Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because athiests practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make athiests equally as biased?

Opinions.

good thing I'm wearing armor

Second question: Do agnostics have more of an edge?

I would have to say that Agnostics may have an edge. They do not generally come off as put off by religion, but it does seem that some are as well. An agnostic would have an edge in every respect but the religion he came from if that were the case.

Atheism to me seems to most often come off as a response to religion. This is a very shallow view, but it's how it seems to me.

God-****ing-damn, I like you A, and you are not the only one who does it, but for chist-buddha-mohammed-chance-moses' sake, why do you native speakers decide to ****ing misspell "atheism", it's not a hard word at all....I don't get it, it pisses me off big time. But enough about that.


I think atheism is just another belief system, and no more unbiased than any other. It might apply to agnosticism though.

Originally posted by Regret
I would have to say that Agnostics may have an edge. They do not generally come off as put off by religion, but it does seem that some are as well. An agnostic would have an edge in every respect but the religion he came from if that were the case.

Atheism to me seems to most often come off as a response to religion. This is a very shallow view, but it's how it seems to me.

I tend to agree.
IMO, atheism does appear to be, as noted, mostly a reaction to religion, especially the organized, dogmatic, often abusive form of it (which, btw, I like to call religionism).
Agnosticism, on the other, seems largely to have the fairness of mind to at least say, "I don't know." It seems more honest in its search for truth and perhaps, overall, is less biased.

Atheism is not a religious filosophy, seeing as we do not BELIEVE in anything "religious".

Atheism CAN be a response to religion I suppose, or it can be, as in my case, simply not needing or believing in any deities, gods, demons, angels, devils or what have you.

Originally posted by The Omega
Atheism is not a religious filosophy, seeing as we do not BELIEVE in anything "religious".

Atheism CAN be a response to religion I suppose, or it can be, as in my case, simply not needing or believing in any deities, gods, demons, angels, devils or what have you.

Not needing to believe in deities doesn't make them not exist though. I mean. But yes, it certainly isn't a religious philosophy, it is a belief system though.

Sorry couldn't help it.hysterical

Originally posted by The Omega
Atheism is not a religious filosophy, seeing as we do not BELIEVE in anything "religious".

Atheism CAN be a response to religion I suppose, or it can be, as in my case, simply not needing or believing in any deities, gods, demons, angels, devils or what have you.

I considered qualifying my statements with something like this, given this response I probably should have. I do think that often, and I think I could use the term frequently, atheism is a response to religion.

If atheism is, as you say, an absence of need for the supernatural, then I would agree that it may have an unbiased edge in viewing religion, but not entirely. It would seem to me that the religions furthest from the supernatural would hold more attraction than those that held strong supernatural views. But it is the stance that God does not exist, so it is not entirely unbiased in any open religious discussion.

Originally posted by Regret
I considered qualifying my statements with something like this, given this response I probably should have. I do think that often, and I think I could use the term frequently, atheism is a response to religion.

If atheism is, as you say, an absence of need for the supernatural, then I would agree that it may have an unbiased edge in viewing religion, but not entirely. It would seem to me that the religions furthest from the supernatural would hold more attraction than those that held strong supernatural views. But it is the stance that God does not exist, so it is not entirely unbiased in any open religious discussion.

I could expect atheism to be a response to religion by "rebelling" teenagers for example from religious households.
But saying that atheism is SOLELY a response to religion is giving religion too much power.

And actually... ... I don't know if "unbiased" is the right word... What I mean is, in any religious debate, I'd ask for proof of the gods, deities, devils, angels, messiases, profets etc before the debate could even proceed. It's like trying to debate with a strong proponent of a conspiracy hypothesis with no proof... I'd ask for proof...

I can discuss the actions of various churches and priests, popes, mullahs and other clerics in a sociological and historical context.

Originally posted by The Omega
I could expect atheism to be a response to religion by "rebelling" teenagers for example from religious households.
But saying that atheism is SOLELY a response to religion is giving religion too much power.

And actually... ... I don't know if "unbiased" is the right word... What I mean is, in any religious debate, I'd ask for proof of the gods, deities, devils, angels, messiases, profets etc before the debate could even proceed. It's like trying to debate with a strong proponent of a conspiracy hypothesis with no proof... I'd ask for proof...

I can discuss the actions of various churches and priests, popes, mullahs and other clerics in a sociological and historical context.

I agree with everything you posted (never stated the solely portion myself. ) I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?

Not all atheists are biased, but many are just as set in there belief as believers..........

Originally posted by Regret
I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?

YES! Thats exactly what I was thinking. I'm not saying that athiesm itself is a superior viewpoint, I'm asking about viewpoint.

There top a cliff may have a better view, but that doesnt mean its the place you like better.

Please...stop the "athiesm" stuff....it makes little baby bardock cry.

Sorry...I can't spell for sh*t cry

Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry...I can't spell for sh*t cry

Think of it like this..you know the name "Theo" ...I think the eldest son of the Bill Cosby show was called that, it's "THeo" not "Thoe"....same with Atheism....

*WHOOSH*

Righte over my head.


how about just a-theism?

Originally posted by Alliance
*WHOOSH*

Righte over my head.


how about just a-theism?

Exactly. Just that atheism was used first...strangely enough.

I believe the word was invented later though.

Originally posted by Alliance
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because Atheists practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make Atheists equally as biased?

Opinions.

good thing I'm wearing armor

Atheists have a disadvantage, because they do not have a support group.

I'm typing this quickly, so if I don't say things just right, please forgive me.

Personally, it's hard for me to conceive how atheism can develop w/o being--to some degree--a response to theism. Most of us have likely grown up in a societal context where a religious element did exist; and there may even be some innate tendency to develop religious belief systems, as evidenced by prehistoric rituals which strongly suggest an awareness of possible life-after-death.

That aside, it seems to me that atheism comes about for 1 of 2 main reasons:
1. No proof, specifically no empirical proof of "God." IMO, insistence on empirical proof for a nonempirical entity raises its own set of problems; nonetheless, a critical thinker can arrive at an atheistic conclusion relatively independently of the dogma he/she was raised in.
2. The statement may take various forms, but the essence of it is this: "If there is a loving God, why is there so much suffering in the world?" Here is where, I think, we find the more "radical/vehement" atheists who, instead of reaching their conclusion mainly through Reason #1, are reacting more from anger, resentment or disappointment.

I think those points are valid. Religious contexts are everywhere, 5/6ths of the world is religious.

Scientifically (in reference to athiesm), if you reach the same answer, by different people, independantly adn by using different methods...that answer is the closest thing to truth you can possible describe.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I find it funny sometimes that I have studied many different religions and found that I know more about different faiths then some of the people that practice them.

I have the same problems.

But atheism is not a faith...its a point of view.

Originally posted by Alliance
I have the same problems.

But atheism is not a faith...its a point of view. I never said that it was, however depending on your definition of faith it can be as well as religion being a point of view.

Perhaps it would be easier to answer the question if we defined what we meant by "having an edge?" Are we talking, for example, some practical benefit, or just who is "closer to the truth"? What does it mean to "have an edge" in this context?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheists have a disadvantage, because they do not have a support group.

However they do support each other on the subject of Atheism....right?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
However they do support each other on the subject of Atheism....right?

Yes, and if they drink too much, they could join AA.

My post before, was meant in irony. I was calling religions, support groups.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps it would be easier to answer the question if we defined what we meant by "having an edge?" Are we talking, for example, some practical benefit, or just who is "closer to the truth"? What does it mean to "have an edge" in this context?

Haveing an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

And anyone who drinks too much can join AA...they don't descriminate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Having an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

Understood.

In that case, my first impulse is to say the Person may be more of a determining factor than the POV.

It's like: when I was heavy into martial arts, the Big Question was, Which is the best style? Answer: it really depended on the person more than the style in determining who had the edge.

Valid point...I was speaking more generally though.

Originally posted by Alliance
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because athiests practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make athiests equally as biased?

Opinions.

good thing I'm wearing armor

A great thread Alliance!

Actually, athiests do practice a faith. That faith believes that everything we see just happened by time and chance. There is no designer in all this design and thier is no creator who put all this together. It takes more faith in my opinion to believe this than it does to believe that thier is a designer and for every plan thier is a planner.

Question: If I took a 747 Jumbo Jet and disassembled it and threw all the pieces on the ground... how many billions of years would it take to put everything back together again in working order?

Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure...something present even in pagansim...there is a thread on it somewhere, but I guess the discussion question is relevant.

Atheism imo is better describes as a religous philosophy.

I'm glad you like the thread...it seems like you're heading back into intelligent design. But the answer to you question is about 4.6 billion years.

i'd be happy to debate evolution, its one of my faovrite topics....we could set up a point counterpoint debate thread.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
...Question: If I took a 747 Jumbo Jet and disassembled it and threw all the pieces on the ground... how many billions of years would it take to put everything back together again in working order?

Answer: it would never come together, no matter how much time. However, give evolution enough time and a small age like creature will evolve enough to build a 747. I know this is true, because it happened.

Originally posted by Alliance
Haveing an edge was in reference to having a superior vantage point to analyze religion.

And anyone who drinks too much can join AA...they don't descriminate.

I had thought my comment and your response had already answered that.

oh OK

Originally posted by Alliance
Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure...something present even in pagansim...there is a thread on it somewhere, but I guess the discussion question is relevant.

Atheism imo is better describes as a religous philosophy.

I'm glad you like the thread...it seems like you're heading back into intelligent design. But the answer to you question is about 4.6 billion years.

i'd be happy to debate evolution, its one of my faovrite topics....we could set up a point counterpoint debate thread.

4.6 billion years for the Jet to re-assemble? Just havin fun...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Answer: it would never come together, no matter how much time. However, give evolution enough time and a small age like creature will evolve enough to build a 747. I know this is true, because it happened.

Amazing! That's like an explosion creating life. Wow! Thats a possibity too...

Originally posted by Alliance
Atheism is not a faith becuase there is no centralized religous structure That is only one part of the meaning of the word, Atheism can be consider a type of faith.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree with everything you posted (never stated the solely portion myself. ) I think the issue is what Alliance meant by analyzing religion. I am assuming he is referring to testing levels of various forms of validity based on religious frames of reference. Could you, Omega, step into the hypothetical realm and analyze the world's religions unbiased by your disbelief in the supernatural?

Depends on what should be analyzed and in what context. Questions of faith, no. Historical, theological and sociological/political moves conducted by various churches and temples and religions I could discuss.
Unbiased? Hmmm, probably not come to think of it. I view religions as culturally accepted delusions along with conspiracy theories, and am probably inclined to find some of them reactionary, conservative and male-chauvinistic obstacles to the progress of society.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Amazing! That's like an explosion creating life. Wow! Thats a possibity too...

IMO life was never created. Life is the normal state of God.

Originally posted by The Omega
Depends on what should be analyzed and in what context. Questions of faith, no. Historical, theological and sociological/political moves conducted by various churches and temples and religions I could discuss.
Unbiased? Hmmm, probably not come to think of it. I view religions as culturally accepted delusions along with conspiracy theories, and am probably inclined to find some of them reactionary, conservative and male-chauvinistic obstacles to the progress of society.
wow

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
IMO life was never created. Life is the normal state of God.
Unless it was...and just out of curiosity...how much detail do you know about scientific theories discussing the creation of life?

Originally posted by Alliance
Unless it was...and just out of curiosity...how much detail do you know about scientific theories discussing the creation of life?

I know a little. There is no proof of life beyond the effect that it has on the environment.

Please enlighten me...

OH!

I was tralking to JBF, nto you...sorry! I must have hit the wrong quote after reading his quote in yuor post and ....

Originally posted by Alliance
One of the main issues I find in analyzing religion is that everyone views religion from their personal history. This is obvious and unavoidable. Because athiests practice no faith, are they superior in the fact that they can present an unbiased opinon of religion? Or does athiesm as a relgious philosophy make athiests equally as biased?

Opinions.

good thing I'm wearing armor
Atheists are not necessarily more rational than theists, and not all atheists are more open minded than theists.

Originally posted by Alliance
i'd be happy to debate evolution, its one of my faovrite topics....we could set up a point counterpoint debate thread.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
There is, for example, that 'Intelligent Design' thread--which could be subtitled, 'Exasperation Central for Proponents of Evolution'.

...or not. You'd have to argue pro-con why intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution.

Originally posted by Alliance
OH!

I was tralking to JBF, nto you...sorry! I must have hit the wrong quote after reading his quote in yuor post and ....



Just enough to say that how can you start with nothing and then get something to create life. The chance of cells just coming together by pure luck and putting together the perfection and detail in design really takes faith Alliance. Much more faith than most Christians have.

Originally posted by Alliance
OH!

I was tralking to JBF, nto you...sorry! I must have hit the wrong quote after reading his quote in yuor post and ....



No problem, I've done the same thing. The strange thing is that it fit.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Just enough to say that how can you start with nothing and then get something to create life. The chance of cells just coming together by pure luck and putting together the perfection and detail in design really takes faith Alliance. Much more faith than most Christians have.

You're the one that believes that there was something created form nothing. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only did God make everthing from nothing...he "worte" about it like a 2nd grader.

Science is not perfect, but its better than your ignorant theories that aren't even based in reality.

Saying science believe "you start with nothing and then get something" is like saying a baker bakes a cake without ingredients. All the components of cells were present, its not a "leap of faith" to have them assemble. No faith involved.

Apparently you think cells are perfect. Let me tell you, coming from someone who actually knows abou them and works with them on a dialy basis, they are FAR from perfect. They are onyl about 10% efficent, have thousnads of extraneous problems, major design inconsistancies, and quite frankly do things that are illogical. If your god was the engineer, he clearly never got a degree.

And trust me, I dont have more faith than Christians...I'm not blindly ignorant.

Originally posted by Alliance
You're the one that believes that there was something created form nothing. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only did God make everthing from nothing...he "worte" about it like a 2nd grader.

Science is not perfect, but its better than your ignorant theories that aren't even based in reality.

Saying science believe "you start with nothing and then get something" is like saying a baker bakes a cake without ingredients. All the components of cells were present, its not a "leap of faith" to have them assemble. No faith involved.

Apparently you think cells are perfect. Let me tell you, coming from someone who actually knows abou them and works with them on a dialy basis, they are FAR from perfect. They are onyl about 10% efficent, have thousnads of extraneous problems, major design inconsistancies, and quite frankly do things that are illogical. If your god was the engineer, he clearly never got a degree.

And trust me, I dont have more faith than Christians...I'm not blindly ignorant.

Here are some Mormon statements on the creation, we believe there was more to it than the small overview placed in the book of Genesis. Russel M. Nelson is currently a member of the twelve apostles, Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the twelve until his death in 1985.

At least its more detailed. And I like the idea of times.

Though Conckie has to meet my friend, the particle accelerator...for it destroys elements.

Momonism is nice because it updates.

Originally posted by Alliance
At least its more detailed. And I like the idea of times.

Though Conckie has to meet my friend, the particle accelerator...for it destroys elements.

Momonism is nice because it updates.

yeah, although I think by elements he is just stating that matter/energy will always exist in some form, not just speaking of elements.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons we believe prophets are necessary. various things that are understood now were not available or misunderstood in the past. Without continued revelation things like evolution as well as other aspects of science may have seemed to be more damaging to the idea of creation than we believe they really are

An interesting point though, we have believed in ideas like these quotes since Joseph Smith, so it isn't that new.

science and religion are pefectly compatible....creationism is much more difficult, but still very do-able.

Originally posted by Alliance
science and religion are pefectly compatible....creationism is much more difficult, but still very do-able.

I find that Buddhism and science go together beautifully.

I find science stands best with philosophy

I don't really believe anything that is true can really be separated wholly from everything else that is true.

Thats probably correct

"Do Atheists have an edge?"......................I think maybe so, but not totally in my world.

Originally posted by Alliance
You're the one that believes that there was something created form nothing. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only did God make everthing from nothing...he "worte" about it like a 2nd grader.

Science is not perfect, but its better than your ignorant theories that aren't even based in reality.

Saying science believe "you start with nothing and then get something" is like saying a baker bakes a cake without ingredients. All the components of cells were present, its not a "leap of faith" to have them assemble. No faith involved.

Apparently you think cells are perfect. Let me tell you, coming from someone who actually knows abou them and works with them on a dialy basis, they are FAR from perfect. They are onyl about 10% efficent, have thousnads of extraneous problems, major design inconsistancies, and quite frankly do things that are illogical. If your god was the engineer, he clearly never got a degree.

And trust me, I dont have more faith than Christians...I'm not blindly ignorant.

Sad, but how do you think everything is perfectly held together? Atoms, etc.? So many things in perfect check that a little deviation and we are all toast!

Wow, I guess chance is doing a great job so far...

Could I call this god the god of Chance?

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
A great thread Alliance!

Actually, athiests do practice a faith. That faith believes that everything we see just happened by time and chance. There is no designer in all this design and thier is no creator who put all this together. It takes more faith in my opinion to believe this than it does to believe that thier is a designer and for every plan thier is a planner.

Question: If I took a 747 Jumbo Jet and disassembled it and threw all the pieces on the ground... how many billions of years would it take to put everything back together again in working order?

Not that silly jumbo jet analogy again.

Check this essay out:http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

To summarize, the jumbo jet analogy to evolution fails because:

1. It operates purely according to random chance.
2. It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
3. It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
4. It has a target specified ahead of time

And no atheist DONT worship Chance.

The Chance Factor is far less amazing if you consider the possibility that our spacetime may be only one of an infinite number of spacetimes, most where all the ingredients did Not come together to create atoms, stars and life. It's purely a numbers game: when you have Infinity to play with, sooner or later you will get a spacetime like ours.

And while there is no empirical proof of these other spacetimes, 1) they do make unification theories work; and 2) theoretically they can be tested for, once we have the technology for generating the energies required. "God," as a nonempirical entity, does not offer such verification--this doesn't mean, necessarily, God does not exist, just that "His" participation violates Occam's Razor by being a nonconfirmable variable.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Sad, but how do you think everything is perfectly held together? Atoms, etc.? So many things in perfect check that a little deviation and we are all toast!

Wow, I guess chance is doing a great job so far...
1. This is a stupid argument. Unless you are actually going to comment on my posts (which I believe you can't because you knothing about any of the theories/principles you are attacking).

2. You are using circular logic. Its very possible the universe is not a one time thing. You're assuming that this "ONE" chance things worked out. You are saying "because we're here, so the system must work" The truth is, "a system worked and we happen to be here." Of COURSE the system is stable. If it wasnt...we wouldnt be here...that doesnt mean it was made that way...get my point?

And templares...that was interesting rebuttal. My intioal opinon is: I like it.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Sad, but how do you think everything is perfectly held together? Atoms, etc.? So many things in perfect check that a little deviation and we are all toast!

Wow, I guess chance is doing a great job so far...

Actually it isn't held together that well. Everything that produces energy puts off a form of radiation. This radiation eventually causes cancers. So it actually wasn't put together in the best way possible. If it were then standing on top of a high mountain wouldn't increase the chance of getting cancer. I would assume that since it wasn't put together in a perfect manner that this would say that it was more likely chance did it.

Good thought, but its not that much of a difference. Everyone gets about 3mSv a year jsut from existing. I believe thats fairly true regardless of location.

Originally posted by Alliance
Good thought, but its not that much of a difference. Everyone gets about 3mSv a year jsut from existing. I believe thats fairly true regardless of location.

Yeah, but the higher your elevation does increase the amount. Flying gets you more. You get it from pretty much everything that exists. Sitting in a crowd will increase the amount of radiation you are getting, unless of course being in the crowd is blocking enough of the radiation from the sun and the environment to outweigh what you get from other people.

My wife is a Radiologist, I get to hear about it all the time

Also on average more people will get cancer in Denver than in some low elevation point.

ok, then.

Yeah, you better agree with her, I don't want to have to hear about that from her as well

You married well.

Yes I did

Originally posted by Alliance
1. This is a stupid argument. Unless you are actually going to comment on my posts (which I believe you can't because you knothing about any of the theories/principles you are attacking).

2. You are using circular logic. Its very possible the universe is not a one time thing. You're assuming that this "ONE" chance things worked out. You are saying "because we're here, so the system must work" The truth is, "a system worked and we happen to be here." Of COURSE the system is stable. If it wasnt...we wouldnt be here...that doesnt mean it was made that way...get my point?

And templares...that was interesting rebuttal. My intioal opinon is: I like it.

Could you tell me how you think all this started? Yes, there is a beginning and the bible teaches in the beginning was God. He is the first and the last. You have to start somewhere or we end up with, "Who made God, and who made who made God? And who then made the one who made God? and on and on.........

Jesus is the Apha & Omega, the beginning and the end. He was not created and by Him all things were made that are made.

Originally posted by Regret
Actually it isn't held together that well.

Common Regret You know what I meant.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Common Regret You know what I meant.
I think we do...and (being so bold to speak on behalf of regret) we think you are wrong.

Its very difficult to try to know everyhting about somehting that happened everywhere 13.7 billion years ago.

SInce you can arbitrarily say "we start with god" then I can arbitrarily say "we start with some sort of mini-sugularityish type universe thats the Plank length." From there, lots of stuff happened. The big bang theory is well documented, I don't need to explain every detail. Heavan forbid we question beyond that. I'm not content sitting in small boxes.

These questions about what preceeded are vadlid questions and deserve answers. WE (the scientific community) do our best to provide quality answers based on the best data available.

Your answer is always the same regardless of circumstances.

Again...you do nothing but shift the argument, you never actually make a rebuttal.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think we do...and (being so bold to speak on behalf of regret) we think you are wrong.

Its very difficult to try to know everyhting about somehting that happened everywhere 13.7 billion years ago.

SInce you can arbitrarily say "we start with god" then I can arbitrarily say "we start with some sort of mini-sugularityish type universe thats the Plank length." From there, lots of stuff happened. The big bang theory is well documented, I don't need to explain every detail. Heavan forbid we question beyond that. I'm not content sitting in small boxes.

These questions about what preceeded are vadlid questions and deserve answers. WE (the scientific community) do our best to provide quality answers based on the best data available.

Your answer is always the same regardless of circumstances.

Again...you do nothing but shift the argument, you never actually make a rebuttal.

I think I do agree with Alliance.

Here is the point, if science proves something as a fact, I do not believe that God has done it a different way. If nature, science, whatever proves something, and God exists, then for God to contradict evidence we find is in essence contradicting himself, since he created everything. So if God created everything then contradictions will not occur between scientific fact and God.

Wonderfully logical.

Originally posted by Alliance


Your answer is always the same regardless of circumstances.



Your right Alliance, I will always bore you with the Bible... because it has withstood the test of time. I'm not sure what Regret believes or doesn't believe so I will stick to the solid rock with Him too. It's getting fun around here.

Originally posted by Regret
Actually it isn't held together that well. Everything that produces energy puts off a form of radiation. This radiation eventually causes cancers. So it actually wasn't put together in the best way possible. If it were then standing on top of a high mountain wouldn't increase the chance of getting cancer. I would assume that since it wasn't put together in a perfect manner that this would say that it was more likely chance did it.

Couldn't one say, that, in a sense, it is put together "just right?" I mean, just because there are agents in this universe which are deadly to life--things us finicky humans don't appreciate--that doesn't make it "imperfect."

Or is this just semantics?

Originally posted by Mindship
Couldn't one say, that, in a sense, it is put together "just right?" I mean, just because there are agents in this universe which are deadly to life--things us finicky humans don't appreciate--that doesn't make it "imperfect."

Or is this just semantics?

Agents that are unavoidable by being a living being seems to be imperfect, not what I would consider "just right".

I would wonder if we being imperfect beings can have any accurate view of what is perfect.

How can we ever know what perfect is?

Originally posted by Mindship
Couldn't one say, that, in a sense, it is put together "just right?" I mean, just because there are agents in this universe which are deadly to life--things us finicky humans don't appreciate--that doesn't make it "imperfect."

Or is this just semantics?
Id say no. Light is radiation...its excess errors.

Think of it this way:

There are many possibilities of a universe.
This is one of those possibilities.
THis posibility is stable becuase we are still here.
Using the characteristics of this universe complex systems were able to develop.
Theses systems include us.
Yet we and other major systems are hardly optimal systems.

Conclusion: We were designied for this universe, not this universe for us.

I'm beginning to see trend with Athiests. The most that I know happen to be self-proclaimed, and are roughly around the ages of 14-16. Please, these stupid ****s aren't Athiests, they're troubled teens who don't get a thing from their parents. It sickens me.

However for the most part, Athiests seem to have the best schedule. Think about, I'm way too busy to devote/donate any time to a faceless god for blessing, and the time I do have free, I wish to not spend it doing the above mentioned.

Originally posted by Scythe
I'm beginning to see trend with Athiests. The most that I know happen to be self-proclaimed, and are roughly around the ages of 14-16. Please, these stupid ****s aren't Athiests, they're troubled teens who don't get a thing from their parents. It sickens me.

Most thinks start in those ages....people discover their sexualities, kids really start lookign towards the future, many things happen...its only natural peopel question their faith too.

If people never question their faith.....

And please...many are stupid ****s. and many arent troubled. People like you who think that everything falls so netely into categories and who think teens are the root of all evil sicken me.

Originally posted by Scythe
I'm beginning to see trend with Athiests. The most that I know happen to be self-proclaimed, and are roughly around the ages of 14-16. Please, these stupid ****s aren't Athiests, they're troubled teens who don't get a thing from their parents. It sickens me.


Those poor troubled teens. I guess Simple Plan and Linkin Park are not enough to help their emotional growth that they have to turn to atheism .

Seriously, you havent met a well-adjusted, adult atheist ?

Originally posted by Regret
I think I do agree with Alliance.



Noooo.. You got to be kidding...

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Your right Alliance, I will always bore you with the Bible... because it has withstood the test of time. I'm not sure what Regret believes or doesn't believe so I will stick to the solid rock with Him too. It's getting fun around here.



It is possible for me to agree with people and vice versa.

The Bible is not boring...I had the balls to read it. The bible has changed tremendously throught time and might I remind you that principles such as philosophy and science were founded before Christianity. Its just the fact that you really never seem to have a brain when you quote the bible. My opinions are based on many sources...but I can speak for my sources and myself...interpreting and adjusting what I have read.

You may have the "rock," but I have everything. I can be whatever, whenever, wherever.

Originally posted by Alliance
It is possible for me to agree with people and vice versa.

The Bible is not boring...I had the balls to read it. The bible has changed tremendously throught time and might I remind you that principles such as philosophy and science were founded before Christianity. Its just the fact that you really never seem to have a brain when you quote the bible. My opinions are based on many sources...but I can speak for my sources and myself...interpreting and adjusting what I have read.

You may have the "rock," but I have everything. I can be whatever, whenever, wherever.

I liked your comments Alliance, I'll add my two cents as well

In other words you have a rock Justbyfaith, but you probably should make it into something of use, a decent cornerstone or keystone that your faith can be built upon.

Originally posted by Regret
I liked your comments Alliance, I'll add my two cents as well