What's wrong with just about everybody. In a nutshell.

[xan_user]

It was still greed based leadership that killed all those innocent people.

We have a special party here like that too...The Greed Over People party, some even try and hide themselves as teabaggers.

Whats really telling is how many so called 'religious' leaders forget most of the ten commandants are really anti-greed.

[andymcca]

hide themselves as teabaggers.

What ever happened to the locker room definition for "teabagger"? :D

Whats really telling is how many so called 'religious' leaders forget most of the ten commandants are really anti-greed.

But you are forgetting the prosperity gospel! God makes them rich because they do his will and are good people! Clearly God wanted them to build some gigantic stadium in which to rant rather than, say, helping the poor. Because the poor must be evil! What? That flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus? Clearly you just have not read the bible enough.

[xan_user]

hide themselves as teabaggers.

What ever happened to the locker room definition for "teabagger"?

Whats really telling is how many so called 'religious' leaders forget most of the ten commandants are really anti-greed.

But you are forgetting the prosperity gospel! God makes them rich because they do his will and are good people! Clearly God wanted them to build some gigantic stadium in which to rant rather than, say, helping the poor. Because the poor must be evil! What? That flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus? Clearly you just have not read the bible enough.

Lat time I checked the real tea party wanted personal representation in government, teabaggers want to elect "greed" to run our government.



Matthew

" 5-And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6-But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. "

[andymcca]

teabaggers want to elect "greed" to run our government.

No, no, Sarah Palin only gets re-named "Greed" after she dies and her family attempts to bring her back via alchemy.

[xan_user]

"Greed" is Cheney and Palins illegitimate love child, why do you think she quit office? -its easier to hide the tummy while the cyborg is growing inside her. The real trick is how they can make the bastard a separate corporation that has zero accountability, and all the control, right from "birth".

[Steve_Y]

Religion is not needed, Faith is essential.

I've always seen faith (i.e. treating untested beliefs like unshakeable truth) as a completely false virtue, and these days I agree with Richard Dawkins that faith is comparable to the deadliest diseases in the damage it has caused.

I look at the worst atrocities in history and see groups of people being manipulated thanks to their blind faith in a particular religion/ideology. Would it be possible to convince countless perfectly normal, and otherwise decent, people to act like a mob of violent sociopaths, willing to do utterly evil and self destructive things, without using their faith?

Obviously not all faiths are as dangerous, and most don't turn their followers into monsters, but in my opinion faith itself is at the root of the problem. I don't see how a hypothetical nation of rational, sceptical and individualistic people could be used in the same way.

Replace religion with faith and I'd agree with this quote from physicist Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

The human race would be infinitely better off without any faith in anything. That goes for faith in secular causes as well as faith in the supernatural...

[colm]

The root cause is still greed.

Greed is something all those 'religions' shun in their scriptures and sermons...In reality they all embrace greed with every move.

I can agree with that. then just add diva, diva as in seductive to more than not, as the mascot...
I could guess that is where jesus is a success story..it does away with it...

I ended up in the self thinking realm, with my own failures. True justice, true motivation.

[andyb]

some even try and hide themselves as teabaggers.

Read at your own peril.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... teabagging


Andy

[andymcca]

Read at your own peril.

I almost said something about the "locker room definitiion" :D

[xan_user]

bathroom stall footsie is a gateway to teabagging don'cha'kno?

[thejamppa]

Religion is not needed, Faith is essential.

I've always seen faith (i.e. treating untested beliefs like unshakeable truth) as a completely false virtue, and these days I agree with Richard Dawkins that faith is comparable to the deadliest diseases in the damage it has caused.

I look at the worst atrocities in history and see groups of people being manipulated thanks to their blind faith in a particular religion/ideology. Would it be possible to convince countless perfectly normal, and otherwise decent, people to act like a mob of violent sociopaths, willing to do utterly evil and self destructive things, without using their faith?

Obviously not all faiths are as dangerous, and most don't turn their followers into monsters, but in my opinion faith itself is at the root of the problem. I don't see how a hypothetical nation of rational, sceptical and individualistic people could be used in the same way.

Replace religion with faith and I'd agree with this quote from physicist Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

The human race would be infinitely better off without any faith in anything. That goes for faith in secular causes as well as faith in the supernatural...

That is your right. To me Faith is essential, to what you put your faith, weather its God or Science, Idiology or to a person is your choice but I see faith as direct connection without middle-men like church or similar organizations which lessens changes of corruption.

Was there old chinese proverb that went like: When knowledge ends, faith begins. Without faith many scientifical break thru's would have been postponed or never discovered.

Faith is essential. Faith is personal and unique for each person. There lies its strength, weakness and danger. Faith and religion are completely different. Man needs faith, when he doesn't have a faith anymore he puts bullet thru his brain. Man needs always faith, if not else, to better tomorrow... After all, hour of the wolf is just before sunrise.

since Satan is still a magical construct.

Since you cannot verify this viable way this will be argument without concrete proof and I might even say its mere opinion. Similar as claiming God exists or He does not.

That is hard when you start arguing over religious things. Neither side cannot proof matter. Its matter of faith... Till end of times, but some nutcases like yours truely already see signs of time opening and more and more that book you call fairy tell, i.e. Bible seems to hit more hits than misses. But that is my opinion based on that creation of Israel filled one prophecy and several other prophesies written down there have become true after year 1948.

Just because you don't believe in Satan, doesn't mean he doesn't exist... And once again it all comes down to Faith.

[xan_user]

In summery,

What's wrong with just about everybody. In a nutshell.

Having faith in greed and being greedy with your faith.

[walle]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in some magical higher power, so Satanism is not at all like atheism, since Satan is still a magical construct.

Atheism is a belief system in which people believe God doesn't exist, Satanism denies the very existence of God but recognizes his ( its ) existence.

Both are belief systems.

...

Science can also be viewed as a belief system - irrational too.

[xan_user]

Atheism is a belief system in which people believe God doesn't exist, Satanism denies the very existence of God but recognizes his ( its ) existence.

Both are belief systems.

...

Science can also be viewed as a belief system - irrational too.

True-
Now make a list of all those souls killed and/or enslaved throughout history "in the name of *";
*God and her brother Satan(and Allah, and Horace, and whatever other name of their deity was or is)
*GreedOverPeople (Wealth as an idol )
*Science
*Buddhism
*Agnostics
*Atheism


And the winner is, by a land slide....Come on, it rhymes with dog....

[andymcca]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in some magical higher power, so Satanism is not at all like atheism, since Satan is still a magical construct.

Atheism is a belief system in which people believe God doesn't exist, Satanism denies the very existence of God but recognizes his ( its ) existence.

A) The second sentence here directly contradicts itself.
B) No, atheism does not mean the "belief that there is(are) no god(s)", because that statement assumes that god(s) are the default. Atheism means I have no belief in magic. Of any kind. Period. Your statement is like saying that "nothing is the absence of something" or "a vacuum is the absence of matter", which might work for a high school text book, but is simply inaccurate. While nothing IMPLIES no something, and a vacuum IMPLIES no matter, that is only given that "something" and "matter" exist in another context so we can notice they are "missing". I could say that a vacuum means the absence of hpioarip too, but since hpioarip does not exist as a concept in our universe, talking about its absence is beside the point that the vacuum exists.

The only thing that "nothing" is, is the default. Anything besides "nothing" is observable (in some respect) and therefore judged to exist. You believe that you observe God. I make no such observation. My act is both passive and in no need of defense.

Edit: Oh yeah, and about the science quip, which I have (disturbingly) heard before:
No, if I hold an irrational belief that something is true, I am practicing "bad science", which is not real science at all. Proper science assumes nothing outside of statistically probable and well demonstrated phenomenon. Let me say this again: science assumes nothing (or declares such assumptions in a proper writeup). If you really wanted to get into it: gravity exists because we can observe it, predict it, and account for it. We don't care "why" gravity is, only that we have an accurate mathematical model of it. We can say with near certainty (given a huge sample of events and no negative results) that gravity behaves roughly as we model it it. Similarly we can nearly perfectly model genetic mutation, radioactive carbon isotope decay, etc etc etc and every time we test our models they are withing the tolerances that WE ADMIT EXIST. If you ask someone doing radioactive isotope studies what assumptions they've made and what the certainty/margin of error of a result is, a good scientist will be able to say exactly what assumptions have been made, and what statistical asterisks may apply. Just about the only "leap of faith" scientists have to make is that other scientists have done "good science", and that there findings are as well supported as they claim. Which is not a problem with science, but with humans being deeply flawed and ethically challenged.

PS My statement "we don't care why gravity is" is the rational religious out. You can be religious and a scientist. You can be religious and believe in evolution. Why, if God is so powerful, couldn't he have set evolution into motion? Who am I (or you) to claim to know the will or acts of this mighty God? It is only the politically motivated religious orthodoxies (ie Catholicism circa Galileo's life, conservative Christian movements today) who attempt to "bully" their un-supported assumptions about the origins of the world to further there agenda and create an "us vs. them" scenario where Christians feel threatened by science, education, etc.

[Redzo]

Think for yourself, understand your environment, be considerate of others.

Well said +1

[walle]

Poorly phrased...

The second sentence here directly contradicts itself.

"Atheism is a belief system in which people assumes God doesn't exist, Satanism denies the very existence of God but recognizes his ( its ) existence"

No contradiction.

Oh yeah, and about the science quip, which I have (disturbingly) heard before:

Science can be rational, but it need not be, science is methodological, methodological and rational are not the same thing. Belief system? well, science is a belief system in many ways because it refutes that which it cannot readily observe or measure in numbers, deeming it unscientific, scientists will not look at certain aspects after they've been told something isn't scientific, thus they intimidate themselves right from the get go...but I digress.

Examples of irrational science:
Bio-weapons research, microwave weapons research, sonic weapons research and genetically modified food, which also now is being sold.

If you really wanted to get into it: gravity exists because we can observe it, predict it, and account for it. We don't care "why" gravity is, only that we have an accurate mathematical model of it.

I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God anymore than I can scientifically prove the existence of love, doesn't mean I automatically dismiss them. I know love exists because I can FEEL it, but I can't scientifically prove its existence. This was not meant as an attack on science or to try prove the existence of God - it was to drive home an important point.

Your statement is like saying that "nothing is the absence of something" or "a vacuum is the absence of matter", which might work for a high school text book, but is simply inaccurate. While nothing IMPLIES no something, and a vacuum IMPLIES no matter, that is only given that "something" and "matter" exist in another context so we can notice they are "missing". I could say that a vacuum means the absence of hpioarip too, but since hpioarip does not exist as a concept in our universe, talking about its absence is beside the point that the vacuum exists.

I would suggest that this is a mind before matter universe myself, nothing exists before you have thought about it, then created it, when so is done that which you have created will manifest itself in this reality.



I view this to be rational, others may view this line of thinking irrational, some may even deem it to be unscientific, others may seize upon it as a mean to argue for the existence of God, the creator, this consciousness if you like.

[andymcca]

No contradiction.

Satanism denies the very existence of God but recognizes his ( its ) existence

denies existence, recognizes existence? Perhaps we have different definitions of deny.

Science can be rational, but it need not be, science is methodological, methodological and rational are not the same thing.

Based on 2 quotes down, I am wondering if you know what rational means. Not to mention that I did not use the word rational anywhere in my post. Science cares about verifiable prediction. That is all. Such predictions must be mathematically rigorous in their demonstration. I might even agree that science does not have to be "rational", since the universe is not by definition "rational" in our human sense, given the sort of bizarre things we observe. While "what makes sense" is useful as a route to finding an accurate model, it is not itself a model.

[science] refutes that which it cannot readily observe

No. No scientist will ever claim to have refuted the existence of god because it cannot be done. Even ask one of the more zealous anti-religious types (Dawkins, etc) and he will scream about how it cannot be dis-proved. This is what science is about! But I can say that "I see no evidence for God.", to which you must say "See, there, I have evidence" in order to give me any reason to waste any more energy investigating the matter.

scientists will not look at certain aspects after they've been told something isn't scientific

Actually, many important discoveries come from investigating myths, folk tales, and rumors of monsters. But as with all other mere mortals, scientists possess finite time with which to do their work, and so only follow the avenues of investigation they find the most compelling (interesting, promising for the greater good, monetarily promising, whatever). So no, you may not find a scientist investigating every piece of Jesus-toast until someone starts paying for it. Science costs $$, and typically it's not the scientists who have it.

Bio-weapons research, microwave weapons research, sonic weapons research and genetically modified food, which also now is being sold.

harmful != irrational.

I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God anymore than I can scientifically prove the existence of love

Therefore they both exist? This is a logical fallacy. I cannot dis-prove X, therefore X? I hear statisticians are crying.

I know love exists because I can FEEL it, but I can't scientifically prove its existence.

Actually as a set of behaviour changes, body chemistry changes, and brain activity changes "love" in all of its many meanings is observable, if not necessarily quantifiable. And if we were to observe the changes associated with "love" the proper conclusion is "it is very likely that that person is feeling 'love'".[/quote]

This was not meant as an attack on science or to try prove the existence of God - it was to drive home an important point.

Which I am still missing. Science is based on observation. Faith is based on zero observation. They are fundamentally dissimilar, and it is a disservice to both to try to have them "compete".

I would suggest that this is a mind before matter universe myself, nothing exists before you have thought about it, then created it, when so is done that which you have created will manifest itself in this reality.

Is this English? I have no idea what you were trying to say.

I view this to be rational, others may view this line of thinking irrational, some may even deem it to be unscientific,

"Even unscientific"? There is nothing scientific about it.

others may seize upon it as a mean to argue for the existence of God, the creator, this consciousness if you like.

Ego much?

I am starting to get the feeling I am arguing with a teenager in his parents' basement. This will be my last post in this thread. I'll read the rest, though, so don't take this as a "last word" tactic.

Edit: The teenager statement is a bit mean. Apologies.

[xan_user]

In our teenage years (as a race of humans) we were told god made us as the center of the entire universe,and only 5 thousand years ago at that.

Scientist were locked up and even killed if they did not agree blindly with the churches' silly stories. Thank God we grew up and opened our eyes a bit, or we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, ruled by priests that wont even let a mere mortal read the scriptures, let alone think for ourselves.

Do people really want to defend religion, just so they can live on a flat planet, at the center of the universe again? Actually that sounds more like the behavior of a child, than a teenager to me.

[walle]

denies existence, recognizes existence? Perhaps we have different definitions of deny.

Goes to show one should proofread and not post five in the morning. It was funny reading it.

I am wondering if you know what rational means. Not to mention that I did not use the word rational anywhere in my post.

I gave three examples of the opposite (a.k.a irrational] the fact you didn't mention rational wasn't needed because you reacted to "Science can also be viewed as a belief system - irrational too" responding with "Oh yeah, and about the science quip, which I have (disturbingly) heard before" I proceeded by responding to that with showing on science when irrational, giving four examples.

Actually as a set of behaviour changes, body chemistry changes, and brain activity changes "love" in all of its many meanings is observable, if not necessarily quantifiable. And if we were to observe the changes associated with "love" the proper conclusion is "it is very likely that that person is feeling 'love'".

That doesn't scientifically explain why a person feel that way, sure the body chemistry may change but that is a response to what you feel, what you feel must come from somewhere, but the changes in body chemistry doesn't prove the source of what you FEEL, it only shows on a chemical response to that input. Granted, the proper conclusion could be that it is likely love being expressed, but it cannot be scientifically proved because science doesn't provide the SOURCE for what you feel, it only shows on a chemical reaction whilst ignoring the source. If the source for love was the body chemical reaction you referring to then you would be able to recreate that feeling chemically, that cannot be done. Observe the love expressed between a mother and her child and try to recreate that.

Is this English? I have no idea what you were trying to say.

A mind before matter universe would be the opposite of the current approach which suggests that of a matter before mind universe.

Just like someone created the table you sit and have your breakfast at in the morning, and just like the table didn’t exist until someone thought about it and then created it, the same idea would apply to the entire universe, regardless of scale, including those which we cannot readily observe. If you accept the idea that this is a mind before matter universe you also have to accept that it would apply when moving up the scales, including those very scales which you cannot readily observe. A matter before mind universe suggests that something has been created without first having been preceded with a thought, just popping up if you will, out of the blue - the very opposite, science uses this approach and see things from this perspective today.

Ego much? .

Well, the ego is after all plastic and self aware. this is true. but no, I do not identify myself with my ego, I use it to interact, sure, we all do, but I am not my ego anymore than our closest neighbour over here would be the football team he is identifying himself with, yet he does. Having said that, we all base our personalities to a large extent on our egos, our egos are (as I see it) nothing more than the input we have received from our respective environment(s), from day one up till present day, that doesn't mean that we would be our egos though.

In our teenage years (as a race of humans)

Surveying the world today would suggest otherwise, that is to say – the human species still being a teenager. Some would even say we are devolving as a species rather than evolving, unless the increasing number of wars, pollution and abuse are considered evolvement, some may give this a positive connotation others a negative.

Thank God we grew up and opened our eyes a bit, or we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, ruled by priests that wont even let a mere mortal read the scriptures, let alone think for ourselves.

If God exists, the creator, that consciousness (or whatever term you would like to use) than I am sure that he ( it ) is shaking his ( its ) head in disbelief right now. In truth, so should every single creation on the planet but most of us are to spiritually immature to even care.

Do people really want to defend religion, just so they can live on a flat planet

Blasmephy!!!!

How do you know it isn't flat but round? If you answer that its round and not flat you'll have to explain that the only reason for you knowing that, wasn't because its round, but because you've been told from another source that its round.

The Earth isn't flat, it isn't round either, its actually concave....didn't you recieve the memo?

(;

[andyb]

A mind before matter universe would be the opposite of the current approach which suggests that of a matter before mind universe.

Thats an interesting theory that is partly true, man thinks of something, man creates it. The currently unprovable part of it is also one of the many parts of Quantum theory, and until there is enough evidence to support something that currently seems beyond the realms of possibility I will continue to deny its reality.

Surveying the world today would suggest otherwise, that is to say – the human species still being a teenager. Some would even say we are devolving as a species rather than evolving, unless the increasing number of wars, pollution and abuse are considered evolvement, some may give this a positive connotation others a negative.

The human species is a teenager from many perspectives, but its the human ability to think and create that is still maturing at an alarming rate that suggests that we are beginning to leave or teenage years behind us.

If God exists, the creator, that consciousness (or whatever term you would like to use) than I am sure that he ( it ) is shaking his ( its ) head in disbelief right now. In truth, so should every single creation on the planet but most of us are to spiritually immature to even care.

I hope not all living matter is spiritually mature, the millions of bacteria in my digestive tract that is currently dealing with the Chili Beef Lasagne best not be praying to the "creator", that would freak me out.

How do you know it isn't flat but round? If you answer that its round and not flat you'll have to explain that the only reason for you knowing that, wasn't because its round, but because you've been told from another source that its round.

The Earth isn't flat, it isn't round either, its actually concave....didn't you recieve the memo?

I know you are joking when you say that, or rather making a point - how DO we know anything unless we have seen real evidence ourselves.?

Well I have seen more than enough evidence of many things to convince me that the "theory" is correct, and right now many of us can experience the evidence whever we want.

I believe in the following "theory's".

The Theory of Gravitation.
Germ Theory.
The Natural Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Electricity.
The Theory of Carbon Dating.
The Theory of Molecular Genetics.

"Myths" I dont believe in.

The Myth of Heaven.
The Myth of Hell.
The Myth of God(s).
The Myth of dead people walking.
The Myth of Unicorns.
The Myth of The Loch Ness Monster.


Andy

[Darth Santa Fe]

Yeah right. Are you serious ? What about all those crazy abortion ppl that shoot doctors ? Or Christian fundamentalist in states and that ******** they call "intelligent design" I mean those poor brainwashed souls are refusing to even acknowledge evolution.... Or the same crazy christian souls stopping new research (stemcells and so on)? You kinda left out those scary, dark and dangerous parts of that lovely religion that we call Christianity. But most ppl don't like to bash on Christianity today, it's more rewarding to talk **** about Muslims just like Jews were on the "spot" 50-60 years ago.
Religion, ALL religions are evil and are there because weak ppl need something to hold on to in time of crisis.

Yes, there are a few out there who do exactly the wrong thing. And then when that happens, people will automatically think that because one person from a group is bad, all of them are bad.

I'm a very scientific person in my beliefs. I like to study both Evolution and Intelligent Design. Evolution has encouraged plenty of scientific breakthroughs over time, but none of its main elements have been fully proven yet. The scientific community is still going on faith alone that all of Evolution is true. Interestingly though, there's a huge amount of hard scientific evidence that the universe is only a few thousand years old, which is automatically denied because the evolutionists refuse to even glance at it.

Let's consider the Sun. To have formed in a cloud of gas, the hydrogen would have had to be near absolute zero to form together. And at the rate it would've moved, it would have taken 14,658 billion years to form! That's over 700 times the estimated age of the universe!

Going back to Earth, why haven't the transitional forms of today's lifeforms been found in massive numbers? How could dinosaurs have been mentioned in Job (pronounced "jobe"), one of the oldest books ever discovered? Also, genetic mutations have never been known to do any good. They always hurt whatever may have them.

And as for the neanderthals, they've now been discovered as just your typical humans. All but one have straight backs (the one had arthritis and a vitamin D deficiency), they buried their dead with flowers, they had their own religion, they made aerodynamic spears, they polished their axes with diamonds, and they were able to speak as well as anyone else.

I could go on and on and on and on about all this stuff. But the real scientific proof points to Intelligent Design, and there's plenty of proof of the events in the Bible.

I also like to believe that there is a God, who is perfect and who loves me no matter what may happen. He gives my life purpose and direction, and all I have to do to earn a place in Heaven is believe in and accept His son Jesus. That's why I'm a christian.

[andyb]

I'm a very scientific person in my beliefs. I like to study both Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Well you certianly have the correct idea of scientific principles - you cant dismiss it without understanding it. I understand it and then laugh - a lot, it is utterly ridiculous from a scientific standpoint because is does not stand up to scrutiny at all.

Evolution has encouraged plenty of scientific breakthroughs over time, but none of its main elements have been fully proven yet.

How much proof do you need to believe something is true.?

I have seen and understand enough evidence to believe that it is true, there is a huge amount of evidence from many different angles, and guess what, they all correlate.

The scientific community is still going on faith alone that all of Evolution is true.

Where did you get that crazy idea from.? The scientific community does not have faith it has assumptions and evidence.

Interestingly though, there's a huge amount of hard scientific evidence that the universe is only a few thousand years old, which is automatically denied because the evolutionists refuse to even glance at it.

HA HA HA HA HA HA, please send me a link so that I can dismiss it after reading it - I will withdraw my laughs, and appologize if there is a shred of "real" evidence.

Going back to Earth, why haven't the transitional forms of today's lifeforms been found in massive numbers?

For all of the reasons that you have already heard before.

How could dinosaurs have been mentioned in Job (pronounced "jobe"), one of the oldest books ever discovered?

I bet whoever wrote that book didnt use the word "Dinosaur". Did the book of Job give any specifics.?

Also, genetic mutations have never been known to do any good. They always hurt whatever may have them.

You really dont understand genetics at all do you.?

And as for the neanderthals, they've now been discovered as just your typical humans.

Please provide evidence.? If you are going to talk about scientific discoveries you will need to provide evidence.

they had their own religion

Evidence needed.

they polished their axes with diamonds

Evidence needed.

I could go on and on and on and on about all this stuff. But the real scientific proof points to Intelligent Design, and there's plenty of proof of the events in the Bible.

Sorry for swearing, that is utter shit, a huge steaming pile of shit.

"If" creationism (Inteligent Design) has lots of proof and evidence why do all scientists of any merit laugh at it.? It is PSEUDOscience, not the real thing, there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny for creationism, and the better answer is ALWAYS Natural Evolution. Put down your Bible for a while and read the contents of the following link and then think about creationism and why scientists of any merit find it stupid.

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

If you and other creationists are going to use "science" to prove your theory to be correct you must do it correctly, if you dont (which you dont) creationism can never be believable by anyone with half a brain and understands the "scientific method".

I also like to believe that there is a God, who is perfect and who loves me no matter what may happen.

Fine, I have no problem with that.

He gives my life purpose and direction, and all I have to do to earn a place in Heaven is believe in and accept His son Jesus.

Thats up to you to believe, but I wont ever meet you in heaven because I wont be going there.

That's why I'm a christian.

No your not, you are a "Christian" because of where you were born, the time you were born, and to parents who "taught" you to be "Christian" from a young age, in exactly the same way that you were taught your language and which side of the road to drive your car on.

Things would be very different if you were born in a different country, at a different time, and to different parents who "taught" you to believe in another myth (or no myth). You are an example of why all religions are fundamentally the same and only non-religious people can grasp the simple point that their correct religion is the correct one because that is how brainwashing works, and few can do it better than parents with their own religion.


Andy

[neon joe]

The scientific community is still going on faith alone that all of Evolution is true.

Ok, here's the thing. It may seem like faith, but it only seems that way. Scientist think evolution is correct because the theory's based on repeatable observations. Evolution might very well be wrong, but it will only be replaced (or altered) by applying some new evidence. This is pretty common in science.
Example: Newton's equations are wrong (strickly speaking). His equations are incorrect. Yet, students are still taught his equations, because for any object that is going slow enough (a fraction of the speed of light), the equations are close enough. Einstein changed the way that scientists think about time and motion.
This happens in science all the time - which is why scientists (myself included) are annoyed when someone calls science "faith". The only faith that I have (in science) is that the current theories are the best natural explanations that we have of how the world works (right now).
By the way, I use the word "natural" because a scientific theory, by definition, can't include any supernatural explanation (e.g., science can't just say "God did it").[/b]

P.S. Sorry if my thoughts are a little disjointed - I didn't get much sleep last night

[neon joe]

If you and other creationists are going to use "science" to prove your theory to be correct you must do it correctly

Good luck.

I've been trying to convince my fellow Christians (yes, I'm one of those ) of this for years.

The problem, as I see it, is that some Christians have a specific model of the universe in their minds. Anything they find that supports that model is immediately accepted, anything that weakens that model is immediately dismissed.
Carbon dating is the most obvious example of this - everyone I've met who thinks carbon dating is unreliable doesn't really know how it works. It's dismissed because if carbon dating is reliable, a young Earth seems unlikely.

[xan_user]

One doesn't need carbon dating to realize the world/universe is exponentially older than the bible says it is.

Some intelligence however, is required.

Modern 'western religions' are simply a meshed, popularized copy of the mythology and religions that existed long before Moses, Jesus and even before the pharaohs.

It is a great piece of Pulp Fiction though. (Ok maybe Papyrus Fiction is more accurate?)

[aristide1]

Anything they find that supports that model is immediately accepted, anything that weakens that model is immediately dismissed.

Ah, the Sarah Palin version of objectivity.