I left a fairly deep topic in another forum that I visit. It's mostly Christians debating Christians, but Christians have a lot of interest when it comes to evolution.
I'm sure a few hard core atheist here would be surprised to know some Christians actually take evolution over creation. So the interest I speak of is purely for learning.
So there are some well learned people getting into some deep debates constantly.

Anyway, a poster left a post that caught my eye, it's deep and well thought out for someone who is for creationism.

I'm going to leave it here so our religious friends can admire it the way I have and our thinking friends can mock its insolence!


ORIGINAL: Sport

well the thing is, human origins is very hotly debated. These articles don't seem to be saying Neanderthals weren't human, they're saying they weren't our ancestors.....that they were some sort of offshoot. But here's the thing......Evolutionary theorists need Neanderthals to have died out without givng rise to "modern" humans because according to the fossil record, what is known as Neanderthal morphology quickly disappeared....like almost instantly. For this reason, ToE (which is a gradualistic theory) cannot explain how it would be that "modern" human morphology arose from "archaic" morphology in such a short amount of time. Therefore, they must make -- regardless of the evidence -- Neanderthals go "extinct." If the scientific community were to agree that Neanderthals were simply the ancestors of modern humans they would have to give a biological explanation of how it happened....aka a mechanism for rapid morphological changes. But they are not willing to do this because any mechanism responsible for rapid morphological changes is generally shunned because these may very well be "non-evolutionary," non-genetic mechanisms.......which would invalidate the whole concept of human evolution.


I'm confused. You said "they must make -- regardless of the evidence -- Neanderthals go 'extinct.'" What are you saying - that the evidence does not show they went extinct? Or that they actually were our ancestors? What exactly do you think the evidence shows?


I think Neanderthals were absolutely our ancestors. Let me give you an example of what I was talking about though. Scientists like to look at the Neanderthal brow ridges and other physical characteristics and compare them with modern humans' skulls. Along with pointing out the differences, they assume that an evolutionary mechanism is responsible (aka random mutations plus natural selection.) They often put a "clock" on these evolutionary changes....(by the way, the last Neanderthals supposedly died out 30,000 years ago -- but that is still way too quick for ToE to be the explanation....random mutation simply cannot be counted on to occur and spread that quickly.)

But here's the deal: What IF Neanderthals were some of the oldest humans on the planet......what do we know about the oldest people on the planet?...we know from the Bible that they lived long lives. If they live long lives that probably meant that they experienced not only longer lives as adults, but also longer lives as infants and children. If this were the case, they very well could have been youngsters for many many years. As we know, youngsters have bones that are very soft and pliable. They're flexible and able to conform to life's challenges. For this reason it's more difficult for a baby to break a bone than it is an adult.

So, if Neanderthals had soft bones for long periods of time, their DIET may very well have caused their skull and facial plates (which are both bone, obviously) to develop certain characteristics. For example, if these individuals ate alot of meat, that would probably require lots of heavy chewing. Lots of vigorous chewing could put excess pressure on the facial plates and on the brow ridges of these individuals. What could APPEAR to be evolution (our evolution from them, actually) could actually just be a change not only in lifespan, but also a change in dietary habits. It's possible that skull shapes began to change as large communities started forming, giving rise to large-scale farming, including the high consumption of breads and cooked vegetables.....which is exactly what this link shows:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article592250.ece

“Over the past 10,000 years there has been a trend toward rounder skulls with smaller faces and jaws,” said Clark Spencer Larsen, professor of anthropology at Ohio State University.

Changes in diet are thought to be the main cause. The switch to softer, farmed foods means that jawbones, teeth, skulls and muscles do not need to be as strong as in the past

http://muse.calarts.edu/~shockley/human.html

"The forward placement of Neanderthal jaws and the large size of the incisors probably reflects habitual use of the anterior dentition as a tool, perhaps mostly as a vice clamp. Such para- or nonmasticatory use for gripping is implied by the high frequency of enamel chipping and microfractures on Neanderthal incisors, by nondietary microscopic striations on incisor crowns, and by the peculiar, rounded wear seen on the incisors of elderly individuals. Similar, though less extensive damage occurs on Eskimos, who also tend to use their anterior jaws extensively as vice clamps.
Biomechanically, the forces exerted by persistent, habitual, nonmasticatory use of the front teeth could account in whole or in part for such well-known Neanderthal features as the long face, the well-developed supraorbital torus, and even the long, low shape of the cranium. Massive anterior dental loading could further explain the unique Neanderthal occipitodmastoid region which perhaps provided the insertions for muscles that stabilized the mandible and head during dental clamping." -Richard G. Klein, "The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) 281-282. Emphasis added.

As a result, I think there is absolutely no reason to believe that Neanderthals died out without giving rise to "modern" humans. Neanderthals buried their dead, participated in religious ceremonies, wore jewelry, made artwork, and engaged in all kinds of other "human-like" activities. There is also no evidence of mass murders or any specific disease that singled out the Neanderthals. The only reason science is making the Neanderthals out to be "different" is because the shape of their skull and because this shape disappeared and was replaced too quickly for ToE to be responsible. These guys need to prove evolution, but the Neanderthals don't help them. As a result, what you WILL see science do is "downgrade" the Neanderthals to make them appear more apelike and less civilized. At the same time they "upgrade" chimps and other apes to make them seem more human-like. This is so they can blur the lines and make it seem like humans and apes are closer than they are.

VERY interesting, Inv. Thanks for posting it.

When I was going thru my 'questioning' stage of life, the one answer I could never get from those I considered Christians was, "Why weren't the dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? I mean, we KNOW they existed... we have bones to prove the fact. So where did their existence fit in?"

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and VOID." Then a few verses later, it skips right on to Adam & Eve. What about the MILLIONS of years after void and before the begatting started??

For a long time, my belief in God was shaken... for the simple reason that no one could answer that question for me. Preachers gave me explanations about 'monsters' being described in the Bible and there was thought those were dinosaurs. Didn't believe that. One preacher even scolded me for wondering such a thing! He said God demanded blind faith and doesn't like it when people ask questions. That didn't help, for sure.

Then I ran across a very smart man who happened to be a Presbyterian... I've never really considered Presbys as being that 'into' fundamental religious subjects, but he answered my question with one simple explanation.

"Because the Bible was written by MEN, dear. Not God, not Jesus... not even WOMEN! Just regular MEN. They could only write what they KNEW and they had no way of knowing about the earth's history. They were simply MEN who believed in God and claimed devine inspiration to be responsible for their writings. Nothing more, nothing less."

Of course that's why there's no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible.

Nor Neanderthals.

In this day and age, we're smart enough to debate subjects like evolution. But not smart enough to write a book that will be still be a best-seller a couple of thousand years from now.

Kinda makes one wonder how smart we REALLY are, doesn't it?

:)
SMW

Hey, you never know SMW... My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren could read Harry Potter. :D

On topic though, that theory about Neanderthals seems perfectly valid to me. We just don't whether or not they were our ancestors or some sort of cousin, near us on the human family tree. However, I don't see how anyone could deny the immense similarities between humans and apes.... And don't give me that "If we came from monkeys, why are they still here?" crap. Perhaps humans did not come from apes, but apes and humans both came from a common ancestor or ancestors?

(P.S. - If this all sounds like bullshit to you, it probably is. I don't know anything about the science of evolution and I totally pulled it out of my ass.)

Oh and inviolable - I definitely believe that people can be Christians yet also believe in evolution. Like SMW's Presbyterian adviser said, the Bible was written by men! Even if they were receiving the word of god, humans are fallible, and of course there are divine mysteries that we cannot understand. Therefore, either God could tell the men his word in such a way that they could understand, or the men could interpret the word into a way that makes sense to them. Either of these explanations could explain the parts of the Bible that seemingly disagree with evolution. I may be getting a little abstract here, but this is something I think about a lot, so I have lots to say about it. :D

True enough you two. I like to see people extend their imagination like that, the way Sport did the research and put it all down in a way that could be understood.
It's nice to see a creation of the imagination come into understanding like that.

Bible does talk about hairy bearded guys living in caves. Something to think about, or not...

Hey, you never know SMW... My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren could read Harry Potter. :D

On topic though, that theory about Neanderthals seems perfectly valid to me. We just don't whether or not they were our ancestors or some sort of cousin, near us on the human family tree. However, I don't see how anyone could deny the immense similarities between humans and apes.... And don't give me that "If we came from monkeys, why are they still here?" crap. Perhaps humans did not come from apes, but apes and humans both came from a common ancestor or ancestors?

(P.S. - If this all sounds like bullshit to you, it probably is. I don't know anything about the science of evolution and I totally pulled it out of my ass.)

Oh and inviolable - I definitely believe that people can be Christians yet also believe in evolution. Like SMW's Presbyterian adviser said, the Bible was written by men! Even if they were receiving the word of god, humans are fallible, and of course there are divine mysteries that we cannot understand. Therefore, either God could tell the men his word in such a way that they could understand, or the men could interpret the word into a way that makes sense to them. Either of these explanations could explain the parts of the Bible that seemingly disagree with evolution. I may be getting a little abstract here, but this is something I think about a lot, so I have lots to say about it. :D

Humans and apes have common ancestors, apes are not our ancestors.

Anyway, the scientific theories, evolutionary and geological, are based on observable data. The Bible is not a source for these theories as it is, as mentioned, written by people who wasn't concerned or had any knowledge of this subject. Whether you need to make a working connection between the Bible and science or not depends on your personal faith and isn't really a scientific concern. If science should be concerned about confirming religion, they would have a huge problem, as there are many other religions other than Christianity that would like to have a saying.

Scientific theories will always change as more data is gathered, that is what science is all about. I realise religious people love to make a big fuzz about it and toss it around in their own pot and pick what suits them. That's up to them tho.

I myself am a physics student, but biology is also a great interest of mine :)

Humans and apes have common ancestors, apes are not our ancestors.
Well then, apparently the creationism supporters have even less of an argument (against evolution that is). :)

Well then, apparently the creationism supporters have even less of an argument (against evolution that is). :)

Don't really know what they claim these days, that and there are numerous of variations of creationism which all states different things.

In any case it has no relevance in science what they decide to believe. As long as it works for them I don't really see why they make all this fuzz in schools and stuff.

Don't really know what they claim these days, that and there are numerous of variations of creationism which all states different things.

In any case it has no relevance in science what they decide to believe. As long as it works for them I don't really see why they make all this fuzz in schools and stuff.
Well, just as I would not want my children taught that God created the world in 6 days, they don't want their children taught about evolution. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but if I were a fundamentalist Christian I would send my children to a Christian school or homeschool them myself.

Well, just as I would not want my children taught that God created the world in 6 days, they don't want their children taught about evolution. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but if I were a fundamentalist Christian I would send my children to a Christian school or homeschool them myself.

mhm
It shouldn't be much of a problem teaching both in school as long as evolution is taught in science class and religion is taught in religion class. I don't like homeschooling or private religious schools tho, unless there is strict control that they are taught what they need to get where they want in life.

mhm
It shouldn't be much of a problem teaching both in school as long as evolution is taught in science class and religion is taught in religion class.

Theres a religion class? Cool.

Oh wait, they call that home ech.

Well, just as I would not want my children taught that God created the world in 6 days, they don't want their children taught about evolution. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, but if I were a fundamentalist Christian I would send my children to a Christian school or homeschool them myself.
If the anti-evolutionists want intelligent design taught in public school, then they should allow all manner of scientists in Sunday School. Teach the controversy, right? :rolleyes:

Theres a religion class? Cool.

Oh wait, they call that home ech.

Well, I wouldn't know, but here there is a religion class at least :)

If the anti-evolutionists want intelligent design taught in public school, then they should allow all manner of scientists in Sunday School. Teach the controversy, right? :rolleyes:

Sounds fair :)
Not to mention some basic psychology in church would do good as well...

Well, I wouldn't know, but here there is a religion class at least :)

Oh, thats cool.

If the anti-evolutionists want intelligent design taught in public school, then they should allow all manner of scientists in Sunday School. Teach the controversy, right? :rolleyes:


Who ever said it was just Christians that want intelligent design taught in school?

If the anti-evolutionists want intelligent design taught in public school, then they should allow all manner of scientists in Sunday School. Teach the controversy, right? :rolleyes:
Mmkay...

You know what? I see nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in school. How much damage could it cause to say something like "Many people believe this alternative theory because of their religious views." and then explain it? Since I doubt evolutionary theory is taught to, say, 8 year olds, I'm pretty sure the students would understand...

Who ever said it was just Christians that want intelligent design taught in school?
I haven't heard a single other religion advocate intelligent design. "Intelligent design" is Christian dogma masquerading as science, purely and simply.

I do admit, however, that some other religions could advocate it. I just have never seen any, at least in the United States.

Mmkay...

You know what? I see nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in school. How much damage could it cause to say something like "Many people believe this alternative theory because of their religious views." and then explain it? Since I doubt evolutionary theory is taught to, say, 8 year olds, I'm pretty sure the students would understand...
Intelligent design is religious in nature, not scientific. It has no business being taught in biology classes. Theology classes, sure. History of science, sure. Not a biology class. You don't discuss incorrect hypotheses in science classes; it's a complete waste of time.

I haven't heard a single other religion advocate intelligent design. "Intelligent design" is Christian dogma masquerading as science, purely and simply.

I do admit, however, that some other religions could advocate it. I just have never seen any, at least in the United States.

They will take time out of their Jewy Jew day to explain it to you!

They will take time out of their Jewy Jew day to explain it to you!
Lewis Black? Is that you?

Lewis Black? Is that you?

Haha, love Lewis Black :)

Lewis Black? Is that you?

“If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.”

Intelligent design is religious in nature, not scientific. It has no business being taught in biology classes. Theology classes, sure. History of science, sure. Not a biology class. You don't discuss incorrect hypotheses in science classes; it's a complete waste of time.


Maybe we should have a religion class then. That actually sounds cool.

Maybe we should have a religion class then. That actually sounds cool.
I would have enjoyed an objective theology class in high school.

I would have enjoyed an objective theology class in high school.
Most colleges have such.

Most colleges have such.
Yeah, but why not have one in high school?

I think it's a good idea for high school. I very much enjoy my Study of Religion class, although a few of the Christians in the class have become slightly offended (mostly just the Mormon chick though).

mostly just the Mormon chick though).

lol

lol
We defined Mormonism as a cult because it is a very new and relatively small sect of a religion, and one that is not taken particularly seriously by the more mainstream members as that religion. We used the definitions of "cult" out of the dictionary and out of our religion textbook... She was a little upset though. :p

Yeah, but why not have one in high school?
May be a matter of time and resources.

...The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and VOID." Then a few verses later, it skips right on to Adam & Eve. What about the MILLIONS of years after void and before the begatting started? ...

Then I ran across a very smart man who happened to be a Presbyterian... I've never really considered Presbys as being that 'into' fundamental religious subjects, but he answered my question with one simple explanation. ...

I had a similar experience when I was an obnoxious teenager. In school, we had been introduced to Darwin and evolution, so, I challenged the local Anglican vicar to explain the inconsistancies between the Bible and evolution. His response was to ask me to define the differences.

My first mistake was to talk about Adam & Eve. His question was "What did they look like?" Of course I said something about man and woman. He then asked me where in the Bible was there a full description of Adam & Eve? I had no answer. All depictions of The Garden of Eden show a handsome Adam and a beautiful Eve. As the vicar pointed out, this may not be true They may have been quite different than us, perhaps even the ancient ancestors that evolution talk about.
Dinosaurs? Again, the vicar noted the Bible defines very few animals, nor trees, nor birds. As he said, obviously it did not set out to be an anthology or textbook on what happenned when.
By the time our converstion finished I could see no real evidence of any real contradictions between the Bible and Darwin. Sure, time periods varied, but man has a very poor concept of time as we all know. Back to dinosaurs. They existed for how long, 28 million years? We have no concept of that. What would early man have called it when 100 was beyond their comprehension.

I had a similar experience when I was an obnoxious teenager. In school, we had been introduced to Darwin and evolution, so, I challenged the local Anglican vicar to explain the inconsistancies between the Bible and evolution. His response was to ask me to define the differences.

My first mistake was to talk about Adam & Eve. His question was "What did they look like?" Of course I said something about man and woman. He then asked me where in the Bible was there a full description of Adam & Eve? I had no answer. All depictions of The Garden of Eden show a handsome Adam and a beautiful Eve. As the vicar pointed out, this may not be true They may have been quite different than us, perhaps even the ancient ancestors that evolution talk about.
Dinosaurs? Again, the vicar noted the Bible defines very few animals, nor trees, nor birds. As he said, obviously it did not set out to be an anthology or textbook on what happenned when.
By the time our converstion finished I could see no real evidence of any real contradictions between the Bible and Darwin. Sure, time periods varied, but man has a very poor concept of time as we all know. Back to dinosaurs. They existed for how long, 28 million years? We have no concept of that. What would early man have called it when 100 was beyond their comprehension.

I know of a well know Preacher who said, Adam and Eve were the purest humans and because they were so pure,(meaning uncorrupted DNA) their insight must have been much better then ours. He stated this about 6 years ago.

Now scientist are saying, Neanderthals may have had more complex imaginations then humans.
Well, at least one scientist that I know of has said it.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426085.400-neanderthals-bid-for-human-status.html

"Neanderthals have typically been thought of as incapable of innovation, as it was assumed to be something unique to Homo sapiens, says Hopkinson. "With this evidence of innovation it becomes difficult to exclude Neanderthals from the concept of humanity."

My first mistake was to talk about Adam & Eve. His question was "What did they look like?" Of course I said something about man and woman. He then asked me where in the Bible was there a full description of Adam & Eve? I had no answer. All depictions of The Garden of Eden show a handsome Adam and a beautiful Eve. As the vicar pointed out, this may not be true They may have been quite different than us, perhaps even the ancient ancestors that evolution talk about.
Wow! Now isn't that an interesting thought! :)

If the scientific community were to agree that Neanderthals were simply the ancestors of modern humans they would have to give a biological explanation of how it happened....aka a mechanism for rapid morphological changes. But they are not willing to do this because any mechanism responsible for rapid morphological changes is generally shunned because these may very well be "non-evolutionary," non-genetic mechanisms
...
I think there is absolutely no reason to believe that Neanderthals died out without giving rise to "modern" humans.I miss the good old days when creationists simply denied evolution wholesale on the grounds that "I ain't no monkey".

The end of creationism began when they started saying "No, no, no. I believe in micro-evolution..."

However this guy is going so far as to argue evolution is actually even more powerful and rapid than what dem evil Darwinists say.

I miss the good old days when creationists simply denied evolution wholesale on the grounds that "I ain't no monkey".

The end of creationism began when they started saying "No, no, no. I believe in micro-evolution..."

However this guy is going so far as to argue evolution is actually even more powerful and rapid than what dem evil Darwinists say.


I think he is more or less taking sides in an argument that is happening within the scientific community itself.

But not smart enough to write a book that will be still be a best-seller a couple of thousand years from now.

Kinda makes one wonder how smart we REALLY are, doesn't it?

:)
SMW

Yeah you've used this argument before. However there are other religions out there (like Hinduism) that have books older than the bible. So, who was smarter? All religions are a sham! (my personal opinion)

Yeah you've used this argument before. However there are other religions out there (like Hinduism) that have books older than the bible. So, who was smarter? All religions are a sham! (my personal opinion)

As a non religious person I fail to see how Christianity can be more true than other religions. I guess that is the main reason I find it hard to take "religious science" serious.

As a non religious person I fail to see how Christianity can be more true than other religions. I guess that is the main reason I find it hard to take "religious science" serious.

Hi Angelina and welcome to All forums.net!

Angelina :) as a person with a mind, you have a point. :) EEK!

Even if you are wrong, we still have to have the thousand year rein of Christ before the final judjment. We a Christians are still waiting for that one. :)

Because we are all still in a state of ignorance, nobody is to be held liable until after the thousand rein of Christ on Earth. Karma might have an effect on folks lives, but I am not sure that that is Christian.

If one is a "Seventh Day Adventist" please ignor the above statement. Their version of what I have stated is abit different. But they are the only ones. But even with them we are still home free in an immortal sense till the second judgement :) . This second judgement comes after the thousand year rein of Christ, which we are all still waiting for :) .

Angelina, I love God and I love Jesus, but at the same time you are not actually that far out there relative to stuff :) Jesus did seem to claim that He would be right back :) and so far it has been two thousand years. Ok, what ever, if one is a Christian. :)

Love,

tuck

Angelina, I love your sig.! It has "Heart"! The kitty radiates "living love", with a bit of concern :) ! Totally to cool!

I'm very well versed in Christian apocalyptic doctrine, and there are many variations of it, all equally founded on the Bible. I find the whole concept ridiculous however as it has no foundation in reality. At least Christianity is based on some semi-real people historically speaking, but this is just out there with the UFO people and conspiracy theorycrafters. I find it incredibly sad that so many millions of people are walking around waiting for the world to end.

Ah well, this is slightly off topic as it has little to do with evolution.

Atheists have at least as much, if not more, heart and love for life and living things as religious people do. Both the nature and the universe is significantly more awe inspiring and mind boggling to me without a god than with one.

Specially kittens :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman
But not smart enough to write bookS that will be still be best-sellerS a couple of thousand years from now.

Kinda makes one wonder how smart we REALLY are, doesn't it?
SMW

Yeah you've used this argument before. However there are other religions out there (like Hinduism) that have books older than the bible. So, who was smarter? All religions are a sham! (my personal opinion)

OK, so I added an S to my argument. Does that make it any less incredible that RELIGIOUS books have endured all these years?

Don't you (just a little bit) wonder why???

;)
SMW

Don't you (just a little bit) wonder why???
Same reason Homer's plays have endured this long: Because it's a good story. Like Tolkien before his time.

Same reason Homer's plays have endured this long: Because it's a good story. Like Tolkien before his time.

Wonder why we can't produce such 'good stories' anymore? Evolution might be working to make us 'evolved', but it doesn't seem to have improved our creativity much. Who thinks High School Musical will be studied and discussed in 4007? Wonder if future civilizations will scour Harry Potter books, looking for hidden clues to mankind's creation?

Wonder why we can't produce such 'good stories' anymore? Evolution might be working to make us 'evolved', but it doesn't seem to have improved our creativity much. Who thinks High School Musical will be studied and discussed in 4007? Wonder if future civilizations will scour Harry Potter books, looking for hidden clues to mankind's creation?
Well, depends on where you think cults like Mormonism and Scientology will be in a millennium or so. Who knows, maybe Scientology is the next big world religion?

Could be. Then there are the people who think Islam is the religion discussed in Revelations that will be responsible for ending the world (as we know it).

I'd come closer to believing that than anything about Mormonism or Scientology.... both relatively new 'religions' in the whole scheme of the world.

Could be. Then there are the people who think Islam is the religion discussed in Revelations that will be responsible for ending the world (as we know it).

I'd come closer to believing that than anything about Mormonism or Scientology.... both relatively new 'religions' in the whole scheme of the world.
I'll give Scientology credit for one thing: They do underscore one point, that being, is Xenu bringing a bunch of people to Earth 75 million years ago that much more farfetched than some of the central tenets of Christianity, or Islam, or any other theistic religion?

The reason you think Scientology is bullshit is the same reason I think Christianity is bullshit. Though Scientology is more corrupt, as L. Ron Hubbard was a crook.

Haha, love Lewis Black :)
I love him too!!!!

I'll give Scientology credit for one thing: They do underscore one point, that being, is Xenu bringing a bunch of people to Earth 75 million years ago that much more farfetched than some of the central tenets of Christianity, or Islam, or any other theistic religion?

The reason you think Scientology is bullshit is the same reason I think Christianity is bullshit. Though Scientology is more corrupt, as L. Ron Hubbard was a crook.

I don't think either Scientology or Mormonism is BS. I ordered a couple of books on parenting from the S folks back in the early 80's and they still have me on their mailing list! I looked into their beliefs sometime after that and it wasn't my cup of tea. And my dentist is a Mormon and uses his vacations to travel to remote areas of the world, performing his services free for people who need his help. He's one of the finest 'Christian' men I've ever met.

People generally gravitate toward whatever 'religion' makes sense to them, personally. And that includes Atheism. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just different.

Having said that, however, I do resent atheists trying to convince me what an idiot I am for believing the same thing that 80% of the world's population believes... that there is a Supreme Being. Although I try to refrain from saying it most times, seems to me the idiot tag might be misplaced.

;)
SMW

Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that not believing in something invisible is being an idiot.

Atheism is not a religion or a group, its the people who do not belong to a religion or a religious group. We don't have to have anything in common except that we don't believe in a diety.

Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that not believing in something invisible is being an idiot.

Atheism is not a religion or a group, its the people who do not belong to a religion or a religious group. We don't have to have anything in common except that we don't believe in a diety.

I don't belong to a religion or group either, but I still believe in God. So, what would you call me?

I don't belong to a religion or group either, but I still believe in God. So, what would you call me?

Theist or Deist depending

...Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that not believing in something invisible is being an idiot...

But we all believe in somethings that are invisible. You just happen to believe that some of them are real because you think their effect can be detected. Other invisible things you reject because you think otherwise.

Theist or Deist depending

Gotta love those labels, eh?

:hula:

Gotta love those labels, eh?

:hula:

They are definitions, that's all. Very general too.
When you say "I believe in a god" you actually call yourself a theist, that is what it means.
Same as saying "I do not believe in a god" makes you an atheist.

It's not much more than that my name labels me a woman. Maybe except that I can't change my mind about that :)

[quote=AngelinaC]...Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that not believing in something invisible is being an idiot....quote]

But we all believe in somethings that are invisible. You just happen to believe that some of them are real because you think their effect can be detected. Other invisible things you reject because you think otherwise.

You're absolutely right, OT. I also wonder how atheists explain things like talents. Christians call them 'God-given' -- do atheists call them freaks of nature?

[QUOTE=Oldtimer]

You're absolutely right, OT. I also wonder how atheists explain things like talents. Christians call them 'God-given' -- do atheists call them freaks of nature?

Mostly we call it DNA afaik :)

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]

Mostly we call it DNA afaik :)

DNA, huh? Too bad man isn't capable of recreating that sequence of dots and dashes. We could solve all the problems of mankind, eh?

What's that you say?

Man isn't even capable of creating a grain of sand?

Imagine that? Wonder why?

DNA, huh? Too bad man isn't capable of recreating that sequence of dots and dashes. We could solve all the problems of mankind, eh?

What's that you say?

Man isn't even capable of creating a grain of sand?

Imagine that? Wonder why?

There is nothing stopping us from doing it, it does take more knowledge tho. I don't know where we're up to in that area yet. Using that argument as proof of god is just setting yourself up for fail anyway :)

There is nothing stopping us from doing it, it does take more knowledge tho. I don't know where we're up to in that area yet. Using that argument as proof of god is just setting yourself up for fail anyway :)

Oh really? According to my beliefs, GOD created heaven and the earth, but man is unable to create even a single grain of sand. Are you saying that SOMEDAY man will be able to create a single grain of sand? There is only one thing stopping man from being able to do it now... or ever. He's not God.

Pretty simple if you think about it.

;)
SMW

Oh really? According to my beliefs, GOD created heaven and the earth, but man is unable to create even a single grain of sand. Are you saying that SOMEDAY man will be able to create a single grain of sand? There is only one thing stopping man from being able to do it now... or ever. He's not God.

Pretty simple if you think about it.

;)
SMW

lol, no, just no...
There is absolutely no logic in that statement that I can see...

We can construct materials atom by atom already, called nanotechnology. We can also not just split atoms, but we can split the particles atoms are made of.

lol, no, just no...
There is absolutely no logic in that statement that I can see...

We can construct materials atom by atom already, called nanotechnology. We can also not just split atoms, but we can split the particles atoms are made of.

And yet... we still can't create a grain of sand, much less a bucket of dirt.

But, heck yeah, we can split atoms to the point we're capable of destroying the whole damn planet!!

Ain't we something???

;)
SMW

And yet... we still can't create a grain of sand, much less a bucket of dirt.

But, heck yeah, we can split atoms to the point we're capable of destroying the whole damn planet!!

Ain't we something???

;)
SMW

Anyway we are a product of the universe, and god is a product of our minds, kinda mean to the universe to rearrange that IMO :)

Here's another interesting thing to ponder... you know that grain of sand we can't create?

Well, we can't destroy it, either.

Sure, we can bash it into lots of other little tiny pieces of earth... but make it totally go away? No can do.

Those who don't believe in a Creator would be far more convincing if they could explain a few of the unknowns of the universe... instead of just saying nothing is a miracle. I'm more likely to believe EVERYTHING is a miracle!

;)
SMW

I'm very well versed in Christian apocalyptic doctrine, and there are many variations of it, all equally founded on the Bible. I find the whole concept ridiculous however as it has no foundation in reality. At least Christianity is based on some semi-real people historically speaking, but this is just out there with the UFO people and conspiracy theorycrafters. I find it incredibly sad that so many millions of people are walking around waiting for the world to end.

Ah well, this is slightly off topic as it has little to do with evolution.

Atheists have at least as much, if not more, heart and love for life and living things as religious people do. Both the nature and the universe is significantly more awe inspiring and mind boggling to me without a god than with one.

Specially kittens :)

Angel, I have a tendency to agree with you :) and I am an advanced Christian Mystic. "The proof is in the pudding" :) and we as Christians not only don't have any "proof", but we also don't have any "pudding!"

And Angel on All Forums.net it is ok to be off topic abit. The Admins. don't mind and most of the members don't mind. They just play around it :) all is well.

I love kittens too. I love all baby aninimals. Baby humans scare me abit though :) . It is probably an "old guy thing."

Love you and welcome!

tuck

Here's another interesting thing to ponder... you know that grain of sand we can't create?

Well, we can't destroy it, either.

Sure, we can bash it into lots of other little tiny pieces of earth... but make it totally go away? No can do.

Those who don't believe in a Creator would be far more convincing if they could explain a few of the unknowns of the universe... instead of just saying nothing is a miracle. I'm more likely to believe EVERYTHING is a miracle!

;)
SMW

Well, that is a bit of an oxymoron. The unknowns are the things we can't explain, otherwise they wouldn't be unknown... Pulling the miracle card is just cheating.

It is also perfectly possible to annihilate mass and make it into energy. 4 million tonns of mass seize to exist every second in the sun.

Here's another interesting thing to ponder... you know that grain of sand we can't create?

Well, we can't destroy it, either.

Sure, we can bash it into lots of other little tiny pieces of earth... but make it totally go away? No can do.

Those who don't believe in a Creator would be far more convincing if they could explain a few of the unknowns of the universe... instead of just saying nothing is a miracle. I'm more likely to believe EVERYTHING is a miracle!

;)
SMW

Santa Claus is a women you know :) I am married to her!

tuck :)

Santa Claus is a women you know :) I am married to her!

tuckYou freakin' elf! I knew it!:worship:

Here's another interesting thing to ponder... you know that grain of sand we can't create?

Well, we can't destroy it, either.

Sure, we can bash it into lots of other little tiny pieces of earth... but make it totally go away? No can do.

Those who don't believe in a Creator would be far more convincing if they could explain a few of the unknowns of the universe... instead of just saying nothing is a miracle. I'm more likely to believe EVERYTHING is a miracle!

;)
SMW

SMW :) just for the sake of discussion, "Who created the "Creator"?" Where did that truely Loved One come from?

I agree with Angel. There is no such thing as a "miricle". It is, "How did you play with "Creation" like that?"

Angel relative to physics the question is, "Where did the stuff from the "Big Bang" come from?" One minute there is nothing there and the next minute a Universe is being created. Science wants to say that matter condenses and then expands. At the sametime everytime science catches matter condensing the phenomenom leaves a "black hole".

tuck

You freakin' elf! I knew it!:worship:

Shiloh I love you and always have :) !

tuck :)

SMW :) just for the sake of discussion, "Who created the "Creator"?" Where did that truely Loved One come from?

I agree with Angel. There is no such thing as a "miricle". It is, "How did you play with "Creation" like that?"

Angel relative to physics the question is, "Where did the stuff from the "Big Bang" come from?" One minute there is nothing there and the next minute a Universe is being created. Science wants to say that matter condenses and then expands. At the sametime everytime science catches matter condensing the phenomenom leaves a "black hole".

tuck

It's not that simple. Matter doesn't exist in the way we think,that is just an illusion. Matter is just stable energy...

I just started studying science, so I can't give that detailed answers :)

Santa Claus is a women you know :) I am married to her!

tuck :)
you're calling your wife a fat bearded lady? you must have one heck of a password, or a death wish :matrix:

It's not that simple. Matter doesn't exist in the way we think,that is just an illusion. Matter is just stable energy...

I just started studying science, so I can't give that detailed answers :)

Angel, what you posted above works for me. The more minds that are exploring this challenge creates a very good idea. I do not care about your educational level. The fact that you are even willing to be interested in this stuff, is a gift to humankind.

Actually nobody knows what is going on. NOBODY! Questioning minds are what create a knowledge reality. Religion has a tendency to step on this process. After all :) there was a time that you could have gotten yourself strung up for claiming that the world was "round" :) ,not "flat!"

Matter is just stable energy...

The problem is that matter is just most of the time stable energy. Science is now trying to figure out what in the heck is going on the rest of time :) I love that part!

What is funny Angel is that new minds, not set in tradition, come up with ideas that solve things.

Anyway Angel, I am just glad that you are not intimidated by tradition.

Love you!

tuck

you're calling your wife a fat bearded lady? you must have one heck of a password, or a death wish :matrix:

Hi Mike :)

Obviously Mike you have never actually met Santa Claus/Klaus :) ! That person comes in many different shapes and all as a blessing to those that believe.

Love you!

tuck

SMW :) just for the sake of discussion, "Who created the "Creator"?" Where did that truely Loved One come from?

I agree with Angel. There is no such thing as a "miricle". It is, "How did you play with "Creation" like that?"

Angel relative to physics the question is, "Where did the stuff from the "Big Bang" come from?" One minute there is nothing there and the next minute a Universe is being created. Science wants to say that matter condenses and then expands. At the sametime everytime science catches matter condensing the phenomenom leaves a "black hole".

tuck

The creator's Creator came from the planet Zworg... in a galaxy far, far away. His wife's name is Edna. Prove I'm wrong and I'll buy you a cup of Starbucks.

;)
SMW

I don't belong to a religion or group either, but I still believe in God. So, what would you call me? Confused!:lolhit:

you're calling your wife a fat bearded lady? That's just a costume the hottie wears to keep the paparazzi from recognizing her in the off season, when she cruises down to Vagas.:cool:

The creator's Creator came from the planet Zworg... in a galaxy far, far away. His wife's name is Edna. Prove I'm wrong and I'll buy you a cup of Starbucks.

;)
SMW

Good point! It is the same when people speak of Jesus, Vishnu, or whatever - that is "prove me I'm wrong". One might as well worship this Zworg and Edna of yours since he/she/it can't be proven wrong. Well said! And I thought you were a hopeless religious person.

Good point! It is the same when people speak of Jesus, Vishnu, or whatever - that is "prove me I'm wrong". One might as well worship this Zworg and Edna of yours since he/she/it can't be proven wrong. Well said! And I thought you were a hopeless religious person.

Just goes to show ya, Mesk... nobody's hopeless, eh?

:thumbs:

The creator's Creator came from the planet Zworg... in a galaxy far, far away. His wife's name is Edna. Prove I'm wrong and I'll buy you a cup of Starbucks.

;)
SMW Your making the claim he exist so you prove it. The proving is up to you because your making the claim. Surely you know that!

Your making the claim he exist so you prove it. The proving is up to you because your making the claim. Surely you know that!

The point is... NOBODY can prove anything. I have faith that God exists... that's all that matters TO ME. Do I know what he looks like? NO. Do I know who created God? NO. Do I believe I have a SOUL and life is more important and meaningful than the joining together of a bunch of cells in some random sequence that turned out to be ME? YES.

Man can create alot of impressive things... but he can't create life from nothing. Until he can, I'll just stick to my version of how life began.

Try as they may, nobody can convince me they know more about creation than I do. Nor do I know more than them. But I have something they don't have... faith. And that's all I need.

;)
SMW

The point is... NOBODY can prove anything. I have faith that God exists... that's all that matters TO ME. Do I know what he looks like? NO. Do I know who created God? NO. Do I believe I have a SOUL and life is more important and meaningful than the joining together of a bunch of cells in some random sequence that turned out to be ME? YES.

Man can create alot of impressive things... but he can't create life from nothing. Until he can, I'll just stick to my version of how life began.

Try as they may, nobody can convince me they know more about creation than I do. Nor do I know more than them. But I have something they don't have... faith. And that's all I need.

;)
SMW

So if mankind cannot create life, it must be God? That make absolutely no sense at all. Life is most likely a natural consequence of the laws of this universe. Building blocks of life is simple chemical reactions. Natural selection allows for these to grow in complexity. It is a process that probably rarely happens as the conditions have to be perfect, but here we are 3-4 billion years down the track talking about it...

As for the proof/disproof argument this one makes a good argument why that line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot

I can assure you that a life without a god is no less meaningful, on the contrary it's even more profound. It makes you feel so insignificant and yet so incredibly unlikely and special. I have talked about this with many friends with religious backgrounds, and the feeling you get when the scales of religion are removed from your eyes and you realize what it is we actually are a part of. The beauty and grandness of the universe and the infinite complexity and beauty of a flower or a bird and how unlikely and special and incredibly precious this all is. There just is no turning back. This is truly the religious experience Einstein talks about. Grandness without limitation set by old men living in the dark millennias ago. A grandness worthy devoting ones life to understand and figure out, without restrictions or prejudice, just open and sincere wonder and respect.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to religious people, but I have been there for the first 25 years of my life, and it made so little sense compared to the reality. It can only be experienced for yourself :)

The point is... NOBODY can prove anything. I have faith that God exists... that's all that matters TO ME. Do I know what he looks like? NO. Do I know who created God? NO. Do I believe I have a SOUL and life is more important and meaningful than the joining together of a bunch of cells in some random sequence that turned out to be ME? YES.

Man can create alot of impressive things... but he can't create life from nothing. Until he can, I'll just stick to my version of how life began.

Try as they may, nobody can convince me they know more about creation than I do. Nor do I know more than them. But I have something they don't have... faith. And that's all I need.

;)
SMW

But when you spoke of Zworg, its as if you were speaking right at my heart! When I heard of Zworg, I felt like a new person. I can feel it in my heart, I just know it. Don't ask me to prove it, because if you need proof that means you don't have faith. And all Zworg needs is faith. Zworg Bless all of us and most importantly Zworg bless America. Maybe I should write a book about how I felt - my testament if you will..

The creator's Creator came from the planet Zworg... in a galaxy far, far away. His wife's name is Edna. Prove I'm wrong and I'll buy you a cup of Starbucks.

;)
SMW

SMW, just for the record I consider you the most dangerous human being on this messageboard :) But at the sametime as a person (me) who has a slight self destructive bent to their personallity (but not actually suicideal :) )

---------- :) !

Love you!

tuck

So if mankind cannot create life, it must be God? That make absolutely no sense at all. Life is most likely a natural consequence of the laws of this universe. Building blocks of life is simple chemical reactions. Natural selection allows for these to grow in complexity. It is a process that probably rarely happens as the conditions have to be perfect, but here we are 3-4 billion years down the track talking about it...

As for the proof/disproof argument this one makes a good argument why that line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot

I can assure you that a life without a god is no less meaningful, on the contrary it's even more profound. It makes you feel so insignificant and yet so incredibly unlikely and special. I have talked about this with many friends with religious backgrounds, and the feeling you get when the scales of religion are removed from your eyes and you realize what it is we actually are a part of. The beauty and grandness of the universe and the infinite complexity and beauty of a flower or a bird and how unlikely and special and incredibly precious this all is. There just is no turning back. This is truly the religious experience Einstein talks about. Grandness without limitation set by old men living in the dark millennias ago. A grandness worthy devoting ones life to understand and figure out, without restrictions or prejudice, just open and sincere wonder and respect.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to religious people, but I have been there for the first 25 years of my life, and it made so little sense compared to the reality. It can only be experienced for yourself :)

I hear what you're saying, Ang, but in my way of thinking, if you don't believe in a supreme being, then you believe you ARE a supreme being. IOW, that there are no limits to what mankind can accomplish because there is nothing in the universe more 'special' than we are.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Also don't buy the 'life is a natural consequence of the laws of the universe'... because nobody can explain how that first 'chemical' came to be. Nor how the universe came to be. Nor how what we call 'nature' makes a flower bloom... but we can't create nature... not even a single seed. The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

I find it amusing that you would use the term 'remove the scales from ones eyes' to describe the revelation that there is no God... when that phrase comes directly from the Bible.

Life without believing in God is a self-centered existence. And I'm not saying that's necessarily a BAD thing. Many people live long and fruitful lives believing they have no one to answer to but themselves. However, I think if the whole planet believed that to be true, there would be mass chaos and disorder. Obviously, a couple of thousand years ago, others believed the same thing and wrote a book to live by. The same book you just used a quote from and was in the nightstand of the last hotel I stayed at.

80% of the world's population believes in some sort of God. So it doesn't really matter if a fringe of society believes otherwise. Throughout history, people who believe they're put on this earth for a reason have helped form the world we live in. It's far from perfect... but it's all we've got, regardless of how it got here in the first place.

I understand that it's easier to believe we're the masters of our own destiny and nobody else is in charge but us. Must be responsible for that wonderful feeling of freedom you describe. Knowing all the answers is impossible, although as you mention, many very intelligent people have tried to learn life's secrets (like Einstein). But the reality of the matter is... he's dead. He may truly know the answers now, but he can't fill us with wonder at his perceptions anymore, regardless of what he might know now.

If I'm gonna live my life believing in something no one can prove, I'd simply rather have faith in the word of God. If that makes me an idiot, it's OK. I'm certainly not the only one who feels that way.

;)
SMW

I understand that it's easier to believe we're the masters of our own destiny and nobody else is in charge but us.
Is it easier or harder? I have heard it both ways so many times, sometimes from the same person. It's very confusing.

Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him, the universe knows nothing of this.

"All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling. "

I hear what you're saying, Ang, but in my way of thinking, if you don't believe in a supreme being, then you believe you ARE a supreme being. IOW, that there are no limits to what mankind can accomplish because there is nothing in the universe more 'special' than we are.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Also don't buy the 'life is a natural consequence of the laws of the universe'... because nobody can explain how that first 'chemical' came to be. Nor how the universe came to be. Nor how what we call 'nature' makes a flower bloom... but we can't create nature... not even a single seed. The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

I find it amusing that you would use the term 'remove the scales from ones eyes' to describe the revelation that there is no God... when that phrase comes directly from the Bible.

Life without believing in God is a self-centered existence. And I'm not saying that's necessarily a BAD thing. Many people live long and fruitful lives believing they have no one to answer to but themselves. However, I think if the whole planet believed that to be true, there would be mass chaos and disorder. Obviously, a couple of thousand years ago, others believed the same thing and wrote a book to live by. The same book you just used a quote from and was in the nightstand of the last hotel I stayed at.

80% of the world's population believes in some sort of God. So it doesn't really matter if a fringe of society believes otherwise. Throughout history, people who believe they're put on this earth for a reason have helped form the world we live in. It's far from perfect... but it's all we've got, regardless of how it got here in the first place.

I understand that it's easier to believe we're the masters of our own destiny and nobody else is in charge but us. Must be responsible for that wonderful feeling of freedom you describe. Knowing all the answers is impossible, although as you mention, many very intelligent people have tried to learn life's secrets (like Einstein). But the reality of the matter is... he's dead. He may truly know the answers now, but he can't fill us with wonder at his perceptions anymore, regardless of what he might know now.

If I'm gonna live my life believing in something no one can prove, I'd simply rather have faith in the word of God. If that makes me an idiot, it's OK. I'm certainly not the only one who feels that way.

;)
SMW

SMW Sweetheart :) God can be proven.

And SMW having true faith in God does not make you an idiot. It makes you and example of God's love.

Like the lady on another messageboard said to me, "If God would love me first, then I would love Him! "Ya right, you would just milk Him for all He is worth :) "

tuck

Is it easier or harder? I have heard it both ways so many times, sometimes from the same person. It's very confusing.

Good point. Seems to me it would be easier because if one truly believed there was no God, they wouldn't feel compelled to try and PROVE there is no God. However, I have my doubts that even the most diehard atheists are really that convinced. Otherwise, why would they put forth so much effort to prove something they don't believe in doesn't exist? What's the point of that?

In the real world, I hardly ever KNOW how people around me feel about God because it's not a subject that comes up in everyday conversation. It's a personal conviction that most people don't discuss. Contrary to popular (message board) belief, in my whole life, I've met very few Christians who tried to persuade me that their way is the only way. In 8 years of cruising message boards, I've never had a conversation with one atheist who DIDN'T try to convince me there is no God. Seems atheists start more threads to discuss their position than believers start to discuss theirs. There's something to be said for atheist determination. Too bad there is no reward for not believing in something so strongly that one feels it's their 'duty' to spread the word.

I can see why it's confusing. That sounds really hard to me, too.

;)
SMW

Your making the claim he exist so you prove it. The proving is up to you because your making the claim. Surely you know that!

Hi PurpleK and welcome to All Forums.net!

so you prove it.

One proves it in their own life :) The rest of you guys are, I guess :) ,just screwed! Oh well.

Rev. tuck

Ever see an atheist knocking on doors and handing out pamphlets, SMW? :p

SMW Sweetheart :) God can be proven.

And SMW having true faith in God does not make you an idiot. It makes you and example of God's love.

Like the lady on another messageboard said to me, "If God would love me first, then I would love Him! "Ya right, you would just milk Him for all He is worth :) "

tuck

You're right, Tuck. But only about God being real in the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not about me being the most 'dangerous' person around here. Yeah, I'm opinionated on some subjects and not afraid to speak my mind... and I have a smartmouth. Duh. But other than that, I'm really quite harmless. Heck, I don't even own a gun!

;)
SMW

"All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling. "

Son, if you are a true man you don't feel and you are unemotional! :)

A true man can never know God. :)

Love you!

tuck

Ever see an atheist knocking on doors and handing out pamphlets, SMW? :p

No, DF. But it would probably be much more effective than trying to convert people to atheism on message boards!

I used to live down the street from a Jehovah's Witness church that frequently sent members to knock on my door. One of my g/fs told me the secret to politely dissuade them from bothering me again.... just tell them I'm Catholic. It worked... they never came back.

I've also had a few other churches who knocked on my door and gave me a pamphlet and invited me to attend their services. Rather than think of them as pests, I prefer to think of them as spreading the word of God and who knows? The next door they knock on might be answered by someone in dire need of help. There's no doubt in my mind, help would be offered. I just don't see that as a bad thing.

;)
SMW

I used to live down the street from a Jehovah's Witness church that frequently sent members to knock on my door. One of my g/fs told me the secret to politely dissuade them from bothering me again.... just tell them I'm Catholic. It worked... they never came back.
I've heard that answering the door naked is a good deterrent, but I've never had any nuts knocking on my door trying to tell me the "good news".

You're right, Tuck. But only about God being real in the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not about me being the most 'dangerous' person around here. Yeah, I'm opinionated on some subjects and not afraid to speak my mind... and I have a smartmouth. Duh. But other than that, I'm really quite harmless. Heck, I don't even own a gun!

;)
SMW

SMW I spent half of last night worring about your responce to my post :)

I sort of have a rough record on this messageboard. I was concerned about how you would take me.

I honestly love you and what you are doing, even though I am a bit of an awkward child in an awkward world. No true saint is harmless unless one carries love in their heart. I love God SMW :) ,I pegged you right!

Love!

tuck

I've heard that answering the door naked is a good deterrent, but I've never had any nuts knocking on my door trying to tell me the "good news".

Aside from the naked thing (which I agree might work), I've never had any church except Jehovah's Witnesses send people to my door in an effort to 'tell me the good news.' Trust me, if you give those folks a chance to come in and sit on your sofa, you'll be bombarded with what they think. Their church happens to believe that it's their MISSION to spread the news.

I'd liken their methods to inviting FT into one's home to hear HIS side of the issue. He seems to be on a very similar mission if you ask me. ;)

The 'door-knocking Christians' are a myth in the minds of atheists. Not to say they don't exist at all (even though you admit they've never come to you) but they're not half as motivated to convert nonbelievers as they are to help people who've lost their way and think they have no where else to turn.

Hmmmm, wonder what those JW's would've done if I'd answered the door naked??

;)
SMW

SMW I spent half of last night worring about your responce to my post :)

I sort of have a rough record on this messageboard. I was concerned about how you would take me.

I honestly love you and what you are doing, even though I am a bit of an awkward child in an awkward world. No true saint is harmless unless one carries love in their heart. I love God SMW :) ,I pegged you right!

Love!

tuck

I worried about my response to you, too, Tuck. Allforums is a TOUGH messageboard period, so you're not alone in having a rough time here. I never intend to hurt people, but I do tend to try and return the favor when attacked, so I can understand why some people would just as soon avoid talking to me. I'm glad we cleared the air. And I appreciate your honesty. I promise I'll never try to bite your head off.

God bless you.

;)
SMW

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]I worried about my response to you, too, Tuck. Allforums is a TOUGH messageboard period, so you're not alone in having a rough time here. I never intend to hurt people, but I do tend to try and return the favor when attacked, so I can understand why some people would just as soon avoid talking to me. I'm glad we cleared the air. And I appreciate your honesty. I promise I'll never try to bite your head off.


Bullfrog.If you want a tough Message board,than try and survive
the Glory days of Clore & Alice34 at IMDb.com.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]I worried about my response to you, too, Tuck. Allforums is a TOUGH messageboard period, so you're not alone in having a rough time here. I never intend to hurt people, but I do tend to try and return the favor when attacked, so I can understand why some people would just as soon avoid talking to me. I'm glad we cleared the air. And I appreciate your honesty. I promise I'll never try to bite your head off.


Bullfrog.If you want a tough Message board,than try and survive
the Glory days of Clore & Alice34 at IMDb.com.

Oh please, Foolie. I cut my messageboard teeth on Yahell where there are no mods to protect anyone from the lunatics. Not to mention I've put up with YOU for how many years now???

I oughta get a medal for endurance.

;)
SMW

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]

Oh please, Foolie. I cut my messageboard teeth on Yahell where there are no mods to protect anyone from the lunatics. Not to mention I've put up with YOU for how many years now???

I oughta get a medal for endurance.

;)
SMW

Either that or be put in the Nuthouse

:@@: :@@: :@@: :@@:

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]

Either that or be put in the Nuthouse

:@@: :@@: :@@: :@@:

Tucker58 flirts gently with Scumbelina :)

Love you!

tuck