Blob

Okay, let's call the flagellum an organelle. You still haven't explained how it evolved. Scientists admit they have no explaination for how it came about.

You asked why I can't say Darwin was a great scientist. I never said he wasn't. I said I disagreed with his hypothesis that different species arose through natural selection.

I don't think natural selection comes to a sudden halt. I think natural selection goes on all the time. I just don't think it causes different species to arise.

Hi Frogger,

Neither of us is raising any new issues in our previous posts and we've both aired our views. Shall we call it a day there?

I dont think I am being selfish when I try to explain God to them. You're not "explaining God to them", you are telling them eternal damnation awaits you unless you listen to what I have to say!" You're talking about the afterlife and Jesus Christ's offering of salvation, not the entity of God.
I mean you and I alone have had page after page of conversations about God.
You were making a choice through all of it.
No, I wasn't. There was no "choice" involved in me having the religious affiliation I have today.
After all they are beliefs, just as I believe in God you don't believe in God.
Wrong, I'm a deist. However, I do not happen to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the afterlife, miracles, and the other things the religion entails. Despite doing charity, keeping away from vices, and even following many of Jesus' very teachings, I am destined for Hell because you say I am.
In the end it is what you beleive and beliefs can change. There for it is a choice.
Beliefs can change, but they are not a choice. The fact that they can change doesn't mean they are "therefore a choice." Everything I believe, I didn't wake up one day and decide "I'm going to believe in that"; my enviroment, biology, experience, and education have all forced upon me what I believe this very day, and I can't suddenly choose to change that.

Fascinating thread.

Allow me to insert my .02.

I once discussed this topic of hell in some depth with a Catholic priest.

He said,
"According to the Bible, we know there's a hell.
What we don't know is if there's anybody there."

Like all things pertaining to the other side, this is perhaps a topic that we will always remain ignorant on, until our time comes.
If Heaven, like so many believe, is in the mind of God, perhaps Hell is the same thing.

It is the greatest sin, IMO, to presume to know the mind of God.

It is the greatest sin, IMO, to presume to know the mind of God.
Get this lady in a room with Pat Robertson!

I don't think natural selection comes to a sudden halt. I think natural selection goes on all the time. I just don't think it causes different species to arise.
This statement, especially in addition to a few of your others, logically doesn't make any sense. If natural selection occurs all of the time, and if evolution within a species occurs all of the time, then therefore specific attributes of species must change. So if say, X attribute allows for better survival over Y attribute then over an extended period of time logically there should be a vastly larger number of creatures with X attribute, and quite possibly no creatures with Y attribute. Therefore, if X and Z and P and Q and L and M and A attributes allow for greater survival and Y and N and O and I and R and E and B do not, then over time creatures should eventually evolve to the point that they contain X, Z, P, Q, L, M, and A attributes, and little or most likely no Y, N, O, I, R, E, or B attributes. Then therefore, this final creature will be vastly different from the original creature in genetic makeup and also mostly likely appearance as well. For a suficiantly large number of varying attributes we define said creature to be of an entirely different species than the original creature. Is this not evolution between species, and is it not logical?

You're not "explaining God to them", you are telling them eternal damnation awaits you unless you listen to what I have to say!" You're talking about the afterlife and Jesus Christ's offering of salvation, not the entity of God.

No, I wasn't. There was no "choice" involved in me having the religious affiliation I have today.

Wrong, I'm a deist. However, I do not happen to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the afterlife, miracles, and the other things the religion entails. Despite doing charity, keeping away from vices, and even following many of Jesus' very teachings, I am destined for Hell because you say I am.

Beliefs can change, but they are not a choice. The fact that they can change doesn't mean they are "therefore a choice." Everything I believe, I didn't wake up one day and decide "I'm going to believe in that"; my enviroment, biology, experience, and education have all forced upon me what I believe this very day, and I can't suddenly choose to change that.


Yes, I agree with a lot of what you said. However you made the choice to learn what you know which is what you believe.
You went in that direction, no one else forced it on you.
I followed Gods path and that path taught me that you will go to Hell.
You are not going to Hell because I say so. You are going to Hell because we are on two separate paths.

I would have to say, that telling someone that knowing about Gods love but not experiencing it for themselves is eternal torment, is explaining the depths of Gods love.
Which is explaining God.

The biggest problem I have with any extreme thinking, be it left, right, Christian, Muslim, Judaism etc. is that it is always based upon fear.

ANY religion, or philosophy that is fear based is detrimental to a person's well being, period. There can be little positive outcome for the individual involved. Although they may do many positive things with their life and for others it will be done for the wrong reasons and bring no peace of mind.

Those children at that camp, are being indoctrinated into a negative mind set. Hopefully, they will encounter enough people in their lives with various beliefs and philosophies that teach them to think and choose for themselves. A fear based life has no choice.

The biggest problem I have with any extreme thinking, be it left, right, Christian, Muslim, Judaism etc. is that it is always based upon fear.

ANY religion, or philosophy that is fear based is detrimental to a person's well being, period. There can be little positive outcome for the individual involved. Although they may do many positive things with their life and for others it will be done for the wrong reasons and bring no peace of mind.

Those children at that camp, are being indoctrinated into a negative mind set. Hopefully, they will encounter enough people in their lives with various beliefs and philosophies that teach them to think and choose for themselves. A fear based life has no choice.

People focus to much on the fear and not enough on the love. While going to Hell is a scary prospect, it is not the reason I am a Christian.
I am a Christian because there is a God that can love me so much, the thought of being with out that love for the rest of eternity can torment you.
Take the torment and forget about it.
The love that is so strong as to come from God is beyong measure. I'll take some of it and be happy in that thought.

BlibBlob,

Cars become better and better all the time. They do not, however, become airplanes no matter how good cars they become.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5080/00mazdamx5lyul9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Mazda MX5ly

The future is here. Or so says Mazda with the remarkable flying MX5ly. Claimed to be the first true flying car, the MX5ly has undergone extensive tests in Japan and is set to wow European motor shows (and airports) early in 2006.

www.wreckered.co.uk/cars/motoring_5.htm

Okay, I should have picked a better example. Damned Japanese engineers.

Cars become better and better all the time. They do not, however, become airplanes no matter how good cars they become.
Not only is your answer flawed because of what sedan posted, but also from the lack of data. Frankly, there haven't been millions of generations of cars. Nor are cars subject to natural selection. A better looking car will often survive over an ugly better performing car. Then there's the fact that we don't classify cars in anything that could be considered similar to a species.
Besides, your example was no argument against mine, it was, again, a dismissal. My argument still stands.

I thought this was relevant to one of the discussions in this thread. When creationists can't deny the evidence they demand it be buried.

View report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/12/wleakey12.xml)

lol. Actually I shouldn't laugh, it's sad.

The love that is so strong as to come from God is beyong measure. I'll take some of it and be happy in that thought.

Whatever brings you peace of mind, and makes you feel like you fulfill your purpose, and as long as it harms no one else, then that is great!

BlibBlob,

You suggest that my argument does not stand, indicating yours does. Your argument stands only if one accepts that evolution can cause one species to give rise to another. I don't accept that premise so your argument does not stand.

You suggest that my argument does not stand, indicating yours does. Your argument stands only if one accepts that evolution can cause one species to give rise to another. I don't accept that premise so your argument does not stand.
No, my argument was to prove that evolution between species occurs based off of your stated beliefs that natural selection occurs and at least evolution within a species occurs as well. You have provided absolutely no logical argument against what I have stated, instead resorting to an outright dismissal of my arguement with a very very very poor supposed analogy that was proven wrong for a number of reasons.

Blob I read the report from your link. It makes it look as if the evangelicals are not concerned about searching for truth. People who are interested in searching for truths would be open to different possibilities. They would welcome challenges and claims and theories. I find this ironic because religious people are so often perceived as those who are concerned about the truth. Apparently there is a significant difference between being interested in "seeking the truth" and "having a perceived truth to begin with and refusing to accept any challenge or alternatives".

Blob I read the report from your link. It makes it look as if the evangelicals are not concerned about searching for truth. People who are interested in searching for truths would be open to different possibilities. They would welcome challenges and claims and theories. I find this ironic because religious people are so often perceived as those who are concerned about the truth. Apparently there is a significant difference between being interested in "seeking the truth" and "having a perceived truth to begin with and refusing to accept any challenge or alternatives".Yes I found it quite a striking example of blatant head-in-the-sandism. The funny thing is that if they sincerely thought the fossil evidence is "against evolution" surely they'd be keen for it to be available.

Blob I read the report from your link. It makes it look as if the evangelicals are not concerned about searching for truth. People who are interested in searching for truths would be open to different possibilities. They would welcome challenges and claims and theories. I find this ironic because religious people are so often perceived as those who are concerned about the truth. Apparently there is a significant difference between being interested in "seeking the truth" and "having a perceived truth to begin with and refusing to accept any challenge or alternatives".

Atheist do the same thing when it comes to worshiping God.

What makes them any different?

Atheist do the same thing when it comes to worshiping God.

What makes them any different?
No. Athiests generally do not do anything of that sort. Please provide an example if you could.

Most athiests would not refuse to allow any religion to present its argument. Most athiests welcome challenges and theories and claims of all kinds. Most importantly, most athiests (as well, scientists) will readily submit to a different theory than whatever they currently favor if the alternative seems to be better than the original. This is what I mean when I said that the religious are not concerned about "looking for truth". If you are concerned, you would welcome the possibility that you started in the wrong place.

Atheist do the same thing when it comes to worshiping God. Not in my experience they don't, atheists I've met are open-minded and "open-eared" to every story and viewpoint. I was such a case when I was an atheist, and now I am no longer one, which can be a testament to my open-mind. ;)
What makes them any different?
There is a difference between "head-in-the-sand" (as Blob said) atheism than "head-in-the-sand" Christianity. With being entrenched in secular ideals, you are grasping onto proof or lack of proof. Denying evolution is denying factual scientific findings. An atheist that refuses to accept Christianity and it's ideas is taking a side that is grounded in the facts of our reality, while a fundamentalist Christian is merely making assumptions and sticking to their guns. You can't prove miracles, an afterlife, or even God, an atheist doesn't have to prove anything, because they believe in nothing.

No. Athiests generally do not do anything of that sort. Please provide an example if you could.

Most athiests would not refuse to allow any religion to present its argument. Most athiests welcome challenges and theories and claims of all kinds. Most importantly, most athiests (as well, scientists) will readily submit to a different theory than whatever they currently favor if the alternative seems to be better than the original. This is what I mean when I said that the religious are not concerned about "looking for truth". If you are concerned, you would welcome the possibility that you started in the wrong place.

Yes but they dont follow through on what the religiom says. Sure they will listen but they wont do anything other then listen.

While Christians are forced to learn about Atheist views and beliefs in schools.
I dont see a school teaching bible studies but I do see children doing homework on dinosaurs, evolution and so on.

Christian follow through what Atheist say and know, Atheist do not follow through on the religions they hear about.

If we cant even pray in school why should we have to learn something that goes against our beliefs.

I posted a blatant example of Christians calling for evidence to be literally hidden away in the back room of a museum.

In my country there is no separation of church and state and children are made to pray and study the bible. In your country there is no teaching of atheism AFAIK. Citing dinosaurs or evolution as atheist beliefs is just silly. Many posters in this forum are not atheists yet they have no problem with dinosaurs or evolution being taught in a science curriculum. British Christians generally have no problem with dinosaurs and evolution and do not consider them atheist things.

The fact that you have freedom of religion in America is hardly forcing atheism on Christians.

Yes but they dont follow through on what the religiom says. Sure they will listen but they wont do anything other then listen.
There are many theories out there, religious, scientific, or otherwise. Due to most athiests' open-mindedness, it is pretty normal for them to listen to all theories but reserve the right to question everything and continue to learn objectively. If we all 'follow through' on whatever came to us first and refuse to accept anything else that comes later, like I said, that's not a 'truth seeking' attitude, which ironically is how people perceive the Religious,
I dont see a school teaching bible studies but I do see children doing homework on dinosaurs, evolution and so on.
But the study of dinosaurs and evolution are part of science studies, which is a normal subject globally in schools. The bible is a religious study, it is not universal, not global, and especially in a country such as the US where there is religious freedom. Not teaching religion in school does not equal "teaching athiesm". I was not talking about education anyway, I was talking about individuals.
Christian follow through what Atheist say and know
Athiests say: I don't know for sure. What is it that athiests 'say and know' that Christians follow through?
If we cant even pray in school why should we have to learn something that goes against our beliefs.
You don't have to accept something that goes against your beliefs. But why do you refuse to learn? Athiests do not refuse to learn.

I posted a blatant example of Christians calling for evidence to be literally hidden away in the back room of a museum.

In my country there is no separation of church and state and children are made to pray and study the bible. In your country there is no teaching of atheism AFAIK. Citing dinosaurs or evolution as atheist beliefs is just silly. Many posters in this forum are not atheists yet they have no problem with dinosaurs or evolution being taught in a science curriculum. British Christians generally have no problem with dinosaurs and evolution and do not consider them atheist things.

The fact that you have freedom of religion in America is hardly forcing atheism on Christians.

Thats not what I said.
The fact that they teach children things that go against our beliefs or take the children away from you because you dont have them in school.
Is forcing it on us.

The other fact is that Christians will go into science and get a degree in science as well as do anything required of them to be in that field.
I have yet to see a single Athiest do the same with religion.

If we say, pray to God and ask Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and mean it.
You look at it as a fallacy.

But we will go through college for 8 years and sit next to you in your fields of study and do as you see fit for us to do.
So you say we dont bother to be open minded enough to at least listen to you?

How does the truth you posted change the fact that there are several thousand Christians working in the science community.

Dont tell us we wont listen to you or we arent open minded if you arent willing to do the same as you require of us.
I'll learn all about Atheist debate in all its forms and see Atheist theology from their side of the learning spectrum.
I AM LUKE SKYWALKER BALANCING ON THE EDGE OF THE DARKSIDE!
hehe.

So dont tell me Christians arent open minded enough for you until you have ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins and mean it.

I learn what it is I should know and mean it.

P.S.
I would like to see 1.7 million year old bones of a Turkana Boy

So dont tell me Christians arent open minded enough for you until you have ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins and mean it.
If you ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness and mean it, that means you believe all other theories and religions in the world are false. You are asking someone to go from accepting many possibilities to refusing all but one, and call it a display of open mindedness. That's very strange.

If you ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness and mean it, that means you believe all other theories and religions in the world are false. You are asking someone to go from accepting many possibilities to refusing all but one, and call it a display of open mindedness. That's very strange.

Drawing conclusions about something before trying it is pretty closed minded if you ask me. You would have no idea of what you would find false or not unless you have actualy done it.

It is almost laughable to read the resident atheists talking about being open to accepting other ideas when they are among the most close minded of people. Atheists, including those on this board talk a good game but that's all it is, talk.

Don't allow the mention of Intelligent Design in school. Don't even allow them to place a sticker in a book saying there are theories other than evolution. Don't allow religious clubs to meet on school property, not even after school. Don't allow children to pray in school. Don't allow children to mention God or Christian values at graduation. Don't allow a football team to pray before a game even if all the members wish to do so.

It seems that atheists, including those who post here consider open mindedness to mean being open to their ideas. They don't consider openmindedness being open to the ideas of religious groups or individuals. Just go back and look at all the posts ridiculing religion and those who profess religion found in Allforums.

Open minded? Not in my book.

It is almost laughable to read the resident atheists talking about being open to accepting other ideas when they are among the most close minded of people. Atheists, including those on this board talk a good game but that's all it is, talk.

Don't allow the mention of Intelligent Design in school. Don't even allow them to place a sticker in a book saying there are theories other than evolution. Don't allow religious clubs to meet on school property, not even after school. Don't allow children to pray in school. Don't allow children to mention God or Christian values at graduation. Don't allow a football team to pray before a game even if all the members wish to do so.

It seems that atheists, including those who post here consider open mindedness to mean being open to their ideas. They don't consider openmindedness being open to the ideas of religious groups or individuals. Just go back and look at all the posts ridiculing religion and those who profess religion found in Allforums.

Open minded? Not in my book.
For the record, not one atheist I have ever known, including myself, endorses anything you just said except the sticker about other theories than evolution. Science class is no place for ID. And there aren't any scientific theories other than evolution.

Borghunter, I suggest you go back and read the comments atheists in this forum have made about religion and the religious. Perhaps you did not notice them because you are not on the receiving end. Being on that end I noticed them quite easily.

Drawing conclusions about something before trying it is pretty closed minded if you ask me. You would have no idea of what you would find false or not unless you have actualy done it.
I don't think you just "try" a religion. One can "try" to pray to god and see that nothing happens, does that mean praying 10000 times over the course of a lifetime will yield the same result? Not necessarily. So even though you spoke of "until you find fault", it is not very applicable to personal beliefs. Being religious is choose to have faith in whatever it is the religion teaches--you shouldn't need to see proof of anything, in fact it would be unreasonable to do so by definition (i.e. negates faith). So I don't know what you mean by "trying" here. One can choose to believe in Christianity, and therefore believe also that other ideas are mistaken. Or one can claim he is not sure any religious idea is superior to each other, and that the possibility that religion is not necessary is just as valid.

We might have different definition of what it means to be open minded, so let me tell you that when I use the term, I mean the willingness to accept possibilities. Unfortunately, the presumed "open mindedness" you both (Inviolable and Frogger) spoke of that is required for someone to believe in Christianity, also requires that they mentally reduce the possibility that ideas conflicting with Christianity can be correct--past, now, and in the future. You don't HAVE to do that, but it wouldn't make you a very faithful believer. On the other hand a person lacking belief is not insisting on Christianity truth being impossible (well "Strong Atheists" might--which makes them not open minded), he simply thinks many theories are possible, and even more discovered in the future may possibly overwrite today's ideas. This is unthinkable in most religions. And this is open mindedness to me. Does this definition conflict with yours?

Borghunter, I suggest you go back and read the comments atheists in this forum have made about religion and the religious. Perhaps you did not notice them because you are not on the receiving end. Being on that end I noticed them quite easily.
I know what Freethinker and his ilk say. I ignore them when it comes to religion. I don't like extremists. And I further don't like people who say "All [group members] believe [ridiculous generalization]", as you just did. Would you like me to state that all Christians hate gays and want them to roast in Hell, just based on the opinions of Fred Phelps?

I know what Freethinker and his ilk say. I ignore them when it comes to religion. I don't like extremists. And I further don't like people who say "All [group members] believe [ridiculous generalization]", as you just did. Would you like me to state that all Christians hate gays and want them to roast in Hell, just based on the opinions of Fred Phelps?
You know that's a bad example.

Borghunter, I suggest you go back and read the comments atheists in this forum have made about religion and the religious. Perhaps you did not notice them because you are not on the receiving end. Being on that end I noticed them quite easily.
It's turned right back around, as you, being a Christian, do not see the ways that Christians, even those who have only stepped foot into a church once, insult and ignore the opinions of atheists. How we are vastly outnumbered in a very hostile society to others who do not conform. Did you, as a questioning explorative child, own more books on God and his Children's Ways then you did on science? I, personally, find it extremely insulting that you would dare claim atheists as an entire group--yet again your dissmissal attitude--are closeminded and, from your example, hostile people. Give me one example of how I am closeminded, or Borg is closeminded, or Blob is closeminded, or Dio is closeminded? I can't answer exactly for them, but I have this nice stack of books on my grandmother's favourite saints. I've read them all. I have a nice copy of the Bible passed down from my other grandmother, from her parents, and I've read it as well. I have sat in a church every fucking sunday for the past 18 goddamn years. I have heard from 9 different priests 9 different opinions on how gods ways work. I have heard the stories from the bible over and over and over again. I have sat through mainly Catholic masses, but I have been in Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Seven Day Evangelist churches as well. I have seen good Christians and I have seen bad Christians. I gave up Christianity 4 years ago. I have not, and will not ever look back. I gave it up not because somebody told me to. I gave it up because I read too much. I read those Christian things, then I read history books, then some of the Communist Manifesto, and Animal Farm, 1984, then The Wealth of Nations, The Prince, pieces of The Second Treatise of Government, The Social Contract, Bhagavad- Gita, and on and on. Then 4 years of here. I turned to Computer Science because I was done with closeminded republicans and democrats. I was done with people like you. I was planning on going into Political Science, but theory and logic is lost on people like you. I gave you chances to argue your point, to provide logical points. You have dismissed everything I have thrown out here. You refuse to defend yourself. Then you state this. It's insulting. I find it insulting and it is an offense against everybody who ever decided to question what they were born into. The atheist population is growing not because they're being born into atheist families. It's growing because there's more evidence and more examples of what is wrong with religion. Every day in the Christian war against science will not create more people rallying for your side, it will create more people wondering what the hell it is that you're actually babbling about. Go ahead and deny evolution and science. I'll debate you on that one, but as soon as you refuse to debate and instead throw out insults like the one you just did, which are far worse than if you had merely called me a fucking idiot or an asshole or whatever, you sir, oh lowly little peice of ignorant self-blinded shit you are, have lost.

I don't think you just "try" a religion. One can "try" to pray to god and see that nothing happens, does that mean praying 10000 times over the course of a lifetime will yield the same result? Not necessarily. So even though you spoke of "until you find fault", it is not very applicable to personal beliefs. Being religious is choose to have faith in whatever it is the religion teaches--you shouldn't need to see proof of anything, in fact it would be unreasonable to do so by definition (i.e. negates faith). So I don't know what you mean by "trying" here. One can choose to believe in Christianity, and therefore believe also that other ideas are mistaken. Or one can claim he is not sure any religious idea is superior to each other, and that the possibility that religion is not necessary is just as valid.

We might have different definition of what it means to be open minded, so let me tell you that when I use the term, I mean the willingness to accept possibilities. Unfortunately, the presumed "open mindedness" you both (Inviolable and Frogger) spoke of that is required for someone to believe in Christianity, also requires that they mentally reduce the possibility that ideas conflicting with Christianity can be correct--past, now, and in the future. You don't HAVE to do that, but it wouldn't make you a very faithful believer. On the other hand a person lacking belief is not insisting on Christianity truth being impossible (well "Strong Atheists" might--which makes them not open minded), he simply thinks many theories are possible, and even more discovered in the future may possibly overwrite today's ideas. This is unthinkable in most religions. And this is open mindedness to me. Does this definition conflict with yours?


Im not sure. Is open mindedness to you the ability to think about every option?
Or the ability to perform those task you are thinking about and decide if they are or are not for you?
I mean not being a Christian yourself, how would you know what a very faithful believer is or isnt.
You are only theorizing yourself through logic and not really seeing the emotional side of a reaction to religion.
If you have never tasted ham, how do you know you wont like it?
Once you have tasted the ham, who is to say pizza wont still be your favorite food.
You are, you are the only benefactor of your emotions. I can not tell you what will and will not make you happy.
However you have formulated that you already know what will and wont make a person happy by what you have said above.
So I would have to disagree with you.
No that is not open mindedness. Thats closed mindedness on the outside chance that you beleive your thoughts on the matter cant be wrong and are unwilling to try it out for yourself before coming to a final solution.
Which to me is the willingness to accept possibilities.
Why would you have to reduce all other ideas before coming to a solution on Christianity?
I am a Christian and I see and talk to Christian archeologist who like to do their job and worship God.
If Christians can do both why wouldnt an Atheist be able to?

I know what Freethinker and his ilk say. I ignore them when it comes to religion. I don't like extremists. And I further don't like people who say "All [group members] believe [ridiculous generalization]", as you just did. Would you like me to state that all Christians hate gays and want them to roast in Hell, just based on the opinions of Fred Phelps?
You know that's a bad example.

Borghunter, I suggest you go back and read the comments atheists in this forum have made about religion and the religious. Perhaps you did not notice them because you are not on the receiving end. Being on that end I noticed them quite easily.
It's turned right back around, as you, being a Christian, do not see the ways that Christians, even those who have only stepped foot into a church once, insult and ignore the opinions of atheists. How we are vastly outnumbered in a very hostile society to others who do not conform. Did you, as a questioning explorative child, own more books on God and his Children's Ways then you did on science? I, personally, find it extremely insulting that you would dare claim atheists as an entire group--yet again your dissmissal attitude--are closeminded and, from your example, hostile people. Give me one example of how I am closeminded, or Borg is closeminded, or Blob is closeminded, or Dio is closeminded? I can't answer exactly for them, but I have this nice stack of books on my grandmother's favourite saints. I've read them all. I have a nice copy of the Bible passed down from my other grandmother, from her parents, and I've read it as well. I have sat in a church every fucking sunday for the past 18 goddamn years. I have heard from 9 different priests 9 different opinions on how gods ways work. I have heard the stories from the bible over and over and over again. I have sat through mainly Catholic masses, but I have been in Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Seven Day Evangelist churches as well. I have seen good Christians and I have seen bad Christians. I gave up Christianity 4 years ago. I have not, and will not ever look back. I gave it up not because somebody told me to. I gave it up because I read too much. I read those Christian things, then I read history books, then some of the Communist Manifesto, and Animal Farm, 1984, then The Wealth of Nations, The Prince, pieces of The Second Treatise of Government, The Social Contract, Bhagavad- Gita, and on and on. Then 4 years of here. I turned to Computer Science because I was done with closeminded republicans and democrats. I was done with people like you. I was planning on going into Political Science, but theory and logic is lost on people like you. I gave you chances to argue your point, to provide logical points. You have dismissed everything I have thrown out here. You refuse to defend yourself. Then you state this. It's insulting. I find it insulting and it is an offense against everybody who ever decided to question what they were born into. The atheist population is growing not because they're being born into atheist families. It's growing because there's more evidence and more examples of what is wrong with religion. Every day in the Christian war against science will not create more people rallying for your side, it will create more people wondering what the hell it is that you're actually babbling about. Go ahead and deny evolution and science. I'll debate you on that one, but as soon as you refuse to debate and instead throw out insults like the one you just did, which are far worse than if you had merely called me a fucking idiot or an asshole or whatever, you sir, oh lowly little peice of ignorant self-blinded shit you are, have lost.


Wow, thats a long paragraph of anger there.
I'm sorry you had to expeirence all of that.
I would have to say that no matter where you go or who you talk to, you are going to see people with thoughts and veiws on any subject react the same way.
We are only human and we are controlled by our passions.
You seem to have demonstrated some passion in this post, the same way anyone would on any subject they are considerate of.

The other fact is that Christians will go into science and get a degree in science as well as do anything required of them to be in that field. I have yet to see a single Athiest do the same with religion.Science isn't atheism. Newton was a Christian for example.

Dont tell us we wont listen to you or we arent open minded if you arent willing to do the same as you require of us.Aw, come on Inviolable - when do I ever make such generalisations as "all christians are closed-minded and all atheists are open-minded"?

So dont tell me Christians arent open minded enough for you until you have ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins and mean it.And meanwhile you better do the same for the Koran, Buddha, North Korean personality worship etc etc. You can't define open-mindedness as the adoption of your own beliefs, Inviolable, even if it is on a 14-day free trial basis.

More generally I'm not really sure what your point is about 'atheist theology' being rammed down Christian throats. I really did go to schools where I had to chant and sing that "Jesus loves me!" just like I chanted and sang my timetables. I know for a fact you Americans do not have to do the equivalent in reverse; you do not have to chant and sign "I remain unconvinced by arguments for the existence of a god at this time". And yet I'm not the one moaning about it!


P.S.
I would like to see 1.7 million year old bones of a Turkana BoyYes I know you well enough to know you don't deny evidence.

Science isn't atheism. Newton was a Christian for example.

Aw, come on Inviolable - when do I ever make such generalisations as "all christians are closed-minded and all atheists are open-minded"?

And meanwhile you better do the same for the Koran, Buddha, North Korean personality worship etc etc. You can't define open-mindedness as the adoption of your own beliefs, Inviolable, even if it is on a 14-day free trial basis.

More generally I'm not really sure what your point is about 'atheist theology' being rammed down Christian throats. I really did go to schools where I had to chant and sing that "Jesus loves me!" just like I chanted and sang my timetables. I know for a fact you Americans do not have to do the equivalent in reverse; you do not have to chant and sign "I remain unconvinced by arguments for the existence of a god at this time". And yet I'm not the one moaning about it!


Yes I know you well enough to know you don't deny evidence.


Hold on a minute, when I reply to Blob, or Evak or anyone of the other 4 or 5 people asking me the same question I respond to all of them in the same post.
Its better then running a post marathon. So I will generalise an answer to keep up with everyone and it doesnt really have to be focused on one person. The school thing and the theology thing was being thrown Blobs way.
Please forgive me for not making that apparent. Sometimes I get in a "type" and run frame of mind.

I know you know that I will and have talked to people of all religions face to face, as well as on the forums and I always do my best to keep an open mind about any of them.
I didnt mean to say Atheist theology is being rammed down my throat.
I did mean to say that you do know me well enough to have seen that I have demonstrated on these forums how much I have learned by listening to everyone.
I am sure of it.
I know my start on these forums was rough, but this is my first forum and I think I learned to tread water pretty well.
I wouldnt have learned that if I had not been open to the way other people think. I wouldnt be the Inviolable you see here today if I wasnt at least willing to try what it is I have read here on these very forums.

That to me is open mindedness.
I do not or have not seen an Atheist do that with Christianity.

Hold on a minute, when I reply to Blob, or Evak or anyone of the other 4 or 5 people asking me the same question I respond to all of them in the same post.
Its better then running a post marathon. So I will generalise an answer to keep up with everyone and it doesnt really have to be focused on one person. The school thing and the theology thing was being thrown Blobs way.
Please forgive me for not making that apparent. Sometimes I get in a "type" and run frame of mind.Thanks for clarifying. Yeah we're coming from all angles right now. ;)

I do not or have not seen an Atheist do that with Christianity.Do what exactly? You are suggesting atheists should accept Jesus - become Christians - to be open-minded. Yet I have not seen you reject Jesus or become a Hindu or whatever, which would be the equivalent.

Or perhaps you mean you haven't seen atheists defend their beliefs online to a group of Christians. It's harder to do because in general they ban us from Christian forums if we don't convert quickly no matter how polite, conscientious or constructive we are. A generalisation yes but one based on experience.

I was on total best behaviour when I went for a visit to godsandscience (http://discussions.godandscience.org/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705) and was patient despite constant accusations, aggressive threats of hell etc etc. They still spat me out when they realised I wasn't going to convert.

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah we're coming from all angles right now. ;)

Do what exactly? You are suggesting atheists should accept Jesus - become Christians - to be open-minded. Yet I have not seen you reject Jesus or become a Hindu or whatever, which would be the equivalent.

Or perhaps you mean you haven't seen atheists defend their beliefs online to a group of Christians. It's harder to do because in general they ban us from Christian forums if we don't convert quickly no matter how polite, conscientious or constructive we are. A generalisation yes but one based on experience.

I was on total best behaviour when I went for a visit to godsandscience (http://discussions.godandscience.org/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705) and was patient despite constant accusations, aggressive threats of hell etc etc. They still spat me out when they realised I wasn't going to convert.


I got a forum for you.

http://www.christianforums.com/f13-general-apologetics.html

Well kind of, I am saying convert.
I know it has to be tough where you are. Religion and politics go hand and hand or at least thats what I have read and been told.

I dont think I have to reject Jesus to accept some of your ideas.
I do think I have to experience everything you tell me before I tell you everything you say is wrong.
Which I have experienced quite a bit of what we have talked about in an effort to better understand it.
To do the same you would have to go as far as to accept Jesus to understand a lot of what I say.

Living with what is being made of you to do is not the same as understanding what someone is explaining to you in a much different way. Then being forced to sing songs about Jesus as a child.

I got a forum for you.

http://www.christianforums.com/f13-general-apologetics.html

Well kind of, I am saying convert.Thanks! I'm a little busy to join right now but will do in the near future.

I know it has to be tough where you are. Religion and politics go hand and hand or at least thats what I have read and been told.Technically Britain is a theistic monarchy with no separation of church in state. In practice few people believe and prayer at school is "just something you do."

I dont think I have to reject Jesus to accept some of your ideas.
...
you would have to go as far as to accept Jesus to understand a lot of what I say.You can see that's an unlevel playing field, I'm sure.

You can see that's an unlevel playing field, I'm sure.

Yes for both of us.


I think if you just go and read some of the things being discussed in the forums I posted under General Apologetics, you will be at least a little surprised.

I know what Freethinker and his ilk say. I ignore them when it comes to religion. I don't like extremists. And I further don't like people who say "All [group members] believe [ridiculous generalization]", as you just did. Would you like me to state that all Christians hate gays and want them to roast in Hell, just based on the opinions of Fred Phelps?

Borghunter, I have never said ALL ATHEIST or all of any group behave or believe in a certain way. If you do an archive search you will even find where I mentioed an atheist site where the majority are open minded. Even here there are some atheist who are open minded and some who are not. I was responding to the assertion that religious people are not open minded while atheist are. It is simply a false statement.

If you ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness and mean it, that means you believe all other theories and religions in the world are false. You are asking someone to go from accepting many possibilities to refusing all but one, and call it a display of open mindedness. That's very strange.

Dio,

The inverse is also true. If you deny that there is any possibility of the existence of God you are close minded. People seem to be getting agnostics mixed up with atheists. Agnostics are open to the possibility of God existing. Atheists are not. Atheists are just as close minded as they accuse religious people of being.

If you deny that there is any possibility of the existence of God you are close minded.
This is in accordance with my view--the denying of possibilities is a measure of close mindedness.
People seem to be getting agnostics mixed up with atheists. Agnostics are open to the possibility of God existing. Atheists are not. Atheists are just as close minded as they accuse religious people of being.
People do get the terms mixed up because multiple definitions exist for "atheist" in dictionary. There are two common definitions: Atheist can be someone who claims god is not; or it could be someone who claims nothing and simply has no believes in god. The first one looks like your definition for atheist while the second one looks like your agnostic. Many people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics according to your definition. With this in mind perhaps those previous posts of mine wouldn't seem so hypocritic to you anymore.

If you are an agnostic I don't consider you close minded. I still consider you wrong but at least openmindedly wrong.

As a Christian I consider my belief system to be the correct one. If I didn't feel that way I wouldn't be a Christian. I would pick some other religiion or none at all. Since I believe my system of belief is the correct one I cannot do otherwise than believe all other systems are incorrect.

That does not mean I can not appreciate those other systems or love their adherents. It simply means I think they are mistaken in their beliefs.

People do get the terms mixed up because multiple definitions exist for "atheist" in dictionary. There are two common definitions: Atheist can be someone who claims god is not; or it could be someone who claims nothing and simply has no believes in god. The first one looks like your definition for atheist while the second one looks like your agnostic. Many people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics according to your definition. With this in mind perhaps those previous posts of mine wouldn't seem so hypocritic to you anymore.
Yeah, exactly. I'm the latter definition, as are most atheists, I believe. I could call myself an agnostic to avoid confusion...but why should I? I'm a weak atheist; I'm not an agnostic.
Borghunter, I have never said ALL ATHEIST or all of any group behave or believe in a certain way. If you do an archive search you will even find where I mentioed an atheist site where the majority are open minded. Even here there are some atheist who are open minded and some who are not. I was responding to the assertion that religious people are not open minded while atheist are. It is simply a false statement.
"It seems that atheists, including those who post here consider open mindedness to mean being open to their ideas. They don't consider openmindedness being open to the ideas of religious groups or individuals. Just go back and look at all the posts ridiculing religion and those who profess religion found in Allforums.

"Open minded? Not in my book."

Frogger, I see no qualifiers in that statement. You said that atheists like to believe they're open-minded but in actuality are not. You didn't say "many", or "most", or "a few", or "a select group of fucktards". You said simply "atheists believe [blah]."

If you deny that there is any possibility of the existence of God you are close minded.Do you deny the possibility that there is no god?

Agnostics are open to the possibility of God existing. Atheists are not.I'm an atheist and I acknowledge the possibility of god existing.

Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. It works like this: I am an 'atheist' about whether there is a can of coke at the centre of the moon because I don't believe there is; I am also an 'agnostic' about it because there is no way of me knowing for sure. I am an atheist about whether the Christian god exists because I don't believe it; I am NOT an agnostic about the Christian god because I believe it would be possible to know if he did exist.

Clear?

Atheists are just as close minded as they accuse religious people of being.
To paraphrase: "Atheism is just as bad as theism". Hardly a winning argument, Frogger.

Regarding accusations of religious people be closed-minded do bear in mind that the majority of monotheists answer "no" when asked whether they could be mistaken about god's existence. Hardly atheists' fault.

To paraphrase: "Atheism is just as bad as theism". Hardly a winning argument, Frogger. thats always been my arguement. How could you know either way? agnosticism - willing to admit you don't have a clue.

thats always been my arguement. How could you know either way? agnosticism - willing to admit you don't have a clue.Like I hadn't just written that post above yours.

Agnosticism isn't "I don't know" but "It's unknowable". An agnostic is one who thinks that even if there is a god it would be impossible to know it. This renders agnostism a somewhat conceited position because it implies that all theists who claim to "know" god are either deluded or liars.

This renders agnostism a somewhat conceited position because it implies that all theists who claim to "know" god are either deluded or liars. ... as oppossed to theists and atheists whose position declares that everyone who doesn't agree is either ignorant or blind.

Gimmie a break. All belief is conceited because it relies solely on the values/outlook/judgement of the individual making said choice.
Agnosticism isn't "I don't know" but "It's unknowable". An agnostic is one who thinks that even if there is a god it would be impossible to know it. depends on your definition or leanings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I am "open minded" to the extent that I believe that most religions and science are saying many of the same things, in different terminology.

I believe in the existence of god and the non-existence of god.
The difference being in one's description of what a god is.

My personal emotions, or psychological needs, do not create nor uncreate a god-of-choice, no matter how dogged I am in belief, nor how many religions I comb through seeking answers tailor-made to my comfort.

It matters little to me whether eons ago a comet struck the earth and brought with it the starting blocks of life or whether an alien civilization used DNA to establish life on earth as we know it.

Quantum physics give us the possibility of gazillions of "creators" on a level so small that it would be impossible to pinpoint and observe them. This would also give rise to the possibility of subconcious contact thru prayer to alter outcomes.

These alternatives mentioned are certainly not the only ones. The hardest to believe, for me personally, is the god-on-a-throne-streets-paved-of-gold type. There would be no reason for a god to be either vengeful or jealous.

The answers are personal. That which makes one comfortable and able to cope with the daily fears, trials and tribulations of life. My personal interpretations of experiences are different from yours, therefore my conclusion should be different also.

Personal experience has shown me that sometimes outcomes can be altered thru belief and prayer. I believe prayer is one of the most powerful tools available to man. It seems unimportant where you direct it, just that you use it. This is more important to me than where or what a god is.

... as oppossed to theists and atheists whose position declares that everyone who doesn't agree is either ignorant or blind.

Gimmie a break. All belief is conceited because it relies solely on the values/outlook/judgement of the individual making said choice.
depends on your definition or leanings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Given your definition of atheism (and theism) as "those who don't agree is either ignorant or blind" you are hardly in a position to go slinging definitions around.

You asked for it. Here's the SuperSizeMe Oxford English dictionary entry for "agnostic":

(æg{sm}n{rfa}st{shti}k) [f. Gr. {alenisacu}{gamma}{nu}{omega}{sigma}{tau}-{omicron}{fsigma} unknowing, unknown, unknowable (f. {alenis} not + {gamma}{nu}{omicron}- know) + -IC. Cf. GNOSTIC; in Gr. the termination -{iota}{kappa}{goacu}{fsigma} never coëxists with the privative {alenis}-.]

A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
[Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’R. H. H UTTON in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]

1870 Spect. 29 Jan. 135 In theory he [Prof. Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic, who goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know. 1874 MIVART Ess. Relig. etc. 205 Our modern Sophists{em}the Agnostics,{em}those who deny we have any knowledge, save of phenomena. 1876 Spect. 11 June, Nicknames are given by opponents, but Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an ‘unknown and unknowable’ God; or in other words that the ultimate origin of all things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. 1880 BP. FRASER in Manch. Guardn. 25 Nov., The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side.

B. adj. Of or pertaining to agnostics or their theory.

1873 Q. Rev. CXXXV. 192 The pseudo-scientific teachers of what has..been termed..the Agnostic Philosophy. 1876 TULLOCH Agnosticism in Weekly Scotsm. 18 Nov., The same agnostic principle which prevailed in our schools of philosophy had extended itself to religion and theology. Beyond what man can know by his senses or feel by his higher affections, nothing, as was alleged, could be truly known. 1880 G. C. M. BIRDWOOD Ind. Arts I. 4 The agnostic teaching of the Sankhya school is the common basis of all systems of Indian philosophy. 1882 FROUDE Carlyle II. 216 The agnostic doctrines, he (Carlyle) once said to me, were to appearance like the finest flour, from which you might expect the most excellent bread; but when you came to feed on it, you found it was powdered glass, and you had been eating the deadliest poison.

ADDITIONS SERIES 1993

agnostic, n. and a.

Add: [B.] 2. Path. = AGNOSIC a.


[1935 Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. LVII. 332 It is significant that finger agnosia should be present without other autotopagnostic features.] 1941 J. M. NIELSEN Clin. Neurol. x. 274 Agnostic alexia is due to loss of power of visual recognition of the symbols of language. 1946 {emem} Agnosia, Apraxia, Aphasia (ed. 2) ii. 34 Agnostic alexia is the failure of recognition of letters, figures, syllables, and words. 1953 Brain LXXVI. 546 Our agnostic patient..seemed to have an alexia. 1975 Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. LI. 1161 The actions of naloxone were not agnostic, since the administration of either morphine or oxymorphone routinely reduced the amplitude of all reflexes tested.
The bold bit is the first meaning, the meaning intended by the coiner of the word, and the meaning suitable for discussing theology and religion.

Spare me your layman meanings of "I don't know" (agnosticism) and "everyone else is ignorant" (atheism/theism) or whatever it was. Scuttle back to the politics forum if you want to scream and shout ignorant views at people. We play nice here in R&P.

It matters little to me whether eons ago a comet struck the earth and brought with it the starting blocks of life or whether an alien civilization used DNA to establish life on earth as we know it.
It doesn't matter in any day-to-day sense but it fascinates me and I'd love to know. Wouldn't you (were it possible)?

Quantum physics give us the possibility of gazillions of "creators" on a level so small that it would be impossible to pinpoint and observe them.
*intake of breath*

Quantum mechanics is very misundersto... okay I'll leave it. ;)

It doesn't matter in any day-to-day sense but it fascinates me and I'd love to know. Wouldn't you (were it possible)?
==========================================
Yes, but I am sure I would not be believed if I attempted to share the information.




*intake of breath*

Quantum mechanics is very misundersto... okay I'll leave it. ;)
============================================
I agree. Understanding is in the eye of the ultimate observer.
I concur with Fred Wolf,phd (physics) "Quantum Mechanics is the physics of possibilities." Especially when he speaks of particles that appear and disappear all the time and where they might go.

I also agree with Harvard lecturer Jeffery Satinover m.d.,m.s.(physics) when he states that "Quantum mechanics doesn't give answers that are clear-cut and comforting."

Blob, if you have not viewed it, try to get a copy of the dvd 'What The Bleep Do We Know!? by Captured Light Industries. I really enjoyed the way Quantum Mechanics is presented in this documentary type film.

Also, as time passes I believe a world below even the gluons will be found.

It matters little to me whether eons ago a comet struck the earth and brought with it the starting blocks of life or whether an alien civilization used DNA to establish life on earth as we know it.

I agree entirely. It matters little to me, also.

What DOES matter to me, however, is when one particular group becomes THE dominant majority force in a society, and when that dominant group insists that THEIR interpretation (i.e., than an invisible supernatural entity willed humankind into being) is the ONLY correct interpretation and that all who do not agree with their interpretation are "evil", inferior people.

THAT is when it ***matters*** very much.

Freethinker, history is a good example that ruling parties always bring along with them their religious beliefs. Sometimes it is to further their beliefs and sometimes it is to further their power by utilizing the belief of the majority for support. A great pretender, so to speak.

Either way, the loser is those that do not "play ball."

Either way, the loser is those that do not "play ball."Was Galileo a loser? Or Jesus Christ for that matter?

Was Galileo a loser? Or Jesus Christ for that matter?
================================================== ======

They both led pretty rough lives at the hands of the powers, according to what is written about them.

================================================== ======

They both led pretty rough lives at the hands of the powers, according to what is written about them.Quite true, but humanity often benefits from those who eschew the rules. I wouldn't call such people 'losers' (not that you did, exactly).

Freethinker, history is a good example that ruling parties always bring along with them their religious beliefs.

I agree.

Sometimes it is to further their beliefs and sometimes it is to further their power by utilizing the belief of the majority for support. A great pretender, so to speak.

Again, i would agree.

Either way, the loser is those that do not "play ball."

Yes.......but it is one of the great and enduring tragedies of the human condition that the majority of homo sapiens are irrational believers in *things-that-go-bump-in-the-night*, and that the inevitably large groupings of humans that have come about are deeply grounded in and influenced by the superstitius nonsense of 'religion', and that the few rational, crtically thinking folk in those societies are forever forced [FONT="Book Antiqua"] into the role of "losers" and go along with the insanity of the -- "There is an all-powerful supernatural Father-in-the-Sky watching over us, who will punish us if we fail to follow this set of rules he handed down!" -- masses.

______________________________________

Note; one ray of hope;

Yes, the inmates are still running the asylum......for now......but the situation with the critical thinkers being forced to go along with the mental disturbance known as "religion" IS slowly changing, with the ever continuing advance of science; an advance that is being fought tooth-and-nail by the True Believers, who have grown all too accustomed to being THE dominant force in the ordering of society since the time when the first fool met the first con man

Yes, but I am sure I would not be believed if I attempted to share the information.That's a non-issue for me in practice because as an ordinary Joe my only hope of knowing would be if it was convincingly demonstrated one way or the other and became widespread knowledge.

Understanding is in the eye of the ultimate observer.Such an observer would also be part of what must be understood. And as one cannot step out of one's self for an external viewpoint (we need our mind to analyse our mind) I don't see how such an observer could exist (I mean in principle - I'm not suggesting you meant anything more than a philosophical point)

Blob, if you have not viewed it, try to get a copy of the dvd 'What The Bleep Do We Know!? by Captured Light Industries. I really enjoyed the way Quantum Mechanics is presented in this documentary type film.I've heard of of that - unless it's a book as well and I'm getting mixed up. Thanks Dan I'll give it a whirl if you think I'd enjoy it.

I've heard of of that - unless it's a book as well and I'm getting mixed up. Thanks Dan I'll give it a whirl if you think I'd enjoy it.

You should definitely give it a whirl. They may even have an updated version available now. They were working on adding to it. Sort of a part two.

Darwin himself struggled with many of the same arguments discussed in this thread. Reading the thread I'm not sure whether the arguments are about his book "Origin of the Species", or his latter work "The Descent of Man"
Both books are theories based upon facts that he observed over many years. He continually expressed the necessity of separating facts from theory and noted that the future discovery of conflicting facts may well disprove his theories.
I have little difficulty in accepting his Origin of the Species, however, like many others I somehow feel I would prefer NOT be descended from some lower animals It would be much nicer to be descended from Adam and Eve. However, I find it harder to believe that one couple could provide a suitable gene pool that would maintain a thriving population.

It may be interesting to read his own words, quoted below.
From Darwin's Origin of the Species 6th Edition

I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion."
A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self- development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the mutability of species? It cannot be asserted that organic beings in a state of nature are subject to no variation; it cannot be proved that the amount of variation in the course of long ages is a limited quantity; no clear distinction has been, or can be, drawn between species and well-marked varieties. It cannot be maintained that species when intercrossed are invariably sterile and varieties invariably fertile; or that sterility is a special endowment and sign of creation.
The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation.


From Descent of Man
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure,- the union of each pair in marriage, the dissemination of each seed,- and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.

Ok first of all I want to say that I went to a church camp simular to that, although smaller, but they taught the same things and I have no lasting mental damage. The church I went to as a child also was simmular to what I saw in the movie trailer, and I loved it. Yes, I admit we would cry sometimes, but it WAS because the message was so touching and that you truely realize God loves you. It wasn't because of any emotion abuse, I can promise you that. I know many people few those practices as brainwashing, including members of my own family, but I'll be honest.. I think churches like that are awsome. Every church has a message, some are just stronger then others. And for those of you who think they are "targeting" kids, think about what kids hear at school every day.. their peers are targeting them with negitive things, why not get some possitive stuff into their lives?

Ok first of all I want to say that I went to a church camp simular to that, although smaller, but they taught the same things and I have no lasting mental damage. The church I went to as a child also was simmular to what I saw in the movie trailer, and I loved it. Yes, I admit we would cry sometimes, but it WAS because the message was so touching and that you truely realize God loves you. It wasn't because of any emotion abuse, I can promise you that. I know many people few those practices as brainwashing, including members of my own family, but I'll be honest.. I think churches like that are awsome. Every church has a message, some are just stronger then others. And for those of you who think they are "targeting" kids, think about what kids hear at school every day.. their peers are targeting them with negitive things, why not get some possitive stuff into their lives?
You were taught that "evolution is being forced upon us by evil Godless secular humanists, that abortion must be stopped at all costs, that we must form an 'army' to defeat the Godless influences"? And then you call that positive?

Well Borg, I turned out to be a pretty possitive person and was still able to form my own opinions. A lot of churches say that christians must form an "army" for God, thats nothing new. Personally now, I don't really try to change anyones views to suit my own, hell I help out at planned parenthood, which is interesting since I really am against abortion.. I just promote self choice.. I will say that I think kids should have to be so old before they are subjected to ministry like that, bc it can get intense and confusing.

A lot of churches say that christians must form an "army" for God, thats nothing new niether are religious wars and slaughters...

The bold bit is the first meaning, the meaning intended by the coiner of the word, and the meaning suitable for discussing theology and religion. yeah its not like words, symbols and meanings are mutable or anything.
cuttle back to the politics forum if you want to scream and shout ignorant views at people. We play nice here in R&P. please do point out what is so disagreeable about my post? Is it that you called agnostics conceited and I pointed out how any other belief system is conceited as well? By definition belief is conceited because its held by the person professing it, in their own unique way.

so if david byrne told you if you dont kill yourself in sneakers you will miss the space ship in the comet tail would you believe him?

If you are talking about me.. No!.. I do my own thinking, not anyone elses. Growing up in a strong church as a child doesn't scar you for life, actually I think it made me a better person, even though I don't currently attend church at all.

I have been doing some research on this subject to see exactly what it is the artical in question is talking about.
I have seen quite a few instances where the actions of Christains have been severely blown out of proportion.

This one wasnt and I strongly disagree with what they are doing. I dont retract my original statements on the matter but I must also admit I had no idea this kind of thing existed.

This is what I believe the OP was talking about.

Here is a browd description.

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

Here is a website that directly links what the OP is saying to who is doing it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/

These people want to take away all of our freedom.

I very strongly believe that if people can not willingly come to God they will not love him as they should.
I also very strongly believe that God gives us free will for that very reason. So we will love him of our own accord.

What these people are doing is taking that away and much more.
That is something that I disagree with 100% and can not see any true Christian prescribing to their methods.