middle east again...

"Dr. 'Adel Sadeq, who is also head of the Department of Psychiatry at 'Ein Shams University in Cairo, and recipient of the 1990 Egyptian State Prize, made the comments in an open letter to President Bush recently published in the Egyptian newspaper Hadith Al-Madina, as well as in a televised interview with Iqraa, a Saudi-Egyptian satellite TV channel."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=27441

After calling the US president "stupid" and "an evil person with an ugly soul", Dr. Sadeq goes on to say that there is no other option for the Palestine but to have more 'martyrs'. Also, the quote below...

Quote:

---

Either we will exist or we will not exist. Either the Israelis or the Palestinians – there is no third option...

---

After skimming over the article, what are your thoughts on this?

"Your stupidity is reflected in your facial features. Your face reminds me of the face of those who frequent a clinic for the mentally retarded. Your gaze is mindless and unfocused. Your eyes are misleading. Your facial expressions are incompatible with the matter [being discussed], and your tone of voice is completely disconnected from the content of your words – a salient characteristic of the mentally retarded."

hmm... their top psychologist resorts to childish name calling, basically calling bush a retard

That man a moron, another fanatical idiot, people like him on both sides keep the war going, its because of them innocent people die.

Don't get me wrong I have no love of Bush, but jeez that man has the intellectual capacity of a microbe.

My favourite quote from his idiocy:

"Don't you understand, stupid, that when a girl of 18 blows herself up, this means that her cause is right"

Brilliant reasoning.

Ugh the more i read of this rambling buffon the more annoyed I get.

I freaking HATE religion.

GOOD GRIEF

he's one of their top shrinks ???
doctor, heal thyself !!!!

"When the martyr dies a martyr's death, he attains the height of bliss. … As a professional psychiatrist, I say that the height of bliss comes with the end of the countdown: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. And then, you press the button to blow yourself up. When the martyr reaches 'one,' and then 'boom,' he explodes, and senses himself flying, because he knows for certain that he is not dead. … It is a transition to another, more beautiful world, because he knows very well that within seconds he will see the light of the Creator. He will be at the closest possible point to Allah. …"

Yeah right, 72 virgins await !!!! Dickheads...

Reading this makes me want to join a kibbutz !!!

I HATE RELIGION TOO !!!:mad:

all i can say bout that article......

****, that's big.....:D

This from an Egyptian academic, not a Palistinian. A very scary statement.

>>There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense.

[sarcasm]
Lucky Afghanistan is so clear cut, they are wrong and the US is 100% right to bomb them back to them stone age.
[/sarcasm]

We currently have around the world;
Muslim V Jew (Israel)
Muslim V Christian (Indonesia, might say Afghanistan)
Catholic V Prodistant (Ireland)
Hindu V Muslim (Kashmir)
[Me V Morman (my front door early Sat morning)]

Where are the violent Buddists?

May be because Buddists live in the here and now, not some promised afterlife.

>>Where are the violent Buddists?

Go Buddists! ;) Out of all religions they bother me the least. ... That says a lot about them, really.


>>I freaking HATE religion.

Not that i'm one to jump on the bandwagon but... Lets just say there are a lot of fingers pointed at religion for a lot of the worlds problems.

Heart Attacks: One of the leading causes of death in men over x (cant remember) age.
Religion: The leading cause of people running around acting like idiots and trying to kill people

We needs some cures.

>>Where are the violent Buddists?

May be because Buddists live in the here and now, not some promised afterlife.<<

Yeah, maybe the only religion ever to be totally peaceoholic :D

FREE TIBET

What scares me the most about this is the thought that this Dr. is not the only one who shares these beliefs...:eek:

I saw a doco on Israelie (sp?) kids a few weeks back. Kids around 13 years old. They were adamant that there would be no peace from both sides. They would push the Palistinians, who's fault it was, out alltogather.

The Palisitnian kids were slightly better, one even arranging a meeting between some of the settlers kids in the doco and the Palistinian kids.

Then they went back a few years later to catch up when they were 16.

The disappointing thing was that a death of a friend had compleatly changed the Palistinian kid. She had gone from the most moderate, not accepting the stus quo, to being a candidate for the next suicide bombing.

It showed that the cultural enviroment was the cause. Attitudes were inherited. Change improbable.

>>Go Buddists! Out of all religions they bother me the least. ... That says a lot about them, really.

Which bothers you the most?

The Palistinians are bigger intelligent than the Israelys.

religion is the viper that taints my wine with poison&blasphemy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lightatdawn
>>Where are the violent Buddists?

>>I freaking HATE religion...

...The leading cause of people running around acting like idiots and trying to kill people

---

I can certainly see why you would feel this way, considering all the suffering and persecution in this world occuring in the name of religion. It has become so commonplace to blame religion for these problems, because people, even religious leaders, will try to use their religion to justify their actions. But this was never the intent of those who started the religions. Jesus said "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is a far different attitude then people are taking today.

The problem is not religion, but people. People only care about themselves, and want to benefit at other people's cost. If we remember the founding of America and Canada, we came in and stole land from the natives because we wanted it. This had nothing to do with religion, but had everything to do with greed. People tried to justify it with religion, (Manifest destiny) but the Bible clearly says "do not steal... do not kill..." etc.

Getting back to today, remember Saddam invading Kuwait etc. What did that have to do with religion? That had everything to do with greed: he wanted the oil.

Religion as an organisation is far too greedy and corrupt. Look at the catholic church. If you go to any protestant church probably the only thing they will preach about is giving them your money (supported by a few bible verses taking out of context) Or look at televangelists. Some religions exist solely to give money to their leaders (JW's, scientoligists etc.)

People can be excused for believing that religion causes the worlds problems because all that we see indicates this, in fact, the words "by your fruit you shall be known" have turned out to be uncomfortably true. But do not think this is God's fault; this is men's fault. Abolishing religion will do nothing to make the world a better place (Look at communism)

wise words, eloquently put..

however, i'd like to make 2 points...

without a belief in an after life there would surely be no suicide bombers, and less acceptance of risking your life in a war...

communism (like what you think about religion) is a good idea in theory. its just that men are too corrupt to put it into practice correctly. so no communist system ever worked. and after all, if a doctor is paid the same as a garbage collector, wheres the incentive to study and suffer stress etc.

it is however surely a more 'christian' system, than capitalism, which is based on greed.
but it is capitalism that works better because that is human nature. its in our genes, its how animals are, we compete.
so is that not how God created us ??

communism was anti-organised religion, you could believe what you wanted in your own home...

The early christians were sort of communists; they gave everything they had to the church, and the church in turn redistributed it out to those who had need. But even here this "ideal" system did not work out; people complained that they were being left out and they had to elect people to oversee the distribution.

btw look at this

http://www.theonion.com/onion3816/go...ddle_east.html

"The problem is not religion, but people"

You cannot change human nature, people are people, for better or for worse: You are always going to have mean people, power hungry people, aggressive people, etc. etc.

What you can change are social instituitions and beliefs.

There are two solutions to religious conflicts as a whole:

1) Change man.
2) Change religion.

Only one is a feasable solution.

"Getting back to today, remember Saddam invading Kuwait etc. What did that have to do with religion? That had everything to do with greed: he wanted the oil. "

Very true, there are plenty of wars and conflict that are totally unrelated to religion, but there are also plenty that are.

"People can be excused for believing that religion causes the worlds problems because all that we see indicates this"

Not all of them, but a good portion of them, are religiously motivated.

"Abolishing religion will do nothing to make the world a better place (Look at communism)"

Abolishing religion cannot work, trying to oppress people into believing something else never works.

However a world without religion would certainly be better than a world with it, and fortunately we are progressing towards that world. The more educated a people get the more secular, the less extremist, the more vague their religious beliefs become.

The reason communism failed has nothing to do with its abolishment of religion btw, it failed because it failed to account for human nature. People will not work too hard, if working does not directly benefit themselves/ their family.

Quote:

---

You cannot change human nature, people are people, for better or for worse: You are always going to have mean people, power hungry people, aggressive people, etc. etc.

---

This is true, you or I cannot change people, but religion is founded on the belief that God can change people.

Quote:

---

The more educated a people get the more secular, the less extremist, the more vague their religious beliefs become.

---

This is false. To make a claim you must support it with reasoning or evidence. Saying something does not make it true. If this was acceptable I could just say something like "65% of all doctors are religious" You would be hard pressed to refute this, since you could never survey every doctor. The burden of proof lies on the person making the statement. I challenge you to present any empirical evidence to back up this statement.

"This is true, you or I cannot change people, but religion is founded on the belief that God can change people."

So you propose we rely on God to solve the problems of the world? Haha. Thats a good one.

"This is false. To make a claim you must support it with reasoning or evidence. Saying something does not make it true"

.....i figured it was common knowledge.

"I challenge you to present any empirical evidence to back up this statement"

It's blindingly obvious: There are far more atheists/agnostic people in better educated richer countries than in poorer countries with poorer education, furthermore those that are religious are far less fundamentalists and far more liberal. Do you honestly believe otherwise?

Over time, education has improved over time religion has become less influential; the proportion of people in the 1st world who believe that "insert holy book" is the literal word of God is far less than it was 200 years ago, the power of the church is far less than it was 200 years ago. The proportion of atheists and agnostic is also alot greater than it was 200 years ago.

The better educated a people are the less religious they are, with the extreme: In a survey published in the New Scientists 93% of the worlds "top" scientists claimed to be atheist or agnostic.

There is a natural trend: As an example we shall take Judaism, a poorly educated man knows nothing of the world other than what he's told by his religious "leaders", believes everything he's told (Orthodox), bible's the word of God, God made the world in 7 days, Adam & Eve, etc. etc., now his son gets a better education, learns about the world, physics, evolution etc. bends his religion to what he knows about the world (Reform) decides the bible is an "interpretation" that Adam & Eve didn't really exists, that the world wasn't really made in 7 days, etc. but he can't shake off some of the stronger indocrination, he still doesn't eat pork, doesn't work on Saturday, etc. He in-turn has a son, who really gets a full class education, the religion becomes more something he was handed (Liberal), he eats pork (cause he realise's it's not "evil") he does whatever he likes on Saturday. He may or may not stick with the religion.

The above is an exaggerated example but if applied to hundreds of generations instead of three, it does form the general trend we observe (note: there are exceptions you get intelligent religious Fundamentalists -pretty few, and thick as planks agnostics/atheists, but the trend is there). And it does make sense.

It should be fairly obvious that liberals are more likely to becomes atheists/agnostic and/or have children that grow up to be atheist/agnostic than Reform who are in turn more likely to become atheists/agnostic and/or have atheist/agnostic children than Orthodox.

You dodo heads. Bad Bad Religio. I com Bomb Da Home of yur mom.

A hundred years ago the top discovers and scientists were God fearing people, the trend has slowly twisted itself back around to be just the oposit.

It says in Revelations that in the last days the world will turn against God, will refute his very exsistance and abolish the Christians.

In the past hundred years more Christians have been murdered than in the last 900 years combined.

I just wonder how many of those people, who say there is no God, lay awake at night truly wondering.

"In the past hundred years more Christians have been murdered than in the last 900 years combined"


.......... that's because in the last 900 years, the Christians were the ones doing most of the killing.

"It says in Revelations that in the last days the world will turn against God, will refute his very exsistance and abolish the Christians"

The world is not "turning against" God, the people of the world are merely (gradually) realising that he does not exist.

voltaire was god.

Quote:

---

>>Go Buddists! Out of all religions they bother me the least. ... That says a lot about them, really.

Which bothers you the most?

---

I really shouldnt say... But maybe you can guess. :)


>>The world is not "turning against" God, the people of the world are merely (gradually) realising that he does not exist.

I vastly enjoyed reading a signature from someone around here with a quote stating: "If you dont preach in my school, I wont think in your church." ... Very well put. :p

Actually, the christians are the ones who have saved quite a few people from physical death.

I would be interested to see some proof about your saying that is was the Christians who have done most of the killing over the centurys. Do you have a link?


History has been twisted by so many people, you must have the facts and proof to back it up.

>>>In the past hundred years more Christians have been murdered than in the last 900 years combined.

can i ask what you mean by this exactly ??? murdered ?? what events are you refering to ??

Events in the past 100 years, or the past 900?

>>I just wonder how many of those people, who say there is no God, lay awake at night truly wondering.

And I wonder if those who interpret his word and act in his name, ever question their right to do so.

At least Muslims are taught an eye for an eye. Christians should turn the other cheek, 'for the meek shall inherit the earth' (if thats all right with the rest of you).

"And I wonder if those who interpret his word and act in his name, ever question their right to do so."

You are saying that it is fine and jolly for a muslim or athiest to believe what they believe, but not a Christian? Why is Christianity percieved as such a threat?


"At least Muslims are taught an eye for an eye. Christians should turn the other cheek, 'for the meek shall inherit the earth' (if thats all right with the rest of you)."

Interesting that the Terrorists are all muslims and not Christians....has anyone else noticed this?

"Actually, the christians are the ones who have saved quite a few people from physical death"

Heard of the Spanish inquisition? The witch burnings? The crusades? The percecution of heretics (see Galileo)? The percecution of homosexuals (even today)?

I'm not sure how much that lot happened in the last 900 years (history is most certainly not my strong point) but im sure some of it did :)

oh and :

"Slavery, supposedly supported by scripture ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", St.Paul, Ephesians 6:5) "

"You are saying that it is fine and jolly for a muslim or athiest to believe what they believe, but not a Christian? Why is Christianity percieved as such a threat? "

All relgions suvive by indocrinating their believers into NOT questioning. Questioning is bad ( = doubt) shutting up and blindly believeing what your told is good ( = faith). Atheists and Agnostics constantly question their beliefs: If there was some "ultimate experiment" that could detect God, and it showed that in-fact God existed, atheists and agnostics would accept it. If on the other hand the very same experiment showed there was no God, religious people would ignore it.

"Interesting that the Terrorists are all muslims and not Christians....has anyone else noticed this?"

"The terrorists?" You mean the most world-famous terrorists happen to be Islamic.

There are Christian terrorists. (Like the IRA).

But it brings up an interesting point why is it, that muslims tend to be more fanatical than Christians? The answer is simply one of education, Christianity has been smashed due to education, its strenght diminished, and there are far far less orthodox Christians around, Islam on the other hand is still prevelant in poorer countries with poorer education, so it is still in many ways like Christianity of 500 years ago.

Note: It's NOT the differences in the religion, it's the differences in the social environment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered
Events in the past 100 years, or the past 900?

---

well both
i can't think of any major murdering of Christians in the last 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevey


well both
i can't think of any major murdering of Christians in the last 100 years.

---

Rwanda?? I think, nominally Christian, but not really a religous conflict, depends what we're calling murder. I presume you meant murder en masse as well.

i think Rwanda wasn't a religous conflict more a race/tribal conflict
it would seem to me that multi-cultural societies don't really work, or at least are very difficult. and it seems that its when the minority becomes a large minority is when it really kicks off.
thats when the majority start to be frightened of the minority and start to blame them for everything....then they elect/sympathise with an extremist goverment and then all hell breaks lose......

so i do think that the indiginous population should make up 90% at least of a countries population, and immigration needs controlling, then they will not feel threatened about 'losing' their country etc

please don't take that as a racist statement

Quote:

---

If there was some "ultimate experiment" that could detect God, and it showed that in-fact God existed, atheists and agnostics would accept it.

---

The Atheists I know are as blind in their belief of no god that they would laugh at you for even suggesting such an experiment might exist. They would call it a lie and live on with their belief of God's non-existance. An Atheist is nothing more than a religious guy without a god. The same believes, the same blind faith in their own idea without accepting that it might not be the absolute truth.

Rwanda was a mix of tribal\ethnic with an effective class and distribution of power\wealth between them which didn't help.

I think Rwanda is, due to European involvment, nominally christian. And the conflict did feature mass killings of civilians, ie christians but they weren't killed for being christian, rather for being tutsi or Hutu, the breif research I just did has already left my mind

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nvoigt


The Atheists I know are as blind in their belief of no god that they would laugh at you for even suggesting such an experiment might exist. They would call it a lie and live on with their belief of God's non-existance. An Atheist is nothing more than a religious guy without a god. The same believes, the same blind faith in their own idea without accepting that it might not be the absolute truth.

---

i think you are wrong totally. atheists simply will not believe in god, because there is no proof. proof it, then we'll all believe!!

well, heres something of a conversation i had with a religous guy

Q "why doesn't god just show himself, then we would ALL believe in Him, and then we would all be nice people etc the world would be a better place"
A "well he sent his son"
"aww come on!.... ...thats not evidence!!"
"well it is to me"
"oh ......blah blah etc "
"well if he showed himself, then everyone would know the existance of god, there would be no need for faith"
"exactly my point"
"but faith is important, he is testing us with our faith, you must have faith.."
"why must i have faith, why must i believe in something where there is no evidence, i have to accept certain things scientifically but there is evidence if you look deep enough into things..."
"religion is different, you must have faith, thats what its all about"
"well moslems etc have totally different beliefs to you, they have faith, but in something else"
"yes but all religous people have faith in a divine being etc blah blah"
"yeah but differences in religions are massive, some believe in reincarnation etc etc "
"well they are wrong, the word of god is in the bible, that is the truth"
"how do you know??"
"because i have faith"
"oh ********!"

all arguments are pointless, you have faith or you don't.
you will find out the truth only when you die.

i don't believe, but am a good person regardless. so i will still go to heaven (if there is)even without believing. yes ????? in fact that i am a good person without believing only makes it better !!

i break a few 10 commandments, but only the minor ones !!
i do especially covert by neighbours oxen, but he does have especially nice ones !!
:)

A few interesting points came up when I was gone. First, Clyde made the point that a survey showed a majority of highly educated people of some profession were atheist or agnostic. This I do not dispute. However, imagine if you will, a young christian that decides he wants to be a scientist. First, he must accept evolution, even if he believes it to be false. (We could argue about that, but thats kind of off the topic) Alterrnately, if he chose to be a physisist he would have to accept the Big Bang etc. everything came from nothing regardless of his view (again, a whole different topic) This can be very discouraging for someone who wants to be a scientist, because he will have to do this for many years, until his faith actually becomes eroded through the repitition and indoctrination that you accuse christians of. However, there are still christian scientists (people, not the cult) , who have made their way through their, faith intact. Interestingly, if you look at bible scholars, another field requiring very high education, you will probably find that the majority of them are religious.;)

Next you (Clyde) makes the claim that religious leaders tend to supress education of their followers. This also is true. This is because they are afraid that people will start questioning the hypocrisy that they see. For example: why do we all have to tithe when we're all poor and your driving a cadillac? etc. This is because the religious leaders and institutions are more concerned with greed than with God. (which was my original point)

A point of interest, the rennaissance started around the time that tyndale and others started the task of translating the bible into english so that the common person could understand. (this the church did NOT like)

Oh yes, and why is there pain and suffering in the world? It's called free will. Why doesn't God reveal himself? To tell you the truth, I don't know. God is God. He doesn't justify himself to me.

I'm still curious though, as one of my questions remains unanswered, Why must religion and education be mutually exclusive.

"The Atheists I know are as blind in their belief of no god that they would laugh at you for even suggesting such an experiment might exist. They would call it a lie and live on with their belief of God's non-existance. An Atheist is nothing more than a religious guy without a god. The same believes, the same blind faith in their own idea without accepting that it might not be the absolute truth."

Such an experiment was merely a hypothetical, in reality a conclusive experiment is not be possible.

If a CONCRETE experiemnt were possible then you would find that 99% of all atheists would take note of it, and 99% of religious folk would ignore it. (Heavens look at how many ignore evolution!)

Atheists adhere to a rational belief system, they believe in what has evidence supporting it, and not in what that does not. There is no "blind faith" in atheism.

God, by his nature is an indepentant being. For you to require him to work according to your rationalization (its not fair) would require him to be dependant of you. But if he is dependant on us, he could not have created us. You can see that trying to rationalize god quickly leads to a paradox. He can do whatever he wants. It doen't matter if I believe in him, he still exists.

Quote:

---

If a CONCRETE experiemnt were possible then you would find that 99% of all atheists would take note of it, and 99% of religious folk would ignore it.

---

Well, that depends on what the experiment proved;)

"However, imagine if you will, a young christian that decides he wants to be a scientist. First, he must accept evolution, even if he believes it to be false. (We could argue about that, but thats kind of off the topic) Alterrnately, if he chose to be a physisist he would have to accept the Big Bang etc. everything came from nothing regardless of his view (again, a whole different topic"

Yes.... he learns about the universe and realises that what he has been told from religious leaders does not fit that facts.

"However, there are still christian scientists"

Indeed there are, like i said there are exceptions, but few.

"Interestingly, if you look at bible scholars, another field requiring very high education"

Hehe, high education? People who study an unbiased topic like Theology or anthropology at a (decent) university almost always come to the realisation that religion was made by man.

"Oh yes, and why is there pain and suffering in the world? It's called free will. Why doesn't God reveal himself? To tell you the truth, I don't know. God is God. He doesn't justify himself to me."

Free will.......... this is my all time FAVOURITE defense, because i have alot of experience in tearing it shreds :):

Lets see, where to being, if man has free-will then God cannot be omniscient! Let me explain: if God knows the future, then man cannot have free-will, if God knows the future it means the future is "fixed", IE. lets say God knows that in 5 minutes I will get up and go eat some bannanas, that means i don't actually have any choice at all! I will get to the point in time where I'm about to get up, and I will THINK i have a choice: I can either get up or stay sitting, but in-fact what i will do is already written! I WILL get up and eat bannanas, hence i don't really have any choice at all!

If man has free will the future cannot exist, if the future does not exist then God cannot know it. Woot bye bye omniscience.

Other-problems with free-will: It raises doubts over God's omnipotence: If he CAN alter man's actions, then free-will does not explain away the evil of the world: God could just have stopped it happening.

Furthermore one can imagine a universe where everyone is "good", we can all still have this "free-will" (which blatantly cannot exist without violating all the laws of physics, not only that but we can PROVE it doesn't exist in the lab) so why isn't the world full of good people with no evil ones? Free-will contradicts Gods greatness and is not a get-out-clause anyway.


"I'm still curious though, as one of my questions remains unanswered, Why must religion and education be mutually exclusive."

Because education makes people better aware of the world, how it works, why it works, and that information is contrary to religious teachings. Science filters down to the public through education, more people understand that Adam and Eve cannot have existed because they understand evolution. Science and hence education forces religious beliefs to become more and more vague. That is why there are less orthodox religious people and more liberal, agnostic and atheists in better educated countries.

"God, by his nature is an indepentant being. For you to require him to work according to your rationalization (its not fair) would require him to be dependant of you. But if he is dependant on us, he could not have created us. You can see that trying to rationalize god quickly leads to a paradox. He can do whatever he wants. "

Irrelevant, i accept that IF God exists HE will not nessesarily be understandable, BUT there is no reason to believe God exists in the first place, and the better educated a people become the more they realise this.

"It doen't matter if I believe in him, he still exists."

That ladies and gentlemen is what we call an irrational belief.

i could be wrong, but i thought the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants had accepted the Big Bang, and had also accepted evolution ?????

"i could be wrong, but i thought the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants had accepted the Big Bang, and had also accepted evolution ?????"

They have, atleast the pope has. Though it's amusing to watch them squirm: They basically said they do believe in evolution (they accepted the big-bang quite a while ago) but at some point in the last 500,000 years God reached in and stuck a soul in hominids (can't have man a just another animal no no, otherwise all the pretentions of man being at the centre of the universe would vanish).

On the subject of man's EGO:


http://www.closetatheist.com/centerofcreation.htm

I love this site :)

I have taken this off an atheists V. Chritstians board, (Link if interested in the more, this stuff will knock a persons socks off!!!)

http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

"Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit an atheist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist determines is one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain and these experiences are real. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.

Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an unfair way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria."

It took me a long time to find anything on the interent about prooving God's exsistance, everything up was by people who have no clue about what they are talking about, or they could not explain it in a rational way.

If anyone is interested in arguing this further, they have a board at the link given above where you can ask questions and you will be given logical answers. It is very, very interesting.:p

"To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain "

Like what?

"Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No"

Yes. It already has most of it covered.

"Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman?"

Beauty is inherently subjective hence cannot be quantified, thats not to say science cannot explain precisiely why and how people feel what they do.

"Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things."

A meaningless statement, there is only one way to approach the truth: logic, science uses logic to determine what/why/how the universe is.

I believe that the computer infront me exists and that a pink floating elephant above my head does not : Logic

Instead of: I believe that the computer infront of me does not exist and that a pink floating elephant above my head does: Illogic

"In fact, we use it in our proofs for God"

Heh, i think not.

"But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an unfair way to start"

What rules? Logic? So you are arging then that whilst whilst religious belief is illogical and irrational thats ok! Riight....#

That site of yours is most amusing especially the part where he argues against the: there is no evidence argument!

Atheists generally don't believe in God because there's no scientific proof of God's existance. This lack of proof doesn't disprove the existance of God, but neither does the Bible, Koran, Bhavagad-Gita, whatever, prove there is a God.
Faith is just faith, can certainly be a powerful force in life, and the faith may be true. Or not. Faith is believing in something without proof.
Some religious point to the complexity and "design" of the universe as proof there must be some type of divine creator. Maybe they're right, this universe couldn't occur randomly. This argument begs the question, though. If you allow that this universe couldn't just "happen", that it had to come from somewhere, where did God come from? Well, God just is/was/will ever be is the standard answer. If you can accept that, you can accept the non-God beginning/evolution of the universe. It's not hard in logic to go from "God just is" to "the universe just is".
As an aside, there's a recent alternative theory to the Big Bang that hypothesizes an oscillating universe with no beginning or end.

I don't have time right now to respond to everything because I'm at school, but I'm curious, do athiests believe that humans have a soul?

I can't pretend to understand everything, I understand logic, that I am sitting here, in front of a comuter typing, but I can't refute the feeling that there are things going on in this world that can't be explained in a "logical" way; the bombings of the world trade center, bible propheys about the middle east coming true, the sickening things people do to each other(rape, perversian, murder) ect. (some of those may be "logically" exlained, but to me some of these are not understood)

People find it hard to understand things they can't see, hear, or touch.

I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul.

Can science explain everything? No, it does not, it only pecks away at things. Logically science can prove that eagles mate for life. But it can't prove that evolution exsists (I must echo the feelings of another member by saying lets not go off on that tangent)

If the all the answers cannot be found in science, where then are they?

"lack of proof doesn't disprove the existance of God"

True, in the same way that the lack of proof for some giant invisable floating sheep does not disprove them.

"Faith is just faith, can certainly be a powerful force in life, and the faith may be true. Or not. Faith is believing in something without proof. "

Yup (well "proof" is too strong, evidence is better) and is utterly rediculous.

"Some religious point to the complexity and "design" of the universe as proof there must be some type of divine creator"

And it is precisely the decrease in this kind of ignorance that is causing the decrease in relgious people.

"As an aside, there's a recent alternative theory to the Big Bang that hypothesizes an oscillating universe with no beginning or end"

That theory is no longer believed by physicists, the universe is expanding and it's mass is not enough to ever cause it to contract.

"I don't have time right now to respond to everything because I'm at school, but I'm curious, do athiests believe that humans have a soul?"

Nope.

>> People find it hard to understand things they can't see, hear, or touch.

You mean like math/numbers? I dont agree.


>> I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul.

I've been here before. One does not go about proving the non-existance of things. It is a generally accepted method to consider that x does not exist until it is proven that is does.


>>If the all the answers cannot be found in science, where then are they?

Who said that all things cannot be proven using a logical process? Simply because they have yet to be discovered in no way indicates that they cannot be. That is a common mistake that has been made more and more lately.

"I understand logic"

With all due respect if you are religious you are ignoring logic.

"but I can't refute the feeling that there are things going on in this world that can't be explained in a "logical" way; the bombings of the world trade center, bible propheys about the middle east coming true, the sickening things people do to each other(rape, perversian, murder) ect. (some of those may be "logically" exlained, but to me some of these are not understood)"

Everything can be explained, a million times people have said science will never know this! And science has promptly found out how/why/what/etc. There is a very logical and obvious explanation for the world trade bombings: of course the specific actions of the individual are irrational in themselves (hello religion) though that does not mean there is not an explanation for why they occur.

"I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul. "

The soul cannot exist; it would viloate every law physics imaginable, and everything we have learnt about neurology shows the brain to be responsible for all of mans faculties.

"Can science explain everything? No"

Yes, do we know everything at this point? No.

" Logically science can prove that eagles mate for life. But it can't prove that evolution exsists "

LoL, *sigh* it is this kind of ignorance that (fortunately) is decreasing as education improves, and with it people coming to the realisation that the facts of the world do not fit the picture they are spun by the various religions.

>>But it can't prove that evolution exsists

Personally, i can in my very own home, prove that creatures evolve. Look at your dog (or your neighbours dog as in my case as i dont have one). Now tell me, where did 'Rover' come from? You're telling me that 'Rover' is exactly the same type of creature that existed centuries ago? The 'Rover' that drools on guests and chases parked cars is the decendant of great great great great great great great great great 'Rover' that was able to sqeeze enough smarts from its little brain to survive on its own in the wild? The ancient dog in exactly the same state as it is today... Hmmm..... No.

Was that a simple enough proof?

Actually there is evidence for evolution on a limited scale. Since elephants have been killed for their tusks, their tusks have been getting smaller. People in china are small, people in america are big. This is due to them adapting to their environment. However, do not confuse a process with causality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcar Morab
I can't pretend to understand everything, I understand logic, that I am sitting here, in front of a comuter typing, but I can't refute the feeling that there are things going on in this world that can't be explained in a "logical" way; the bombings of the world trade center, bible propheys about the middle east coming true, the sickening things people do to each other(rape, perversian, murder) ect. (some of those may be "logically" exlained, but to me some of these are not understood)

---

A rational explanation is not necessisarily structured logically, although to be rational it must not violate logic. So logic is only marginally pertinent to those questions you mention, that is, as a formal way to find fallacies in the thought process. Those problematic aspects of the human condition you list are understandable in the context of basic psychology, which is based on rational observation and analysis.

For instance, if we look at the issue of Biblical prophecy we see that it is much more a case of wishful thinking than actual prophecy being fulfilled.(This is my opinion, anyway). There are many passages in the bible that could as easily be regarded as prophectic as those that are pointed to, but are disregarded because they were not "fulfilled" . And even within those passages the Christian conveniently disregards the troublesome stuff that doesn't coincide with reported events. If there were a God who wanted to make "prophecies" (for miracle proofs or otherwise) you would expect something very specific and unambigious instead of the broad, figurative kinds of allusions we see. If the bible had said something like, "In 1939 a war of agression will break out in the north and will engulf the whole world and a mad dictator will kill 1/3 of all living Jews", then we would have something that would be impressive. Instead we find figurative allusions that may or may not pertain to event (many of which are of questionable validity themselves) interspersed within a broader statement, many parts of which are absolutely irrelevent.

The miraculous part is that so many people are fooled. It is the standard fortune teller's trick of throwing out a lot of "bait" and waiting for a bite. The psychological phenomenon they exploit is the human propensity for having the gong go off when they make a "hit" but to completely forget and disregard the "misses".

Quote:

---

People find it hard to understand things they can't see, hear, or touch.

I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul.

---

Any article that attemted to do so would be bogus. It can't happen. How can you prove the nonexistence of a soul. Non-existent things don't leave evidence of their non-existence.

If "proof" is what is desired, the burden to supply "proof" is on those who positively claim that such a thing as a soul exists. I can't say that everyone has their own personal leprechaun who looks after them and expect people to believe it. How preposterous would it be for me to claim you should believe this until someone was able to prove it was false.

There are an infinite number of possible claims that could be made about the nature of the world and the cosmos. If someone wants to positively uphold any one of them it is incumbent on them to offer evidence and reasoning that would justify the belief. Otherwise, we would be obliged to believe anything anyone claimed until we could prove it false.

Quote:

---

Can science explain everything? No, it does not, it only pecks away at things. Logically science can prove that eagles mate for life. But it can't prove that evolution exsists (I must echo the feelings of another member by saying lets not go off on that tangent)

---

Science, of course, cannot explain everything. Science seeks only to work toward a more coherent world view that is consistent, both internally (in that it doesn't contradict itself) and externally( it doesn't contradict objective observation). To the extent that a theory or hypothesis fulfills this requirement and adds to the body of knowledge thereby making the worldview more coherent and complete, it is accepted (provisionally at least utill better refinement comes along). We won't go off on a tangent to examine why evolution if general and natural selection in particular beautifully satisfy this criteria.

Quote:

---

If the all the answers cannot be found in science, where then are they?

---

Why on earth would you want all the answers. The richest and most fulfilling aspect of existence is the search for knowledge. Certainty, on the otherhand, can be directly correlated with both ignorance and oppression. Einstein, perhaps the greatest mind of all time, was not certain of things. On the other hand, the Nazi functionaries, who led people to the gas chambers were quite certain that they had embraced the true philosophy of life. Do you think Torquemada was uncertain about his "faith" as he tortured heretics into submission. The same for John Calvin. Stalin and Pol Pot were likewise certain that they were following the "true way".

I would like someone to explain what is so great about certainty.

evolution may exist....but man was planted. our goal is preserve the gene pool. to colonize the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...& one day...we must escape the universe itself...to continue our mission of hope.



:cool:

Clyde, you posed some very good questions on free will, which deserve a answqer, and I shall respond as soon as I am able. However, a quick point about the soul before I go to math class:

If we do not have a soul, we can not have free will, since we would be entirely subject to the laws of physics. Since our brains are just a bunch of molecules bumping around, our thoughts actions etc. would be entirely subject to what they (the molecules) do. A soul (or spirit) is nescesarry effect small changes in them to modify our actions.

A rock is also a bunch of molecules. It has no soul, therefore it has no conciusness, and has no will.

btw, what is your definition of life, and do you believe in free will?

"Actually there is evidence for evolution on a limited scale"

Err... evolution is not debated by educated people anymore than the Earth going round the sun is, only by those who lack a basic grounding in biology doubt evolution. Even the CHURCH has accepted evolution (though they kicked and screamed, but this time Galileo could not be silenced :)) I suggest you find yourself a biology text book.

"This is due to them adapting to their environment. However, do not confuse a process with causality."

Causality is cause and effect, what the juice are you talking about?

Quote:

---

you would expect something very specific and unambigious instead of the broad, figurative kinds of allusions we see

---

Anything else would be self-fullfilling. (or self-negating) For example, if God predicted that in 4 BC (there was a slight error in calculation) someone named jesus would be born that woul be his son, a whole lot of people would be born with the name jesus!

Quote:

---

Even the CHURCH has accepted evolution

---

Not any church I've been in!

"Science, of course, cannot explain everything"

Not right now it can't, but given enough time there is no reason not to believe that man-kind will know all that is know-able. (stuff like infitetly accurate measurements, and the heisenberg uncertainty principle stop "everything" being knowable)

"If we do not have a soul, we can not have free will, since we would be entirely subject to the laws of physics. Since our brains are just a bunch of molecules bumping around, our thoughts actions etc. would be entirely subject to what they (the molecules) do. A soul (or spirit) is nescesarry effect small changes in them to modify our actions.

A rock is also a bunch of molecules. It has no soul, therefore it has no conciusness, and has no will.

btw, what is your definition of life, and do you believe in free will?"

No i don't believe in free-will, again it would break every law of physics known to man and has been shown experimentally not to exist.

Conciousness and the soul are to very separate subjects, a soul cannot be, conciousness most certainly is.

My definition of life is a self-replicating system capable of mutation.

"Not any church I've been in!"

The Roman Catholic church has accepted evolution, the pope gave a speech on the subject reasonably recently.

>Atheists adhere to a rational belief system, they
>believe in what has evidence supporting it, and not in what that does not.

"You cannot prove your theory. Neither can I disprove it. Therefore you are wrong and I am right."

-Atheist.

This is what I call blind belief.


>It is a generally accepted method to consider that x does not exist
>until it is proven that is does.

This might be generally accepted for public math. But Atheists claim to be scientists, and scientific is proving something if you want to use it in further experiments as a fact. If you cannot prove something ( or prove it wrong ) you have no facts and no base to argue on.

Is it so hard to admit that we cannot know, prove or disprove God's existance, because the existance of god is simply out of our frame of reference ?

>It is a generally accepted method to consider that x does not exist
>until it is proven that is does.

x exists solely on whether it exists, not whether it is proven to exist

if there's a banana on my table and I don't know it's there, it's still there

" Evolution can only occur if one creature produces ("evolves into") another distinct species. If a rabbit becomes a beaver, that is evolution; but, if a red rose is bred to produce an orange rose, that is not evolution."

(taken from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel02.htm)

Interesting thought, if all genes are the same, evolved from the similer cell, then why arn't plants evolving into animals or vice versa? From an evolutionists point of view this would seem logical, but I don't see it happening.


"Now tell me, where did 'Rover' come from?"

According to evolutionary theory?

You're telling me that 'Rover' is exactly the same type of creature that existed centuries ago?"

Mentally, or physically?

"You cannot prove your theory. Neither can I disprove it. Therefore you are wrong and I am right."

-Atheist.

This is what I call blind belief."

Then you have a pretty weird definition, of blind belief. If there is no evidence for a theory nor can the theory be derived then it is irrational to believe in it.

Atheists do not believe in God for the same reason that they do not believe in elves: No evidence nor theory supports it.

"x exists solely on whether it exists, not whether it is proven to exist"

Right... and how do you work out whether x exists or not.......... evidence.

"if there's a banana on my table and I don't know it's there, it's still there"

....... yeees... and..?

"Evolution can only occur if one creature produces ("evolves into") another distinct species. If a rabbit becomes a beaver, that is evolution; but, if a red rose is bred to produce an orange rose, that is not evolution."

....... wrong, they are both evolution (though your second example is not really "proper" evolution since man is selectively breeding them). Though the former is some-times refered to macro-evolution and the later micro-evolution.

"Interesting thought, if all genes are the same, evolved from the similer cell, then why arn't plants evolving into animals or vice versa? From an evolutionists point of view this would seem logical, but I don't see it happening. "

..... that is nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about. You simply do not understand evolution at all, I may end getting dragged into providing a brief explanation of some of the simpler evolutionary theory, but i do not wish to, any explanation I give would be better explained in a biology text book, in more detail and with many examples.

Is not evolution based on the theory that

"Evolution is cross-species change; it is the "evolving" of one creature into a totally different one. Evolutionists say that all evolution of life forms occurred either by "natural selection" and / or "mutations."

"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from nonliving substances."—*"Biogenesis," in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition). "

"Biological evolution is the change that species (kinds of living things) undergo over time. More precisely, it is the change in the gene pools of living populations of species which occurs over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. A gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

This is what I understand evolution to be, I got these paragraphs off of secular websites so they must be right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mike_k


Anything else would be self-fullfilling. (or self-negating) For example, if God predicted that in 4 BC (there was a slight error in calculation) someone named jesus would be born that woul be his son, a whole lot of people would be born with the name jesus!

---

And, of course, this amply illustrates the problems that arise when people decide to use prophecy as a proof. Either it has the weakness of being vague and therefore easily confuted or overly specific which would allow anyone to "fake" a fulfillment. But the problem for apologists is that this weakness of self fulfillment is even stronger when the prophecies are given as vague allusions rather than explicit predictions, because the claim for fulfillment can be a lot fuzzier. So I am not sure how your argument demonstrates anything but the opposite of what it is intended to prove.

In short, what your argument seems imply is that if there were a God who wanted to reveal himself it makes no sense to assume that he would use prophecies because of the inherent limitations you yourself point out. Therefore it might make a bit of sense to assume that any belief structure that requires fulfilled prophecies for proof is itself unreliable because it demands the acceptance of a flawed logical structure.

I truly believe that Christianity would reach a lot more people if it abandoned the "fulfilled prophecies" claim because such arguments demonstrate how deeply its adherents are willing to decieve themselves in order to be able to accept their worldview.

It's hard for people who havn't accepted Christ as their savior to understand, when you become a Christian you see the world differently, the blinders are off and you understand that life has a meaning, a purpose, and that I wasn't put here on this earth just by accident.

Please be careful about lumping all people who claim that they know God into all one group and call them Christians. The Klu Klux Klan claimed to be Christians, but they were not. Some new age beliefs say that they belive Jesus in't real, but they still beileve in God and therefore claim to be Christian.

For some more information, quotes from famous scientists about the study on evolution, rational scientific proof, there's a good site :http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm

Most people only hear one side, evolution is taught only in our schools now. People need to know that there is more than one way, and it is scientificly proven.


:cool:

"This is what I understand evolution to be, I got these paragraphs off of secular websites so they must be right"

...... find yourself a decent biology text book and read the section of evolution.

Biogenesis is a defunct theory, that is, no biologist today belives it to be true.

man did not evolve from a pig-like beast...mammal. we were delivered.

"It's hard for people who havn't accepted Christ as their savior to understand, when you become a Christian you see the world differently, the blinders are off and you understand that life has a meaning, a purpose, and that I wasn't put here on this earth just by accident. "

The blinder are off! The blinders are OFF!!? I think not, the blinders are most certainly on, welded over your eyes in fact.

"Most people only hear one side, evolution is taught only in our schools now. People need to know that there is more than one way, and it is scientificly proven. "

There IS only one way, evolution is FACT, F-A-C-T, the alternative is ignorance, and fortunately as education improves ignorance of this particular topic decreases.

The idea that creation "science" is in ANY WAY scientific is such an utter fabrication i'm almost spitting blood! That site of yours like just about every creationist site mixes in ignorance with a few lies about scientific standards, a few misquotes from real scientists, a whole load of quotes from people who aren't actually scientists at all, and a few false rumours.

I'll give you a site that debunks every single creationist argument, its run by scientists:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

One of the numerous false arguments provided by your site is addressed specifically here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

The other mis-truths about carbon-dating, the probability of life-forming the age of the universe, have all be answered a million times by scientists, the first site i gave has links to all the answers.

EDIT: Heavens above! the more I read from that site the more appauled I am at the ignorance expressed there! Some creationist sites seem to grasp how evolution works and then try and confuse people... this one...... they have no clue AT ALL:

"1 - Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward - In other words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative"

- an example of the truly amazing ignorance displayed on that site. 99% of all mutations are "negative" in so far as they are not beneficial to the organism, BUT those genes get filtered out of the gene pool because the organisms with them are less likely to mate and hence pass the genes. Mutations that are benefical on the other hand will in all likelyhood spread throughout the entire population.


"2 - Evolution Operates Irreversibly - But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction"

- Not just ignorant but a plain LIE, you NEVER EVER EVER, get one species turning back into the species it used to be. Thats not to say that specific TRAITS cannot fluctuate with the environment.


"3 - Evolution Operates Only from Smaller to Bigger - This is another fantasy, which does not agree with nature "

A totally meaningless statement.

That was just 3 points I picked at random from that site!!


This one of the WORST offenders for propogating scientific ignorance i've found in a long time, they don't seem to know that evolution and the big-bang are completely independant unrelated theories, (they seem to think evolutionists came up with the big bang!?) they are spouting the early universe breaks the 2nd law nonsense, when in-fact, it does no such thing. LOL they even say that evolution breaks the 2nd law..... I guarantee that who ever wrote this stuff has no clue what entropy even is.

Oh that site is bad, BAD.

Which fault argument would that be?

*sigh* Evolution is a theory that no one has proven, it is not based on fact, but on an idea a fellow named Charles Darwin came up with 150 years ago.

This is quite a game eh?

For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species...it has been proven that animals can be altered (the hundreds of dog types for example) but no matter how hard you try that animal will still be the same species, a dog can not evolve into a cat, a dog will always be a dog.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde
"lack of proof doesn't disprove the existance of God"

True, in the same way that the lack of proof for some giant invisable floating sheep does not disprove them.

---

There was long a lack of proof for dinosaurs and meteorites, to name two examples. Nevertheless, they existed (or used to, for dinosaurs)

Quote:

---

"As an aside, there's a recent alternative theory to the Big Bang that hypothesizes an oscillating universe with no beginning or end"

That theory is no longer believed by physicists, the universe is expanding and it's mass is not enough to ever cause it to contract.

---

See this link , from about a week ago. Proven, no, hypothesized recently, yes

>> For evolution to be true, animals would have to evolve into different species.

What? Where? Huh? Where _does_ this stuff come from??? I'm about 1 second from throwing up my hands and giving up.


>>Oh that site is bad, BAD.

BAD barely begins to describe it. Just when you think people are getting smarter....

My one second is up. *throws up hands* I give up.

<"2 - Evolution Operates Irreversibly - But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction"

- Not just ignorant but a plain LIE, you NEVER EVER EVER, get one species turning back into the species it used to be. Thats not to say that specific TRAITS cannot fluctuate with the environment. >

It did not say species, it said "actions in nature" therefore you are just repeating what it stated.



< "1 - Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward - In other words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative"

- an example of the truly amazing ignorance displayed on that site. 99% of all mutations are "negative" in so far as they are not beneficial to the organism, BUT those genes get filtered out of the gene pool because the organisms with them are less likely to mate and hence pass the genes. Mutations that are benefical on the other hand will in all likelyhood spread throughout the entire population. >

So, out of 100 dogs 1 would be born with a mutation gene that will be benifitial. And that one dog will go on to have more puppys with that exact same good mutated gene. At least this is in "all likelyhood." In dog breeding the breeds out there that have been alterered genetacally all have health problems. Beagles are supseptable to weight gain, dalmations are almost always born deaf......the bad genes don't get breed out, they just go on and stay.

Okay so i lied about giving up. I could resists this one:

>>the bad genes don't get breed out, they just go on and stay.

In DOG BREEDING. That would be human intervention. In the natural course of things the genes that produced negative results would _naturally_ result in a decreased likelyhood of the creature surviving. Creatures that have been eaten have been scientifically proven to produce less offspring.