Cat Stevens

[Dead Head]

Eh? Copernicus was hung?

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.

I first said there are "vast unfathomable waters of nature" and we have a "very great advancement of evidence, discovery, and knowledge" since the Dark Ages. Both of my statements are not mutually exclusive. So your point here is redundant.

just study a single science, any science, for a year.

Sorted. Will physics, electronics, chemistry, computer science, statistics, systems theory, logic, and mathematics do?

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.

The cheek of you - "Don't exaggerate...". I didn't exaggerate anything. As for the mysteries of the universe, I'm sure there are huge swathes of these mysteries that will remain as such, but mankind makes consistent, albeit proportionally small, uncoveries of the secrets of the universe.

it did nothing but solidify my feeling that a supreme being must exist.

I see. 'A feeling'. As expected.

It was the sheer 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.

You are the one to arbitrarily assign it a miraculous status. An utterly hasty, albeit conveniently simple and all-encompassing conclusion that 'God(s)' is around us throwing these miracles about.

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".

It's like I had a mental block of the biology classes from school, so once more, I appreciate the biology revision course. "Look at it, dissect it on a table, as I have, live it, breathe it, as I have contemplated, for months on end, in a pose much like Rodin's 'The Thinker'." Riiiiiight.

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, it's all untied, very vague stuff from you Commander Shockwav. "The thought of a supreme being", "the big picture" and "there must be a God". Such completely baseless conclusions in your mind. Wow - there's a speck of metal in this desert stone, THEREFOR there must be a convoy of 4x4 Canyonero SUVs nearby! Hallelujah!

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

Yes, yes it very much is.
People's subsequent actions based on their irrational religious beliefs and silly customs that have a negative, needless effect on others' situations is a driver behind this point. Say, if some person's religious custom is that people with more than 5 feckles on their back are out of favour with God, and his "religious scriptures" proscribe these freckle-devils be ostracised (or worse) because if you love God you should do his will, then if I am such a person with more than 5 feckles on my back, I'm in for some (or all) of my freedom being transgressed. The only thing that would prevent me, as such a "freckle-devil", would be to live in a country that has some degree of seperation of church and state, giving some bodily protection by it's secular or near-secular laws to me. At that point, the religious people have to grudgingly comply with the law of the land, and are forced to simply 'tolerate' these ungodly "freckle-devils" instead of what they'd like to do to them, given full "freedom to exercise God's will".

Had I felt my personal existence depended on convincing you as such,

No 'hellbounder' gives much of a sh1t about needing to be given concrete explanations so long as their way of life isn't being unfairly transgressed. But all too often transgressions happen, both small and large.

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 has to be, if they transgress. However, if a religious person lives their religious life in private, in their own home, that's fine. They keep it to themselves, or within the community of their congregation.

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.

Pah. Sanctimonious or what! I've not been enlightened to 'the truth' because I didn't spend the hours you spent on it's contemplation. Yeeeah. Suuurre.

[snarl]

as a side note, I now call my cat 'cat stevens'

[Kaylee]

As an aside to a much earlier discussion...

Was going to post some of the papers on studies r.e. homosexuality and its apparent biological differences in gays/lesbians and heterosexuals. Sadly however I ended up finding so many Christian/Right Wing "No it's learned and therefore a sin cos we said all the studies are flawed... why not go and have brainwashing- erm, I mean counselling to clear it up, you ******* freak?" Hence I've gone off that and I'm now looking for something to drown...

Stuart got it about right- there is no big black line between homosexuality and heterosexuality with one gene/social device controlling which side you fall on. It is a complete continuum of behaviour, genetic predisposition to certain behaviours (our personalities are supposedly 70% genetically determined), attitudes (is a person homosexual if they are attracted to the same sex, but will never admit it and have spent their whole live's convincing themselves differently and living a heterosexual lifestyle?) and situations.

To say it's just a choice is a preposterous oversimplification regarding human behaviour, a basic understanding of human psychology should make that clear. Even the supposition that it is a 'choice', a 'learned behaviour' is based only upon the Western concepts of sexuality, which do nothing to take into account the fact that different cultures, from the aboriginal Australians to the Native Americans, all have their own outlooks on sexuality which often differ vastly from our own- some cultures recognising 16 distinct sexualities rather than our rather pigeon-holed 2.

It's rather easier to call it a choice when you only have two real options (three including bisexuality), but a lot harder if you think in terms of sixteen- which rather lends itself far more to a proper understanding that people vary along said continuum for reasons of genes, upbringing, situations, attitudes and society; and to attempt to take away or trivialise something so intrinsic to the person's nature as the result of all these factors is, imhfo to take away an intrinsic part of them.

Finally, to throw a bone to the Creationist theory, if the male rectum is only for defaecation, why did God bother to put the male G-Spot there? Did he forget it was one purpose only, or was he just not thinking straight that day? [/Pun]

Hence trump card to Besty regarding CS's "Why can't I complain about other people's lifestyle?"

[Commander Shockwav]

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

Testing.

Ahhh. Thank you.

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?

To ignore the benefits of science in healing the sick would be a costly mistake indeed. We were not created brainless. Whatever knowledge is imparted to us with regards to the workings of the universe, you will find most religions do not restrict the use of this in healing or in most other ventures in life.

But as one speaking from a position of medical experience, I would not be the first to tell you that so called 'miracles' that have no foundation in physiologic principles do in fact occur. You might say that science had its hand in it, somehow reversing seemingly terminal situations. That there is a logical explanation to why the unexpected can happen. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Antagonists of religion often feel that religious creeds do nothing but hamper progression, creating roadblocks to the "betterment and advancement" of society. Perhaps this is true with many religions. But the belief in God in and of itself creates no such obstruction.

And what is progression? To me, progression is the attainment of peace, of happiness. We know more now that we ever did as a race, have done more that we ever have, but have we progressed? Not by my reading. The world, if anything, is no happier than it was fifty years ago collectively speaking. If anything, as a people we a regressing into a race of baseless animals looking to only fulfill our cardinal desires without restriction and regard to the consequences our actions might have on others. The quick fix, the quick pick-me-up. That is our current direction. Live for the moment. That, not the belief in a diety, is the roadblock.

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

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

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. I mean, on one hand I'm being criticized for taking a stance based on little evidence, and on the other hand the ridiculous notion that someone has figured out the mysteries of the universe is being presented to me.

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.

Could you elaborate here? I don't understand what you are saying.

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. .

You think more would live in peace? It is the very fear of the afterlife that keeps many monsters that go bump in the night in check.

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..

All I am saying is that one unfamiliar with the workings of the brain would easily underestimate its signficance based on its gross appearance, that of a gelatinous mass. By its gross appearance, it is nothing more. But the intricacies within........that is the miraculous part.

The fact that we share genetic material with other species again re-emphasizes the orderly structure of the universe as a whole.

If one studies human history and origin, it becomes clear that the "missing link" is exactly that. Missing. Many humanlike creatures existed before us, such as the CroMagnon "man" and other homospecies. They too shared much of our DNA. But they became extinct, for whatever reasons. None of such creatures have been found in the location presumed to be the origin of humankind, namely northern Africa. Homosapiens spurned from here, according to recent scientific belief. And yet, if one is to aspouse the theory that mankind as we know it today evolved, where then is that link that scientist have so earnestly been searching for for so many years to confirm their suspicion? Where is it? Proponents would say that it is there, we just haven't found it. And yet, one would think, based on evolutionary theory, that such a link, having been superior to all others, would thrive in number, would spread across the land. What happened to them, if they were far superior to Cro Magnon and the other homo species? Evolution does not occur in overnight, it has to be a gradual progression, a gradual improvement. And yet, when compared to homosapiens, the closest thing to us that we can uncover are monkeys and apemen.

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.

That is not at all what I am saying. I am merely asking you to study embryology going in with the questions of "how" and "why". Of course, you will not take the time to do so, as you are probably set in your belief of things. Whatever you get from it, that is your business.

If one proclaims belief in a supreme being, then one must be willing to accept that one believes the way they do because that supreme being so wills it. I believe in a supreme being because that being has so deemed it, not because I have accomplished something great. You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God".

This is where the problem comes in, where belief is looked upon as a personal achievement of sorts. The pointing of fingers begins by those who follow a creed, thinking themselves superior because of something they have accomplished. I hate this as much as any agnostic or atheist would.

There is no personal achievement or accomplishment in believing in a diety or following a creed.

[saysadie]

And what is progression? To me, progression is the attainment of peace, of happiness. We know more now that we ever did as a race, have done more that we ever have, but have we progressed? Not by my reading. The world, if anything, is no happier than it was fifty years ago collectively speaking. If anything, as a people we a regressing into a race of baseless animals looking to only fulfill our cardinal desires without restriction and regard to the consequences our actions might have on others. The quick fix, the quick pick-me-up. That is our current direction. Live for the moment. That, not the belief in a diety, is the roadblock.

How can you judge the entire world when you yourself have only actually seen a fraction of it?

You will never know the state of the entire world no matter how much you read. There are people living in the equivalent of the dark ages in some of it and their life is certainly not moving at the same pace as yours or the world you're familiar with... likewise, there are people who're living faster. I can't see how you can lump all people in the same category.

I'm sure that somewhere in the world at this moment there's any number of happy, peaceful people right now.

You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God".

Okay. We have no free will. By that logic, it's also God's will that some people "choose" to regress. The world is no happier than it was? Must be God's will...

[Kaylee]

You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God".

Following on from that, the world is a nasty place, people are murderers and paedophiles et cetera because God makes them do it. What a nice chap.

[Guest]

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

So,

Monotheists: We believe in God.
Polytheists: We believe in gods.
Atheists: We don't believe in God or gods.
Monotheists: Fine.
Polytheists: Fine.
Atheists: Fine.

Why isn't it like that, then?

You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God".

Isn't that a paradox of some sort?

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.

Is there conclusive evidence of God's supposed existence contained within the pages?

[Denyer]

the belief in God in and of itself creates no such obstruction.

Oh, clearly. It's what kind of gods people can conceive of and what actions they use those ideas to justify which is at issue.

as a people we a regressing into a race of baseless animals

True—the Bible belt is growing, and dumbing down is rife. Since we're apparently trading unsubstantiated vagaries now.

on the other hand the ridiculous notion that someone has figured out the mysteries of the universe is being presented to me.

This is the claim made by religion. To have sought and found (or been granted) a higher truth.

Go read Julian. You may like what she came up with, in spite of living in a time in which exile and torture for deviating from church dogma weren't uncommon.

Could you elaborate here? I don't understand what you are saying.

We're in the Age of Light. Whatever that means.

You think more would live in peace? It is the very fear of the afterlife that keeps many monsters that go bump in the night in check.

Hardly. Ever notice how practically everyone who murders and kills is sure they have God on their side? Promoting the idea that actions can be justified by the support of a being no-one can see is difficult to regard as a healthy thing.

I am merely asking you to study embryology going in with the questions of "how" and "why".

It's an efficient means of reproducing, hence it's survived. People sanctify chemical reactions because they need to feel themselves worthwhile.

You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God".

And child rapists exist because of the will of God. Wonderful world, isn't it?

[Commander Shockwav]

How can you judge the entire world when you yourself have only actually seen a fraction of it?...

Who said anything about judging? Its not my place to judges the hearts and minds of others, because quite frankly, everyone has their own unique experiences in life. For example, if I have been spoiled rotten, given everything I ever wanted, and decide to feed a hungry person one day, it might not be as great as a prostitute down on her luck, starved in many ways, giving water to a thirsty cat. Someone could be a complete monster his or her whole life, and at the last moment become benevolent and kind. And the living 'saint' of a person at his last living moment become satan incarnate. Everything is circumstantial. And on top of this, who knows the intentions in one's heart when they do a good or bad act? Perhaps I fed that hungry person so others might say, 'look how great that guy is", so that I might bask in praise. A good deed? Hardly.

So I don't presume to judge anyone. That would be not only dangerous but a purely self righteous act certainly worthy of your criticism, had that been what I was doing.

You will never know the state of the entire world no matter how much you read. There are people living in the equivalent of the dark ages in some of it and their life is certainly not moving at the same pace as yours or the world you're familiar with... likewise, there are people who're living faster. I can't see how you can lump all people in the same category.

I'm sure that somewhere in the world at this moment there's any number of happy, peaceful people right now.".

And my point is that those happy, peaceful people in all likelihood live a simple life, are not familiar with many of the technilogical wonders by which we define 'progression' as a race, and are ignorant of much of the current undertakings in the world today. They are the ones who have "progressed" as a people, because they have achieved peace.

Finding peace in this world, real peace, is not an easy thing. And the scientific achievements and technological innovations that we speak about above are not what I would call "progression". The whole point of all this is to say that just because we know more or are more aware of the world around us does not make us a 'better' , more fortunate people.

You do not believe in a diety, not because you lack understanding, but simply because that is the will of "God

Okay. We have no free will. By that logic, it's also God's will that some people "choose" to regress. The world is no happier than it was? Must be God's will

What separates humankind from say rock, tree, or other animal is that we do have a certain freedom to choose our path. It is this free will that elevates mankinds status above that of a rock, which has no free will of its own. Free will is what makes us more "Godlike" in our natures, and hence, superior to everything else on this planet. Everything aside from mankind has no choice but to obey the will of the Creator.

Having said that, in the end, if one considers the Creator to be omnipotent, then how can one reason around the idea that our ultimate fate lies not in our actions, but in the hands of the Creator? Assuming you believe in such a being.

[Denyer]

Finding peace in this world, real peace, is not an easy thing.

You think? Depends how you define it, really.

What separates humankind from say rock, tree, or other animal is that we do have a certain freedom to choose our path.

Animals don't have the freedom to choose their paths?

Everything aside from mankind has no choice but to obey the will of the Creator.

In your particular limited framing of things.

if one considers the Creator to be omnipotent, then how can one reason around the idea that our ultimate fate lies not in our actions, but in the hands of the Creator?

Best argument against both the existence of free will and of hell. If we were created, we were created like this—no step of our journey or potential for good or evil unknown. And it's rather hard to reconcile notions of a benevolent deity with one who tortures and punishes its creations for falling victim to flaws it gave them.

[Ultimate Weapon]

To ignore the benefits of science in healing the sick would be a costly mistake indeed. We were not created brainless. Whatever knowledge is imparted to us with regards to the workings of the universe, you will find most religions do not restrict the use of this in healing or in most other ventures in life.

It is no surprise at all that world religions would sell out to drug company lobbyists. Such in the way that diseases are invented like HIV, sars, west nile, global flu... Then these fabrications are leaked into the media so that people rush out and beg for vaccinations that contain themoral, a mercury additive in drugs. I would say they have done a fair share of ignoring the health of individuals.

[Commander Shockwav]

the belief in God in and of itself creates no such obstruction.

Oh, clearly. It's what kind of gods people can conceive of and what actions they use those ideas to justify which is at issue.

No argument there, I am in agreement.

as a people we a regressing into a race of baseless animals

True—the Bible belt is growing, and dumbing down is rife.

If I followed the Christian doctrine, I would be somewhat offended by that comment.

Go read Julian. You may like what she came up with, in spite of living in a time in which exile and torture for deviating from church dogma weren't uncommon.

I don't follow that kind of dogma either. Any religion that has as its doctrine the exile and torture of others for not going along with them is not a religion I can respect. There should be no compulsion in religion.

You think more would live in peace? It is the very fear of the afterlife that keeps many monsters that go bump in the night in check.

Hardly. Ever notice how practically everyone who murders and kills is sure they have God on their side? ".

No, I haven't. I think you have it wrong there. The majority of killings that happen in the world occur for two reasons One, money. And two, power. Anyone who kills because they think "God told me too" is the rare loon who has lost his mind, and they do not make up the majority of murderers.

And child rapists exist because of the will of God. Wonderful world, isn't it?

In the end, yes, they do. For whatever reason, they exist because God allows them to. I do not pretend to know His reasons for it.

[Denyer]

There should be no compulsion in religion.

Tricky, as religion is social compulsion and system attached to faith.

Anyone who kills because they think "God told me too"

A wholly different thing to considering killing justified by belief.

[Commander Shockwav]

Tricky, as religion is social compulsion and system attached to faith.

How is this a negative thing? Are you implying Stu that anarchy is the best option for society? If religion is social compulsion and system, how is that any different from government or any authority, say the father or mother of a child? There will always be somebody or something telling us how to live and what rules to play by. When religion does so, it turns you off. Why anymore than if your government commands you?

[Commander Shockwav]

To ignore the benefits of science in healing the sick would be a costly mistake indeed. We were not created brainless. Whatever knowledge is imparted to us with regards to the workings of the universe, you will find most religions do not restrict the use of this in healing or in most other ventures in life.

It is no surprise at all that world religions would sell out to drug company lobbyists. Such in the way that diseases are invented like HIV, sars, west nile, global flu... Then these fabrications are leaked into the media so that people rush out and beg for vaccinations that contain themoral, a mercury additive in drugs. I would say they have done a fair share of ignoring the health of individuals.

Ummm...what?

Although the idea that drug companies themselves may be involved in the creation and propogation of disease to benefit their own pockets I think has believability, I don't quite see how world religion has a hand in it.

But having said that, corruption has no limits. Religions around the world are as susceptible to corruption and distortion to further their own ends as anyone else, that I grant you.

[Commander Shockwav]

just study a single science, any science, for a year.

Sorted. Will physics, electronics, chemistry, computer science, statistics, systems theory, logic, and mathematics do?

Start with embryology. How a single celled organism becomes one who studies physics, electronics, chemistry, computer science, statistics, systems theory, logic, and mathematics

it did nothing but solidify my feeling that a supreme being must exist.

I see. 'A feeling'. As expected.

Yes, a feeling, but not a blind one. A feeling based on logic. Don't presume that every believer in a Creator shuns logic. All my beliefs are based on a logic you obviously don't understand.

It was the sheer 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.

You are the one to arbitrarily assign it a miraculous status. An utterly hasty, albeit conveniently simple and all-encompassing conclusion that 'God(s)' is around us throwing these miracles about..

Truly spoken by one who has never graced the pages of the biological sciences. Yes, I will reiterate, the wonders of the biological sciences are nothing short of miraculous. Call it arbitrary if you want, its a matter of perception and personal opinion.

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

It's like I had a mental block of the biology classes from school, so once more, I appreciate the biology revision course. "Look at it, dissect it on a table, as I have, live it, breathe it, as I have contemplated, for months on end, in a pose much like Rodin's 'The Thinker'." Riiiiiight..

Biology class? Give me a break. Though your sarcasm is truly an amazingly annoying thing, I say again. Study it. Not some basic cheap **** biology book.

Again, it's all untied, very vague stuff from you Commander Shockwav. "The thought of a supreme being", "the big picture" and "there must be a God". Such completely baseless conclusions in your mind. ,

The biological science are not in the least bit vague, which are the basis for my argument. Don't mistake me for some Bible thumping wild-eyed Mormon. I don't follow the Bible. Until you study a book of embryology, don't regard my words as 'baseless'. After you do so, then you may label it as such. But until you do, your words are not convincing to me in the least bit. Why should someone listen to an agnostic or atheist whose basis for the absence of a supreme being is just their feeling? I'm giving you evidence. Just because others have read embryology texts and not come to a conclusion of God's existence, don't presume to think you would come to the same conclusion.

Again, the onus is not on others to convince you of God's existence
Yes, yes it very much is.
People's subsequent actions based on their irrational religious beliefs and silly customs that have a negative, needless effect on others' situations is a driver behind this point. Say, if some person's religious custom is that people with more than 5 feckles on their back are out of favour with God, and his "religious scriptures" proscribe these freckle-devils be ostracised (or worse) because if you love God you should do his will, then if I am such a person with more than 5 feckles on my back, I'm in for some (or all) of my freedom being transgressed. The only thing that would prevent me, as such a "freckle-devil", would be to live in a country that has some degree of seperation of church and state, giving some bodily protection by it's secular or near-secular laws to me. At that point, the religious people have to grudgingly comply with the law of the land, and are forced to simply 'tolerate' these ungodly "freckle-devils" instead of what they'd like to do to them, given full "freedom to exercise God's will".

Had I felt my personal existence depended on convincing you as such
No 'hellbounder' gives much of a sh1t about needing to be given concrete explanations so long as their way of life isn't being unfairly transgressed. But all too often transgressions happen, both small and large.
I agree, there should be no compulsion in religion. To think that one can convince another of anything by forcing it down their throats is a truly ignorant thing to do. And as I have said, in the end, everyone is accountable for themselves, not the lives of others.

[Denyer]

How is this a negative thing?

I merely noted the impossibility of your statement.

you obviously don't understand

Funny how things always seems to come back to this accusation...

[saysadie]

Who said anything about judging? Its not my place to judges the hearts and minds of others, because quite frankly, everyone has their own unique experiences in life.

Individually you weren't judging anyone. But:

as a people we a regressing into a race of baseless animals looking to only fulfill our cardinal desires without restriction and regard to the consequences our actions might have on others.

That sounds fairly judgemental to me.

The whole point of all this is to say that just because we know more or are more aware of the world around us does not make us a 'better' , more fortunate people.

I can't see why, as I've just gone over most of this thread and I can't find a single argument made by anybody that states anything to the contrary.

What separates humankind from say rock, tree, or other animal is that we do have a certain freedom to choose our path. It is this free will that elevates mankinds status above that of a rock, which has no free will of its own. Free will is what makes us more "Godlike" in our natures, and hence, superior to everything else on this planet.

I see where you could be coming from with that and I respect your views but I would appreciate it if you didn't state everything you said as fact. You know no more than any of us on the subject no matter how much you've read.

IMO (since we're speaking in generalities) without those creatures we're supposedly so superior to we wouldn't be in a postion to consider ourselves superior.

... I wonder if cockroaches have religion...

The 'convincing' of God's existence should not, in fact cannot, be the goal of another person.

... You do realize that, because you stopped stating what you're saying as personal opinion about a page or so back and became so concerned with giving us all evidence of God's existence that this is exactly what you're doing now?

Not to mention the use of this phrase:

I'm giving you evidence.

Evidence as you see it. As I see it, you're neatly dismissing our opinions while simultaneously telling us all that we just don't understand your views because we're not as well-read as you.

Why should someone listen to an agnostic or atheist whose basis for the absence of a supreme being is just their feeling?

Likewise, why should a person listen to someone whose argument is based mostly on the assumption that because it can't currently be explained/found that it had to be created by an invisible, omnipotent Divine Being?

People will believe what they believe.

[Denyer]

You know no more than any of us on the subject no matter how much you've read.

Well, he knows things which are written in books. Although in that he's far from alone, and intellectual pissing contests can offer amusing diversions.

Why should someone listen to an agnostic or atheist whose basis for the absence of a supreme being is just their feeling?

You're confusing belief in an absence with absence of belief. Let me put it another way: we're both non-believers. I merely lack belief for at least one more god than you: when you understand why you dismiss the gods of other religions, you'll understand why people don't credit yours.

[Best First]

You're confusing belief in an absence with absence of belief. Let me put it another way: we're both non-believers. I merely lack belief for at least one more god than you: when you understand why you dismiss the gods of other religions, you'll understand why people don't credit yours.

"Who says so? My God says so. Who says my God says so? I do."

repeat to fade...

[Commander Shockwav]

You're confusing belief in an absence with absence of belief. Let me put it another way: we're both non-believers. I merely lack belief for at least one more god than you: when you understand why you dismiss the gods of other religions, you'll understand why people don't credit yours.

I dismiss the gods of other religions because I feel, yes a feeling and belief, that just as two bus drivers cannot efficiently drive the same bus at the same time without crashing eventually, so can there not be more than one God controlling the vastness and complexity of the universe without eventual choas disrupting. We see no such disorder in the universe. As I have said, the miraculous order in the universe and the structured means by which the universe functions to me is proof enough of a single omniscient diety.

In the end, after all this discussion, the end result of this theme is always the same. No one convinces anyone of anything. Such is the nature of this topic.

Nice discussing this with you guys.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

thier are other religons, with more followers, who all i feel you are wrong.

If u had lived in part of the world where these other religons were the flavour of the month, maybe you would follow one of them and not your current religon?

or maybe, with not contact or very lil in the face of adveristy from another religon. you would still somehow gain enough devine faith to find your current religon.

what am i saying.

your a christian, because you come from a place where chritianity is the larger followed relgion.

your a budist because you come from a place etc...

because I cant belive if you from a place where you had no religon you would suddenly say become a christian. well not without devine intervention.

so what does that say? lemmings? sheep? somthing like that.

[Guest]

I dismiss the gods of other religions because I feel, yes a feeling and belief, that just as two bus drivers cannot efficiently drive the same bus at the same time without crashing eventually, so can there not be more than one God controlling the vastness and complexity of the universe without eventual choas disrupting.

So, you dismiss the god of the Jews, and the god of the Muslims because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", and yet, those two are one and the same, and the same god as the god of the Christians, so in effect, you are dismissing your own god, purely on the grounds that other people refer to it by a different name.

And you dismiss the gods of other religions, because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", when for most polytheistic religions, there is often one bus driver, and also one ticket collector, one route inspector, and whole manner of other members of the bus service doing individually different but essential jobs, to follow your flawed analogy.

[Denyer]

No one convinces anyone of anything.

That's why most countries have mental asylums and tiered political systems—it isn't in any way a problem that people have differing sets of personal psychoses, it's when they get violent or interfere with the actions others on premise something is sacred ("just because") that conflict occurs.

I cant belive if you from a place where you had no religon you would suddenly say become a christian. well not without devine intervention.

Here 'divine intervention' tends to be spelt 'hot poker'.

It wasn't uncommon for previous generations to convert between religions every time a new political ruler came to power. That's why Christianity contains so much of earlier religions and has been adapted locally across the world to whatever prevailing superstitions happen to be. The evolution of religion is an absolutely fascinating aspect of history.

Our pack instinct isn't hard to understand—the brain is, very simply, a mechanism for recognising patterns. Anything not comfortable and familiar is treated with suspicion, on the basis that is may be a threat—life is hardwired to fear change and the unknown, otherwise it doesn't tend to survive.

[Dead Head]

I dismiss the gods of other religions
...
the miraculous order in the universe and the structured means by which the universe functions to me is proof enough of a single omniscient diety.

Okay I can imagine people deluding themselves that there is a 'higher power' over us, but to delude themselves so specifically to "one deity" is baffling!

In the end, after all this discussion, the end result of this theme is always the same. No one convinces anyone of anything. Such is the nature of this topic.

Yep. One side asks for proof (the heathen hellbound) and the other side offers up absolutely none (the chosen true believers).

Nice discussing this with you guys.

Yes, so far. Interesting, to say the least. I've more to say and am interested in your responses when I find time to post more.

[Denyer]

So, you dismiss the god of the Jews, and the god of the Muslims because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", and yet, those two are one and the same, and the same god as the god of the Christians, so in effect, you are dismissing your own god, purely on the grounds that other people refer to it by a different name.

You'd think more would reach the conclusion that no two people have the same god, wouldn't you?

[Commander Shockwav]

So, you dismiss the god of the Jews, and the god of the Muslims because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", and yet, those two are one and the same, and the same god as the god of the Christians, so in effect, you are dismissing your own god, purely on the grounds that other people refer to it by a different name.

And you dismiss the gods of other religions, because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", when for most polytheistic religions, there is often one bus driver, and also one ticket collector, one route inspector, and whole manner of other members of the bus service doing individually different but essential jobs, to follow your flawed analogy.

No, the God of the Jews and the Muslims is the God I believe in and follow. The very same. What I dismiss is the idea of polytheism, whether they be in the form of idols or animals or whether they are called "one in three" or "three in one".

[Guest]

So, you dismiss the god of the Jews, and the god of the Muslims because "there cannot be more than one bus driver", and yet, those two are one and the same, and the same god as the god of the Christians, so in effect, you are dismissing your own god, purely on the grounds that other people refer to it by a different name.

You'd think more would reach the conclusion that no two people have the same god, wouldn't you?

You would, but then, how could the universe cope with over 6 billion bus drivers? Especially on weekends and bank holidays.

[Commander Shockwav]

I dismiss the gods of other religions
...
the miraculous order in the universe and the structured means by which the universe functions to me is proof enough of a single omniscient diety.

Okay I can imagine people deluding themselves that there is a 'higher power' over us, but to delude themselves so specifically to "one deity" is baffling!

In the end, after all this discussion, the end result of this theme is always the same. No one convinces anyone of anything. Such is the nature of this topic.

Yep. One side asks for proof (the heathen hellbound) and the other side offers up absolutely none (the chosen true believers).

Nice discussing this with you guys.

Yes, so far. Interesting, to say the least. I've more to say and am interested in your responses when I find time to post more.

Anytime you want to discuss this, I am willing. These are what I consider the most important mattters in life, as IMO, they address our very purpose for living. Whyare we here? Just because evolution has deemed it as such or because there is a diety who has created everything, including us?

[Commander Shockwav]

You'd think more would reach the conclusion that no two people have the same god, wouldn't you?

The fact that many people follow many different Gods and or no God at all does not change the truth as it exists. Either the Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, atheist, etc is 100% right, but only one of them is. Truth does not have two faces. There is only truth and everything else is falsehood.