my wife's ex-husband of testicular cancer. Cancer killed him. He was a faithful Christian... he prayed faithfully to live... he had a three-year-old son that desperately needed and wanted his Daddy to stop suffereing and play with him. Why did God answer your prayer and not his?

I cannot answer that, I can only guess as what God was in that and I would probably be wrong too.
I can say this with all degree of certainty though. We all die. Mine has only been postponed to a later date. When I finish what I am supposed to do my time will be over too. I am not bothered by that at all.
Yes, sons need their fathers the same as daughters need their mothers. Mothers need their daughters,and fathers need their sons, and brothers need their brothers. And sisters need their brothers and sisters need their sisters. and so on and so on right down the line. If you take away one fact from life and that all the empirical data on it is as absolute No one here gets out alive, guareented.

If you ask yourself what is it all about then? It's about life, enjoying each and every moment in time that you have here. Experiencing the wondrous events that make up life. None of us are promised 5 minutes on earth and there are many that that happens to, too.
Appreciate what you have, kiss your stepson, LOVE as deep as you can, kiss the flowers and feed the ant. Share yourself..

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your clarification,



I would argue to the contrary, if we were looking at a simplistic man like being then such would be the case but it is the power and authority of such a creative being that desires to have a personal relation with each and all of His creations that is further point of amazement. To know that not only create the order of the entire universe but has a plan that includes the whole of humanity, a plan that know neither beginning nor end and requires the entirety of all that exists to fulfill that plan.

The retarding of critical thinking is due to a lack of desire to have further understanding of an infinite being and remain within the realms of finite understanding.

Your apprehension in this matter, I can respect for it is a product of the debate that has existed between science and religion for centuries. A debate that religion has darked the understanding of the truth about God and left most scientists with a bad taste in their mouths.

Time for a little mouth wash and a new kick at the cat!

I'm very open-minded to a new-mouthwash... and perhaps the cat needs to be kicked once again. But religion is entirely incapable of accompliahing this in any real and substantial way. The order of the universe is merely apparent, as I've alluded to above... it's even in the eye of the beholder. In fact one could righfully claim that the only real order and consistency out there is unadulterated chaos. Where is God's plan in the reality of World War II Poland that this photo depicts:

http://www.2goglobal.com/2GoChronicals/2%20Go%20Photos/Europe/Poland/soldier_gun.jpg

Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation, addresses the matter more eloquently then I can:

Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology.

Every 100 million years or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth, killing nearly everything that lives. If ever we needed proof of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal.

The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years. The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves. There is nothing about our ancestral line or about our current biology that dictates how we will evolve in the future. Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.

Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.

But our environment and our needs — to say nothing of our desires — have changed radically in the meantime. We are in many respects ill-suited to the task of building a global civilization. This is not a surprise. From the point of view of evolution, much of human culture, along with its cognitive and emotional underpinnings, must be epiphenomenal. Nature cannot "see" most of what we are doing, or hope to do, and has done nothing to prepare us for many of the challenges we now face.

These concerns cannot be waved aside with adages like, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are innumerable perspectives from which our current state of functioning can be aptly described as "broke." Speaking personally, it seems to me that everything I do picks out some point on a spectrum of disability: I was always decent at math, for instance, but this is simply to say that I am like a great mathematician who has been gored in the head by a bull; my musical ability resembles that of a Mozart or a Bach, it is true, though after a near fatal incident on skis; if Tiger Woods awoke from surgery to find that he now possessed (or was possessed by) my golf-swing, rest assured that a crushing lawsuit for medical malpractice would be in the offing.

Considering humanity as a whole, there is nothing about natural selection that suggests our optimal design. We are probably not even optimized for the Paleolithic, much less for life in the 21st century. And yet, we are now acquiring the tools that will enable us to attempt our own optimization. Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing? There may be current threats to civilization that we cannot even perceive, much less resolve, at our current level of intelligence. Could any rational strategy be more dangerous than following the whims of Nature? This is not to say that our growing capacity to meddle with the human genome couldn't present some moments of Faustian over-reach. But our fears on this front must be tempered by a sober understanding of how we got here. Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.

[the_nihilist]

I cannot answer that, I can only guess as what God was in that and I would probably be wrong too.
I can say this with all degree of certainty though. We all die. Mine has only been postponed to a later date. When I finish what I am supposed to do my time will be over too. I am not bothered by that at all.
Yes, sons need their fathers the same as daughters need their mothers. Mothers need their daughters,and fathers need their sons, and brothers need their brothers. And sisters need their brothers and sisters need their sisters. and so on and so on right down the line. If you take away one fact from life and that all the empirical data on it is as absolute No one here gets out alive, guareented.

If you ask yourself what is it all about then? It's about life, enjoying each and every moment in time that you have here. Experiencing the wondrous events that make up life. None of us are promised 5 minutes on earth and there are many that that happens to, too.
Appreciate what you have, kiss your stepson, LOVE as deep as you can, kiss the flowers and feed the ant. Share yourself..

Thank you for the kind words... I sincerely appreciate what you've said. And I also respectfully ask that you try and realize that you can be just as certain about such in a Godless universe.

[Cherisa]

Thank you for the kind words... I sincerely appreciate what you've said. And I also respectfully ask that you try and realize that you can be just as certain about such in a Godless universe.

No disrespect intended, but wouldn't it be fascinating to know that the Universe is one big echo of feeling and sensitvity? and that God does exisit the same as Air and Love and Gravity..
How would you feel about Science proving God exists?

[the_nihilist]

No disrespect intended, but wouldn't it be fascinating to know that the Universe is one big echo of feeling and sensitvity? and that God does exisit the same as Air and Love and Gravity..
How would you feel about Science proving God exists?
I would then accept the existence of God as scientific fact. If the Judeo/Christian God as he is depicted in the Bible was proven by science to exist... I would accept it as scientiic fact... I would invite him to have a pint with me down at the pub... and then I would angrily ask with exasperation, "What the Hell?!?!?"

[Cherisa]

I would then accept the existence of God as scientific fact. If the Judeo/Christian God as he is depicted in the Bible was proven by science to exist... I would accept it as scientiic fact... I would invite him to have a pint with me down at the pub... and then I would angrily ask with exasperation, "What the Hell?!?!?"


Ah and knowing God, He'd go with ya, and probably treat you and answer all your questions..

[olddragon]

Ah and knowing God, He'd go with ya, and probably treat you and answer all your questions..
What a joke. Do you think he could give you an answer about any thing?

[Nu Kua]

Cherisa, I am very glad to know that you fought a tough battle and won, and I am certain that having faith in a higher power was comforting, and I do not condemn that at all.
But I have to ask, could God have healed you without the benefit of humans in the medical and science fields?

This questions isn't really about the existence of God or not, but more so because its my view that if there is a higher power such as God, he or she works on earth through humans.
We may read of miraculous feats attributed to various Gods of ancient times world round, but from what I have seen of the miracles we've witnessed on Earth, every single one takes the action of humans to accomplish.

[DontBeAfraid]

Many scientists have recently discovered a theroy they refer to as intelligent NO! Not a single scientist refers to intelligent design as a scientific theory.


AND if Evolution were even remotely possible(by chance) wouldn't we be getting better not worseFor you to ask this question shows that you have ZERO understanding of what evolution is. There is good news though, its very easy for you to stop being IGNORANT. Christian ignorance on the subject has motivated many a person to make learning about the theory of evolution free and as easy as hitting up a few search engines. Now go forth, and shed some of that ignorance!


and IF we did evolve from primates would there still be primates around???You deserve neg rep for asking a question that has been answered 100 times on this forum.


To say that it is circumstantial is to say that it is produced by means of x number of circumstances, in order to prove it is not deliberate, you would also need to prove that it is non circumstantial; that at some point in time something beyond some ordered measure happened to begin the process.Circumstantial and deliberate are a far cry from the same thing. Deliberate implies a conscious effort. Circumstantial does not.


You see the shoe is in fact now on the other foot, no matter how you relate the equation the only reasonable answer is that something far more intelligent than us brought order to this universe of ours.More intelligent than you maybe. I on the other hand can see the difference between a cup falling because of gravity and a cup falling because it wants to.

[Cherisa]

[QUOTE]NO! Not a single scientist refers to intelligent design as a scientific theory.Not true, perhaps you need to educate yourself.

[DontBeAfraid]

Not true, perhaps you need to educate yourself.wow... I love to go back in time. Who here remembers a poster who went by the name BNyeTheUrakhai? Who here remembers one of the lists he found and posted? It was a list of all the scientists named Steve who accept the fact of evolution. Another list he posted was an exhaustive list of all the pretend scientists who support creation(ID, for those that dont know the difference there is none... other than spelling). The list of REAL scientists named steve was a great deal bigger than the exhaustive list of ID apologists.

Cherisa, in order to be a scientist you must adhere to the scientific method. ID is such an animal that there can be zero tests done to confirm or deny it. By this fact it is impossible for a real scientist to consider it as a scientific theory. Its merely a hypothesis that cant now nor ever be tested.

[Cartesiantheater]

DBA- it is possible for a "real scientist" to believe in ID. It is impossible for ANYONE to be doing science as it relates to ID. True, ID is not science, because it does not follow the scientific method as defined by modern science. However, it is possible for a scientist to have faith and believe in ID by faith.

Of course, those people are few and far between. Interestingly, as you have pointed out, many of the "ID" textbooks are identical in content to the old "Creationist" contents, with a few word changes (substitute "ID" for "Creation," etc), and this was exposed in the court of law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------





Cherisa- ID is NOT a scientific equivelant to evolution. ID does not follow the scientific method. Just because something sounds "technical" does not mean that it is science. You see, in essence ID does exactly the opposite of what scientific theories do when presented with difficult questions: instead of pushing on to find a testable explanation, ID chalks up anything that is difficult to explain as God. Because of this, ID has been embarrassed before by biological findings that they claimed could never be found because they believed something was "irreducibly complex."

As far as why there are still apes:

a.) You make a logical mistake here in assuming that "Ape" is a species. "Ape" is a name for a superfamily, which includes humans.

b.) If you meant for the word "ape" to mean gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans, then here is the answer to your question:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7897/apeancestrymt2.png

You see? We did not evolve from today's other great apes. We evolved from an extinct animal that they also evolved from.

Just like you didn't "evolve" from your cousin: you "evolved" from the same grandparent as your cousin.

It probably would be best to find out what your opponents actually are saying if you wanted to debate them. Just my humble advice, take it or leave it. :0.02:

[Cherisa]

It probably would be best to find out what your opponents actually are saying if you wanted to debate them. Just my humble advice, take it or leave it. :0.02:
I am aware that my opponents have their heads so far up their own asses they can't see shit...But I still keep trying to get them to see the light....

Here you go Einstein (http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CPuv0Y26uJICFQFylgodyHQHSQ)

Are you actually trying to say Einstein was not a scientist? PLUZZEEE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oQl5Qvvaw

[Cartesiantheater]

I am aware that my opponents have their heads so far up their own asses they can't see shit...But I still keep trying to get them to see the light....

GOD (http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CPuv0Y26uJICFQFylgodyHQHSQ)

This sounds like wilful ignorance to me.

I'm not asking you to believe evolution. I am only asking you to know what it is before you dismiss it. By your "Ape" question it is crystal clear that you don't know the basics of evolution theory.



As to your link:


But new insights into our universe belie such a simplistic view. Quantum mechanics has revealed that our material world is based upon an invisible world of subatomic particles that is totally non-material.

This is a gross attempt at deception. It is true there are what is called "virtual particles," but the name does NOT mean "totally non-material." This is a very cheap and shameful attempt at disception.

Virtual particles are REAL, they simply exist in limited pieces of time and space, and they simply do not follow certain theoretcial modesl for very short intervals of time and space. They are theoretical frameworks that are used to describe quantum reality. They are REAL (or their effects are, since according to the uncertainty principle we can't actually see them [viewing one neceisarily implies that there never was a virtual particle to begin with]), but what they are is simply hard to define.

This is simply a consequence of the wave nature of matter. They are NOT spiritual. The article is trying to decieve.


Also, scientists are openly discussing dimensions beyond ours where walking through walls and teleportation could be realities. The dilemma for materialists is that these areas are beyond the purview of science.

By "dimension" they simply mean "spatial or temporal direction," and the models that hypothesize them hypothesize very very tiny curled up portions of spacetime in which these extra directions exist. They are WAY too small for us to ever see them.

The science is NOT implying a spiritual realm. This is more blatant attempt at deception.

EDIT- I should also point out that some of these theories make predictions that are testable in principle, including one that hypothesizes a divergence from the inverse square relationship between gravitational intensity and distance on very very small scales (as yet too small to measure, but in principle measurable).


In spite of such mysteries, materialists single-mindedly proclaim their faith in a purposeless universe without any underlying intelligence. But Gould's and Dawkins' materialistic view does not reflect the opinions of an increasing number of scientists who are seeing fingerprints of design in our universe. Others don't go so far as to advocate intelligent design, but admittedly see evidence of a "superintelligence" behind creation.

There have always been Deist scientists, and there always will be.

Einstein


an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." Albert Einstein

Einstein, rarely discussed God, but he was in awe of the "superintelligence" revealed in nature. Since Einstein, many other leading scientists have revealed stunning new insights about our origins. These new insights have come in the past few decades, primarily from the three scientific disciplines of astronomy, molecular biology and paleontology.


Einstein was a deist at best, a panthiest at worst. How they could post that without the below quote smacks of cherry picking with intent to decive:

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Spinoza's God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza)

Wiki says "Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality."

Einstein's "religion" is one that most scientists would gladly accept. In fact, many athiests would accept it as well.

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/einsteins-cosmic-religion/


We followers of Spinoza seek out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animals.”

“In common parlance this may be described as ‘pantheistic.' Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.”


Although he didn't like the lable, Eisntein's beliefs would probably be labled "panthiest." Do you consider the "God" of pantheism to actually be a "God" at all?

More deception


Big Bang


Smoot's experiments proved that all matter, energy, space, and even time itself came into being at one point in time. Prior to that discovery, scientists committed to materialism were content to believe that the universe was self-existent, and didn't require someone to start it.

First of all, his experiments did NOT prove that it all came into being at one point in time. No scientist on Earth has ever proved the universe even had a begining. They have only proven that all matter and spacetime was at one time condensed in a very very small location in spacetime.

Second, suggesting that the universe had a beginning does NOT require that someone had to "start" it. The universe could simply be the result of a blackhole from a parallel universe, or it could be a quantum fluctionation in another one, or it could simply be that there is a law of nature that causes universes to be birthed, just like there is one that causes leaves to fall off of trees.


Let's not also forget that the big bang theory hypothesizes a universe that is 12-15 BILLION years old. This is not what your Bible says, so why would they cite this? If the big bang implies a creator, it isn't the creator written about in your Bible (unless of course, you do not believe that the Bible is infallible).


A beginning of all matter, energy, and time seems to point clearly to a creator. But some materialists argued that the universe might have begun with some kind of random quantum event that happened on its own. However, as scientists looked at the odds, they soon realized that a random explosion like the big bang could never have led to a universe compatible with life.

This one is a flat out lie. If you only assume ONE quantum event, then the odds seem small.


Cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers all agree: the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

This is blatant deception. You can tell by the way it is phrased: "all agree." (he/she should have said some or many) However, what this guy doesn't mention is that many of those same people view life as a side effect of a universe that is "exquisitely fine-tuned for stars that produce heavy elements to exist.


. This multiverse theory seems like something out of a Star Trek episode, and unlike good science, it is not based upon one shred of empirical evidence.

And God IS? YOu see the deception?

It is true, multiverse theories are merely metaphysics at this point. But so is God. Thus, the two are on equal logical footings (except the multiverse theories have been worked out mathematically, and in some cases predict things that are testable [like feeling the gravity from another close by universe- see various string theory models]).

So it is obvious why neither one is better than the other at this point, yet your author says only one is laughable? Why?





Irreducible complexity (discussed on page three):

One of the people quoted, Professor MIchael Behe (and intelligent designer), made a claim in his book Darwin's Black Box that a particular type of flagellum (I believe it was a flagellum) was irreducibly complex. Turns out he was mistaken (see link below, orange)


Since no scientific process, including natural selection, is able to explain DNA’s origin, many scientists believe that it must have been designed.

Another flat out lie. This article is assuming that DNA will never be explained. But we've already made tons of ground in explaining it! No, we don't have it all figured out, but science never does. It goes one step at a time.



The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. The coding behind DNA is pointing to a designer of such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. That view was stated by none other than the world’s leading atheist for the past 50 years, Professor of Philosophy, Antony Flew.

a.) he is not a biologist! He is a philosophy professor

b.) he is a known ID supporter!


Your like says this about Behe:

However, to date, no scientist has been able to adequately explain how unguided natural processes could have produced these irreducibly complex biological systems.


Which is a flat out lie! Here is the proof!


(link cited above)
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=746

^^published in 2006. Your link was written in 2007. Why was this not mentioned?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html


Once burned, twice shy, Behe may be hoping to avoid the fate of his 1994 claim that there were no transitional fossils linking the first fossil whales with their land-dwelling Mesonychid ancestors (8). Less than a year after that prediction, the existence of not one, not two, but three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling eocine Mesonychids was confirmed.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12736677 (need subscription)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Reducibility_of_.22irreduci ble.22_systems

http://users.frii.com/katana/Fli.htm



Anyway, your site has more, but I'm getting tired of doing this at the moment.



The point is, there is no scientific reason to assume that God exists by looking at the universe. Things that are currently unexplainable will probably be explained later (fyi, the things your link listed were by and large either misleading or incorrect).

There certainly are aesthetic reasons or intuitive reasons to believe in God, if you are the "wonder-seeking" and "awe-inspired" type. Many scientists have been of this type; some believe in some sort of God, some don't.

God is a matter of faith alone. There is no need to insert God into the equation to get a workable scientific explanation. There just isn't.

Does that mean that God is makebelieve? No! It means exactly what it says: "There is no need to insert God into the equation to get a workable scientific explanation. None. However, you creationists should be weary, because, like your link, these guys try to be deceptive at times.

You want to say that scientists "have their head up their ass," fine. I'll just point out to you that creationists are LIARS, as evidenced by your link.

[Cherisa]

Why would it be so bad if God did create the universe? What is so repulsive about God being involved?

Science doesn't have all the answers and this debate continues on.

CT I KNOW for a fact that you don't think there isn't a God..you couldn't possibly because you are known for being a great arbritrator..

Spinoza's GOD is still a GOD Yes?

[Cartesiantheater]

Why would it be so bad if God did create the universe? What is so repulsive about God being involved?

Nothing at all repulsive about it. What's "Repulsive" is when creationists claim that any rational explanation of the universe REQUIRES God. Why is it repulsive? Because that simply is not the case! Rational explanations of the universe require only an understanding of the laws of nature. Nothing more.


Science doesn't have all the answers and this debate continues on.

There shouldn't even BE a debate. Science tries to explain the physical world. It has NOTHING to do with the spiritual. If science stays on their side of the line, why can't the creationists?

The only "debate" is that creationists want to weasil their way into science. Why? I don't know, but maybe it's because they want to feel that their beliefs are legitimate. If so, I'd call that a LACK of faith on their part in the first place.

I noramally try to argue for a deist position. That is a position in which it can be argued that a type of God exists. Why? Because like the physicists I admire, I also see a beauty and, dare I say, design in the universe.

But there is no logical reason, as far as the scientific explanations go, for me to ever have this "religious" feeling. I simply see the universe as beautiful, and believing in a God that created it is a hop, skip and a jump away from where I stand at the present.

But there is no logical requirement for that! If the creationists would leave that one alone, I'd get along fine with them.





CT I KNOW for a fact that you don't think there isn't a God..you couldn't possibly because you are known for being a great arbritrator..

Well, you are incorrect. Technically, I should be labled agnostic, but I could very easily be labled panthiest (in fact, that is what I lable myself on my profile), and like I said, a Deistic God is within arms reach of what I believe.


Spinoza's GOD is still a GOD Yes?

If by "God" you mean nature, then yes.



My position is that human kind cannot know whether or not God exists, or if in fact he did (although we cannot know), we can know nothing about him, other than he preferred to make our universe as it is. This is by far the best logical position, given the facts. Incidently, this is also the position of science, with few exceptions (even Richard "the anti-christ" Dawkins admits this in his book "The God Delusion" - he notes that technically even "athiests" like himself are really agnostic, but they simply view the existence of God so improbably as to be practically zero)

If creationists would keep their deception out of scientific discussion, I'd have no problem at all. Why should you need evidence to believe in God? It is supopssed to be a matter of faith and faith alone, is it not?


"Blessed are they that have not seen, yet believe" ring a bell?

[DontBeAfraid]

Technically, I should be labled agnostic, but I could very easily be labled panthiestThis seems to be the most rational position. If we could convince more IDiots that this is the most logical position we would have a lot more scientists.

If Im not mistaken, for the pantheist, to study god is to study the physical universe.

[Cartesiantheater]

If Im not mistaken, for the pantheist, to study god is to study the physical universe.

Well, for my "pantheism," yes. But of course, there are some actual "religious" versions of pantheism. I don't agree that "Einsteinian" pantheism should be in the same category as those, though. Eisntein's pantheism is poetic naturalism. Might as well call it "spiritual" atheism. If you can think of "God" as nonconscious and identical to what makes up the universe, then you can call yourself a pantheist.

Of course, the problem is in our need to classify and define. Maybe there is an actual conscious God. Maybe the deists are right, maybe the Christians are. It should make no difference as to how a scientist does science.

[the_nihilist]

There shouldn't even BE a debate. Science tries to explain the physical world. It has NOTHING to do with the spiritual. If science stays on their side of the line, why can't the creationists?


Why shouldn't science have anything to do with the spiritual. Think of all the things science has confronted successfully in our day and age that were thought unimaginable in the very recent past. Even though we have no real practical way to observe the spirtual scientifically today... who is to say science will not be able to confront the spiritual practically in the future? And even if science will always be unable to confront the spiritual practically... things spiritual are scientific questions in principle. Why shouldn't they be? Either the spiritual realm exists or it doesn't. That's a scientific question.

And we often forget to realize that religious stories abound in which the spiritual realm has vast effects on the physical realm. The Bible is seeping with such... the Worldwide Flood with Noah, Moses parting the Red Sea, the Miracles of the Old and New Testaments. We have no scientific physical evidence that any of these have taken place. Today, religion attests to the efficacy of prayer... much of which is prayer offered up so that God may adjust some physical aspect of adherents lives.... prayer to heal physically, an obvious example. Science should rightfully claim to be able to confront this question on whether or not prayer can heal physically.

9EWtSXhEGWM

[the_nihilist]

I am aware that my opponents have their heads so far up their own asses they can't see shit...But I still keep trying to get them to see the light....
[/YOUTUBE]

A mere and passing glance at the excess, waste, and inefficiency of "Intelligent" Design:

When you're sick you may feel that certain body parts are more trouble than they're worth. And in some cases, you'd be right. While the human body has evolved and adapted significantly since the caveman days, a few biological traces of our prehistoric ancestors still remain with us in the form of freeloading body parts we lug around with us, but have no use for.



Take a gander at the top offenders!



10. Plica semilunaris

You may not know it, but you have a third eyelid. Pull open the two more noticeable eyelids and take a look -- it's located right in the corner by the tear duct. This small third eyelid is left over from what's known as a "nictitating membrane," which is still present in full form in some animals including chickens, lizards and sharks.



9. Body hair

No doubt we were once hairier. Up until about 3 million years ago, we were covered with body hair. But by the time Homo erectus arrived, the ability to sweat meant we could shed our woolly ways.



8. Sinuses

Doctors don't really know much about sinuses -- only that we have a lot of them. Possibilities for their function range from insulating our eyes to changing the pitch and tone of our voice.



7. Adenoids

Adenoids trap bacteria, but they're also prone to swelling and infection. Just ask any 7-year-old. Luckily, our adenoids shrink with age and are often removed, along with ...



6. Tonsils

Also prone to swelling and infection. If you still have them when you reach your 30s, it's almost an accomplishment.



5. Coccyx

More useful as a game-winning Scrabble word than as part of the anatomy, the coccyx or tailbone, is made up of several fused vertebrae left over from the olden days when we had tails.



4. Arrector pili

When we were hairier (see No. 9), the arrector pili made the hairs stand on end when we needed to appear bigger and scarier. Now, it just gives us goose bumps.



3. Wisdom teeth

Back in the day, when we ate mammoth meat off the bone and didn't floss afterward, our teeth tended to fall out. Therefore, when those reserve molars, aka "wisdom teeth," came in, they were welcomed. Nowadays, fluoride and dental plans have made them just a huge pain.



2. Appendix

Darwin claimed the appendix was useful for digestion during our early plant-eating years; it's dwindled down to little since we started eating more digestible foods.



1. Male nipples

Because, why?

[the_nihilist]

Whoa! Jesus does exist! I humbly stand corrected! He's been trying to reveal Himself to us all along! We've just been looking in the wrong places!
VBcbwuTSfrA

[the_nihilist]

Ah and knowing God, He'd go with ya, and probably treat you and answer all your questions..
No... on the contrary... knowing God, he'd probably kill me... and in a very brutal way.
J6b_vVNP4nM

[Cartesiantheater]

Why shouldn't science have anything to do with the spiritual.

Should we develop a discipline of science that specializes in the anatomy of leprechauns then? My point is that you can't have a science of the spiritual, except in the sense of a psychological analysis of what and why humans believe. Sure, you can answer some questions (at least partially) that spiritualism leads to, but I don't think you can take it far enough to call it science.


Think of all the things science has confronted successfully in our day and age that were thought unimaginable in the very recent past. Even though we have no real practical way to observe the spirtual scientifically today... who is to say science will not be able to confront the spiritual practically in the future? And even if science will always be unable to confront the spiritual practically... things spiritual are scientific questions in principle. Why shouldn't they be? Either the spiritual realm exists or it doesn't. That's a scientific question.

However, science is about emperical research. If something by its very definition is unemperical, it cannot be science. You cannot disprove the existence of a creator. Even if you DO disprove it, a believer can simply say that your version of logic isn't the true one.

It may be a scientific question, but you probably will never answer it in a way satisfactory enough to be legitmized by the scientific community.



Although on the other hand, science is NOT about absolute answers. It definately is about what hypothesis fits the currently available data, and certainly some God hypotheses do not fit the data.

We can guess what a world with an intelligent designer looks like, and we can guess what a world without an intelligent designer looks like.

The problem is, there may be an intelligent designer who has enough of a sick sense of humor to design a universe that looks like it wasn't designed, perhaps to mock us.

Stick to specific God hypotheses, and maybe science can say a few things. Otherwise, I think you're trying to climb an imaginary rope.




And we often forget to realize that religious stories abound in which the spiritual realm has vast effects on the physical realm. The Bible is seeping with such... the Worldwide Flood with Noah, Moses parting the Red Sea, the Miracles of the Old and New Testaments. We have no scientific physical evidence that any of these have taken place.

All of these events in principle can be confirmed, but none of them in principle can be denied, especially if you hypothesize a God that is capable of erasing all physical evidence of the occurances.


Today, religion attests to the efficacy of prayer... much of which is prayer offered up so that God may adjust some physical aspect of adherents lives.... prayer to heal physically, an obvious example. Science should rightfully claim to be able to confront this question on whether or not prayer can heal physically.


That question is partially confrontable by science. However, what about a God who deliberately tries to hide his work from a scientist by NOT answering prayers any time there is a study involving the sucess rate of prayers?


I believe that the best science can do is make belief seem a little archaic and foolish.

[Nu Kua]

1. Male nipples

Because, why?

Why, decoration, of course! :bounce:

Great "Where's Jesus" video.
I wish I could find a clip of the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson from many years ago, because a woman had a potato chip she felt showed the image of Jesus. She had also collected other chips with images... but anyway for a gag, somehow Johnny managed to pop a chip in his mouth and the woman thought it was the one of Jesus she had given him. Her mouth just dropped open in shock and he cracked up and started waving his hands like "No! Just kidding!"

[Mystery]

I believe God created it through evolution. But then brings back to the question, who created God?

[the_nihilist]

Should we develop a discipline of science that specializes in the anatomy of leprechauns then?

Well, unlike leprechauns, unicorns, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus... God has yet to be deemed nothing more than a fairy tale by most adults... especially in the United States.



However, science is about emperical research. If something by its very definition is unemperical, it cannot be science. You cannot disprove the existence of a creator. Even if you DO disprove it, a believer can simply say that your version of logic isn't the true one.

It may be a scientific question, but you probably will never answer it in a way satisfactory enough to be legitmized by the scientific community.

Merely on a tangent, is not it quite ironic that we can place anything in the blank in the following sentence? "Science cannot disprove the existence of _________" We can put anything in the blank... God, leprechauns, Santa Clause, Tinker Bell.




All of these events in principle can be confirmed, but none of them in principle can be denied, especially if you hypothesize a God that is capable of erasing all physical evidence of the occurances.

Wow... for a God that desperately wants to reveal Himself to us in order that we may enter into a Covenant with Him in order to avoid eternal damnation... it would almost be out-of-character and quite nonsensical for Him to want to erase all physical evidence of such occurances.... even a worldwide flood that happened less than 6,000 years ago. Is God bi-polar? Does He require some divine ritalin? And besides, if Christ's contemporaries needed Christ's miracles in order to believe... why are we today expected to believe without miracles? Why did God want to reveal Himself at one time in history... and yet today, he wants to remain hidden... except via the revelation within a disjointed collection "sacred" books obviously written by slave-loving, vagina-hating primative men?


I believe that the best science can do is make belief seem a little archaic and foolish.

A little? That has got to be the greatest understatement ever!

Y13ZSH-m1ec

[the_nihilist]

Gods that Christians don't believe in

Aesir
Agasaya
Agdistis
Ah chuy kak
Ah cun can
Ah hulneb
Ah puch
Ahulane
Ahura mazda
Aine
Airmid
Aizen-myoo
Aji-suki-taka-hi-kone
Akea
Alberich
Ama-no-minaka-nushi
Ama-tsu-mara
Amaethon
Amaterasu
Amatsu
Amatsu-kami
Ame-no-mi-kumari
Ame-no-wakahiko
Amidaam-no-tanabata-hime
An
Anahita
Anat
Anath
Andhrimnir
Andraste
Andvari
Angrboda
Angus og
Ankt
Annapurna
Anouke
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Apukohai
Arawn
Aray
Ares
Arianrhod
Artemis
Artio
Asclepius
Asherah
Ashur
Astarte
Astrild
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atla
Atlas
Audhumla
Ba'al hadad
Baal
Baal-hammon
Baalat
Babd catha
Bacchus
Badb
Baku
Balder
Balor
Balrama
Bast
Ba xian
Beg-tse
Bel
Belatu-cadros
Bellona
Belobog
Benten
Benzai-ten
Bergelmir
Berstuk
Bes
Beyla
Bhuvaneshwari
Bimbogami
Binzuru-sonja
Bishamon
Bixia yuanjin
Blodeuwedd
Borghild
Bosatsu
Bragi
Brahma
Bran
Branwen
Brighid
Brigit
Bris
Brono
Buddha
Bugid y aiba
Buluc chabtan
Burijas
Butsu
Bylgia
Camalus
Camaxtli
Camulus
Cariocienus
Caswallawn
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Cerridwen
Cerunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Chien-shin
Chimata-no-kami
Chup-kamui
Crnobog
Cupid
Cybele
Cyhiraeth
Dagda
Dagon
Dagon
Dagur
Daibosatsu
Daikoku
Dainichi
Damkina
Danu
Davlin
Dawn
Dazbog
Demeter
Dev
Dewi
Dhanwantari
Dhumavati
Diana
Diancecht
Di cang
Dionysus
Disen
Don
Donar
Dosojin
Dozoku-shin
Druantia
Durga
Dylan
Dziewona
Ea
Ebisu
Eir
Ekchuah
Ekibiogami
El
Elaine
El elyon
Elli
Emma-o
Enki
Enlil
Enyalius
Enyo
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
Erra
Eshara
Eshmun
Farbauti
Faunus
Fenrir
Flidais
Flins
Flora
Forseti
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Fudo
Fujin
Fukurokuju
Funadama
Futsu-nushi-no-kami
Gaia
Gama
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda
Gauri
Geb
Gefion
Gekka-o
Geong si
Gerd
Giobhniu
Gu
Guan-di
Gun
Gwydion
Gwynn ap nudd
Hachiman
Hades
Hadur
Hai
Haniyasu-hiko
Haniyasu-hime
Hanuman
Hathor
Haulili
Haya-ji
Heimdall
Hel
Helios
Heng-o
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hermod
Hestia
Hiaka
Hiiakawawahilani
Hinakuluiau
Hiruko
Hod
Hoderi
Holler
Hoori
Hors
Horus
Hoso-no-kami
Hotei
Hsi-wang-mu
Huitzilopochtli
Hygeia
Ictinike
Ida-ten
Idun
Ika-zuchi-no-kami
Iki-ryo
Inanna
Inari
Indra
Inti
Irmin
Ishtar
Isis
Isora
Ixtab
Izanagi
Izanaki
Izanami
Janus
Jarilo
Jarovit
Jinushigami
Jizo
Jord
Jormungand
Juichimen
Juno
Jupiter
Jurojin
Juthrbog
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kalaipahoa
Kali
Kaluannuunohonionio
Kamado-gami
Kamapua'a
Kami-kaze
Kaminari
Kamohoali'i
Kamooalii
Kanaloa
Kanayama-hiko
Kanayama-hime
Kane
Kane-hekili
Kapo
Kapohoikahiola
Karewit
Kari
Kartikeya
Karttikeya
Kathirat
Kaupe
Kawa-no-kami
Kenro-ji-jin
Keoahikamakaua
Keuakepo
Khepri
Ki
Kiha
Kingu
Kinich ahau
Kishar
Kishi-bojin
Kishijoten
Kishimo-jin
Ko-no-hana
Kojin
Koleamoku
Korrawi
Koshin
Kothar
Koya-no-myoin
Krishna
Ku
Kuahana
Kukailimoku
Kukaoo
Kukulcan
Kukunochi-no-kami
Kuni-toko-tachi
Kura-okami
Kurma
Kuula
Kvasir
Laamaomao
Labraid
Lada
Lado
Laga
Laka
Lakakane
Lakshmi
Laran
Lares
Libintia
Lie
Liza
Llyr
Lofn
Loki
Lono
Lonomakua
Lotan
Lugh
Luna
Macha
Maeve
Magna mater
Magni
Mahulu
Maia
Manannan
Mani
Manua
Marduk
Margawse
Marisha-ten
Marowit
Mars
Maru
Marzanna
Matangi
Math ap mathowny
Matka gabia
Matka ziemia
Maui
Mawaya-no-kami
Maya
Mebd
Medb
Melqart
Menhit
Menthu
Mentu
Mercury
Mextli
Mider
Mikaboshi
Milu
Miming
Mimir
Minerva
Miro
Mithras
Mixcoatl
Miyazu-hime
Moaalii
Modi
Mokosh
Mokualii
Moloch
Monju-bosatsu
Mooaleo
Morrigan
Mot
Mummu
Murukan
Musubi-no-kami
Myrrdin
Nacon
Nai-no-kami
Naka-yama-tsu-mi
Nammu
Nanaja
Nanna
Nanse
Neith
Nemain
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Niamh
Nikko-bosatsu
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Ninigi-no-mikoto
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nominosukune
Norns
Nott
Nut
Nyorai
Oanomochi
Odin
Ogoun
Ohkuninushi
Oho-yama
Ohonamochi
Ohyamatsumi
Okuni-nushi
Ops
Orgelmir
Oro
Osiris
Ostara
Ouli
Owatatsumi
Oyamatsumi
Pales
Pan
Papa
Parvati
Pele
Perperuna
Persephone
Perun
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus apollo
Pilumnus
Pluto
Podaga
Poliahu
Pomona
Porewit
Poseidon
Proserpine
Puea
Qadeshtu
Quetzalcoatl
Radegast
Raiden
Ram
Rama
Ran
Re
Resef
Reshep
Resheph
Rhea
Rod
Rugiviet
Ryo-wo
Sabazius
Sae-no-kami
Saga
Sakhmet
Sambo-kojin
Samulayo
Sarasvati
Sarutahiko ohkami
Saturn
Segomo
Selene
Sengen
Septu
Seshat
Seth
Seti
Shachar
Shaka
Shakti
Shalim
Shamash
Shamayim
Shapsu
Shemesh
Shen yi
Shichi fujukin
Shinda
Shine-tsu-hiko
Shiva
Shoden
Shoki
Shu
Si-wang-mu
Siebog
Sif
Simargl
Sin
Sirona
Sita
Siwa
Sjofn
Skadi
Sleipnir
Sol
Stribog
Suijin
Suitengu
Sukuna-biko
Surya
Susanoh
Susanowa
Svantetit
Svarog
Svetovid
Svetovit
Syn
Takami-musubi
Takemikadzuchi
Taki-tsu-hiko
Tatsuta-hime
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tehwom
Tenjin
Teutates
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
The zorya
Thor
Tiamat
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh
Toyo-uke-bime
Toyouke-omikami
Triglav
Tsuki-yumi
Tu
Tu matauenga
Turris
Tyche
Tyr
Uba
Uga-jin
Uga-no-mitama
Ukanipo
Ukemochi
Ulaulekeahi
Uli
Ull
Utu
Uzume
Vali
Valkyries
Vamana
Vanir
Var
Veles
Venus
Vertumnus
Vesta
Vidar
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
Wakahiru-me
Wata-tsu-mi
Wepwawet
Wurukatte
Xipe
Xi wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yabune
Yam
Yam-nahar
Yama-no-kami
Yamato
Yarikh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yuki-onna
Yum kimil
Zababa
Zana
Zedek
Zeus
Zirnitra
Zislbog
Zizilia
Zroya

[the_nihilist]

Gods that atheists don't believe in

Aesir
Agasaya
Agdistis
Ah chuy kak
Ah cun can
Ah hulneb
Ah puch
Ahulane
Ahura mazda
Aine
Airmid
Aizen-myoo
Aji-suki-taka-hi-kone
Akea
Alberich
Ama-no-minaka-nushi
Ama-tsu-mara
Amaethon
Amaterasu
Amatsu
Amatsu-kami
Ame-no-mi-kumari
Ame-no-wakahiko
Amidaam-no-tanabata-hime
An
Anahita
Anat
Anath
Andhrimnir
Andraste
Andvari
Angrboda
Angus og
Ankt
Annapurna
Anouke
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Apukohai
Arawn
Aray
Ares
Arianrhod
Artemis
Artio
Asclepius
Asherah
Ashur
Astarte
Astrild
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atla
Atlas
Audhumla
Ba'al hadad
Baal
Baal-hammon
Baalat
Babd catha
Bacchus
Badb
Baku
Balder
Balor
Balrama
Bast
Ba xian
Beg-tse
Bel
Belatu-cadros
Bellona
Belobog
Benten
Benzai-ten
Bergelmir
Berstuk
Bes
Beyla
Bhuvaneshwari
Bimbogami
Binzuru-sonja
Bishamon
Bixia yuanjin
Blodeuwedd
Borghild
Bosatsu
Bragi
Brahma
Bran
Branwen
Brighid
Brigit
Bris
Brono
Buddha
Bugid y aiba
Buluc chabtan
Burijas
Butsu
Bylgia
Camalus
Camaxtli
Camulus
Cariocienus
Caswallawn
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Cerridwen
Cerunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Chien-shin
Chimata-no-kami
Chup-kamui
Crnobog
Cupid
Cybele
Cyhiraeth
Dagda
Dagon
Dagon
Dagur
Daibosatsu
Daikoku
Dainichi
Damkina
Danu
Davlin
Dawn
Dazbog
Demeter
Dev
Dewi
Dhanwantari
Dhumavati
Diana
Diancecht
Di cang
Dionysus
Disen
Don
Donar
Dosojin
Dozoku-shin
Druantia
Durga
Dylan
Dziewona
Ea
Ebisu
Eir
Ekchuah
Ekibiogami
El
Elaine
El elyon
Elli
Emma-o
Enki
Enlil
Enyalius
Enyo
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
Erra
Eshara
Eshmun
Farbauti
Faunus
Fenrir
Flidais
Flins
Flora
Forseti
Freya
Freyr
Frigg
Fudo
Fujin
Fukurokuju
Funadama
Futsu-nushi-no-kami
Gaia
Gama
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda
Gauri
Geb
Gefion
Gekka-o
Geong si
Gerd
Giobhniu
Gu
Guan-di
Gun
Gwydion
Gwynn ap nudd
Hachiman
Hades
Hadur
Hai
Haniyasu-hiko
Haniyasu-hime
Hanuman
Hathor
Haulili
Haya-ji
Heimdall
Hel
Helios
Heng-o
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hermod
Hestia
Hiaka
Hiiakawawahilani
Hinakuluiau
Hiruko
Hod
Hoderi
Holler
Hoori
Hors
Horus
Hoso-no-kami
Hotei
Hsi-wang-mu
Huitzilopochtli
Hygeia
Ictinike
Ida-ten
Idun
Ika-zuchi-no-kami
Iki-ryo
Inanna
Inari
Indra
Inti
Irmin
Ishtar
Isis
Isora
Ixtab
Izanagi
Izanaki
Izanami
Janus
Jarilo
Jarovit
Jinushigami
Jizo
Jord
Jormungand
Juichimen
Juno
Jupiter
Jurojin
Juthrbog
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kalaipahoa
Kali
Kaluannuunohonionio
Kamado-gami
Kamapua'a
Kami-kaze
Kaminari
Kamohoali'i
Kamooalii
Kanaloa
Kanayama-hiko
Kanayama-hime
Kane
Kane-hekili
Kapo
Kapohoikahiola
Karewit
Kari
Kartikeya
Karttikeya
Kathirat
Kaupe
Kawa-no-kami
Kenro-ji-jin
Keoahikamakaua
Keuakepo
Khepri
Ki
Kiha
Kingu
Kinich ahau
Kishar
Kishi-bojin
Kishijoten
Kishimo-jin
Ko-no-hana
Kojin
Koleamoku
Korrawi
Koshin
Kothar
Koya-no-myoin
Krishna
Ku
Kuahana
Kukailimoku
Kukaoo
Kukulcan
Kukunochi-no-kami
Kuni-toko-tachi
Kura-okami
Kurma
Kuula
Kvasir
Laamaomao
Labraid
Lada
Lado
Laga
Laka
Lakakane
Lakshmi
Laran
Lares
Libintia
Lie
Liza
Llyr
Lofn
Loki
Lono
Lonomakua
Lotan
Lugh
Luna
Macha
Maeve
Magna mater
Magni
Mahulu
Maia
Manannan
Mani
Manua
Marduk
Margawse
Marisha-ten
Marowit
Mars
Maru
Marzanna
Matangi
Math ap mathowny
Matka gabia
Matka ziemia
Maui
Mawaya-no-kami
Maya
Mebd
Medb
Melqart
Menhit
Menthu
Mentu
Mercury
Mextli
Mider
Mikaboshi
Milu
Miming
Mimir
Minerva
Miro
Mithras
Mixcoatl
Miyazu-hime
Moaalii
Modi
Mokosh
Mokualii
Moloch
Monju-bosatsu
Mooaleo
Morrigan
Mot
Mummu
Murukan
Musubi-no-kami
Myrrdin
Nacon
Nai-no-kami
Naka-yama-tsu-mi
Nammu
Nanaja
Nanna
Nanse
Neith
Nemain
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Niamh
Nikko-bosatsu
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Ninigi-no-mikoto
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nominosukune
Norns
Nott
Nut
Nyorai
Oanomochi
Odin
Ogoun
Ohkuninushi
Oho-yama
Ohonamochi
Ohyamatsumi
Okuni-nushi
Ops
Orgelmir
Oro
Osiris
Ostara
Ouli
Owatatsumi
Oyamatsumi
Pales
Pan
Papa
Parvati
Pele
Perperuna
Persephone
Perun
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus apollo
Pilumnus
Pluto
Podaga
Poliahu
Pomona
Porewit
Poseidon
Proserpine
Puea
Qadeshtu
Quetzalcoatl
Radegast
Raiden
Ram
Rama
Ran
Re
Resef
Reshep
Resheph
Rhea
Rod
Rugiviet
Ryo-wo
Sabazius
Sae-no-kami
Saga
Sakhmet
Sambo-kojin
Samulayo
Sarasvati
Sarutahiko ohkami
Saturn
Segomo
Selene
Sengen
Septu
Seshat
Seth
Seti
Shachar
Shaka
Shakti
Shalim
Shamash
Shamayim
Shapsu
Shemesh
Shen yi
Shichi fujukin
Shinda
Shine-tsu-hiko
Shiva
Shoden
Shoki
Shu
Si-wang-mu
Siebog
Sif
Simargl
Sin
Sirona
Sita
Siwa
Sjofn
Skadi
Sleipnir
Sol
Stribog
Suijin
Suitengu
Sukuna-biko
Surya
Susanoh
Susanowa
Svantetit
Svarog
Svetovid
Svetovit
Syn
Takami-musubi
Takemikadzuchi
Taki-tsu-hiko
Tatsuta-hime
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tehwom
Tenjin
Teutates
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
The zorya
Thor
Tiamat
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh
Toyo-uke-bime
Toyouke-omikami
Triglav
Tsuki-yumi
Tu
Tu matauenga
Turris
Tyche
Tyr
Uba
Uga-jin
Uga-no-mitama
Ukanipo
Ukemochi
Ulaulekeahi
Uli
Ull
Utu
Uzume
Vali
Valkyries
Vamana
Vanir
Var
Veles
Venus
Vertumnus
Vesta
Vidar
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
Wakahiru-me
Wata-tsu-mi
Wepwawet
Wurukatte
Xipe
Xi wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yabune
Yam
Yam-nahar
Yama-no-kami
Yamato
Yarikh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yuki-onna
Yum kimil
Zababa
Zana
Zedek
Zeus
Zirnitra
Zislbog
Zizilia
Zroya
Yahweh

[the_nihilist]

I believe that the best science can do is make belief seem a little archaic and foolish.

By the way, is science the only thing out there that makes belief seem "a little" archaic and foolish? How about growing up? How about common sense?

8RV46fsmx6E
MeSSwKffj9o
5lvU-DislkI
FUyPjeIFKug

[DontBeAfraid]

Doesnt that sort of contradict one of your points nihilist? I mean, it looks like Most adults dont believe in MOST of the gods. You should know though that your debate with CT is rather futile. One, You arent going to change his mind about the existence of any gods because he already agrees with you and two: becuase once you further develop your logic and analisys skills you WILL agree with him. Its just a smal difference in levels of understanding in these matters and you are on the lower one. Not a low rung by any means but just one lower than CT. This is not an insult.


How about growing up? How about common sense? These two things are wild cards.... I mean, look at all the adults christians and muslims in the world. Growing up warped their common sense.

[Cartesiantheater]

Well, unlike leprechauns, unicorns, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus... God has yet to be deemed nothing more than a fairy tale by most adults... especially in the United States.

But you see, religion is an integral part of human evolution. Well, rather, it is a virus that preys upon an integral part of human evolution. Asking a believer not to believe is like asking a moth not to fly into the light (most of the time).





Merely on a tangent, is not it quite ironic that we can place anything in the blank in the following sentence? "Science cannot disprove the existence of _________" We can put anything in the blank... God, leprechauns, Santa Clause, Tinker Bell.

Yes, that is why none of them should seriously be considered science.






Wow... for a God that desperately wants to reveal Himself to us in order that we may enter into a Covenant with Him in order to avoid eternal damnation... it would almost be out-of-character and quite nonsensical for Him to want to erase all physical evidence of such occurances.... even a worldwide flood that happened less than 6,000 years ago.

See? That's why you've got to be very specific about which God hypothesis you are criticizing. Is it not so hard to imagine a God who enjoys making us chase our tails?


Is God bi-polar? Does He require some divine ritalin? And besides, if Christ's contemporaries needed Christ's miracles in order to believe... why are we today expected to believe without miracles?

I believe Christ is alleged to have said, "blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

Can't you see its beauty, it's genius? The most important virtue in most religion is belief! Incredible! Just like one admires the cool efficiency of a shark as it hunts for its prey, how can you not be astonished at the way religion reinforces itself? What an incredible meme-plex. :0.02:






Why did God want to reveal Himself at one time in history... and yet today, he wants to remain hidden...

You should seriously consider posting in this thread:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/reveal_thyself_god-t4622.html?t=4622&highlight=Reveal+thyself

Definately one of my favorites of all time.





except via the revelation within a disjointed collection "sacred" books obviously written by slave-loving, vagina-hating primative men?

I don't think they hate vaginas, per-se. More like they hate women gaining power, but that is neither here nor there.

It definately looks suspicious, doesn't it? Yet another way in which religion reinforces itself. You see, in the Bible, Jesus made the statement that a prophet is rejected in his own town- implying that people who knew him prior to his ministry would have difficulty accepting him. But you see? That is yet another way inwhich religion avoids real scrutiny! Just like in the Bible the miracles Jesus' preformed only happend in crowds that believed- that is, people who convinced themselves that a miracle was going to happen. Their minds were ripe to be fooled!

Genius!




A little? That has got to be the greatest understatement ever!

Well, not really considering it is a statement that depends upon one's own perspective. That is, "appearing foolish" is dependent upon the people you are "appearing" in front of. I do not think there is any absolute measuring rod for "foolishness."


But again, here another aspect of religion's (particularly Christianity's) genius is demonstrated: In the Bible it says "The wisdom of God seems like foolishness in the eyes of men."

You can't deny it's "genius."




Doesnt that sort of contradict one of your points nihilist? I mean, it looks like Most adults dont believe in MOST of the gods. You should know though that your debate with CT is rather futile. One, You arent going to change his mind about the existence of any gods because he already agrees with you and two: becuase once you further develop your logic and analisys skills you WILL agree with him. Its just a smal difference in levels of understanding in these matters and you are on the lower one. Not a low rung by any means but just one lower than CT. This is not an insult.

I'll have to dissagree on the grounds that some of the brightest scientists in the world (like Richard Dawkins) share some of the nihilist's views. Maybe they are wrong, maybe we simply lack imagination.

Of course, I am confident in the position I have taken thus far.

[the_nihilist]

Doesnt that sort of contradict one of your points nihilist? I mean, it looks like Most adults dont believe in MOST of the gods. You should know though that your debate with CT is rather futile. One, You arent going to change his mind about the existence of any gods because he already agrees with you and two: becuase once you further develop your logic and analisys skills you WILL agree with him. Its just a smal difference in levels of understanding in these matters and you are on the lower one. Not a low rung by any means but just one lower than CT. This is not an insult.

DontBeAfraid... I entirely concur with your observation. Although, I'm not trying to change CTs mind precisely because I do understand he and I are on the same page... just not neccessarily on the same paragraph, so to speak. And I don't take your comment as an insult by any means. And despite the difference in levels of understanding... I'm still very hesitant about applying a fine line between the spiritual and physical when we are talking about utilizing the scientific method to confront questions regarding the Judeo-Christian God and the supernatural in general.


These two things are wild cards.... I mean, look at all the adults christians and muslims in the world. Growing up warped their common sense.

Yes... and my comment regarding growing up and common sense wasn't directed at CT by any means... I was merely expressing my exasperation that these two wild cards didn't have more of a positive nulling effect on the Delusion that believers have.

[the_nihilist]

But you see, religion is an integral part of human evolution. Well, rather, it is a virus that preys upon an integral part of human evolution. Asking a believer not to breath is like asking a moth not to fly into the light (most of the time). Yes... indeed.


Yes, that is why none of them should seriously be considered science. It would be a hard thing to seriously consider any of them subject of scientific inquiry.... but it's easy to debunk Santa, leprecauns, and the Easter Bunny because in our folklore we tend to regard these as biological entities... albeit magical. (Nevertheless, my five-year-old daughter and I have seen Tinker Bell with our own eyes fly from the peak of the Materhorn to her Castle during every evening fireworks show at Disneyland.) I deem it just as easy to debunk the Judeo Christian God/Jesus thru scientific analysis of the effects of prayer and the scientific analysis of the Biblical stories in which God effects the physical world.


See? That's why you've got to be very specific about which God hypothesis you are criticizing. Is it not so hard to imagine a God who enjoys making us chase our tails?
Yes... it's hard. I find it easier to imagine we are merely part of a vast and complex computer simulation ran by a superior civilization.


I believe Christ is alleged to have said, "blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

Can't you see its beauty, it's genius? The most important virtue in most religion is belief! Incredible! Just like one admires the cool efficiency of a shark as it hunts for its prey, how can you not be astonished at the way religion reinforces itself? What an incredible meme-plex. :0.02:

Clever... but not beautiful and genius. The incredible effect it's had on humanity is rather pathetic and astonishing. But look at how many Americans today believe that Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center... clever and pathetic... not genius and beautiful. Believe me... if it were that Venezuela was in our sights (and it was to a very large degree in principle) most Americans would believe Chavez blew up the World Trade Center.

Also... many believers didn't have access to the Bible until relatively recently in the history of Christianity. And once we bring up the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, and other societal and political ways in which Christianty was infused in those believers' lives over centuries... it's not hard to discern the super-influx and hyper-concentration of belief as an evolutionary virus that thrives in the process of natural selection. We can see the same process going on today in the Middle East.


You should seriously consider posting in this thread:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/reveal_thyself_god-t4622.html?t=4622&highlight=Reveal+thyself

Definately one of my favorites of all time.
Sounds interesting... I'll definitely have a look. Thank you kindly.


I don't think they hate vaginas, per-se. More like they hate women gaining power, but that is neither here nor there.

It definately looks suspicious, doesn't it? Yet another way in which religion reinforces itself. You see, in the Bible, Jesus made the statement that a prophet is rejected in his own town- implying that people who knew him prior to his ministry would have difficulty accepting him. But you see? That is yet another way inwhich religion avoids real scrutiny! Just like in the Bible the miracles Jesus' preformed only happend in crowds that believed- that is, people who convinced themselves that a miracle was going to happen. Their minds were ripe to be fooled!

Genius!
Well, there apparently were alot of messiahs running around at the time doing and claiming the same things Christ was doing and claiming. It isn't a wonder why Christ emerged from the messiah soup in the way that He has with the help of a political Church weilded by the Roman Emperor.


But again, here another aspect of religion's (particularly Christianity's) genius is demonstrated: In the Bible it says "The wisdom of God seems like foolishness in the eyes of men."

You can't deny it's "genius."

I do deny its genius. Clever and pathetic, indeed... but far from genius.


I'll have to dissagree on the grounds that some of the best scientists in the world (like Richard Dawkins) shares some of the nihilist's views. Maybe they are wrong, maybe we simply lack imagination.

Of course, I am confident in the position I have taken thus far.

I concur with DontBeAfraid in his analysis of our respective logical approaches. Yours is more logically founded than mine... and I humbly believe we are on the same page... if not the same paragraph, so to speak. I highly respect your position... and your confidence is well-placed. I'm not very well-versed in Dawkins... but I'm intrigued to the extent that I just placed his God Delusion book on order this morning.

Regardless of our positions... I believe everyone who has posted and contributed thus far to this thread has done so admirably. Religion and belief has, in my humble opinion, been the most devisive and destructive (and most insipid) un-unatural force in the History of Mankind. And no other topic of inquiry is more worthy of arguement and discussion.

[the_nihilist]

Creationism completely OWN3S Evolution

Lg_9RIBDUU8

zjJa57htqcI

glRAN_8CkvQ

STRIKE THREE, EVOLUTION! YOU'RE OUT!!!

[DontBeAfraid]

and to create internet porn

[the_nihilist]

and to create internet porn
... yup, that was choice, dude.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your dissertation,


I'm very open-minded to a new-mouthwash... and perhaps the cat needs to be kicked once again. But religion is entirely incapable of accompliahing this in any real and substantial way.

I would tend to agree that what you see and speak of as religion has no more potential to bring light into the world than a blackhole but any reasoning person knows that a blackhole is the end of the life cycle of what was once a brilliant star. The Golden ages of all religions created spectacular changes and the increase of knowledge to humanity but just as spectacular was the brilliance of their mid life, so is their destruction and giving back to the universe that allowed their creation.


The order of the universe is merely apparent, as I've alluded to above... it's even in the eye of the beholder. In fact one could righfully claim that the only real order and consistency out there is unadulterated chaos.

I suggest that you take time to study the field of Astronomy, then take that understanding and compare it to ancient Astrological studies. Astrological studies have an offshoot know as Astrology, try to stay away from this and focus on the order and understanding of the stars. A detailed study will show how well ordered things are and that man has used this understanding to know exactly were we are in relation to time and space.




Where is God's plan in the reality of World War II Poland that this photo depicts:

When we choose the wrong leadership and fail to stand up for what we know is right, choosing confrontation over consultation and sacrifice there are people that pay the price. God's plan allows for us all to make the choice as to the type of leadership we will choose and be. Every choice that we make has a consequences and to think for one moment that we do not have to make rational and competent decisions totally eliminates freewill.

God has a plan to get the whole of humanity to the fulfillment of His promise but to think that for one moment that it is going to be a cake walk, then we have completely misunderstood the prophecy in regards to child birth.


Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation, addresses the matter more eloquently then I can:

Then let us look to see what Mr. Harris has to say.


Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology.

Has not the introduction of Biological weapons and nuclear energy show us that a modicum of care needs to be used when tinkering with all aspects of life?

We have to be willing to pay the price for any type of advancement that is made.


Every 100 million years or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth, killing nearly everything that lives. If ever we needed proof of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal.

This also shows the sustainability of life under the most diverse and traumatic of situations, the continuation of the strong and the destruction of the weak.


The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years. The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves. There is nothing about our ancestral line or about our current biology that dictates how we will evolve in the future. Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.

The ramifications of what is being said here is quite clear, nothing is static and nothing operates in a vacuum. There is constant change and yet when we examine there are certain constants, a star no matter what it's composition at a specific point in time is still a star. A mineral is a mineral, a plant a plant, an animal an animal and the most advanced species, a human being is a human being. The changes and transformation of the physical aspects of humans does not constitute the introduction of a new species. The one thing that has always differentiated man from animal is the higher order function and specific DNA examination will continue to show this higher order function has always been a part of our DNA make-up.


Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.

One of the fundamental aspects of man is our ability to overcome our environment, for man to adapt to our environment would totally negate this great and wonderful ability and place us in the equivalent realm of animals. This ability to overcome or rise above the conditions of our existence is an integral part of man's evolutionary process. It is our rational thought process that pushes us day by day towards a more advanced and harmonious society.


But our environment and our needs — to say nothing of our desires — have changed radically in the meantime. We are in many respects ill-suited to the task of building a global civilization. This is not a surprise. From the point of view of evolution, much of human culture, along with its cognitive and emotional underpinnings, must be epiphenomenal. Nature cannot "see" most of what we are doing, or hope to do, and has done nothing to prepare us for many of the challenges we now face.

This whole paragraph shows the entrammeling that keeps humanity from reaching it's hidden potential and that such pessimism is an cohesive part of the challenge that we are all faced. A peaceful global civilization is inevitable, it is just a matter of which process we will choose to bring it about?


These concerns cannot be waved aside with adages like, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are innumerable perspectives from which our current state of functioning can be aptly described as "broke." Speaking personally, it seems to me that everything I do picks out some point on a spectrum of disability: I was always decent at math, for instance, but this is simply to say that I am like a great mathematician who has been gored in the head by a bull; my musical ability resembles that of a Mozart or a Bach, it is true, though after a near fatal incident on skis; if Tiger Woods awoke from surgery to find that he now possessed (or was possessed by) my golf-swing, rest assured that a crushing lawsuit for medical malpractice would be in the offing.

The system is "broke" and the challenge that lies ahead for the whole of humanity is in choosing a qualified physician, councilor and therapist. One that has a plan for recovery and the means to make it happen.


Considering humanity as a whole, there is nothing about natural selection that suggests our optimal design. We are probably not even optimized for the Paleolithic, much less for life in the 21st century. And yet, we are now acquiring the tools that will enable us to attempt our own optimization. Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing? There may be current threats to civilization that we cannot even perceive, much less resolve, at our current level of intelligence. Could any rational strategy be more dangerous than following the whims of Nature? This is not to say that our growing capacity to meddle with the human genome couldn't present some moments of Faustian over-reach. But our fears on this front must be tempered by a sober understanding of how we got here. Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.

A well placed statement and the next question that has to be asked is what is the origin of this knowledge and understanding that has catapulted us into the 21st century and equipped us with the ability to deal with these challenges that we face?

[Nu Kua]

I suggest that you take time to study the field of Astronomy, then take that understanding and compare it to ancient Astrological studies. Astrological studies have an offshoot know as Astrology, try to stay away from this and focus on the order and understanding of the stars. A detailed study will show how well ordered things are and that man has used this understanding to know exactly were we are in relation to time and space.


Astrology itself has many branches that continue to deal with ancient techniques and ways of understanding, the precepts of which are very closely aligned with the concept of the Son of God being the center of the (known) Universe. To study on this level is to get closer to the answer of that age old question "Where did God come from?"
or more accurately, "Where did a Monotheist God come from, originally?"
The entire story of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus can be directly related to astrological principles and astronomical facts, as well as that of the so called end of the world/Armageddon.
It's all like a code that was misinterpreted and then the misinterpretation has been handed down as truth.

For instance you Armageddonites are familiar with the symbols of the bull, the lion, the eagle and the man.
Each of these symbols happen to represent the four fixed signs of the Zodiac, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in its higher expression) and Aquarius- and to go a bit more off topic, you can see all four them on card 10 (the Wheel) and card 21 (The World) of the Rider-Waite Tarot, a system of symbolism that relates to Jewish Mysticism.

Also other branches of astrology deal with the development of the soul and of understanding your personal path, as well as working to understand what motivates others. It is a great study for going within, a well as discovering your purpose, learning how to work with the flow as opposed to having the flow work you. It's not magic or anything like that.

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your dissertation,



I would tend to agree that what you see and speak of as religion has no more potential to bring light into the world than a blackhole but any reasoning person knows that a blackhole is the end of the life cycle of what was once a brilliant star. The Golden ages of all religions created spectacular changes and the increase of knowledge to humanity but just as spectacular was the brilliance of their mid life, so is their destruction and giving back to the universe that allowed their creation.

What Golden Age of religions are you referring to? The one in which religion demanded monetary indulgences to reduce time spent in Purgatory... or the one in which a whole race of Native Americans were hacked thru via genocide in order to make way for Manifest Destiny? I'm curious. And besides, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the spectacular changes and increase of knowledge you speak of were honest intentions to find out more about how the Creator of the Universe operated... with no one really expecting or even imagining that such change and knowledge would ever end up being antithetical to the existence of such a Creator as it is today?


When we choose the wrong leadership and fail to stand up for what we know is right, choosing confrontation over consultation and sacrifice there are people that pay the price. God's plan allows for us all to make the choice as to the type of leadership we will choose and be. Every choice that we make has a consequences and to think for one moment that we do not have to make rational and competent decisions totally eliminates freewill.

Huh? Are you even remotely aware of the vast extent to which the average everyday German, European, and Soviet perpetrated the Holocaust. Hitler merely provided the infrastructure to accomplish the intent that was already well-cultivated for centuries in the hearts of the common man, woman, and child during that time.... cultivated mostly by centuries of anti-semitism waged by the churches since the supposed death of Christ. And for most to merely say that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church merely looked the other way is a mad crock of shite. The churches were more responsible for the hatred of Jews than Hitler and his Nazi Party. I advise that you read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's #1 international bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners... Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" and his companion masterpiece, "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair." The holocaust... looked at objectively and without pretense... is as much proof of the non-existence of God as an atheist's argument from improbability.

And regarding freewill... if I indeed had freewill... why would I need salvation? Is it not true that I do not seek and choose Christ and His salvation unless by the grace of God afforded to those few whom He elected/pre-destined. Correct me if I'm wrong.


God has a plan to get the whole of humanity to the fulfillment of His promise but to think that for one moment that it is going to be a cake walk, then we have completely misunderstood the prophecy in regards to child birth.

I have to be pregnant in order to understand this? What are you doing tommorrow night? I can reserve us a martini glass jacuzzi suite at the Bellagio, you handsome man, you!



Has not the introduction of Biological weapons and nuclear energy show us that a modicum of care needs to be used when tinkering with all aspects of life?

We have to be willing to pay the price for any type of advancement that is made.

Yeah... they've shown us... but I don't think the natural world gives a flying fandango. The Universe has gone on fine without us for billions of years before us... and the Universe will go on fine for billions of years after have become extinct or evolved into something entirely different.


This also shows the sustainability of life under the most diverse and traumatic of situations, the continuation of the strong and the destruction of the weak.

Natural Selection. Voila! Who would've thought?!?!?


The ramifications of what is being said here is quite clear, nothing is static and nothing operates in a vacuum. There is constant change and yet when we examine there are certain constants, a star no matter what it's composition at a specific point in time is still a star. A mineral is a mineral, a plant a plant, an animal an animal and the most advanced species, a human being is a human being. The changes and transformation of the physical aspects of humans does not constitute the introduction of a new species. The one thing that has always differentiated man from animal is the higher order function and specific DNA examination will continue to show this higher order function has always been a part of our DNA make-up.

That is not what Sam Harris is saying and you know it, my friend.


One of the fundamental aspects of man is our ability to overcome our environment, for man to adapt to our environment would totally negate this great and wonderful ability and place us in the equivalent realm of animals. This ability to overcome or rise above the conditions of our existence is an integral part of man's evolutionary process. It is our rational thought process that pushes us day by day towards a more advanced and harmonious society.

Hardly! Man hasn't lived long enough as He is in order to make such a judgement, in my humble opinion. In fact I dare say the probability that we destroy ourselves is far more likely than us being destroyed by anything we've failed to adapt to.


This whole paragraph shows the entrammeling that keeps humanity from reaching it's hidden potential and that such pessimism is an cohesive part of the challenge that we are all faced. A peaceful global civilization is inevitable, it is just a matter of which process we will choose to bring it about?

You are exasperating, Dude! Since the dawn of Mankind, we've been killing each other over which tribe has the better imaginary friend.


The system is "broke" and the challenge that lies ahead for the whole of humanity is in choosing a qualified physician, councilor and therapist. One that has a plan for recovery and the means to make it happen.

The system is broke because it is inflicted by the cancer that is religion. And until that cancer is eradicated, humanity will never recover.


A well placed statement and the next question that has to be asked is what is the origin of this knowledge and understanding that has catapulted us into the 21st century and equipped us with the ability to deal with these challenges that we face?

Good luck, mate!

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and stay the course,


What Golden Age of religions are you referring to? The one in which religion demanded monetary indulgences to reduce time spent in Purgatory... or the one in which a whole race of Native Americans were hacked thru via genocide in order to make way for Manifest Destiny? I'm curious. And besides, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the spectacular changes and increase of knowledge you speak of were honest intentions to find out more about how the Creator of the Universe operated... with no one really expecting or even imagining that such change and knowledge would ever end up being antithetical to the existence of such a Creator as it is today?

I am speaking of the time of King David, when great thinkers like Empedocles expounded upon ideas in Ontology and Cosmogenesis, Contemporaries of Solomon, like Pythagoras and then Hippocrates and Socrates all men of great wisdom.

Moving forward in history to the Golden age of Christianity, followed by the Golden age of Islam, when Baghdad was the central hub of the world and science and mathematics increased at an unprecedented rate.

Everything that you have spoken of relates to the darkages.

Knowledge has always brought people out of the realm of myths and taken them directly into the truth of our creator.


Huh? Are you even remotely aware of the vast extent to which the average everyday German, European, and Soviet perpetrated the Holocaust. Hitler merely provided the infrastructure to accomplish the intent that was already well-cultivated for centuries in the hearts of the common man, woman, and child during that time.... cultivated mostly by centuries of anti-semitism waged by the churches since the supposed death of Christ. And for most to merely say that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church merely looked the other way is a mad crock of shite. The churches were more responsible for the hatred of Jews than Hitler and his Nazi Party. I advise that you read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's #1 international bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners... Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" and his companion masterpiece, "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair." The holocaust... looked at objectively and without pretense... is as much proof of the non-existence of God as an atheist's argument from improbability.

It would seem very clear then that all of these individuals and groups made very poor choices and that God allowed all these things to happen for a specific purpose.


And regarding freewill... if I indeed had freewill... why would I need salvation? Is it not true that I do not seek and choose Christ and His salvation unless by the grace of God afforded to those few whom He elected/pre-destined. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If Salvation is the very act of being immersed in the truth and that is the purpose of science then the answer seems quite obvious!

You are talking to someone that believes in Universal Salvation and as such God has already chosen you, just as He has chosen every other person that He has brought into creation. That does not mean that every person was created for the same purpose.


I have to be pregnant in order to understand this? What are you doing tommorrow night? I can reserve us a martini glass jacuzzi suite at the Bellagio, you handsome man, you!

My fidelity to God would not permit me to leave my position, Lover of mine!


Yeah... they've shown us... but I don't think the natural world gives a flying fandango. The Universe has gone on fine without us for billions of years before us... and the Universe will go on fine for billions of years after have become extinct or evolved into something entirely different.

To my understanding the Universe which is without beginning or end has never gone on without man and never will. The existence of man is of fundamental importance to the universe itself.


Natural Selection. Voila! Who would've thought?!?!?

You think that I do not believe in Natural Selection? It would be a good idea to stick around and get a better understanding of exactly what it is that I understand.


That is not what Sam Harris is saying and you know it, my friend.

Please tell me exactly what it is that Mr. Harris is saying if you please.


Hardly! Man hasn't lived long enough as He is in order to make such a judgement, in my humble opinion. In fact I dare say the probability that we destroy ourselves is far more likely than us being destroyed by anything we've failed to adapt to.

There will be those that destroy themselves but mankind still has a lot of important things to do and do over again and again and again.


You are exasperating, Dude! Since the dawn of Mankind, we've been killing each other over which tribe has the better imaginary friend.

I would say that it is only those with imaginary friends that have been destroyed and everyone has lived to tell about it.


The system is broke because it is inflicted by the cancer that is religion. And until that cancer is eradicated, humanity will never recover.

That is what the battle of Armageddon is all about the eradication of the cancer that is known as ignorance. The battle has always been between the servants of God and those in places of religious authority promoting ideas that make little or no sense.


Good luck, mate!

Thank-you but luck is based upon a contingent of probabilities and the world that I live in is based upon order and structure, so much so that you have already chosen your place within it and it is great and glorious. When you choose to move beyond space and time and the limits of this three dimensional world, you will again understand these limitations. Ponder for a moment Einstein's theory of relativity and then take one more step beyond the confines of time, there you will see that everything happens at the same instance, past present and future.

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and stay the course,



I am speaking of the time of King David, when great thinkers like Empedocles expounded upon ideas in Ontology and Cosmogenesis, Contemporaries of Solomon, like Pythagoras and then Hippocrates and Socrates all men of great wisdom.

Moving forward in history to the Golden age of Christianity, followed by the Golden age of Islam, when Baghdad was the central hub of the world and science and mathematics increased at an unprecedented rate.

Everything that you have spoken of relates to the darkages.

Knowledge has always brought people out of the realm of myths and taken them directly into the truth of our creator.

Alright... all that knowledge and change spawned from the Golden Ages of Christianity and Islam have taken them/us directly into the truth of our Creator. Please enlighten us directly. What truth?




It would seem very clear then that all of these individuals and groups made very poor choices and that God allowed all these things to happen for a specific purpose.

Alright... you wax eloquently on the specific purposes God has for each and every individual human. Now I don't speak for everyone on this forum... but I, for one, often find myself scratching my head after reading your posts. Please... once again... enlighten me directly, His Faithful Servant. What is the specific purpose God has for each of the three individuals in the following photo:

http://www.2goglobal.com/2GoChronicals/2%20Go%20Photos/Europe/Poland/soldier_gun.jpg



Please tell me exactly what it is that Mr. Harris is saying if you please.

Am I incorrect in suspecting that the definitions you and Mr. Harris have in mind regarding human are entirely different?


There will be those that destroy themselves but mankind still has a lot of important things to do and do over again and again and again.

Once again... please enlighten me directly. What important things?

[Nu Kua]

Huh? Are you even remotely aware of the vast extent to which the average everyday German, European, and Soviet perpetrated the Holocaust. Hitler merely provided the infrastructure to accomplish the intent that was already well-cultivated for centuries in the hearts of the common man, woman, and child during that time.... cultivated mostly by centuries of anti-semitism waged by the churches since the supposed death of Christ. And for most to merely say that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church merely looked the other way is a mad crock of shite. The churches were more responsible for the hatred of Jews than Hitler and his Nazi Party. I advise that you read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's #1 international bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners... Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" and his companion masterpiece, "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair." The holocaust... looked at objectively and without pretense... is as much proof of the non-existence of God as an atheist's argument from improbability.


It would seem very clear then that all of these individuals and groups made very poor choices and that God allowed all these things to happen for a specific purpose.


Do tell, what specific purpose would that happen to be?
It must be really important because a whole lot of people have suffered miserably for it.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and Nu Kua and thank-you for your examination,


Alright... all that knowledge and change spawned from the Golden Ages of Christianity and Islam have taken them/us directly into the truth of our Creator. Please enlighten us directly. What truth?

It is very hard to look at the resultant in a beaker and know exactly what happened without knowing the original condition and understanding the catalyst that was added. If the world and civilization that we live in today is the resultant in the beaker, most people have very little understanding of exactly the events that have happened to get us were we are today or for that matter the conditions prior to the advent of Christ and the peoples that he affected, nor do they know anything about the peoples that were affected by the teachings of Islam.

If we examine the nomadic Arab tribes, brothers thought nothing of killing their own brother to take all that he possessed and daughters were buried at birth for they had little or no value. The Islamic teachings created huge changes within these communities. One example of the change from brutal savagery is the defeat of Jerusalem under Omar, in that not one drop of blood was shed; a covenant was made between the people and specific Muslim families were given the responsibility for the safety and protection of churches and synagogues. This in itself is a very interesting change in less than one generation. This is just one example of innumerable events that occurred.

What was the catalyst for such changes in this civilization?


Alright... you wax eloquently on the specific purposes God has for each and every individual human. Now I don't speak for everyone on this forum... but I, for one, often find myself scratching my head after reading your posts. Please... once again... enlighten me directly, His Faithful Servant. What is the specific purpose God has for each of the three individuals in the following photo:

You seem to choose some of the most challenging and confrontational subjects, perhaps it is your desire to incite as much controversy as possible but I will take your bait.

Is it possible for anyone to look at something like this and not be horrified that such atrocities are allowed to occur? Do you think for one moment that the man with the rifle will not be remorseful for having being placed in this situation? Clearly from a society and individual stand point the horror of such causes all to make better choices and learn from these events. For anyone believing that death is the end,then this is a horrible tragedy with absolutely no positive outcome. When one understands that there is another world after this world, that is far greater than this life then death loses it's sting.


Am I incorrect in suspecting that the definitions you and Mr. Harris have in mind regarding human are entirely different?

The answer would have to be yes, he see human existence as the total experience, while I it as a temporal existence.


Once again... please enlighten me directly. What important things?

The purpose that this whole existence was created in the first place, to overcome our environment and come to understand exactly who we are and our relationship with our creator.


Do tell, what specific purpose would that happen to be?
It must be really important because a whole lot of people have suffered miserably for it.

What if each of us chose to undergo the suffering?

I am not sure that this would be the best way to explain it but the spirit world is an existence outside of time and as such birth and death are the same moment. A challenging concept when you live within the confines of time.

[Nu Kua]

What if each of us chose to undergo the suffering?

I am not sure that this would be the best way to explain it but the spirit world is an existence outside of time and as such birth and death are the same moment. A challenging concept when you live within the confines of time.

I've considered this before; that we either choose to have certain experiences because in order to fully evolve, or that we are pushed into them, because we have to have complete understanding of every human condition, a true empathy with the suffering that can only be had by experience of the same, before we can rise above it.

I have been told that when a person is born on Earth, there are spirits crying on the other side in mourning for a loss of their loved one; and that when a person dies on Earth, there's are spirits rejoicing on the other plane at the new birth, as this persons essence is re-born into spirit.
Both birth and death involve going through a "tunnel", too. as we pass from one state of existence to the other.

Thanks for getting back to me.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Nu Kua and thank-you for sharing,


I've considered this before; that we either choose to have certain experiences because in order to fully evolve, or that we are pushed into them, because we have to have complete understanding of every human condition, a true empathy with the suffering that can only be had by experience of the same, before we can rise above it.

I would tend towards the having them as part of a growth process, still not sure that our choosing is a definitive conclusion, it is hard to rationalize from a three dimensional aspect.


I have been told that when a person is born on Earth, there are spirits crying on the other side in mourning for a loss of their loved one; and that when a person dies on Earth, there's are spirits rejoicing on the other plane at the new birth, as this persons essence is re-born into spirit.
Both birth and death involve going through a "tunnel", too. as we pass from one state of existence to the other.

The challenge in understanding is that you say good bye and are there to meet yourself when you pass over and yet it is as if you never left. Reason that one out!
Your birth could be the beginning of the process but when you step across the veil you are eternal, without beginning nor end, thus it is all insignificant.

Let's focus on this world for now and our present job.


Thanks for getting back to me.

You are always worth the effort.

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and Nu Kua and thank-you for your examination,



It is very hard to look at the resultant in a beaker and know exactly what happened without knowing the original condition and understanding the catalyst that was added. If the world and civilization that we live in today is the resultant in the beaker, most people have very little understanding of exactly the events that have happened to get us were we are today or for that matter the conditions prior to the advent of Christ and the peoples that he affected, nor do they know anything about the peoples that were affected by the teachings of Islam.

If we examine the nomadic Arab tribes, brothers thought nothing of killing their own brother to take all that he possessed and daughters were buried at birth for they had little or no value. The Islamic teachings created huge changes within these communities. One example of the change from brutal savagery is the defeat of Jerusalem under Omar, in that not one drop of blood was shed; a covenant was made between the people and specific Muslim families were given the responsibility for the safety and protection of churches and synagogues. This in itself is a very interesting change in less than one generation. This is just one example of innumerable events that occurred.

What was the catalyst for such changes in this civilization?

Again, kind sir... what Truth?


You seem to choose some of the most challenging and confrontational subjects, perhaps it is your desire to incite as much controversy as possible but I will take your bait.

I agree... such a photo is entirely confrontational. It confronts us with honest, unadulterated, raw humanity. And, by the way, where is the controversy? Events like this have occured with vast frequency throughout the history of Mankind... and they occur with vast frequency in our day and age. The real controversy is why Mankind hasn't taken God to task on what is indeed His purpose is in allowing such events to happen.... assuming He exists.


Is it possible for anyone to look at something like this and not be horrified that such atrocities are allowed to occur?
Sure. So what? What's your point?

Do you think for one moment that the man with the rifle will not be remorseful for having being placed in this situation?
Not only can I think this for one moment... I can also think this for many moments. Also... you really need to read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's #1 international bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners... Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." Men like this were rarely 'placed' in sitituations like this.

Clearly from a society and individual stand point the horror of such causes all to make better choices and learn from these events.
Really? Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq are all better choices and examples of lesson learned?

For anyone believing that death is the end,then this is a horrible tragedy with absolutely no positive outcome. When one understands that there is another world after this world, that is far greater than this life then death loses it's sting.
Alright... assuming there is life after this world, what specifically is the positive outcome of the suffering depicted in the photo?


The purpose that this whole existence was created in the first place, to overcome our environment and come to understand exactly who we are and our relationship with our creator.
I sincerely doubt it. If I'm wrong, then our Creator is an stunning underachiever.


What if each of us chose to undergo the suffering?
So you're implying that the innocent child in the photo chose to undergo the suffering?


I am not sure that this would be the best way to explain it but the spirit world is an existence outside of time and as such birth and death are the same moment. A challenging concept when you live within the confines of time.
How comforting. I'm sure the parents of innocent children brutally murdered in the various religious genocides around the world would be comforted by this challenging concept.

Godsgifttomankind, please forgive me... but I find your implications, your audacity, and your general ambiguity entirely unavailing and quite ponderous otherwise. Yet I'm trying to remain open-minded... and I am yearning for you to just come out with it. What Truth? What Purpose? What Positive Outcome?

[the_nihilist]

I've been thinking about the direction this thread has taken... and what can we glean from this.

Perhaps my questions and attitudes and caustic sense of humor has revealed and bolstered the unlikelyhood that a personal God exists... if so, I am pleased. If not, tisk tisk.

But it's irrelevant when regarding the original question asked by this thread, is it not? (The original question: Why do Creationism and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive) What if there is no God/Creator? Can we default to Evolution? No, we can't default to Evolution. We rely on Evolution because it is the only explanation for reality that is bolstered by emperical, observational evidence.

But what if one day, we unearth something entirely natural that entirely turns Evolution upside down... effectively abolishes it scientifically thru something that can be empirically observed naturally? Can we then default to Creationism? many people would... I don't doubt that. But we couldn't rely on Creationism because it is no more bolstered by empirical, observational evidence than a statement that The Wiggles created Australia.

Let's face it, folks. Young-Earth Creationists (those who believe the Earth is approximately 6000 years old because they think the Bible says so) are completely and utterly looney-tunes. But modern theologians and many Christians today are fine with Creationism and Evolution NOT being mutually exclusive. I can respect that to the extant that it's obvious that they performed a little critical thinking and empirical observation about the world in which they live (to the extant that they accept Evolution, of course). But in my humble opinion, the idea rings hollow to me... the idea of the personal God of Christianity creating Evolution in the beginning and then sitting back and letting natural selection take its course. It is uncharacteristically lazy for the Christian God, don't you think? And if He desperately wants to reveal Himself to us, why would He choose such a means like Evolution... a means that is very effective at diverting us away from the idea that there is indeed a Creator behind it all?

Yes... the idea that Creationism and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive rings very hollow, indeed.

[the_nihilist]

"Evolution is the most important battle that Christians have to fight today, a battle we must win by any means, fair or foul!"
-- Hank Hanegraaff, Radio's the 'Bible Answer Man,' explaining on his radio program that evolution contradicts the story of the Fall in the Garden of Eden, and with no Fall there is no need for a Saviour (We knew that!), quoted from a personal letter to Cliff Walker from JohnPaul Slater.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your tail-race,


Again, kind sir... what Truth?

The Truth that is being revealed piece by piece as you live your life and examine the world around you.


I agree... such a photo is entirely confrontational. It confronts us with honest, unadulterated, raw humanity. And, by the way, where is the controversy? Events like this have occured with vast frequency throughout the history of Mankind... and they occur with vast frequency in our day and age. The real controversy is why Mankind hasn't taken God to task on what is indeed His purpose is in allowing such events to happen.... assuming He exists.

This is the most appropriate question, why is God allowing man to choose to allow these horrific events to occur? Can we learn from these examples and choose to make the world a better place using all the tools and skills that God has given us?


Sure. So what? What's your point?

My point is that men go from crisis to crisis, very few people do much in the way of prevention, they wait till they are forced to deal with something and then act. There is always a hope that someone or God will solve the problem and that they can get away with doing nothing or just being left to their own devices. The reality is that every person has to choose to take an active role, failing to act just means that the problem is postponed till it has joined itself with other problems.


Not only can I think this for one moment... I can also think this for many moments. Also... you really need to read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's #1 international bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners... Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." Men like this were rarely 'placed' in sitituations like this.

We are really talking about the same thing, it is individuals that choose and follow leaders, government is a reflection of the people, if people want the government to change then it calls for a change in the people and as I have said the only way that people change is through crisis.


Really? Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq are all better choices and examples of lesson learned?

Mankind has come a long way in the past hundred years but the confrontations have not reached their ends and before this next hundred years is up the face of humanity will have changed completely. This does not mean that there will not be minor confrontations just fewer and far between.


Alright... assuming there is life after this world, what specifically is the positive outcome of the suffering depicted in the photo?

Everything that we do in this life is about learning self control, how many people look at a picture like this and say that will never be me? If the numbers have increased then that is a positive outcome.


I sincerely doubt it. If I'm wrong, then our Creator is an stunning underachiever.




So you're implying that the innocent child in the photo chose to undergo the suffering?

The idea that I am putting forward is that the child knowing the amount of compassion that would be generated by such an event and the change that it would develop in peoples attitude toward such events is of great value to that child were they are now.

Your reaction itself speaks volumes to the value of that one act.


How comforting. I'm sure the parents of innocent children brutally murdered in the various religious genocides around the world would be comforted by this challenging concept.

Comfort comes from peoples choices to be compassionate and reach out to those that are suffering or oppressed. We can all look at pictures and point fingers at others but the real question is in regards to that which each of us are doing to decrease this type of suffering?


Godsgifttomankind, please forgive me... but I find your implications, your audacity, and your general ambiguity entirely unavailing and quite ponderous otherwise. Yet I'm trying to remain open-minded... and I am yearning for you to just come out with it. What Truth? What Purpose? What Positive Outcome?

The Positive Outcome is the individual choice to be generous, forgiving, kind, helpful, patient, tolerant, respectful, and a long list of other virtues that are allowed to be created within each one of us.

[Nu Kua]

My point is that men go from crisis to crisis, very few people do much in the way of prevention, they wait till they are forced to deal with something and then act. There is always a hope that someone or God will solve the problem and that they can get away with doing nothing or just being left to their own devices. The reality is that every person has to choose to take an active role, failing to act just means that the problem is postponed till it has joined itself with other problems.

Perfect! Thank you.

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your tail-race,.

You're quite welcome... but I would deem God and religion more worthy of any gratitude for any perceived tail-race.


The Truth that is being revealed piece by piece as you live your life and examine the world around you.
Which is?


This is the most appropriate question, why is God allowing man to choose to allow these horrific events to occur? Can we learn from these examples and choose to make the world a better place using all the tools and skills that God has given us?
I don't think I'm the brightest light-bulb at the hardware store... but I think I'm safe in saying that sans the help of God allowing six million Jews to die horrible deaths, I can fully know and discern that it is wrong to shoot the brains out of one innocent child (let alone a million innocent children) whose parents happen to belong to a religion that ingnored the supposed human incarnation of an invisible astrological sky-daddy. To imply we need these horrible chapters in humanity to happen in order to adequately learn from them is the height of stark inanity.


My point is that men go from crisis to crisis, very few people do much in the way of prevention, they wait till they are forced to deal with something and then act. There is always a hope that someone or God will solve the problem and that they can get away with doing nothing or just being left to their own devices.
Just an aside... wouldn't it be more than insane to place hope in God to solve such problems when it's more than obvious that God was the greatest inspiration during the creation of most of these problems?


The reality is that every person has to choose to take an active role, failing to act just means that the problem is postponed till it has joined itself with other problems.
True that, brother!


We are really talking about the same thing, it is individuals that choose and follow leaders, government is a reflection of the people, if people want the government to change then it calls for a change in the people and as I have said the only way that people change is through crisis.
New Orleans, anyone?


Mankind has come a long way in the past hundred years but the confrontations have not reached their ends and before this next hundred years is up the face of humanity will have changed completely. This does not mean that there will not be minor confrontations just fewer and far between.
I disagree... humanity is in more danger today of destroying itself via civil war over who has the best imaginary friend than at anytime in its history.


Everything that we do in this life is about learning self control, how many people look at a picture like this and say that will never be me? If the numbers have increased then that is a positive outcome.
And I propose that self-control will never be learned and used to any avail unless one completely escapes the shackles of religion and deference to God.


The idea that I am putting forward is that the child knowing the amount of compassion that would be generated by such an event and the change that it would develop in peoples attitude toward such events is of great value to that child were they are now.

Your reaction itself speaks volumes to the value of that one act.
I reject your idea for the obnoxious presumptuous offal that it obviously is. I dare say the only thought going thru the child's innocent mind is that he or she desperately wishes that he or she could merely go home and play with his or her toys instead of being brutally murdered. And I also dare say you are completely oblivious regarding how deep is the cess-pool in which humanity is drowning because of God and religion.


Comfort comes from peoples choices to be compassionate and reach out to those that are suffering or oppressed.
How about comfort that comes from the eradication of not only the suffering and the oppression but also that which inspires suffering and oppression... namely religion. We could eradicate God, too.... but it's hard to eradicate something that only exists in the imagination.


The Positive Outcome is the individual choice to be generous, forgiving, kind, helpful, patient, tolerant, respectful, and a long list of other virtues that are allowed to be created within each one of us.
And that individual choice can be made in a world that comes to the realization that religion is anathema to life and that God almost certainly does NOT exist.

An abomination before the Lord, condemned to death by the three great monotheist religions of the world, a homosexual named Roedy Green said it best, "you can still be your brother’s keeper. You can still ask yourself, 'How should I act so that this works out best for all concerned?' You can still work to treat the Samaritans of your society as equals. You can dedicate your life to help those who need it most. You can still work for ruthless inner and outer honesty. You just don’t need to feed yourself lies about why you are doing it or about the supernatural magic protection you will enjoy while you do it."

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your parity,


You're quite welcome... but I would deem God and religion more worthy of any gratitude for any perceived tail-race.

The truth is like Gold or any other ore in order to have purity there needs to be a process of separation; keeping that which is good and sending the rest down the tail-race. You have created a tail-race by the examination of all those things before you and allowing that which has no merit to slide down the tail-race in to the abyss.


Which is?

The Truth is that which is weighed and found to be the most reasonable.


I don't think I'm the brightest light-bulb at the hardware store... but I think I'm safe in saying that sans the help of God allowing six million Jews to die horrible deaths, I can fully know and discern that it is wrong to shoot the brains out of one innocent child (let alone a million innocent children) whose parents happen to belong to a religion that ingnored the supposed human incarnation of an invisible astrological sky-daddy. To imply we need these horrible chapters in humanity to happen in order to adequately learn from them is the height of stark inanity.

So what you are saying is that I am a madman, because of my belief that we learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others, that without making or seeing mistakes being made that we would not choose to do that which is right?

Or is it the second part the belief in an Omniscient being that has created an environment by which all of His children are able to learn valuable lessons and while many of the choices that they make have horrific consequences, there is no loser in this game only the environment for greater and greater development.


Just an aside... wouldn't it be more than insane to place hope in God to solve such problems when it's more than obvious that God was the greatest inspiration during the creation of most of these problems?

I would see it as insane to sit idly by and think that God would solve these problems, God requires a vessel for which he can be made manifest, light requires a light bulb so that energy can be made manifest. A burnt out light bulb puts forth no light, it can think that it is the means by which light is made manifest but the reality is that it is incapable of producing light. When God is made manifest it is clear and visible, the problem is that the average believer in God could be compared to a burnt out light whose filament is broken and while the energy is hidden close by there is no illumination.


New Orleans, anyone?

New Orleans had some very positive outcomes, the area that was the hardest hit was an area were people were locked in a quagmire of the most horrendous conditions, with no possibility of escape to a better life. Those same people were forced to evacuate and were relocated and now them and their children have a great potential for their future. We could all have chosen to act and help those people living in such conditions but as I have already stated the only way that we act is if the situation is desparate.


I disagree... humanity is in more danger today of destroying itself via civil war over who has the best imaginary friend than at anytime in its history.

Humanity is very volatile and it is the crisis that is forcing people to act and change, if the conditions were not so there would be no change and mankind would stagnate in a mild sea of chaos.

The automobile is propelled forward by a series of small explosions, without those explosions it would sit in one place; such is the state of humanity.


And I propose that self-control will never be learned and used to any avail unless one completely escapes the shackles of religion and deference to God.

You are correct in regards to escaping the shackles of religion and the ignorance of the Truth about God, self control is about being in control of yourself and how can one be in control if they have not reasoned and chosen that control.


I reject your idea for the obnoxious presumptuous offal that it obviously is. I dare say the only thought going thru the child's innocent mind is that he or she desperately wishes that he or she could merely go home and play with his or her toys instead of being brutally murdered. And I also dare say you are completely oblivious regarding how deep is the cess-pool in which humanity is drowning because of God and religion.

I respect the fact that you reject this idea, it just means that you do not see the evidence pointing in that direction; the future will reveal the truth and as humanity finds it's way out of the cesspool of ignorance and false understandings of God, the truth about God will become clearer and clearer.

We can both agree that there is a cesspool, the Bible and Koran refer to it as the Abyss.


How about comfort that comes from the eradition of not only the suffering and the oppression but also that which inspires suffering and oppression... namely religion. We could eradicate God, too.... but it's hard to eradicate something that only exists in the imagination.

When looking at religions and comparing them to stars, you see nothing but the black hole at the end of the life cycle, you can not see the birthing process, the childhood and turbulent youth nor the great beauty of the maturation and the reaching of maturity. It is a beautiful cycle and a beautiful creative process, the greatest beauty is for those that escape the black hole and boldly step forth to bring light where once only darkness existed.


And that individual choice can be made in a world that comes to the realization that religion is anathema to life and that God almost certainly does NOT exist.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!


An abomination before the Lord, condemned to death by the three great monotheist religions of the world, a homosexual named Roedy Green said it best, "you can still be your brother’s keeper. You can still ask yourself, 'How should I act so that this works out best for all concerned?' You can still work to treat the Samaritans of your society as equals. You can dedicate your life to help those who need it most. You can still work for ruthless inner and outer honesty. You just don’t need to feed yourself lies about why you are doing it or about the supernatural magic protection you will enjoy while you do it."

That is a wonderful statement by one of God's cherished children!

[the_nihilist]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your parity,

The Truth is that which is weighed and found to be the most reasonable.

What is the Truth which is weighed and found to be the most reasonable?

And please, kind sir, try and be reasonable.


So what you are saying is that I am a madman, because of my belief that we learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others, that without making or seeing mistakes being made that we would not choose to do that which is right?

Or is it the second part the belief in an Omniscient being that has created an environment by which all of His children are able to learn valuable lessons and while many of the choices that they make have horrific consequences, there is no loser in this game only the environment for greater and greater development.

Yes you are a madman. It is mad to believe that it would take the murder of six million innocent men, women, and children to teach a lesson that it is wrong to murder. On the other hand, assuming these are indeed horrible events that were allowed by an Omniscient being in order for Humanity to learn lessons from them, where is the evidence that Humanity has learned anything at all? Could it be that Humanity has created such an environment inspired by dictator religions and fascist deities... and thus the ease with which such horrible events occur in such a terrible environment?

“Man is certainly stark mad. He can’t make a flea, but makes gods by the dozen.”
~ Montaigne, 1588

[the_nihilist]

Marvel at the complete insipid inanity that is Creationism. The best quote from the following movie is, "We didn't like evolve from anything... that doesn't make any sense... I mean how can like an African American person evolve from a White person? We're different skin."

Enjoy:

eL4RgEGFZWU

5WmtFmjWi90

Km78fAVzTNA

AoN0XNJ3vgg

VrOrQ2Yfh58

“Let us pray it is not so, or if it is, that it will not become widely known.”
~ Wife of the Bishop of Exeter on hearing of Darwin’s theory of the common descent of humans and apes.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello the_nihilist and thank-you for your contribution,


What is the Truth which is weighed and found to be the most reasonable?

That which is irrational is most assuredly not the Truth, when information is placed before you and you reason it out rationally, discarding that which is irrational, that which is left in almost all cases is the Truth.


And please, kind sir, try and be reasonable.

Is it possible that you find me unreasonable because of my correlation between God and reason?


Yes you are a madman. It is mad to believe that it would take the murder of six million innocent men, women, and children to teach a lesson that it is wrong to murder. On the other hand, assuming these are indeed horrible events that were allowed by an Omniscient being in order for Humanity to learn lessons from them, where is the evidence that Humanity has learned anything at all? Could it be that Humanity has created such an environment inspired by dictator religions and fascist deities... and thus the ease with which such horrible events occur in such a terrible environment?

In terms of natural selection that which is stronger survives and that which is weaker dies off, it is just the natural occurrence of things or that which is able to evolve or adapt survives and that which does not dies off. This is a perfectly sound statement and yet mankind's ability to learn or adapt based on the environment is crazy?

There is no doubt as to the truth of the role that humanity has played in creating these events and that evolution allows for the adaption for the purpose of survival, the point that I am propounding is that it is in fact God that is the force behind the adaption. Thus the next evolution in humanity is the bringing forth of a peaceful and collective society, this is not a forced, military compliance but the bi-product of the culminated learning of the last 500,000 years and the realization and acceptance of the plan of God.

Man has attempted many different forms of government and while seeking to find the quality of government that they desire, many many mistakes and grievous damages have been incurred, but with freewill there is also the consequences for the choices that are made.

Your own concerns and desires are a reflection of the willingness for humanity to move past such callous acts and move towards a peaceful and harmonious society.

[the_nihilist]

Are there any wackos out there that believe in the Bible as nothing less than the literal word of God? If so... here's some help to alleviate an obvious mental illness: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[the_nihilist]

"Breathtaking Inanity!!!!"
Marvel at at the stupidity of "Intelligent Design:" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Watch this documentary... and behold the moronic and dumb idea of "Intelligent Design" being flushed down the shitter by a Federal Court, presided over by a church-going judge appointed by G.W. Bush.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
-- Judge John Jones
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Judgejohnjones.jpg