Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

[Neon Genesis]

The Genesis is just a summary. It's like the introduction or cover-text to a book. It doesn't say how, or the details.

Yeah, it'd be like imagine you were creating the creationist version of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Simply quoting Genesis wouldn't be enough to explain how it works. Like how did God create Eve from Adam's rib? How did God form the oceans and the heavens? How did God create the stars? And simply saying that God spoke it into existence doesn't explain it either because you have to explain what happens after God spoke the universe into existence. I'm reminded of this quote by Eric Rothschild during the Dover intelligent design trial

'Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for the answers to the question of the origin of the immune system...It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientist, don't bother.'

[Guest Davka]

I don't know if you can mix the two unless you are willing to read between the lines....Spirit = water

Actually, Spirit = ruakh = "wind' or "breath."

 

And "adam" comes from "adama," meaning "land" or "dirt."

 

"Adam" also means "red," so I think it's safe to say that Adam was a Native American.

[Ouroboros]

You have seen Frosty the Snowman when Santa whips Frosty back into shape after he gets melted in the greenhouse? There you are except with soil.

Exactly. Magically in a story... compared to: real science.

 

Ergo, Christians don't have a "Creation Theory", they only got a "Creation Fantasy Story."

 

I don't know if you can mix the two unless you are willing to read between the lines....Spirit = water.....I mean let's look at that experiment that showed the synthesis of amino acids by the repeated wetting and drying of soil... I may be incorrect in my statement as I only skimmed that article. I think it was posted here at ExC.... Anyway, there you are. So why would it be a big damn stretch to say they are one in the same if you can give the prior generations grace for not knowing the details. And in not understanding the details, how would it be that they derive a similar story?

So water = spirit too? When I take a bath, I'm immersed in spiritual awareness and one with God?

 

"Read between the lines"...? Seriously?

 

If you go to the doctor because you are sick, and he tell you to eat a certain pill. But the box doesn't say how many per day. Should you "read between the lines" somehow and infer that information from the doctors body language and his bad breath?

 

Seriously, is "reading between the lines" some kind of new scientific method? That's how you outline the details of facts and theories?

 

Then it's easy to come up with a new scientific theory: Grok made cucumbers green.

 

And it's evident since I made the statement, and you can read between the lines, and all the facts, and evidence is between the lines. So I don't have to prove my statement to be right or wrong, since the facts that prove it to be true is between the lines. Awesome.

 

And not only that. With the help of "Grok made cucumbers green" we can establish a whole new line of medicine, new technology, progress, and solve world hunger and even create world peace!!! Life is good!

 

Gheez folks.....starting to piss me off this morning.

Good. It gets your blood pumping.

[Neon Genesis]

And "adam" comes from "adama," meaning "land" or "dirt."

 

"Adam" also means "red," so I think it's safe to say that Adam was a Native American.

But if Adam comes from adama, then he must be the commander of the starship Galactica.

[Guest end3]

All things came through God. That's what the Christian believes. So to you at least, it doesn't matter how, only that there is a single purpose for everything. You theory then, as it were, is that everything no matter how it came into existence has a single cause: Divinity.

 

Why would you put words in my mouth? Let me give you an example so you might expand your horizons this morning. Try to step into three dimensional thought with me for a minute.

 

First, I have been trying for the last 9 months, in my free hours, to add longevity/usable "life" to some biodegradable seed starting pots I have been developing. Let's take a look....

 

The original formula was made of eggs, specifically the albumin and yolk, no shells. This mixed with alfalfa, a natural organic fertilizer, and formed by cooking in a mold.

 

The problem was they were not lasting long enough. I then found out later that paper pulp, wood, for all practical purposes, mixed in, is what makes it hold together.....the answer to the problem.

 

Here's the point:

 

First, eggs contain everything needed for life, coincidentally. Eggs are 7% nitrogen, coincidentally. To hold everthing together you have to add wood, coincidentally, and cook the materials together with "fire", coincidentally.

 

Now if you can't read the Bible into that scenerio, then you didn't stay in Christianity long enough.

 

And what about water? If you disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen, you can burn the stuff? And it compares God's Spirit to water and God's Spirit to fire???

 

Again, is this just a coincidence that the writers knew these similarities?

 

And you tell me I accept shit for what it is???

 

Anyway, if the divine is the all encompassing fabric/cause of everything, then it is impossible to not be "in him", as you so eloquently put it. But to be fair, seeing the world as part of the divine won't ever let you understand the mechanics , or the "how" of things outside of what we are seeing being exposed through science.

 

That statement has a broken leg.

 

In fact this whole dichotomy between science and religion began with early understandings of the mechanics of the universe, which understanding at the time revealed a different world than what the religious layer of thought conveyed in their cosmological imagination.

 

Yeah, they witnessed burning water and made God out of it.....I see.

 

So the nature and place of religious thought underwent a shift in the face of this in the early days of science, and today with your Creationist pseudo-science you have the manifestation of the most radical reactionary thought in response to this whole dichotomy begun back then. It is, in my opinion, the heights of a fractured worldview. Understanding the nature of existence with a divine layer addresses a psychological, or "mind" aspect of our being in the face of our conscious awareness of ourselves both within and as an active part of the cosmos. To me, those that see it this way are not doing so in order to explain the mechanics of nature, but overall 'intent' of it, the 'web' if you will. That's very different than those who try to deny reliable knowledge to force fit their god into a broken worldview.

 

Your views lack dimension. I would urge you to accept more.

 

BTW, nice to see you still around End. Always a pleasure.

 

You as well.

[Guest end3]

You have seen Frosty the Snowman when Santa whips Frosty back into shape after he gets melted in the greenhouse? There you are except with soil.

Exactly. Magically in a story... compared to: real science.

 

Ergo, Christians don't have a "Creation Theory", they only got a "Creation Fantasy Story."

 

I don't know if you can mix the two unless you are willing to read between the lines....Spirit = water.....I mean let's look at that experiment that showed the synthesis of amino acids by the repeated wetting and drying of soil... I may be incorrect in my statement as I only skimmed that article. I think it was posted here at ExC.... Anyway, there you are. So why would it be a big damn stretch to say they are one in the same if you can give the prior generations grace for not knowing the details. And in not understanding the details, how would it be that they derive a similar story?

So water = spirit too? When I take a bath, I'm immersed in spiritual awareness and one with God?

 

"Read between the lines"...? Seriously?

 

If you go to the doctor because you are sick, and he tell you to eat a certain pill. But the box doesn't say how many per day. Should you "read between the lines" somehow and infer that information from the doctors body language and his bad breath?

 

Seriously, is "reading between the lines" some kind of new scientific method? That's how you outline the details of facts and theories?

 

Then it's easy to come up with a new scientific theory: Grok made cucumbers green.

 

And it's evident since I made the statement, and you can read between the lines, and all the facts, and evidence is between the lines. So I don't have to prove my statement to be right or wrong, since the facts that prove it to be true is between the lines. Awesome.

 

And not only that. With the help of "Grok made cucumbers green" we can establish a whole new line of medicine, new technology, progress, and solve world hunger and even create world peace!!! Life is good!

 

Gheez folks.....starting to piss me off this morning.

Good. It gets your blood pumping.

 

 

Let's suppose Hans, that humanity makes it a thousand more years......and when they look at our "science", you think it will not look like religion?

[Antlerman]

You know End, it never ceases to amaze me how much you don't understand what I say. I would invite anyone else to read my post for themselves and interpret it for you. I'm not saying anything remotely like what you leap to in response. As I've said before, in a great many ways what I'm saying can be understood as sympathetic towards your position. But no, you have to assume otherwise.

 

As much as at times you need an iterpreter to make your words understandable to others, I think I may need others to make my words understandable to you.

 

BTW, to say my views lack dimension just goes to show how it all escapes you. So, who will take on the task of translation for me?

[Guest end3]

You know End, it never ceases to amaze me how much you don't understand what I say. I would invite anyone else to read my post for themselves and interpret it for you. I'm not saying anything remotely like what you leap to in response. As I've said before, in a great many ways what I'm saying can be understood as sympathetic towards your position. But no, you have to assume otherwise.

 

As much as at times you need an iterpreter to make your words understandable to others, I think I may need others to make my words understandable to you.

 

BTW, to say my views lack dimension just goes to show how it all escapes you. So, who will take on the task of translation for me?

 

I'll tell you how I read it....let me repost, so you will understand.

[Neon Genesis]

Let's suppose Hans, that humanity makes it a thousand more years......and when they look at our "science", you think it will not look like religion?

If you admit that our current science will look out-dated in the future, what makes you think the "science" in the bible which was written centuries before now is somehow more reliable? Are you saying that science in the past is more reliable? Is alchemy more reliable science than chemistry?

[Guest end3]

True. They believe there's a god and that god is the First Cause of everything: the heavens above, the earth below, life on this planet and everywhere, and everything else, including the coffee I'm drinking, the cup its in, the stereo system playing the recording of Glen Gould playing Bach three-part inventions for me, Glen Gould himself, Glen Gould's death many years ago now, etc.

 

I had no problem with that...first cause being creation....I could agree.

 

All things came through God. That's what the Christian believes. So to you at least, it doesn't matter how, only that there is a single purpose for everything. You theory then, as it were, is that everything no matter how it came into existence has a single cause: Divinity.

 

I read this with emphasis on "it doesn't matter how", you placing me in the group of Christians that have absolute blind faith and walk as such and think as such.

 

For some reason as I read that it just sounded... well....

 

I am sorry it is not comfortable for you anymore to read or listen to this type statement.

 

Anyway, if the divine is the all encompassing fabric/cause of everything, then it is impossible to not be "in him", as you so eloquently put it. But to be fair, seeing the world as part of the divine won't ever let you understand the mechanics , or the "how" of things outside of what we are seeing being exposed through science.

 

You again assume Christians don't actively participate in anything other than "reactionary", devoid of thought.

 

In fact this whole dichotomy between science and religion began with early understandings of the mechanics of the universe, which understanding at the time revealed a different world than what the religious layer of thought conveyed in their cosmological imagination. The emergence of life seemed to contradict a world that was winding down. But now we are seeing systems of the natural world which "wind up" that they were unaware of in early science. Life emerging in the cosmos does not contradict the natural world. Complex systems of organization do in fact arise naturally out of "chaos". It happens in the everyday world in front of us.

 

You are saying the two interests diverged...and you remain confident that the two are separate.

 

So the nature and place of religious thought underwent a shift in the face of this in the early days of science, and today with your Creationist pseudo-science you have the manifestation of the most radical reactionary thought in response to this whole dichotomy begun back then. It is, in my opinion, the heights of a fractured worldview. Understanding the nature of existence with a divine layer addresses a psychological, or "mind" aspect of our being in the face of our conscious awareness of ourselves both within and as an active part of the cosmos. To me, those that see it this way are not doing so in order to explain the mechanics of nature, but overall 'intent' of it, the 'web' if you will. That's very different than those who try to deny reliable knowledge to force fit their god into a broken worldview.

 

You are saying Christians went reactionary, but you see it as an opportunity.....

 

 

BTW, nice to see you still around End. Always a pleasure.

 

I read this as sincere.

 

 

The point is AM, your message was mixed IMO. Mixed with condescention and sincerity.

 

I was, in my post, trying to relate the possiblity of a viable correlation between the two.

 

The reason I am perpetually angry, is I don't like to be assumed "stupid". My father was condescending to anyone and everyone, and I guess dislike that quality enough to become hostile.

 

If I misunderstood your overall intention, my apologies.

[Guest Davka]

First, eggs contain everything needed for life, coincidentally. Eggs are 7% nitrogen, coincidentally. To hold everthing together you have to add wood, coincidentally, and cook the materials together with "fire", coincidentally.

 

Now if you can't read the Bible into that scenerio, then you didn't stay in Christianity long enough.

"read into" being the operative phrase here. It's a stretch, at best.

 

And you really need to learn what the word "coincidence" means. For example, I share a birthday with Richard Nixon. That's a coincidence. It's completely meaningless, and says nothing about me or Nixon, which is the property most coincidences have in common: meaninglessness.

 

And what about water? If you disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen, you can burn the stuff? And it compares God's Spirit to water and God's Spirit to fire???

Actually, the Bible compares the sound of God's ruakh (spirit/wind/breath) to the sound of fire and the sound of rushing water. My weed-eater sounds like an overgrown bumblebee. Does that mean there's some significant connection between powered garden tools and flying insects?

 

And what about salt? If you disassociate the sodium from the chlorine, you have a highly reactive alkali metal and a deadly gas! We are the salt of the earth, how did those clever Bible writers know that salt is potentially deadly to all life on earth? Wow.

 

As I said before, get thee to a university.

[Ouroboros]

Let's suppose Hans, that humanity makes it a thousand more years......and when they look at our "science", you think it will not look like religion?

We don't have to wait 1,000 years for that to happen, it is happening and has been happening for a while. There are people who take science and make it into scientism. I prefer to keep my eyes, ears, and mind open, but it doesn't mean I accept every pseudo-science from either camp. God based or not.

 

The thing is that science actually would look like magic to those who doesn't have science. Take a computer for instance. We understand (most of us, to a certain degree) how it works, and we know it is a natural machine, and not magical, supernatural, or have a soul. But put a computer with some interactive program in the hands of some native guy from the jungle, would he know that it's just sticks and stones? Or would he (at least at first) believe the computer was alive and had a soul?

 

Magic and supernatural is mostly just words for things we not fully understand yet. But when it's understood, it tends to be natural.

[Guest end3]

And you really need to learn what the word "coincidence" means. For example, I share a birthday with Richard Nixon. That's a coincidence. It's completely meaningless, and says nothing about me or Nixon, which is the property most coincidences have in common: meaninglessness.

 

In the context I was using it, it was in the form of a question....is it meaningless?

 

And what about salt? If you disassociate the sodium from the chlorine, you have a highly reactive alkali metal and a deadly gas! We are the salt of the earth, how did those clever Bible writers know that salt is potentially deadly to all life on earth? Wow.

 

A coincidence that we think we are distroying the earth by our pollution?

 

As I said before, get thee to a university.

 

 

As I said before, go back to God.

[Guest end3]

Let's suppose Hans, that humanity makes it a thousand more years......and when they look at our "science", you think it will not look like religion?

We don't have to wait 1,000 years for that to happen, it is happening and has been happening for a while. There are people who take science and make it into scientism. I prefer to keep my eyes, ears, and mind open, but it doesn't mean I accept every pseudo-science from either camp. God based or not.

 

The thing is that science actually would look like magic to those who doesn't have science. Take a computer for instance. We understand (most of us, to a certain degree) how it works, and we know it is a natural machine, and not magical, supernatural, or have a soul. But put a computer with some interactive program in the hands of some native guy from the jungle, would he know that it's just sticks and stones? Or would he (at least at first) believe the computer was alive and had a soul?

 

Magic and supernatural is mostly just words for things we not fully understand yet. But when it's understood, it tends to be natural.

 

I can grasp that, and thanks.

 

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

[Guest Davka]

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

You have yet to point out a single one.

 

I'd be interested to see a clear example in the Bible of a natural principle that was far beyond the ability of the writers to understand. I've heard such things exist, but in 20 years of Bible study, I never encountered even one. And I've read it cover to cover a number of times. Heck, they didn't even understand the principle of light diffraction.

[Ouroboros]

I can grasp that, and thanks.

You're welcome.

 

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

Are you thinking of any specific thing? Perhaps the idea of Irreducible Complexity? Or are you thinking of things in general? There are of course an infinite amount of things we don't know or understand yet, and it will always be like that. We will never know fully of anything.

 

I see it like this way. We're in a huge house. It's infinitely big. And it has an infinite number of rooms. We go through the doors from room to room. But it's impossible for us to go through all the rooms, since there are an infinite number of them.

 

So what about God? Could God go through all the rooms? Only if he had an infinite time, and only after that infinite time had passed. So a God to be within all the rooms at the same time, at this moment, would mean God is the rooms and God is the house. In other words, God must be (to encompass eternity and infinite knowledge) be the Universe and the existence of everything. God can not be independent of the house and be done going through all the rooms. Do you see what I'm saying? God can't be a being, moving around in the rooms. God must be the rooms, the house, the doors, and that makes God equal to Everything, and not an independent being. I just wanted to let you chew on that tidbit a little...

[Guest end3]

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

You have yet to point out a single one.

 

I'd be interested to see a clear example in the Bible of a natural principle that was far beyond the ability of the writers to understand. I've heard such things exist, but in 20 years of Bible study, I never encountered even one. And I've read it cover to cover a number of times. Heck, they didn't even understand the principle of light diffraction.

 

 

Celluostic purification of water.

 

 

Edit: that would be the Moses myth to you

 

Oh yeah, and Moses glowing face.....happened by ionization by being in God's presence....yeah, that one too.

[Guest end3]

I can grasp that, and thanks.

You're welcome.

 

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

Are you thinking of any specific thing? Perhaps the idea of Irreducible Complexity? Or are you thinking of things in general? There are of course an infinite amount of things we don't know or understand yet, and it will always be like that. We will never know fully of anything.

 

I see it like this way. We're in a huge house. It's infinitely big. And it has an infinite number of rooms. We go through the doors from room to room. But it's impossible for us to go through all the rooms, since there are an infinite number of them.

 

So what about God? Could God go through all the rooms? Only if he had an infinite time, and only after that infinite time had passed. So a God to be within all the rooms at the same time, at this moment, would mean God is the rooms and God is the house. In other words, God must be (to encompass eternity and infinite knowledge) be the Universe and the existence of everything. God can not be independent of the house and be done going through all the rooms. Do you see what I'm saying? God can't be a being, moving around in the rooms. God must be the rooms, the house, the doors, and that makes God equal to Everything, and not an independent being. I just wanted to let you chew on that tidbit a little...

 

I don't know how to explain it Hans.......I can see the arguments posed as being legitimate and even "God" being a concept by humanity, but believe, through my own experiences, that this entity truly exists.

 

I am stubborn for sure, but don't like the attitudes displayed here in part, where it then makes me "have to respond". I don't have to, but feel compelled to when the attitudes become reactionary.

[Guest Davka]

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

You have yet to point out a single one.

 

I'd be interested to see a clear example in the Bible of a natural principle that was far beyond the ability of the writers to understand. I've heard such things exist, but in 20 years of Bible study, I never encountered even one. And I've read it cover to cover a number of times. Heck, they didn't even understand the principle of light diffraction.

 

 

Celluostic purification of water.

 

 

Edit: that would be the Moses myth to you

 

Oh yeah, and Moses glowing face.....happened by ionization by being in God's presence....yeah, that one too.

 

I don't see the connection between Moses throwing a stick (or tree) in a pond of bitter water and cellulosic purification. One involves filtration of water, the other is merely tossing a stick in a pond. Even if Moses had a cellulosic filter, throwing it in the pond would have done no good. You need to run the water through the cellulose filter to purify it, not just mix the two together.

 

As for Moses' face glowing because of ionization, that is mere speculation. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, the Bible says it was the shekhinah (glory) of God that made Moses' face glow. Are you suggesting that the word "glory" should be replaced with "ionization" wherever it is found? "We give God the ionization!" "All ionization and honor and power to the Lamb!"

 

I appreciate the effort, but - got any others?

[Guest end3]

The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood.....

You have yet to point out a single one.

 

I'd be interested to see a clear example in the Bible of a natural principle that was far beyond the ability of the writers to understand. I've heard such things exist, but in 20 years of Bible study, I never encountered even one. And I've read it cover to cover a number of times. Heck, they didn't even understand the principle of light diffraction.

 

 

Celluostic purification of water.

 

 

Edit: that would be the Moses myth to you

 

Oh yeah, and Moses glowing face.....happened by ionization by being in God's presence....yeah, that one too.

 

I don't see the connection between Moses throwing a stick (or tree) in a pond of bitter water and cellulosic purification. One involves filtration of water, the other is merely tossing a stick in a pond. Even if Moses had a cellulosic filter, throwing it in the pond would have done no good. You need to run the water through the cellulose filter to purify it, not just mix the two together.

 

As for Moses' face glowing because of ionization, that is mere speculation. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, the Bible says it was the shekhinah (glory) of God that made Moses' face glow. Are you suggesting that the word "glory" should be replaced with "ionization" wherever it is found? "We give God the ionization!" "All ionization and honor and power to the Lamb!"

 

I appreciate the effort, but - got any others?

 

The statement was not that they were incapable of understanding it, the question is, why is it in there if the relationship was not yet understood.

 

BTW, the stick or tree is in type the cross, making the water(Spirit) potable, once again, for his people. (I threw that in for free).

 

Gotta do better than that Davka...but I will give you some points for humor.

 

Here's a couple of others.

 

Laminin- that one is not my own revelation.

 

And water demonstrates the trinity in its phases.

[Guest Davka]

quote name='end3' date='Jun 20 2009, 12:41 PM' post='462420']

The statement was not that they were incapable of understanding it, the question is, why is it in there if the relationship was not yet understood.

 

Um - no.

 

You said "The points I have trouble with....there are natural principles alluded to that they could have not possibly observed or understood."

 

There's no "natural principle" relationship between tossing a stick in a pond and cellulosic filtration. Nor is there any relationship between tossing a stick in a pond and crucifying a man. It would be more believable to claim that this passage is a prophecy of Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose.

 

 

Laminin- that one is not my own revelation.

*shrug*

Here are some actual photos of laminin (as opposed to the chemical diagrams Christians like to use)

 

 

Impressive? Not really.

 

And water demonstrates the trinity in its phases.

 

If only the Trinity were a Biblical concept, you might have a point. But it isn't.

[Guest end3]

quote name='end3' date='Jun 20 2009, 12:41 PM' post='462420']

The statement was not that they were incapable of understanding it, the question is, why is it in there if the relationship was not yet understood.

 

I was trying to clarify my original statement, as you cherry picked it the first time.

 

There's no "natural principle" relationship between tossing a stick in a pond and cellulosic filtration. Nor is there any relationship between tossing a stick in a pond and crucifying a man. It would be more believable to claim that this passage is a prophecy of Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose.

 

The rest of it, you got me man with your superior intellect....

 

I concede, my many examples are all coincidence...meaninglessness. Thanks, I am going to church tomorrow and tell them I have been to college.

[Guest Davka]

I concede, my many examples are all coincidence...meaninglessness. Thanks, I am going to church tomorrow and tell them I have been to college.

Don't lie in Church on account of me. Jesus wouldn't like it.

 

College teaches you how to think. Church teaches you how not to think. Because thinking in Church - especially when you bring actual established facts into the mix - can lead to contradicting the Pastor. And they don't like that, as I found to my detriment.

[Guest end3]

I concede, my many examples are all coincidence...meaninglessness. Thanks, I am going to church tomorrow and tell them I have been to college.

Don't lie in Church on account of me. Jesus wouldn't like it.

 

College teaches you how to think. Church teaches you how not to think. Because thinking in Church - especially when you bring actual established facts into the mix - can lead to contradicting the Pastor. And they don't like that, as I found to my detriment.

 

Surely the relationships I described exist Davka, because if someone as dumb as me can see them?

 

The point is verbatim as the Bible describes. You choose to deny as humanity has done historically.....oh damn, another coincidence.

 

I take it you swayed the last forum you were on this well and is why you landed here?

[Guest Davka]

Surely the relationships I described exist Davka, because if someone as dumb as me can see them?

Surely the relationship between sacrificing virgins and annual rainfall exists, because so many people were convinced they could see them?

 

Surely Mary appears on freeway underpasses, because people are able to see her?

 

Surely Allah is Great and Christianity is deception, because so many Muslims can see that?

 

You do not appear to understand what a verifiable relationship is, or how to tell the difference between coincidence and a causal relationship. And i doubt you ever will, which is fine - as long as you don't try to legislate your belief system.

I take it you swayed the last forum you were on this well and is why you landed here?

 

The last forum I was on was a Christian forum. I stopped being a Christian, so I stopped hanging out there.

 

I used to believe the things you believe. But I'm smarter than you, and better able to reason. So I grew up.