Ooooh, a new cult!

[levislade]

In case any of you missed today's story about the uber-scary Pastor Judah Smith and his local Christ Cult: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/243434_youthpastor05.html

My favorite quote:
"Camp totally changed my life," said Imani Lawson, 20. "Before it, I was like, 'Why am I going to camp? I'm a pre-med and Spanish major and my grades suck.' But I asked God about it and God totally spoke to me about my grades. He said, 'Just keep going to church, I'll take care of that.' " And he has, Lawson said. "School became so easy, I'm like, 'Wow, God.' "

"Wow, God," indeed.

[Gomezticator]

Finding God and applying the Bible and so on to your everyday life, after stripping away all the theocracy, is basically an elaborate way of saying, "Fuck it. What's the big deal?" which takes the pressure off everyday stresses.

Of course, that's fine as long as you don't get people who, say, become president and piss away the nation's future, because doing so doesn't seem like such a big deal when you go to church every Sunday.

[levislade]

Yeah, sure, it takes the pressure off everyday stresses, unless you (or your parents or friends) are gay, or have gotten an abortion, or are one of the millions of normal people who are going to burn in the fiery pits of hell according to this douchebag. And yes, peer pressure is a bad thing, but pressuring your peers to join a cult is just as bad as pressuring them to drink and do drugs and have sex, in my opinion.

I just hope I don't live to see what this generation of drones does to the country and the world.

[Gomezticator]

And there are those factors as well. I never said it was sound or positive thinking. But I can see why people 'feel saved'.

[Shackletodd]

Cool new packaging. I wonder how he was able to aford his new house? I bet he plays rock music before and after his sermons.

[misdeavious]

Honestly, i would rather a world where people cared more about others than themselves and believed in something than a world with people addicted to drugs, stealing instead of working, teenage girls getting pregnant and commiting suicide coz they can't stand the pain of their last break-up or their parents divorce...i would prefer a world full of hope than hopelessness...

[levislade]

Honestly, i would rather a world where people cared more about others than themselves and believed in something than a world with people addicted to drugs, stealing instead of working, teenage girls getting pregnant and commiting suicide coz they can't stand the pain of their last break-up or their parents divorce...i would prefer a world full of hope than hopelessness...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that:

Freaky Jesus cult = caring more about others + "believing in something" > a secular, non-cult-based life, which apparently = people addicted to drugs + teenage girls getting pregnant, etc.?

Or phrased otherwise:

Jesuscultmind ("hope") > nonJesuscultmind (hopelessness)?

If that's what you're saying, I don't even know where to begin. No wait, I do; it's here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

If that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying?

[misdeavious]

good point...misguided, but good...
so i live in australia and i just finished a conference that Judah Smith spoke at...it was incredible...i'm not part of a cult...Christianity as it should be is not a cult
there are so many "christians" who don't live like they should and that's the reason things are still going wrong - perhaps even worse than it should be.
Christianity is not a religion and it's definately not a cult, there's no rules and stuff...you dont have to pray 5 times a day, there's no ritual animal slaughters, you don't even have to go to church, but you do have to have a relationship with God and when you have that you want to go to church and help people and stuff
but yeah, 2 questions...why do you think you're on this earth?
and how do you think this earth was made?

[Kirklandite]

why do you think you're on this earth?
and how do you think this earth was made?

1. Because my parents decided to have a child and had sex.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Now, why does Judah Smith equate premarital sex and homosexuality as sins on par with rape? I thought Christianity was supposed to be about love and tolerance. "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged".

[misdeavious]

so how'd ur parents get here, and their parents, and their parents...

With the whole premarital sex and rape and whatever - to us they're different, they have different consequences and stuff, but to God its all disobeying him and it's all the same. I'm no better than Hitler and he's the same as mother teresa in God's eyes. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23...
And we are not meant to judge people who break God's laws, that's for God to do...but human laws like murder and rape and stuff we have been given the authority to judge those.

That's really interesting that you believe that about how the world was made...why is it sooo easy for people to believe that be some random chance something happened and life was created, but they are so against believing that something would have created it. So if stuff just 'came into being' who created the universe that the earth came out of?
Einstein said "The more he studied the universe, the more he believed in a higher power."

[levislade]

why is it sooo easy for people to believe that be some random chance something happened and life was created, but they are so against believing that something would have created it. So if stuff just 'came into being' who created the universe that the earth came out of?


It's easy because there are billions upon billions of planets in this universe, which has been around for billions upon billions of years. It is difficult for our brains to comprehend time and space on this scale, but it pretty much insures that there are bound to be a few planets in this huge expanse that contain sentient, hairless creatures who need to make up gods to explain their presence.

This need you have to have everything explained by some sort of creator ("Who created the universe?") is just a byproduct of your brain's rejection of the insignificance of us all, along with generations of memes telling you that something called God is responsible.

Obviously I don't think I'm going to convince you there is no God, and you as an individual are not offending me with your Christianity, but when people start saying my friends are doing evil things just by living their lives, and those people start to gather followers by the hundreds who can't think for themselves . . . it starts to bug me, if not scare me. And I didn't say Christianity was a cult (although I do believe it started as one), but I think this freaky new youth church qualifies as one.

[Jupiter]

I think it would be nice to have something to believe in. The way I live now sucks. It would be great to know that somebody was looking out for me, or even cared how I was, that I was still alive.

All these people arguing, trying to one up each other and trying to prove how they're hipper than the next guy can't be all there is.

http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-7/davey_goliath_bedroom_small.jpg

[Jenny]

The argument that there must be a supreme being to create the first thing in the universe is as old as St. Thomas Aquinas' writings in the middle ages. The fatal flaw is the circular assumption that everything must have a cause. Consider this: If it is true for the universe (it must have a cause), it is also true of the supreme being (it too must have a cause). But what "caused" the supreme being? Wouldn't THAT be the real first cause? And what "caused" it? Hard as it is to accept, or even grasp really, something was before anything else and it had no cause. Isn't it is easier to believe that that first thing was a big bang than a thinking being that popped into existance from nothing?

[misdeavious]

I love how we continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars on astronomy and finding out whats 'really out there' meanwhile we can't even take care of the people here...people are dying every day and most ppl are too concerned about what they can get out of this life that they dont care about increasing the quality of someone elses - whether u believe that this life is all there is or that when you die there's something else, its so not on...and then there's the billions we spend on astrology, and it's all because people want to feel like there's something else, something greater in control of their destiny...
I grew up in a Christian family so it's all i know - but about 6 months ago i was totally anti-God, i was over it. in that time i was running late 4 the train and was like 'God, i pray that i make the train' and then i'm like 'i shouldnt be asking God, i dont believe in God'. That got me thinking that when i'm in control of my life there's no help - it's just me. I can't control the train or anything. There has to be something more
I dont know how God got there...i honestly dont know, but i know that humans love to try and have a reason and explain things away - but there are things noone can understand, things noone was meant to understand. You can spend ur life trying to find the answers in science and whatever but you'll never find 'the meaning of life', you'll never find where we truly came from. I'm scared of eternity, and i think that's one reason that people dont believe in that, coz they cannot imagine a life that doesnt end, and also they cant believe that such a supreme being would at all care about some random humans on a random planet somewhere in the endless expanse of universe. As crazy as it seems i know that it's the truth...
Most people hate the way they live, hate the circumstances they're in, hate something about their lives that they can't control, but when you believe in a God and you are living for something and others than yourself your problems aren't so big and ur focus changes...that makes me happier and that brings me joy...and i dont want to live a moment without joy

[poochiekafelnikov]

I may be cabrera-like in my visage but I'm down with JC...draw the line with jars of clay

[Shackletodd]

I think the problem that most thinking people in the 21st century have with organized religion is the 14th century way of looking at life especially when we have seen just how wrong the organized religions of the past have been ( cruasades, inquisitions and what have you). People like brother Judah offer simple solutions that do not appeal to some people. He is also packaging 18th century evangelicalism in a shiny 21st century package,with the religious right infringing on our government more and more every day, pushing nonsense like creationism and the exclusionist attitude (that only people who share their veiws will have a reward in an afterlife) it's hard to subscribe to his way of thinking as this is offensive to people who lead good lives and worship God in their own way. Brother Jones thought he had the answers, As did brother Applewhite. There is nothing wrong with religion and nothing wrong with science. The problem is value spheres conficting and separating humanity to the point where our social evolution is crippled. Might I suggest 'the marrige of sense and soul' by Ken Wilbur.

Nobel prize winning Leon Lederman "only God knows what happened at the very beggining".

[misdeavious]

i am aware that many of you don't believe in Jesus and the bible and stuff... but throughout Jesus' ministrys he mainly targeted the Pharisees, which were people who knew the old testament laws, and enforced the laws - but they were missing the whole reason for the laws...it was to bring people back to God. The pharisees are much like the hypocritical so-called Christians (otherwise known as half-casts) that give Christianity a bad rep. its true that many 'religious' endeavours have backfired and caused more mess than they fixed. but think of the many incredible famous Christians who followed God, against the 'human' way of life and understanding, not in it for themselves and what they could get but to inspire others to a better way of life, and help in their sphere of influence...people like Martin Luther, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr...these people are the ones who have made a stand against injustice and changed the world for the better. Like i've said before - true Christianity is not a religion with lots of rules and traditions and stuff, it's about ur heart and serving the one that brought you back into relationship with the one that created you - like it was always supposed to be. When ur focused on doing that, none of these worldly things matter, because you know that there's a plan and purpose 4 ur life, and you know that this world is not our home - a quote i heard sums it up "it's the toilet stop on the highway of life"...

[Ozzie]

I totally agree with misdeveous. Christinity has been sometimes shown in a bad way, but when it all come down to it- it has nothing to do with anyone else (not even a church) it is all about an individuals personal relationship with God. I don't believe that Generation Church is a youth cult- i think it is a place where young people can go to grow their relationship with God. Since when has a cult ever gone out into the community to specifically help other people, or when has a cult ever promoted moral behaviours and health lifestyles...

[Gomezticator]

How about someone who claims to have a personal relationship with Buddha? Or Satan? Or Allah? Such people get anything from snickers to attacked. But for some reason, people who worship Jesus get a free pass. Then, when someone says something about a Christian's beliefs, the Christian totally flips out like the person just burned their church down.

Or better yet, I choose to believe in myself and my ability to interact within the world, its limits and my own limits, but meanwhile, atheists and agnostics get persecuted by Christians and told they'll burn in hell. Since you can't agree to disagree, why should we?

Cults and churches go out into the community with one intention and one intention only: to recruit new members. The peripheral activities, the community service and games for the kids and so on, are just tools to that end.

[levislade]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ozzie]

Gomez, i think it is awesome that you have belief in your own ability but don't you ever think about how you got here on earth? why your here...like what is your purpose and who created you?

About what you said about Chistians who say to others that they are going to burn in hell...There is no doubt that there are some Christians who are self righteous and give Christianity a bad name, however not all Christians are like that. I'm a Christian and I know that I have no place to EVER judge someone else. There is a passage in the bible which saids 'he without sin cast the first stone' this demonstrates that no one is perfect, especially Chsitians, therefore we shouldn't ever criticize someone else.

Why do you think churchs go into the community to 'recruit'? and what do you think they do when they get all these people? i don't quite get what you mean...when i share with someone about my faith, it isn't to try and persuade them to come join my church but to introduce them to God and i don't share unless someone asked. What is the point in recruiting people to just have a big group??

[levislade]

Why do you think churchs go into the community to 'recruit'? and what do you think they do when they get all these people? i don't quite get what you mean...when i share with someone about my faith, it isn't to try and persuade them to come join my church but to introduce them to God and i don't share unless someone asked. What is the point in recruiting people to just have a big group??

This is how churches perpetuate themselves - they proselytize and recruit and convert people. Ever had Mormons knock on your door? Ever heard of missionaries? Are you actually saying that churches don't do this? I'm confused.

[Shackletodd]

What is the point in recruiting people to just have a big group?? Money. Bigger churces with more parishoners to give more money to build bigger churches with more parishoners to give more money to build bigger churches with more parishoners......... It's like that anti cocaine commercial from the 90s. Behold your new Pharisees.

[Gomezticator]

Gomez, i think it is awesome that you have belief in your own ability but don't you ever think about how you got here on earth? why your here...like what is your purpose and who created you?

Certainly. I must also mention that I was raised by a Catholic father and a born again Baptist mother, so religion and Sundays at church were definitely a sizable part of my childhood (my father was on-and-off in his attendance, which explains the divide). I've read large portions of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, and on and on. That said, eventually I asked questions to myself and, very long story very short, I'm agnostic. Yes, the fact that sentient human life has proliferated on this planet of all planets, where the conditions happen to be perfect, is quite the anomaly... but I also have yet to see conclusive concrete evidence that a supernatural being is pulling the world's strings. (We also lack the scientific capability to see beyond this solar system, and to see beyond our own three dimensional comprehension, so who's to say other intelligent species aren't living 7 million light years away?)

Speaking of science, the Bible was written during a time when science didn't exist. Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus and the Disciples didn't know how weather, thunderstorms, flash floods, diseases and a variety of other things happened. The belief in God was, in part, an attempt to explain these inexplainable phenomena. Example: Was the Red Sea parted by God, or did Moses, seeing what were storm clouds on the horizon, time a trip onto the Sinai Isthmus right before a flash flood? It would be centuries before Newton, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein and a host of others were able to figure out how these things happened.

That's what's troublesome to many about the Bush Adminstration's push for Intelligent Design teaching in schools. Evolution was derived from centuries of scientific analysis and experimentation that led to its conclusion and the Big Bang Theory. Creationism is a story, told by a book written 1600 years before anyone practiced any kind of science, that tries to explain why we exist. And yet it's the old folklore story being pushed over the tested scientific theory.

Why do you think churchs go into the community to 'recruit'? and what do you think they do when they get all these people? i don't quite get what you mean...when i share with someone about my faith, it isn't to try and persuade them to come join my church but to introduce them to God and i don't share unless someone asked. What is the point in recruiting people to just have a big group??

I'm sure the intentions of most Christian civilians are noble, though Shackletodd makes an excellent point: churches' members and their donations (offerings) run their churches. More members, more offerings. It's in a church's best interest to bring in new members.

[Pro-Pain]

Nice to see people can talk and debate instead of mocking and calling each other names. :)
I used to be a very stubborn and proud atheist. Now I am a believer.
Now Big Bang seems to be like a hurricane Katrina blowing over the dumpster trying to assembly oeing 747 - not possible, will never happen ( just makes more mess and chaos).
We are not able to create LIFE (pregnancy and cloning are excluded)!!! We cannot even create one cell!!! All we can do is create life our of something that is ALIVE already. I think its human pride to believe that we are superior in the whole universe. There must have been SOMEBODY who planned it all and gave it a reason. For me, Christ is the best thinker, teacher and philosopher in the whole history and those who hate him are those who don' understand his message. Dont be mad at stuff you dont get. It may take a while to catch on. I dont understand my control freak neighbor but it doesnt mean I have to hate her.

[damstraiht]

The thing that I find so funny about Christianity is that apparently God is the epitome of perfection.

No sin...no margin for error...no room for thinking that He might be wrong...I mean he created us so he must be right...or is he?

Argue against the Bible and point out its fallacies and then the defense is,

"Well it's mans interpretation so it's not perfect"

So did Judas hang himself or throw himself headlong and "his bowels gushed forth"?

Maybe he hung himself, then the rope broke, and when he smacked the ground then his bowels gushed forth.

There is most likely a greater truth behind the Universe but I think it would be better if we could see it without filtering through some idyllic Godhead figure...

And to be perfectly honest why do we always get the same tired argument that we should have a purpose in life? Like how did I get here, why is the universe here, was this designed or an accident?

Man's inherent fear of death drives them to believe there is an afterlife and to create ideal situations that allow them to adequately face that fear as a transition to eternity. (Oops sorry that's probably theology 101 but I never took it)

The glory of God and eternal life has no interest for me.

In fact I think it would be rather boring after a few millenia.


I wonder what God politics is like? Religous politics seems rather rigid to me and leaves no margin for free thinking.

Is God's any better?

Thanks for playing I'm right and your wrong!!! Wait no your right and I'm wrong...durn it I'm confused again

Brought to you in sponsorship by The Holy Trinity and the You're Going to Hell Butt Trumpet Review

Religion is the Opiate of the Masses – Karl Marx

www.murderofcrowsmusic.com (http://www.murderofcrowsmusic.com/)

[Pro-Pain]

Since you quote Karl Marx you obviously can quote Engels and Lenin or Trocki - the biggest COMMUNISTS ever. Communism sucks as there NEVER was so called free thinking in communist countries. You dont think like government want you to - too bad- bullet in the head, you are the enemy of the state.
Communism is DICTATORSHIP so consider yourself LUCKY to live in USA where you can practice BushBashing or KerryBashing or any bashing you can think of on daily basis and remain alive.

I consider ATHEISM as a form of RELIGION and I dont appreciate people or government imposing on me and my family THEIR religion which - in this case - is ATHEISM.
Its a free country and people dont get killed just because they dont agree with the "AUTHORITY" represented by some CONROL FREAKS like Uniot Soviet did.
Faith is God searching man, religion is man searching God. Many never find him.
Since mockery is the biggest weapon of an atheist that is all you can come up with. Evolution , big bang etc still remain THEORIES so I give you credit for not being able to prove that God Does NOT exist.

[damstraiht]

Who said anything about being a communist?...

Oh that was you reading too much into my words..

And who the hell are those other guys(isnt Lenin that guy the former Soviet Union still keeps under glass? JK )....just cause Marx was a commie doesn't mean it isnt still a good quote....

I like all kinds of quotes...

Here's some of my faves...

You cross a potato and a penis you get a dick-tater

A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject

Ever noticed most of the women opposed to abortion are women you wouldnt want to fuck in the first place...George Carlin

And a joke for the self righteous
Dolly Parton and Princess Fergie get killed on the same day

At the pearly gates St Peter says

Sorry ladies...heavens all full up but we have room for one more, you have to prove which is more worthy to get in

Dolly thinks about it a minute, whips off her top and shakes her boobs at St Peter...

St Peter goes wow Ok Princess Fergie...your next...

Fergie thinks about it a minute, reaches into her purse and pulls out a Massengils and douches in front of St Peter

St Peter thinks about it a minute and decides...Fergie...You're in..

Dolly Parton Yells...Well why the hell's that?

St Peter Replies:

Sorry Dolly but a Royal Flush beats a Pair anyday...

And who is forcing anything on you?

We didnt make you come here and read this so nobody is forcing you to do anything....you did it to yourself....

[misdeavious]

God isn't the only perfect one...angels also, but only because they don't have free will...well they do, but they have no grace when they do wrong. God sees so much more than what we see. He sees the past, present and future all at once. He knows the end before it begins. It is unfathomable for us to comprehend. So he is perfect...Jesus was perfect because he obeyed God fully. So as far as Christianity is concerned the epitomy of perfection rests in God therefore God has to be perfect.
Atheism in a form of religion as far as the true meaning of the word is concerned...yet i don't know if, by everyday interpretations of the word it would be classed as that. I don't think true Christianity is a religion either simply because there are no rules and no certainties, apart from Jesus being the only way to get into heaven. What's true for some Christians may not be true for others, depending on their stage of life, their interpretation, their relationship with God. For example i drink fairly regularly, well at least once a week i'll have a few with some friends and that's cool for me. I don't get drunk and do stupid things but it's cool to just chill and have a few beers right. Whereas my brother he does not touch alcohol. A few years ago he would often come home drunk and because of his experiences and God's convictions he just doesn't drink except for special occasions he might have one. Then there's a friend of mine who very much hates alcohol because of what she believe's the bible says. All of us are right, and if we are seeking God he will show us where we're wrong. It's the same with so many trivial things, which is why there are different denominations. I don't think any of them are wrong as long as they are serving, seeking and following God, i have no problem that they may not believe in something that i do. Like i said, as long as you truly believe that Jesus died for you, that we are called to be like him and that his grace is your only way to heaven and you live accordingly, then it doesn't matter what you believe about the little stuff.
Gomezticator, you remind me a lot of one of my other brothers. He did grow up in the church, but the only church he went to was my first church (he's a fair bit older than me) and bases our beliefs on what he saw there which was traditionalism and definately 'religion'. Since then he left the church as we moved to another, and he does believe there is a God, but doesn't really care about any of that until he needs help and then cries out, God helps, then he goes on with his life only to run into trouble again, and the cycle starts over. It's really sad to see that because i know that there's a better life for him. I often talk with him and he's always got some sort of situation that he can't deal with, and i pray for him and i honestly believe that the prayers of my family are the only thing that is helping him...it's really sad to see that he's not improving at all. Anyway, i don't remember my point...oh yeah...sooooo many people i know that aren't Christians have been brought up in a 'Christian' environment and have seen a really bad example of God through church, school or their so-called Christian family. But honestly, we have to get past these stereotypes. Things have happened to me, some by 'Christian' men, but i know that my God is bigger and the Holy Spirit is my comforter, so although it's hard i still hang on to God.
I really don't fear dying...essentially it's all good to me. Granted that if I didn't have God i probably would, unless i died when i was old. But that brings on a new thing...i sometimes get really scared of not dying, having no end. That freaks me out! But i have to face the reality that i'm going to live forever and i can do it in a place with God, or without God. A lot of people have some really twisted views of what heaven and hell are.
Another thing, Mormon's aren't Christians, as much as they'd like to believe it. I don't agree with the way they do things. And JW's too...they are very exclusive and don't practice grace. They also believe that you need to earn a place in heaven which is very contradictory to the bible.
One more thought, if you believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, i'm just curious how you can believe that essentially some random fungus created you. You must have a really low opinion of yourself or believe that fungus is as powerful as God...
Sorry it's really long, and it probably doesn't make sense, but hopefully i've covered everything

[Violet_DaGrinder]

The argument that there must be a supreme being to create the first thing in the universe is as old as St. Thomas Aquinas' writings in the middle ages. The fatal flaw is the circular assumption that everything must have a cause. Consider this: If it is true for the universe (it must have a cause), it is also true of the supreme being (it too must have a cause). But what "caused" the supreme being? Wouldn't THAT be the real first cause? And what "caused" it? Hard as it is to accept, or even grasp really, something was before anything else and it had no cause. Isn't it is easier to believe that that first thing was a big bang than a thinking being that popped into existance from nothing?


I feel like I've made this exact point on this exact thread on fourteen billion different message boards, and it is ALWAYS ignored by the "God as causeless requisite first cause" folks. Just completely ignored.

Sometimes being right is lonely. I feel for you. :D

One little extension: ETERNITY, people. If you can grasp eternity, than the whole cause/effect question of the beginning of the universe no longer makes sense. The universe (or, at least, somethingness) is eternal.

God doesn't help us solve the "why is there something rather than nothing" question because God is something. This is not a difficult point to grasp. Much easier to grasp than the concept of infinity. Yet, the causation argument refuses to die. . .

[misdeavious]

The physical universe hasn't always been here, it was created. Created by something more than physical, in a spiritual sense...a whole different realm. That's why we can't see what's going on around us, we see the effects of it but not the actual battle that's going on. In the bible it says that satan is a lion on the prowl, looking for prey, but we don't see a physical lion walking around. But when the supernatural comes into the physical, that's when we see miracles. Anyway, back to the point, it's just as easy for me to believe that God is eternal as it is for me to believe that the universe is eternal, if that was all there was. But i know that there's more, that there's something more than what we can see. Everyone has faith in something, and it seems that having faith that some fungus could create the intricate balance of the earth, the detailed leaves, the variety of plants and animals, and the complexity of humans...if you believe that then you must have such strong faith in the power of fungus.

[Violet_DaGrinder]

The physical universe hasn't always been here, it was created. Created by something more than physical, in a spiritual sense...a whole different realm. That's why we can't see what's going on around us, we see the effects of it but not the actual battle that's going on. In the bible it says that satan is a lion on the prowl, looking for prey, but we don't see a physical lion walking around. But when the supernatural comes into the physical, that's when we see miracles. Anyway, back to the point, it's just as easy for me to believe that God is eternal as it is for me to believe that the universe is eternal, if that was all there was. But i know that there's more, that there's something more than what we can see. Everyone has faith in something, and it seems that having faith that some fungus could create the intricate balance of the earth, the detailed leaves, the variety of plants and animals, and the complexity of humans...if you believe that then you must have such strong faith in the power of fungus.

I's fine that it's just as easy to believe God is eternal. That doesn't fix the causation argument. Eternal "somethingness" doesn't argue against the existence of God, really. It just takes away the causation argument in favor of God.

My faith is not in fungus, my faith is in rationality. . . in the idea that my experience of my thoughts as logical and corresponding to reality in some way is an accurate experience of the world. Basically, I wish people who believe in irrational things (gods and whatnot) would just give up on the claim that their beliefs are rational, accept that their faith is not philosophically compatible with rationality, and go about happily irrational lives. :)

[Mrt1212]

the literal belief in a physical being named satan = nanners

[misdeavious]

first thing...i know this wasn't specifically at me but i don't believe satan is a physical being

second thing...believe it or not everyone goes through stuff that they can't rationally explain but all in all what you said
in the idea that my experience of my thoughts as logical and corresponding to reality in some way is an accurate experience of the world
that i agree with...but there's another element to it that i would have to add...

[abshreve]

First and foremost I would like to say that after reading this topic, I am pleased that people can have a civilized conversation about matters of faith and science. This thread started in response to an article written about Pastor Judah Smith and questioned his motives and intentions. I believe Pastor Judah has a desire to see people live up to their full potential in life. If he is empowering them to do so through the teachings of Christ and the word of God and they are better for it, why the critisism? It always turns to people's distaste for the church and the negatives that have been brought about by people letting their own desires get in the way. The common misconception is that christians are "brainwashed", but is it not just as easy to say that people who believe in evolution have been "brainwashed" by text books and society.

The problem, as pointed out earlier in this thread, is that everybody brings "religion" in the mix. Evolution is just as much a religion as christianity, it is a belief. For me, it is much easier to believe that there are things my simple human mind can't comprehend. We as humans have this hunger to know everything and explain it, so we devised different theories. It is much easier for me to believe that there is one omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator that I can't comprehend, than to believe this all happened by chance. It just makes more sense to me.

I would like to urge you in reading this to check out Pastor Judah's church and make a descision for yourself rather than listening to what someone else has told you. We as believers have heard your side most of our lives through school and media and have made our descisions accordingly. If nothing else, do a little homework before making your mind up about the subject. I'm sure you'd be surprised by what you'd find there, it is probably nothing like you think. If you don't feel comfortable with that, just ask God to show you if he's real. If you truly want to know, what could it hurt?

[misdeavious]

i think that's awesome abshreve...good work
i totally agree with the whole checking it out thing. So, i'm not from seattle, so i cant really help out that much, but i reckon that if you go visit Judahs church without misconception but an open mind you'll be changed and your perception of life will be different. If there's anything in your life that you regret, something you don't like - no matter what it is, take the chance, do whatever you can. Honestly there's no harm in checking this place out. If you're seriously gonna go, you can email me, and i'll try answer any questions and stuff, or just pray for you...

[levislade]

Ah, where to begin, abshreve? Here we go:

"Evolution is just as much a religion as christianity, it is a belief. "
Evolution is not a belief. It is a proven scientific theory based on experimentation, evidence and observation. Religious belief is based on absolutely nothing other than faith and myths. If you want to have that faith then bully for you, but you can not claim that science and religion are just two types of faith.

As to your suggestion to just 'check out' Pastor Judah and his church, I think I'll pass. The P-I article is pretty evenhanded, and gives the good Pastor plenty of room to make it clear in his own words that he's not the kind of guy I want to hang out with. To wit:
"'The era in which we live is one of the most critical turning points in American history,' Smith told an audience of college students last month. President Bush's Supreme Court nominations, he said, would be essential to determining 'whether or not we will continue to murder innocent lives in the womb of our women.'"
"Smith is blunt about his beliefs -- for example, that homosexuality is a sin, the same as murder, rape or living with your girlfriend -- and he has been working since childhood to convince others."

Again, I have no problem with people being religious in their own lives, but when it comes down to telling me and my friends what to do - and telling us we're no better than murderers or rapists, that's a goddamn problem, and it shouldn't be whitewashed as "a desire to see people live up to their full potential in life." That's horseshit. He desires to see people live up to his narrow view of how people should live, as described in a book written thousands of years ago by hallucinating fanatics.

[abshreve]

....And the civilized conversation goes right out the window. I don't even have the time to waste on explaining how evolution IS a belief and how there is no evidence to support it. Just because some guy with a PHD and a grudge against the church comes up with an idea and a bunch of other people jump on the band wagon, doesn't make it fact. It comes from this idea that we are getting smarter, when in actuality, maybe we are deteriorating mentally. Is it so hard to think that at one time maybe we used much more of our brain? Just because technology is increasing, does not mean our mental capacity is as well. Name one thing other than wine that gets better with age. And if you really want to get picky, even wine has a point where it will turn and start to go bad.Try to open your way of thinking instead of going with what everyone else says.

[Violet_DaGrinder]

....And the civilized conversation goes right out the window. I don't even have the time to waste on explaining how evolution IS a belief and how there is no evidence to support it. Just because some guy with a PHD and a grudge against the church comes up with an idea and a bunch of other people jump on the band wagon, doesn't make it fact. It comes from this idea that we are getting smarter, when in actuality, maybe we are deteriorating mentally. Is it so hard to think that at one time maybe we used much more of our brain? Just because technology is increasing, does not mean our mental capacity is as well. Name one thing other than wine that gets better with age. And if you really want to get picky, even wine has a point where it will turn and start to go bad.Try to open your way of thinking instead of going with what everyone else says.

Evolution does NOT come from "this idea that we are getting smarter."

Look, here's another idea that anti-science Christians typically ignore when I bring it up:

Do you believe in genetics? Do you believe that traits are inherited via DNA passed along to offspring? Do you believe that if we cross a Rottweiler with a Poodle there is no chance that we are going to end up with a Yorkie? Because, well, we can SEE these things. . . this is science that you are going to have to work really hard to explain away. I've never heard any sane person deny the reality of the basic priniciples of genetics.

Ok? With me?

Here's the question: how could evolution NOT happen? Given enough time, how could the basic 'survival of the fittest' concept not play itself out?

That may be hard to answer with an extremely limited understanding of evolutionary theory (eg. comes from "this idea that we are getting smarter"), but. . . I'd invite anybody to try. :)

[levislade]

....And the civilized conversation goes right out the window. . . . Try to open your way of thinking instead of going with what everyone else says.
I don't really see how I was uncivilized, but I'm sorry if you saw it that way. It's hard to point our willfully obtuse thinking without seeming rude.

As to opening one's way of thinking vs. going with what everyone else says, I would think that would make more sense directed to the huge percentage of Americans who regrettably believe the bible is documentary fact and that people were created by God as they are today.

[abshreve]

I apologize if I came across as rude in an earlier post. I guess I just have hard time understanding why you believe in evolution, as I'm sure you do about belief in God as the creator. At what point did you decide to to believe the way you do, and why? This subject interests me because I have seen both sides and been taught both sides and I have chosen MY truth. Not because of my ignorance or lack of education, but because of what I consider "proof". I mentioned earlier that evolution is a religion, not science. Science deals with things that can be tested, observed, and demonstrated, evolution has none of these qualities. I have nothing against science, just the fact that a theory (evolution) somehow found it's way into the same category. You have your religion, I have mine.

[Gomezticator]

This subject interests me because I have seen both sides and been taught both sides and I have chosen MY truth.

Hitler chose his truth, and used it as an excuse to kill 6 million Jews.

THERE. Let's invoke Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) * and end this silly debate, as it clearly isn't going anywhere. Both sides decided they aren't gonna see the other POV.

* Technically, I personally lost the argument, but losing the argument doesn't change the fact that evolution is based on centuries of scientific analysis, and creationism is based on vaguely reasoned religious beliefs based on a mythological book written 2000 years ago by people who didn't have science. Thank me later for falling on my rhetorical sword to speak the truth.

[Violet_DaGrinder]

I apologize if I came across as rude in an earlier post. I guess I just have hard time understanding why you believe in evolution, as I'm sure you do about belief in God as the creator. At what point did you decide to to believe the way you do, and why? This subject interests me because I have seen both sides and been taught both sides and I have chosen MY truth. Not because of my ignorance or lack of education, but because of what I consider "proof". I mentioned earlier that evolution is a religion, not science. Science deals with things that can be tested, observed, and demonstrated, evolution has none of these qualities. I have nothing against science, just the fact that a theory (evolution) somehow found it's way into the same category. You have your religion, I have mine.

That claim is true to the extent that belief in rationality as a means of understanding (at least some) truth about the world is, in fact, a belief. If you deny the usefulness of rationality, then yes, evolution is a religion just like Christianity.

But if you truly have nothing against science, presumably your issue is not with rationality, just with evolution. So, go back a couple of posts and answer my question. Genetic science + time = evolution. By necessity. So you are going to have to either explain away genetics or the passage of time to explain away evolution.

[abshreve]

Evolution and adaptation are entirely different things. I believe in adaptation. I've heard of experiments where a fresh water fish had salt slowly added to it's tank over time and eventually it became adapted to living in salt water. The fish did not become a sea cucumber though, still a fish. Animals can change and adapt to their environments, but they do not become different animals. Fresh water fish becoming salt water fish = adaptation. Fish growing legs and jumping completely out of the tank = evolution. Nobody answered my question on when and why they decided to go with the evolution theory as their basis for explaination of life. Oh and Gomez, Hitler did chose his truth and wasn't his truth evolution? As was Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini to name a few.

[Gomezticator]

Okay, abshreve, since you ignored Godwin's Law, let's continue.

Evolution and adaptation are entirely different things. I believe in adaptation. I've heard of experiments where a fresh water fish had salt slowly added to it's tank over time and eventually it became adapted to living in salt water.

But isn't that the definition of evolution? The fish, by virtue of adapting to the salt, EVOLVED to survive in its environment. Those are not different things: evolution is the process of species adapting to changes in their environment.

Animals can change and adapt to their environments, but they do not become different animals.

And the process of changing physical features in a species is glacial, something that happens over centuries and millenia. Religion is only a few millenia old, so how can it explain away the changes of organisms that take place over the span of thousands of years? Fish don't just grow legs and jump out of the tank: it happens over generations and thousands of years. Fish grow buds, which get bigger for following generations, and eventually they become arms. An ape didn't get pregnant and suddenly pop out a human being. The species that became homo sapien adapted over thousands of years (thousands longer than your Bible has EXISTED) from primates. It's something many basic minds find difficult to fathom or comprehend. You want to paint it as a magic process that suddenly happens. You want to see evolution as an instant microwave-process instead of what it is: a glacial, gradual process that exceeds our short lifespans, because it makes it easier for you to discredit evolution.

Creationists fear science because it disproves their beliefs.

Oh, and what Hitler believed was "evolution" was actually genocide. Not the same thing.

[Pro-Pain]

This is a good explanation of why God allows pain and suffering.. It's an explanation other people will understand.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.


When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."


"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.


"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.


The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."


"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"


"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."


"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."


"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

[Gomezticator]

Maybe that guy wants to have long hair. The story never said he was homeless, or that the guy really wanted a haircut.

There's so much illogic in that story but I'll humor it with another anecdote:

I prayed to God when I was in grade school to let my grandfather live. His kidneys had failed and my family was up in the Bay Area to see him in the hospital. He was a devout Catholic, and I went to church regularly, so by the logic in your silly example, by Going To God, that should have led to his life being spared.

Two weeks later, right after we got home, he died. This was a small reason among a larger, much more reasoned analysis later in life that led to me becoming agnostic.

Come up with some other silly 'Chicken Soup For The Christian Soul', hackeneyed story in light of my little anecdote to justify the existence of your God.

Or how about this... come up with some concrete evidence. Using these little kiddie stories with flawed logic to justify your belief isn't going to convince anyone to take you seriously.

[abshreve]

Everybody has a reason for denying God, you just named yours. You obviously believed in Him until He "let you down", and you finally answered my question on what made you chose somthing other than God to believe in. I can relate though, when I was 6 my grandmother was diagnosed with colon cancer. I prayed and prayed for months that God would heal her, but He didn't and she passed. I was very angry and turned away from Him because He didn't answer my request. I later realized that I was being selfish in my prayer and that she was much better off "going home" or however you want to put it. I just didn't understand His motives at the time. All too often people question God because "how could a loving God allow these things to happen?". It's not Him that allows it to happen, it is us. God made men of free will and then gave us laws to live by, when we break these laws we step outside of his covering. When we step outside his covering, sickness, death, and the results of sin abound. He gave us free will because he wants us to choose to love Him and serve Him. If you forced someone to love you, wouldn't you question if they really do? Where is the satisfaction in that?

I'm not trying to change anybody or their opinion, just make them think. As hard as it may be to understand, there are people out there who care about you without even knowing you. What do I have to gain by coming here and posting?

[Kirklandite]

But what if there is no "God"?

That would mean that there would be nothing to "deny".

Certain forms of organized religion are truly the opiate of the masses.

[Gomezticator]

But what if there is no "God"?

That would mean that there would be nothing to "deny".

Certain forms of organized religion are truly the opiate of the masses.

Best Eastsider Ever.

Seriously, though, good point. It's really all speculation when you strip away the pleas to emotion and blind belief. Most religious people have NEVER questioned what they've been taught to believe.

Many also use religion as an excuse not to take action to improve their lives. Many don't like where they are in life, but instead of stepping out of their comfort zones and trying to make changes, they go about their unpleasant business, pray and complacently HOPE that God will change it for them. And thus many people just never get anywhere.

[abshreve]

Best Eastsider Ever.

Seriously, though, good point. It's really all speculation when you strip away the pleas to emotion and blind belief. Most religious people have NEVER questioned what they've been taught to believe.

Many also use religion as an excuse not to take action to improve their lives. Many don't like where they are in life, but instead of stepping out of their comfort zones and trying to make changes, they go about their unpleasant business, pray and complacently HOPE that God will change it for them. And thus many people just never get anywhere.


I will have to agree with you on this, "Most religious people have NEVER questioned what they've been taught to believe." I questioned for a good part of my life until I made my mind up for myself. I didn't want to be another one of those religious fanatics that did it cause that's how I was raised or because I had something traumatic happen to me. I can say that I have looked into almost every other avenue and I ended with christianity because it made the most sense to me. However, a good majority of "religious" people go to church or believe in God for all the wrong reasons and that is what is wrong with the church on a whole. This is why the church gets a bad rap and does stupid things and makes stupid comments. They are there because it was instilled in them at a young age that it's what you do and they've never taken the time to find out for themselves what is true.

If you, as a believer in evolution, have come to that conclusion by your own soul searching and quest for the truth and not because it was taught to you all your life and forced down your throat from every angle, then I respect your decision. I definately don't agree with it, but you don't agree with me. If everybody did, the world would be a perfect place. :D

I also agree with your second statement, too many church people are lazy in hopes that God will do it for them. They are the same people who are quick to blame God when things don't go their way. These people are fake and fake people piss me off.

One last question gomez: I've noticed in all your posts that you capitalize the first letter of God's name, this is a sign of respect. How is it that you respect something that you don't believe in?

[Gomezticator]

Points taken. We're all entitled, in this country at least, to believe what we wish. I just ask we ask questions about what we're raised to believe. Many don't.

As for the last question... well, this discussion involves the Christian God, which in the context discussed is a proper noun, so I capitalize it. I would also capitalize Buddha and Allah, as those are proper names. If we were talking about gods in general, then I'd lower case the word god.

[misdeavious]

I agree with that. Many people don't question their faith enough. I think that it should be done often as we are constantly learning more and gaining more insight, and our belief systems are continually changing due to circumstance and experience. And it's really bad when someone asks you about your faith and something doesn't add up, even though you know you're right. But the question is, what are the core unchanging elements of your belief and how far will you go to protect them? Will you debate with randoms over the internet? Talk to your friends about it? Go on tv to discuss your views? Would you even die for it? My point is know what you believe and know what it's worth to you, then you will be able to speak with clarity and conviction, no matter the topic.
As far as i'm concerned, 'religion' is not an excuse to not improve yourself and your situation. Its a reason to do that. The whole reason that Christians are here is to be ambassadors of God, bringing the message no matter what the cost. We're meant to re-present the Word, which was presented by Jesus. And what better ambassadors could God want than those who are like his perfect son? Christian literally means 'Christ-like' and trust me, it's a lot of hard work becoming like Him and takes time, but we should be continually improving ourselves, living a life worthy of the calling we have received.

And Gomezticator, i'm really sorry to hear about your grandfather. It must've been hard. My Opa died from lung cancer when i was 12...it was the hardest time of my life coz he was so dear to me. My Opa was a Christian so i believe he went to heaven and we celebrated. We'd still miss him, and still do 7 years later. We all prayed for him and did whatever we could, but the truth of the matter is that God has a plan and a purpose, greater than we can fathom. And i know it sounds sunday school, but it's totally true. Anyway, after that, my Oma suffered from depression for a while. Then she found out that she had cancer. She had that removed. 2 years and 3 different types of cancer later and she was in really bad shape. One day she was just crying and she heard God say to her "Do you want to live?" She said "yes" and then God said "Then live. Dont waste your life anymore." It wasn't her time yet and God gave her a choice. She's now amazingly stronger, and healthy - He totally healed her. And if your grandfather believed in God and Jesus then i believe he's in heaven too. And nothing that ever happens in this world is in vain, everything has purpose or consequence, but God makes everything work for his good and for the good of his people. Sorry, another sunday school thing...

[misdeavious]

Many also use religion as an excuse not to take action to improve their lives. Many don't like where they are in life, but instead of stepping out of their comfort zones and trying to make changes, they go about their unpleasant business, pray and complacently HOPE that God will change it for them. And thus many people just never get anywhere.

Just to add to what i already said about this, throughout the bible and all the renowned Christian leaders' lives there are stories upon stories of God doing miracles. For example, when Peter and John went fishing and they caught nothing and Jesus told them to go back out and cast their nets. They were probably tired, hungry and irritable and didn't want to, but they stepped out in faith and God supplied. I like the saying about God adding his super to my natural. You can't turn a car when it's not moving, so we need to get moving so that God can lead us. I think Christians really need to step up to this and step out, even if it doesn't work. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone fails...God knows i'm not perfect...but it's by faith that i've been saved and faith allows God to move.
And as far as the Judah Smith stuff...did you ever think that it could've been taken out of context? I know where he's coming from. I am a sinner, and every time i have a smoke or yell at my mum it's the same to God as if i killed someone. It's different in a worldly sense, different consequences due to how much the crime is worth, but as far as sinning goes, to God there's pretty much 2 types - disobeying him (anything from lustful thoughts to genocide) and then there's the few other sins with different consequences, like purposely leading others astray, sins against the Holy Spirit, stuff like that...but whatever the sin the penalty is death no matter what the sin is.
Hey, just wondering, has anyone heard of Reggie Dabbs?

[abshreve]

Hey, just wondering, has anyone heard of Reggie Dabbs?


Reggie Dabbs is the man! I had the opportunity to meet and hang out with him this summer at our youth conference. We were giving Jude Fouquier (was Judah Smith's youth pastor and now associate pastor at City Church) a hard time for saying "on like donkey kong". He's hilarious and an incredible saxaphone player.

[DonkeyButt]

Did all the people who died without anyone telling them about Jesus go to hell?

[Shackletodd]

I am a sinner, and every time i have a smoke or yell at my mum it's the same to God as if i killed someone. It's different in a worldly sense, different consequences due to how much the crime is worth, but as far as sinning goes,

Having a smoke is the same as murder? This is exactly my problem with (fanatical) American evangelicalizm. As a monotheist I firmly belive in God. I do not belive in the American evangelical christianity as it is rife with assinine contradictions and easy rhetorical answers. It also disqualifies anyone with different beliefs systems from getting into "heaven".
Explain how a fanatical 19th century preacher made up the concept of "rapture" and then explain why this non sense is taught in most evangelical churches in America. This is NOWHERE in the bible. He just made this shit up and people still believe it. The church (catholic) begrudgingly absolves Galileo Galilei for heresy on 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death. Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.
In 350 years maybe Darwin will be absolved by the literalists. Funny thing, the affects of time as pertaining to science and religion.

[Feral]

is when he postulated

"Married to the only girl he says he ever held hands with, Smith is blunt about his beliefs -- for example, that homosexuality is a sin, the same as murder, rape or living with your girlfriend -- and he has been working since childhood to convince others."

The fact that he would marry the only woman he ever held hands with is pathetic. However to lump an entire group of people with rapists, murders, and the most deviant members of society is outrageous and insulting. This person is supposed to be moral calibration for others. I do not comprehend how two consenting adults loving each other are equated with the violent act of rape and murder. Rape is a crime of profound domination and violence. Romantic cohabitation and same sex relationships is the actions of love. Judah seriously needs to reevaluate and recalibrate his moral perceptions.

I wrote Mr Judah Smith an email expressing my fundamental disgust in him, when this story was 1st published. He has yet to answer my email. I do not comprehend why sheople would flock to hear his message at the steeple of the unevolved and knuckle draggers. When did he occupy the moral high ground?

[Feral]

Christianity is not a religion and it's definately not a cult, there's no rules and stuff...you dont have to pray 5 times a day, there's no ritual animal slaughters, you don't even have to go to church, but you do have to have a relationship with God and when you have that you want to go to church and help people and stuff
but yeah, 2 questions...why do you think you're on this earth?
and how do you think this earth was made?

(1). I am on this Earth to live and reproduce. Between living and dying the individual creates meaning out ones life.

(2). I don’t know how the Earth was made. I have a great hypothesis, but I don’t know

Christianity is not a religion! That is an absurd claim. Look up the definition of the word “religion” before you make statements such as that. No rules in Christianity! So I do not have to accept Jesus as my savior to be included into this club? There are no ritual sacrifices? Can you please explain why Jesus was sacrificed then? There are no rules, but I do have to seek a relationship with god. So how are there no rules again? How does one obtain a relationship with a supposed supreme omniscience, omnipotent, entity? Is there a highway of super information I can log onto? Will this entity give me his/her/it personal phone number? Once I obtain this supernatural friendship with this being I will want to help others achieve this omni benevolent relationship too?

Actually the plan I have for myself and what I would tell others is that, no man or god can do for you, what you can do for yourself. Natural endeavors yield information that does not require extraordinary conclusions. Plus critical analysis and objective exploration will negate ignorance and the need for god will be eliminated. Then as one race we can all embrace one another and look forward to what the future has to offer.

[cguy]

Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Timothy 1:10
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

[Feral]

[QUOTE=cguy]Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Is there a point to all of this? Was there a post your responding to? exactly what are you're espousing?

[Violet_DaGrinder]

Evolution and adaptation are entirely different things. I believe in adaptation. I've heard of experiments where a fresh water fish had salt slowly added to it's tank over time and eventually it became adapted to living in salt water. The fish did not become a sea cucumber though, still a fish. Animals can change and adapt to their environments, but they do not become different animals. Fresh water fish becoming salt water fish = adaptation. Fish growing legs and jumping completely out of the tank = evolution. Nobody answered my question on when and why they decided to go with the evolution theory as their basis for explaination of life. Oh and Gomez, Hitler did chose his truth and wasn't his truth evolution? As was Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini to name a few.

Please try to hear me on this:

You should not be claiming that evolutionary theory is false because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

You don't. I promise.

[Violet_DaGrinder]

This is a good explanation of why God allows pain and suffering.. It's an explanation other people will understand.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.


When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."


"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.


"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.


The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."


"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"


"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."


"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."


"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."


No, it's not a good explanation. The barber didn't have a chance to create a universe where people would only be capable of having great hair.

The God we're speaking of could have made the universe however he liked it, including pain-free, and with discount haircuts for all!

I don't think that the existence of suffering argues against the existence of God. It just argues against the existence of a loving, compassionate, omnipotent God. That's all.

[Feral]

Please try to hear me on this:

You should not be claiming that evolutionary theory is false because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.



You're correct; he does not understand macro evolution at all. That is the worst description and explanation for macro evolution I ever heard. He should really stop making an ass out of himself. Genetic information is not passed that way amongst species, it’s a lot more complicated than that.

[abshreve]

Please try to hear me on this:

You should not be claiming that evolutionary theory is false because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

You don't. I promise.


Try me, you may be surprised. I've just realized the falsehood in the theory. I've taken the time to learn both sides and chosen accordingly. Maybe you should try the same and have an understanding before you critisize or jump to conclusions. There are two sides to every story and if you only hear one side and go with it, you are a fool.

[Feral]

I've just realized the falsehood in the theory. I've taken the time to learn both sides and chosen accordingly. Maybe you should try the same and have an understanding before you critisize or jump to conclusions. There are two sides to every story and if you only hear one side and go with it, you are a fool.

That is why I reject Intelligent Design, because it's not a science. Further more if you comprehended how genetic information is passed amongst species, you would not be making an ignorant ass of yourself.

I devote myself to biology everyday. I and my colleagues attempt each day to gather evidence that would prove macro and micro-evolution as false. We’re critical and we use objective reasoning all the time. We have yet to discover any proof that could lead us to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is false.

I suggest you read some more science books.

[thesouthafrican]

(1). I am on this Earth to live and reproduce. Between living and dying the individual creates meaning out ones life.

(2). I don’t know how the Earth was made. I have a great hypothesis, but I don’t know

Christianity is not a religion! That is an absurd claim. Look up the definition of the word “religion” before you make statements such as that. No rules in Christianity! So I do not have to accept Jesus as my savior to be included into this club? There are no ritual sacrifices? Can you please explain why Jesus was sacrificed then? There are no rules, but I do have to seek a relationship with god. So how are there no rules again? How does one obtain a relationship with a supposed supreme omniscience, omnipotent, entity? Is there a highway of super information I can log onto? Will this entity give me his/her/it personal phone number? Once I obtain this supernatural friendship with this being I will want to help others achieve this omni benevolent relationship too?

Actually the plan I have for myself and what I would tell others is that, no man or god can do for you, what you can do for yourself. Natural endeavors yield information that does not require extraordinary conclusions. Plus critical analysis and objective exploration will negate ignorance and the need for god will be eliminated. Then as one race we can all embrace one another and look forward to what the future has to offer.


your worldview on religion is that it is an orginization with a required action or ritual to have membership. Christianity is just an option to you. And as thus, accepting Jesus is the club card, and performing all your ritualistic tasks in an effort to know God are the rules.

But Jesus did not say He was here to start a club, or even to set up a set of behavioral modification rules for your life.

Jesus said "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE." Essentially, the God who created the heavens and the earth, who established the natural physical laws of the universe, who created human beings with the ability and the need to have relationships with eachother and with God, in the person of Jesus, is essentially saying, "My was is not a right way, a different way, or even, a way... it is the only way, not because I am an exclusionist, but because I am God, and I created you, and when you live how I created you to live, thats where you find fulfillment, thats where you find peace, thats where you find comfort, thats where you find everything in your life that you've looked for."

Jesus is not another demi-god that can be compared to allah, or any of the hindu gods. call me a bigot, call me what you like, but Jesus is the God, the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings.

People wonder why they have so much chaos in their lives, and it's because theyre not at peace with God. And I dont mean that because they're not a "christian" that now God is creating all of this chaos in their lives, they create the chaos themselves. their inner turmoil and confusion as to who they are, why theyre here, and why they experienced some of the painful things they experienced, as the seek connectedness, understanding, and knowledge and answers to their confusion, turmoil, anxiety... thats why theres so much pain in the world. man did this to himself. mankind made the conscience decision to figure out his own way...instead of Gods way.

[thesouthafrican]

1. Because my parents decided to have a child and had sex.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Now, why does Judah Smith equate premarital sex and homosexuality as sins on par with rape? I thought Christianity was supposed to be about love and tolerance. "Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged".

finish the quote bro...

and by the same measure you judge, so shall you be judged.

study that out and then quote it... i dont think you know what that really means...

[thesouthafrican]

That is why I reject Intelligent Design, because it's not a science. Further more if you comprehended how genetic information is passed amongst species, you would not be making an ignorant ass of yourself.

I devote myself to biology everyday. I and my colleagues attempt each day to gather evidence that would prove macro and micro-evolution as false. We’re critical and we use objective reasoning all the time. We have yet to discover any proof that could lead us to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is false.

I suggest you read some more science books.


so basically youre claiming yourself, your colleagues, and your books to be the infallible sources for all scientific truth in the universe. shut. up. you are a human being stongly influenced by your own bias to believe complexly devised explanations for the origins of life.

read darwins black box by michael behe.

[Mrt1212]

so basically youre claiming yourself, your colleagues, and your books to be the infallible sources for all scientific truth in the universe. shut. up. you are a human being stongly influenced by your own bias to believe complexly devised explanations for the origins of life.

read darwins black box by michael behe.

but science has the power to change and be challanged and isnt infalliable. its just what works until something better comes along. where as intelligent design, etc etc has no such ability and the proponents of it dont even consider the other options.

[thesouthafrican]

but science has the power to change and be challanged and isnt infalliable. its just what works until something better comes along. where as intelligent design, etc etc has no such ability and the proponents of it dont even consider the other options.

thats bullcrap! Some prominent molecular biologists (Michael Behe as an example) contend that evolutionary theory leaves huge gaps in a species on a molecular level! In his book, he contends that the complexity of living things defy the simple explanations provided by evolutionists. The each component of a single organ, not a life form, and organ, are to complex to survive on their own, or to be the result of stages of evoultion. They cannot survive independantly from eachother, and would provide no benefit to an organism as is contended by the survival of the fittest law.

And science is fallible. It is fallible because it is based on the observations of human beings. Human beings can be incredibly driven by their biases (The crusades, Sept 11th, etc...), and therefore, their observations can be, and sometimes are inspired by their biases. (For example, the carbon dating of Lucy.)

I think the one thing that irks me about evolutionists, is that they are so quick to condemn and criticise, and even belittle people of faith (namely Christians), for being narrow minded and stuck in the dark ages.

It's funny how they do the same thing by claiming evolution is their "only way", and they're still stuck on the ideas of a man who lived not too far from the dark ages. Remember, science says if it can not prove anything, but it can make repeated observations of the same phenomena. Science has onserved adaption in a species, not evolution. Evolution therefore becomes just a theory on the origins of life. Not a fact.

[Mrt1212]

thats bullcrap! Some prominent molecular biologists (Michael Behe as an example) contend that evolutionary theory leaves huge gaps in a species on a molecular level! In his book, he contends that the complexity of living things defy the simple explanations provided by evolutionists. The each component of a single organ, not a life form, and organ, are to complex to survive on their own, or to be the result of stages of evoultion. They cannot survive independantly from eachother, and would provide no benefit to an organism as is contended by the survival of the fittest law.

And science is fallible. It is fallible because it is based on the observations of human beings. Human beings can be incredibly driven by their biases (The crusades, Sept 11th, etc...), and therefore, their observations can be, and sometimes are inspired by their biases. (For example, the carbon dating of Lucy.)

I think the one thing that irks me about evolutionists, is that they are so quick to condemn and criticise, and even belittle people of faith (namely Christians), for being narrow minded and stuck in the dark ages.

It's funny how they do the same thing by claiming evolution is their "only way", and they're still stuck on the ideas of a man who lived not too far from the dark ages. Remember, science says if it can not prove anything, but it can make repeated observations of the same phenomena. Science has onserved adaption in a species, not evolution. Evolution therefore becomes just a theory on the origins of life. Not a fact.

its the way that makes the most sense from based on evidence we have, and is subject to change based on more evidence. and because there are questions we still dont know the answers to, they are worth figuring out. i dont see that with intelligent design, at all.

if you compare the two then, an arbitrary unchangable, unadaptable belief based on religious context vs one that has testable evidence for it, that can change provided test, that is not regarded as fact, which one is more appealing to people studying the origins of life? one that relys on belief or one that relys on gathering evidence. furthermore is intelligent design falliable as evolutionary science is based on human interpertations?

and before you disregard this as semantics, its "the theory of evolution" not "the fact of the matter of evolution".

[thesouthafrican]

its the way that makes the most sense from based on evidence we have, and is subject to change based on more evidence. and because there are questions we still dont know the answers to, they are worth figuring out. i dont see that with intelligent design, at all.

if you compare the two then, an arbitrary unchangable, unadaptable belief based on religious context vs one that has testable evidence for it, that can change provided test, that is not regarded as fact, which one is more appealing to people studying the origins of life? one that relys on belief or one that relys on gathering evidence. furthermore is intelligent design falliable as evolutionary science is based on human interpertations?

and before you disregard this as semantics, its "the theory of evolution" not "the fact of the matter of evolution".

my point on making fallible interpretations has nothing to do with saying one set of interpretations is more valid than the other based on religious background. I believe that you (or someone) said somthing along the lines of this concerning intelligent design proponents:

"Intelligent design proponents don't consider the other alternatives."

Two things
1. You are making a statement based on your assumption that all ID proponents are religious. One of the leading scientists for the ID arguement is Michael Behe. A very non-religious (he even makes a statement stating that he doesnt believe ID is even necessarily for the religious) "ex-evolutionary" scientist.

You ignorantly believe that ALL people who are proponents of intelligent design are religious but specifically Christians. That's not the case. It's apparent then that there automatically is some religious connection with your opinions on origins. Remember, no one was there to observe the origins. we can only observe present day adaptations of present day species. We can create theories based on fossil evidence and on current observations, but we both, ID and evolutionary thinkers, must be careful to not state observations as "fact," but "scientific observations."

2. Is it possible that many of the proponets of evolution disregard evolution, because their observations of biology and molecular bilogy give them stronger evidence for ID rather than evolution?

The problem then is not that they dont consider the other alternatives because they're ignorant... maybe it's because they have and the evidence tells them that it is impossible for evolution to explain these origins.

[Mr Sparkly Pants]

Science has observed adaption in a species, not evolution.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

For your amusement:


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp

[Mrt1212]

my point on making fallible interpretations has nothing to do with saying one set of interpretations is more valid than the other based on religious background. I believe that you (or someone) said somthing along the lines of this concerning intelligent design proponents:

"Intelligent design proponents don't consider the other alternatives."

Two things
1. You are making a statement based on your assumption that all ID proponents are religious. One of the leading scientists for the ID arguement is Michael Behe. A very non-religious (he even makes a statement stating that he doesnt believe ID is even necessarily for the religious) "ex-evolutionary" scientist.

You ignorantly believe that ALL people who are proponents of intelligent design are religious but specifically Christians. That's not the case. It's apparent then that there automatically is some religious connection with your opinions on origins. Remember, no one was there to observe the origins. we can only observe present day adaptations of present day species. We can create theories based on fossil evidence and on current observations, but we both, ID and evolutionary thinkers, must be careful to not state observations as "fact," but "scientific observations."

2. Is it possible that many of the proponets of evolution disregard evolution, because their observations of biology and molecular bilogy give them stronger evidence for ID rather than evolution?

The problem then is not that they dont consider the other alternatives because they're ignorant... maybe it's because they have and the evidence tells them that it is impossible for evolution to explain these origins.

1. thats a strawman arguement. evolutionary scientists dont say fact.
2. youve got your thinking muddled. youre taking a divine hand with no proof for exsistence against the best theory we have that doesnt rely on arbitrary acceptence of a divine being. evolutionary theory requires no faith. ID does. if it helps you sleep at night then go for it but dont expect people to make a leap of faith that something out there is pulling strings.

how about you come with a theory that isnt based in thought exercises involving god.

anyway we can go around in circles all day over this. at the end of the day you believe in what you cant see and i take everything at face value even if i might be wrong some day.

[thesouthafrican]

1. thats a strawman arguement. evolutionary scientists dont say fact.
2. youve got your thinking muddled. youre taking a divine hand with no proof for exsistence against the best theory we have that doesnt rely on arbitrary acceptence of a divine being. evolutionary theory requires no faith. ID does. if it helps you sleep at night then go for it but dont expect people to make a leap of faith that something out there is pulling strings.

how about you come with a theory that isnt based in thought exercises involving god.

anyway we can go around in circles all day over this. at the end of the day you believe in what you cant see and i take everything at face value even if i might be wrong some day.


did you even read my post??? I was not making statements about why I, as an individual, interpret the fossil, biological, and molecular evidence as the result of ID. Yes, I believe that God created all things.

My statements were in response to your comments about ID scientists within the scientific community, and their religious convictions biasing the way they interpret scientific evidence.

Thats why I used Michael Behe as an example. He is one of the leading proponents of the ID theory, but he is a non-religious man, whose foundational understanding in science has been evolution. He has since rejected evolutionary theory, not on the basis of a religious experience, but on the basis of interpreting scientific data in a logical and objective manner.

I will search for some of his articles and writings, and post them here, or leave the links. remember, he is not a religious person, or someone who is persuaded by any kind of religion.

[Chris Comte]

Thats why I used Michael Behe as an example. He is one of the leading proponents of the ID theory, but he is a non-religious man, whose foundational understanding in science has been evolution. He has since rejected evolutionary theory, not on the basis of a religious experience, but on the basis of interpreting scientific data in a logical and objective manner.

TSA, this is simply another logical fallacy: just because Behe may have rejected evolution, it does not follow that his rejection alone invalidates the theory. He's not the final authority in this instance, just one lone dissenting voice among an overwhelming majority of voices supporting the theory of evolution.

Come back and argue again when Behe is joined by 50 or 60 other more prominent researchers; then you might have a case to make. But for now, you got squat.

[thesouthafrican]

TSA, this is simply another logical fallacy: just because Behe may have rejected evolution, it does not follow that his rejection alone invalidates the theory. He's not the final authority in this instance, just one lone dissenting voice among an overwhelming majority of voices supporting the theory of evolution.

Come back and argue again when Behe is joined by 50 or 60 other more prominent researchers; then you might have a case to make. But for now, you got squat.


and neither was Darwin the final authority in evolution. When Darwin formulated his theory he based it on what was then, at that time, known about the natural world. Since then, advancements in genetic sciences, molecular biology, etc... have revealed a miniscule portion of the complexity of nature.

Behe is actually joined by many other scientists who are proponents of ID. Behe is not a lone voice, in fact, there is a "consipiracy theory" amongst ID proponents and evolutionary proponents, because ID proponents have apparently no published peer review journals within the scientific community.

However, Behe, Demski, etc... all advocate that they have submitted articles to journals, but that they have not been published because their articles did not meet their standards of "peer review" according to the journal.

They argue that the measure of intelligence in intelligent design remains un defined. I quote Demski, "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature...in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable."

Seth Shostack, a SETI researcher, refuted Demski's claim, saying that what they are looking for is artificial intelligence. Artificial implying a civilization's radio frequencies caused by much the same things radio frequencies from our planet are caused by...

The point I'm making is that, the scientific community has said that measures of intelligence must be based on what is known about the designer, therefore, a designer that cannot be tested, or observed, is not fit to meet the standards for ID's theory.

What I'm saying is that the evolutionists have limited what can be "intelligent" as far as a designer goes must in some way resemble human intelligence. But there is a huge problem there...

science, in all its egotistical granduer, has yet to explain the mysteries of light, the atom, and a plethora of other naturally occuring phenomena in our universe...

and essentially, thats all science can do... explain. explain what has existed for thousands and millions of years. mankind has placed a great deal of power, and authority on a system that is based on what we know about other aspects of nature, and what we discover, often times by accident. My point in all my arguements is that evolutionists are JUST as guilty of not considering the other information as ID proponents. Not just evangelicals, but other members of the scientific community at large.

As a closing thought, mankind has always tried to douse ideas that challenge the pre-existing norms. I find it funny how ID proponents are being ostracized by the scientific community, instead of being invited to explore their ideas and to see how they fit, or even if they do fit. What is the scientific community denying ID proponents the opportunity to publish articles in peer reviewed journals? These, I observe, are evidences of a scientific community that is trying to cover up a contending theory on the origins of the universe...

[Chris Comte]

TSA, practically every sentence in your post is fallacious:

Your first paragraph is a classic "straw man argument". Nobody, including Darwin himself ever posited HE was the "final authority" on the matter of evolution by natural selection. He merely put forth the theory, and provided some concrete examples. It has been up to other scientists to disprove his findings, which, with some very minor exceptions has not been accomplished. The preponderance of evidence supports the theory, despite numerous attempts to refute it. That's how science works. If ID wants to gain the same kind of credibility, then all it needs to do is provide some sort of logical, testable hypothesis to support its contentions. Until it can achieve that relatively modest level of provability, it doesn't deserve any other more favorable consideration.

For what it's worth, the "many other" scientists (Moreland, Meyer, Ross, et al) who purport to back up Behe either lack credentials in biological sciences, thus disqualifying them to comment on subjects in which they have little or no knowledge, or they consistently fail to present anything remotely resembling evidence to refute evolution. At best all they can do is present the (very weak) argument that, since evolution has yet to definitively answer every possible question, ID must therefore be considered a reasonable alternative, despite the fact that it depends upon even more tenuous and convoluted assertions than the theory it attempts to refute.

So, maybe the real reason their articles haven't passed peer review is because they're complete BS, with no effort on their part at providing either documentation, substantiation or reproduceability. This is in fact, the greatest weakness of ID: its proponents want it to be taken seriously as a "scientific" theory, but they don't feel obliged to follow the same methodology or refutability of other scientific theories, including evolution.

And again, Demski's argument re: SETI is a blatant red herring: systemic characteristics are not a-priori proof of intelligence, artificial (i.e. manufactured) or otherwise. Simply because certain avenues of investigation seek out evidence of intelligent operation, it does not follow that ALL systems require intelligence for their existence. SETI looks for evidence of structured artificial signals in known radio bands, because the physical characteristics of such signals would present evidence of intelligent life. We know this to be true, because we ourselves have proven that such signals can be generated. Therefore, it is logical to suppose other intelligences, operating under more-or-less the same physical properties as ourselves would utilize similar means of signal generation. This is not delineated by so-called "limitations of human intelligence", but rather is based purely on the known physical properties of the observable universe.

If you want to posit the existence of an intelligence that is not subject to these same physical properties, then all science requires for you to receive valitation is some proof that this entity exists, and can in fact supercede these known properties to the extent claimed.

250 or so years ago, science couldn't explain how lightning was created, or what the sun was made of or how people got malaria. Just because science doesn't have the definitive answer to every question of import today, does not mean these explanations are forever beyond our grasp, nor does it imply some supernatural causation; again just more fallacious arguments containing null values.

The simple reason that the ID community is "not being invited to explore their ideas" as you phrase it, is because they haven't presented any actual "ideas" TO explore; it's all just superstitious religious dogma couched in pseudoscientific wrappings. There's no "conspiracy" required to keep the scientific community from signing off on shoddy research, sloppy technique and tortured logic; the peer review process is designed to weed out exactly this kind of muddled thinking, regardless of the source.

In closing: put up, or shut up - that's the scientific method in a nutshell.

[Mrt1212]

chris says everything i would if i had the eloquence and time to say it.

especially about the

"At best all they can do is present the (very weak) argument that, since evolution has yet to definitively answer every possible question, ID must therefore be considered a reasonable alternative, despite the fact that it depends upon even more tenuous and convoluted assertions than the theory it attempts to refute."

[thesouthafrican]

TSA, practically every sentence in your post is fallacious:

Your first paragraph is a classic "straw man argument". Nobody, including Darwin himself ever posited HE was the "final authority" on the matter of evolution by natural selection. He merely put forth the theory, and provided some concrete examples. It has been up to other scientists to disprove his findings, which, with some very minor exceptions has not been accomplished. The preponderance of evidence supports the theory, despite numerous attempts to refute it. That's how science works. If ID wants to gain the same kind of credibility, then all it needs to do is provide some sort of logical, testable hypothesis to support its contentions. Until it can achieve that relatively modest level of provability, it doesn't deserve any other more favorable consideration.

For what it's worth, the "many other" scientists (Moreland, Meyer, Ross, et al) who purport to back up Behe either lack credentials in biological sciences, thus disqualifying them to comment on subjects in which they have little or no knowledge, or they consistently fail to present anything remotely resembling evidence to refute evolution. At best all they can do is present the (very weak) argument that, since evolution has yet to definitively answer every possible question, ID must therefore be considered a reasonable alternative, despite the fact that it depends upon even more tenuous and convoluted assertions than the theory it attempts to refute.

So, maybe the real reason their articles haven't passed peer review is because they're complete BS, with no effort on their part at providing either documentation, substantiation or reproduceability. This is in fact, the greatest weakness of ID: its proponents want it to be taken seriously as a "scientific" theory, but they don't feel obliged to follow the same methodology or refutability of other scientific theories, including evolution.

And again, Demski's argument re: SETI is a blatant red herring: systemic characteristics are not a-priori proof of intelligence, artificial (i.e. manufactured) or otherwise. Simply because certain avenues of investigation seek out evidence of intelligent operation, it does not follow that ALL systems require intelligence for their existence. SETI looks for evidence of structured artificial signals in known radio bands, because the physical characteristics of such signals would present evidence of intelligent life. We know this to be true, because we ourselves have proven that such signals can be generated. Therefore, it is logical to suppose other intelligences, operating under more-or-less the same physical properties as ourselves would utilize similar means of signal generation. This is not delineated by so-called "limitations of human intelligence", but rather is based purely on the known physical properties of the observable universe.

If you want to posit the existence of an intelligence that is not subject to these same physical properties, then all science requires for you to receive valitation is some proof that this entity exists, and can in fact supercede these known properties to the extent claimed.

250 or so years ago, science couldn't explain how lightning was created, or what the sun was made of or how people got malaria. Just because science doesn't have the definitive answer to every question of import today, does not mean these explanations are forever beyond our grasp, nor does it imply some supernatural causation; again just more fallacious arguments containing null values.

The simple reason that the ID community is "not being invited to explore their ideas" as you phrase it, is because they haven't presented any actual "ideas" TO explore; it's all just superstitious religious dogma couched in pseudoscientific wrappings. There's no "conspiracy" required to keep the scientific community from signing off on shoddy research, sloppy technique and tortured logic; the peer review process is designed to weed out exactly this kind of muddled thinking, regardless of the source.

In closing: put up, or shut up - that's the scientific method in a nutshell.


ID is religious dogma? I've stated numerous times that ID proponenets, and it is even listed in the list of what ID is on the discovery institude website, is not a theory based on religious belief or creed. It is based on the observation on nature, that all things are irreducibly complex. That one part cannot exist without the other as would have to be the occurence in evolution.

I never said that Darwin made the claim of authority himself... but that there are voices in the scientific community who make the claim themselves.

Sloppy re-search and tortured logic by whose standards? Because evolutionists are pre-disposed to believe that all of nature was the result of a natural process, as which has been named, but cannot be identified as an "entity," but is still accepted as valid reasoning, is not going to even consider the option that there is design in nature instead of random chaos.

Would it be at all possible, that the basic nature of human beings hasnt changed in hundreds of years, so anything that is contrary to what has already been accepted will be violently opposed? Since when have people accepted new ideas based on "evidence"?

Columbus, Plato, etc...

I also find it frustrating that religion is always espoused with the theory of ID, when in fact, it has nothing to do with religion. I am not proving God but supporting ID... I dont need to prove God through science. But what science is observing is that without a designer, then life would not be.

[Mr Sparkly Pants]

ID is religious dogma? I've stated numerous times that ID proponenets, and it is even listed in the list of what ID is on the discovery institude website, is not a theory based on religious belief or creed.

You're lying or you're misinformed.
All forms of Creationism incorporate at the very least, some theological content.
The Young Earth movement was started by Christian fundies.
"Intelligent Design" is just the latest buzzword to advance this nonsense, and gullible people like yourself are only aiding in replacing science with myth.

[pgreyy]

ID is religious dogma? I've stated numerous times that ID proponenets, and it is even listed in the list of what ID is on the discovery institude website, is not a theory based on religious belief or creed.

From Reference.com (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Discovery_Institute) :
The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder as a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA.

The Discovery Institute conducts extensive public and political campaigns to advance the concept of Intelligent Design and the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools as part of its Teach the Controversy strategy and Wedge strategy, mainly through its Center for Science and Culture.

The University of California, Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson is widely considered to be the father of the intelligent design movement and one of its most prolific authors. Johnson serves as program advisor of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. Despite often claiming otherwise, Johnson acknowledges that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."


The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has said much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."

I also find it frustrating that religion is always espoused with the theory of ID, when in fact, it has nothing to do with religion.

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."--Phillip E. Johnson.

A clear example of the religious roots of Johnson's philosophical bias is apparent when Johnson told an assembly at a fundamentalist Christian conference entitled, Reclaiming America For Christ: "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus."

And if someone still trying to make an intellectual defense of the so-called "intelligent design" theory needs some Michael Behe debunking...there's plenty of truth to combat this charlatan's twisted analogies too...

pg

[Chris Comte]

ID is religious dogma? I've stated numerous times that ID proponenets, and it is even listed in the list of what ID is on the discovery institude website, is not a theory based on religious belief or creed. It is based on the observation on nature, that all things are irreducibly complex. That one part cannot exist without the other as would have to be the occurence in evolution.

This is, as an old college professor of mine was fond of saying, "complete and utter bat guano". ID theorists may go out of their way to insist that "God" is not the "intelligent designer", which every bit of their so-called "theory" purports to credit for creating, Life, The Universe, And Everything. But when asked the obvious question, "if not God, then who?" they stammer, and stutter, and generally wave their hands frantically in the air hoping to swat the question away, as if it were a particularly pesky and persistent insect.

ID doesn't exist, even on the shaky pseudo-scientific ground it's come to occupy, without a presupposition of the existence of a "grand designer" (i.e. God, Yaweh, Jehova, take your pick). But of course, ID proponents won't say that, because then the obvious religious roots of their ideology become - well, even more obvious than they are already.

[pgreyy]

Thats why I used Michael Behe as an example. He is one of the leading proponents of the ID theory, but he is a non-religious man, whose foundational understanding in science has been evolution. He has since rejected evolutionary theory, not on the basis of a religious experience, but on the basis of interpreting scientific data in a logical and objective manner.

I will search for some of his articles and writings, and post them here, or leave the links. remember, he is not a religious person, or someone who is persuaded by any kind of religion.

In a November 1997 TechnoPolitics symposium on the theory of Irreducible Complexity held on the Microsoft campus, Michael Behe said "I'm a Roman Catholic, I believe in God."

Click for transcript. (http://www.arn.org/docs/techno/techno1197.htm)

I'm not sure what you meant by "non-religious" or "not a religious person" or "(not) someone who is persuaded by any kind of religion"--but I know what I mean when I say "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT."

pg