Godzira

Be greatful that the majority of your education is canadian. Look at what you did in 10th grade and that's what you'll be doing in 12th in the states.

The most intelligent comment on this thread, not that it's for me to judge:) I totally agree. It would be an intelligent comment. Unfortunately, religion is not as tolerant of others. As a whole religion has a bloody history or oppression and recruitment. I respect that people get strength from religion, but I strongly disagree with what is done with that strength.

World peace makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll: 1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait. 2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human. 3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now. 4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe. See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too! So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not? Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing! Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this: 1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or 2.) God is feeding the universe energy. Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles. Interesting really, you know that the thermodynamics argument doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hold water so you state that you still find god more believable even if I show the thermodynamics argument to be bunk. So basically you have no logical reason to believe in god other than the fact that you grew up hearing about him and he gives you a warm fuzzy. Ok thanks for playing our game.

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll: 1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait. 2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human. 3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now. 4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe. See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too! So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not?

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

Shotgun.....

There is no proof that it is. Religion is the only thing that people assume exists in the absence of disproof. There are many things that cannot be disproved and they are all assumed not to exist because there is no proof that they do. They are not assumed to exist because there is no proof that they do not.

Religion isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t special. I suppose what frustrates me so much about your ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅpointÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Emotion I don't think is the right word to describe faith, but I understand what you're saying. They aren't purely emotional though - they just aren't concretely scientific. They don't prove anything, but it's not just "I feel this way so it's this way." I'm not naming the specific reasons I'm talking about because I don't want to argue about them because people will try and scientifically disprove them, which is inherently silly. I'm also not responding anymore about this because I've made my point and there isn't anything else to discuss. You all can keep asking for scientific proof that God exists, that's fine. Until you properly understand the signifigant differences in science, religion, and philosophy - this goes no where. Scientific proof would be great but I am more open minded than to be pigeon holed into that. I would simply like to see non-biblical evidence. My problem is the whole ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtesting scripture with scriptureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

So you would agree then that they are purely emotional reasons?

You say you have reasons, what are they? ArenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t reasons the same as evidence, or are they purely emotional reasons. If they are to be considered evidence than influences your tendencies for belief than arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t they subject to the same proofs that other forms of evidence are?

So as a Christian, how do you decide what is propaganda and what is not. The same church that feeds you the propaganda, decided on the contents of the bible, and on the modern interpretations of that content. How is it that the bible is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅinspiredÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

You are absolutely right. I am actually Buddhist which most classify as a religion. So let me be more specific, Christians are threatened by science and Christians have seen fit to attack it over and over again throughout centuries and into modern day.

I was editing my post to answer your question as you were posting back. As for your comments ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Å1) I've never attacked science for not having enough proof.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s amazing to me the way religion attacks science saying there is not enough proof for scientific theories and then immediately tries to put itself in a class outside of the same type of proof. I actually transferred out of a collage class when I was younger because the professor was teaching that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åevery piece of classical writing must be analyzed from the point of view of the people who wrote it, with the only exception being the bibleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I could make the same claims about an invisible spoon that most make about god and it would be equally disprovable. If god has actively interacted with us and our world we should be able to find evidence of this interaction, and then from the evidence, draw a god conclusion. You cannot draw a conclusion and then search for evidence. Proof of lack of existence is not proof of existence.

Nikola Tesla FTW

Kind of like Santa huh?

If you look at the biblical teachings, there is no way that they could be considered eastern by any modern sense. Eastern now refers to an Asian form of thought, the likes of which is not present in biblical works.

I have to give you credit ghost. At least you are willing to admit that evolution might be viable instead of refusing to consider it outright sighting bad science the way most creationists do.

Even though I agree with you, god being fake and humans being monkeys are two completely different things. Now I love a good debate and I am fully willing to admit that I can get rather heated at times. But this is simply posting something inflammatory just to see what reaction you get. We have a thread already covering both of these topics. It's called Do YOU believe in God? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s only 82 pages long, I see how you could have missed it. GhostRanger and Pianofriek have been debating with me on there for days. Though I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t agree with them, and we have thrown insults from time to time, they are good sports. Maybe you can come over and help me prove that we are descended from apes? I wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t ask much of you, all you will need to do is make one post and I will have my proof. Please allow those of us debating these things to continue arduously trying to knock down each others entire system of belief without starting frivolous threads for attention. Lock PLEASE!! By the way are>r don't be lazy.

It took me way too long to understand your post. Hint: don't use big words when you don't need to, especially words that you made up. Of course philosophical and scientific reductionism is going to be similar; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t share the word ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreductionismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ for nothing. My apologies, most of my debating takes place on other forums and the term itself we derived out of necessity during one of these debates as a way to differentiate two separate forms of reductionism. I guess I had become used to it. #-o

We are HomoSapiens. One of the earliest candidates that we have was a bipedal ape named Australopithecus Africanus. Though not a human, thus no H0m0 in the name, Australopithecus was bipedal and most likely was a user of natural tools. However, it is not considered a tool user because it did not manufacture any forms of primitive tools.

Luckily, two non-christians that get married don't care. But either way, there are civil liberties that are tied to a government recognized union. I think that any two individuals that want to be paired this way should have the option open to them.