Steven Carr

Well, the stuff in Matthew 24 would seriously question atheism , if it came true?

However, fine tuning simply means God was hamstrung in creating the universe and had no choice in the physical constants. Indeed, fine tuning proponents insist that God was just as lucky as we are that one combination of constants existed which allowed a universe to exist.

That isn't what they say, but their arguments lead one to believe there could easily have been *no* combination which worked, in which case God would have been stuck.

But perhaps God was not simply lucky, and there is *always* a possibility that a universe is possible. But put like that (it is always possible to find laws which permit a universe to exist), the fine-tuning argument rather loses its appeal.

I imagine Dr. Ross has tested his scientific models, by, for example, changing the speed of light and seeing what effect it had, or turning off gravity to see if life can develop. How is Ross going to test his models?

It is all very well to say the Universe is on a razor's edge, but who created the razor to put the Universe on?

Why did God created laws which constrained the range of values which worked?

The celestial equivalent of tying one hand behind your back, and blindfolding yourself, just to show off how hard it is?

Why did God not create laws which allowed a wide range of physical constants to work?

Adrian Selby

Evidence of a non material soul?

Evidence of a non material God?

These notions of fine tuning are subjective. It is because we have a definition of fine tuning that we look to apply it to things, but one person's fine tuning is another's coincidence.

Adrian

Steven Carr

Remind me again how Christians think life is sacred, while maintaining that certain people should be killed.

The Messiah

Odemus,

I am curious about one particular thing, have you ever examined why you believe what you believe?

I found, when I was very young, that this question bothered me a great deal. I was always asking, what is it that I believe? I found myself saying that I believed certain things were right or wrong, that certain political ideologies were good or bad, or that this was the best method of making a bacon sandwich and so on. Once I examined many of the things I said I found a large percentage seemed to be programmed responses, one's your parents, relatives, friends and so on had repeated constantly to reinforce good behaviour. Furthermore I had begun to accept certain statements as true without really considering whether or not I actually believed them.

You seem very much stuck at this stage. Unfortunately you seem a lot older and as a consequence have invested a lot more emotion and time in your unconsidered beliefs. Your life is now so dependent upon ideologies that have been ground into you that you will maintain them in spite of the fact that you beliefs are in tatters and you are left to resorting to denial because your beliefs feel right.

It seems clear to me that this is exactly what has happen in this thread so far. You have made many assertions derived from your faith that have been torn to shreds and you have switched to the 'but it feels as though it should be true' argument.

Beleive in God because it feels sooo good. Hmmmm he's so nice and kind, and he's so massive and wonderful, have you seen the size of him, he's just so special, and he made the whole world with all its nice furry creatures and he has a smashing place in the sky with lots of nice fluffy clouds for us to live in when we die, and everything will be lovely and there will be no baddness anymore because all the bad people go to a different place that is for bad people, where they are roasted for all eternity because they said that the lovely smashing God wasn't real.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: The Messiah ]

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: The Messiah ]</p>

Ryanfire

Like you I asked the same question. I was quite gullible when I was young, and could only base my beliefs from others. I observe people, find out what makes them tick. It just seemed to me through all my life that religious people had something that did not click with the workings of the world. I once believed there was a god, that being good and moral was the only way to be. I thought there was a good place in heaven for me.
How silly I was.... it only left me feeling hollow inside because I never thought I was good enough, I could never do enough "good" for people. People took advantage of that good nature, and once again, left me hollow and full of anger.

You must ask yourself, is trying to be good and righteous worth it all? Must you always give to be blessed by a "god"? Must you be perfect?

I myself have found balance within myself. I choose to do good when I can, and not sacrifice my time or energy anymore.

You must also find balance between truth and faith. Faith can never give you any answers, it can only hold up your beliefs.

Just because you read the bible, a book full of beliefs, it does not make the concept of a god true. To accept it as true is to fool yourself.

From the time I've started on this board, it seems evidence and proof are essential. Religion requires science to prove them wrong.
Science requires proof to hold truth.
So it seems Religion is waiting for science, rather than proving their beliefs as "true".
It's the "I'm only wrong if somebody proves me wrong approach". A VERY selfish attitude towards life. And you wonder why the world hasn't progressed (in my opinion we're way behind).

so instead of asking for evidence from science, why don't you religious people find some evidence of your gods? I doubt you ever will, and you will forever burden science for the quest of truth. The bible has never given us anything other than belief. So do not claim the bible as truth. Belief is not truth

Do not use "god" as a starting point for existence, you had NO damn idea there was a god when you were conceived. Introduce no bible, no concept of god, and I wonder how smart this kid will be, will he rely more on his senses, or a belief to find answers?

A kid might ask:
Why do I get beat up in school?

Natural
A) I do not fit in with others
B) There are bad kids at school

or

Supernatural
A) God is teaching me a lesson in humility
B) There are bad kids at school because of the devil.

As I've said before, always using god to escape the harsh reality of truth. A scapegoat for your existence.

When you start to grow up, you will find the answers are always in the natural reasoning. Since god is not here, and has never been here, how can you use supernatural reasoning?

The bible and the concept of god is a good system of morals, introduced by a cunning concept of a boogey man that watches every move you make, everything breathe you take, and will be there to punish you the minute you fuck up. If you fuck up too much with your limited human brain, you will go to hell because I love you. How's that for fear? He loves me but he'll send me to a hell begging for mercy everyday of my life, for eternity. Another good scare tactic to make sure you behave.

We don't need god, we have a government to police the populous. When somebody commits a crime, they go to jail. God does not sort them out.

Evil is just a minority, Good is the majority. Otherwise this world would not exist even now. The good can police the bad. Evolution has taught us to be better people, religion is starting to lose its foundations.

Religion(s) are the richest organizations in the world, why? Because a god needs your money. You are not worthy until you pay your way into heaven.

Talk about playing on the gullibility of man.

Gullible faith or Righteous truth?


-Ryan.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>

Goliath

Since atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any god, only a proof of the existence of a god would falsify atheism.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Koyaanisqatsi

Jobar's well intentioned, but, IMO, misguided admonition aside, once again Odemus we were discussing the comparative "reasonableness" of your beliefs and atheism; something you continue to avoid addressing and I would appreciate a response of some kind.

My post and the language I used were not meant to be hostile and I apologize if you took it that way. It was meant to be a counter to the supercilious, nebulous posts you have been making; an attempt to get you to actually pinpoint any details at all, both about your own beliefs and your apparent ignorance of the purpose of science and why you feel justified in flaunting that ignorance.

Again, that is not invective; that is demonstrable by your own admission. I will go into this a bit more later, but suffice it to say I deliberately chose an antagonistic tone in order to (hopefully) get you to actually answer a question honestly in your own words instead of regurgitate programming.

Unfortunately, once again, you only regurgitate programming.

So, for no discernable reason, just your own personal whim, regardless of the evidence, Goddidit and that's that? Would that be a fair assessment?

Is so, then again I'll ask you, how is that a "more reasonable" position to take? How, in fact, is that at all "reasonable?"

Goddidit so shut up!

Do you see what I'm asking you now and why I've chosen this tone? We're attempting to compare "reasonableness" between something that is entirely reasonable (Evolution) and something that is the antithesis of "reasonable" (your beliefs).

Unless I'm missing some definition of "reasonable" that you seem to have and are not providing?

And please don't get me wrong, I don't care what you believe in. The only thing that concerns me is that you have decided that it is comparatively more "reasonable" to believe in a magical King who speaks the universe into existence. That is not "reasonable" by any stretch of the definition, which is why it's a "belief." Beliefs are, by and large, not reasonable nor do they need to be reasonable, so believe whatever you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking that its "reasonable," yes?

Well, let's see?

Well, that doesn't answer my primary question, but it does solve one of the other questions in that it proves "he" doesn't have a penis and therefore cannot be referred to as a "he."

Once again, I am not being flip or glib or mocking. I mean that literally, so why do you refer to "him" as a "he?" Where does that come from?

In case you hadn't noticed, every single time I ask you this question, the answer is: from the Bible, the same book that you have repeatedly decided for no discernable reason is to be randomly interpreted whenever it supports your beliefs and irrationally discarded whenever it does not.

As before, I would appreciate it if you could tell me, where do you draw the line? I've asked you that several times now and you continue to avoid it, so if you wouldn't mind, please tell me how it is you decide certain things are true and others aren't.

Science has demonstrated that the first part of Genesis is false and you have summarily discarded it because science demonstrated it to be false. There is no other answer than that.

Here. Here's the Beginning from the NIV:

This, you don't believe, correct? Why?

If not because science proved it wrong, why don't you believe this?

You don't believe this. Why? If your God can indeed "speak" the universe into being, then why isn't this description believable for you?

Because science proved it wrong?

Four days into the creation of the universe and we have stars, which means God created the Earth first.

Do you believe that? If not, why not? What is the line you are drawing and what is it based upon?

You've said before simply that many christians don't have to take the bible literally, but that doesn't explain why you have chosen not to take this part literally and yet the story of Adam & Eve you do take literally, so all I'm trying to find out is your process.

Why is this not a believable account of how the universe was "spoken" into being?

Because science proved it wrong?

Do you believe this and if not, why not? What are you basing your decision not to believe upon?

Science? Or, more correctly, evidence that proves this is a lie?

Five days and the Earth is filled with every single creature, which would necessarily include all of the dinosaurs (and let's not start any crap about what a "day" means to God since the author of Genesis uses the exact same word for "day" here as he does later in regard to Adam, so if a day means billions of years here, then it means billions of years there).

Do you believe this is true--five days and the Earth is full of every single creature including dinosaurs--and if not why not?

Again, you have no problems believing that a magical King spoke the universe into existence and you got that belief from this same book, so...what's the deal?

Especially since we now get to the part you do believe:

So far, so good, right? This you believe, correct?

So how do you go from believing the above to not believing the below?

Again, if you believe that a magical King spoke the universe into being, then why don't you believe he did it in six days, if not for the findings of science proving this is a lie?

After all, what would prevent him from doing it in six days?

In other words, a comic book hero.

Once again, this explains nothing, but, since it is impossible to explain as a necessary condition, that's how they trap you.

The point is, however, that since your magical King is impossible to comprehend how can you maintain that it is more reasonable to believe in "him"? There is nothing for you to comprehend about "him" for you to even know whether or not "he's" a "he."

Again, I will ask you to define the word "reasonable," since right now, you have demonstrated the antithesis.

Yes, an incomprehensible comic book hero, I know, but that wasn't the question. The question was (and is) how is that at all reasonable to believe in? You've literally described an impossible being. How do you find that "reasonable?"

Well, since you cannot comprehend "him" you do not know this and are only fantasizing, so let me do exactly what you are doing in kind.

Since God is sufficient unto himself, he would have no need to create us to worship him, thus he did not create us.

Because God is forever unchanging, he is immobile and inactive and therefore impotent to effect any change or punishment upon us; he is all inanimate matter and nothing more, which allows us to have free will, since we are the only animate matter, free to do as we please due to God's impotence.

See how easy it is to just make sh*t up however you want?

With a penis..?

And, if you'll recall from that part of Genesis you have not randomly decided to discard, he created man and woman in his image:

As you can plainly see from the syntax, the "in his own image" applies equally to female as to male. The semi-colon indicates an inclusive clause, not exclusive, but then who cares right?

Just toss that out too, right? After all, you don't have to interpret the bible in any other way than you want to, because just like the authors of those words and the interpreters of those words and the copyists of those words and the other people written about in the New Testament did, you rely on faith and the inspiration from God to determine the truth....

Oh, wait...

Then there is no reason to believe "Goddidit" as opposed to Evolution.

Evolution, likewise, "does not know" the mechanism of sentience (even though "it" never set out to discover such a mechanism and has no requirement to discover such a mechanism for it to be a sound and demonstrable theory).

You can't explain how the inanimate becomes animate and neither can Evolution, through no fault of "its" own, since it never set out to explain such a thing.

So, why are you chastising or denigrating a proven theory regarding the adaptive origin of animate life on Earth. Note I did not say "sentient life," just the origin of animate life; where our "spiritual vehicles"--to use terms you might recognize--originally came from.

Since you don't believe in the bible, what difference would it make if the Adam and Eve story was just as ridiculous to you as the Stars being created on the "fourth day?"

Instead of Adam being a man, he was a single-celled protozoa that God made in "his" own image and breathed life into. What's wrong with that, since you don't believe in the bible anyway?

God is spirit, right? So, making that protozoa "in his own image" would mean in his own spiritual image, yes? And since God is "in everything" and is "everywhere," then that single-celled protozoa is a reflection of God, yes?

Wouldn't that be a "more reasonable" theological interpretation of the facts that the evolutionist school has uncovered?

It certainly fits in with your nebulous, vague concept of a magical King speaking the universe into existence, except of course for that worshipping his glory nonsense, right?

Beg pardon? I am not "innately" compelled to and we are both human, so what do you base this upon and how would you determine such a thing? You have an external diagnostics program you can run on yourself that can ascertain what is "innate" and what was merely programmed into you from childhood, do you?

Does this mean Muslim children are "innately" compelled to believe in Allah?

Does this mean that atheist children are "innately" compelled to hold no beliefs in deity?

How could you possibly proclaim such a thing with any degree of certainty?

No, apparently you are not, since you repeatedly dismiss that "word" without reason or cause, other than the most obvious that you seem to be denying, which is that science has proved "his word" to be nothing more than the fictional imaginations of ancient Middle Eastern warrior-deity cult authors.

What explanation? There is no explanation, there is only a decree: Goddidit, an incomprehensible being that simply "speaks" the universe into existence.

That is not an explanation nor is it possible, accordingly, for any honest man or woman upon any degree of critical analysis or reflection to conclude that is it "sufficient."

There is simply nothing there to establish any degree of sufficiency, so, again, unless you have a wildly different definition of that term, please do not continue to live in such denial; just free yourself and state the truth. You don't know what you believe in or why you believe in it, but dammit! You're still going to believe.

At least that way you won't be living a lie trying to convince yourself that your belief has any form of substance or supportable parameters.

You belief just because and that's that. Period.

"What" you believe in is irrelevant to you, just that "Goddidit." "Who" God is, is likewise not only irrelevant, but impossible for you know, so literally, the only thing you believe in is: Some invisible, exceedingly powerful guy did all this and that's good enough for me.

I don't need to know anything else and won't factor in what anybody has to say against it.

"Atheism?" We were discussing Evolution, but why would you see that as "progress?" Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Period.

We don't know "whence consciousness" any more than you ultimately do with your magical King speaking animation (Walt Disney is your god ?), nor do we need to know as far as atheism goes.

Atheism has nothing to do with cognitive science, thought I'm sure you will definitely find many atheists who are cognitive scientists, just as you will most likely find many who are theists.

What did you think atheism was?

Then let me be the first to congratulate you for successfully fulfilling your motive.

Just like you, I haven't a clue where consciousness comes from, I just don't accept that some magical guy spoke in a universal void and then abracadabra! Steven Wright!

Why do you?

That certainly wasn't the impression your posts gave regarding your supercilious and casually dismissive stance to Evolution.

Not "unable" in the least, you're just criticizing the wrong field of science.

Evolution is based upon the evidence; it explains how life (not sentience, but life) behaves and adapts and grows and mutates and responds, etc., to its surroundings.

If you want to chastise the people who are interested in studying sentience and consciousness, then the cognitive sciences would be what you want.

Have you really been harboring all of this against the wrong discipline?

I think you owe "Evolution" an apology.

But, more seriously, how do you come to the seemingly absolute conclusion that science is "unable" to discover "whence consciousness" if not merely as a result of cult programming; of operant conditioning?

Since, as you say, you're not an expert in "science," upon what are you basing your conclusion that "science" is unable to discover where sentience comes from?

Because...you believe sentience comes from a magical King? And because you know that science has already proved so many other things wrong about the stories told in the source of your beliefs in this magical King?

Isn't it "more reasonable" to believe that you are subconsciously aware that your beliefs in a magical King are being disproved by "science," which is why you, an admitted non-expert, speak irrationally against that which you do not understand and didn't even get right?

Evolution is not the study of sentience on Earth, it is the study of the origins of biological existence (aka, "life") on Earth. It never did nor ever could explain "whence consciousness," so for you to proclaim this as your motive only demonstrates how incorrect you truly were right from the git go.

Likewise atheism. Atheists simply do not hold a belief that a magical King spoke the universe into existence and since that "explanation" of "whence consciousness" is not an explanation at all, merely a largely ridiculous decree, again I'll ask, how is it more reasonable?

A bad answer is certainly an answer, but is it the "right" answer?

We don't know what the "right" answer is to this question, but we're fairly certain that the answer isn't a comic book hero.

What has "science" been "unable" to answer that is sticking in your craw? Where does sentience come from; whence consciousness?

That's what you're talking about, which means you're talking about a discipline called "cognitive science" and/or Philosophy, but not "science" in general (since such a thing does not actually exist in that manner) and certainly not Evolution Science, since it never did set out to discover "whence consciousness."

Do you see how detrimental your cult programming can be? It is because of the advances in the different fields of "science" that you do not believe the Earth is six thousand years old or that the Stars were not created on the "fourth day."

Why you have stopped there is only a result of your operant conditioning, but for you to lash out at some nebulous "thing" like this is ultimately a positive, enlightened process that will eventually result in your awakening, but it's incredibly important either way that you understand precisely what it is you believe and what it is you are lashing out against.

Don't shoot the messenger, of course, but first and foremost, make sure it's a messenger you don't shoot, and not just the pizza delivery guy, yes?

Evolution just explains where our biological "spiritual vehicles" (if you like) came from. That's it.

And since you know the bible is lying about our origins anyway, don't condemn "science" for sins "it" didn't commit; especially a branch of science that is without sin entirely in this regard.

Author's note: Here would be a good example of the approach I deliberately took, spoken of earlier and throughout. As you should have been able to figure out from the ridiculous, over the top christian fundamentalist posturing I assumed, I was not literally calling you an "arrogant little maggot."

It was supposed to be ironic to make a point and again, I apologize if you mistook my intention.

To your credit, by the way, I think you did understand and I think Jobar was being overcautious, but then the buzzword around here is "civility" and I'm a constant bucking bull where that is concerned.

Anyway, back to the program:

YOU: When the Copernican model of the solar system came into prominence in the 1600's the Christian church cried heresy. As you can obviously tell by Psalm 19:4-6 the sun clearly circles the earth:

Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

According to your reasoning the Christian faith should be shattered by our discovery of the solar system. God told us what happened and man proved him wrong![/quote]

No. What is should have done is demonstrated the fraud perpetrated by men against fellow men (and women, of course).

In other words, it should have been, "Men told us about a creature they named 'God' and what this creature said and science proved it all to be a fraud."

Do you see the distinction? The fraud is that men created the cult and the dogma and tricked and cajoled and threatened gullible, desperate, oppressed people into believing the fraud.

At first, probably just as comfort; a surcease of sorrow, as well as a guidebook of behavior. "This is how 'we' behave toward one another" with the necessary fear-based addendum, "because if we don't an all powerful super creature who sees into our hearts and minds and therefore knows when we've been naughty or nice will throw us into an eternal lake of fire."

In other words, operant conditioning.

Then, as anything man creates eventually does, it was used to control and subjugate, until you have opposing cult factions that break from the mother ship and create their own tools of oppression.

Hence, the New Testament and the slave mentality it instills from birth to grave. Do as you are told, don't worry about your suffering in this life because you're going to get anything off the top shelf in the "after" life, render unto Caesar that which is yours, but just pretend it wasn't actually yours and you will win anything off the top shelf once you're dead, ok?

Great. Oh, yeah, and do it because God killed himself for you. Buh bye.

Snake oil nonsense as you well know, which is why you don't believe in the six day stupidity or, I would venture to guess, in talking snakes and talking burning bushes or in the dead rising from their graves, etc., etc.

Like many cult members, you're right on the last rung of the ladder, one hand dangling, realizing that your foot is already touching solid ground.

The last vestige is still being clinged to: some all-powerful guy somewhere did it all. Good enough.

I submit, it is not; certainly not for any of us, but clearly not for you, which is why you've come here.

No, they have not. They have made the mistake of taking the Bible as a literal document. Trying to slip in the word "scientific" is nothing more than a cheap apologist's ploy.

Science proves the stories in the Bible to be lies. That's all "science" does; it proves that the stories that are in the Bible are lies.

Whether those stories are "scientific facts" or not is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the author of Genesis states that "God said let there be light" on the second day six thousand years ago and that is, quite simply, a lie. "God" did not say this and there was light; that's not where either light or the sun came from.

That is a myth; a fictional, imaginary story told largely to children about how the mysterious aspects of our lives came about, but not literally how they came about as you point out.

Not literally, which means, not true.

On this point we both agree. The only problem is, that you agree the "second day" part and the "six thousand years" give or take is not true, but the "God" part is true.

Why?

The whole thing is made up, not just the "scientific" elements!

It is a myth and as such fiction. How you can't see that is the only question.

Please. As I tried to explain, my "hostile tone" was a deliberate ploy to try and get you to answer honestly by hopefully demonstrating to you how ridiculous your vague and nebulous beliefs about a magical King speaking the universe into being could not possibly be described as "more reasonable" or, for that matter, "reasonable" at all.

It was not meant in any other fashion and again, I apologize if you didn't see that I was deliberately trying to provoke you in order to shake you from your supercilious dismissals of a branch of science you were falsely accusing and clearly knew nothing about.

I hope that is now clear.

No, you're quite right. None of it is reasonable, which is what I was hoping to get you to address.

How do you know this? What is your source for this knowledge and how is this in any way, shape or form an answer to the question.

Because "he" operates in the manner of "his" own choosing, that makes it reasonable for him (an all knowing creator and seer of the future) to sit around for billions upon billions of years (and remember, the Earth is only about four billion years old; the universe much older)?

How is that "reasonable?" He creates the universe out of nothing. Some 14 billion years go by--even granting that to "him" a "day" is whatever it says in the book you selectively believe in--and then he decides to create a single-celled protozoa, thus starting the millions of years of evolution until finally, after fourteen billion, fifty-six million years a chimp finally manages to walk upright and God goes, "Ok! Finally! Here's some sentience, Adam, now don't eat any of these apples."

Reasonable?

You tell me. I posted Genesis, not christian doctrine. If your cult lets you believe anything you damn well please with no rhyme or reason to it, then all of this is moot, right?

How you reconcile it with the facts of our existence, however, is the question and so far you haven't. You've simply decided to believe in something that has no evidence and dismissed something that has a tremendous amount of evidence from many different fields of study.

For no discernable reason other than falsely accusing "it" of not establishing something that "it" never set out to establish and has nothing to do with (aka, "whence sentience?")

Harsh. That's mighty contradictory for an all loving, merciful magical King.

The chimp or single celled protozoa?

That sucks. Who set things up that way?

And from where did you get this? Oh, right, Genesis.

So, you believe this, but not that.

Again, how do you draw the line, if not as a direct result of "science" as opposed to faith?

And women, too, don't forget that. Yes, that "one" act. He disobeyed the magical King who didn't create the universe in six days six thousand years ago, just Adam, yet who does have the power to create Adam out of dirt and then punish hundreds of billions of Adam's offspring for that one act; the man ate an apple.

Yeah, that's reasonable, just, understandable...oh, sorry, not understandable because God is incomprehensible.

Again, I'll ask, why do you take this literally and not the six day creation?

Why is this true and not the other?

No, you should never have "faith" to begin with in children's fairy tales.

Thanks, as did I. And still do.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

quote:


I'd meant to continue this yesterday; sorry it took me so long.

I've heard various people state this proposition in one way or another. And it strikes me as odd that anyone would ever make such a suggestion, especially someone like yourself who, by virtue of the fact that you are on this computerized forum, I can assume is taking advantage of science as I type this.

Science and the scientific method requires no faith, because we know, inarguably, that it works. Science and the scientific method have allowed us to use electricity. They have brought us aspirin, and other medicines. They allow us to predict the weather with respectable accuracy. They have allowed us to send men into space, and land them on the moon. They have created a substance which allows me to easily candle-wax from my coffee table. They have produced atomic clocks which keep time with stunning accuracy. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now, if science allowed us to only harnass electricity on, say, Jupiter, but we were never actually able to travel to Jupiter to use the electricity, to verify that we could, well then, we'd need faith in order to believe that we were successful. If scientists could develop asprin only for cats, but we had no real way of knowing whether the aspirins really cured any cats' ailments, then we'd have to rely on faith that they did. If science allowed us to predict weather in a neighboring galaxy, yet we weren't able to verify the accuracy of our predictions, again, we'd be relying on faith that they were correct. And so on.

But the fact is, we are able to verify, over and over and over and over again, the results of science and the scientific method. It is not on faith that we believe that science and the scientific method work. It is clear, undeniable proof.

The problem comes when science contradicts what the bible says. Suddenly, those people who are more than happy to use electricity, who give no second thought to popping an aspiring when they have a headache, who will tune into the Weather Channel to decide what to wear when they leave home, will complain that we don't really know that science works. That the scientific method is reliable. The same method that gives us electricity, and aspirin--hell, the same technique that gives us atomic clocks--suddenly becomes fallable and error-prone when it contradicts the bible's claim that the world is 6000 years old.

Anyway, I'm rambling here, but do you get the point?

daemon

Odemus, I would appreciate an answer to my questions.

britinusa

Odemus

Welcome to the mad, mad world of the Internet Infidels. It can be a bumpy ride at times, but it sure is stimulating.
Despite the, er, gentle prodding by Koy and others, you haven't provided us with any good reason for your belief that an ancient Canaanite warrior-deity created our lovely universe.
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, my cat could have created the universe. Your burden of proof is in two parts: 1)that your god exists, and 2)that your god created the universe. I only need to prove my cat created the universe. Highly unlikely, of course. She's too lazy. OK, maybe it was my Uncle Harry.
Perhaps Koy's "arrogant little maggot" was a little bit OTT, but he does have a point. As a xian you can't pick and choose which parts of scripture that are to be taken literally or not. Its either all or nothing. This isn't any old history book, this is the Word of the omnimax creator of everything, right?
You casually dismiss the first chapter of the most important book in the history of the world -inspired by the Big G himself - as "not to be taken literally."
But you are not alone. Most xians can't swallow the biblical creation account(s). Why? Because science has demolished it. Of course, you xians can't bring yourselves to admit that out loud. Many xians can't swallow the Adam & Eve story either. Clearly, you can.
If I may stray somewhat off topic, I'd like to ask you a question that is often asked around here: had you been born and bred in Cairo or Calcutta, would you be a xian today? Presumably, you were born and bred in a predominantly xian country; and guess what? You're a xian. What a shock!
I'll end where I began. You have given us nothing. As Rush Limbaugh would say, "Zero, zilch, nada."
But don't feel bad. I've never met a xian yet who has provided more than a dusty old book and a shitload of wishful thinking.

Take care

Martin