Stupid Christians

[Guest jdrobins2000]

Yeah, I'm off to bed too, so I can be up in the morning for my glamorous computer job. No problem on the heat, just a little gas for the fire. Though, probably tone it down if you really want an honest debate. Coming across as a jackass does not help toward that end. Now, if you just want to trade insults ... that's a different story.

 

Anyway, read my posts again, since it seems you are not getting my point, if you are still asking the questions you are asking. I think I am making a coherent point, whether or not it is true. I will check out the links you sent on Behe tomorrow - should be interesting. I actually read Behe when I was still a Christian, but in my mind his arguments have merit as far as I can tell. Maybe the articles will convince me otherwise.

 

hey jd, I gotta head to bed now.

 

Sorry for the initial aggressive reply, I was still in attack mode from being on cf.net.

 

I'll tone down my sarcasm after I've had some sleep, busy day, exciting stuff.

 

Look forward to your reply,

Asimov

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Asimov]

Yeah, I'm off to bed too, so I can be up in the morning for my glamorous computer job. No problem on the heat, just a little gas for the fire. Though, probably tone it down if you really want an honest debate. Coming across as a jackass does not help toward that end. Now, if you just want to trade insults ... that's a different story.

 

With Christians, I don't really care. But when I discuss with people on this forum, I like having honest debates. It was a knee-jerk reaction, even though it was fun!

 

 

Anyway, read my posts again, since it seems you are not getting my point, if you are still asking the questions you are asking. I think I am making a coherent point, whether or not it is true. I will check out the links you sent on Behe tomorrow - should be interesting. I actually read Behe when I was still a Christian, but in my mind his arguments have merit as far as I can tell. Maybe the articles will convince me otherwise.

 

I'll read it over again, and get back to you tomorrow.

[Celsus]

JD and All,

 

I would like to respond to this thread with a couple of observations. Evolution is an observed fact of nature and a set of incomplete theories to explain this observed fact. Evolution happens, life changes. Secondly, evolutionary sceince like all sciences does not deal with concepts of the supernatural at all. Science is neither atheistic, theistic or deistic, rather science is non-theistic. Science is a methodology that applies to the natural universe and the processes therein, and anything that is by definition in the realm of the supernatural is beyond the scope of science to address.

 

There are mountains of evidence that support the modern concept of evolution, which Darwin first conceived in rough form. Each day, bateria and virii evolve and must be dealt with and each day, thousands of actions are carried out in labs that are based upon the theories of evolutionary science. It is a fact.

 

Science is concerned with the HOW questions and the application of the answers to them. For instance science seeks to explain how gravity works and is also used to plot things like deep space probes meeting up with comets. Evolutionary science seeks to answer HOW life actually changes and has changed as observed in the fossil records and in real time. Neither gravitational science or evolutionary biology are equipped to or can address the larger subjective questions of WHY. Why is the realm of philosophy, which theology is a subset.

 

There have been atheistic scientists and other who have tried to use the findings of sceince, including evolution, as proof in the non-existence of deities. There have also been theists who have tried to use the findings of science as proof for the existence of deities. Both are foundationally off target. As Erwin Schroedinger said, and I paraphrase, "Many believer become upset when science does not find God in the midst of the natural processes. Yet they turn around and loudly proclaim 'God is Spirit'".

 

This last part is to JD. I am a Deist myself, and in my opinion, if a person bases their belief on God on what science cannot at present explain, you really are just substituting "God" as a catchall for "We don't know". As a Deist, I believe that a deity exists and is behind all of reality and that we are indeed all made in the image of God, as rational beings. However, that is an answer to a why question, and not a how question. One's philosophical world view should be informed by the facts of science, but not controlled by them. Behe, like so many others, seeks to find some proof in nature (irreducible complexity) to prove God actually exists, although it would only make the Christian deity as one possible choice of God(s). To me, God is not found in an electron microscope or a particle collider. To me God is that from which I, not my body, bones and brains are constituted, but the I, the internal observing consciousness is in the image of. As such, my belief is internal, ineffible and is informs and does not reject the reality of nature.

 

Bruce

[Guest jdrobins2000]

JD and All,

 

I would like to respond to this thread with a couple of observations. Evolution is an observed fact of nature and a set of incomplete theories to explain this observed fact.

 

There are mountains of evidence that support the modern concept of evolution, which Darwin first conceived in rough form. Each day, bateria and virii evolve and must be dealt with and each day, thousands of actions are carried out in labs that are based upon the theories of evolutionary science. It is a fact.

 

Is there evidence for the type of evolution which could produce changes between species, starting from molecules, and ending in human beings?

 

This last part is to JD. I am a Deist myself, and in my opinion, if a person bases their belief on God on what science cannot at present explain, you really are just substituting "God" as a catchall for "We don't know". As a Deist, I believe that a deity exists and is behind all of reality and that we are indeed all made in the image of God, as rational beings. However, that is an answer to a why question, and not a how question. One's philosophical world view should be informed by the facts of science, but not controlled by them. Behe, like so many others, seeks to find some proof in nature (irreducible complexity) to prove God actually exists, although it would only make the Christian deity as one possible choice of God(s). To me, God is not found in an electron microscope or a particle collider. To me God is that from which I, not my body, bones and brains are constituted, but the I, the internal observing consciousness is in the image of. As such, my belief is internal, ineffible and is informs and does not reject the reality of nature.

 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the reply Bruce. You did pinpoint my reason for belief in a god (the "catch-all for 'We don't know'"), although I am not sure of another reason to believe. I admit, it is the same basis my predecessors believed that God made the sun go up and down, just a bit more informed by science of what God doesn't need to be active in. Yet, I can't come up with anything better.

 

The dictionary definition of a deist (in one of my previous posts) says it is the belief, based purely on reason, in a god who created everything and is not actively involved. That is the conclusion I have come to based on reason, because it explains what I see better than any other theory. I agree that what Behe's arguments at most could prove is the existence of A god, which is all I could commit to. What basis can I have for going beyond that? How is it that you believe that you perceive god?

 

What my consciousness is, I have yet to determine. Is it the I, or is it really explainable in terms of neurons and synapses? I don't know. If it is not explainable by biology, that argues for the supernatural, and therefore, in my opinion, for a god. I cannot currently perceive god apart from the boundaries of natural law.

[dustmouse]

Who says humans evolved faster? We just developed differently, with different mutations. Geographical isolation. I'm sure it's possible that a chimpanzee, or even a gorilla could mate with a human and produce fertile offspring. We share something like 95-98% of the genetic information with a Chimp.

 

How can you NOT accept common ancestry?

 

Chimpanzees and humans are 98%. However viable offspring between great apes and humans are not possible, in part because we would be of the same genus if it were, and in part because there are over 600,000 amino acid differences in the genetic coding between chimps and humans. Perhaps the new 'Mystery Ape' that Shelly Williams is working on in Zaire (or whatever it is called these days) may be different. As they do not yet have animals directly to study or dissect, these things are yet unknown. Perhaps these animals are closer to Bonobos, perhaps they are closer to humans. It will be interesting to find out. Though I am quite glad that one of my best friends from college is a primatologist who is actually working on state side research for this animal, and thus I know findings before the general scientific community.

 

However, humans did indeed not evolve more quickly or slowly. To assume that great apes are not as evolved as humans is to make a great error in logic. Great apes are just as evolved as humans. They just evolved DIFFERENTLY. While we do have a common ancestor, it is a mistake to say that humans evolved from chimpanzees, gorillas or orangs. Rather, all four have evolved from a common ancestor, each on their own paths. Chimps will never evolve into humans. Humans will never evolve into chimps. We will both just keep evolving in different directions. Such is with homo neandertalensis. It was once thought that humans evolved from Neandertals. But rather it is now known that they have a common ancestor - homo habilis, homo erectus, etc. Various theories are postulated as to whether the genus homo evolved out of the genus australopithecus/kenyanthropus/ardipithecus/etc, or whether homo and austral just have a common ancestor. Unfortunately paleoanthropological fossils are found so rarely that it is still a science that is evolving, if you'll pardon the pun

 

 

 

Animals don't, as a general rule, procreate with the weak or the sick; they generally for the strongest, or the healthiest, or the one with a cute ass.

 

 

Actually this is not quite true. Well, not in the sense most people would read your statement as.

 

You must remember that the terms 'weak' and 'strong' are relative terms. One can be strong physically, mentally, health wise, etc.

 

In some cases of low populations, animals mate with whomever is around at the time purely for the sake of propogation of the species.

 

In some animals, if there are not enough males, females will actually become male in order to have mating partners.

 

 

Behavioralists have observed time and again, for example in baboons, that the physically strong males are the ones least like to have a chance a producing offspring. Females consistently seek the physically weak by mentally strong animals for mating.

 

In some cases it is impossible to understand why a specific mate was chosen, but to suffice to say that 'We don't know yet' but underline that with the fact that it is indeed a world of survival of the FITTEST, not the strongest, smartest, healthiest, etc. For whatever reason, sometimes the FITTEST does not fulfill any of those categories

 

 

Each day, bateria and virii evolve and must be dealt with and each day, thousands of actions are carried out in labs that are based upon the theories of evolutionary science. It is a fact.

 

This is SO true! A quick study of virus alone proves this over multiple times. Look at RNA virii for example.. they mutate.. they EVOLVE ..so quickly that for some, there is no dealing with them except to isolate people until they crash and bleed out and then deal with the clean up (example Ebola...).

 

 

 

 

"Many believer become upset when science does not find God in the midst of the natural processes. Yet they turn around and loudly proclaim 'God is Spirit'".

 

 

This is one thing I never 'got' with Christians who try to stick God and Science (the why and the how) into the same pot.

 

To be science, something must be testable/observable, falsifiable, verifiable, etc. Do Christianis really want their God to have the ability to be proven false in the same stroke that he might be proven true? Why would they want to limit their God so much, if they truly believe the He Is the All That Is, or whatever???

 

 

[dustmouse]

BTW Asimov, love the avatar!!!!!!

[Celsus]

JD,

 

Is there evidence for the type of evolution which could produce changes between species, starting from molecules, and ending in human beings?

 

Yes indeed, there is a mountain of such evidence, particularly in genetics. For instance, humans and bonobos (pan paniscus) share an astounding 99% of genetic code, and the remaining 1% difference can be seen where a genes split and then re-fused at specific points. This can only be possible if at one point, there was only one species which was a common ancient ancestor to both. Human-Bonobo DNA. Also, see Human-Bonobo #2 Chromosome Comparison.

 

Now JD, my personal reasons for being a Deist intead of Atheist, is not really based too much on evolution, which I do subjectively see an an elegeant natural law, but more to physics. I have studied physics for a long time, ever since I became fascinated with it in college classes. Puting aside such speculatation from people like Depak Chopra, the physicists who actually developed and worked in the field made some remarkable observations that have been confirmed over and over again. The biggest observation about the ground state of material reality, is that at the subatomic level, matter does not appear to actually exists, except as probabilites and in fact, the most elementary of particles are made up of empty space filled by energy wave functions. The "giants of physics" (Einsteain, Bohrs, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Eddington) all were in agreement that particle physics (classical and quantum) do not prove or disprove deity, but simply argue for the possibility of such. This is why I am vehement about people claiming science can prove or disprove the existence of God, because that is a matter or perception and reason, known as philosophy. In my case, my understanding of science informs my larger philosophical world-view, but does not control it.

 

Let me explain this a bit. As a Deist, I believe that nature (reality) is the only common thing all humans share. In my belief system, the laws that operate as part of the natural universe are elegeant, inter-connected and inviolate and any belief that contradicts the laws of nature, I safely assume are false beliefs. In my opinion, this is where fundamentalists of religions go wrong and set themselves up an eventual fall, for they presume that religion (which is a philosophy) is also a revealed, although simplistic, explanation of how things are, as well as why they are. Secondly, I do not believe that "miracles" can occur, simply because if one posits that a supernatural entity can and does intervene in the world by suspending the laws of nature, then all science is a wasted effort. Science, like it or not, has been and continues to be the most effective methodology ever created by humans and is directly responsible for the advances we have made, which compared to the time before science, is astounding. Where I think we have tended to go wrong is to presume that science can provide the answers to all of our questions, which cannot. A philosophy/theology that ignores the findings of science will eventually fall into irrelevancy, as it is based upon false premises. Philosophy/theology must include the findings of ecience, but not be, in fact cannot be, confined just to science. The philosophy that is this way is known as materialism and when we get to the subatomic world it appears that matirialism is an illusion. As Einstein remarked, "Reality is an illusion, although a persistent one".

 

Bruce

[Cerise]

I disagree, and I guess we will have to leave it at that. I think the earth and what is on it is pretty damn cool.

 

Since when has the cool thing to do ever been the smart thing to do. You were a teenager once. Think about it.

 

 

deity (from the dictionary)

n: The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.

 

deist

n: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

 

LOL well that explained exactly zippity-doodah. What do you mean by "god" or "divinity"? That's like looking up Deity in the dictionary and having it say "see deity". Meaningless.

 

I assume you are referring to the deist title I give to myself? People can argue about what the definition of the word "is" is. I think there is a god (intelligent creator, at least), so I call myself a deist. It's shorter than "intelligent creator who isn't actively involved in our world anymore-ist", and relatively well-recognized. In fact, I applied that term to myself after I realized that was what someone else had decided to call the belief system I had arrived at on my own. Got a better word to describe it?

 

I can certainly try to do better then "see god" for the definition of deity if that's what you mean. You must admit, that was a lousy definition of you and the oh so wonderful webster's to give me.

 

supernatural

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

 

If it is a senseless term, then how were you able to use it in a sentence, and with the same meaning that I would apply to it, and with the same definition Webster's dictionary uses? Very coincidental, I think. Maybe evolution could be true.

 

I can use plenty of senseless terms in sentences. I'm an english major. It's what we do.

 

Time is a natural thing. So for instance, for something to create time, it would have to exist outside of time. That would be supernatural, and we would care because it is an explantion of how time even exists. How time exists is of course a whole separate discussion.

 

Sweets, listen for a second. You are assuming, first of all, that time had to be created. Also you are trying, inside of time, to describe events taking place outside of time. It doesn't work. If you're thinking about it, it's in time, it's natural. If God exists and is effecting this place and these people where we are inside of time, then he must exist inside of time as well, and be natural. Anything supernatural could not effect us. And thus, we wouldn't really care, would we.

 

Yes, I had already assumed that I would not convince you with the short explanation I gave, and I would not be giving you much credit otherwise. If you read Behe's book, it may or may not change yor mind, but it is something interesting to think about. I would not be completely surprised if I found out evolution were true, but honestly, it has little bearing on my life.

 

That said, what I see around me exudes design, which I don't care how many billions of years you have, I don't think it would happen through the natural laws we know. I have too much respect for the complexity of what I see. Plus, it's not like we find much of any contorted and messed up missing links between species. To my (limited) knowledge, we have found none, or close to it. (Anyone know of good examples?)

 

Ever been to talkorigins? Maybe you should head on over and start reading.

 

Anyway, these neato mechanisms would have to make some leaps, many many of them at the same time, and if not all at the same time, the effects would be disastrous. I think some of the changes require similarly extreme mutations to occur in a member of the opposite sex for the mutated organism to reproduce. Sure, anything could happen.... but forgive me for being skeptical given the astronomical odds and the lack of evidence that I believe should exist, given how much certain scientists would love to find it.

 

The odds of someone winning the lottery are also astronomical. And yet, someone always does.

[chefranden]

To me God is that from which I, not my body, bones and brains are constituted, but the I, the internal observing consciousness is in the image of. As such, my belief is internal, ineffible and is informs and does not reject the reality of nature.

 

Just out of curiousity have you ever read Francis Crick's My ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS: THE SCIENTIFIC SEARCH FOR THE SOUL and Antonio Damasio's My The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness

 

Why would you consider that consciousness needs a source out side of nature rather then being an evolved trait like any other?

[Asimov]

BTW Asimov, love the avatar!!!!!!

 

Thanks! I loved Trogdor so much I made him into a 3D character!

 

JD:

 

Suffice to say, Bruce has answered your questions, and so have dustmouse.

 

 

The problem with IC systems is that it's an argument from ignorance.

 

"YOu don't know how the giraffe neck evolved exactly with each step by step, therefore it's IC."

[chefranden]

To me God is that from which I, not my body, bones and brains are constituted, but the I, the internal observing consciousness is in the image of. As such, my belief is internal, ineffible and is informs and does not reject the reality of nature.

 

Just out of curiousity have you ever read Francis Crick's My ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS: THE SCIENTIFIC SEARCH FOR THE SOUL and Antonio Damasio's My The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness

 

Why would you consider that consciousness needs a source out side of nature rather then being an evolved trait like any other?

 

The "My" doesn't belong in these titles.

[Guest jdrobins2000]

Thanks everyone for the replies to my questions. I am new to exploring these paricular issues, at least from the perspective that I now have with an open mind (mostly) free of Christian blinders.

 

Cerise, I think we are on two totally different wavelengths. Maybe a little less "that's silly, or senseless, or simple", and a little more substance would be more beneficial to me. I personally do not fall in the ultra-simplification camp - the conclusion may be simple, but the journey to me is extremely complicated. Though, I will check out talkorigins, so thank you for that.

 

Asimov, the arguments against Behe in the link you sent seem plausible, on first reading. Having no first-hand knowledge of the particulars, I cannot make a judgment at this time, but I could reasonably expect that the arguments are valid. I will look into that a bit more when I get a chance.

 

Bruce, thanks for the explanation, and I think we may be more on the same page than our semantics might show, although certainly not completely. My theology is informed by science, but mostly in the sense that god is in the void left by science. If science can explain something, then that leaves no need for god, right? I am not saying that science proves or disproves god, only that it can be a very convincing argument against god being actively involved in some aspect of life.

 

For instance, you seem to indicate that particle physics (because it is nondeterministic?) somehow influences your belief in God?

my personal reasons for being a Deist intead of Atheist, is not really based too much on evolution, which I do subjectively see an an elegeant natural law, but more to physics.

particle physics (classical and quantum) do not prove or disprove deity, but simply argue for the possibility of such

 

What if it were found to be determinstic (that is, whatever your criteria was for suggesting a god might be possible were removed)? Would your belief in god be potentially altered as mine might? If not, why would you identify it as a large reason for deism vs. atheism? Is that not relying on the how to determine your belief in the why? If all the how is explained, then what method is available for determining the why?

 

This is why I am vehement about people claiming science can prove or disprove the existence of God, because that is a matter of perception and reason, known as philosophy.

 

What can you perceive that would not fall in the realm of science? How can you reason about things outside the realm of science?

 

Revisiting physics - you talked about quantum physics involving probabilities, which (if I am following the logic) indicates room for god? If I recall correctly from my reading of "Einstein and Religion", Einstein was never on board with the probability theory, with no deterministic mechanism explaining the probabilities. I myself would expect there is a reason for the probabilities as well. I was actually wondering if anyone had figured out what caused the probabilities. Apparently not?Either way, I figure if someone can just wave their hand and say the other natural laws just exist, than why not probabilities and energy waves. So, not sure why this opens up the possibility for god anyway.

[Celsus]

Thanks everyone for the replies to my questions. I am new to exploring these paricular issues, at least from the perspective that I now have with an open mind (mostly) free of Christian blinders.

 

Cerise, I think we are on two totally different wavelengths. Maybe a little less "that's silly, or senseless, or simple", and a little more substance would be more beneficial to me. I personally do not fall in the ultra-simplification camp - the conclusion may be simple, but the journey to me is extremely complicated. Though, I will check out talkorigins, so thank you for that.

 

Asimov, the arguments against Behe in the link you sent seem plausible, on first reading. Having no first-hand knowledge of the particulars, I cannot make a judgment at this time, but I could reasonably expect that the arguments are valid. I will look into that a bit more when I get a chance.

 

Bruce, thanks for the explanation, and I think we may be more on the same page than our semantics might show, although certainly not completely. My theology is informed by science, but mostly in the sense that god is in the void left by science. If science can explain something, then that leaves no need for god, right? I am not saying that science proves or disproves god, only that it can be a very convincing argument against god being actively involved in some aspect of life.

 

For instance, you seem to indicate that particle physics (because it is nondeterministic?) somehow influences your belief in God?

What if it were found to be determinstic (that is, whatever your criteria was for suggesting a god might be possible were removed)? Would your belief in god be potentially altered as mine might? If not, why would you identify it as a large reason for deism vs. atheism? Is that not relying on the how to determine your belief in the why? If all the how is explained, then what method is available for determining the why?

What can you perceive that would not fall in the realm of science? How can you reason about things outside the realm of science?

 

Revisiting physics - you talked about quantum physics involving probabilities, which (if I am following the logic) indicates room for god? If I recall correctly from my reading of "Einstein and Religion", Einstein was never on board with the probability theory, with no deterministic mechanism explaining the probabilities. I myself would expect there is a reason for the probabilities as well. I was actually wondering if anyone had figured out what caused the probabilities. Apparently not?Either way, I figure if someone can just wave their hand and say the other natural laws just exist, than why not probabilities and energy waves. So, not sure why this opens up the possibility for god anyway.

 

I think it is not exactly correct to say that Einstein wasn't "on board" with quantum physics, rather that he was uncomfortable with some of its implications. In fact, Einstein and others posited a problem that is solved would demonstrate quantum theory and this experiment was carried out laters. This was the EPR experiment that was carried out in the 1990's and confirmed what Einstein predicted must be true if quantum mechanics was real, and he called "Spooky Action at a Distance", more commonly known now as quantum entanglement. In the final analysis for me, my overall perception of reality seems to absolutely point to a first cause, call it God, the Ultimate, etc. but something caused the imbalance between positive and anti matter and resulted in the formation of the material universe and beings able to explore and understand it, or as others have stated it, "We are the universe discovering itself". Another way I look at it is, "I experience my emotions, but they are not me. I know my thoughts, but I am not my thoughts. I perceive my mind, but my mind is not me. Who am I, that I can witness these things inside me and outside of me? Who am I, that I can conceive of that unknown before to humanity? Why am I and who are you?". Ah, I relish in the adventure of life, a philosophy informed by the realities discovered by science, the universe a sea my soul swims in.

 

Bruce

[SOIL]

I wish to express a hearty "Thank You!" to the kind soul who has removed the "F" word from the title of this thread!

 

Now, I think I might read through it.

 

-Dennis

[Celsus]

I wish to express a hearty "Thank You!" to the kind soul who has removed the "F" word from the title of this thread!

 

Now, I think I might read through it.

 

-Dennis

 

 

You're welcome

[Reach]

I wish to express a hearty "Thank You!" to the kind soul who has removed the "F" word from the title of this thread!

 

Now, I think I might read through it.

I can relate to that, Dennis. I like to think we might improve in this area, improve on leaving some words out of the titles of threads for reasons that seem obvious... to some of us. I like to think we have more class than that.

[Panther]

I think it is not exactly correct to say that Einstein wasn't "on board" with quantum physics, rather that he was uncomfortable with some of its implications. In fact, Einstein and others posited a problem that is solved would demonstrate quantum theory and this experiment was carried out laters. This was the EPR experiment that was carried out in the 1990's and confirmed what Einstein predicted must be true if quantum mechanics was real, and he called "Spooky Action at a Distance", more commonly known now as quantum entanglement. In the final analysis for me, my overall perception of reality seems to absolutely point to a first cause, call it God, the Ultimate, etc. but something caused the imbalance between positive and anti matter and resulted in the formation of the material universe and beings able to explore and understand it, or as others have stated it, "We are the universe discovering itself".  Another way I look at it is, "I experience my emotions, but they are not me. I know my thoughts, but I am not my thoughts. I perceive my mind, but my mind is not me. Who am I, that I can witness these things inside me and outside of me? Who am I, that I can conceive of that unknown before to humanity? Why am I and who are you?". Ah, I relish in the adventure of life, a philosophy informed by the realities discovered by science, the universe a sea my soul swims in.

 

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bruce,

Thanks for explaining the nature of your beliefs and what deism means to you. I am in process of exploration right now after leaving christianity. At first I was feeling completely empty, not sure if any God existed anymore after all of that and it has been a hard voyage so far even to feel any existence of spirituality anymore. I have been "spiritual" my whole life, so this lack of feeling anything for a while has been painful. So, it really helps me to at least have options to explore, so thank you for that.

Take care!!!

[dustmouse]

I can relate to that, Dennis. I like to think we might improve in this area, improve on leaving some words out of the titles of threads for reasons that seem obvious... to some of us. I like to think we have more class than that.

 

Meanwhile, on my topic title (about my cousin and his wife), I only used that word because there is just no other term that quite fits at the current time.

 

And I thank Bruce, or whomever edited the title, for recognizing that.

 

For the most part, the few that do know me here can atest that such language is not a general part of my every day discourse.

 

[Reach]

Meanwhile, on my topic title (about my cousin and his wife), I only used that word because there is just no other term that quite fits at the current time.

I think in your case, it was more understandable so one of us changed yours to F*****G.

 

I think I've read you clearly, Dustmouse, and my comment was not meant to be offensive to you, whatsoever. I believe I can say the same for Dennis (SOIL) because that's not what he's about. I don't recall him ever offending anyone, intentionally. Also, he's been here for about a year and a half and his track record here speaks highly of him.

[- AUB -]

I'm suprised a deist has fallen for behe's creationism, I'd have thought they'd have better skills to see through the "seemingly" convincing bunk of Hovind, Gish and the rest. I mean hasn't it been debunked enough times here? Xtians don’t pay any attention to facts, or science, so they're bound to fall for it but a deist has nothing to fear from empiricism, I guess he's just been temporarily fooled.

[Celsus]

I'm suprised a deist has fallen for behe's creationism, I'd have thought they'd have better skills to see through the "seemingly" convincing bunk of Hovind, Gish and the rest. I mean hasn't it been debunked enough times here? Xtians don’t pay any attention to facts, or science, so they're bound to fall for it but a deist has nothing to fear from empiricism, I guess he's just been temporarily fooled.

 

 

Behe, Gish etc, try to prove God by the use of science, which I do not do. Unlike them, God can neither be proven or disproven using the scientific method. What I did say, and you should understand this clearly, science informs my larger philosophical world-view and I accept scientific findings as the factual statements of reality that they are. Unlike Behe, who seeks to prove God by claiming irreducible complexity, I posit no such thing. My belief in God is based upon a subjective, philosophical method of reasoning that is informed by logic, science, experience and most importantly, by perception. I would posit that no reasons I could give for my belief in the existence of a deity would suffice for you AUB. As a Deist, I have no need or drive to convince you or anyone else to my belief system. Unlike a Christian, I do not claimt hat I know God exists, I simply state that to based upon my philosophy, which includes science, it apprears there is something behind reality. I may be totally wrong, but so what. I do not fear empiricism, in fact I am a big, big fan of it. Could you please explain what possible applications of science could address the possible existence/non-existence of a deity? AUB, it would appear to me, that you blur the line between empirical science (study of the natural universe) and philosophy, which I have been clear in making the distinction of.

 

Bruce

[Asimov]

I can relate to that, Dennis. I like to think we might improve in this area, improve on leaving some words out of the titles of threads for reasons that seem obvious... to some of us. I like to think we have more class than that.

 

This wasn't directed at all Christians...it was directed at the stupid ones, who are so amazingly dumb that I'm surprised they can breath properly.

[dustmouse]

I think in your case, it was more understandable so one of us changed yours to F*****G.

 

I think I've read you clearly, Dustmouse, and my comment was not meant to be offensive to you, whatsoever. I believe I can say the same for Dennis (SOIL) because that's not what he's about. I don't recall him ever offending anyone, intentionally. Also, he's been here for about a year and a half and his track record here speaks highly of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And I wasn't offended I just felt that perhaps I ought to explain myself lest anybody get the wrong idea

[Amethyst]

You know, that wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. At least, it would be a true excuse to give to some guy who flirts with you and he's not your type. And maybe, more marriages would last longer.

 

I stopped going to christianforums.net right after its inhabitants started accusing people of being allowed to marry firehydrants if this gay marriage thing ever came to pass.

 

My opinion is that the morons on christianforums.net and their respective firehydrants deserve each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Desert Walker]

Ever notice how every other belief except Christianity is widely accepted by the growing, non-Christian world with little or no resistance. Regardless of which one thinks is the true belief, or form thereof? Regardless of logic and truth?

This fact alone just sings that something is amiss.

JMHO though. I am certainly not judging nor condemning anyone for what they believe. Even murderous factions of Islam get less resistance than Christians. I wonder why this is?

What is really astonishing to watch is others blaming a Christian individual for errors others have made in the past. Errors or foolishness that often come from people individual Christians do not know, or have ever conversed with. But yet, they are automatically placed into a single demographic profile of those who judge and condemn, when the very act of placing them in this profiles judges and condemns. And this is almost entirely overlooked, even when very vile and foul tongues are directed by the accuser to those they accuse of being judgemental and condemning.

Again, just an open view here, not directed at any particular belief or individual.

 

Richard.