Just Watched 'Jesus Camp'

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Tab
From a single post it's quite obivious that you're certainly not looking at evolution without some pre-conceived notions. This no point in arguing with religious fundamentalists just as there is no point in arguing with many atheists that seem to dominate the internet. Heh, I really tend to enjoy the thread about religious fundamentalists and how everyone jumps in on them. In reality, they're no different from those they're making fun of.

There is no one alive without "pre-conceived notions", I have never claimed to be without these, and if I were, I would not pick this forum to acquire any new insights. That is not a characteristic of debate. However, there is nothing amiss in my pointing out this aspect of evolutionists, because I attempting to get them to see this within themselves.

Fair enough, but those who tend to debate semantics usually don't get anywhere. The point is both sides are blind and think they're accomplishing something by pointing out the obvious. Atheists will often point out that there are some Christians who hate gays. Yet, at the same time they refuse to acknowledge that most Christians don't hate gays and most of them are good people. Also, I think it's quite hiliarous when Athiests mention that most people included Christians haven't read the bible and still claim to be experts.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
People who don't believe in evolution ARE whack jobs

I think that about all the "global warming does not exist" crowd which seems to have big numbers here on ATOT. The best part is that their posts demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what global warming is or what causes atmospherical weather patterns. I just love uninformed decisions. The same is behind denial of evolution.

The typical "it does not exist because I have been brainwashed not to believe in it" is a common answer for people who are too dumb to learn a thing or two about science.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: blackllotus
People who don't believe in evolution ARE whack jobs

I think that about all the "global warming does not exist" crowd which seems to have big numbers here on ATOT. The best part is that their posts demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what global warming is or what causes atmospherical weather patterns. I just love uninformed decisions. The same is behind denial of evolution.

The typical "it does not exist because I have been brainwashed not to believe in it" is a common answer for people who are too dumb to learn a thing or two about science.

No one's denying global warming, it's the people claiming that if the government does XYZ then everything will be ok. When in reality, you don't know if XYZ is really going to make a difference because you're still not sure how global warming works or the cause or even if you could stop it.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: blackllotus
People who don't believe in evolution ARE whack jobs

I think that about all the "global warming does not exist" crowd which seems to have big numbers here on ATOT. The best part is that their posts demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what global warming is or what causes atmospherical weather patterns. I just love uninformed decisions. The same is behind denial of evolution.

The typical "it does not exist because I have been brainwashed not to believe in it" is a common answer for people who are too dumb to learn a thing or two about science.

No one's denying global warming, it's the people claiming that if the government does XYZ then everything will be ok. When in reality, you don't know if XYZ is really going to make a difference because you're still not sure how global warming works or the cause or even if you could stop it.

It is clear to me that green house gasses cause it. People contribute a lot of them. I am not one of the ones who say that we can stop it if we cut back 20%. It would be nice if people were more responsible but that won't happen any time soon. That still does not mean that if we take preventative measures it has no effect. It will but it will not stop the process.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: blackllotus
People who don't believe in evolution ARE whack jobs

I think that about all the "global warming does not exist" crowd which seems to have big numbers here on ATOT. The best part is that their posts demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what global warming is or what causes atmospherical weather patterns. I just love uninformed decisions. The same is behind denial of evolution.

The typical "it does not exist because I have been brainwashed not to believe in it" is a common answer for people who are too dumb to learn a thing or two about science.

No one's denying global warming, it's the people claiming that if the government does XYZ then everything will be ok. When in reality, you don't know if XYZ is really going to make a difference because you're still not sure how global warming works or the cause or even if you could stop it.

It is clear to me that green house gasses cause it. People contribute a lot of them. I am not one of the ones who say that we can stop it if we cut back 20%. It would be nice if people were more responsible but that won't happen any time soon. That still does not mean that if we take preventative measures it has no effect. It will but it will not stop the process.

What preventative measure should we take? I bet if we created a new federal agency that funded global warming research, set new enviromental standards, taxed global warming contributers, gave subsidies to "alternative energy" companies it's likely that we'll be on our way to global warming...

Oh, by the way this new federal agency needs a couple hundred billion a year and has asked that we ban the use of XYZ product because it's a big contributer to global warming even though XYZ consumer is completely dependant on it.

 

[Seekermeister]

Tab,

Fair enough, but those who tend to debate semantics usually don't get anywhere. The point is both sides are blind and think they're accomplishing something by pointing out the obvious. Atheists will often point out that there are some Christians who hate gays. Yet, at the same time they refuse to acknowledge that most Christians don't hate gays and most of them are good people. Also, I think it's quite hiliarous when Athiests mention that most people included Christians haven't read the bible and still claim to be experts.

If my purpose in posting was to convert all atheists to Christianity, it would be very foolish and hopeless. It may also be foolish, but I like to hope that something that I say may help at least one atheist someday, even if I never hear that from them. A slightly greater hope is that I might have a similar effect on an agnostic, because everybody was once an agnostic, whether they realized it or not. Therefore, the goal is not to win an argument, or to simply pass the time in an amusing fashion. People never remain the same person throughout their lives, therefore what counts is how they end up. I consider the conflict to be merely an opportunity.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: SuperFungus

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic
I love it when I step away from a thread for a couple of hours and my point is proven for me. Which, in this case, is that the "whack jobs" are a lot more than just the fundie nuts. But what could I have possibly expected from people who think that science is a belief system? (Hint: it's actually a process).

Oh BTW: atheism is by dictionary definition the active disbelief in God, not merely the lack of belief in God. Get your facts straight before you throw rocks from your glass house.

If a person is born into a culture in which nobody ever speaks of, refers to, knows about, or has ever heard of, the idea of God, and he's walking around not believing in God, what do you call him?

As for dictionary definitions, there is more than one listed in any decent dictionary. And if it's such a big deal, I'll go around explaining to people in multiple sentences that I don't believe in God, but I also don't assert that one absolutely doesn't exist.

Such a culture has never existed in all of recorded history. Even ancient cultures prejudicially labeled in these modern days as "polytheistic" had a belief in a one single almighty God who ruled over all the other gods.

That's generally considered to be agnosticism. The only honest belief IMO.

Agnosticism requires knowledge of the concept of God. That would not be the correct label here.

And atheism and agnosticism do not necessarily go at odds with each other.

I'd consider atheism to be as honest a belief as they come, for me, as I don't follow or believe in any deity. If you can please explain to me how that's a problematic term, please do. And do a little more research on the word 'atheist' than looking it up in your Webster. It is very commonly defined (by atheists) as the 'absence of belief' rather than the 'active disbelief', which are not really that far from one another for most people. 'Active disbelief' conveys to me a sense of urgency to run out on the street and tell everyone there's no God, which is pretty far from the actual behavior of most atheists.

There have always been multiple definitions of words like this, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that, since you profess to have an understanding of the idea. Please don't pretend you're winning an argument with me with something as petty as semantics.

This is ridiculously inaccurate. That is obvious when you look at the roots of the respective words. Agnosticism comes from a gnosticism, or to be in opposition to gnosticism. Gnosticism is the belief in the supernatural. Atheism is a theism, or to be in opposition to theism, where theism is the belief in God. So obviously this hypothetical culture with no knowledge whatsoever of God would be agnostic, whereas atheism requires that the knowledge of the concept of God exist in the first place in order for one to be in opposition of such knowledge.

I don't care about your petty apologist BS. This has nothing to do with "winning" any argument or your precious ego. If you post information that is factually inaccurate, I will call you out on it. Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT." When I pointed out that that was factually wrong and cited the 1 billion plus member Catholic church as an example, you fell back on the anecdote of your personal opinions about your brother's faith, I wish I could not care less about. Once that became painfully obvious, you began moving from tangent to tangent in order to protect your precious ego, the last of which is the little semantic trip.
I tell this to everyone here who pulls this same crap. This is not a verbal discussion. You cannot pretend that certain things you posted never occurred. Or would you like me to repost your every word from this thread?

Okay, here's the section from my first post you refer to:

To be honest, I've always had MORE respect for fundies than the halfway-there Christians who just go to church now and then and don't have a clue about the OT (or much from the NT, for that matter). Why? Because although I think both categories are pretty much whacked, at least the average pentecostal/fundie/other variety of fanatic sticks with their story. They may have an entirely off-base world view, but they actually do all of the things they feel they should do.

This is what you just said:

Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT."

I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Then a large number of atheists are ridiculously uniformed about what 'atheism' means. Vic is right 100%. Buy a fsking dictionary. Or, if you're too busy (yea, right) go to wikipedia.

Atheism:
"It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism."

The article does say that some atheists classify 'absence of belief' as atheism but that absence of belief better fits the definition of nontheism (like your hypothetical island person)

Look, I can understand people being uniformed; but when you try and pass yourself off as being informed, get caught, and yet persist in your inaccuracies well then you?re officially a pretentious, all knowing ass. In fact you clearly insist that whatever the definition is you know that a ?large number of atheists? will back you up so now you?re more correct than the dictionary. Sorry to disappoint you but no, the definition of atheism is NOT subjective nor debatable. First off I don?t know where you get off claiming that you get to define the ?current working definition? of atheism. Second, who the hell gave you permission to speak for all atheists about how they define their beliefs? What you need to ?come to terms with? is that you are WRONG. Like 2 + 2 = 5 wrong. Or like your mother?s decision to have children wrong.

Sorry, this kind of thing (ie. belligerent, unapologetic, idiocy) really steams me.

Are you Vic's second account? You seem to have the same style: quoting something I said, and then throwing your own spin on the words I actually typed.

By the way, I would never point this out in anyone's posts unless it were a case like this, with inflammatory remarks directed at me for no reason, but work on your spelling. Insulting someone with words relating to intelligence or knowledge in a post with multiple misspellings doesn't really make a great impression on the ladies.

Don't bother replying if you'd like a response. I'm bored right now, but I'm not this bored.

Um, i just ran it through spell check. Nothing's wrong. Except fsking. And semi-purposeful minor grammatical errors (like begining a sentence with and). But then again i guess you've probably written your own dictionary haven't you? One where atheism isn't the positive belief that there is no God. I havent thrown a spin on anything you've said. You clearly say that 'a large number of atheists' define thier views just as you outline. And the way you outline is in contradiction to the objective, black and white definition of atheism. And I put the inflammatory remarks in there for a good reason, to wake you the hell up. You're trying to fight the dictionary here.

And do you really try and impress ladies with your spelling on internet forums? Because that would be just about the funniest thing i have ever heard.

Sorry to bore you.

Vic,
I believe it was you who denied morality in that thread about abortion. I can't find it now but you argued that morality wasn't really about right or wrong, it was just an evolved response designed to facilitate society. I argued that that may be true in a macro sense but that that theory broke down with specificity and that without right and wrong in your morality, simply benifit vs. risk, it ceased to be morality by the conventional definition. Wasn't that you? I'm pretty sure it was because you were arguing with Moonbeam. But i could be mistaken, if i am i'm very sorry.

 

[shadow9d9]

PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That would be all fine and well if you could actually point to any evidence that God exists. Surely, given your statement above, you should be able to provide some solid evidence that everyone in this discussion can then examine.

I won't hold my breath.

As others have pointed out not all evidence can be replicated in a petri dish or examined under a microscope. You seem to have found evidence that leads you to conclude that God does not exist or, at the very least, that God's existence is unprovable. For myself, I have found evidence of God's existence in every aspect of our lives, from the complexity of our nature to man's need for purpose and meaning in life (I'll bet that even those who claim that need for meaning is a crutch, deep down, have the same need themselves).

You give the impression that you have accumulated so much evidence that God does not exist that there is really no question in the debate and that there is no way anyone will be able to give you the evidence you ask for. I feel the same way about the amount of evidence proving God's existence.

I won't begrudge you your free agency and your right to make whatever decision you choose based off the evidence you have, even though I don't see it. Maybe you should do the same for others.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Crono
Excellent post I am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.

The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.

Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.

Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.

Thanks and I agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph.

So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Martin

So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?

Not sure to tell you the truth. I've learned about evolution in a few of my college classes but not with enough depth to give you a good answer to your question. You'd have to see what the real scientists are claiming.

 

[piasabird]

What exactly is wrong with Chirstianity?

Lets see. . .

People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me. After Katrina, it was the churches that provided the most help to those who needed it.

Believing in Evolution is irrelevent. What good can come from believing in evolution, which is an unprovable theory?

How did life begin? What is your theory on that?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Martin

So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?

Not sure to tell you the truth. I've learned about evolution in a few of my college classes but not with enough depth to give you a good answer to your question. You'd have to see what the real scientists are claiming.

That's because there isn't one. Natural selection is the only only major mechanism behind evolution - there is no difference between the explanation between the two.

The reason for this is that there really isn't such a thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution - these are arbitrary labels thrown onto the exact same process. If I wanted to, I could throw my own labels... I'll call "micro evolution" species level, "mini evolution" at Genus level, "kilo evolution" Family level, "mega evolution" Order etc etc. No matter how many of these labels I put in, this won't change the fact that there is still only one actual evolution.

The reason why people like you use these these labels is that evolution on longer timescales relies on less intuitive evidence such as genetics, whilst evolution on shorter timescales can be more readily seen.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

For either adaptation or evolution to work as you described, by natural selection, it would require a constant series of mutatations within all species of life. While mutations do occur, they do not breed new species. As rare as these mutations are, for them to even survive is even rarer. Even if they are fertile, they would have to find partner that would accept them, and that is against nature. Mutations generally are items such as an extra limb or head. A mutation such as this has a better chance of survival when it is human, than within the animal kingdom. But, even if such a mutant has a sexual life, they do not have similar offspring.

The "theory" that birds came from dinosaurs, is so absurd that it isn't even funny. It isn't surprising that you persist in spouting the same tired assertions, because that is about all that is possible. Even if you do not really know anything about the justifications that science uses, it would be interesting to hear how you would be able to rationalize this...or have you ever tried?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: eits

i'm not saying the documentary wasn't educational to any degree... it absolutely was. however, i don't think they did a good enough job separating fanatic fundamentalists/evangelical pentacostals from real christians...

what do you think?

What is that difference, exactly?

Jimmy Carter = Real Christian

Jerry Falwell = False Christian and False Sheperd

Look at the difference between how the two project their faith or in Falwell's case "so called" faith.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

For either adaptation or evolution to work as you described, by natural selection, it would require a constant series of mutatations within all species of life. While mutations do occur, they do not breed new species. As rare as these mutations are, for them to even survive is even rarer. Even if they are fertile, they would have to find partner that would accept them, and that is against nature. Mutations generally are items such as an extra limb or head. A mutation such as this has a better chance of survival when it is human, than within the animal kingdom. But, even if such a mutant has a sexual life, they do not have similar offspring.

The "theory" that birds came from dinosaurs, is so absurd that it isn't even funny. It isn't surprising that you persist in spouting the same tired assertions, because that is about all that is possible. Even if you do not really know anything about the justifications that science uses, it would be interesting to hear how you would be able to rationalize this...or have you ever tried?

First, your idea of "mutation" seems to have come out of a 1950s superhero comic and has little to do evolution. Second, yes, I've read a few books on it that explain it in great detail wonderfully. However as I and a few others mentioned earlier such books are inaccessible to people like you because there is no common frame of reference.

In your particular case, discussing how humans and chimps differentiated themselves from their common ancestor over 5m years is rather meaningless, since you don't even think the earth has been around for more than a few thousand years. With other people, it's not that obvious (or hilarious) - for example they may lack a understanding of genetic concepts, they might be generally ignorant etc.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

First, your idea of "mutation" seems to have come out of a 1950s superhero comic and has little to do evolution. Second, yes, I've read a few books on it that explain it in great detail wonderfully. However as I and a few others mentioned earlier such books are inaccessible to people like you because there is no common frame of reference.

In your particular case, discussing how humans and chimps differentiated themselves from their common ancestor over 5m years is rather meaningless, since you don't even think the earth has been around for more than a few thousand years. With other people, it's not that obvious (or hilarious) - for example they may lack a understanding of genetic concepts, they might be generally ignorant etc.

You pretend that to educate someone like me, is so hopeless that you don't want to waste your valuable time. But, you don't mind wasting your time to compose your a continous diatribe of denigrating remarks toward anyone that would dare to ask you for something more substantial than your empty refrains. If this makes you feel more secure in your dark little niche, then be it far from me to want to disturb you. As far as your secret library is concerned, the only scientific data that might be dealt with in such a fashion, is something related to national security. Evolution does have alot to do with national security, but not in the fashion that the government would care about.

It is becoming more and more clear that you will say anything that is convenient, so long as it serves your purpose.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

First, your idea of "mutation" seems to have come out of a 1950s superhero comic and has little to do evolution. Second, yes, I've read a few books on it that explain it in great detail wonderfully. However as I and a few others mentioned earlier such books are inaccessible to people like you because there is no common frame of reference.

In your particular case, discussing how humans and chimps differentiated themselves from their common ancestor over 5m years is rather meaningless, since you don't even think the earth has been around for more than a few thousand years. With other people, it's not that obvious (or hilarious) - for example they may lack a understanding of genetic concepts, they might be generally ignorant etc.

You pretend that to educate someone like me, is so hopeless that you don't want to waste your valuable time. But, you don't mind wasting your time to compose your a continous diatribe of denigrating remarks toward anyone that would dare to ask you for something more substantial than your empty refrains. If this makes you feel more secure in your dark little niche, then be it far from me to want to disturb you. As far as your secret library is concerned, the only scientific data that might be dealt with in such a fashion, is something related to national security. Evolution does have alot to do with national security, but not in the fashion that the government would care about.

It is becoming more and more clear that you will say anything that is convenient, so long as it serves your purpose.

You're pretty much spot on - you are in fact quite hopeless. I discuss these things with friends quite a bit and its easy to tell the ones you can talk to and the ones you can't. For example I can't really talk to the bible literalist Coptic Christian or the one that spent time in China as a missionary, but with others its much easier.

Now, there is nothing secret about my library (I get my books from the public library after all), but even I were to recommend this book and you were to read the words, the meaning would still be far beyond you.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

How old are you? I'm beginning to believe that I'm talking to a kid. As far as your book goes, it doesn't even appear to be a scientific volume. There is an abundance of books available to support any kind of an idea that would appeal to anyone's particular biases. I have no doubt that you have like minded friends, that is what generally forms friendships in the first place. Maybe you and they should organize and form your own little church, you already have the religion.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

Your reference to Asian and oriental churches makes me wonder what country that you live in?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: eits

i'm not saying the documentary wasn't educational to any degree... it absolutely was. however, i don't think they did a good enough job separating fanatic fundamentalists/evangelical pentacostals from real christians...

what do you think?

What is that difference, exactly?

Jimmy Carter = Real Christian

Jerry Falwell = False Christian and False Sheperd

Look at the difference between how the two project their faith or in Falwell's case "so called" faith.

exactly.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What exactly is wrong with Chirstianity?

Lets see. . .

People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me. After Katrina, it was the churches that provided the most help to those who needed it.

Believing in Evolution is irrelevent. What good can come from believing in evolution, which is an unprovable theory?

How did life begin? What is your theory on that?

"People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me."

If that were the actual case, it would be great!

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
For either adaptation or evolution to work as you described, by natural selection, it would require a constant series of mutatations within all species of life. While mutations do occur, they do not breed new species.

How can you substantiate that claim? Simply declaring the various theories of speciation as wrong is unacceptable, as is demanding a summary of a theory with literally millions of pieces of supporting evidence. If you honestly want to learn how new species can evolve then please read some sources on it and bring up individual points. Declaring the entire theory flawed and invalid is not only an unreasonable point, but, in this case, is the reason why nobody wants to give you detailed responses. Why should I type up a long summary of the basics of evolution when I already know that you will dismiss it with some flawed, superficial reasoning?

Now, if you seriously want to learn about speciation I suggest you read the wikipedia entry (linked below). Its relatively short and should make for a quick read.
Link

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
You pretend that to educate someone like me, is so hopeless that you don't want to waste your valuable time.

Martin's point is very valid. Explaining how evolution occurs over millions of years will fall flat on someone who believes that all of our dating methods are wrong.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Your reference to Asian and oriental churches makes me wonder what country that you live in?

Its in my profile. Toronto has an immense immigrant population so having friends from around the world is pretty much the default state.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That would be all fine and well if you could actually point to any evidence that God exists. Surely, given your statement above, you should be able to provide some solid evidence that everyone in this discussion can then examine.

I won't hold my breath.

As others have pointed out not all evidence can be replicated in a petri dish or examined under a microscope. You seem to have found evidence that leads you to conclude that God does not exist or, at the very least, that God's existence is unprovable. For myself, I have found evidence of God's existence in every aspect of our lives, from the complexity of our nature to man's need for purpose and meaning in life (I'll bet that even those who claim that need for meaning is a crutch, deep down, have the same need themselves).

You give the impression that you have accumulated so much evidence that God does not exist that there is really no question in the debate and that there is no way anyone will be able to give you the evidence you ask for. I feel the same way about the amount of evidence proving God's existence.

I won't begrudge you your free agency and your right to make whatever decision you choose based off the evidence you have, even though I don't see it. Maybe you should do the same for others.

Thanks, someone gets what I was tripping over myself trying to say. My goal was to defend everyone?s right to have their beliefs treated with the dignity they deserve, one I didn't accomplish very well apparently. I can't prove one way or another on the God issue any more than anyone else, and I don't even care to try. This is something of an impossible question, so all that really offends me when discussing it is people trying to tell one another that they know better than anyone else whether God exists or not. We're all in the dark here.