Religion: Pros and Cons

[Yo-DUH_87]

Originally posted by Alchemy
Yo-DUH seems to be a bit dim on the concepts of Buddhism, Islam, and biology. Calling science "a bunch of hooey" more or less signals his unwillingness to debate

*snip*

That should do.

Alchemy

Thanks for the critique.

I was not calling science "a bunch of hooey," you got that wrong. I was calling the theory of humans descending from one-celled microbes "a bunch of hooey." There is a difference

Evolution HAS happened in a sort-of-way, but not to the extent that agnostics and atheists are claiming. Different species of dog can mate, and look at what we have here, some sort of bizarre half-breed. Zebras and horses, Loins and Tigers, these are supposedly biologically compatible. But, the idea that we all happened through a process that was so delicate, and more than likely involved several different intelligent species developing, is a little insane.

Adding to that, why don't we have semi-intelligent apes running around? If we came from apes, or whatever evolution states we "popped out of," why have we not seen any ape species that have at one time started up the technological ladder? In the wild, without any training, the most sophisticated tool I've seen my "so-called ancestors" use was a stick, as an eating utensil. Don't you think there would be at least remnants of other "smart" civilization? I'm not asking for anything as complex as a computer, but something simple, such as sharpening something to be used as a tool...

I believe Buddha was a wise man, I believe that he did obtain much wisdom through his long thoughts while he starved himself, I believe that his teachings have bettered the people that have accepted them, and many of his teachings have great meaning and worth to them.

But, I also believe that he died of indigestion, and that I could better use my time by talking to my nice white textured ceiling. If he couldn't help himself, then what can he possibly do for me?

Islam, I do admit, I am a bit weak on. Their religion has changed a bit since I read about it last, and I'm a bit vague on the specifics.

I do know that they descended from Abraham's illegitimate son, Ishmael, and that God promised him a kingdom that would be wild and untamed, and he would like at odds with his kindred (and a "thorn in the side of the Christians").

The God of Islam (whatever it's name is at the present, last time I checked it was Allah) is supposed to be a "fair judge, but far away entity." You are aware of him, and him of you, but you never interact. He is often swift and will, according to the Qur'an, "destroy evil nations in a heartbeat." Hmm, I think Allah has a slow heartrate

This is a striking contrast to "The Christian God," who is loving and caring for his people, who is with us all the time, and very companionate. Forgiving our every transgression.

Comparing the two is unthinkable. Allah is portrayed as an uncaring dictator, no more.

And the way they treat the women is insane, I'm sorry if you're personally a Muslim, but honestly. All people are created equal. Women are not meant to be used as just maids/breeding stock/prizes, they have just as much capability to learn and make decisions as men do, if not more

I won't go into the Jihad and all that extremist terrorist stuff. I think it is great that they all want to blow themselves up! In fact, I encourage it! But could they please NOT do it around other people

I quote Joshua by saying "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." If you have a religion that you are totally devoted to, or you really believe that we are all descendants of termites, all the more power to you. I am happy you are happy. But, the difference is I know the future of my eternal life, that being heaven. I would hope to see you all when I get there

[winewood]

Alchemy, I am going to have fun at your expense. Please forgive me. I am not attacking the messenger, but the arguement. In doing so, I wish to show you that possibly there are fallacies in everyones arguements, including your own.

Further, wiring ones' mind to accept arguments on blind faith seems to me like the opening of port 21 in the mind - even on the hypothesis that everything regarding ones' faith is true, to use blind faith as a mechanism makes one vunderable to exploit.

Lets pretend that whomever wrote the Bible had "higher understandings" beyond our own. As a father would instruct a child, he would not tell the 1 year old WHY the road was off limits, just to stay off of it. The understanding of why comes later. I personally don't think humans are any smarter than thousands of years before we have just been able to keep better records and build on it. So far, we have not been able to find a substantial logical fallacy with the Bible, but still hold it in high regard as one of the most hardened volumes of morality and logic to our criticisms.
Faith in this regard is acceptance that the road that we should not venture out into is in fact not in our best interests. If we have that for no other reason than we haven't been led astray or can find no holes in the fabric of the arguement, this is a scientific principle of the theory. Test it until we find it is false. I have tested and therefore find it a working theory that has yet to be disproven. Do I have blind faith? Not at all, it is based on what I cannot disprove, and have already seen

Next is a series of arguements from your previous post. And yes, I want my cookie as well.

when people claim that evolution is false because there are no creatures halfway between one species and another, I'm at a loss: All creatures people find evidence of existing are ascribed a species name. Trying to pick two species and find a transition species between them that is not itself its own species is an absurdity of the definition of species - it's like being asked to pick two rational numbers between which no numbers exist. Biology, like the number line, is a continuum.

Funny stuff. Thats so Clintonesque. When a large portion of the theory involves 2 creatures VASTLY different and tells us how many thousands and millions of years in between evolved to get there, but there are no fossils or proof of those "drawn in" figures, doesn't that seem absurd? From fish to salamander, there would be thousands of transistions VERY much like the former or the latter. There are large gaps in between these and thousands of years of their existance involving thousands of simple changes in each step. Logically you cannot explain away the transitional periods that are voids now, as a labeled step. I feel like that arguement is the Wizard of OZ saying disregard the steps of my theory, don't question them.

that mutations occur and once in a while are beneficial

Science has documented no example of a benificial mutation. Each mutation catalouged has resulted in a less functional animal for its environment. Especially a mutation that can be carried along genetically to a following generation.

Consider how foolish people appear when such concepts of heat and temperature are argued on this board. Then consider that the mechanisms for heat transfer, especially turbulent, are a thousand times less predictable and less understood by physics than the evolutionary path of tens of thousands of creatures charted by biology.

You are using apples and oranges. First of all, the heat, temperature can be argued but tested by multiple independent people. The biology, which outside of dna research on the creatures 10's of thousands of years old is limited to a very defined set group who attempts to make the best hypothesis based on bones, without an understanding of skin, internal organs. A series of "facts" creating other "facts" based on supposition of function to begin with. Color me amused indeed. Lets extrapolate on that idea and say the biology is more misunderstood than the thermodynamics of heat transfer of a core to a block.

In the case of the first cell, possibly the predecessor to the first bacteria, this support structure isn't anywhere near as obvious.

Not obvious means not discovered, but a theory hangs on it. Ok. Does this seem funny at all? The basis fundamental building block of evolution is now gone. Non-existant. Non-proveable, non-disprovable because it has yet to be discovered? Kind of like building a skyscraper but finding out the foundation no longer exists, but is not unproveable or is now missing or never built. Apparently faith is not confined to religion but now science? I think this shows why evolution is included in a religious arguement due to its reliance on blind answers built on conjecture.

I would now start to argue who has the most faith. I know I am not going to change any of your ideas or faiths, however it seems ironic to point the "blind faith" finger at the religions without accepting that the premise of many of your own scientific higher logics contain more faith in some circumstances. Face it, man is ignorant and very succeptable to persuasion. What we KNOW one day is completely dismissed in another generation of science. Shakey foundations indeed. Higher scientific logic or psychology in the place of religion is interesting, but a laughable arrogant swap.

[pHaestus]

You are discounting the entire pesticide industry, who have seen firsthand how difficult that accelerating natural selection can make their lives. Genes which previously had no use end up saving a few insects because they impart insecticide resistance. The next year, the majority of insects are resistnat because only the remaining bugs could breed and reproduce. There have also been documented cases of moths in europe that were white before smog began to turn the trunks of the trees where they lived grey. Once this happened then birds could see those moths clearly. It wasn't long until most of the moths were not white but grey; again natural selection at work.

[winewood]

I think you are mixing up immune system resitance with genetics. An immunity can be passed from a parent, but that is not gene coded. When you get down to the hard core of the arguement, where are the half armed species in middle of a change? Where are the land animals with non-developed large wings that are useless for thousands of years before they allow flight? Name a mutation that can be passed down genetically. Much less the mutation that develops, passed down genetically, and is spread evenly across an entire population, then the non mutated population dies out instead of mutating in a different direction.
Moth color fails to justify the entire process of natural selections role in genetic mutative heritage. If my environment changes to allow more uv rays into my house, and I become more tan. Is that an example of my genes changing? If I am a moth, suddenly it does. There HAS to be much more credible evidence than a moth to explain where every living thing came from. Don't you guys agree? Does it take a single arguement to justify your belief when 1000's before have been disproven?

[airspirit]

The reason that there are no semi-intelligent apes is that we as a species wiped them out. Many neanderthal bones show the wear of warfare. Yes, we weren't related to them ... that article said as much. We branched off of an earlier species, much like the lion and the tiger. We were more closely related, however. While lions and tigers can breed, the product is a sterile mule. It is speculated, however, that Cro Magnon man and Neanderthal man could breed (I didn't mean in the homo sort of way, I meant "man" as a species). It was probably a rare occurance, however.

We all know how xenophobic mankind is. We also know how territorial we are. The difference between a white man and a black man was seen as a different species practically until the recent century. How do you think our primitive ancestors would have seen the difference between themselves and some slope-headed, bow-legged, extremely muscular guys that didn't have the same cognitive and linguistic abilities as themselves? They probably (from the fossil record) wiped them out, and unlike our branch, they weren't adaptable enough to sail off to islands or cross the land bridge to north america. They just grew outdated.

I would argue, however, that there are semi-intelligent species out there. Certain breeds of ape are extremely intelligent, such as the gorilla and the chimpanzee, while others are less intelligent and some are ... well, frickin' stupid. A few breeds of dog are wicked smart, such as the golden retriever, though it is the product of forced evolution by man, and it hasn't been such a distinct evolutionary process that it prevents viable breeding. Look at the African Gray parrot. Dolphins? Certain whale species? Don't be so pompous to believe that humans have a monopoly on intelligence, though we certainly have the most developed intellect of the bunch.

[cybrsamurai]

Does it take a single arguement to justify your belief when 1000's before have been disproven?

No one has ever disproved the theory of evolution.

[pHaestus]

Immunity can be passed from parents to offspring in mammals; they give their young antigens and resistance through their milk. Insects, as far as I know, don't nurse and don't pass on anything to their young OTHER than their genetic makeup. I am a chemist and not a biologist though so I could be wrong. Things like pigment color of wings are genetic though.

Besides the whole natural selection theory is just that when resources (food, shelter, water) are limited and you apply some outside pressure then species which can cope with the change thrive and those who can't die out. That is a pretty hard theory to disprove as it can be seen over and over again in nature.

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by winewood
I personally don't think humans are any smarter than thousands of years before we have just been able to keep better records and build on it.

I think the evolution of the scientific method, its first discovories - germ theory, for one example - and the ability of the Western world to more or less agree on a construction of civil rights that include the abolition of slavery, theocracy, and dictatorship, as well as governmental focus on environmental protection and restoration, all represent significant intellectual advancement in the past few hundred years. I think as time goes on, more things are discovered and known, and people are expected to know and understand more aspects of politics, their career, and the world they live in. I think humankind grows smarter because we are all encouraged to become smarter, because - amazingly - it benefits people to be shrewd in business, to be clever in games, etc. Not all people feel the intelligence/personal success gradient, but it's certainly a major factor to much of the world's population.

This isn't to say we're the paragon of intelligent life right now - far from it. But I think it's the nature of intelligent life to be continually improving the conditions in which it lives. Though we may be, as a whole, a very selfish species, it is that selfishness that drives us to improve the lives of those worse off - poverty, unemployment, and homelessness damages *all* of society.

So far, we have not been able to find a substantial logical fallacy with the Bible, but still hold it in high regard as one of the most hardened volumes of morality and logic to our criticisms.

I'm not sure who the "we" is here. I could easily point out a number of examples where the Bible is internally inconsistent, such as the two slightly different creation stories in Genesis, or the existence of humans who are not descendents of Adam and Eve, or the drawing of Jesus's lineage from David (Abraham? can't recall) through Joseph, who Jesus was not borne by and thus by Hebrew law his ancestry would be irrelevant to Jesus. There are physical inconsistencies, such as the story of Noah - a very clear parable, yet an event many fundamentalists consider factual. There is Revelation, a book many Christians discount, and many scholars find to be not a foretelling of the Apocalypse but a foretelling of the fall of Rome - a political tract with little meaning in modern times. There is evidence of trinity-type dieties in pre-Christian religions, though I can't recall which ones, and I apologize for not having more information. The flood tale of Noah is similar to pre-Jewish religions. Many aspects of the Old Testament can be seen in Sumerian religions, in Egyptian religions, and then re-interpreted in Islam. No writer of any holy book wrote in a vacuum - all were influenced by the folklore of their time.

As for a "hardened volume of morality," I am not sure what particular chapter and verse you refer to. I find the book of Job very distressing. I find repeated references to God encouraging his followers to kill, torture, mutilate, and rape in the Old Testament. I find the Ten Commandments inapplicable to any but Christians - the first three command singular loyalty to him and how that loyalty should be professed, the remaining seven are redundant and could have easily been cut down to "Do not take what is not yours," with it being understood this applies to your neighbor's possessions, wife, and life. The fealty to ones' parents seems appropriate, though to consider it a commandment of equal level of the others seems strange, especially in current Western society where it is no longer the father's perogative to kill his children.

Jesus's teachings are mostly beyond reproach, for he spoke in parables and thus there is nothing to prove or refute - they are all opinions. Strangely, I don't see many fundamentalists arguing the truth of Jesus's parables - they are apocryphal, and unlike many other events in the Bible, most people actually realize this.

My only suggestion, really, would be to have amended "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" as "Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them." More complicated, and perhaps the brevity is the important factor, but I think much unhappiness in this world could be solved by selflessness as well as empathy.

Faith in this regard is acceptance that the road that we should not venture out into is in fact not in our best interests. If we have that for no other reason than we haven't been led astray or can find no holes in the fabric of the arguement, this is a scientific principle of the theory. Test it until we find it is false. I have tested and therefore find it a working theory that has yet to be disproven. Do I have blind faith? Not at all, it is based on what I cannot disprove, and have already seen

Trusting texts on their face is not consistent with the scientific method. A theory must be based on logical assumptions, but it must also predict something. It has to be disprovable - if it isn't, science becomes a mess of half-truths.

I'm not sure how you have tested the Bible, but I find it difficult to believe you've done so in a manner that stands up for any sort of review - religion by its nature makes no predictions and explains nothing about the natural world. It isn't supposed to.

Funny stuff. Thats so Clintonesque. When a large portion of the theory involves 2 creatures VASTLY different and tells us how many thousands and millions of years in between evolved to get there, but there are no fossils or proof of those "drawn in" figures, doesn't that seem absurd?

Fossils aren't easy to come by. What is your interpretation of the data - that a supernatural force randomly spawns and then smites species of animal and plant for about four billion years?

From fish to salamander, there would be thousands of transistions VERY much like the former or the latter.

How do you know that there isn't evidence of that, somewhere?

There are large gaps in between these and thousands of years of their existance involving thousands of simple changes in each step. Logically you cannot explain away the transitional periods that are voids now, as a labeled step.

I'm unable to do so, yes, simply because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I haven't the expertise or knowledge base to explain *everything* about a scientific field that I am not an expert in. So no, given your choice of two species, I can't dig up cited references of all the transitional species between them, or chart them upward to the ancestor of common descent. It's a lot of work, and it's not my job.

I feel like that arguement is the Wizard of OZ saying disregard the steps of my theory, don't question them.

And I feel like an empiricist whose information is discoutned by a pundit because I cannot give you an infinite amount of data points for a particular process. If I show you one transitionary species between an animal and its evolutionary descendant, would you ask for five? If I showed you five, would you ask for twenty? I feel like you're not grasping the gist of my argument - the transition is slow, there are thousands or millions of creatures between two discovered species. To expect physical proof of existence of every single animal, plant, microbe, etc. that ever lived on Earth is absurd.

Science has documented no example of a benificial mutation. Each mutation catalouged has resulted in a less functional animal for its environment. Especially a mutation that can be carried along genetically to a following generation.

pHaestus has made his point. You tell him he is wrong. There's not much I can say beyond that: If you ask for evidence, and someone well-versed in biology gives you evidence, and you say "No" without further explanation, there's nothing else that can be done. Few people will bother arguing with you if you respond to evidence against your argument with categorical dismissal.

You are using apples and oranges. First of all, the heat, temperature can be argued but tested by multiple independent people. The biology, which outside of dna research on the creatures 10's of thousands of years old is limited to a very defined set group who attempts to make the best hypothesis based on bones, without an understanding of skin, internal organs.

I have enough trust in biologists that they are aware of skin and internal organs, and that animals have them. Information about hide, feathers, scales, etc. can be and often are preserved in fossil remains. Biologists, like all scientists, must make logical theories, and these theories must stand up to peer review. Those that don't are discounted. People who fabricate evidence are found, usually very quickly. Scientists, like anyone else with a job, usually know what they are doing.

A series of "facts" creating other "facts" based on supposition of function to begin with.

What supposition? That things live? That things die? That things mutate? That things reproduce? Which one of these is fundamentally incorrect?

Color me amused indeed.

The one holding an arrogant, mocking opinion of the other side usually is not doing well in a debate.

Lets extrapolate on that idea and say the biology is more misunderstood than the thermodynamics of heat transfer of a core to a block.

I still stand by my observation that natural selection is a much older and much more studied topic in science than turbulence, or certain advanced topics in optics, or special or general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or chaos mathematics. Painting it as a silly or renagade branch of scientists is, quite simply, wrong.

Not obvious means not discovered, but a theory hangs on it.

The theory does not hang off it. A single step missing does not make the entire theory invalid, no more than a single missing note makes a symphony not a symphony. Yes, it's fascinating to try to come up with possible explanations. I don't know which ones are currently posed, as I am not well-read in current biological publications.

Do you understand? Evolution is a theory that makes predictable events. You pick a certain event that is not predictable, and say that the fact evolution does not predict it disproves evolution. It's an invalid argument: it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of evolution whether a single organism, chosen at random, can have its evolutionary geneology drawn to a previous ancestor, even if that organism is very important, because such a thing requires biologists to know the full genotype, phenotype, livespan, etc. of every single animal ever born since the existence of the Earth - it's a computational impossibility.

Alchemy

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by winewood
I think you are mixing up immune system resitance with genetics. An immunity can be passed from a parent, but that is not gene coded. ...

If not coded into the genes, how did it happen? Chance? Can immunity be taught?


Anyway.....


I started this thread to get one premise across: Faith (in the philosophical sense) != Knowledge. It has fallen into a debate on evolution. Both sides (with some exceptions), though, seem to have accepted certain aspects of the argument on Faith on one level or another. I wish to "bring it back to Earth", if you will.

Originally posted by Alchemy
...

Further, wiring ones' mind to accept arguments on blind faith seems to me like the opening of port 21 in the mind - even on the hypothesis that everything regarding ones' faith is true, to use blind faith as a mechanism makes one vunderable to exploit....

This is a relatively precise illustration of religious use of Faith. If you believe, you can be led.

Originally posted by winewood
...

Lets pretend that whomever wrote the Bible had "higher understandings" beyond our own.

...

How were these "higher understandings" derived? Are men so ignorant and naive that we need external guidance for all time?

Originally posted by winewood
...

I personally don't think humans are any smarter than thousands of years before we have just been able to keep better records and build on it.

...

Oh, I guess so.

This is an example of how most religions view man. Only the "enlightened" have any right or ability to guide men's lives. A few examples of this in action would be Plato's Republic, medieval Europe, or any two-bit dictatorship of the 20th century.

Originally posted by winewood
...

So far, we have not been able to find a substantial logical fallacy with the Bible, but still hold it in high regard as one of the most hardened volumes of morality and logic to our criticisms.

Faith in this regard is acceptance that the road that we should not venture out into is in fact not in our best interests. If we have that for no other reason than we haven't been led astray or can find no holes in the fabric of the arguement, this is a scientific principle of the theory. Test it until we find it is false. I have tested and therefore find it a working theory that has yet to be disproven. Do I have blind faith? Not at all, it is based on what I cannot disprove, and have already seen

...

The Bible offers no proof of anything.

It is an elementary tenet of logic that he who makes the assertion has the burden of proof of that assertion. The fact that a thing cannot be disproven proves nothing. It becomes a hypothesis. Add to this the predilection of the faithful to regard any non-provably factual element of the Bible as allegorical or symbolic. This allows something to be "interpreted" to mean anything. You might as well get spiritual guidance from Jean Dixon's horoscopes.

Bob

[pHaestus]

Children get immunities (although temporary) from their mother in the womb and then from breastfeeding after birth. I was merely pointing that out to explain why that wasn't the case in the insect examples that were summarily dismissed.

[nexxo]

This is a striking contrast to "The Christian God," who is loving and caring for his people, who is with us all the time, and very companionate. Forgiving our every transgression.

Comparing the two is unthinkable. Allah is portrayed as an uncaring dictator, no more.

Attachment. There you go.

Interesting to see this idea is not taken on board, but people are still pursuing the Creationist v.s. Evolutionist argument. Guess arguing with worldviews can generate a lot of emotion.

[cybrsamurai]

Interesting to see this idea is not taken on board, but people are still pursuing the Creationist v.s. Evolutionist argument. Guess arguing with worldviews can generate a lot of emotion

I don't know about the other guys but I saw this as an attack on a religion that is in "competition" with yodahs. As I percieved it as an attack, and unfounded attack (no evidence provided), I didn't think it worth commenting on.

[pHaestus]

I am not interested in commenting on anyone's religious beliefs, but I felt it was appropriate to address incorrect comments about evidence of natural selection and evolution. Not so sure why creationists are so quick to be at odds with evolution; it's a mechanism and not making science into an alternative god or anything. My wife is religious and has no problem with evolution or natural selection; her comment was "I'm a christian not a Luddite". To each his own.

[cybrsamurai]

Luddite

Good Word!

[cristoff]

Intersting how this thread turned into so much of a heated debate instead of a kind transmission of words.

There have been many wars faught in the name of Religion. But where these religions truly following what the bible teaches, were the religions true? If they faught in wars, hardly. The bible brings out that the wars we have to face is the wars between our wanting to do good and our flesh wanting to do whats bad, like perhaps having sex before marriage as the bible condemns yet many do it despite that fact and know it.

Evolution or Creation? Remember there is no hard evidence. The great debate of the past two centuries. Many people have never even questioned the fact that god created everything. Why is it so uncomprehendable that as the bible brings out a being of a "super abundant dynamic energy" can't create everything? Why if the bible brings out how god knows the names of every star, which are trillions upon trillions of stars, and he can't create more then one type of kind of animal per species? With apes and humans, we have a genetic trend of you want to see it that way with just about every animal living. So I am supposing many people believe that every ape is just waiting to be someone? Sounds completely absurd doesnt it.

The big bang theory. Another theory that hasnt been proven. But can be proven otherwise. Look at our cell structures for example, in order for us to live there are complex structures even within each cell that work harmoniously together. An atom, amazing, made up of the neutron, electron and proton. And even then its divided up I believe something like a lepton, then further if I have this correct into quarks, qirks, qurks(?). Such a small piece of the whole world, gathered together into this basic element for life, by chance? Hardly, an intelligent creator has to behind it.

With the chance of this world coming into existence and let alone life is a huge chance in possibility. I believe the percent was something like 1 in 1trillion trillion... and that was conservative, for life to exist via a big bang theory. Again, though, why is it so far fetched that God created humans and everything? Why do humans constantly not want to give got the respect he rightly deserves as our maker? Why do humans do everything possible not to recognize god as the one who they should look to for everything.

First we have to establish this fact in 1 Timothy "3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. 3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" and in 1 Peter "1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." The bible was written physically by man but inspired by god.

Remember the scripture "it does not belong to man even to direct his step"? Hasn't this been the case. For centuries humans have tried and tried to rule each other. Governements like the United States or Governements like the USSR. Each one is continueally failing at what it is striving to do. Have governements brought about true world peace? Stopped hunger, poverty disease? They might be able to for a little time but it just starts up all over again. Death is a big one. Why is it that people don't want to die? Is it the fact that God's Original purpose for us to live on the earth forever in perfect harmony with each other, with him and with creation around us is still inherit in us? Could it be still that a purpose is something that is unchanged, even if the surrounding things around us change, the purpose still remains the same. God hasn't changed, we have. So why should god's purpose change for us?

Then who will bring about true peace and security, no more wars, crime, violence, poverty, sickness, death? Jehovah god will. It states it clearly in many places in the bible test. In one passage it says "and he(meaning god) will wipe every tear from their eyes and death will be no more, neither will there be morning nor outcry nor pain be anymore, the former things have passed away." Concerning the "lord's prayer" or the "our father prayer", where it says "let thy kingdom come, let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", what exactly does that entail? In another verse in the bible it says how god will setup his kingdom, how it will crush all other kingdoms, and his is one that will never be brought to ruin, he will ruin those ruining the earth.

But what about us, where do we fit in? What will happen to us? Well the bible is very clear on that fact. Let's look at Psalms chapter "37:9 For evil-doers shall be cut off;
But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land.
37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:
Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and he shall not be.
37:11 But the meek shall inherit the land,
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."
Notice how the meek ones will inherit the land or the earth and will be happy. The evil ones will be cut off or destroyed. Then again in chapter "37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land,
And dwell therein for ever." So the righteous ones on earth now will inherit the earth an dwell forever upon it after Jehovah god destroys the wicked. Amazing huh, we get to live on the earth, but only if we meet gods requirements for us. That is to be meek and righteous, obviously there is more but I won't go into it. Ecclesiastes also brings out a good point "1:4 One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever." So the earth will remain forever, never be destroyed. And here is his purpose for the earth in Isaiah "45:18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else."

Interesting eh? Well then who are going to heaven? Well the bible answers that too. In Revelation "5:9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, 5:10 and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth. " So they are bought out of the peoples of the earth. IN "14:1 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. " There are 144,000 that have Jehovah's name symbolically written on their foreheads. Now when you write on something, that denotes its yours right? Same thing. He has chosen those that are going to heaven already. And the meek and righteous will forever be on the earth, since it won't be destroyed and also it coincides with god's purpose for us.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Jehovah god gives us the priviledge of living forever on the earth if only we do of what he asks of us to do.

Well this is it for now. I did read most of what people had posted. It was very long. Wish I came here sooner.

[nexxo]

Sorry cbersamurai, I didn't make myself very clear in my last post.

What I meant was: interesting that no-one has picked up on the idea of religion as an expression of the innate human need for Attachment.

Regarding science: that is driven by an innate human need too: that of mastery over the environment. Let's go back to the axample of the crawling infant, staying within a certain "action radius" of its "secure base" (at that stage both emotionally and physically; later more emotionally) that is the parent. if the parent makes it feel safe, why does it venture out in the first place? Why not stay on mum's (or dad's) lap? Because the infant experiences two competing drives: one to stay close to the safety of its parent (attachment) and one to explore its environment, and by getting to know it, achieve control over it (mastery). This latter drive is essential to a human (or animal, for that matter) becoming an independent functional being. The more we get to know our world, the better we can control, manage and predict it, which has great survival benefits (and which is why we, the geeks of the primate family, are the most successful life form on earth today, even though we lack fangs, claws, strength etc.).

So there you are. It in our nature as human beings to form emotional bonds with someone who provides a source of comfort and support, and to explore our universe. Religion _and_ science are a product of what makes us human.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by nexxo
...

So there you are. It in our nature as human beings to form emotional bonds with someone who provides a source of comfort and support, and to explore our universe. Religion _and_ science are a product of what makes us human.

So, where does that leave those of us without the need to form a bond with a supernatural (meaning, outside of nature/reality) being? Non-human?:shrug:

Bob

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
So, where does that leave those of us without the need to form a bond with a supernatural (meaning, outside of nature/reality) being? Non-human?:shrug:

We must be freaks or attached to things instead

Personally, I'm attached to my ability to dream up things

[airspirit]

Here is an utterly masive quote that I think all the creationists need to read (taken from http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciaca...ins/ghetto.htm):

The ghetto. It has an ugly sound, doesn't it? Originally, I understand, it was merely the Jewish quarter of a city, and as such, not necessarily poorer or more crowded or a place of imprisonment. In other times and places, however, the word took on more sinister connotations. I suspect that most Americans first became aware of the term in World War II, when the ghettos of Eastern Europe were thrust into our consciousness as indeed places of inhuman imprisonment, overcrowding, and starvation. In the sixties, the word came to mean the impoverished inner city, with its mostly black population. As a child of the sixties, I can attest that many of us then never knew that the ghetto had ever been anything but the mean streets of winos, heroin, and welfare (and the Elvis Presley song of that name).

_____ B ut the term seems to have lost that usage. Nowadays we seem to have replaced it with inner city. Maybe that's more 'politically correct,' and in this case, it's probably justified, because ghetto always did sound more alien and imprisoning--like a place where they are (and we sure are glad we are not in there with them). But inner city sounds like it's just in the city, and all of us live or could live in the city. Ghetto was just too ugly a word, and it lent its ugliness to people who lived in the ghetto.

_____ G hetto could be used metaphorically, however (I can't help it, I'm an English teacher), as whatever imprisons, or traps, or limits the opportunities of a group of people. It's their 'baggage,' the 'monkey on their backs.' For instance, a good case could be made that there is a ghetto of people who can only speak 'non-standard' English. It's not a ghetto of buildings and streets, but it's probably more limiting, and hangs stereotypes more heavily around one's neck than any home address could.

_____ T he point has been well made by others that we are now developing new stratifications of society--not of ethnicity or color (not that those have disappeared)--but of technological haves and have-nots, or of the computer literate and illiterate: new kinds of ghettos.

_____ I would suggest that we already have a ghetto--of the scientifically illiterate. Some other ghettos were places of unwilling imprisonment--where the majority forced a minority to go and remain, as out of sight as possible. Many of the residents of this ghetto are self-imprisoned, and indeed work hard to draw and hold others in their impoverished, limited world (perhaps not unlike gang members who apparently relish the shoddy world of their "hood"). The gangsters in this "hood"; the pushers trying to expand their clientele; the pimps soliciting new "johns"; the tenement landlords who want vulnerable, frightened tenants, afraid to complain; the liquor store owners--are the creationists.

_____ I f a young person in an actual inner-city slum or ghetto is to 'find his way out,' both physically and socially, he or she must first realize that there is an outside and that it is attainable. Then he has to want out, and have the moral courage to ignore those who want to hold him in, or resent his wanting out. Here's how the creationists trap young people in their ghetto. And this is what the young person growing up in that ghetto has to overcome.

_____ S tep 1: There's really not much to it; it's simple but devastating: creationists teach that science itself is wrong--it's phony--it doesn't work--it's not the way to find out anything. The basic tenet of creationism is that if anything doesn't agree with their literalist interpretation of the Bible-- no matter what the evidence--then it has to be wrong (check the oath signed by ICR members if you doubt this). That means any time you find anything out, through science or any other method, you have to check the Bible to see if it's OK to believe what you just discovered. If your discovery ( no matter what the evidence) appears to contradict biblical literalism, then it's just not true, or you didn't look at it 'right,' or you're deluded by Satan, or something-- anything-- but admitting that some parts of the Bible might not be literally accurate about the physical world.

_____ S tep 2: Since science has found certain data and facts and laws and theories (however you define that) that don't jibe with fundamentalist ideas, and science stubbornly maintains that those findings are correct, then science is flat-out wrong about those things. Or so the creationists maintain. We have all seen them ridicule the most powerful and central ideas in science as 'silly,' 'illogical,' 'unprovable,' 'ludicrous,' and anything else they could find in the thesaurus. Now many creationists will evince a 'respect' for any scientific data that does not impinge upon their literalist worldview. But what is the message, delivered by those claiming God's authority, to young people? It says this, loud and clear: Scientists are IDIOTS . They would have to be, wouldn't they, to believe such 'ludicrous and illogical' things? And of course science itself--the scientific method--is hopelessly flawed. Following it obviously does not help us approach truth. Truth is whatever scripture says, regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.

_____ S tep 3: Given steps 1 and 2, why would any young person, brought up in this ghetto, ever want to leave it? He has been protected, as much as possible, from hearing what scientists have to say. When he has heard people he respects mention evolution at all, or anything else 'scientific,' it has often been with sneering ridicule. And to cap it off, he has probably been told explicitly that to believe in evolution, or an ancient universe, or to doubt the literal truth of Genesis, is to no longer be a Christian, to reject salvation, to become an atheist, and to burn in Hell forever. Then why would a youngster, possibly a potential Einstein, ever even consider leaving his creationist ghetto and going into the sciences? Why would he want to hang around with those pathetic fools? What limited fields of pure or even applied research could he go into, without quickly bumping up against data and theory that he just has to reject? To put it plainly, a young-earth creationist would have no future in modern research, even if he wanted it. It's a strange irony, however, that he might be hired by most public school systems in this country to teach 'science' to the next generations of potential ghetto denizens--without ever having been questioned on whether he accepts the central tenets of modern science, or the scientific method as the best way to find out about the physical world.

_____ S tep 4: The trap has been sprung. The ghetto has a new victim, the tenement a new tenant, the 'hood' a new 'gangsta,' and the pusher a new junkie. That new recruit to that ghetto of impoverished ideas will be convinced that his insular, anti-intellectual 'neighborhood' is the only 'cool' one. He will erect psychological defenses against those ugly ideas of evolution and the ugly people who believe them. He may proclaim them all to be 'educated idiots,' 'humanist liberal commies,' or Satan's dupes or willing henchmen. And of course, with a vested interest in his own ghetto, he may proselytize, seeking to recruit new residents as a psychological proof of the rightness of his beliefs. The pusher will recruit new junkies. He will practice acceptance rather than skepticism. He will come to view blind faith in the irrational and the rejection of 'worldly' science as a virtue. He will repeat meaningless platitudes and hyperbolic slogans as obvious truths.

_____ S tep 5: The street gang that recruits new members always runs a risk: it is drawing to itself, and maybe helping create, vicious sociopaths. Those are not stable, dependable allies, and are about as dangerous to each other as they are to the hated outsiders. Likewise, many of the recruits pulled into the creationist ghetto turn out not to be exactly what the recruiters had in mind. Trained to reject and mock intellectualism and rationality, and accept supernatural and miraculous events unquestioningly, a great many will go on to accept uncritically all sorts of things that the creationists did not have in mind when they recruited the newcomers. After all, if the world does work mainly by miracle and magic, then maybe there's more than the one kind of magic. Once the anti-scientific mindset is established, it's not hard at all to start believing in lucky charms, numerology, psychic powers, communication with the dead, UFO abductions, ad nauseum. I know personally a fundamentalist-creationist pastor who sees nothing whatever amiss in consulting "moon signs" before making plans and decisions. And we can recall a recent President who at least gave lip-service to creationism--while his wife arranged his appointments on the advice of an astrologer. As the gang may come to regret a new member, and the pusher wish he'd never seen some of his junkies, the creationists are often hoist on their own petard.

_____ A nd as a physical ghetto is a drain on the resources and moral climate of the whole society, the intellectual ghetto of creationism is a drain on us all. How much potential talent has been dissuaded from ever considering a scientific career? How much vital scientific knowledge and methodology has been kept from even non-creationist youngsters because of pressures from creationist parents, school board members, textbook censors, and classroom teachers? How much government funding has been denied to important research because it offended a creationist congressman or his creationist constituency? How far behind other nations have our children fallen in science scores? What percent of the slots in our post-graduate science programs are filled by citizens of other countries? How much will this ghetto ultimately cost us?

[airspirit]

I find it interesting that a Jehovah's Witness would bother to try to defend religion, though, since even a cursory examination of their own will leave them breathless due to the constant lies disseminated from their leadership. Did the world end in 1914 as C.T. Russell said? Or did it happen in 1925 or 1941 like Rutherford insisted it would? Or, did the world end in 1975 like Frederick Franz said? Oh, I'm sorry, it happened in ... oh wait, I'm still here. I don't suppose you're reading anymore, though, since you could be excommunicated for having independant thought and questioning your faith (entrapment by threat ... if you can't examine your beliefs on your own, you won't have a chance to question the crap you are fed and you'll continue to pour your time and income into their coffers ... but at least you'll be imprisoning your descendants in the same restrictive bullshit!).

Try looking at this page (if you have the cojones to question what you believe rather than blindly adhering to your current beliefs ... after all, if anything contradicts your godly beliefs you should be able to quickly refute it if it is untrue, right? Right?): http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciaca...ins/things.htm

My favorite are these tidbits:

1) human embryos have gills and tails
2) a rather common genetic defect causes people to be born with tails ... enlongated coccyges
3) appendixes
4) cancer's causes
5) goosebumps
6) wisdom teeth
7) little toes
8) dew claws
9) back pain
10) optical construction
11) your five fingers
12) hemoglobin
13) shared pseudogenes with other species
14) the plantaris muscle from our monkey days
15) your monkeylike incisor roots (feel your gums and look at a smiling chimp pic)

If we were intelligently created, God sure did a shitty job. In fact, ALL evidence points to evolution. Seriously, read the page and try to use LOGIC instead of BLIND IGNORANCE ... well, unless you belong to a cult like the mormons of JWs, who would be excommunicated for reading things like this without permission. You keep saying there is no proof to anything except what fundamentalist quacks spout (have you noticed how contradictory the quacks all are? even the Pope has accepted evolution because even the catholic church can't continue to deny the truth of it!). If you honestly believe that, then there couldn't be ANY proof on that page, right? I swear, this is beginning to feel like arguing with grandparents about technical issues on their computer and having them repeatedly pointing to the pathetic instruction manual for their Gateway when you know exactly what the problem is? Of course, the manual says to format and reload the emergency CD, but you know that all that is needed is a bit of registry repair? How do you explain to people that are unwilling to listen, learn, and understand that they are woefully wrong?

What is it about being a christian/buddhist/pagan/hindu/muslim/animist/etc that suddenly makes you such an expert in astronomy, history, archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, anthropology, philosophy, and geology that you can dismiss those that have devoted their life to the actual sciences (as opposed to believing whatever your particular quacks tell you to believe) as ignorant? My, aren't we just humble?

I could stay here and list all the ways that the creationist myths are wrong, but it would be like beating on deformed puppies: it would be too easy, and there would be no satisfaction in causing pain to things that can't understand why they're hurting. Besides, I'm tired of people quoting things that MANKIND wrote hundreds and thousands of years ago as scientific proof. Please ... the bible also says that rain comes through doors in the sky/firmament, the earth is flat and supported by four pillars, that there is a mountian that allows you to see every nation on earth, God lies while the devil tells the truth (read the first couple chapters of Genesis ... who lies to Eve, and who tells the truth?), men have less ribs then women (have you counted them recently? fuggin' duh!), and assorted other nonsense. Oh, and the Jews were also polytheistic as well, since through the beginning of Genesis they referred to the gods (elohim is plural) until they focused in on one particular god named yahweh (jehovah is a butchering of the jewish spelling) who decided to do his own little creation project.

Stop quoting a book filled with self contradictions, impossiblilities, wishful thinking, and lies interspersed with history as fact, because it is really getting pathetic. I might as well start quoting from a holy book of my own about how Iluvatar created the world and Melkor tried to destroy it, and refute any evidence that there have never been elves, dwarves, orcs, or assorted other Tolkien critters because my faith is all the proof I need. The sad reality would be this: you have no more proof than I that either of us are correct, since both are based on works written by man after the fact, and neither is able to be proven.

God, my puppy whacking club is getting pretty worn ... I better stop.

[nexxo]

So, where does that leave those of us without the need to form a bond with a supernatural (meaning, outside of nature/reality) being? Non-human?

No, Bob. You, like me and many others, have simply formed meaningful attachments with someone else, like friends, lovers, and offspring etc. Perhaps you, like many people, feel secure enough as an adult not to need a deity as a "secure base". I'm not saying attachment necessarily expresses itself in religious faith, I'm just saying religious faith is one of the possible products of attachment.

[cristoff]

All I can say is wow. I have really never met a person that is so defiant in actually believing that there is a creator.

But a couple of things. Even if by your thinking there was evolution, how did the first parts of this start? Where did that basic structures for life come about? Just snap and oh... and we all just started as a one cell organizm... interesting... Very interesting. We are all basically and wonderfully made. It is so interesting how people try their hardest to deny that god is real. It fascinates me that most of the people that study biology, or any other study of natural life or anything naturally, and I mean really study, still come to the same realization, everything was created by an intelligent human being. The same thing you can figure out for yourself, without anyone telling you, when you read from the bible, you dont have to go through years and years of study to figure it out.

Yes there have been mistakes in when Armegeddon will take place. As humans we are imperfect. And as people trying to serve god, you must learn not to speculate on anything for the future that isnt in the bible becuase you will be wrong. That has happened in the past. But have learned not to do that now or in the future.

Can you do anything perfectly? I doubt. Doubt you ever will. Can you deny the fact that if you are about to die that you will not want to keep living? Now really think about this one. Why do you feel that way?

"I don't suppose you're reading anymore, though, since you could be excommunicated for having independant thought and questioning your faith (entrapment by threat ... if you can't examine your beliefs on your own, you won't have a chance to question the crap you are fed and you'll continue to pour your time and income into their coffers ... but at least you'll be imprisoning your descendants in the same restrictive bullshit!)." Actually, let's say your daughter was doing something wrong. Perhaps she started doing drugs, but she is of age to be out of the house. You try to help her for what she is doing wrong, you try to give her chances. Also you have other children too, those who are younger or even older, and you can see her influence upon them becuase of her being around. So you have to let her live on her own. You still love her and want to help her. She needs to know that you do not approve of what she is doing, and do not support her in it. By letting her live at home, continually disobeying, do you think she will learn? IN the same way, loving counsel is given to erring ones. That counsel comes from the bible. This person that might do wrong is still loved by everyone, yet why would you let someone communicate with you if they are a bad influence. Besides how is that person going to learn what they are doing is wrong if you continue to associate with them, only making it to them feel that you are supporting them? Thats the reason. "A little leaven ferments the whole loaf" or as many people know this one "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch"

Jehovah GOD can do anything he wants to. If he wants to do something, it will happen. It amazes me that you had the "conjones" to say that god did a s****y job of creating us. Wow. You have as much disrespect for Jehovah as Satan does. There's a difference between you and the writers of the bible. You are not inspired. You do not have god's holy spirit. No matter what you say, your actions and life deny that fact. Just as time, it has not start, stop, nor end. We accept it because we can't prove it wrong. Just as with god, he has been there from the beginning. Even before time.

Oh and a little information on god's name. The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., page 74, Dr. M. Reisel said that the "vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeHuÃ*H or YaHuÃ*H." Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the "evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that Jahwéh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton . . . The Name itself was probably JAHÔH."—Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Periodical for Old Testament Knowledge), 1936, Volume 54, page 269. The French Revised Segond Version, page 9, the following comment is made: "The pronunciation Yahvé used in some recent translations is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes into account personal names that include the divine name, such as the Hebrew name of the prophet Elijah (Eliyahou) the pronunciation might just as well be Yaho or Yahou." A German Bible scholar Teller told of some different pronunciations of God's name he had read: "Diodorus from Sicily, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Saint Jerome and Origenes wrote Jao; the Samaritans, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Jahe, or Jave; Ludwig Cappel reads Javoh; Drusius, Jahve; Hottinger, Jehva; Mercerus, Jehovah; Castellio, Jovah; and le Clerc, Jawoh, or Javoh." Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God's name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. The important thing is to use God's name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language.

Oh and about Elohim. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary (Volume 1, page 856) describes the difference between "God" (Elohim) and "Jehovah," stating: "[Jehovah] is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme."

Also those that believe in god should be encouraged all the time to find out the matters and the facts for their own in the bible. Search for truth for yourself by doing research.

Why isnt it logical for god to make us and everything. Why is the easiest answer the hardest for people to take as being the truth?

I wont change your mind. I know that. You have something to look forward to if you choose to. But obviously you don't choose to. I hope your life is a good one, it'll be short, but hopefully good. I bid you peace. I will not argue with you, that is not my intent. It is hard for you to even answer my questions, isnt it. Sorry if they strike you in a certain way. My intent is the sole purpose of being informative on wrongness, although not mine.

[airspirit]

Those people you quoted are specialists in a specific religion, not scientists.

In evolutionary theory, nobody ever said that a cell just magically appeared. That is a myth created by closed-minded creationists. If you look at the cell, it is comprised of multiple different types of structures. These structures are comprised of multiple organic chemicals ... organic chemicals that can be created from inorganic chemical reactions. It is not hard to imagine that starting from a soup of inorganic/organic chemicals that there is a possibility that a simple structure was created that had the ability to replicate itself. Viruses, after all, aren't considered living creatures, but can replicate themselves quite easily. The current belief is that through consumption certain early and simple cells (consisting of little more than a nucleus and a cell wall ... DNA in it's current form isn't needed, neither any other modern structures) consumed and absorbed other wildly different structures that are now found today in our cells. There is no supposition here, and there is nothing that could prove that something like this couldn't take place ... in fact, statistically speaking, it is very likely to take place. Consider that if you shuffle a deck and remove the top 26 cards, it leaves you with a 1.99^e41 chance that you would get that specific ordering of cards. Isn't it possible that in the multitude of galaxies that we can see (and if light actually moves at its measured speed proves the age of the universe at over 10 billion years ... not the 6000 years or whateverthefsck you believe through mythological record) that on one planet there would be the proper combination of events to allow simple life to be created? On that note, since we can watch simple cells evolve quite rapidly today, isn't it logical that they might have back then? Similarly, isn't it interesting that, for example, a structure such as the eye can be seen from creature to creature in varying states of evolution, from a few light sensitive cells to the eyes of a hawk to the non-backwards eye of a squid (whose eye has the correction to the refraction error in the human eye, but God must have been drunk then, right?)? Look: blindly believe in whatever nonsense and fairy tales you want. I don't care. As the above essay so aptly put, though, it is you that is trapped in the ghetto of ignorance, not me.

Oh: I don't give a damn what your "inspired" dictionary says. Elohim is a plural word in the Hebrew language. You can't change that. Sorry. Ding-ding, an apologists creed gets shown to be an inaccurate piece of crap. Read that page I gave you the link to for a further explanation. Once upon a time I was a bible scholar and worked with people on the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew translations of ancient texts including the bible and other apocryphal works. The discussions at that company were pretty interesting since we had a number of pHD linguists that couldn't believe what they were reading.

[airspirit]

It is funny that because you don't understand what the hell you're talking about when it comes to science and just blindly believing what other uneducated dimwits tell you that you have the nerve to label the science as false. It is even more fascinating that since you have ABSOLUTELY NO FSCKING CLUE and ABSOLUTELY NO FSCKING RESEARCH to back up the drivel that you spit and share to the similarly clueless and brainwashed masses that you continue to spout indefensible arguments to back up your claim.

Without scientific proof of your arguments, I don't want to hear them because they are WORTHLESS. Quoting someone who has no scientific proof of their arguments is WORTHLESS. Quoting the indefensible arguments of the members of a parasitic cult is worse that WORTHLESS, it is OFFENSIVE.

Didn't the bible in Revelations say that it is impossible to guess the date of the second coming? Wouldn't that make your church's president a fraud? And didn't it also say that any prophet that lies once is a false prophet and servent of satan (Isaiah, I think)? And you pay money to these charlatans?

I'm done arguing with the ignorant. I'll check back here in the pointless hope that any creationist can scientifically back up their claims. I am 100% certain that not one piece of evidence of ANY SORT will appear here. All you will see is a wasteland of people quoting mythology texts and supposedly inspired babblings of conmen that have no basis in fact outside of the heads of the hopelessly deluded.

I THROW THIS CHALLENGE TO YOU ALL: GIVE ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. ONE IS ALL I ASK FOR! I CAN DO THAT ... CAN YOU? IF YOU CAN'T (A CERTAINTY), THEN ISN'T IT TIME YOU START TO QUESTION THE LINE YOU'RE BEING FED?

[jaydee]

I don't think anyone will ever come to a conclusion on this issue. I am not religous. it will take God him/her/it self to tap me on the shoulder and say "BOOO" I exist. I think Religion has caused more harm then good because of wars and religous differences caused many deaths. I also think morality comes from upbringing and not religion, although religon can be a tool used for teaching morality, but it isn't needed to.