Yes, it's man saying things, that i talked, only on others and my head.
It's like a theory... a theory can be abolished you said...

Qouting your theory prooves nothing... i want proof... :D scientific prooves
of the creation of the universe by itself, and the existence of smart people only because a random thing.

No no, I tried to draw a picture with the IF. a picture of what is the theory of the evolution, as i read so far it is.

Sorry the english.

I wondered when someone would pull out the classic watchmaker straw man argument. Here are 2 videos to counter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7104216231786#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

That is no proof at all, Nicolas. it's only what you believe. You could as well believe that in reality the grass is blue and the sky is green. Claiming that, is one thing. Proving it - is something different. ;)

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/6...akthecycle.jpg

It's not because of you, but you are nevertheless right: this topic was useless from the beginning on. And some of us already indicated that on the very first page.

Religious belief is dogma, and dogmas are not to be critically questioned and analysed, but are to be believed only, and claim to be the ultimate truth that must not be tested and checked and verified at all.

Science means theory that tries to arrange observations we make in such a way that they make the best sense to our thinking and arrange the totality of our observations in such a way that the contradictions between various observations are brought to the possible minimum, and so that options for further examination and exploration and asking new questions to increase our understanding get created. Different to religious dogma, it does not claim to know the final, the last, the ultimate answers, but gives temporary answers only that get constantly analysed, checked, and changed. Note that theory that freezes in dogmatism, brings the scientific process to a halt, and then start to look a lot like religion, too. Dogmatism and theory do not coexist well. Openness and scepticism are two key ingredients of science. But for organised, and especially theistic, religion, they are lethal enemies.

Sometimes a theory becomes quite influential, and becomes quite resistent to change, because it answers things quite well accoridng to all information we so far have gained. We then call it a paradigm. Theories are models that change fast. Paradigms are schools that change slowly. Dogmas don't see a need for change at all.

You may believe that you know, when you believe in what religion tells you. But believing is not knowing. When believing that you know, indeed you only believe exclusively - but you don't know anything as a matter of fact. that's why it is useless to quote the bible or any other religious scripture to refer to an assumed deity in order to prove your point. It is no proof for the claims of religion at all. It's just: claims of something unproven, unchecked, that is unavaílable to analysis anyway.

Well said, Mr. Bird.

Steve,

why don't we just restart again after that communication meltdown recently that neither you nor me intended anyway, but that just took place like sh!t sometimes happens - we cannot undo it now?! I know we see things totally different on that event, and we will not reach an agreeing opinion on who did what and why - but maybe we could agree to let it be a closed file, bypass it and leave it behind? It was the first time ever that we banged heads. And for what?

In the end I regret that we got so hot over something that most likely simply was not worth it to become so angry - not if considering that I really respect your presence on this board very much, and that just short time before we have had very friendly and personal PMs exchanged.

Let's bury the hatchet and move on. ;) What you say?

NO! I HATE YOU!:p2:

If I hadn't already put it behind me I wouldn't have responded as I did above.

Truth is I was never angry in that thread, just confused. I want to keep arguing about it now, simply because I don't think it was resolved. But that's for PMs, or for not at all.

It's cool.:sunny:

:shucks: Next drinks on me.:salute:

But I think keeping on to argue about it would just add to the confusion that finally brought us to where we ended. Already in that thread I had lost contact in the end, and with the huge number of quoted replies in every reply it had become incredibly time-consuming if one would adress all that on a one-ba-one basis. It's easily the most complex pile-up of such a scattered thread I have ever been engaged in. At least that's how it looked from my end.

Anyhow, done is done, let's move on.

That was before doorbells evolved

My problem with the concept of God with regards to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, is that I can't reconcile the fact that, if God actually created everything when and how the Bible says he did, than why did he create so much proof to the contrary of how the Bible depicts it?

Using theory and experimentation, we can be reasonably sure that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old. Now the Bible tells us something quite different.

But see, here's the thing: despite what many religious practicioners claim, believing in such is not merely a matter of faith. If faith was the question, than fine - I'd have at it. Except that it isn't.

One has to not only have faith in religious texts but ALSO discount items we can PROVE are contradictory.

To me that's akin to staring at a blue sky and believing its pink because you've invested trust in a concept that purports the sky to be pink.

I have faith in what I can see, feel, and verify. I do not have faith in abstract concepts that CONTRADICT what I can see, feel, and verify.

On the other hand, I do not seek to deprive anyone of said faith. Belief is a decision, one that can have a wonderful impact on anyone should they harness it properly.

I just can't bring myself to share in it.

Finally, I don't see religious beliefs as a failing. Quite frankly, I wish I could share in many of them. That I can't, makes me see myself as flawed.

Of course, the fact that Steve was winning had nothing to do with it... :D

Even more basic. Why has he created us humans so imperfect and obviously flawed like we are? Why leaving us the choice between good and evil if he could have made sure that we all do good, and are saved? What purpose is it for him to see some of us burning in hell?

If it is intention, then he is wicked.

If it is by accident, he is no almighty, perfect god.

If it is to see us failing and getting doomed over it by him, it is sick and evil.

If it is so see us succeeding - he could have had that from the beginning on by giving us a much imporved design.

If he is such a megastar amongst omnipotent superbeings, why taking pleasure from us worshipping him and doing what he wants to see us doing, and punishing us for failing because he designed us so that we could fail? Don't we get punished then due to his design decisions? Shouldn't we be the ones then punishing him...? I mean we would have much more reason to be angry about him then he has to be angry about us.

And if you tend to attribute all and everything to him and thank him for all the good stuff he is doing for you: before you thank him for letting your broken leg heal and having send you that person finding you when you were laying with broken legs on the ground at that isolated place - consider that it was also him flipping that banana skin in front of your feet so that you slipped on it and broke your leg.

The way our theistic religions imagine their gods, to me is just this: we try to bring all universe down to our level, define it's existence by our standards and means, and think all things revolve around us with our fate forming the centre of the universe. It is the ultimate egocentrism, the utmost megalomania. The more we hail our gods, the more we declare ourselves to be the navel of the universe. We think: God, but we mean: ourselves. Consequently, there is often a very huge ammount of self-righteousness (=Selbstgerechtigkeit) and patronizing (=Gönnerhaftigkeit) in religions. It ultimately culminates in the statement: "You may not believe in my god, but I tell you my God still loves you nevertheless." Oh how much I have to drink before I could bare such an arrogant adress. Translated into plain English it means: "I am right and everythign revolves around me."

I would imagine a theist might argue that for the concept of good to have
any meaning, there must be an alternative to being good.

If no one has the choice but to do good, have they really done good?

While I agree with the concept of only being able to know a state if there is a state that is NOT the other state, I do agree with what Skybird said, and that is in fact another issue I've always had with religion.

The concept of an all-knowing God creating man, than man becoming imperfect against the will of the all-knowing, perfect creator, seems to default itself out when approached with logic.