Is there a God? Definitive answer about to be revealed

[Actium]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 13 2009, 06:10 PM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again. Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began. Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/quote]

'Tis a gift to be simple

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 14 2009, 09:10 AM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again. Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began. Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... [b]we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/b][/quote]

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 13 2009, 07:10 PM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again.[b] Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began.[/b] Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and [b]disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/b][/quote]
I don't think you'll find many who truly understand evolution, disagreeing with you on that.

Don't under estimate the positive factors of debate. Without disagreements we would be seriously lacking in philosophical and technological advancements...besides what fun is the internet if you can't offend and insult people anonymously?

[Scoutforlife591]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 13 2009, 07:10 PM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again. Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began. Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/quote]

You're not factually incorrect. Evolution per se, does not explain genesis. But natural selection, as a part of evolution, does indirectly touch on it. Since "success" of a "thing" (organic chemicals in this case) is determined by it's reproduction/replication is essentially natural selection. Millers work shows the production of these chemical machines (amino acids), machines which of course make/construct other "useful" things. They don't dispute one another and are related, so I'm not sure of your point. That's all we are, nitrogenous bases which encode for amino acids constructed into proteins/enzymes, which can turn around and make nitrogenous bases. I'm reading into it a bit, but while we don't know exactly what happened, nothing that we think happened is impossible.

I'm pretty sure a botany professor of mine studied under Miller at UC (California), though I'd have to look it up, that's just what I remember.

And we did evolve from apes. Absolutely. And the apes we evolved from we're probably a hell of a lot dumber then the apes we see now.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' post='739678' date='Jan 13 2009, 09:22 PM']You're not factually incorrect. Evolution per se, does not explain genesis. But natural selection, as a part of evolution, does indirectly touch on it. Since "success" of a "thing" (organic chemicals in this case) is determined by it's reproduction/replication is essentially natural selection. Millers work shows the production of these chemical machines (amino acids), machines which of course make/construct other "useful" things. They don't dispute one another and are related, so I'm not sure of your point. That's all we are, nitrogenous bases which encode for amino acids constructed into proteins/enzymes, which can turn around and make nitrogenous bases. I'm reading into it a bit, but while we don't know exactly what happened, nothing that we think happened is impossible.

I'm pretty sure a botany professor of mine studied under Miller at UC (California), though I'd have to look it up, that's just what I remember.

And we did evolve from apes. Absolutely. [b]And the apes we evolved from we're probably a hell of a lot dumber then the apes we see now.[/b][/quote]


I refuse to believe any bipedal creature could be dumber than Squeeler fans no matter what their cranial capacity was!

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='739685' date='Jan 13 2009, 08:33 PM']I refuse to believe any bipedal creature could be dumber than Squeeler fans no matter what their cranial capacity was![/quote]


Word...

[Scoutforlife591]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='739616' date='Jan 13 2009, 04:22 PM']I agree with the bolded and I think your view of science and religion coexisting is both thoughtful and, unfortunatley, hard to come by amongst christians in the USA.

As for the underlined, "blind pitiless indifference" I'm not sure what exactly you're reffering too.

I don't feel there has to a be a reason for anything here in the first place. Feeling that there "has to be a reason" is a very ego-centric POV. I like the idea that for not the cognative capacity to reason I am no different nor any more important than blades of grass. I think that Science has done a wonderful job explaining how that cognative ability has arisen in our species (even though there is an un-quantifyable amount of work still to be done). Its this ability that gave rise to the concept of god and the proposition that we are special because we are conscious, we can't explain why we are conscious thus we must have had help. I think this same ability to reason will eventually render the god concept useless as we explain more and more about the natural world and our methods of testing improve.

You are certainly a believer in god...do you align with a religion? How do you practice, if at all, your faith?[/quote]

Blind pitiless indifference is one of Dawkins' more famous quotes. It's from River Out of Eden. A fuller quote:

"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

And he's not wrong, just extremely pessimistic about why we observe the appearance of no design (engineering) in the world. (ie crazy metabolic pathways, and mass extinctions.)

I'm not sure who you're referring to who argues that since we're conscious we must have had help. Evolution can explain consciousness. Catholics, for instance, are supposed to believe in evolution (according to the Pope). What they say is that we're are conscious so we can "know" God.

It's highly improbable that science will render god useless since the very nature of science exclude the supernatural from its realm. The LHC is pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's going to find a Jesus or Mohammed quark anytime soon (I'm not referring to the Higgs particle or "god" particle). You know, a type of matter we can wave at and say, "Hi God(s)!"

I don't think it's ego-centric at all to think there should be a reason that ANYTHING exists. I'm not wondering why I exist. If I wanted, I could explain that through the Earth existing and not bring a god into it, that through the solar system, the solar system through galaxy, and galaxy through the universe. But why the fuck does the universe exist at all? Or any single particle in it?

Cognitive ability doesn't play into the question. (We "know" scientifically why it exists) See, if I was an outsider, a 3rd party observer, let's say an observer from a universe that does have a god. Maybe in my universe we even hang out with god and play badminton in the backyard all the time, and we're checking out this other universe (dimension, plane of existence, whatever have you) through a really cool interdimensional telescope that doesn't have a god (and my god can't affect it) I'm gonna be like, "wait a minute, why the fuck is that there?" I can understand big bang, and it's current state, but why is it there in the first place.

I align with protestant christianity, but probably because I'm a white American. I'm skeptical, but not to a point of total disagreement with many of the tenents of the faith, even those held by the majority. I don't currently "practice," but that's not so much due to a lack of faith as it is my demographic, that being young and not living in the believing house of my parents. I'll go back regularly I'm sure a few years down the road. In the meantime, I practice by being moral (let me reiterate that I'm not in any way shape or form saying athiest are not moral), nice, and as a (mocked) holiday church goer.

[DontPushMe]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 13 2009, 06:10 PM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again. Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began. Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/quote]
Right, evolution doesnt explain where the first single celled life form came from. It does however show how all living things are descended from that single life form.

If someone shows me genesis stating that god created 1 single celled organism, and sat back to let nature take its course ill convert.

The fact is, genesis doesnt say that, it says that god created everything in their current forms. Something that is proven to be 100% false. How that isnt enough to completely refute the bible and turn it into a good science fiction book is beyond me.



^^^ Watch this video. I wasnt an Adam Carolla fan until i heard this. Really a good commentary on the subject of religion... He said some things that i have said in the past and heard said in the past, but he makes it funny.

[Scoutforlife591]

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='739646' date='Jan 13 2009, 05:40 PM']As does anyone who has taken the time to learn about evolution with an open mind. The only reason there are doubters is because it was proposed by Darwin prior to DNA being discovered. At the time it was just a hypothesis with little evidence. It turned out to be dead on of course. That said people immediately got a negative perception of it, and it held. Had no one thought of evolution until DNA and genomes had been discovered, they would have figured it out from looking at those, and it would have come out immediately with irrifutable evidence. Obviously there would still be people against it, but not as many as there are now, in my opinion. Darwin is a genius though, one of my personal heroes. Im very glad he did what he did.

Im curious though as to how one could believe in the judeo-christian god, yet not the bible? The Bible is the only source of reference for this god. How could the only peice of literature that ever refers to this god be full of crap (which it is, i agree) but somehow the god being invented in this book actually exist? Not trying to be an ass, you are a cool dude, just asking.[/quote]

Yeah, so I kinda disagree that there'd be any less opposition to evolution should it have been proposed when DNA was. In fact, there'd probably be more opposition if that was the case, as athiests wouldn't have had the last 150 years to organize and recruit. And with atheist being absent the persuasive argument that evolution is theologians would have had another 150 years to stregthen their membership. Since "when" DNA was discovered wouldn't have changed. And the blindly religious are going to assault it no matter what...it's what they do. Although their attempts are increasingly pathetic (the attempts to disprove evolution)

Believing in the Bible? I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I don't think it's FULL of crap (it just contains some crap amongst many many flowers). I said it's as flawed as the men who handled it. Think about it, who told you the Bible is the holy and ordained word of God? Flawed men. Did he tell them too? Sure, but after that it was up to them (and then the Catholic Church) Enough said? I'm sure God wouldn't have minded it if were a bit more in his image, but we also have free wall (as far as we know, again, the only reason we think we have free will is because the Bible told me so **sing the last 5 words!** This of course isn't a belief in the Bible that I contest.)

Did I answer your question?

[Scoutforlife591]

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='739689' date='Jan 13 2009, 10:03 PM']Right, evolution doesnt explain where the first single celled life form came from. It does however show how all living things are descended from that single life form.

If someone shows me genesis stating that god created 1 single celled organism, and sat back to let nature take its course ill convert.

The fact is, genesis doesnt say that, it says that god created everything in their current forms. Something that is proven to be 100% false. How that isnt enough to completely refute the bible and turn it into a good science fiction book is beyond me.[/quote]

Actually I think it says "kinds" not forms. And it does the same in the flood story. Noah took aboard kinds, not every species. Cat kind, horse kind, bird kinds etc. Afterall, I'm pretty sure 700,000 beetles on an arc would have been a bit much (350000 different species). Of course, I don't take the Noah story literally.

In fact, the only indefensible conflict with Gensis 1:1-31 and science is that birds came before land animals. At least it's the only thing I can't reconcile. (Flying fish and bacteria in aerosol just doesn't do it for me) For me, I chalk it up to the embellishment of man.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' post='739687' date='Jan 13 2009, 09:53 PM']Blind pitiless indifference is one of Dawkins' more famous quotes. It's from River Out of Eden. A fuller quote:

"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

And he's not wrong, just extremely pessimistic about why we observe the appearance of no design (engineering) in the world. (ie crazy metabolic pathways, and mass extinctions.)

[color="#FF0000"]Interesting, I had never heard the quote, but I would say I'm in agreement.[/color]

I'm not sure who you're referring to who argues that since we're conscious we must have had help. Evolution can explain consciousness. Catholics, for instance, are supposed to believe in evolution (according to the Pope). What they say is that we're are conscious so we can "know" God.

[color="#FF0000"]I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, just a base level assumption that once our ancestors became conscious they inevitably had basic inquisitive thoughts that I believe were answered by creating an overseer, a god.[/color]

It's highly improbable that science will render god useless since the very nature of science exclude the supernatural from its realm. The LHC is pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's going to find a Jesus or Mohammed quark anytime soon (I'm not referring to the Higgs particle or "god" particle). You know, a type of matter we can wave at and say, "Hi God(s)!"
[color="#FF0000"]
I didn't mean science would prove there is no god as that is a foolish statement, but render the concept of god unecessary through advances in neuroscience. Coming to understand in quantitative terms what it means to believe in god and have faith in the unproveable.[/color]

I don't think it's ego-centric at all to think[b] there should be a reason that ANYTHING exists. I'm not wondering why I exist.[/b] If I wanted, I could explain that through the Earth existing and not bring a god into it, that through the solar system, the solar system through galaxy, and galaxy through the universe. But why the fuck does the universe exist at all? Or any single particle in it?

Cognitive ability doesn't play into the question. (We "know" scientifically why it exists) See, if I was an outsider, a 3rd party observer, let's say an observer from a universe that does have a god. Maybe in my universe we even hang out with god and play badminton in the backyard all the time, and we're checking out this other universe (dimension, plane of existence, whatever have you) through a really cool interdimensional telescope that doesn't have a god (and my god can't affect it) I'm gonna be like, "wait a minute, why the fuck is that there?" I can understand big bang, and it's current state, but why is it there in the first place.

[color="#FF0000"]Ok I can agree with that. I see "the reason why it exists" and automatically assumed a purposely driven reason for existance. A reason could just be a more elaborate equation that explains pre-big bang. As for wondering, nah I don't really spend my time wondering beyond what we can't observe (reasonably, like without an advanced degree in mathematics).[/color]

I align with protestant christianity, but probably because I'm a white American. I'm skeptical, but not to a point of total disagreement with many of the tenents of the faith, even those held by the majority. I don't currently "practice," but that's not so much due to a lack of faith as it is my demographic, that being young and not living in the believing house of my parents. I'll go back regularly I'm sure a few years down the road. In the meantime, I practice by being moral (let me reiterate that I'm not in any way shape or form saying athiest are not moral), nice, and as a (mocked) holiday church goer.

[color="#FF0000"]As one who is clearly educated and has formed your own opinion on the subject through vigorous personal investigation, do you take offense to my charge that immutable truths formed by religious faith need to be subjected to the same scrutiny and the same criticisms we subject all other cavets of public discourse when they are proposed as a valid alternative to phsyical data?[/color][/quote]

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='DontPushMe' post='739689' date='Jan 13 2009, 09:03 PM']The fact is, genesis doesnt say that, it says that god created everything in their current forms. Something that is proven to be 100% false. How that isnt enough to completely refute the bible and turn it into a good science fiction book is beyond me.[/quote]

Not only false, but plagiarized entirely from Egyptian and Babylonian mythology...

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Elflocko' post='739703' date='Jan 14 2009, 01:50 PM']Not only false, but plagiarized entirely from Egyptian and Babylonian mythology...[/quote]
Just as Christianity isn't the first religion with a virgin birth, 3 wise men, a resurrection after 3 days, etc. It's just the latest one.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Scoutforlife591' post='739692' date='Jan 13 2009, 10:11 PM']Believing in the Bible? I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I don't think it's FULL of crap (it just contains some crap amongst many many flowers). I said it's as flawed as the men who handled it. Think about it, who told you the Bible is the holy and ordained word of God? Flawed men. Did he tell them too? Sure, but after that it was up to them (and then the Catholic Church) Enough said? I'm sure God wouldn't have minded it if were a bit more in his image, but we also have free wall (as far as we know, again, the only reason we think we have free will is because the Bible told me so **sing the last 5 words!** This of course isn't a belief in the Bible that I contest.)[/quote]

So we assume there is a god, then we assume he spoke to people and told them to write down his words, then we acknowledge that these words were written down by flawed men who had an agenda...It is one thing for people to accept all this without question, it is entirely another thing to be absolutley convinced this is the truth so much so that it needs to be asserted to those who don't share the same opinion all while un-waiveringly dismissing the other 1/2 of the world that is equally as convinced that their god did the same thing.

Surely you can't think that these books and these words have any place in matters of politics when lives are on the line?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='739652' date='Jan 13 2009, 06:10 PM']Sorry to go back so far into the past thread-wise, but I've said this in J&D before, and I'm saying it again. Evolution does not explain Genesis or whatever you'd like to call the origin/beginning of carbon-based life. Evolution describes (quite accurately) change in species over time; species that ALREADY EXISTED. It doesn't tackle the sticky question of where and under what conditions life began. Look up Stanley Miller if you want to see some interesting chemistry stuff regarding primordial ooze becoming life-capable/supporting/whatever biomolecules.

Back in the day, creationists got bent out of shape because well, the theory of Evolution leads us to understand that we share a common ancestor with apes. Fucking apes. "How could we EVOLVE from fucking apes?" Well, we don't actually Evolve from them... we arose from a common progenitor and we were the unlucky ones who figured out how to create civilization and disagree with one another over stupid shit on the interwebz instead of living peacefully for whatever reason.[/quote]


Which still pisses me off because I rather like the idea of flinging shit at people I disagree with.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='739685' date='Jan 13 2009, 08:33 PM']I refuse to believe any bipedal creature could be dumber than Squeeler fans no matter what their cranial capacity was![/quote]


Squeeler fans are Darwin's paradox.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='739705' date='Jan 13 2009, 11:54 PM']Just as Christianity isn't the first religion with a virgin birth, 3 wise men, a resurrection after 3 days, etc. It's just the latest one.[/quote]

I bought a movie online for my Finacee called "The god who wasn't there" and in it they showed many the concepts repeated in the bible that were found earlier in other literature and had a great breakdown of jesus and the classic "literary hero pattern" traits. You can find it here if you are interested: [url="http://www.thegodmovie.com/"]http://www.thegodmovie.com/[/url]

Bill Mahr's "Religulous" also showed many pre-biblical accounts of the same stories..

BTW what time is it over there? I'm getting ready for bed here in Jersey.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='739705' date='Jan 13 2009, 10:54 PM']Just as Christianity isn't the first religion with a virgin birth, 3 wise men, a resurrection after 3 days, etc. It's just the latest one.[/quote]


And the most popular.


At least until Scientology catches up...

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='739708' date='Jan 13 2009, 10:57 PM']Squeeler fans are Darwin's paradox.[/quote]


Testify!

[Xombie]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='739511' date='Jan 13 2009, 03:13 AM']You are the only one in this thread throwing around anything that could be remotely taken as prejudicial and hateful.

'Nutz uses logic and analysis. You respond by calling him names. You're not exactly helping your cause. If anything, you're digging yourself a deeper hole. [/quote]


Then you have missed the point of my posts. It centered around how dangerous his combative stances towards things he disagrees with and with things, by his own words, should be unilaterally disposed of, and should the same mentality be interjected into any other discussion, be it race, sexual orientation, politics, etc, etc..., he would, and with much credence, be decried as a hatemonger. He rails against the inherent evils and pitfalls of religion, much in the same vehement vein that a Grand Wizard in the KKK would point to charts "proving" that because blacks are convicted at a disproportionate rate versus whites, they are an "obvious" blight on American society. And I have reread his post and responses to me. I have yet to find 1 fact that could be researched or rebutted, and his logic would still have the world's population believing in Bigfoot.

[Xombie]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='739520' date='Jan 13 2009, 06:29 AM']I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in the 'Holier-than-thou' routine Xombie is putting on here. [/quote]


Holier-than-thou?
*arches an eyebrow*

Sir, I am a humanist, first and foremost, and gleefully admit to being only wise enough to know that I am not intelligent enough to know everything, hence 'holier-than-thou' is patently impossible. I just take umbrage and respond with the subtlety of a pipe wrench when people cry to have something they believe should be destroyed for the exact, reciprocal reasons that they themselves are feeling, whether in reality or in their minds, persecuted.

[Xombie]

[quote name='Elflocko' post='739548' date='Jan 13 2009, 09:52 AM']i.e., treating "Intelligent Design" as a legitimate scientific curriculum in public schools.[/quote]



This I argue quite often: Are we not intelligent designers of life in just our few millenia of ascendancy? So, I think intelligent design has a place to be taught as a theory, but not with an obvious religious bending.


And, in closing, I would like to reiterate that I do not believe in any god, I believe in what my body can perceive. That being said, I understand where the vitriol that militant atheists spew comes from. I believe one of my guilty pleasures, the show "Supernatural" said it best, "May God save us from half the people doing His work..." And in my admittedly imperfect understanding of how faith can touch a life, I will also quote a friend of mine whom happens to be a youth pastor... (A quote offered over a straight righteous game of AD&D, no less!) "When faith is used as a dam, because you are faced with the water of fear, you are missing the opportunity to use the same amount of wood to build a bridge over the river."

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Xombie' post='739716' date='Jan 14 2009, 12:30 AM']Then you have missed the point of my posts. It centered around how dangerous his combative stances towards things he disagrees with and with things, by his own words, should be unilaterally disposed of, and should the same mentality be interjected into any other discussion, be it race, sexual orientation, politics, etc, etc..., he would, and with much credence, be decried as a hatemonger. He rails against the inherent evils and pitfalls of religion, much in the same vehement vein that a Grand Wizard in the KKK would point to charts "proving" that because blacks are convicted at a disproportionate rate versus whites, they are an "obvious" blight on American society. And I have reread his post and responses to me. I have yet to find 1 fact that could be researched or rebutted, [b]and his logic would still have the world's population believing in Bigfoot.[/b][/quote]

But based on that last line its clear that you have not understood a word I said. I'll give an effort to sum up then the rest is on you:

1. When it comes to public matters, evidence, behind any statement needs to be priority #1. This is exactly the opposite of being a "hatemonger" for race and sexual orientation because when pressed for evidence, racists can't provide any scientific data that links skin pigmentation to social behaviours and anti-gay people run into a mountain of examples of gay behaviours in the natural world. So using rational thinking based on observational evidence we arrive at the conclusions that racism is bullshit and homosexuality exists no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel. We also can say pretty convincingly that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

2. Religious doctrine is not based on observational evidence but rather acknowledgement that there is a detach from the physical world and one must accept a lack of evidence as reason to belive.

3. Religious doctrine has no place in the public forum when it comes to making decisions that affect 10s, 100s, 1000s, millions of people because it cannot be validated anymore convincingly than ones personal belief that Santa Claus lives on the North pole and makes one hell of a journey every year on 12/25.

4. I won't persecute religious folk anymore than you would persecute a homeless man standing on the corner shouting out that the evil spirits talking to him have warned him of the impending amragedon and you need to repent. This is not a campaign shunning your deeply held beliefs, but rather a campaign asking you to subject your beliefs to the same questions you would subject this homeless fellow too.

[Xombie]

Squirrel, I have only been using arguments that I have seen before and only changing nouns and applying verbs that were more apropos...

And, quite frankly, if not for religion, the basis of civilization, i.e. laws, would have never come to fruition... Hammurabi's Code would have had no basis in the cradle of life... So, I do think that there is a legitimate place for a religious standard of morals in the minds of those in power, just as long as that mind isn't rubberstamping bills while in Sunday School.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Xombie' post='739719' date='Jan 13 2009, 11:46 PM']This I argue quite often: Are we not intelligent designers of life in just our few millenia of ascendancy? So, I think intelligent design has a place to be taught as a theory, but not with a obvious religious bending.[/quote]


Taught as theory without obvious religious bending.


Seriously?



The two cannot be separated.