Evangelist Challenges Atheists to Bible-Less Debate

[yermom]

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070429/27149_Evangelist_Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm



ABC has said that they will film the debate, which will take place on May 5 in New York City, and will stream it live on their website as well as use footage for their program Nightline. Martin Bashir, co-anchor of Nightline, will moderate the event.

this i have to see

[King Crimson]

so, is he going to prove "a God" exists or the Evangelical God?

“Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.” :rolleyes:

nice set of premises and conclusion.

[Fraggle145]

"Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” - Kirk Cameron

Kirk, that is just retarded. Evolution is what all biological science is based on you twit. This just ****es me off to no end. I want to give him a ****ing growing pain.

Just in case you wondered OU's thoughts on the matter

http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/evolution.htm


OU Department of Zoology Statement on Evolution
Passed by unanimous vote of the faculty 9/27/06, and supported by the OU Faculty Senate 10/9/2006

Science is a powerful way of generating new knowledge about the natural world through observation and hypothesis testing. If our children are to tackle the increasingly complex biological challenges facing society, both medical and environmental, they need the best possible science education. Sadly, even as Oklahoma seeks new economic opportunities in biotechnology, we are hobbled by some of the weakest science standards in the nation. For example, evolution, a concept that underlies all of modern biology, receives little or no attention in the state’s K-12 curricula. In the 150 yrs. since Darwin, evolutionary theory has spurred entirely new disciplines of biology (e.g. biogeography, behavioral and evolutionary ecology, evolutionary medicine, genomics).

Although in popular speech the word 'theory' means 'a guess', in science ‘theory’ refers to an explanation supported by fact. Although even the most successful theory can never be proven, any scientific theory can be refuted by facts that are at odds with its predictions. Indeed, the most useful theories are those that generate many testable predictions and thus leave themselves particularly susceptible to being proven wrong. It is this quality that most distinguishes a scientific concept from a non-scientific one.

The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms (e.g. non-random natural selection acting on random mutation) by which organisms change over time (microevolution), become more complex, and diversify into new species (macroevolution). Evolution is the central unifying theory of biology, supported by independent evidence from paleontology, geology, genetics, molecular biology and genomics, developmental biology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. Even though new information from nearly every field of science has been applied, attempts to falsify evolutionary theory using the scientific method have failed. As is true for any active science, the details of the theory are continually debated as new data are collected. However, there is no controversy in the scientific community about the fact of evolution.

Biological evolution, defined as genetic change in species over time, is an observable fact. It is a fact that insects evolve resistance to pesticides, that new diseases arise when viruses evolve the ability to invade new hosts, and that humans have created new species using the same mechanisms that produce species naturally. Furthermore, the evidence based on facts from molecular biology and geology (i.e. gene sequences, dated fossils) clearly indicates that all living species, including our own, share a common ancestor that is over 3 billion years old.

In science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including Intelligent Design creationism, offer no scientific alternative to evolution because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that 'both sides' of the issue are taught is to advocate that non-science be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic.

We thus oppose any attempt to exclude evolution from the science curricula or to redefine science to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations. We urge all citizens to learn about science and work to ensure that our children receive a first-class science education.

[sanantoniosooner]

That is the same University that created the horse pigs......right?

[Fraggle145]

That is the same University that created the horse pigs......right?

Which disproves Intelligent Design ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

Which disproves Intelligent Design ;)
at the university level.

[usmc-sooner]

Kirk, that is just retarded. Evolution is what all biological science is based on you twit. This just ****es me off to no end. I want to give him a ****ing growing pain.

Just in case you wondered OU's thoughts on the matter

http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/evolution.htm

but OU's thought on global warming is it doesn't exist.

[Fraggle145]

but OU's thought on global warming is it doesn't exist.

Dont know where you got that idea... since they have joined the chicago climate exchange (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/) and have signed along with the city of Norman, the Kyoto Protocol. Man why you gotta make this about climate!? ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Somebody find that link of Kirk Cameron and the banana.

[royalfan5]

I originally read the thread title as evangelist challenges athletes to debate. That would situation would have perplexed me.

[Sooner_Bob]

Here I was hoping this would involve Phillip Johnson.

[Suerreal]

I hate trumped up crap like this.

For the vast majority of Americans, religion and science are not antithetical. They are different paths to knowledge, and seek to answer different questions.

Science can answer how. Religion can answer why.

In 2000, a physicist I'd barely heard of became a personal hero of mine. Dr. Freeman Dyson was awarded the Templeton Award for Progress in Religion. How does a physicist win an award in religion, you ask? By steadfastly speaking out for a culture in which religion is respected as much as science. By working diligently to try to use science to make life better for the masses. He conceived of what has come to be called a Dyson Sphere.

Have you ever had a moment in which jumbled thoughts you'd been wrestling with for as long as you could remember were organized and presented with clarity and eloquence by someone else? I experienced exactly that kind of Eureka! moment when I read Dr. Dyson's Templeton Award acceptance speech.

Here is an excerpt:

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided; neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world.

And both are worthy of respect. As the old Swiss nurse who helped to take care of our babies used to say, "Some people like to go to church, and some people like cherries."

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute.

The rest can be read here (http://www.wingingit.us/beliefs/windows.html)

- Sue
More light, less heat

Edit 5/1 5 PM:
The following text was removed because it was based on an erroneous understanding of a Dyson sphere:
- a sphere surrounding a planet that provides vast areas of surface area for agriculture to feed a population whose demand for living space would have left too little area for agriculture. Spin and centrifugal force create a gravity-like force to hold things on it.
(SF fans may recognize an adaptation of this as the basis of Discworld)
Substitute Ringworld for Discworld here, and it is what I meant to say, but still based on an erroneous understanding of a Dyson sphere.

- Sue

[yermom]

"Some people like to go to church, and some people like cherries."

i don't get it, but i like it, i think

for the most part i agree with your sentiment, i don't think Science and God have to be mutually exclusive

[sooneron]

How do you supply scientific proof of God? Doesn't that go against "faith"?

[yermom]

yeah, that's what i am so interested in seeing :D

[Vaevictis]

I bet his idea of what constitutes "scientific proof" will vary significantly from what your typical scientifically minded individual considers "scientific proof."

[Blue]

Well I bet the other guy's idea of "Faith" will vary significantly from what your typical faithful minded individual considers "Faith."

Weak.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, this is the guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk&mode=related&search=

Yeah, clearly, his idea of "scientific proof" is what scientifically minded individuals consider "scientific proof."

(Nevermind the fact that he's holding the result of thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding by humans. Clearly, the banana was designed by God.)

[def_lazer_fc]

Clearly, the banana was designed by God.)

if not, how could it have been gloriously deep throated? it couldn't have been. thats how. praise him!!!

[MamaMia]

That is the same University that created the horse pigs......right?
One of the mascots came up to me in the Kerr McGee Club during the Red and White game. He, or is it a she, tapped on my shoulder and startled me. I gasped and said..."Oh, a horsey pig." Oops. :O

He put his hoofs on his hind quarters, lowered and shook his big head back and forth. I don't think I made him sad or anything because he went right along strolling around and all.

[crawfish]

I saw this yesterday, but I wasn't gonna post it myself. Embarrassing.

It really galls me that people are gonna look at these bozos as an example of "Christianity" and laugh.

[stoopified]

What is the point of debating an atheist without the BIBLE?If the atheist is right and GOD does not exist than Both the aethist and I as a Christian have the same fate ahead of us,an eternity of nothingness.If however Christians are right and atheists are wrong our fates are much different.I guess it takes more faith to believe in NO GOD existing than it does to believe in GOD because the aethist is gambling his soul.

[TUSooner]

"Biological evolution, defined as genetic change in species over time, is an observable fact." ~ OU

If I thought the Gospel required me to reject observable facts, I would have to ignore the Gospel. Did God give us eyes so we coud be blind or brains so we could be ignorant? Evidently some dang fool "Christians" think so. This evolution debate is exactly as stupid as subjecting Galileo to the Inquisition: He recanted, but the planets just kept going.

[yermom]

you need the Bible to prove God exists? you must be an inferior Christian :P

[Vaevictis]

I guess it takes more faith to believe in NO GOD existing than it does to believe in GOD because the aethist is gambling his soul.

Heh, you're gambling your soul any which way. What if you pick the wrong religion?

[crawfish]

"Biological evolution, defined as genetic change in species over time, is an observable fact." ~ OU

If I thought the Gospel required me to reject observable facts, I would have to ignore the Gospel. Did God give us eyes so we coud be blind or brains so we could be ignorant? Evidently some dang fool "Christians" think so. This evolution debate is exactly as stupid as subjecting Galileo to the Inquisition: He recanted, but the planets just kept going.

Word. If God would create the universe in one way and make it "appear" another way, and then use your belief in His word that he'd done it the former way as a test, that would make God deceptive. I'm one who believes that God's creation teaches us elements of God's nature that the bible doesn't address.

[skycat]

Heh, you're gambling your soul any which way. What if you pick the wrong religion?

The correct answer is Mormon.

[stoopified]

Heh, you're gambling your soul any which way. What if you pick the wrong religion?Being a Christian is no gamble.

[OCUDad]

What is the point of debating an atheist without the BIBLE?If the atheist is right and GOD does not exist than Both the aethist and I as a Christian have the same fate ahead of us,an eternity of nothingness.If however Christians are right and atheists are wrong our fates are much different.I guess it takes more faith to believe in NO GOD existing than it does to believe in GOD because the aethist is gambling his soul.Interesting variant of Pascal's Wager.

[Hatfield]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=

[crawfish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=

*sigh*.

Might as well post this, too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

[Fraggle145]

Being a Christian is no gamble.

To you.

Religion is a choice and as you stated is based on faith. Vaevictis question is relevant to this point.

You have found your correct answer.

And all or none of them may be correct in my view.

We should be able to respect eachother's right to have a difference of opinion.

[stoopified]

To you.

Religion is a choice and as you stated is based on faith. Vaevictis question is relevant to this point.

You have found your correct answer.

And all or none of them may be correct in my view.

We should be able to respect eachother's right to have a difference of opinion.I never said that people are not entitled to their opinions,I believe they most certainly are as God gifted us with a two- edged sword called free will.I feel sorry for anyone who denys God but that is their choice.I would also say that while I believe Christianity is the way to salvation I do not oppose those who woeship differently.I am not so myopic in my thinking as to say Jews,Hindus,Muslims or others are wrong in their beliefs as I am not God and cannot make that judgement.I don't hate atheists,I pity them because until they accept that God exists their souls are in peril.Without God life is an exercise in futility.You are born,you live,you die what a sad way to exist.

[CORNholio]

Word. If God would create the universe in one way and make it "appear" another way, and then use your belief in His word that he'd done it the former way as a test, that would make God deceptive. I'm one who believes that God's creation teaches us elements of God's nature that the bible doesn't address.

I totally get that. And I totally agree.

Science isn't wrong it's just so far behind. Electricity existed right in front of our face for thousands of years yet science had no idea. One day someone said oh wait what is this. Could the "spiritual side" of life be somewhat the same. Maybe it has existed right in front of our face forever and science just never noticed. They are so quick to write things off as stupid because they haven't got to that point in thier "discoveries" yet. A little bit of knowledge is said to be very dangerous.....I agree.

[Frozen Sooner]

I hate trumped up crap like this.

For the vast majority of Americans, religion and science are not antithetical. They are different paths to knowledge, and seek to answer different questions.

Science can answer how. Religion can answer why.

In 2000, a physicist I'd barely heard of became a personal hero of mine. Dr. Freeman Dyson was awarded the Templeton Award for Progress in Religion. How does a physicist win an award in religion, you ask? By steadfastly speaking out for a culture in which religion is respected as much as science. By working diligently to try to use science to make life better for the masses. He conceived of what has come to be called a Dyson Sphere - a sphere surrounding a planet that provides vast areas of surface area for agriculture to feed a population whose demand for living space would have left too little area for agriculture. Spin and centrifugal force create a gravity-like force to hold things on it.

(SF fans may recognize an adaptation of this as the basis of Discworld)

Have you ever had a moment in which jumbled thoughts you'd been wrestling with for as long as you could remember were organized and presented with clarity and eloquence by someone else? I experienced exactly that kind of Eureka! moment when I read Dr. Dyson's Templeton Award acceptance speech.

Here is an excerpt:


The rest can be read here (http://www.wingingit.us/beliefs/windows.html)

- Sue
More light, less heat


That's not what a Dyson Sphere is, nor does that relate to Discworld. Sorry. :( Interesting post though.

A Dyson Sphere was postulated as a sphere of power collectors encompassing a star, not a planet, as a solution to the ever-increasing energy demands of a technological society.

The Discworld is a fictional planet consisting of a disc of matter carried by four elephants on the back of a giagantic turtle.

[Frozen Sooner]

As for the topic of the thread:

Silliness.

Such a debate does nothing and proves nothing.

[stoopified]

As for the topic of the thread:

Silliness.

Such a debate does nothing and proves nothing.Au cotraire my good man.Debate is good exercise for the brain,it causes one to examine not only their beliefs but why they believe the way they do.The free exchange of opposing viewpoints is a cornerstone of dmocracy.You are right that thedebate of believers vs unbelievers decides nothing but that doesn't mean that the debate doesn't have merit.

[Frozen Sooner]

If you honestly think anyone is going to be swayed by such a debate, one way or the other...

[yermom]

i hope he has better stuff than bananas and peanut butter for this debate

i have have a hard time believing that any more "proof" of God is not going to involve flawed logic and a misunderstanding of science

[Hamhock]

how could anyone possibly want anything more than bananas and peanut butter? hmmm...

[crawfish]

If you honestly think anyone is going to be polarized by such a debate, one way or the other...

Yes. Yes I do.

And that's their purpose.

;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Exactly. It's going to be nothing more than two people going "neener neener neener" at each other.

A debate is a really poor format for uncovering truth anyhow. The winner of a debate isn't necessarily correct, they're just the one who presented their case better.

[skycat]

A debate is a really poor format for uncovering truth anyhow. The winner of a debate isn't necessarily correct, they're just the one who presented their case better.

Interesting take on our legal system.

[Frozen Sooner]

Interesting take on our legal system.

Our legal system isn't necessarily predicated on being correct. It's predicated on proving guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. The defense isn't burdened with proving that it wasn't their client who did it, they're burdened with showing that it might have been someone else or it may not have even happened. Much different than proving something true.

[skycat]

Our legal system isn't necessarily predicated on being correct. It's predicated on proving guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. The defense isn't burdened with proving that it wasn't their client who did it, they're burdened with showing that it might have been someone else or it may not have even happened. Much different than proving something true.

Actually, it's couched as the classic debate. One side arguing for the truth of a proposition, and the other side arguing against that truth.

[Hamhock]

if it doesn't fit, you must aquit.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't deny that it's couched as a debate. I do deny that the purpose of our legal system is necessarily to uncover the truth.

[OKLA21FAN]

Our legal system isn't necessarily predicated on being correct. It's predicated on proving guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. The defense isn't burdened with proving that it wasn't their client who did it, they're burdened with showing that it might have been someone else or it may not have even happened. Much different than proving something true.
OJ doesn't agree with you


just sayin

[skycat]

I don't deny that it's couched as a debate. I do deny that the purpose of our legal system is necessarily to uncover the truth.

That's exactly what it is designed to do. It is setup for the prosecution to have to prove the truth of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether it does or not is a separate matter. Perhaps worthy of a debate?

[Frozen Sooner]

That's exactly what it is designed to do. It is setup for the prosecution to have to prove the truth of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether it does or not is a separate matter. Perhaps worthy of a debate?

But the defense doesn't have to prove the truth of their assertions-just that their scenario could have happened.

[skycat]

But the defense doesn't have to prove the truth of their assertions-just that their scenario could have happened.

Well, yeah. I've never written otherwise.

The purpose of any debate is not to prove all truths. Only the truth of the proposition (or propositions) being debated. And this can only be done one proposition at a time, with one advocate debating that the proposition is true, and one that it is false.

In the case of a courtroom setting, there is a single proposition that is defined as "The defendant is guilty of the crime presented." You are correct that it is not necessarily the goal of the defense to uncover the facts, for the reasons that you have mentioned.

But, the goal clearly is that if the facts of a case can't be discovered and proven by the prosecution, than no one will be found guilty of a crime.

[Hamhock]

this debate is boring.

who wants to debate me on this issue?

[skycat]

this debate is boring.



No it's not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/Argument_Clinic.png/300px-Argument_Clinic.png

[soonerscuba]

Yeah, but the defense isn't backed by the power of the U.S. Government. I think that reasonable doubt acts as a check on the power of government more than a tool for the treatment ambiguous truth.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, yeah. I've never written otherwise.

The purpose of any debate is not to prove all truths. Only the truth of the proposition (or propositions) being debated. And this can only be done one proposition at a time, with one advocate debating that the proposition is true, and one that it is false.

In the case of a courtroom setting, there is a single proposition that is defined as "The defendant is guilty of the crime presented." You are correct that it is not necessarily the goal of the defense to uncover the facts, for the reasons that you have mentioned.

But, the goal clearly is that if the facts of a case can't be discovered and proven by the prosecution, than no one will be found guilty of a crime.

I think we're running into a semantic issue here.

What I'm saying is that debate is a poor format to uncover truth. Nobody is concerned with who actually committed the crime. Both parties are arguing whether some specific person inarguably committed the crime. Debate is useful in this context, though it still has failings.

The debate between an Evangelist and an Atheist is silly from the standpoint that there is no way for one side to win. An atheist cannot prove the nonexistence of a supreme being. That's why the burden of proof is always on the person claiming existence.

[yermom]

it basically comes down to: "I don't understand how this is possible, so God did it"

[skycat]

I think we're running into a semantic issue here.

What I'm saying is that debate is a poor format to uncover truth. Nobody is concerned with who actually committed the crime. Both parties are arguing whether some specific person inarguably committed the crime. Debate is useful in this context, though it still has failings.

You're right in that we seem to be having a semantic problem.

Again, a debate in general, and this one in particular can only deal with the truth or falsehood of one statement at a time. In the case of the legal system that statement in your words is, "A specific person inarguably committed the crime." One side argues the truth of that statement, and one side argues that that statement is false.

An adversarial debate ensures that weaknesses in the statement are probed. But there can be no doubt that the system is set up to attempt to proove the truth or falsehood of that narrowly defined statement. The defense's job is to ensure that weakness in the arguemnts and evidence in support of that statement are probed.

I won't argue that it is a perfect system, I just found your statement that a debate is poor way at getting at the truth interesting in how it applied to the evolution question, as well as a situation of more practical importance to most people.



The debate between an Evangelist and an Atheist is silly from the standpoint that there is no way for one side to win. An atheist cannot prove the nonexistence of a supreme being. That's why the burden of proof is always on the person claiming existence.

This debate is complicated for a number of reasons. What is the proposition to be debated by two such people? There are any number of questions that could be presented that the two wouldn't agree on, nor would they be likely to share mindsets that would allow for a meaningful framework for a debate.

But that doesn't mean that a very narrowly focused debate couldn't be useful or interesting. For example, if the question is centered around evolution, or young-Earth creationism it is not impossible to envision a scenario whereby a determined Fundamentalist discovers something that disproves some specific scientific conclusions.

But of course you're right, if the debate isn't narrowly focused, or worse, if the question becomes "Does God exist?" nothing much will come out of it.

[crawfish]

I think Mike Rich is right. A presidential debate is useful because the idea is to allow each candidate to present their ideas/opinions in an open forum where those watching can compare and conflict them.

The problem with this kind of debate is that the base differences - faith, or lack of faith - are not discussed. Instead each side discusses points that are valid to them but invalid to the other side.

Personally, I think a debate on the topic of faith itself could be worthwhile. One side discusses why faith makes sense in the age of reason, the other side explaining why it doesn't. Of course, I wouldn't want the PARTICULAR debaters mentioned in this thread...

[Fraggle145]

I never said that people are not entitled to their opinions,I believe they most certainly are as God gifted us with a two- edged sword called free will.I feel sorry for anyone who denys God but that is their choice.I would also say that while I believe Christianity is the way to salvation I do not oppose those who woeship differently.I am not so myopic in my thinking as to say Jews,Hindus,Muslims or others are wrong in their beliefs as I am not God and cannot make that judgement.I don't hate atheists,I pity them because until they accept that God exists their souls are in peril.Without God life is an exercise in futility.You are born,you live,you die what a sad way to exist.

Man, I know you dont mean it this way, or maybe you do :confused: but this post kind of aggravates me. Not trying to be a primadonna or a whatever.

I guess what it amounts to is that: I dont want your pity.

I think it is condescending to say that I am worthy of pity for not believing the same thing you do. I find my existence not to be sad at all and quite fulfilling. I think this is the part of the argument that many religious people miss, as an atheist I dont want your pity, I dont want you to feel sorry for me, I want your respect that I can believe what I want without being told my existence is sad or an exercise in futility.

I'm not offended because I am just used to it. Even though you may not be intending to, I just want you to realize that you are judging me and it doesnt necessarily feel that great.

If there is a god and he judges me then so be it.

[Fraggle145]

it basically comes down to: "I don't understand how this is possible, so God did it"

Also known as the argument from personal incredulity.

It was basically William Paley's classic argument in Natural Theology.

If you are interested you should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins it is a nice contrast.

[crawfish]

Also known as the argument from personal incredulity.

It was basically William Paley's classic argument in Natural Theology.

If you are interested you should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins it is a nice contrast.

Always fun to compare fundamentalists. ;)

[Fraggle145]

Always fun to compare fundamentalists. ;)

yup. :D

[Suerreal]

That's not what a Dyson Sphere is, nor does that relate to Discworld. Sorry. :( Interesting post though.

A Dyson Sphere was postulated as a sphere of power collectors encompassing a star, not a planet, as a solution to the ever-increasing energy demands of a technological society.

The Discworld is a fictional planet consisting of a disc of matter carried by four elephants on the back of a giagantic turtle.

Um, yeah, what he said. (Where the embarrassed smilie when you need it?)

My understanding of a Dyson sphere was way off base. And I meant Ringworld (Larry Niven), not Discworld (Terry Pratchett). I've edited the OP here (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1882855&postcount=13) to reflect this.

- Sue

[Frozen Sooner]

:)

No big deal. I should have realized you meant Ringworld.

[stoopified]

how could anyone possibly want anything more than bananas and peanut butter? hmmm...Are you saying Elvis is gonna be there?

Oh and Mike no I don't expect anyone to suddenly change their minds due to the debate or anything I have typed but seeds are planted in just such a way.

[Fraggle145]

Are you saying Elvis is gonna be there?

Oh and Mike no I don't expect anyone to suddenly change their minds due to the debate or anything I have typed but seeds are planted in just such a way.

No seeds, no stems, no sticks... a little sticky icky, ooowee!

http://www.nrk.no/img/188517.jpeg

[TopDawg]

it basically comes down to: "I don't understand how this is possible, so God did it"

That's one side. What's the other? "I don't understand how that is possible, so there is no god"?

[TopDawg]

If however Christians are right and atheists are wrong our fates are much different.

That depends on which set of Christian beliefs you're looking at. Some Christians believe that God's grace extends to all, regardless of belief. And now we've got a whole 'nother debate. :D

[yermom]

That's one side. What's the other? "I don't understand how that is possible, so there is no god"?

i've yet to hear an atheist/scientist use this kind of logic

just because science can't explain something doesn't logically point to some supernatural conclusion

while it may be a possibility, it's not proof

[crawfish]

i've yet to hear an atheist/scientist use this kind of logic

I've heard variations on the theme.

Any scientist who claims that "there cannot be a god because..." is expressing an opinion.


just because science can't explain something doesn't logically point to some supernatural conclusion

while it may be a possibility, it's not proof

Christians have to accept that there WILL be no proof. Faith is sufficient.

[crawfish]

I should also add:

I'm hungry for a fried peanut-butter-and-banana sandwich now. Elvis's mama was a genius.

Mmmmmm.....

[yermom]

Christians have to accept that there WILL be no proof. Faith is sufficient.

this i can accept... it's the pseudo science that i have problems with

[stoopified]

i've yet to hear an atheist/scientist use this kind of logic

just because science can't explain something doesn't logically point to some supernatural conclusion

while it may be a possibility, it's not proofHow does Big Bang theory grab you? If a small mass of substance appears out of nothingmess,spontaneously explodes and then expands to create THE UNIVERSE I call that science stretched to the MIRACULOUS.I do however believe in the BIG BANG but know that only THE ALMIGHTY ALPHA and OMEGA is responsible and not some nonsensical non scientific (although colored as science )series of random events coming together to Create Life and THE UNIVERSE as we know it.

Spontaneous appearence of matter from vacuum,matter Miraculously expanding and multiplying in mass incalcuable times to create stars and planets.Some of this matter suddenly bursts into raging intergalactic infernos that we call stars,barren rock then circles said star settling in at just the right spot and poof life appears .Life than evolves from Rock to protzoa to fish to amphibian to mammal to primitive man then to modern man.Yeah nothing supernatural ANYWHERE in that science.

I still can't figure out how anyone can look at the vastness of LIFE and the Universe and not realize that only GOD could have done this.Until the Glorius Day OF Judgement arrives this is an academic exercise in differing viewpoints but ON THAT DAY I will weep for the NONBELIEVERS.

BTW the issue is not PROOF but FAITH,I have Faith in God and apparently you and many others have Faith in a science that cannot be proven either.

[yermom]

if God exists, he could have caused The Big Bang, right?

thanks for supporting my point, btw

[OKLA21FAN]

How does Big Bang theory grab you? If a small mass of substance appears out of nothingmess,spontaneously explodes and then expands to create THE UNIVERSE I call that science stretched to the MIRACULOUS.I do however believe in the BIG BANG but know that only THE ALMIGHTY ALPHA and OMEGA is responsible and not some nonsensical non scientific (although colored as science )series of random events coming together to Create Life and THE UNIVERSE as we know it.

Spontaneous appearence of matter from vacuum,matter Miraculously expanding and multiplying in mass incalcuable times to create stars and planets.Some of this matter suddenly bursts into raging intergalactic infernos that we call stars,barren rock then circles said star settling in at just the right spot and poof life appears .Life than evolves from Rock to protzoa to fish to amphibian to mammal to primitive man then to modern man.Yeah nothing supernatural ANYWHERE in that science.

I still can't figure out how anyone can look at the vastness of LIFE and the Universe and not realize that only GOD could have done this.Until the Glorius Day OF Judgement arrives this is an academic exercise in differing viewpoints but ON THAT DAY I will weep for the NONBELIEVERS.

so what did God do to pass the time away before all this 'creation' (alpha) dealio that he did? twittle his thumbs? must have been some boring place. ;)


just sayin

[crawfish]

BTW the issue is not PROOF but FAITH,I have Faith in God and apparently you and many others have Faith in a science that cannot be proven either.

Here's my problem with this: there really isn't "faith" in science. There is a method by which all evidence is taken into account, theories put forth and given extreme peer review by other scientists. If a theory is bad, then eventually it will be rejected. Scientists, typically, can accept when they are wrong and redirect their efforts towards new theories, when the evidence makes it obvious.

There is no monolithic group of scientists working to pull the wool over our eyes.

No, they don't have "faith" in science in the same way we have faith in God. They simply lack belief in God.

[crawfish]

so what did God do to pass the time away before all this 'creation' (alpha) dealio that he did? twittle his thumbs? must have been some boring place. ;)


just sayin

Well...since time itself was a part of creation, there would have not been time, so the chief element that causes boredom would not yet exist.

Or, perhaps he WAS bored, and now he's entertaining himself by listening to our inane arguments. ;)

[OUDoc]

Well...since time itself was a part of creation, there would have not been time, so the chief element that causes boredom would not yet exist.

I really don't want to get too deep into this because I think arguing religion is a "no win" situation. BUT-
Where was God before creation (since there was no time)?

[yermom]

your puny brain can't understand the awesomeness of God

[OUDoc]

your puny brain can't understand the awesomeness of God
Apparently.

[stoopified]

if God exists, he could have caused The Big Bang, right?

thanks for supporting my point, btwApparently you missed my point God did create the Big Bang.What is the Scientific explanation for this Miraculous happening which Science acknowledges as FACT?

[yermom]

apparently you missed my point that that just because you don't understand the science behind something doesn't mean that some supernatural force is behind it

[stoopified]

apparently you missed my point that that just because you don't understand the science behind something doesn't mean that some supernatural force is behind itThen what is Behind IT? I withdraw the question.We will just continue to debate in circles.All this thinking makes my head hurt this early in the morning,wheres them fried banana and peanut butter sandwiches?On second thought I ain't THAT hungry.

[OKLA21FAN]

Apparently you missed my point God did create the Big Bang.What is the Scientific explanation for this Miraculous happening which Science acknowledges as FACT?
FACT?

when i read about this big bang, i usually see the word 'theory' used with it.

the point is, that at this time, neither 'side' has any proof that is even close to concrete. both side have to fall upon 'theory' or 'faith'.

i have little problem w/ either if it 'works' for the individual

[TopDawg]

i've yet to hear an atheist/scientist use this kind of logic

just because science can't explain something doesn't logically point to some supernatural conclusion

while it may be a possibility, it's not proof

Well, I've yet to hear a Christian use the logic of "I don't understand how this is possible, so God did it."

It's usually more like "I believe God did it, so I reject your theory of science."

Your statement makes it appear as if belief in God comes after the fact, when it usually exists before the debate.

[yermom]

i'm referring more to someone trying to prove God's existence

you are exactly right, they start with the belief that God exists, so any such logic is pretty invalid at that point in debate with an atheist

[JohnnyMack]

:les:GO WATCH KIRK CAMERON AND THE BANANA!!!!!!

[sitzpinkler]

Apparently you missed my point God did create the Big Bang.What is the Scientific explanation for this Miraculous happening which Science acknowledges as FACT?

it's called M theory

the idea is that the membranes from two other universes collided to cause the big bang which created our universe

I'm not the most knowledgable on the subject, but apparently there is evidence to support it

[sitzpinkler]

FACT?
neither 'side' has any proof that is even close to concrete


there's a lot of evidence to support the big bang theory which most anyone would consider pretty 'concrete'

[sitzpinkler]

I never said that people are not entitled to their opinions,I believe they most certainly are as God gifted us with a two- edged sword called free will.I feel sorry for anyone who denys God but that is their choice.I would also say that while I believe Christianity is the way to salvation I do not oppose those who woeship differently.I am not so myopic in my thinking as to say Jews,Hindus,Muslims or others are wrong in their beliefs as I am not God and cannot make that judgement.I don't hate atheists,I pity them because until they accept that God exists their souls are in peril.Without God life is an exercise in futility.You are born,you live,you die what a sad way to exist.

Was it really necessary to say all the pity atheist nonsense? If you want to be like that, I pity religious people because they waste their lives believing in magic. Pretty offensive, don't you think?

[Xstnlsooner]

your puny brain can't understand the awesomeness of God


Amen to that! Good preaching Bro!

:pop:

[crawfish]

I really don't want to get too deep into this because I think arguing religion is a "no win" situation. BUT-
Where was God before creation (since there was no time)?

It's not beyond the realm of theoretical physics that there might be existence out of time & space as we know it.

In other words. How the hell should I know? :texan:

[OUDoc]

It's not beyond the realm of theoretical physics that there might be existence out of time & space as we know it.

In other words. How the hell should I know? :texan:
Fair enough. :)

[achiro]

I find it interesting that in science, stuff that supports your belief is good science and stuff that doesn't is junk science...in pretty much ALL subjects btw.

I always find it funny(not funny haha) how the "atheist" crowd tries to make out that they are so much smarter than the "faith" crowd because of "SCIIIIIEEENNNCCCEEEE". I've seen some fairly solid stuff supporting what we dummies believe as well. As I recall, a few years ago someone came up with some math that basically proved that creation of the planet and also that a single cell creature could evolve to anything more based on any sort of random chance was pretty much impossible. It sounded pretty good but since I'm just shy of retarted, I guess one of you smarty pants can start talking all about that science stuff some more just to confuse me and make me doubt myself. :D

[skycat]

What makes "junk science" junk science, is that it often practiced by people out to prove a particular idea. That might be, "The Earth is ~5000 years old", or "Evolution isn't real" or whatever. Evidence can often be found that supports just about whatever conclusion that you want to make.

The problem occurs when you start ignoring evidence that contradicts your ideas. And this happens a lot by people trying to prove Fundamentalist ideas using scientific jargon.

But junk science isn't limited to religious types. Sometimes there are just bad scientists out to make a buck, or become famous or whatever. The cloning scandal from a year or two ago is a prime example. However, when the scientific community finds somebody like that, their ideas are quickly discredited, and new lines of research are started.

[yermom]

I find it interesting that in science, stuff that supports your belief is good science and stuff that doesn't is junk science...in pretty much ALL subjects btw.

I always find it funny(not funny haha) how the "atheist" crowd tries to make out that they are so much smarter than the "faith" crowd because of "SCIIIIIEEENNNCCCEEEE". I've seen some fairly solid stuff supporting what we dummies believe as well. As I recall, a few years ago someone came up with some math that basically proved that creation of the planet and also that a single cell creature could evolve to anything more based on any sort of random chance was pretty much impossible. It sounded pretty good but since I'm just shy of retarted, I guess one of you smarty pants can start talking all about that science stuff some more just to confuse me and make me doubt myself. :D

as long as you call it "faith" and not "logic" and "proof" i don't have a problem

the thing with theories on the origins of life is that it's speculation based on what evidence we have. there isn't really much of a way to prove it's right, but it's not resorting to the catch all that an omnipotent being just took care of everything.

[Vaevictis]

Then what is Behind IT?

Maybe there's some science to explain it, but just to illustrate the point: Sometimes, science doesn't have an answer. Maybe we don't know what caused the Big Bang, and maybe science can't explain it.

Anyone who thinks science has all the answers has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a method to explain why things happen and/or predict how things will happen. That's it, really.


As I recall, a few years ago someone came up with some math that basically proved that creation of the planet and also that a single cell creature could evolve to anything more based on any sort of random chance was pretty much impossible.

If you and I are recalling the same thing, the math showed that life as we know it developing spontaneously is improbable. That's completely different from "impossible."

One of the things the author of that study ignores is that as the number of "events" that may trigger the outcome approaches infinity, the probability that the event will occur approaches one.

What if there's an infinite number of universes? Or if this universe has exploded, collapsed and exploded an infinite number of times? In such a case, no matter how low the probability is on any specific roll of the die, if it's not zero, it is actually highly probable that the event will occur... eventually.

Maybe eventually just happened to occur this time around. :D

[Fraggle145]

I find it interesting that in science, stuff that supports your belief is good science and stuff that doesn't is junk science...in pretty much ALL subjects btw.

I always find it funny(not funny haha) how the "atheist" crowd tries to make out that they are so much smarter than the "faith" crowd because of "SCIIIIIEEENNNCCCEEEE". I've seen some fairly solid stuff supporting what we dummies believe as well. As I recall, a few years ago someone came up with some math that basically proved that creation of the planet and also that a single cell creature could evolve to anything more based on any sort of random chance was pretty much impossible. It sounded pretty good but since I'm just shy of retarted, I guess one of you smarty pants can start talking all about that science stuff some more just to confuse me and make me doubt myself. :D

This is not how science works. Science only progresses via falsification as you cant actually prove anything, you can only disprove it. A result can support a theory, but it cannot prove it. Evolution at least as far as I know has never been disproven, and I have read my fair share.

[Fraggle145]

There are also studies that have ben done to attempt to recreate the origin of life. In a very simplified nutshell, it has been shown that given a set of conditions that inorganic particles can result in organic proteins etc...

Here is the wiki-version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life) of the story (along with other possibilities) and its not a bad one. To me this essentially illustrates at least one possibility as to how life may have come into being possibly without the need for a supreme being.

[Fraggle145]

...Spontaneous appearence of matter from vacuum,matter Miraculously expanding and multiplying in mass incalcuable times to create stars and planets.Some of this matter suddenly bursts into raging intergalactic infernos that we call stars,barren rock then circles said star settling in at just the right spot and poof life appears .

Where's Ike when you need him to answer the physics questions? :D


Life than evolves from Rock to protzoa to fish to amphibian to mammal to primitive man then to modern man.Yeah nothing supernatural ANYWHERE in that science.

I dont know if it evolved from rock... lets just say inorganic matter (see my previous post on the origin of life). Natural selection actually explains evolution quite nicely without any need for a supernatural entitiy.


I still can't figure out how anyone can look at the vastness of LIFE and the Universe and not realize that only GOD could have done this.Until the Glorius Day OF Judgement arrives this is an academic exercise in differing viewpoints but ON THAT DAY I will weep for the NONBELIEVERS.

this is the argument yermom was talking about. I cant figure it out, so it must be god. An alternative to this could be that you cant figure it out because you dont know enough about it. how do you know you will weep for the nonbelievers? Ah faith rears its ugly head again, and dont cry for me as I said before I dont want your tears.


BTW the issue is not PROOF but FAITH,I have Faith in God and apparently you and many others have Faith in a science that cannot be proven either.

Tell me how the scientific nethod that we have all learned since grade school involves faith? If the scientific method is a faith then I guess I am guilty as charged.

[achiro]

This is not how science works. Science only progresses via falsification as you cant actually prove anything, you can only disprove it. A result can support a theory, but it cannot prove it. Evolution at least as far as I know, and I have read my fair share.
So what you are saying is that God is real, as is creationism, because no-one has disproved it.:D

[Fraggle145]

So what you are saying is that God is real, as is creationism, because no-one has disproved it.:D

Potentially, god might be real, although highly improbable, just like life. how is life possible if it is so improbable? the only rock solid proof we have is that it exists here, and hence the hypothesis "life does not exist." has been disproven.

The real question is how would you come up with an empirical test that would have the potential to disprove that god exists if there is a god? :cool:

[OKLA21FAN]

The real question is how would you come up with an empirical test that would have the potential to disprove that god exists if there is a god? :cool:
burn God at the stake.....if he/she/it burns, there is no god there, if not....well



that should work

[Fraggle145]

Now for a little humor:

:confused: ;)

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4743/darwinchurchxx5.jpg

[Xstnlsooner]

Someone give me their definition of "life."

[Fraggle145]

Someone give me their definition of "life."

heh. that is a hell of a question. In Dawkins book it takes him an entire chapter to try to explain the concept of having life. It is no easy task and can be debated in all sorts of philosphical ways. Anyway, here is a starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Damn I hate using wiki for everything, but i guess if it works it works.

[Vaevictis]

Also, on the subject of science and God, I would refer all people who are confused about whether science must address God in order to be valid to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

This "theorem", which is in fact a proof -- and tangentially, ain't it cool how "theorem" can actually mean something that is proven to be true, contrary to what some people would tell you? -- shows that any system that is of any complexity will contain truths that cannot be proved by the system.

In short, there is no logical system which is complete. No matter how you try to twist and turn, there will be more true statements within the system than can be proved by the system.

In other words, science does not and cannot prove all things. Get used to it.

[achiro]

The real question is how would you come up with an empirical test that would have the potential to disprove that god exists if there is a god? :cool:
The same way the big bang and darwinism started, make a bunch of **** up!:D

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I d rather have Spongebob Squarepants represent christianity than Mike Seaver...maybe Carol will argue for evolution

[sitzpinkler]

The same way the big bang and darwinism started, make a bunch of **** up!:D

yeah, no deductive reasoning was used in those theories at all :rolleyes:

[achiro]

yeah, no deductive reasoning was used in those theories at all :rolleyes:
yeah, and no sarcasm nor humor was intended in my post at all...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[TopDawg]

the thing with theories on the origins of life is that it's speculation based on what evidence we have. there isn't really much of a way to prove it's right, but it's not resorting to the catch all that an omnipotent being just took care of everything.

To me, the tone in your posts wreaks of the same tone that you object to in achiro's posts. Using phrases like "resorting to" and insinuating that believing in God is a result of not being able to understand science (I know you don't claim that's the case with everyone...but still) comes across differently than I think you intend for it to.

Like Mike Rich (and perhaps others) has said in this post, neither science nor faith can prove or disprove the existence of God. (Maybe that's not an accurate paraphrasing. If not, sorry.) When it comes down to it, after we look at all the evidence, we all still have to decide if we think stuff just came into being or if we think some outside supernatural force created it. And, as far as I can tell, no amount of scientific evidence or faithful devotion or awe makes either one more plausible. It doesn't seem to me that members of either group should be automatically thought of as lacking the ability to think critically, which is what the tone of your posts...and other peoples, on both sides...seems to express.

[yermom]

the tone in my posts is in reference to the way things have been put to me in a way of convincing me or others of proof for God, not as to how they come to believing

i mean can i see a show of hands of people that have consciously chosen after the fact to accept that God exists vs being indoctrinated to believe it? am i wrong in assuming that a vast majority of people get their religion from their parents?

that's probably a whole other thread...

[Xstnlsooner]

I was raised in church and was indoctrinated in a certain schism of
Christianity, still, in my teens I started thinking on my own and
moved beyond that schism into others. (heh) I've got a master's
degree in theology and know just enough to get me into trouble
about a lot of things. My own personal theology is an amalgamation
of what I have learned in my life and studies. There are a few
things I am dogmatic about, but I recognize the limits of my
knowledge and even my ability to know everything. Sure, I have
lots of questions about a lot of things, but that ignorance does
not diminish my faith. Like someone earlier said, science is about
how things happen and religion is about why. I don't get upset
about those of you who object to my beliefs. Debates very
rarely change anyone's mind. Emotions too often get involved
and things get too personal. It's hard to remain totally objective
when something as important as personal religious beliefs are
on the line.

[TopDawg]

the tone in my posts is in reference to the way things have been put to me in a way of convincing me or others of proof for God, not as to how they come to believing

i mean can i see a show of hands of people that have consciously chosen after the fact to accept that God exists vs being indoctrinated to believe it? am i wrong in assuming that a vast majority of people get their religion from their parents?


Yeah, but the same is true of those who don't believe in God.

Anyway, I was going to follow up my post with some clarification, but then got distracted. All I'm saying is that anybody who expresses their God/no-God belief as if it is fact, or as if the other side is simple-minded (for one side) or soul-less (for the other), comes across to me as ridiculous. And that's on both sides of the aisle. Those who believe in God and those who don't. If you're expressing that opinion with any degree of certainty (or pompousness), that just seems silly to me.

It just seemed to me that you were ribbing achiro for presenting his side that way when it seemed to me that you were kind of doing the same. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, but that's the way it was coming across to me because of your choice of words.

[yermom]

i don't think i'm arrogant enough to assume either way, personally.

i'm not claiming either one is "fact" i just don't tolerate the attacks on "science" when things are explained poorly, or faulty assumptions are made

[TopDawg]

i don't think i'm arrogant enough to assume either way, personally.

i'm not claiming either one is "fact" i just don't tolerate the attacks on "science" when things are explained poorly, or faulty assumptions are made

Fair enough. I know you better than to think that you think you KNOW one way or the other. (How's that for confusing wording?)

I guess I was just taking up the other side by not tolerating the attacks saying those who believe in God are simple-minded (unable to understand science) or believers in the next-best option ("resorting to").

[mdklatt]

Yeah, but the same is true of those who don't believe in God.



I don't think this is true. I bet that a much larger percentage of atheists made that choice. Even if your parents are atheists, you have to wonder at some point if they know what they're talking about given that 80% of the country is Christian. It's a lot easier to accept Christianity because you're going with the flow. I'm not saying that Christians never question their faith, but that it's easier to get along in this society without having to.

[TopDawg]

I don't think this is true. I bet that a much larger percentage of atheists made that choice. Even if your parents are atheists, you have to wonder at some point if they know what they're talking about given that 80% of the country is Christian. It's a lot easier to accept Christianity because you're going with the flow. I'm not saying that Christians never question their faith, but that it's easier to get along in this society without having to.

I disagree. I'd bet that for every child of atheist parents who becomes a believer in God at church camp, there's another child of Christian parents who becomes an atheist as his/her way of revolting.

I think yermom is exactly right in that a vast majority (but not everybody) gets their religious views (be they Christian, Islamic or none) from their parents.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I wonder how many non-believers lie and say they're believers.

And I wonder how many believers lie and say that they're not.

[TopDawg]

I don't think this is true. I bet that a much larger percentage of atheists made that choice. Even if your parents are atheists, you have to wonder at some point if they know what they're talking about given that 80% of the country is Christian. It's a lot easier to accept Christianity because you're going with the flow. I'm not saying that Christians never question their faith, but that it's easier to get along in this society without having to.

Also, I think that 80% of the country is Christian number is a little misleading. I'd be surprised if 80% of the country attended church on Easter Sunday (when Christians seem to come out of the woodwork) and a pretty good portion of those that DO come to church on Easter Sunday are not the kind of Christians that are going to make atheists feel as though they're going against the flow.

[crawfish]

I wonder how many non-believers lie and say they're believers.

And I wonder how many believers lie and say that they're not.

More of the former than the latter, I think.

Most people don't like to be counterculture. Bad for business and friendships. :)

[TopDawg]

I wonder how many non-believers lie and say they're believers.

And I wonder how many believers lie and say that they're not.

Well if they're lying, then they're not believers, so I'd say zero to that last one.









;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[skycat]

I disagree. I'd bet that for every child of atheist parents who becomes a believer in God at church camp, there's another child of Christian parents who becomes an atheist as his/her way of revolting.

I think yermom is exactly right in that a vast majority (but not everybody) gets their religious views (be they Christian, Islamic or none) from their parents.

I'm with klatt. While most people do inherit their beliefs, my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that there are many more children of believers that become non-believers than vice-versa.

[Xstnlsooner]

Last statistics I heard were approx. 28% of Americans attend weekly
services. Obviously there were more on Ishtar, but prolly only 35%
at the most. My guess.

[TopDawg]

I'm with klatt. While most people do inherit their beliefs, my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that there are many more children of believers that become non-believers than vice-versa.

Well, contrary to what my previous post may've indicated, I don't really think it's a 1:1 ratio. I almost put that disclaimer in that post. There probably are more people who go Christian to atheist than vice-versa. But I don't think it's a huge gap and even if it is, that's not the point. The point is in your second sentence...that most people do inherit their beliefs, be they Christian, atheist or otherwise.

[Fraggle145]

...Like someone earlier said, science is about
how things happen and religion is about why...

I kinda have a problem with this statement, not from a belief staqndpoint, but from a science standpoint. In science there are proximate causes those that explain how it happened in the the short term and ultimate causes those that explain how it happened in the long term (i.e, the why). Granted ultimate explanations are much harder to come to than proximate explainations and often involve the synthesis of years of study by an entire field. I guess it depends on what kind of why someone is looking for.

BTW, to address some of TopDawgs posts, if I have come across as condescending that is not my intent and I am not bashing religion. I am hoping to get some respect for my position, my right to have it, and to offer possible alternatives to encourage thought. As anyone who has read some of my posts in threads about global warming and science, I think it is unfortunate that there is such a disconnect between the scientific community and the public. I think everyone can understand anything if the put their minds to it and allow themselves the time and openness to understand a position even if they dont agree with it.

[Fraggle145]

...that most people do inherit their beliefs, be they Christian, atheist or otherwise.

This is one of the things that is probably for another thread, but I think it is unfortunate that kids are forced into a belief system instead of being given the oportunity to choose for themselves. I think it is possible to provide an ethical framework within what you find to be acceptable as a parent and then go from there. Just my $0.02 on that issue.

[King Crimson]

if you aren't a republican you can't believe in God.

sincerely,

this board, 2002.

[King Crimson]

i'd also insist that "a God" and "this God" are different. and the latter is more the problem than the cure by violence.

[Cam]

Also, I think that 80% of the country is Christian number is a little misleading. I'd be surprised if 80% of the country attended church on Easter Sunday (when Christians seem to come out of the woodwork) and a pretty good portion of those that DO come to church on Easter Sunday are not the kind of Christians that are going to make atheists feel as though they're going against the flow.
Is Church attendance a prerequisite to being a Christian? I always thought it was more about your beliefs and the way you lived your life.

[Fraggle145]

Is Church attendance a prerequisite to being a Christian? I always thought it was more about your beliefs and the way you lived your life.

The way I always understood it, church attendance was a requirement in most sects of christianity. There is a bible verse about it, dont look to me for the name and number though I have no idea.

[Cam]

The way I always understood it, church attendance was a requirement in most sects of christianity. There is a bible verse about it, dont look to me for the name and number though I have no idea.

Take your pick of any of the following.

The Bible tells us that we need to attend church so we can worship God with other believers and be taught His Word for our spiritual growth (Acts 2:42; Hebrews 10:25). Church is the place where believers can love one another (1 John 4:12), encourage one another (Hebrews 3:13), “spur” one another (Hebrews 10:24), serve one another (Galatians 5:13), instruct one another (Romans 15:14), honor one another (Romans 12:10), and be kind and compassionate to one another (Ephesians 4:32)

If following each and every edict that's in The Bible is the only way to be considered a Christian, then there are far fewer than 80% of the population who can consider themselves Christians IMO.

Personally, there are far too many regular Church attendees that don't follow one of the most basic edicts: Just not lest ye be judged yourself. It's not the majority, but it's enough to put me off.

[Soonerus]

Can there be a separate page for religious and political threads...a bit boorish to those of use who have seen the same worn-out discussions and arguments for years ???

[Sooner_Bob]

I saw this yesterday, but I wasn't gonna post it myself. Embarrassing.

It really galls me that people are gonna look at these bozos as an example of "Christianity" and laugh.


Yep. I started to post something like "The opinions expressed by Kirk Cameron do not directly reflect those of normal christians everywhere."

:D

[Sooner_Bob]

if God exists, he could have caused The Big Bang, right?




and all forms of evolution . . . :D

[Sooner_Bob]

Can there be a separate page for religious and political threads...a bit boorish to those of use who have seen the same worn-out discussions and arguments for years ???


I think God forced you to click on this thread.:P

[Soonerus]

I think God forced you to click on this thread.:P

Maybe but still borish...

[Cam]

Can there be a separate page for religious and political threads...a bit boorish to those of use who have seen the same worn-out discussions and arguments for years ???
My apologies if I offended/bored you oh bastion of originality. ;)

[Soonerus]

I am just saying that those who want to mindlessly and endlessly argue religion and politics should have the honor of their own page....

[Cam]

I am just saying that those who want to mindlessly and endlessly argue religion and politics should have the honor of their own page....
And I'm just giving you a hard time.

This happens every Spring.

[Soonerus]

And I'm just giving you a hard time.

This happens every Spring.

True...

[yermom]

and all forms of evolution . . . :D

i've said that before as well

[TopDawg]

Is Church attendance a prerequisite to being a Christian? I always thought it was more about your beliefs and the way you lived your life.

That's kinda what I was getting at. Even if it's something as simple as "go to church on Easter," we're not at 80%. I think it's much, much more than that, though...which is why I think that 80% number is misleading.

Sure, you can be a Christian and not go to church on Easter...but I don't even think there are enough people doing that to make it up to 80%.

[goingoneight]

The correct answer is Mormon.

You mean it's not scientology? :D

[Fraggle145]

Can there be a separate page for religious and political threads...a bit boorish to those of use who have seen the same worn-out discussions and arguments for years ???

From the guy who took over two threads and started one more about not being told about the guy blowing himself up, all with the same comment, while refusing to listen to any idea but his own. :rolleyes:

[Soonerus]

From the guy who took over two threads and started one more about not being told about the guy blowing himself up, all with the same comment, while refusing to listen to any idea but his own. :rolleyes:

OK, give me about two days and I will figure out every permutation of you "sentence" and maybe figure wtf you are trying to say...

[Fraggle145]

OK, give me about two days and I will figure out every permutation of you "sentence" and maybe figure wtf you are trying to say...

:confused: Ok grammar police.

Whatever.

Here I'll spell it out. You talk about this thread and politics and religion being tired or old. However, following the virginia tech tragedy you proceeded to attempt to hijack that thread. Following that there was a thread about the kid who blew himself up on campus and the fact that OU was lucky that it didnt go down inside the stadium, which you also posted inmultiple times until people addressed you. You also attempted to start another thread using the same post from the Virginia Tech thread and the OU was lucky thread, because noone would address your point. Then when we addressed your point - that you were upset that you werent told that a bomb had went off so that you could leave - we told you that was retarded because mass hysteria would ensue, you wouldnt listen. If that isnt the definition of talking about the same thing over and over and over when nobody cares then I dont know what is.

How about this!? If you arent interested or dont want to see the same old tired ideas, DONT CLICK ON IT. :mad: I know that sounds difficult. The majority of us that posted in this thread were having a good discussion till you came in and decided to hijack this thread too. There is a reason these threads are at the top some of us are interested in the topic. If you arent nobody asked you to be, find something that is more interesting to talk about instead of bitching about what we are talking about.

[Soonerus]

:confused: Ok grammar police.

Whatever.

Here I'll spell it out. You talk about this thread and politics and religion being tired or old. However, following the virginia tech tragedy you proceeded to attempt to hijack that thread. Following that there was a thread about the kid who blew himself up on campus and the fact that OU was lucky that it didnt go down inside the stadium, which you also posted inmultiple times until people addressed you. You also attempted to start another thread using the same post from the Virginia Tech thread and the OU was lucky thread, because noone would address your point. Then when we addressed your point - that you were upset that you werent told that a bomb had went off so that you could leave - we told you that was retarded because mass hysteria would ensue, you wouldnt listen. If that isnt the definition of talking about the same thing over and over and over when nobody cares then I dont know what is.

How about this!? If you arent interested or dont want to see the same old tired ideas, DONT CLICK ON IT. :mad: I know that sounds difficult. The majority of us that posted in this thread were having a good discussion till you came in and decided to hijack this thread too. There is a reason these threads are at the top some of us are interested in the topic. If you arent nobody asked you to be, find something that is more interesting to talk about instead of bitching about what we are talking about.

OK, here's the deal religious and political discussions are very interesting, to the point I think they deserve their own section on the board where people who are fixated on those topics can spend their entire time without the need to mix with us non-participants....

[usmc-sooner]

hey just wait till you post a chain e-mail, and Topdawg pulls it up as "evidence" of you being a hypocrit a year later.

It will make you think damn some people take this a little too seriously.

[King Crimson]

hey just wait until you get called a "wannabe" and "never been anywhere" or "done anything" by some guy who thinks "real experience" is that which means serving in the military. and college professors are evil, treasonous, anti-americans.

[Blue]

John Titer was right. Civil ****in war man!

[usmc-sooner]

or we could talk about the guy's who claims their fathers were trained in fertilizer truck bombing for Vietnam

:D

[TopDawg]

hey just wait till you post a chain e-mail, and Topdawg pulls it up as "evidence" of you being a hypocrit a year later.

It will make you think damn some people take this a little too seriously.

Wait. You went mental on a kid who posted a link to a Comedy Central video and I'M the one who takes things too seriously?

Then you got on your high horse saying that he was disrespecting the president and that you have never done that. So I, not believing you at all, took 15 seconds to search the website and...what do you know...you'd done pretty much the same thing he had done only yours was an email, not a video, and it was making fun of Clinton, not Bush.

Then you complain about it in a spek comment to me and bring it up again in this thread and I'M the one who takes things too seriously?

[usmc-sooner]

dude,

you're doing searches on what I've posted.

Your big evidence that I trashed Clinton was a chain e-mail that I didn't right, that was posted 7 years after Clinton left office. Since your so big into what I've posted in the past show me one post where I've trashed President Clinton during his term. I'll put my money where my mouth is cause you won't find one.

yeah basically I think you go off on tangents, like internet searches, off the topic and then act like you've proved some sort of point. Which IMO is taking it too seriously. You got so fired up in that post that you couldn't even tell I wasn't even serious. The only thing I was serious about is that I think the rufneks are kinda lame and you know what my opinion and a dollar will get you ? Not much. Yet you let it light a fire under you ie taking it too seriously.

I do wish that I hadn't posted in that thread because of one misunderstanding that I believe I've rectified.

I don't even think the kid that posted it took it personally, heck if he did he could've pmed me and I would've made things right but I doubt he's too worried about my 35 year old rantings. He didn't seem fired up at all, unlike you.

[the_ouskull]

at the university level.

More like, at the "when some regent's kid was little, he / she got trampled by horses, and they had to make our mascot look as unintimidating and unappealing as possible, so that this kid doesn't have nightmares; keeping the husband / wife up all night with the kid, meaning that he / she isn't 'gettin' any,' and created the horsepigs as their way of getting back at the rest of the Sooner Nation for the pain they're suffering," level.

the_ouskull

[TopDawg]

dude,

you're doing searches on what I've posted.

Your big evidence that I trashed Clinton was a chain e-mail that I didn't right, that was posted 7 years after Clinton left office. Since your so big into what I've posted in the past show me one post where I've trashed President Clinton during his term. I'll put my money where my mouth is cause you won't find one.

yeah basically I think you go off on tangents, like internet searches, off the topic and then act like you've proved some sort of point. Which IMO is taking it too seriously. You got so fired up in that post that you couldn't even tell I wasn't even serious. The only thing I was serious about is that I think the rufneks are kinda lame and you know what my opinion and a dollar will get you ? Not much. Yet you let it light a fire under you ie taking it too seriously.

I do wish that I hadn't posted in that thread because of one misunderstanding that I believe I've rectified.

I don't even think the kid that posted it took it personally, heck if he did he could've pmed me and I would've made things right but I doubt he's too worried about my 35 year old rantings. He didn't seem fired up at all, unlike you.

Now who's fired up?

Lighten up dude. You got caught chastising someone (and I'm pretty sure everyone else in that thread thought you were serious...if you weren't, you did a terrible job of making it clear) for doing practically the same thing you did before. The funny thing is, if you hadn't said "I never do this" I would've never checked. But you did say it, and you had.

I won't bother looking up things you said about Clinton when he was in office because this version of the board doesn't go back that far so it would take me considerably longer than 15 seconds. If I took you more seriously, I would do a more thorough search. But I don't.