Cat Stevens

[Denyer]

Its considered the "in" thing now to adopt the belief that homosexuals are akin to a race of people.

That's an anology and, as such, imprecise. "Genetic predisposition" is possibly the phrase you're looking for. I certainly fail to see how sexuality can be reduced to an either/or of nature and nurture.

Homosexual activity occurs in other mammalian species. We're nothing special in that regard.

If one subscribes to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, then the trait of homosexuality would have long ago been weeded out of the gene pool

Fallacy. One would expect similar of the appendix and genes for vestigial tails. It isn't "bred out" because it doesn't interfere with reproduction to the point of ruling it out—you think gay men throughout history haven't reproduced?

Also, it's a question of predisposition—heterosexual and homosexual are just (inaccurate and rather redundant) labels. They're a modern contrivance.

The problem is that affection from the male sex upon another male is looked upon as a weakness.

It isn't 'the' problem. It's certainly a problem—and I think our generation has fewer hang-ups about this than those previous (our grandparents' generation, following on from Victorian cultural propensities, tended not to make demonstrative public displays of affection of any form. That's been passed down through our parents' generation, and latterly through the tendency of kids to adopt a pack instinct in groups and ostracise any perceived difference.)

This particular person, despite his love of women, because he wanted to hug another guy, began to call himself bisexual.

Seems a bit dumb. It'd make more sense to use the term bisexual because we're all bisexual. Sexuality isn't a matter of pigeonholes.

I need hard evidence that it is something more than a behavior

Think what you like on the subject; as long as you aren't actively seeking to deny civil rights or form lynch mobs, opinions are irrelevant. Tolerance is something very different to acceptance. There are many things I don't personally agree with, but that doesn't equal a desire to legislate against them.

[Denyer]

It is a fact that the dark arts exist.

It is? If the human brain were simple enough for us to fully comprehend it, we'd be too simple to do so.

Even those who have participated in Ouiji boards sessions by themselves will eventually come to understand that, whether you aspouse to believe in a God or not, there is something "Unseen" that exists,

You think? The existence of things we don't understand neither supports nor attacks the notion of guided creation.

If it is possible that they exist,

Anything is possible. It's possible you have a platypus somewhere in your family tree—it is, however, unlikely. Magnetism does not prove a divine being. Gravity does not prove a divine being. There being more complicated forces we don't understand does not prove a divine being.

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? —you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

[Blacksword]

Anyhow getting back to the subject of the thread. I can't see any present reason for this response to Cat Stevens. Yes back in the 80's when he was a new convert to Islam he made some statements supporting the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, which he later recanted and appologised for. The man writes children's music for heaven's sake and all of his interviews in recent years have been really positive. If anything he seems like a spokesperson for positive Islam in the West. I'll have to go read some articles to see what line of garbage the right-wing is trying to sell... though I loathe having to wade through the BS.

Denyer: by your rationale it appears to me that you would support euthanising infants as they are not persons by your definition. AmI right in assuming this?

Besty: As I've said before it is not the criticism of religous belief by atheists and agnostics that is objectionable. Rather it is the insensitive agressive and derogatory way in which it is often carried out. I disagree with many things and find them to be flawed (to varying degrees) but I don't go out of the way to criticise them to satisfy my own sense of fitness. If the belief system by it's basic principles does not advocate the harming of others I don't go out of my way to criticise it. If it is the subject of discussion yes I will criticise but I do not interject derissve remarks into everyday conversation. I constantly see many atheists and agnostics go out of their way to criticise religious belief in a way they would not with secular creeds, or other behaviours they disagree with. This by my reading shows emotion not reason. Stepping on the emotions of others to satisfy your own emotional needs is the height of barbarism. I am not accusing you of this Besty as you heartily criticise everthing you disagree with at all times and thus are fair to everyone in your cantankerous way. However a great many people are not as even handed in their criticism as you are.

[Denyer]

Denyer: by your rationale it appears to me that you would support euthanising infants as they are not persons by your definition. AmI right in assuming this?

I'd consider it far more wasteful to kill a child already born but not fully formed than to kill a feotus neither born nor formed—and I think, in a civilised resource-rich society, the question of whether that kid should be supported by the wider community is a non-question.

In a disaster situation, I'd save older children who were unable to save themselves first (or those adults upon whom the safety of the entire group depended on.) Assuming I was thinking rationally, which isn't exactly something which can be taken for granted in burning buildings, etc.

[Best First]

Stepping on the emotions of others to satisfy your own emotional needs is the height of barbarism.

*chops blackswords head off.

you sure 'bout that?

a more refined response will follow this commerical break...

[Denyer]

I constantly see many atheists and agnostics go out of their way to criticise religious belief in a way they would not with secular creeds, or other behaviours they disagree with. This by my reading shows emotion not reason.

Secular creeds refrain from claiming intangible support for validation.

Unfortunately many religious arguments run to "God is loving except to those we disagree with and want an excuse to persecute or kill."

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

Bush - Cheney '04

"We are winning and you are not"



To be honest, even if you dont like bush, I encourage you to step back and take a loot at Kerry. You really might not be pleased with what you see.

*edit*

And we all know Cat Stevens is a terrorist!

[Denyer]

To be honest, even if you dont like bush, I encourage you to step back and take a loot at Kerry. You really might not be pleased with what you see.

A man who prefers to see things regulated at the discretion of states rather than dictated from a federal level? A man who isn't backing a constitutional amendment to enforce discrimination?

He's the lesser of two evils. Make no mistake, though, the two-party system is deeply flawed. Electoral college voting hasn't really changed since Tsarist Russia a century ago—at the least UK parties are beginning to mutter that the proportional representation systems in use in parts of Europe may be a step out of the dark ages.

[Señior's Covenant]

To be honest, even if you dont like bush, I encourage you to step back and take a loot at Kerry. You really might not be pleased with what you see.

I'm never pleased with presidential candidates. That's why I don't vote for president. Due to that I always have these teens (and some older folks on occasion) valiantly inform me that to not vote is to not have my voice heard, I'm not using my vote, as such I have no right to say anything against the government, and that if there is a particular candidate I don't like, simply vote for another I "don't like" less. I then happily inform them that I am using my vote by not submitting it toward any two-faced politician (and they all are), I refuse to simply "choose the lesser evil" (which is all US Elections are now), am indeed voicing my opinions by refusing to comply with this sad routine, and by all rights of my action I have every right to say what I desire in regards to the government for a variety of reasons which is but not limited to the big one: I did not participate in the putting of any man into governing office but you who voted did therefore you have no right to bitch about your choice later when you realize people like me were correct. A buddy of mine, who believes The W to be Satan given form (jokingly of course, he's not much of a religious man), tried to get me to vote Kerry or anyone else just so Bush wouldn't be president again. As much as I wish the Simian Leader Bush would just curl up and die, I again will not submit to this pathetic affair.

Btw, want to know who killed Kennedy?

[Ultimate Weapon]

Clearly the limo driver shot Jack in the head. Also Ruby killed the escaping hijackers as the parachuted out of the 9/11 airplanes.

You cannot explain God! with science! Thusly Science is defined as: A mode of generating, testing, and verifying and supporting the accuracy of the statements of our observations of events within the realm of human experience!

God is not an event!

[Best First]

I personally feel that homosexuality is a behavior, not something innately inherent in a person.

i assume therefore you do not consider yourself to be inherently straight?

Its considered the "in" thing now to adopt the belief that homosexuals are akin to a race of people. They are made that way, and as such, they are due the same consideration as, say, the African American race. I feel it is a choice, like abortion, a behavior that is adopted, not predetermined. And therefore, like any subjective belief or behavior, open to criticism and personal opinion.

so then what say, would be your justification for being derogatroy with regard to consenting adults adopting a 'behaviour' in their private life that concievenly hurts no one, certainly no more than the behaviour of hetrosexual people?

The problem is that affection from the male sex upon another male is looked upon as a weakness.

only by insecure dickheads.

I need hard evidence that it is something more than a behavior, that the individual is bound to it because he or she has no choice, to make me think otherwise.

and then you will stop the abuse? Despite the fact you want people who critise your adoption of a creed that has a tangiable impact on the world to mind their own business? I see.

Interestingly i did a google on this topic and all the top hits are sites desperate to prove that homosexuality is not genetic because that justifies their hate mongering.

Now, on the other hand...

As I've said before it is not the criticism of religous belief by atheists and agnostics that is objectionable. Rather it is the insensitive agressive and derogatory way in which it is often carried out.

I think what you may fail to comprehend/apprecaite is the strength of belief that many people hold that religion has had and continues to have a hugely devisive and negative effect on humanity, essentially driving us in the wrong direction on the back of something that is entirely unsubstaniated. If you did believe this you would find yourself compelled to mention it a lot.

I disagree with many things and find them to be flawed (to varying degrees) but I don't go out of the way to criticise them to satisfy my own sense of fitness.

but as you have already stated to varying degrees - if you believed these things to be fundamentally detrimental to humanity maybe you would find yourself being a bit more vocal

I constantly see many atheists and agnostics go out of their way to criticise religious belief in a way they would not with secular creeds, or other behaviours they disagree with.

Define 'out of their way', most people are raised with religion to some extent, to reject it takes concerted thought as you are essentially stepping off a path that those around it are continuing on. Its not neccessarily 'going out of their way', its more, i would say, ingrained and intuitive in some people. You're isolation of this with regard to athiests is also a bit blinkered IMO, i know and see a lot of people who are similar about politics. And, as an aside, there are equally people whose reason for living is shoving their faith in peoples faces, and whilst annoying, i would say that that course of action actually makes more sense than believeing that you have discovered the devine truth and keeping it to yourself.

This by my reading shows emotion not reason. Stepping on the emotions of others to satisfy your own emotional needs is the height of barbarism.

So you have decided that they are going out of their way, and you have decided that this is emotional not reason based and therefore you have defined them as barbaric. compelling.

I would say rejecting logic and reason for the sake of myths was pretty barbaric, in the modern sense of the word.

I am not accusing you of this Besty as you heartily criticise everthing you disagree with at all times and thus are fair to everyone in your cantankerous way.

call that a beard?

However a great many people are not as even handed in their criticism as you are.

I'm sure that is true, and i can see that its not an audience friendly tactic, however i remain of the opinion that ripping on religion (as opposed to the religious) is in no tangible way different to ripping on a political ideology and therefore as long as it remains in certain boundries i'm more than willing to tolerate it.

Altho i should probably discuss it more, because as a recruitment stratagy it sucks.

[Señior's Covenant]

Clearly the limo driver shot John in the head.

Damnit! Who told!?!?

I was talking about John btw.

[Denyer]

God is not an event!

An epiphany is an event—a concept suddenly crystalising in the mind.

Stepping on the emotions of others to satisfy your own emotional needs is the height of barbarism.

Wishing an end to hate justified by invisible support is satisfying my own emotional needs?

Tick me down as barbaric. And heathen, infidel and the other boxes whilst you're at it. It'll save time.

[Commander Shockwav]

You think? The existence of things we don't understand neither supports nor attacks the notion of guided creation.

Its not the idea of "guided creation" that makes the belief in a supreme deity hard to accept. Its the fact that we cannot see the deity that makes people so quick to reject it.

[Guest]

You think? The existence of things we don't understand neither supports nor attacks the notion of guided creation.

Its not the idea of "guided creation" that makes the belief in a supreme deity hard to accept. Its the fact that we cannot see the deity that makes people so quick to reject it.

Occam's razor, eh?

[Dead Head]

Cat Stevens. Yes back in the 80's when he was a new convert to Islam he made some statements supporting the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, which he later recanted and apologised for.

I never heard/read a direct recanting and apology from Mr. Islam. Care to provide a URL to this, please? I'm pretty sure he never did, but am happy to be shown to be wrong.

[Best First]

You think? The existence of things we don't understand neither supports nor attacks the notion of guided creation.

Its not the idea of "guided creation" that makes the belief in a supreme deity hard to accept. Its the fact that we cannot see the deity that makes people so quick to reject it.

that and its utter lack of rational basis...

[Ultimate Weapon]

God is not an event!

An epiphany is an event—a concept suddenly crystalising in the mind.

Then clearly God as a concept is a byproduct of genetic engineering. Within the realm of human experience. Without the mind there is no god according to the definition of science.

BTW John = Jack Kennedy. That is what they used to call him.

[Denyer]

Its not the idea of "guided creation" that makes the belief in a supreme deity hard to accept. Its the fact that we cannot see the deity that makes people so quick to reject it.

No, it's the total lack of empirical evidence—gravity has demonstrable properties. Magnetism has demonstrable properties. A lack of visibility isn't an issue. Religion has "my god works in mysterious ways, now shut up and stop asking questions" as a coverall.

clearly God as a concept is a byproduct of genetic engineering. Within the realm of human experience. Without the mind there is no god according to the definition of science.

Not strictly true—science is an investigative endeavour, not the totality of that which is investigated.

[Señior's Covenant]

BTW John = Jack Kennedy. That is what they used to call him.

Really, I never knew. I wonder why that is? (The calling of "John" "Jack", not me not knowing previously.)

It's true, you do learn something n..... ...I can't finish that statement. It's far too 2nd Grader.

[Ultimate Weapon]

clearly God as a concept is a byproduct of genetic engineering. Within the realm of human experience. Without the mind there is no god according to the definition of science.

Not strictly true—science is an investigative endeavour, not the totality of that which is investigated.

According to the definition it must take place with the realm of human experience. For one science cannot confirm nor deny the existence of alligator souls. On the other hand many people have came back from a flatline after being clinically dead. The concept of which cannot be explained by modern health experts.

[Redstreak]

Wow. I'm not amazed so much that this diverted like it did, but the speed of which has gotta be a new record for us. Someone should really retitle this thread, cuz it's not about Cat Stevens anymore.

I'm being followed by a big Muslim, big Muslim, big Muslim...

[Denyer]

For one science cannot confirm nor deny the existence of alligator souls.

You can't prove a negative.

On the other hand many people have came back from a flatline after being clinically dead. The concept of which cannot be explained by modern health experts.

Pulmonary arrest doesn't equate with clinical death unless you choose to define them in such a manner.

[Ultimate Weapon]

On the other hand many people have came back from a flatline after being clinically dead. The concept of which cannot be explained by modern health experts.

Pulmonary arrest doesn't equate with clinical death unless you choose to define them in such a manner.

Your brain has roughly 10 seconds to live without the steady supply of oxygen, carried in by blood, that is pumped into it from the heart. But I guess you can create your own definition.

[Denyer]

Your brain has roughly 10 seconds to live without the steady supply of oxygen, carried in by blood

It's around four to six minutes, actually—however, anything which arrests the overproduction of free radicals (caused by lack of oxygen and glucose) is capable of both extending this duration and reducing the resultant damage.

[Dead Head]

Why the hell should believers like me prove to you whether God exist?

Because God/religion is used to justify people's actions, circumstances, irrationally elevated 'chosen' status, and other's worthiness (or lack thereof).

I see. And politics, money, lineage, and the such are never used to further ones ends? Give me a break. If its the use of religion that you have a problem with, congratulations, you're not alone. To blame religion in and of itself as a propagator of all that is wrong with the world is not only shortsighted, its ridiculous. I guess everyone needs a scapegoat. Yours must be religion.

We were not addressing the merits/demerits of politics, money, lineage. These are more strawmen you've introduced that you are attacking. I was solely answering your question "Why the hell...believers...God" directly, and never once claimed that religion has the solitary stranglehold on being a problem. You are a deceiver when you suggest that I have blamed "religion in and of itself as a propagator of ALL that is wrong". I did not assign religion as the cause of ALL sh1t that happens, and you are putting these words into my mouth. Grow up with that false arguing tactic. And the sharp tone of your "everyone needs a scapegoat - yours must be religion" isn't appreciated. That, and the fact that you're wrong on that point. And don't presume what are/what are not my 'scapegoats', if any.

Do you believe in radio waves? Why, you don't see them and neither do I? Therefore, they do not exist, according to your logic.

No, that's a knackered argument. The phenomenon of "radio waves" are widespread and observable (oscilloscope) like in my radio alarm clock and the microwave I use to cook my dinner with. Don't tell me you've already invented the godoscope, have you?

There are things you have never seen in your life of which would stake your mothers life on that they exist. Your heart. Your brain. Air. Yet you accept their existence. Why?

Because they are verifiable in a multitude of ways and conditions, by multiple sources. Because there is overwhelming evidence, primary, secondary, and tertiary. Not only that, but it's not just a chinese whisper I heard from my cousin when I was seven, but because many objective people, with stringent and thorough course of action, sought, and indeed continue to seek to quantify, clarify and distinguish these things as fact.

And yet, the creation of the world and the universe and the order to which it is subservient cannot suffice as evidence for you as a possibility?

No, it cannot suffice as 'evidence'. As distinct from 'God(s)' actually existing or not. You're completely lacking any, any, any specific factual ties neccessary to form even a shred of evidence that Lord Holyboss is 'floatin' up there on a cloud', so to speak.

The fact that your alarm clocks goes off in the morning and the fact that you can tune into your favorite rock station are proof enough to you that radiowaves exist because some scientists got into a lab with some physicists and proved it. You take their word for it. In other words, you put your trust in human achievement, in human explanation. Tell me then. Is it human achievement that your heart has been beating for years on end without you ever thinking about it, without a single concious thought? No, its not.

Uhhhhhh, great. I agree - it is not human achievement. (Although this 'human achievement' is kind of funny language. I could have been pedantic and said that, yes, the human body has successfully cycled a heartbeat, hence something has been achieved. Etc.). So yes, it isn't a concious achievement when our hearts beat. Super. Smashing. Great.

The achievement of what then? Science, I guess you would say. Science is nothing but a means to an end. It is the process by which all things happen. Yet, with any process in life, a catalyst is necessary. What is the catalyst in your theory?

Don't guess what I would say. The vast unfathomable waters of nature, I say.
"Religion is nothing but a means to an end." Wonderful.
I never put forth that all answers are available. Far, far from it in certain fields of study. So, expand upon your theory please, and tell what your catalyst is.

Science is one of the greatest arguments for the existence of a God. Have you studied embryology? Anatomy and physiology? As a physician myself, and therefore one who lives his life according to principles of logic and has studied the sciences, there can be no other conclusion except that "God" exists.

An argument yes, but a useless 'argument' that still does not have a shred of fact to show Mister God over there really exists. There can be no other conclusion, eh? How's about this: We live, we die, no more.

Too simplistic. If you are uninformed, let me be the first to tell you that life is not simplistic by any means. And no matter how much we know, there will always be a megafold more we don't.

Thanks for setting me straight on life's complexity. And there was me kept in the dark, until you proverbially took this uninformed ignoramous' hand and led me towards the light.

Once again, you are willing to so easily accept the words of others. You believe all the laws of physics because someone taught you of them. Why not get into a lab yourself and prove it? Because you can't. You are limited in your knowledge of those things, and so you defer to other, more knowledgeable persons.

"to so easily accept the words of others"? I think not, pal. That's a dangerous assumption to make of another person (which you seem to be prone to doing). I cast my cynical net further than just religion. Pretty much all encompassing, if you must know. 'Science' doesn't get to go home from school without having to do homework either. It has to write it's essays in french for Monday mornings too, just like 'Religion' does.

But even the most wise of men once upon a time thought the world flat. Had you lived then, you would have believed the same, not based on reason or logic or science. No, you would have believed it because you were told that was the case. Your atheistic belief is as poorly founded by your own way of looking at things as mine would be.

Marvellous stuff, except for the fact that we don't live back then, and we have the very great advancement of evidence, discovery, and knowledge that history presents us with now. (And even going back to ye olden times for a minute, there's a much better than average chance I wouldn't have accepted the flat earth theory, given my questioning personality.) Also, my postion is quite more agnostic, if you must know. And my current solid position on this God/religion issue came over many, many years of long periods of serious introspection on the matter, on observances on the world at large, and small, and from questioning others on the matter, from books, and of course from the web. So I imagine the Darke Ages Me would have similarly dissected Ye Holye Bible and have questioned Ye Blessed Friar. They'd try and burn me at the stake.

I believe in God not to have an imaginary friend. Whether He is a friend to me or not does not change the reality that a supreme being exists, IMO.

Reality? Delusion. And as long as this delusion of religion afflicts humanity's minds, we'll continue to have extra big reasons to tear proverbial chunks out of each other in the name of doing "God's will".

Yeah, thats what everyone said when Copernicus was hung for saying the sun was the center of the galaxy and not this world, that was delusion too. Mankind was of a different opinion, so they killed the man, thinking him delusional. Someday, as Copernicus was proven correct, so shall those who do in fact believe in God. It is just a matter of time.

Eh? Copernicus was hung? Anyway, I love the juxtaposition of a scientist of the skies being used by you to argue your religious guff. "Just a matter of time" makes a great argument - just delay the presentation of any evidence to some unspecific time in the future. Niiiice. I must write the one into my PDA.

There is no onus whatsoever on believers in a supreme being to prove to those who don't that He exists. Why should it be? In this world, its every man for himself.

You know when you go to the store to buy something and end up forgetting the one thing you meant to buy? That's the mischief of those darn pesky three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars again. It's not crazy talk. It's not your God you should believe in - believe in those pesky purple aliens instead. They exist and they work in mysterious ways. Honest.

Guess what? It is entirely possible that pesky three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars do in fact exist. Just because none of seen it does not disprove it. Thats my point entirely.

Right, your point is that something utterly and totally ridiculous and without base is something to give credence to. Again, going back to the core, it is now firmly up to you (and your fellow purple alien believers, naturally. Hee hee) to overwhelmingly provide the burden of proof that the three-headed critters exist and are responsible for the pesky goings on. Hoo-ha!

[Pissin' Poonani]

I believe this may allow us some insight into the 'does God exist' debate:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/index.html

[Commander Shockwav]

Marvellous stuff, except for the fact that we don't live back then, and we have the very great advancement of evidence, discovery, and knowledge that history presents us with now. (And even going back to ye olden times for a minute, there's a much better than average chance I wouldn't have accepted the flat earth theory, given my questioning personality.) Also, my postion is quite more agnostic, if you must know. And my current solid position on this God/religion issue came over many, many years of long periods of serious introspection on the matter, on observances on the world at large, and small, and from questioning others on the matter, from books, and of course from the web. So I imagine the Darke Ages Me would have similarly dissected Ye Holye Bible and have questioned Ye Blessed Friar. They'd try and burn me at the stake.

Eh? Copernicus was hung? Anyway, I love the juxtaposition of a scientist of the skies being used by you to argue your religious guff. "Just a matter of time" makes a great argument - just delay the presentation of any evidence to some unspecific time in the future. Niiiice. I must write the one into my PDA.

Right, your point is that something utterly and totally ridiculous and without base is something to give credence to. Again, going back to the core, it is now firmly up to you (and your fellow purple alien believers, naturally. Hee hee) to overwhelmingly provide the burden of proof that the three-headed critters exist and are responsible for the pesky goings on. Hoo-ha!

I wish I knew how to do that thing where you can quote part of someone's post, then respond, then quote that person's post again, etc., but I'm not familiar with that function, so I'll be brief in my response.

The fact that we know more now about the sciences then we did then, in the Dark Ages as they were called, does not enlighten us to the enormous degree that you might feel it does. Those were the Dark Ages, these are the Less Dark Ages. We, as a race, have uncovered hardly a drop in the ocean of knowledge of what the reality of life really is. As I stated before, just study a single science, any science, for a year. You say you have read this and that. Go purchase an embryology book and read it cover to cover, study it, and then come and tell me that we have advanced from the Dark Ages into the Age of Light. In the grand scheme of science, we are as much in the dark now as we were then. Instead of understanding .000000000000001% of what there is to know, we understand .00000000000000002%. Don't exaggerate how far we have advanced in the realm of science. The mysteries of the universe will remain as such..mysteries til the end of time, because that is the degree of complexity by which this universe functions.

I too reached a stage in my life where introspection became a driving force. I think everyone reaches that stage at some point, regardless of the level of intellect. Having grown up with an inquistive nature and been for the most part a natural 'introspector" from the age of around four, these kinds of questions occured to me often. As a child, if you are observant enough, one can grasp much of the reality of life that as an adult, one would overlook. Then, having gone through premed, then medical school, it did nothing but solidify my feeling that a supreme being must exist. It was the shear miraculous nature of how the sciences work, how the laws of nature are so structured, and how exact and precise these sciences must be in order for the universe to function, and for us to survive, not for a day, but for millions of years of recorded time.

Had nothing else in this world existed, the human brain by itself would be enough to convince me of a supreme deity's existence. The brain is nothing more than water and protoplasm. Look at it, dissect it on a table, as I have, and it is nothing more to the eye than a mass of jello, only much less colorful. And yet, housed in this 'water world' are the keys to not only command of all bodily functions, but thoughts, and more amazingly, memories from years past. There is no little man in ones head video recording your life. Instead, it is a structed firing of electrical impules, in the most intricate of patterns, that creates what we call "memories".

Science is the argument I offer you for God's existence. Yes, amongst the mysteries of science, there is an explanation for each step, in all likelihood. Yet, the thought of a supreme being comes on most strongly when one steps back from the canvas, and captures the big picture. It is at that moment where I say "there must be a God", not from the details of each step, many of which will no doubt someday be understood by mankind, but from the overall order that makes up the scientific world.

Again, the onus is not on others to convince you of God's existence. Had I felt my personal existence depended on convincing you as such, I would be writing to you on this message board til the moment death paid me a visit. Unfortunately, some see this as a vital part of their religious beliefs. The 'convincing' of God's existence should not, in fact cannot, be the goal of another person.

It comes from further introspection and study. As I have said, read a book of embryology from cover to cover. Study it. And when you understand what it says, then ask yourself whether God exists.

[saysadie]

My views are simple.

Agnostic. The mind is a powerful thing. Something "out there" Sure, why not. The possibility is interesting. But it isn't a Someone in the way people define it and it didn't create anything. If anything, it evolved with everything else and it isn't a supreme being. There's no magic in science that's going to convince me that a supreme god exists outside of the minds of people who believe.

Pro choice, people will believe what they will and love whom they wish and they have every right to do so and Cat Stevens is as much a terrorist as I am a breakdancer.

*shrugs*

[Denyer]

I wish I knew how to do that thing where you can quote part of someone's post, then respond, then quote that person's post again, etc., but I'm not familiar with that function, so I'll be brief in my response.

{quote="name of person being quoted"}{/quote} except use square brackets.

The fact that we know more now about the sciences then we did then, in the Dark Ages as they were called, does not enlighten us to the enormous degree that you might feel it does.

People recognise that germs spread disease, and don't fritter away time trying to exorcise the sick. Do we wish collective personal faith to interfere survival and quality of life?

Those were the Dark Ages, these are the Less Dark Ages. We, as a race, have uncovered hardly a drop in the ocean of knowledge of what the reality of life really is.

You may have not. I think some figured it out a long time ago.

http://www.ccel.org/j/julian/revelations/

Go purchase an embryology book and read it cover to cover, study it, and then come and tell me that we have advanced from the Dark Ages into the Age of Light.

Embryology is considered a science: we're in the Age of Light. Embryology is a matter of tying earthworms around the neck on a piece of string and praying for successful pregancy in a wood building streaked with mud and cow dung: we'd be in Dark Ages.

I too reached a stage in my life where introspection became a driving force. I think everyone reaches that stage at some point, regardless of the level of intellect.

Mmm. And, for some, the introspection becomes a substitute for everything else. Especially in teenage years, mid-life and encroaching decreptitude. Perhaps if dominant cultural ideologies weren't ones which feared death and attached human standards of revenge and hierarchy to the concept of an afterlife, more people would live in peace.

It was the shear miraculous nature of how the sciences work

Something having reproducible effects isn't exactly miraculous. The "wonder of creation" is probably a better candidate for reverence.

The brain is nothing more than water and protoplasm.

This makes it less complex... how? Most life is nothing but carbon-based. We share a large portion of our DNA with other mammals. There's still a great deal of variety.

Science is the argument I offer you for God's existence.

People are the argument I offer you. Our need to believe is both understandable and can be observed in its development.

Again, the onus is not on others to convince you of God's existence.

Nor is it to disprove a theoretical. The onus is on people to not use (collective) personal fancies about invisible support as justification for legislation which impacts upon others.

when you understand what it says, then ask yourself whether God exists.

Actually, all you're saying here is: if you don't agree with me, you lack understanding. Which is a very, very old and laboured debating tactic.

Of course gods exist. Some of them are very charming literary characters.