NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow this is big.
Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.

Okay after doing some thinking I have figured out something.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.
But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush. Niches. Every creature has its place. Your idea would only make sense if, say, humans were trying to exterminate plankton or something.

So this is my take on how life ight have been created in the begining god created the earth for man and then when he was preparing the earth, animals where made by the darwinist theory of evoloution so that the less well of animlas would die.
But then when god created man he gave him and her compassion for his or hers fellow man. I don't quite get what you're saying here, but I can't find anything particularly objectionable. I think.

How can so many people who believe in god be wrong. How can so many atheists be wrong? How can so many Windows users be wrong? How can so many...

Something does not have to be touched to be real. Is this the old tree-falling-in-the-forest thing again?

Atheists and liberals I must say. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
Liberal does not equal atheist. Neither does it equal any other goodthinkful political/religious knee-jerk reaction.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority. Firstly, there's nothing wrong with medieval and ancient.
Secondly, I believe you are attacking a strawman.
Thirdly, the Church does so much better, morally and spiritually, without being tied to the State. Inquisition?

(Christian, FYI)

EDIT: Bottle, have you been reading Richard Dawkins again?

I know the world is scary and confusing, particularly when you are 13, but the worst possible thing you can do is throw up your hands and resort to blind faith. Confronting reality is frightening at first, but the longer you wait to do it the harder it will get. If you allow yourself to start huddling away from reality, then you'll end up missing out on your entire life because you are so busy trying to avoid anything that might challenge the preconceptions you picked out when you were 13 years old.


That's a great offer Bottle, but I contend one has to become an atheist on their own.
Ironically, I became one at guess what age... 13.

Halaj, was that a triple or quadrouple post? *sighs* how sad...

Anyways, you do not give any reliable evidence, logic, reason, et cetera supporting your theory. Once again, xtians make fools of themselves. Give me something smart, logical, reasonable (I know, these words are foreign to you), and then I will properly debate you.

isn't logic, and reasoning simply the deducing of things with your senses? so... if your senses cannot detect it or measure it, then it must not exist?

so... where did the idea of infinity come from? it cannot be measured, it cannot be sensed. but we believe it exists. now where did this idea come from? if we look at nature, what can we say is infinite? everything on this world is finite. how did we come up with that idea? where did we see this? if you say numbers, think about it, the idea of ZERO was a radical modern idea. so... saying that, the idea of infinity was a modern invention. but yet... people have understood that there is infinity from the very first moment we were self aware. hmm...

if we look at the science of logic, in mathematics, we find that there sooo many things we take on by "faith." we have evidence for something we don't see. think about functions for equations that have "imaginary lines." That the equation accounts for, but does not exist.

looking at God from simply a logical standpoint does not do Him justice. He is Spirit. And unless you're willing to venture into the spiritual, how do you expect to see God?

Wow this is big.
Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.

:(

Go into the light! I have a friend like you, spooky. Very christian. Fortunately he can listen to rational arguments...

Halaj, was that a triple or quadrouple post? *sighs* how sad...

Anyways, you do not give any reliable evidence, logic, reason, et cetera supporting your theory. Once again, xtians make fools of themselves. Give me something smart, logical, reasonable (I know, these words are foreign to you), and then I will properly debate you.

I think my computer had the hiccups. Let me give you something smart, logical and reasonable : READ A BOOK.


BTW, the X in Xmas, Xtian, etc. is the Greek Chi which was the early Christian symbol for Christ. It is not disrepectful. (Mostly for the post following yours).

I think my computer had the hiccups. Let me give you something smart, logical and reasonable : READ A BOOK.


BTW, the X in Xmas, Xtian, etc. is the Greek Chi which was the early Christian symbol for Christ. It is not disrepectful. (Mostly for the post following yours).

Chitian. That just sounds like insect-shells.:)

Chitian. That just sounds like insect-shells.:) *trains little Templar army of insects*

isn't logic, and reasoning simply the deducing of things with your senses? so... if your senses cannot detect it or measure it, then it must not exist?

so... where did the idea of infinity come from? it cannot be measured, it cannot be sensed. but we believe it exists. now where did this idea come from? if we look at nature, what can we say is infinite? everything on this world is finite. how did we come up with that idea? where did we see this? if you say numbers, think about it, the idea of ZERO was a radical modern idea. so... saying that, the idea of infinity was a modern invention. but yet... people have understood that there is infinity from the very first moment we were self aware. hmm...

if we look at the science of logic, in mathematics, we find that there sooo many things we take on by "faith." we have evidence for something we don't see. think about functions for equations that have "imaginary lines." That the equation accounts for, but does not exist.

looking at God from simply a logical standpoint does not do Him justice. He is Spirit. And unless you're willing to venture into the spiritual, how do you expect to see God?

The concept of zero is over a thousand years old. Not exactly "modern".

And you think that is a GOOD thing? Darling, your faith should never be stronger than your own reason, lest faith overpower the one quality that distinguishes consciousness from psychosis.

I know the world is scary and confusing, particularly when you are 13, but the worst possible thing you can do is throw up your hands and resort to blind faith. Confronting reality is frightening at first, but the longer you wait to do it the harder it will get. If you allow yourself to start huddling away from reality, then you'll end up missing out on your entire life because you are so busy trying to avoid anything that might challenge the preconceptions you picked out when you were 13 years old.


I'd like to think it's because part of you wants something more from your life. Perhaps you are just too shy to ask the questions that are on your mind, or you are not yet ready to deal with your own skepticism and curiosity.

I do tend to joke around and play rough some times, but if you're at all interested in moving beyond the realm of fairy tales then I would be delighted to help show you some of the wonders you've been missing out on...the world you live in is an amazing place, far more amazing than any stories about magic and fairies.

okay, this person scares me.

i agree with bottle on every single point except the last. wow. great argument. you can dismiss God as a fairytale... except when you've experienced Him in a real way. When you haven't experienced God working in your life, its easy to say "God doesn't exist." But when he HAS, it becomes hard to say "God doesn't exist."

Bottle's right in the fact that there is ALOT to this life than blind faith (ech!). NO ONE should believe in blind faith. i believe it's people that believe in blind faith that make life difficult for people who have faith. they talk about things they've never experienced or seen. they talk about things that are not real to them. might as well be an atheist >.<

all i ask is that, keep an open mind. and watch out for your own biases. those biases become "blind faith" that athiests talk about.

When you were a little kid did you ever have the gut feeling that the boogeyman was hiding under your bed or in your closet?

If gut feelings count as evidence then you must also believe in the existence of the boogeyman.

aight first of all, when we were kids, we might have belived in the boogieman, kids. We didnt have much sence of logic and rationality. If your big brother said that he saw the boggieman under your bed, you would have that gut feeling when your goin to bed.

Secondly, when u have a gut feeling about God, it is not the one you have about a boggie man when u are a child

dont assume that lil kids have the same outlook on life as adults

The concept of zero is over a thousand years old. Not exactly "modern".

oh really?

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html

how do you write 0 in roman numerals? :)

I think my computer had the hiccups. Let me give you something smart, logical and reasonable : READ A BOOK.


BTW, the X in Xmas, Xtian, etc. is the Greek Chi which was the early Christian symbol for Christ. It is not disrepectful. (Mostly for the post following yours).

Ooops, I misread the beginning of your post and I thought it was xtian propaganda, sorry, my bad. :(

Anyways, I've noticed Satanists call Christians 'xtians' so I decided to add insult to injury, cause I'm a real mean Atheist bastard. *evil laugh*


EDIT: BTW, go fuck yourself anyways, even though I said sorry, cause I've read more books on pretty much every subject than you will in your life.

Come on people.
Do you never have the feeling that there is more then just what you see.
The feeling that there is a god.
The gut feeling inside.:rolleyes:

I call that indigestion.

O_o

At the risk of entangling myself in some big "god" argument I am not going to say anything.


Personally I think we should just leave the kid alone... He clearly will not budge in his position, and somehow I don't think he cares if we disagree or why.


The Force is strong with this one.


Je ne suis pas religieux.

Wow this is big.
Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.

I dont think you can be converted to atheism. It's not religion.

aight first of all, when we were kids, we might have belived in the boogieman, kids. We didnt have much sence of logic and rationality. If your big brother said that he saw the boggieman under your bed, you would have that gut feeling when your goin to bed.

Secondly, when u have a gut feeling about God, it is not the one you have about a boggie man when u are a child

dont assume that lil kids have the same outlook on life as adults

This is not assuming anything, it points out how easily ADULTS and children come to believe something un true (such as God, the boogieman, lochness monster, ghosts, et cetera).

okay, this person scares me.

i agree with bottle on every single point except the last. wow. great argument. you can dismiss God as a fairytale... except when you've experienced Him in a real way. When you haven't experienced God working in your life, its easy to say "God doesn't exist." But when he HAS, it becomes hard to say "God doesn't exist."

Bottle's right in the fact that there is ALOT to this life than blind faith (ech!). NO ONE should believe in blind faith. i believe it's people that believe in blind faith that make life difficult for people who have faith. they talk about things they've never experienced or seen. they talk about things that are not real to them. might as well be an atheist >.<

all i ask is that, keep an open mind. and watch out for your own biases. those biases become "blind faith" that athiests talk about.
Have you ever heard of ockham's razor?

What you see as "god" working in your life has a probably more obvious and probable explanation. And good odds are that it was that more plausible explanation that happened and not some bearded old man in the sky waving his magic wand.

I'm just saying that faith is all good, and good luck with that. But do not expect to be believed when you say that God have influenced your life. Or else, prove it to us, unbelievers.

This is not assuming anything, it points out how easily ADULTS and children come to believe something un true (such as God, the boogieman, lochness monster, ghosts, et cetera).

so... doesn't that go the other way too? :) how someone believes there is no God? :)

I'm finding this thread interesting... how can a scientist call himself an atheist? I haven't seen any concrete scientific proof that eliminates the theory of God, so how can one say absolutely that they do not believe in God and still proclaim to follow the scientific method?


-Agnostic, i.e. I don't know and will not state that He/She/It/Whatever does not exist:confused:

Come on christians it is the time.
Science has destroyed you sure we have so much technology but science kills unborn babies, it kills people, sunsets are no longer amazing because science has destroyed us.

This quote goes back but I want to reply:

Sunsets are actually more amazing due to science. Because of science we have more pollution in the air and that pollution actually adds to the different colors of the sunset and makes it more vibrant. Also please cheer up - I had to smoke a bowl to cheer myself up again.

As far as the main point of this thread goes - separation of church and state protects everyone from religious persecution. A state that would associate itself with a religion could then decide to impose taxes on those religions that do not adhere to the state regulations and could ban religion and religious expression for certain sub-cultures entirely. So stop trying to get your fucking belief systems into law thank you very much. Sit back and let people decide their own fate. I'm sure your god will sort out all of us "bad" folks who eat meat on Friday.

Okay after doing some thinking I have figured out something.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.
But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush.

So this is my take on how life ight have been created in the begining god created the earth for man and then when he was preparing the earth, animals where made by the darwinist theory of evoloution so that the less well of animlas would die.
But then when god created man he gave him and her compassion for his or hers fellow man.

How can so many people who believe in god be wrong.

Something does not have to be touched to be real.

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.


If god created humans with compassion for each other, how come we're still blowing each other up, robbing each other, raping the young and old alike, and trying to impose our beliefs on other people?

Darwinism explained 'survival of the fittest' in a competitive environment. The whole 'how come there are stupid people out there' ignores the fact that, in our society, we aren't so threatened by factors that would endanger the life of those who had mental disability or lower-than-average IQs. We have schools, shelter, food, hospitals, social support to aid all those who, in a harsher world, would have difficulties.


"How can so many people who believe in god be wrong."

1) Yes, there are many religious people in the world. But not all of them believe in the same God, or even agree that there is a single deity. Each of them belive that their religion is true, and others are not.

2) There are millions of atheists out there, and the numbers are ever-increasing. How can so many people who do not believe in God(s) be wrong?


"If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil..."

A generalisation. Not all atheist are like this at all. Some hold their beliefs with more passion than others and believe that all religious people are wrong. But there are theists out there who are just the same towards us. There have been a few occasions where I have been approached on the street and offered a Bible. When I told them that I was a firm believer in Darwin's evolution theory and that I did not believe in an Intelligent Designer, I would eventually be told that I would go to Hell if I did not accept the word of God. I always end by saying that I don't belive in Hell and walk off. I don't enjoy being treated like an evil presence any more than theists do.
What I'm trying to say is that, with every belief system, there will be those who are more... fervent than others. However, not all atheists are anti-religion, as you have as much right to believe in a Creator as we do to believe in natural and scientific processes as the cause of everything.

Please respect that, and try to stop making generalisations about non-belivers. We'll try and do the same.

"If God exists, he should be abolished." -Mikhail Bakunin

"As long as there is a master in heaven, there will be slaves on earth." -Mikhail Bakunin

:headbang: Stop beating your head against a wall people. The young'un, as well as the other theist here, are deeply entrenched in magical thinking.
There's nothing you can do to change that. Where it's not self-sustaining its backed up by circular reasoning.
These folks have to come up against situations that allow them to see the the cracks in there adopted reality. Half the time, that doesn't even work. It's like trying to get an alcoholic to admit they're an alcoholic.

I'm finding this thread interesting... how can a scientist call himself an atheist? I haven't seen any concrete scientific proof that eliminates the theory of God, so how can one say absolutely that they do not believe in God and still proclaim to follow the scientific method?


-Agnostic, i.e. I don't know and will not state that He/She/It/Whatever does not exist:confused:

God cannot be proven or disproven. God, if he/she/it/they does/do exist, is supernatural and as such outside the bounds of science,which deals with the natural world.

I'm finding this thread interesting... how can a scientist call himself an atheist? I haven't seen any concrete scientific proof that eliminates the theory of God, so how can one say absolutely that they do not believe in God and still proclaim to follow the scientific method?


-Agnostic, i.e. I don't know and will not state that He/She/It/Whatever does not exist:confused:
the two concept are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they have nothing in
common.

You can have four different kind of people:
scientist atheist
scientist non-atheist
non-scientist atheist
non-scientist non-atheist

as long as one does not use science to try and proove his atheistic belief, he can believe what the hell he wants. If he wants to proove there is no god, using the scientific method, let him try. He will most likely fail.

If god created humans with compassion for each other, how come we're still blowing each other up, robbing each other, raping the young and old alike, and trying to impose our beliefs on other people?
Well, since he did and we do, I'd say yes. Is this a rhetorical question?

EDIT: Did you change the question on me, or am I just blind? Anyway, don't mind me...

.....As far as the main point of this thread ........

This thread has a point?:confused:

I didn't have the time (or really the interest) to read through all 17 pages of this thread. So I appologize in advance if this has been pointed out somewhere before. But just the title of this thread bothered me. Oh, and for the record, I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in a God, but I don't disbelieve it, either. I'm ok with the fact that I don't know.

Proof that god created man and that darwinism is wrong

I could be wrong here, but aren't you supposed to take the fact that God created man on faith? I mean, that's what religion is about, right? Taking things like this on faith. Faith means you don't have to have proof of anything. According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions of faith is:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Doesn't that mean that if something needs to be proven, and you can't simply accept it on faith, that you are somehow failing in your faith? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I'm actually asking a question.

Why is nation states mainly atheists.
It makes us feel isolated.

I don't. I am strong believer in God and an aspiring devotee. And I have no problems with evolution and even abiogenesis.

What is with Christians and evolution? Is it the fear that the genesis account as told in the Bible will be discredited and the Christian (Catholic atleast) dogma loses its foundation?

I am amused at the turn of events. Gone are the days when Christianity assumed moral certitude and denounced other ways and thoughts and belief systems.

I am a proud christian american. I believe that there is a god, but I also believe in the Big Bang theory and Darwinism. I believe that God deliberatly created all of these scientific facts and theories so that His creations can learn to live by and rely on themselves so that they won't have to rely on a greater power to solve thier problems.

I don't. I am strong believer in God and an aspiring devotee. And I have no problems with evolution and even abiogenesis.

What is with Christians and evolution? Is it the fear that the genesis account as told in the Bible will be discredited and the Christian (Catholic atleast) dogma loses its foundation?

I am amused at the turn of events. Gone are the days when Christianity assumed moral certitude and denounced other ways and thoughts and belief systems.

The Catholic Church actually endorses evolution, though!

I am a proud christian american. I believe that there is a god, but I also believe in the Big Bang theory and Darwinism. I believe that God deliberatly created all of these scientific facts and theories so that His creations can learn to live by and rely on themselves so that they won't have to rely on a greater power to solve thier problems.

OK. I can go with that.
It allows what I as an atheist would consider a reasoned discussion while not trampling on your deeply held belief.
Very tidy. Seriously.

Wow this is big.
Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.
Yeah, this thread started with someone trying to convert other people.

Oh, wait, it was you.

That's a great offer Bottle, but I contend one has to become an atheist on their own.
Ironically, I became one at guess what age... 13.
Well, I'm sure each person will be a bit different, but I think there is usually an outside element as well. The individual is ultimately the one who has to make the choice and deal with their own mind, but other people can be positive forces that help make the process easier...or they can be negative forces that gum up the works.

For instance, my fledgling skepticism was nurtured and helped by intelligent parents, friends, teachers, and mentors. I believe that I probably would have been a skeptic no matter what, but I think I would have been a less happy one without the support of the people in my life.

Wow this is big.
Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.

Good, faith is meaningless if it can't pass a few tests.

I don't. I am strong believer in God and an aspiring devotee. And I have no problems with evolution and even abiogenesis.

What is with Christians and evolution? Is it the fear that the genesis account as told in the Bible will be discredited and the Christian (Catholic atleast) dogma loses its foundation?

I am amused at the turn of events. Gone are the days when Christianity assumed moral certitude and denounced other ways and thoughts and belief systems.

there reason why evolution is such an important aspect to Christianity today is because we believe God to be the CREATOR God. that's why he owns everything. we believe He made us, unique. if God did not create us, then simply put, He does not have a vested interest in us, and we should be worshiping the one who did.

There's nothing to say that NationStates is mainly atheist. There's most probably a high percentage of theists here.

Some of them, however, don't see any point in preaching here, because it ends up with threads like this where atheists and theists try and prove an unprovable point. Accept it: no-one is going to be converted to either way of thinking here. All threads like this just go round in circles and never reach a conclusion.

So put it this way: There is no concrete evidence, from the atheist's point of view, of a creator or creators. The darwinists belive that their theory is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that their theory is tried and tested and the only logical reason out there.

Likewise, there is no concrete evidence, from the theist's point of view, that a creator or creators DON't exist. They believe that THEIR belief is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that THEIR belief is tried and tested and the only logical argument out there.

Neither side likes having their ideas discredited/insulted/rejected by the other.

Threads like this don't prove anything other than such arguments as this will never disappear or end.

Well, I'm sure each person will be a bit different, but I think there is usually an outside element as well. The individual is ultimately the one who has to make the choice and deal with their own mind, but other people can be positive forces that help make the process easier...or they can be negative forces that gum up the works.

For instance, my fledgling skepticism was nurtured and helped by intelligent parents, friends, teachers, and mentors. I believe that I probably would have been a skeptic no matter what, but I think I would have been a less happy one without the support of the people in my life.

so... you're saying you're the sum of your environment? that you never went over to the "dark side?" :)

Sorry you have not coverted me you have infact made my faith stronger.
I don't know if you are talking to me, but in case you are...

I'm not trying to "convert" you. I'm not interested in making you think like me, agree with me, or believe as I believe. I think that the reason you are still around this thread might be because you are curious, and the fact that you are so vocally proclaiming the strength of your faith might be because you are getting a bit shaken up by the pure volume of information that is contradicting everything you say.

THAT is what I am interested in...making you THINK. I don't especially care what conclusion you come to, as long as your thought process is complete and honest. Your first post was a laundry list of misconceptions and sloppy reasoning, but there's no reason why you can't learn to do better. I'm more than willing to hang around for a bit to see if you've got enough spirit to try.

There's nothing to say that NationStates is mainly atheist. There's most probably a high percentage of theists here.

Some of them, however, don't see any point in preaching here, because it ends up with threads like this where atheists and theists try and prove an unprovable point. Accept it: no-one is going to be converted to either way of thinking here. All threads like this just go round in circles and never reach a conclusion.

So put it this way: There is no concrete evidence, from the atheist's point of view, of a creator or creators. The darwinists belive that their theory is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that their theory is tried and tested and the only logical reason out there.

Likewise, there is no concrete evidence, from the theist's point of view, that a creator or creators DON't exist. They believe that THEIR belief is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that THEIR belief is tried and tested and the only logical argument out there.

Neither side likes having their ideas discredited/insulted/rejected by the other.

Threads like this don't prove anything other than such arguments as this will never disappear or end.

it's still fun in a completely serious way though :) threads like this are not for the thin of skin :)

it's still fun in a completely serious way though :) threads like this are not for the thin of skin :)

Fair enough. I'll have a bit of fun then and continue with my answers to arguments from theists. But I'll point out now, I have nothing against any of you, and I hope you won't hold anything against me for having a bit of fun by stretching my mind with intelligent (I hope) debate.

so... you're saying you're the sum of your environment? that you never went over to the "dark side?" :)
I don't know, to be honest. I was reared in a household where Santa was a bigger player than God. It's not that my folks were atheists (they weren't) they simply didn't see any particular reason to believe in any particular God. They never needed one, and so neither did I. I think that's what was missing for me, and why I've never been able to believe in superstitions...you've got to need God, to feel like something is missing without Him, and I've never felt that way.

There's nothing to say that NationStates is mainly atheist. There's most probably a high percentage of theists here.

Some of them, however, don't see any point in preaching here, because it ends up with threads like this where atheists and theists try and prove an unprovable point. Accept it: no-one is going to be converted to either way of thinking here. All threads like this just go round in circles and never reach a conclusion.

So put it this way: There is no concrete evidence, from the atheist's point of view, of a creator or creators. The darwinists belive that their theory is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that their theory is tried and tested and the only logical reason out there.

Likewise, there is no concrete evidence, from the theist's point of view, that a creator or creators DON't exist. They believe that THEIR belief is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that THEIR belief is tried and tested and the only logical argument out there.

Neither side likes having their ideas discredited/insulted/rejected by the other.

Threads like this don't prove anything other than such arguments as this will never disappear or end.

I completely agree with you, but this is a good way to make your post count bigger. ;)

The darwinists belive that their theory is as close to the truth as we can possibly get, and that their theory is tried and tested and the only logical reason out there.
Darling, evolutionary biologists (along with all credible scientists) have long since moved beyond "Darwinism." Scientists have spent more than a century revising and correcting Darwin. The only "Darwinists" that still exist are on the radical fringes, and credible scientists give them even less respect than they give Creationists.

Refering to those who support modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinists" is like refering to all modern physicists as "Newtonists." Doing so will only serve to highlight your own ignorance of the topic.

I completely agree with you, but this is a good way to make your post count bigger. ;)

There is a spam forum you know...

Darling, evolutionary biologists (along with all credible scientists) have long since moved beyond "Darwinism." Scientists have spent more than a century revising and correcting Darwin. The only "Darwinists" that still exist are on the radical fringes, and credible scientists give them even less respect than they give Creationists.

Refering to those who support modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinists" is like refering to all modern physicists as "Newtonists." Doing so will only serve to highlight your own ignorance of the topic.

I'm perfectly aware of this., I study biology and hope to take a career that involves it as a main part. However, it's easier to say 'Darwinists' instead of constantly saying 'those who reject the idea of intelligent design and instead prefer the idea that we evolved by natural means etc etc.' However, I could say 'evolutionists' to clarify. But that can be interpreted differently as well. I trust that you knew what I was saying in the post? If so, it doesn't matter so much what I said.

Darling, evolutionary biologists (along with all credible scientists) have long since moved beyond "Darwinism." Scientists have spent more than a century revising and correcting Darwin. The only "Darwinists" that still exist are on the radical fringes, and credible scientists give them even less respect than they give Creationists.

Refering to those who support modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinists" is like refering to all modern physicists as "Newtonists." Doing so will only serve to highlight your own ignorance of the topic.

Darwinists is a commonly accepted term, but you know, if you want to go on a one-man (or woman?) crusade to change the English language and the commonly accepted terms in all English speaking countries, go ahead.

In the mean time, all English speaking peoples, the majority of people on nationstates, and me, will keep on using "Darwinists."

On a side note, there is no new word for this modern theory, so "Darwinism" is accepted because that is the basic idea it stems from, just as Marx's theory has evolved extensively from statism to anti-statism in the recent years, but it is still called "Marxist."

Well, I'm sure each person will be a bit different, but I think there is usually an outside element as well. The individual is ultimately the one who has to make the choice and deal with their own mind, but other people can be positive forces that help make the process easier...or they can be negative forces that gum up the works.

For instance, my fledgling skepticism was nurtured and helped by intelligent parents, friends, teachers, and mentors. I believe that I probably would have been a skeptic no matter what, but I think I would have been a less happy one without the support of the people in my life.

Hm... I was brought up in an entirely Jehovah's Witness family. During prayer I was continually reprimanded for opening my eyes. When I asked why that was so important, I was told god was present and I should not look upon him.

Setting aside the obvious symbolic implications of that very true story, I was always possessed of a budding skepticism. I first announced my lack of belief in a supernatural overseer at summer camp... when the instructor asked all those that believed in god to go stand on a line. I stayed where I was as the rest of the class dutifully migrated to the other side of the room. For the first time, 24 years ago, I was faced with deciding whether I truly accepted theism.
Yes, it's unquestionably easier if a support system exists, but I'd argue achieving atheism or nontheism on one's own is more potent (while still allowing some semblance of sympathy for those still wrapped up in magical thinking).

I don't know, to be honest. I was reared in a household where Santa was a bigger player than God. It's not that my folks were atheists (they weren't) they simply didn't see any particular reason to believe in any particular God. They never needed one, and so neither did I. I think that's what was missing for me, and why I've never been able to believe in superstitions...you've got to need God, to feel like something is missing without Him, and I've never felt that way.

heh, i grew up in a completely different household... we had the NEED for God, my parents were missionaries with craaaazy ideas. My dad was in Vietnam... as a missionary (i wasn't born yet). He's had alot of close encounters. even one time where he purposely went into a city surrounded, under siege, because of the "call of God."

he went on to raise a family in a third world country... without any support. quite literally, he had to fast hard for each meal we recieved. seriously, this would happen quite often: we had a need. we prayed. by NOTHING WE DID, the need was met.

but even growing up in that environment, i might as well have been an athiest... i knew God existed, but there wasn't any evidence for it. all just good concidences and great stories.

until one day, (much later) after asking God to make Himself real to me, i made that simple decision to... believe. Then it was like i was blind but now i see. of course, i had that euphoria for a few months. then "reality" hit.

once again, i was left floundering, wondering what the heck is going on with my life. i tried to fix my self, went to school, got a job, went to church, knew all the songs, all the bible stories, good guy. but somehow, it just didn't cut it.

then i realized, this life wasn't about me. it was about God. God gives us purpose. so... now i realize that the crazy things my dad did wasn't so crazy after all. they had EVIDENCE for what they believed in. they were able to live beyond what their five senses were telling them.

and that's how to live life... there is a person that said that if you look for life, you will lose it, but if you lose your life for His will, you will gain it. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

God did not come to this earth to take away fun, but to show us where the REAL joy comes from.

i'll get off my soapbox now...

Darwinists is a commonly accepted term, but you know, if you want to go on a one-man (or woman?) crusade to change the English language and the commonly accepted terms in all English speaking countries, go ahead.

Actually, "Darwinist" isn't accepted by the people to whom the term is applied. Those who study evolutionary theory and related topics are quite clear about the fact that "Darwinist" is a silly a term as "Newtonist."

If you are content to use incorrect terms, that's your business, but I don't mind taking a few seconds out of my day to point out when people are flat out wrong :)


In the mean time, all English speaking peoples, the majority of people on nationstates, and me, will keep on using "Darwinists."

Yeah, the majority used to talk about how flat the Earth was, too. Myself, I'd rather be correct than popular.


On a side note, there is no new word for this modern theory, so "Darwinism" is accepted because that is the basic idea it stems from,

Um, it's called "evolutionary theory." I know it's a few more syllables, but I'm sure you can manage it after a bit of practice.


just as Marx's theory has evolved extensively from statism to anti-statism in the recent years, but it is still called "Marxist."
...which is why there are absolutely no people who use the term "Communist" to describe various permutations and developed forms of the philosophy originally pioneered by Karl Marx.

Hmm, except maybe all those people in those "Communism" threads that are on the front pages right now...maybe you should pop in and remind them that everybody who's anybody uses "Marxism."

They had evidence for what they believed in? Are you smoking? I respect your views but... How can a feeling that God gives you purpose and a feeling that God exists be EVIDENCE?

Evidence is something that you can prove, something that you can touch, lift, use, et cetera.

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, at least spell right and capitalize.

Actually, "Darwinist" isn't accepted by any of the people who actually study the subject. If you are content to use incorrect terms, that's your business, but I don't mind taking a few seconds out of my day to point out when people are flat out wrong :)


Yeah, the majority used to talk about how flat the Earth was, too. Myself, I'd rather be correct than popular.


Um, it's called "evolutionary theory." I know it's a few more syllables, but I'm sure you can manage it after a bit of practice.


...which is why there are absolutely no people who use the term "Communist" to describe various permutations and developed forms of the philosophy originally pioneered by Karl Marx.

Hmm, except maybe all those people in those "Communism" threads that are on the front pages right now...maybe you should pop in and remind them that everybody who's anybody uses "Marxism."


I study the subject, but I use darwinist where people understand what I'm getting at... I don't know, it feels like paying tribute to the man. However, this is an irrelevant argument. I'll use 'evolutionist' from now on... just... don't hurt me...

I don't belive in the seperate ways of darwinism and gods (idd gods i've developed my own religion what isn't as crazy as it sounds, for then you can truly believe in it)
I believe in Inteligent Creation (if they call it like that) for the sheer prove of evlution is the length of humans, they where far shorter in the medieval times than we are now and the first Egyptian rulers had far mor larger heads than their people.

i rest my case...

heh, i grew up in a completely different household... we had the NEED for God, my parents were missionaries with craaaazy ideas. My dad was in Vietnam... as a missionary (i wasn't born yet). He's had alot of close encounters. even one time where he purposely went into a city surrounded, under siege, because of the "call of God."

he went on to raise a family in a third world country... without any support. quite literally, he had to fast hard for each meal we recieved. seriously, this would happen quite often: we had a need. we prayed. by NOTHING WE DID, the need was met.

but even growing up in that environment, i might as well have been an athiest... i knew God existed, but there wasn't any evidence for it. all just good concidences and great stories.

until one day, (much later) after asking God to make Himself real to me, i made that simple decision to... believe. Then it was like i was blind but now i see. of course, i had that euphoria for a few months. then "reality" hit.

once again, i was left floundering, wondering what the heck is going on with my life. i tried to fix my self, went to school, got a job, went to church, knew all the songs, all the bible stories, good guy. but somehow, it just didn't cut it.

then i realized, this life wasn't about me. it was about God. God gives us purpose. so... now i realize that the crazy things my dad did wasn't so crazy after all. they had EVIDENCE for what they believed in. they were able to live beyond what their five senses were telling them.

and that's how to live life... there is a person that said that if you look for life, you will lose it, but if you lose your life for His will, you will gain it. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

God did not come to this earth to take away fun, but to show us where the REAL joy comes from.

i'll get off my soapbox now...

Hey, well I enjoyed your story, at least!

For me, I grew up in a household that was avowedly apathetically agnostic. My immediate family just didn't care about God at all. In fact, I would venture to say that there wasn't even a great deal of thought about God at all. Just wasn't important.

My extended family, on my mother's side at least, was and are very religious. Hardcore protestants of some variety. I hated when I had to see them because they would badger me about going to church and finding Jesus. So during my teens I did the whole "rebel against the oppressors!" thing and became a very cocky, very obnoxious, very explicit atheist.

Needless to say, I grew out of that. I became interested in religion from an academic standpoint, and started investigating and researching and talking to people of various faiths out of sheer curiosity about what all these people believed and why they believed it. After a while of doing that, I came to the (rather shocking, at the time) conclusion that I had integrated some of things I'd been reading and hearing into my view of the world, that some of it just "made sense" to me, and I (horrifyingly enough) could no longer call myself an atheist!

These days I'm what certain people call a "hard polytheist" (as opposed to "soft polytheist", which makes no sense to me at all. You're either a polytheist or not, right?) and have found a path that really suits me and meshes with the way I look at the world.

I don't belive in the seperate ways of darwinism and gods (idd gods i've developed my own religion what isn't as crazy as it sounds, for then you can truly believe in it)
I believe in Inteligent Creation (if they call it like that) for the sheer prove of evlution is the length of humans, they where far shorter in the medieval times than we are now and the first Egyptian rulers had far mor larger heads than their people.

i rest my case...

So... you belive in Intelligent Design (the idea that a deity created everything) because evolution can be proved? Can you rephrase, I'm a little confused by that.

They had evidence for what they believed in? Are you smoking? I respect your views but... How can a feeling that God gives you purpose and a feeling that God exists be EVIDENCE?

Evidence is something that you can prove, something that you can touch, lift, use, et cetera.

well, God said do "a" and "b" will happen. We trust God. we do "a," "b" happens. like He said. God said He will do what He promises. that's enough evidence for me :P some people ask for signs... but in the end, it comes down to a decision to believe, doesn't it? :)

Hey, well I enjoyed your story, at least!

For me, I grew up in a household that was avowedly apathetically agnostic. My immediate family just didn't care about God at all. In fact, I would venture to say that there wasn't even a great deal of thought about God at all. Just wasn't important.

My extended family, on my mother's side at least, was and are very religious. Hardcore protestants of some variety. I hated when I had to see them because they would badger me about going to church and finding Jesus. So during my teens I did the whole "rebel against the oppressors!" thing and became a very cocky, very obnoxious, very explicit atheist.

Needless to say, I grew out of that. I became interested in religion from an academic standpoint, and started investigating and researching and talking to people of various faiths out of sheer curiosity about what all these people believed and why they believed it. After a while of doing that, I came to the (rather shocking, at the time) conclusion that I had integrated some of things I'd been reading and hearing into my view of the world, that some of it just "made sense" to me, and I (horrifyingly enough) could no longer call myself an atheist!

These days I'm what certain people call a "hard polytheist" (as opposed to "soft polytheist", which makes no sense to me at all. You're either a polytheist or not, right?) and have found a path that really suits me and meshes with the way I look at the world.

heh, try it from this approach. look for God for who He is, and not from the stand point of who we are. remember, we have all sorts of biases. it's just not fair to God (or gods) for us to limit the creator.

...you've got to need God, to feel like something is missing without Him, and I've never felt that way.

I've tried to explain that same point... that I have no hunger for a supernatural overseer or a need to believe someone is guiding the world's events.
Of course, they don't get it.
Because they do have that need.

I've tried to explain that same point... that I have no hunger for a supernatural overseer or a need to believe someone is guiding the world's events.
Of course, they don't get it.
Because they do have that need.

you are completely right. but don't you wonder sometimes if what you have is all there is to life? are you living life to the fullest? or is there more? :)

The Catholic Church actually endorses evolution, though!

I am not sure, but I think they do not endorse evolution as an explanation for the origin of species. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am not sure, but I think they do not endorse evolution as an explanation for the origin of species. Correct me if I am wrong.

there's a school of thought that God used evolution to create the species. He had a "guiding" hand in the process.

heh, try it from this approach. look for God for who He is, and not from the stand point of who we are. remember, we have all sorts of biases. it's just not fair to God (or gods) for us to limit the creator.

Well, I tend to think I am where I am on the spiritual side of things because I was brought here. I ended up seeing the world the way I saw it when I decided to walk that path because I was nudged there. But it was a decision on my part to believe. There were hints and little pushes, of course. Wepwawet opens the way, but it is up to the individual to choose to walk it.

Actually, "Darwinist" isn't accepted by the people to whom the term is applied. Those who study evolutionary theory and related topics are quite clear about the fact that "Darwinist" is a silly a term as "Newtonist."
Yes, may you please supply a quote by a noted scientist to prove your point?

If you are content to use incorrect terms, that's your business, but I don't mind taking a few seconds out of my day to point out when people are flat out wrong :)
So here we have aome obscure person posting on some internet forum, that TIME, Newsweek, Popular Science, Detroit Free Press (I live in the Detroit area so I read the Detroit Free Press, lol), and a variety of other reliable newspapers and magazines are wrong.

Good job, you're flat out wrong, and I'll be more than content to take out a few seconds out of my day to point it out mate. :)

Yeah, the majority used to talk about how flat the Earth was, too. Myself, I'd rather be correct than popular.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that language has everything to do with age-old religious science! *sarcasm*

Um, it's called "evolutionary theory." I know it's a few more syllables, but I'm sure you can manage it after a bit of practice.

TIME... PEOPLE... NEWSWEEK... FREE PRESS...POPULAR SCIENCE...?

(^^^if you have any mental capacity you will realize what I'm talking about)

...which is why there are absolutely no people who use the term "Communist" to describe various permutations and developed forms of the philosophy originally pioneered by Karl Marx.

Marx was Marx, Lenin developed it further, but at that point it became more different than acceptable, being called Marxist-Leninist, and then Trotsky (Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist) and of course Mao (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist).

Hmm, except maybe all those people in those "Communism" threads that are on the front pages right now...maybe you should pop in and remind them that everybody who's anybody uses "Marxism."

Communism is the future society that is supposed to be formed after the international proletariat revolts. Communism the ideology, is a conglomerate putting together many ideologies relating themselves to the idea of the society "Communism," among them include Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Jucheists, Guerillaists, Left Communists, Trotskyists, Libertarian Communists, Anarcho-Communists, DeLeonists, and much more. Many Communist ideologies don't relate themselves at all to Marxism (such as Jucheism, Anarcho-Communism, DeLeonism, et cetera) besides the fact that they want to establish an equal society.

Communism is a word that simply shortens using "well all the Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Jucheists, DeLeonists, Anarchists [et cetera]" to "well all the Communists."

Evidently you are not a linguist, and I am a Communist, so for you own sake, don't argue about the use of the word "Communism."

Obviously, Bottle doesn't know everything, like he thinks he does. :rolleyes:

Good day.

First of all, to the thread creator *slaps you upside the head*

Secondly, what about the other religion's creation stories? Hmm? I don't think -ANYONE- has decided that the Christian/Judaic creation myth suddenly has supremacy over all the other ones.

Put your cocks back in your pants guys, you can't take on another -realm- of thinking when you haven't even proven your "superiority" over other myths!

you are completely right. but don't you wonder sometimes if what you have is all there is to life? are you living life to the fullest? or is there more? :)

There was a rather lengthy article in Newsweek last year that investigated the phenomenon of people that appeared more capable than others of experiencing spiritual states.
Without drawing specific conclusions, the writer did posit that the degree to which a population experiences spirituality varies in a continuous spectrum (like so many other things).
Just as there are heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and a host of intermediate catagories, there are people that have a strong propensity for spiritual experiences and those at the other end of the bell curve that appear utterly incapable of such. (That last group, by the way, also showed a strong tendency to rely on Western standards of logic and reasoning.)
I can honestly say that no, I do not in any way feel bereft of meaning. I more often find myself wondering why theists insist on adding an extra step to everything. (That extra step being divine intervention.)
You asked. So there ya go.

well, God said do "a" and "b" will happen. We trust God. we do "a," "b" happens. like He said. God said He will do what He promises. that's enough evidence for me :P some people ask for signs... but in the end, it comes down to a decision to believe, doesn't it? :)

God said that all are equal in his sight. So that would suggest that he treats all the same?

So explain how people often thank God for healing them from, say, cancer, but he doesn't heal ALL cancer sufferers? If, like they said, God was their healer, then he would be everyone's healer because we're all equal to him, and he doesn't have favourites.

God said that all are equal in his sight. So that would suggest that he treats all the same?

So explain how people often thank God for healing them from, say, cancer, but he doesn't heal ALL cancer sufferers? If, like they said, God was their healer, then he would be everyone's healer because we're all equal to him, and he doesn't have favourites.

*laugh* Not only that, but no one has proven God is the ONLY God. For all we know there malicious gods that are actually killing these cancer sufferers.

(of course, there is a simple, biological/anatomical reason for their survival, though I doubt anyone would even listen to that :rolleyes: )

...I can honestly say that no, I do not in any way feel bereft of meaning. I more often find myself wondering why theists insist on adding an extra step to everything. (That extra step being divine intervention.)
You asked. So there ya go.

good. i like it when people know what they believe.

God said that all are equal in his sight. So that would suggest that he treats all the same?

So explain how people often thank God for healing them from, say, cancer, but he doesn't heal ALL cancer sufferers? If, like they said, God was their healer, then he would be everyone's healer because we're all equal to him, and he doesn't have favourites.

Well, ya know, God makes some people suffer so it appears that much more of a miracle when he does heal someone of cancer...

It's all about relativity. If everyone were able to be healed of cancer, it wouldnt be so miraculous now would it?

Same reason we all suffer even though God is omnipotent and could ease all mankind's suffering. By suffering we are that much more appreciative of God's grace...

On a somewhat different note, marketing is amazing, isn't it? It's amazing what a good marketer can cause someone to believe...

good. i like it when people know what they believe.

Point taken.
OK kids. I'm out.
You can start talking behind my back now.

God said that all are equal in his sight. So that would suggest that he treats all the same?

So explain how people often thank God for healing them from, say, cancer, but he doesn't heal ALL cancer sufferers? If, like they said, God was their healer, then he would be everyone's healer because we're all equal to him, and he doesn't have favourites.

in a weird twist.. God does play favorites. think about a person who is forgiven for murder vs someone who is forgiven for stealing $5 from grandma's purse. The one who is forgiven of murder is forgiven more... and thus more loved.

in regards to healing... sin has come into this world. as much as we want ALL cancer sufferers to be healed, we don't all have the measure of faith to heal 'em all. God desires that none should perish, but to have eternal life. why then do people deny the gift of eternal life?

Yes, may you please supply a quote by a noted scientist to prove your point?
Isn't that discrimination against non-notorious scientists?

Yes, may you please supply a quote by a noted scientist to prove your point?


So here we have aome obscure person posting on some internet forum, that TIME, Newsweek, Popular Science, Detroit Free Press (I live in the Detroit area so I read the Detroit Free Press, lol), and a variety of other reliable newspapers and magazines are wrong.

Good job, you're flat out wrong, and I'll be more than content to take out a few seconds out of my day to point it out mate. :)

Yes, may you please supply a link to prove your point?

The fact of the matter is that "Darwinist" is predominently used by creationists (or IDers) pejoratively to malign scientists. The term is not used in everyday conversation unless in a pejorative sense. This is why most scientists objects to the term and that the correction will invariably be pointed in any debate about the origin of life.

And if newsweek, Detroit free press and the like used Darwinists like you imply, they either
1) made a poor job at researching their article.
2) used in a quote or in the pejorative context.

so, act like you just pwnd Bottle all you like but the fact of the matter is, she is right on that part of the debate.

Well, ya know, God makes some people suffer so it appears that much more of a miracle when he does heal someone of cancer...

It's all about relativity. If everyone were able to be healed of cancer, it wouldnt be so miraculous now would it?

Same reason we all suffer even though God is omnipotent and could ease all mankind's suffering. By suffering we are that much more appreciative of God's grace...

On a somewhat different note, marketing is amazing, isn't it? It's amazing what a good marketer can cause someone to believe...

a lie always gets you in the end. marketing can only get you so far if you have a bad product.

and in regards to suffering, we brought it upon ourselves, and God is providing the out. but He's not going to deny you the chance to find a better solution on your own.

in a weird twist.. God does play favorites. think about a person who is forgiven for murder vs someone who is forgiven for stealing $5 from grandma's purse. The one who is forgiven of murder is forgiven more... and thus more loved.

in regards to healing... sin has come into this world. as much as we want ALL cancer sufferers to be healed, we don't all have the measure of faith to heal 'em all. God desires that none should perish, but to have eternal life. why then do people deny the gift of eternal life?

*chuckles* Same reason God promised the Jews that if they followed him they would stomp over all the other nations. Then Babylon came and pwn3d them, amongst other world powers.

ROFLOL what a string of fallacies and ignorance. This is more amusing than provocative.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.

Nope, there's example-of-ignorance numero uno: Intelligence is not the end result or sole selector in evolution. Natural selection propogates traits that are advantageous to the organism in its situation or environment. Intelligence is not always a major factor, and most organisms do not require it to adapt to their environment.

A lot of people, even those who accept evolution and profess to know it well, seem to be under this igorant delusion that the prime factor in evolution and survival is intelligence and consciousness, that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, etc. - not so. Intelligence is just one possible adaptation for survival, and man is not the most successful species on Earth - basteria and insects are.

But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush.

And here we have something like three or four fallacious concepts expressed in a single small paragraph!

1) Evolution does not happen on the scale of individual lifetimes. Individuals are still going to have a high random factor in their advancement, and natural selection is going to be slow and low-poweredat such small scales. Law of Large Numbers, man.

2) As I said, intelligence is not automatically the selecting trait. In fact, our current political elections select based upon looks, charm, family connections, inherited wealth, and deep-seated, candidate-independent political and cultural prejudices and norms. Intelligence, sadly, tends not to factor too much into it.

3) Civilization, lacking advancement into self-directed/motivated evolution, is an evolutionary dead end. The weaker and the people whose traits don't predispose them to success and survival are held up by their superiors via compassion-motivated social structures. Unlike uncivilized nonsapient organisms, we protect the weakest and foster socioeconomic entropy in an attempt to circumvent the rigors of natural selection. Therefore, natural selection and evolution have slowed to a crawl, if not a dead stop, until we paradigm-shift to Evolution 2.0 - genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc.

So this is my take on how life ight have been created in the begining god created the earth for man and then when he was preparing the earth, animals where made by the darwinist theory of evoloution so that the less well of animlas would die.

Or we could claim that a giant divine cockroach sneezed out the universe - it would have the same amount of evidence (or lack thereof) and be equally logically plausible.

How can so many people who believe in god be wrong.

Oh, so that's it. You believe that if "everybody" thinks so, it must therefore be true. The masses know all. Of course - how could I have been so stupid? Nessie and UFOs are obviously real as well, and it's certainly true that Saddam Hussein was a major planner and coordinator of the 9/11 attacks...

Something does not have to be touched to be real.

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.

Contrary to collectivistic beliefs, being the majority and being right are not the same thing, and equally as prominent as majority rule in Western political traditions are rule of law, sociocultural pluralism, protection of minorities, and rational, secular, reality- and problem-solving-oriented decision-making.

Just because most people are religious doesn't mean that we should discriminate against all religious groups except Christianity through dissolution of the separation of church and state, stop making objective, fact-based decisions on what's in reality best for the country, teach myths in school science classes, or reject the Enlightenment and head back to the "medieval and ancient" effective-Christian-theocracy Dark Ages.

Free Mercantile States, I want to have your baby.

*chuckles* Same reason God promised the Jews that if they followed him they would stomp over all the other nations. Then Babylon came and pwn3d them, amongst other world powers.

they had a covenant that went, if israel will do "y" then God will do "x." Israel didn't do their part of the bargain. not only did they not do it, they went against the covenant. they totally said, "screw God." of course, God took it a little personally. but He also said that He will bless israel.

now, look at present-day israel. from being the victims, they are now the bullies. if you read the accounts of person of both sides of the battles that israel fought, it, at the very least, will put thoughts of alot of weird coincidences happening in israel's favor.

TIME... PEOPLE... NEWSWEEK... FREE PRESS...POPULAR SCIENCE...Since when are those publications the arbiter of correct terminology? ... Or the standard bearers for analytical thought, for that matter.

in a weird twist.. God does play favorites. think about a person who is forgiven for murder vs someone who is forgiven for stealing $5 from grandma's purse. The one who is forgiven of murder is forgiven more... and thus more loved.

in regards to healing... sin has come into this world. as much as we want ALL cancer sufferers to be healed, we don't all have the measure of faith to heal 'em all. God desires that none should perish, but to have eternal life. why then do people deny the gift of eternal life?

If those who aren't ever made aware of God are 'automatically' given eternal life when they die (since they've by default never denied God's existence), why do so many "Christians" attempt to convert so many people with other beliefs? Wouldnt that, by default, cause those people's eternal souls to be put into dire straits that they wouldnt necessarily have ever been put in?


What continues to disgust me about most christians is their inability to allow that while they have faith in their beliefs, people of other cultures have that same faith in what they grew up believing. Christians are so damn uppity about their beliefs, they cannot see that other people have beliefs that are just as valid to them. And after all, isnt belief something that each must decide for himself?

Essentially, who do Christians think they are to tell me that my beliefs and morals and way of life are wrong simply because it's not their way of life or, more often, is against what their preacher told them was right last sunday. What gives Christians the right to tell the world how to live?


Currently I reside in a city with a couple world records regarding the plethora of churches. And yet the attitudes of the general populace is so much greedier and 'holier-than-thou" (which is ridiculous considering the percentage of the populace that attends church regularly) that the environment is hostile. Whereas when I lived in a city with a far less "God-fearing" attitude, the environment enabled the enjoyment of life itself.

Agreed. My posts keep getting inored, I'm thinking I might write everything in bold or caps locks :P But either way, no one here has proved that Christianity's creation myth has any more merit than the other religions.

I don't see why they feel they have the right to attack a whole other realm when they haven't proven theirs to be the best in their own realms. It boggles the mind.

I'm finding this thread interesting... how can a scientist call himself an atheist? I haven't seen any concrete scientific proof that eliminates the theory of God, so how can one say absolutely that they do not believe in God and still proclaim to follow the scientific method?


-Agnostic, i.e. I don't know and will not state that He/She/It/Whatever does not exist:confused:It's been mentioned before, and will be again (no doubt) that Atheism is not necessarily "conviction there is no God".

Atheism might be of the 'weak' pursuasion, i.e. "without a belief in God" (approaches agnosticism, if the person also cares to expand upon this by saying "I suppose there could be, but I'm not bothered"), instead of the 'strong' type, i.e. "I know without doubt that there is no God".

[edit: The strong/weak preixes might instead be hard/soft, BTW.]

I locate myself in the weak-atheism, 'tending-towards-no-God-as-the-probable-answer-but-doubt-it-could-be-proved-either-way'-agnosticism sort of camp. With a touch of badly paraphrased Clarke's law, i.e. the severely-needs-shortening interpretation that "any sufficiently misunderstood and as-yet-inexplicable natural phenomenon, advanced technological effect from non-supernatural societies (terrestrial or otherwise, if you beleive that the latter is possible) or even a statistically valid but rare-enough-to-be-taken-out-of-context chance occurance could be interpreted as a religious experience"[1].

But that's a long way of putting "I'm an atheisticilly-inclined agnostic" or "I'm an agnostically-inclined atheist", depending on my mood and the kind of discussion position I'm trying to deal with.



[1] I mean, burning bushes with voices coming from them. If it actually happened then odds on it's a natural-gas reservoir leaking, sponteneously igniting near some vegetation, and the fumes inducing a hallucinogenic state in the guy who wanders near, bringing to the top of his consciousness all the subconscious thoughts he has. That sort of thing isn't hard to imagine in the petrochemical-rich middle-east and might have happened to some degree many times...

they had a covenant that went, if israel will do "y" then God will do "x." Israel didn't do their part of the bargain. not only did they not do it, they went against the covenant. they totally said, "screw God." of course, God took it a little personally. but He also said that He will bless israel.

now, look at present-day israel. from being the victims, they are now the bullies. if you read the accounts of person of both sides of the battles that israel fought, it, at the very least, will put thoughts of alot of weird coincidences happening in israel's favor.

So, Isreal is blessed by war? I suppose war is God's way of blessing us? Does that mean that we're acting as God's Divine Hand in bringing war to the Middle East?

Agreed. My posts keep getting inored, I'm thinking I might write everything in bold or caps locks :P But either way, no one here has proved that Christianity's creation myth has any more merit than the other religions.

I don't see why they feel they have the right to attack a whole other realm when they haven't proven theirs to be the best in their own realms. It boggles the mind.

I'm not ignoring them, just that I agree with your viewpoint on this...

I'm not ignoring them, just that I agree with your viewpoint on this...

^_^ oh, no, I wasn't speaking to you. Few pages ago I made that comment, though no one bothered with it.

So, Isreal is blessed by war? I suppose war is God's way of blessing us? Does that mean that we're acting as God's Divine Hand in bringing war to the Middle East?

Well, the Palestinians were very happy until they were told that their country wasn't theirs anymore, it was now Israel, the Jewish land. It's a bit like the crusades, when Christians randomly turned up in the East, claimed a place in God's name and killed all who opposed them. War was bound to happen, and I doubt divine intervention would have made much difference.

I'll say now that I do not condone war, and the struggles in the east cannot be justified with any argument.

Ah ha, fundemental flaw.

Gods bored
God creates man
In his image
and skip a few chapters

george bush is created - a man in gods image:confused:

^_^ oh, no, I wasn't speaking to you. Few pages ago I made that comment, though no one bothered with it.

The comment was ignored because there really is no good reply. The best they could do is quote the Book of Matthew where Jesus instructs his disciples to go out and spread the good news.

However, that leads the argument that if God is so loving and wants everyone to recieve eternal life, why does he set people up for the fall?

Which then leads into free-will vs fate that cannot be won by any true believer in God and the Holy Trinity (God is omnipotent and omniscient - he knows all and exists without time, therefore he knows each and every one of our futures and the decisions we will make as they've 'already been made'. This, of course, means free-will does not exist and we are already fated to a certain path of existence as our futures have already been determined, etc.)


It's so much easier for the entire argument to be ignored than to have to go through all that just to lose out anyway...

Well, the Palestinians were very happy until they were told that their country wasn't theirs anymore, it was now Israel, the Jewish land. It's a bit like the crusades, when Christians randomly turned up in the East, claimed a place in God's name and killed all who opposed them. War was bound to happen, and I doubt divine intervention would have made much difference.

I'll say now that I do not condone war, and the struggles in the east cannot be justified with any argument.


I think you missed the point of my post, although you seem to have gotten the jist.

If Israel really is blessed by God, then why would the US need to be involved in the 'peace-making' process? Couldn't Israel, with God's blessing, simply crush the Palestinians on their own? So, therefore, the US must be God's Divine Hand (a la Crusades).

Or, it could be taken as: if Israel is blessed and has been in near constant conflict for the past few decades, would that not imply that war is some form of blessing from God? And if such is the case, wouldn't the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then be some form of blessing from God? And since the US is the entity that carried war to those two nations, could we then not conclude that the US is God's Divine Hand?

there's a school of thought that God used evolution to create the species. He had a "guiding" hand in the process.

Does the Vatican endorse this "school of thought"? Is this what the other postor meant when he said "Vatican endorses evolution"?

What part of natural selection they don't understand?:confused:

Creationists are not the majority. (in canada) 12% of people feel that god either created the universe or that some higher being had something to do with it. Although I'm sure this number is much higher in places like the US or France, creationists are not a majority.
France?? I would have thought the percentage would have been much lower in France, as in the rest of western Europe.

Why is nation states mainly atheists.
It makes us feel isolated.

I'm not an atheist, and I don't feel isolated.

Repost, because I had to leave abruptly and post unfinished; here's the finished post.


ROFLOL what a string of fallacies and ignorance. This is more amusing than provocative.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.

Nope, there's example-of-ignorance numero uno: Intelligence is not the end result or sole selector in evolution. Natural selection propogates traits that are advantageous to the organism in its situation or environment. Intelligence is not always a major factor, and most organisms do not require it to adapt to their environment.

A lot of people, even those who accept evolution and profess to know it well, seem to be under this igorant delusion that the prime factor in evolution and survival is intelligence and consciousness, that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, etc. - not so. Intelligence is just one possible adaptation for survival, and man is not the most successful species on Earth - basteria and insects are.

But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush.

And here we have something like three or four fallacious concepts expressed in a single small paragraph!

1) Evolution does not happen on the scale of individual lifetimes. Individuals are still going to have a high random factor in their advancement, and natural selection is going to be slow and low-powered at such small scales. Law of Large Numbers, man.

2) As I said, intelligence is not automatically the selecting trait. In fact, our current political elections select based upon looks, charm, family connections, inherited wealth, and deep-seated, candidate-independent political and cultural prejudices and norms. Intelligence, sadly, tends not to factor too much into it.

3) Civilization, lacking advancement into self-directed/motivated evolution, is an evolutionary dead end. The weaker and the people whose traits don't predispose them to success and survival are held up by their superiors via compassion-motivated social structures. Unlike uncivilized nonsapient organisms, we protect the weakest and foster socioeconomic entropy in an attempt to circumvent the rigors of natural selection. Therefore, natural selection and evolution have slowed to a crawl, if not a dead stop, until we paradigm-shift to Evolution 2.0 - genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, etc.

So this is my take on how life ight have been created in the begining god created the earth for man and then when he was preparing the earth, animals where made by the darwinist theory of evoloution so that the less well of animlas would die.

Or we could claim that a giant divine cockroach sneezed out the universe - it would have the same amount of evidence (or lack thereof) and be equally logically plausible.

How can so many people who believe in god be wrong.

Oh, so that's it. You believe that if "everybody" thinks so, it must therefore be true. The masses know all. Of course - how could I have been so stupid? Nessie and UFOs are obviously real as well, and it's certainly true that Saddam Hussein was a major planner and coordinator of the 9/11 attacks...

Something does not have to be touched to be real.

No, it has to be observed. Directly, indirectly, whatever, but to be real it has to have some basis in reality, and what can't be directly or indirectly observed or justified in any way is not real. And don't try to pull out that 'spiritual' bs unless you're prepared to specifically define the term in context of existence and reality.

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.

Contrary to collectivistic beliefs, being the majority and being right are not the same thing, and equally as prominent as majority rule in Western political traditions are rule of law, sociocultural pluralism, protection of minorities, and rational, secular, reality- and problem-solving-oriented decision-making.

Just because most people are religious doesn't mean that we should discriminate against all religious groups except Christianity through dissolution of the separation of church and state, stop making objective, fact-based decisions on what's in reality best for the country, teach myths in school science classes, or reject the Enlightenment and head back to the "medieval and ancient" effective-Christian-theocracy Dark Ages.

Free Mercantile States, I want to have your baby.

Yes, and we shall give birth to a superrace that will RULE THE UNIVERSE! Muhahahahaha......lol.

Okay after doing some thinking I have figured out something.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.
But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush.
You need to understand why it is that the "stupid" animals die. It isn't because stupid animals randomly die out, it is because animals that are less fit to survive in their environment will be outbred, and because of that, outcompeted, by those who are fit.
George Bush, being President, seems to be fit enough to survive, in that being important and having a job is one way to survive. It isn't like he is struggling for life and being outcompeted. Being "stupid" isn't ecessarily going to make one die.
and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.
Oh, if we want to be a part of your life? How much more arrogant can you get?

Does the Vatican endorse this "school of thought"? Is this what the other postor meant when he said "Vatican endorses evolution"?
It endorses it because of its male dominated culture, under the idea that sure, God exists, but because He is a man, He sits on his ass while His woman, Mother Nature, does all the work. Makes, sense, no?:D

So...many...errors.....cannot correct them all...brain overloading...losing...consciousness...


I concur.


people make my head hurt.

Okay after doing some thinking I have figured out something. If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.

..and so would you. well, i don't see what's wrong with believing in both THEORIES. why can't we all just get along. :sniper:

Vegetarianistica']..and so would you. well, i don't see what's wrong with believing in both THEORIES. why can't we all just get along. :sniper:

The only definition of 'theory' that ID/creationism can fall under also covers astrology, medieval alchemy, Aristotelian geocentrism, and their equivalents.

You say science is bad, and that God protects 'stupid' people, but if we hadn't have made scientific advancements the people who would have been bred out due to their own death still exist because they have been saved by modern science. If it were down to God to protect them these genetically weaker people would die and the theory of evolution would stand.

That's confusing, so I'll give an example:

Say a person has a genetic disease in the 1600's or whenever, they would die of it and thus their genes would be bred-out of the genepool, so only the people with healthy genes would live, and the theory of evolution would stand; as the weaker or 'stupid' people die off.

However, in modern times, many of these people would survive BECAUSE science, not God, has saved them, allowing them to have children and keeping their genes alive. This is why there are so many 'stupid' people around, because science has allowed them to live where they wouldn't have in the past. If God had been solely responsible, the theory of evolution would work with humans also, and those too 'stupid' or ill because of genes would die because science couldn't keep them alive.

Therefore advances in science which keep these people alive are actually holding back evolution by keeping these genes alive and delaying the further evolution of humans, because we no longer need to evolve at this time to stay in existence. Not that delaying evolution is necessarily a bad thing, I'm totally against Nazi-style genetic euthanasia, and think we should help save these people, if not for God then for our own sense of morality, which in itself could be an bred-in, more complex form of instinct.

If anyone can explain this in simpler terms, please do.

youve clearly misunderstood natural selection, which whether you agree with evolution or not, is a pretty accurate model. natural selection does not weed out the 'stupid creatures', it weeds out thoes unable to protect their long term genetic interests.....

Thank you, I was about to say that!

You say science is bad, and that God protects 'stupid' people, but if we hadn't have made scientific advancements the people who would have been bred out due to their own death still exist because they have been saved by modern science. If it were down to God to protect them these genetically weaker people would die and the theory of evolution would stand.

That's confusing, so I'll give an example:

Say a person has a genetic disease in the 1600's or whenever, they would die of it and thus their genes would be bred-out of the genepool, so only the people with healthy genes would live, and the theory of evolution would stand; as the weaker or 'stupid' people die off.

However, in modern times, many of these people would survive BECAUSE science, not God, has saved them, allowing them to have children and keeping their genes alive. This is why there are so many 'stupid' people around, because science has allowed them to live where they wouldn't have in the past. If God had been solely responsible, the theory of evolution would work with humans also, and those too 'stupid' or ill because of genes would die because science couldn't keep them alive.

Therefore advances in science which keep these people alive are actually holding back evolution by keeping these genes alive and delaying the further evolution of humans, because we no longer need to evolve at this time to stay in existence. Not that delaying evolution is necessarily a bad thing, I'm totally against Nazi-style genetic euthanasia, and think we should help save these people, if not for God then for our own sense of morality, which in itself could be an bred-in, more complex form of instinct.

If anyone can explain this in simpler terms, please do.

I said the same thing in an earlier post - it's the Civilization Paradox. Civilization is an evolutionary dead end because of progress-enabled, compassion-motivated protection of the genetically inferior and circumvention of natural selection, with the only way out of the biological cul-de-sac being advancement to the point of self-directed science-enabled evolution, resulting in a singularity-like explosion of new machine, bioengineered, and hybrid intelligences and organisms.

so... where did the idea of infinity come from? it cannot be measured, it cannot be sensed. but we believe it exists. infinity is not an "idea" it's a theory. very few educated people actually think that anything is really "infinate" the idea of ZERO was a radical modern idea.actually the ancient Mayans were one of the first civilizations to contemplate the idea of "zero" (they even had a symbol for it in their system of counting {a rough drawing of a clamshell} for those of you who are interested) people have understood that there is infinity from the very first moment we were self aware. hmm... that is so appalingly incorrect that i don't even have a witty way to respond to it.
think about functions for equations that have "imaginary lines." That the equation accounts for, but does not exist.

obviously you don't really understand your math because that's not really what an imaginary solution to a function means. an imaginary solution is one that could be a solution to the problem if the number could even exist in the first place

LOL, someone actually wrote that stuff? Obviously, there are failers-of-math-courses on these boards....

maybe jesus will "rise again", i bet he would get all the prime spots on chat shows, i hope if he does he divulges to us his opinion on homosexuals, the coward "forgot" to last time making his speeches on how christianity would accept everyone including lepers and cheese makers but he never mentions gays. starting to think he was covering something up you know?

LOL, someone actually wrote that stuff? Obviously, there are failers-of-math-courses on these boards....
yeah, it's on page 17 almost at the bottom

Okay after doing some thinking I have figured out something.

If darwinisim is true then the not so smart animals/humans would be dead.
But look around you there are alot of non smart humans who are near the top of society.
Like george bush.

So this is my take on how life ight have been created in the begining god created the earth for man and then when he was preparing the earth, animals where made by the darwinist theory of evoloution so that the less well of animlas would die.
But then when god created man he gave him and her compassion for his or hers fellow man.

How can so many people who believe in god be wrong.

Something does not have to be touched to be real.

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.

Yikes.

i think the maths guy may have meant therez are infinite potential solutions to any function, of any kind... and that line without magnitude can be assumed infinite, though i cant be sure

actually the ancient Mayans were one of the first civilizations to contemplate the idea of "zero" (they even had a symbol for it in their system of counting {a rough drawing of a clamshell} for those of you were are interested) that is so appalingly incorrect that i don't even have a witty way to respond to it.


A history of Zero (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html)

:rolleyes:

I think that adequately sums it up, yes...

A history of Zero (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html)
was that supposed to support or refute me

Athiests do you not feel sad for destroyin 200 yeras of christian faith.
Do you not feel upset of what you have done.

LOL

I've done what, now?

By the way, it's "destroying", "years", and "Christian" with a capital C. And those should be question marks, not full stops.

Well i hope your parents are happy. Stupid facist sons of bitches. Can't people be brought up to respect everyone's views as equally useless? Why does your pious pomparity blind you from the screemingly obvious truth - that we cannot prove either way if god or jeebus (that is a generalisation for all the gods of all religions) created anything. Why are we caught up on these fantasies and myths of gods? Why are we so stubborn that we cannot accept that we simply don't know? Thats a mind boggling question to me, but what is more stupifying is that people just invent the past to try and cover up their gaps of knowledge -swallow your pride, predjudices and religion you stupid fuucker.

p.s. I hope that when you defecate those three out, even you may see which is the biggest pile of shiit.

Want to read something interesting? Try this (http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm).

i think the maths guy may have meant therez are infinite potential solutions to any function, of any kind... and that line without magnitude can be assumed infinite, though i cant be sure
That'd be even worse math. No, the poster is referring (unknowingly) to imaginary numbers. These so called "real" numbers are those that you can use to express something in the material world: you have 5 fingers, you lost $10 (-10), etc. Imaginary numbers only exist as solutions to certain mathematical equations, you can't have 2i kittens, for example. 1i, or i, is the square root of -1.

I'm not an athiest. I'm not a believer. I recognise that there are greater forces out there than we realise (like piskies.), but don't worship them. How do I fit in the grand scheme of things?

Anyway, I find it just so funny that Western -whateverhisorhernameis- wants to give proof that god created man.

Christianity is a faith, why have proof? Faith is the defining term.

Anyway, let's stop posting here....

Atheists and liberals I must say.
If you believe that all men are equal then why do you make us look evil, feel insignifacant, treat us like we or medieval and acient and why do you wnat to seperate church and state if you want to be a part off our life then actually regocnize that we are the majority.

I didn't do that. You did.