

"I Love Having My Beliefs Challenged."
Several conversations about religion featuring Alex Reynard

[color=#888a85][i]The following is a transcript of various conversations that took place on [url=https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=41079]one of my Inkbunny journals[/url]. Out of fairness and respect for privacy, I will not use the participants' real usernames here. All names besides mine will be aliases. However, since the conversations themselves were posted where anyone could read them, there should be no problem with me reprinting them. I have not edited the content of anyone's posts, though spelling errors have been corrected for readability's sake. I will attempt to arrange conversations chronologically, but I will make allowances for clarity.[/i][/color]


*****

[b]INDIGO[/b]
Like I said. I HATE those kind of religious people. They give a bad name to anyone with faith, and turn religion into a virus that causes death and destruction, and only seems to exist to spread and infest.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to INDIGO
Kudos to you, good sir. Religion in of itself is no bad thing. The core of almost all religions, no matter the particular faith actually does boil down to the golden rule. "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Yet the depravity of man has perverted this good, wholesome concept into a vessel for hatred.


*****


[b]AlexReynard[/b] to INDIGO
>They give a bad name to anyone with faith

No, faith gives itself a bad name. Believing without need of evidence has always been a bad idea, and treating it as a virtue has always been a worse one.

>and turn religion into a virus that causes death and destruction, and only seems to exist to spread and infest.

Religion [i]is[/i] a virus, religion has always [i]been[/i] a virus, religion will always [i]be[/i] a virus. It is part of its very [i]structure[/i]. In Christianity, one of the core ideas is that if you believe, we will give you a 'get out of death free' card. But if you doubt, you will suffer God's wrath. Just by itself, that is a powerful mechanism for ensuring people keep on believing even against their better judgement. Ever heard of Pascal's wager?

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
If you add in the words 'Institutionalized and Organized before calling 'religion' a virus, then i'll agree with you. Organized, Institutionalized religion has been set up by man for the material benefit of man rather than for any spiritual gain. It is used by man as an excuse for all manner of evil, they hide behind it, cower in it's shadow and try to justify the most perverted depravity as being part of their 'religion'.

True religion on the other hand, is a star marker for how to instantly stop all wars, all hatred, all suffering and turn this world into paradise. At their very core, ALL religions have but one rule. Man has added things to it, taken things away and tried so very hard to twist it into something more profitable, but that core component still stands.

True religion is this; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, thou shalt love thy Neighbor as thyself." Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if you follow no God or gods, but if every man obeyed the second part of this statement then this world would be perfect. No one could deny that and I say that anyone who thinks religion is ANYTHING other than that core command has no concept or understanding of what the real meaning of Religion is.

True religion does not say "Thou shalt use guns and bombs to slaughter the innocent." It doesn't say "Thy priests shall molest little kiddies". It doesn't say any of the hundreds of sick things 'religion' is accused of. It is the evil desires of man and man alone responsible for all the wrong in this world, Not God and not religion.

~~~

[b]LAVENDER[/b] to GREEN
I'm going to have to disagree with that. All Religions have always pushed their own superiority over others. No religion has been made that ever mentioned anything loving others without a twist. The twist being that the love others only applies to others of your faith. Most if not all have murder, death, and pain written into their base, especially of outsiders. Christianity at it's core has the rules of " Believe completely with only faith in god no matter what." and that's followed by " and suffer not the presence of others aka convert them and if they don't convert.. exile or kill them.. smash them with stones."

Religion has always been about control. Early on it was also a way to explain the world around them. But its at its core about control. If you doubt that death has been a focus about religion being focused on death. Well think about all the religions that involve sacrifice, especially that of "virgins" or young women. Religion completely is nothing but a way to control others via fear of death and its results. After all. All religions have an afterlife where those who are "true believers" are sent to their version of paradise, and those who aren't are the enemy and end up very often being targets for their wrath or claimed to to be sent to their version of endless torment.

What it boils down to in Christianity is simple.
"Put your absolute faith in our god, or you are the enemy to be assimilated or be sent to eternal suffering. And if they wont believe like we tell them to.. Hasten their trip to hell"

I'd also like to make a side note that this is a group who have altered the image of their hell thanks to Dante's inferno (hell was frozen before that book) and made a habit of stealing other groups holidays in order to help convert them. And killed entire CULTURES just because they had their own gods and did not want to join. I don't see a reason to put faith into a group whose history includes a long spree of murder and death and destruction and rape all over the world in the name of their their god and some yellow metal. (gold). If you doubt me, ask the Aztecs.

And on a side note. There have been more wars over religion then any other subject in recorded history.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to LAVENDER
Which is why I make the distinction between Institutionalized and Organized religion, how it is seen now and has been portrayed for many long years and of which you give the examples of in your post and True Religion, those who follow the Golden rule as I stated in my last post.

For clarification, let me give you an example of what I mean. An atheist who is a good family man, a loving husband and father, who works hard yet always has time for his friends, who donates to charities and will spare anyone a dollar and who takes joy in seeing others happy and healthy even when they cannot benefit him in any way, this man has more Religion and Christian spirit in him than a hundred bible thumping extremists preaching intolerance and hate.

~~~

[b]LAVENDER[/b] to GREEN
You're not explaining religion in your example. You're just explaining a good person. An Exceptionally good person.

That has nothing to do with religion. And why must it be Christian spirit? In your example all you've shown is a good guy. No one needs Christianity to be good. And if you're not a Christian it's not Christian spirit. It's just being a good person. Hate to break it to you, but Christian spirit has always been a one sided attitude. From the beginning its been "Us or Them".

I'm not meaning to sound mean in any way here. But you don't need to tack on "christian" to make someone a good moral person. And even then Morals are more an opinion of what you deem good. (excluding obvious extremes) After all, back in the day it was moral for people to throw rocks at the non believers till they were dead.

I'd prefer you use the term "humanist" then christian spirit. God is not necessary for people to be ether good, evil, or both. (and even then, good and evil are all based on opinions)

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to LAVENDER
To me, being religious and being a 'good person' cannot be a separate thing if a person is claiming to be religious. If a person is not similar in mannerisms to the example I listed yet claims to be 'religious', if they spout litanies of hatred and intolerance towards any man on grounds of his beliefs or sexuality, then that person is not religious and has no concept of what religion is.

A person who is not religious can be said to be a humanitarian, as you noted. But if a person claims to be Christian or Muslim or a follower of any religion yet is not a true humanitarian, then they are not religious.

That is what I believe.

~~~

[b]LAVENDER[/b] to GREEN
It's a nice ideal for your religion. Sadly from its core it teaches the opposite.. It would have been nice if you'd set up the rules. But as long as they have the "get out of hell free card" of confessionals.. it provides far to many outs.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to LAVENDER
This is why I say the organized, institutionalized modern religion, the religion you see and are talking about, the one everyone sees and knows, and the religion I speak of are two separate entities.

Yes, my views on religion are idealistic, yet I see it as the truth of religion. To me, any other theology or practice contrary to the golden rule is not religion or religious in any way.


*****


[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>True religion on the other hand, is a star marker for how to instantly stop all wars, all hatred, all suffering and turn this world into paradise.

Funny then, how it's never worked. Or has there just never been a 'true' religion?

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
I will re-iterate what I said. True religion is this; "Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself." Nothing more, nothing less.

ANYTHING, any practices, customs, beliefs or doctrines contrary to this are not religious in any way, shape or form but created by man for the benefit of man to the detriment of his brother.

It irks me to no end when people look at all the evil of this world, wars, hatred, intolerance and worse, point the finger and say "Religion is the cause of all this" when it is not. Such things are caused by man perverting the concept of religion and using it as an excuse for his depravity.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>I will reiterate what I said. True religion is this; "Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself." Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's my problem with that: Imagine a can of soda. The instructions on top of it say, "To open can, pull tab while shouting the word 'OPEN!'" Now imagine a world of people who have all grown up shouting at cans. Then someone like me stops to notice, "Wait a minute. The can opens up when I pull the tab whether I shout anything or not. Maybe I don't need to shout. Maybe no one needs to."

You have just demonstrated why religion is 100% unnecessary. You can love your neighbors, and [i]not[/i] love the Lord, and yet the exact same outcome will result. You can simply have 'love thy neighbor' as a moral teaching without adding anything else.

>ANYTHING, any practices, customs, beliefs or doctrines contrary to this are not religious in any way, shape or form but created by man for the benefit of man to the detriment of his brother.

Wait... under whose authority are you declaring that?

>It irks me to no end when people look at all the evil of this world, wars, hatred, intolerance and worse, point the finger and say "Religion is the cause of all this" when it is not. Such things are caused by man perverting the concept of religion and using it as an excuse for his depravity.

I'm reminded of the NRA's slogan: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And while that's entirely true, they selectively ignore the fact that [i]a gun is a tool made to facilitate[/i] killing people. Similarly, a religion is a way to feel justified in doing whatever the voice of God (aka your own inner voice) tells you to. No one should be surprised when both good [i]and[/i] bad people use faith as justification.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
To some people, no, Religion is not 'necessary'. To others, it is the only truth. It is, like most things in this word, a choice left up to the individual person. The free will to choose to follow God, or not. I chose to follow God and become a religious person by upholding the golden rule to the best of my ability. This does not make me any more or less of a human being than an atheist.

As to the authority I make said declaration, I would like to think such authority stems from God. It could also be my disgruntled view of modern institutionalized, organised 'religion' and how it has been so twisted out of proportion by mankind into a tool for control and violence rather than a simple personal lifestyle choice. XD

And finally, no. It comes as no surprise that 'religion' is used by good and bad men for their own ends. There is one thing I would say to that though. God is Love. So if religion is to follow God (or at least this is my understanding of the meaning of real religion) and God is love, anything that does not promote love for one's fellow man and is instead used to facilitate hatred and intolerance, then it stands to reason that it is not truly religious.

This is what I believe.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>To some people, no, Religion is not 'necessary'. To others, it is the only truth.

'To some people, racism is not 'necessary'. To others, it is the only truth.' You could plug any noun into that quote. It's not an argument.

>I chose to follow God and become a religious person by upholding the golden rule to the best of my ability. This does not make me any more or less of a human being than an atheist.

No, but it does mean you give credit to something that you actually deserve yourself. And why isn't following the Golden Rule for the sake of your fellow man enough?

>As to the authority I make said declaration, I would like to think such authority stems from God.

You can think that, but still, you can only make that declaration for yourself. To define something in a way that most people on Earth would disagree with, both from a personal and historical perspective... it's a little mind-boggling.

>It could also be my disgruntled view of modern institutionalized, organised 'religion' and how it has been so twisted out of proportion by mankind into a tool for control and violence rather than a simple personal lifestyle choice. XD

To say that something has been 'twisted out of proportion' implies that it started out differently. Religion has always been used as 1) a way to understand the world before the scientific method was discovered, 2) a way to impose order on people, and 3) a justification for war against the other tribe.

>And finally, no. It comes as no surprise that 'religion' is used by good and bad men for their own ends. There is one thing I would say to that though. God is Love. So if religion is to follow God (or at least this is my understanding of the meaning of real religion) and God is love, anything that does not promote love for one's fellow man and is instead used to facilitate hatred and intolerance, then it stands to reason that it is not truly religious.

Again, you are inventing your own definitions. Your definitions only reflect how YOU feel. They can't win an argument.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
I wasn't even aware this was an argument. I merely state my beliefs as you state yours, it doesn't mean what I believe is any more or less valid than what you believe.

I simply believe that if people followed the Golden Rule as stated in the Bible and, what I believe is the core point of any religion, this world would be perfect. Nowhere have I said that it is 100% necessary for a person to be religious to be a 'good person' but rather, if you clam to be religious then you should by definition, be a good person. Of course, this is not often the case.

Now, you have heard and I have stated what my definition of religion is. You have attempted to convince me that my definition is wrong by stating various reasons. Everything you have said, when applied to modern institutionalized, organised 'religion' I can pretty much agree with.

I do not enjoy what I see in the modern definition of religion, it's practices and how it is seen by the world yet I still choose to follow God. So I choose to define what religion means to me on a personal level, just as every man, including your good self does.

Does it all not simply come down to a matter of personal belief and the choice and free will to believe what you choose, provided your 'beliefs' do not advocate or cause harm to another human life (such as racism)? Any by my own definition, things that do cause such harm have nothing to do with religion.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>I wasn't even aware this was an argument. I merely state my beliefs as you state yours, it doesn't mean what I believe is any more or less valid than what you believe.

Well, that does depend on when we're discussing provable fact and not just personal opinions. I'll agree that everyone has the right to their beliefs and opinions, but I can't allow that people have the right to knowingly hold onto a lie.

>I simply believe that if people followed the Golden Rule as stated in the Bible and, what I believe is the core point of any religion, this world would be perfect.

Where in the Bible is the Golden Rule, BTW? I've been curious about that, since I wanted to see what context it appears in and what emphasis is put on it. Also, I've heard it predates the Bible by quite a lot.

>Now, you have heard and I have stated what my definition of religion is. You have attempted to convince me that my definition is wrong by stating various reasons.

No; I have attempted to convince you that your definition of religion is YOURS ONLY. As a personal belief, it sounds fine to me. But it's not most other people's definition.

>I do not enjoy what I see in the modern definition of religion

I do have to corect you there, because the definition you have? THAT'S the modern one. Tolerance for others is a relatively new thing in the history of humanity. The Muslims who believe in Jihad? That's closer to the 'traditional' ways religion was practiced.

>Does it all not simply come down to a matter of personal belief and the choice and free will to believe what you choose, provided your 'beliefs' do not advocate or cause harm to another human life (such as racism)? Any by my own definition, things that do cause such harm have nothing to do with religion.

You are preventing religion from accepting any responsibility, by redefining its accountability away.

'By my definition, homelessness has nothing to do with poverty. People aren't homeless because they're broke, they're homeless because they just don't want to work.'

See how that's not okay?

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
"Allow people to knowingly hold on to a lie" You can't determine that for someone unless you can prove what they believe is utterly wrong by showing them irrefutable proof. Somewhere in this world is a man who believes that mankind was seeded on earth by the fargarble pod people of bloopnod 4. You and I can choose to *believe* he is wrong and we can state our own beliefs as contrary to his, but you cannot under any circumstances say to this man 'You are wrong and your beliefs are a lie' and state it as fact unless you have the power to scan every single planet in this universe and prove that this race does not exist.

The golden rule. Luke 10 : 27 Jesus also follows this with a parable stating that after a man was robbed and bashed, a priest and a levite passed him by yet a samaritan tended to his wounds. Thus the samaritan was more neighbor to the victim than either of these supposed holy men.

I know that what I believe isn't shared by others. I wish it was.

By modern definition, I mean the way people focus on the extremists and fanatics and the hate and harm they cause, yet totally overlooking all the good that religion also does such as charities, soup kitchens, care for the homeless and so on.

Then let me explain yet again my concept of religion. The religion you continually bring up is what my Mother termed 'The religion of man' created by man for his own ends. This is what I have a problem with. I cannot accept that all that hatred and damage caused by such an entity comes from God.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>"Allow people to knowingly hold on to a lie" You can't determine that for someone unless you can prove what they believe is utterly wrong by showing them irrefutable proof.

No, actually. Like I just got done saying, you might not be able to prove them wrong, but you can prove that their belief is harmful or useless. Can a cult deprogrammer PROVE that there is no Great Juju in the sky, waiting to take his believers to paradise? No. But he can prove that isolating yourself from your family, starving yourself and giving up all your money to a religious organization are harmful to someone's quality of life.

>Somewhere in this world is a man who believes that mankind was seeded on earth by the fargarble pod people of bloopnod 4. You and I can choose to *believe* he is wrong and we can state our own beliefs as contrary to his, but you cannot under any circumstances say to this man 'You are wrong and your beliefs are a lie' and state it as fact unless you have the power to scan every single planet in this universe and prove that this race does not exist.

If he simply believes this, and his belief does not cause him or anyone else harm, then there is no reason for me to disprove it to him. If he tries to convince ME of it however, then I will use every weapon in my figurative arsenal against him. (Also, panspermia is a far more plausible belief than an omnipotent being creating everything from nothing.)

>The golden rule. Luke 10 : 27

[i]"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."[/i] Strange how the golden rule itself is just thrown in, almost as an afterthought, after making sure you're giving God all the love you can possibly give. He seems a bit jealous.

>Jesus also follows this with a parable stating that after a man was robbed and bashed, a priest and a levite passed him by yet a samaritan tended to his wounds. Thus the samaritan was more neighbor to the victim than either of these supposed holy men.

Perfectly fine with that.

>By modern definition, I mean the way people focus on the extremists and fanatics and the hate and harm they cause, yet totally overlooking all the good that religion also does such as charities, soup kitchens, care for the homeless and so on.

That is absolutely not the context you were using that phrase in before.

>Then let me explain yet again my concept of religion. The religion you continually bring up is what my Mother termed 'The religion of man' created by man for his own ends. This is what I have a problem with. I cannot accept that all that hatred and damage caused by such an entity comes from God.

So you haven't understood the content of my example.

Did God create man? Did he shape who we are? Even if he gave us free will, he still must have known what kind of beings we were. After all, he made us.

If a man leaves a gun in a room with two children, and one child shoots the other, is the man responsible? Yes, he didn't pull the trigger. But he left something dangerous within reach of two people too curious and naive to understand the consequences of their actions.

Now, explain to me how that is [i]in any way different[/i] from the Garden of Eden story.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
This is why I made the point about not having the right to say a man is wrong without proving him so and then giving the example of the space believer who may be a fruitloop, but does no harm. These two things were meant to be taken together and I apologize if it didn't seem that way. Forgive, me I am not used to such lengthy philosophical discussions and tend to get sidetracked.

On topic, if a man tries to convince me he is right, I will explain my views as he explains his. If he pushes the point, I tell him what I believe. Yet without absolute proof to the affirmative or contrary, such discussion will yield very little fruit, even though it may be informative and enlightened.

My apologies, the context was different and in retrospect, it made me facepalm to read it. If you'd care to repeat the question, I'll give you a proper answer instead of dicking about.

As to the Garden of Eden, man was created innocent. Yet man chose to believe the lies of the serpent (devil) over the word of God. Even then, God gave man the free will to make his own choice and when it was made, God then passed judgement. So your analogy is incorrect. It would be more appropriate to say that there was another person in that room telling one of the children that the gun would make a fun toy.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
See response here. [###]


*****


[b]SILVER[/b]
Religion: Doing what you're told, no matter what is right.
Morality: Doing what's right, no matter what you're told.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to SILVER
To me, the concepts of Religion and Morality should be the same thing. Doing what is right. Unfortunately, I'm one of the few people with this view.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
If they're the same, and morality covers doing what's right, then why have religion at all?

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
The knowledge between good and evil. When you were a child, did you know what was right and wrong? No, you were taught and looked to a higher power for that definition. (your parents and teachers). True Religion is the same thing. A set of ethical guidelines for proper conduct.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
See, that's the thing... the higher powers I looked to? They were real people, who spoke clearly to me, in complete sentences. Kind of a big difference.

Another difference is, I could see the faces of my parents and teachers. I knew who they were. With the Bible, I'm shown a book and am told to [i]believe[/i] it's the word of God, so of course I should obey it. Sorry, I don't take instructions from unknown sources.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
And where did the people who spoke to you gain their understanding of right and wrong from so they could impart it to you? Like it or not, go back far enough and you will find the Bible with the basic 'Ten Commandments' that have been adapted into the modern code of laws.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>And where did the people who spoke to you gain their understanding of right and wrong from so they could impart it to you?

OTHER HUMANS.

>Like it or not, go back far enough and you will find the Bible with the basic 'Ten commandments' that have been adapted into the modern code of laws.

Right, because there were never any written laws of conduct [i]before[/i] the Ten Commandments.

Also, only TWO of the ten commandments are explicitly part of our law now, while adultery and lying are only illegal in certain situations.

[i]Also,[/i] the ten commandments were written BY HUMANS.

Neither the Bible, nor God, have ever contributed to humanity anything unique.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
The ten commandments were not written by humans. They were inscribed by God upon stone tablets as a concrete guideline for his people to follow and to lay the foundations for the modern laws we follow now. As to there being other codes of laws that predate the ten commandments, I am unaware of any documented cases.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>The ten commandments were not written by humans. They were inscribed by God upon stone tablets as a concrete guideline for his people to follow and to lay the foundations for the modern laws we follow now.

Where are these tablets now? Can I go see them in a museum?

Ohhhhh, is this like how Joseph Smith was given golden plates that had the Book Of Mormon inscribed upon them, but was instructed by the angel Moroni to [i]never let anyone else see them?[/i]

>As to there being other codes of laws that predate the ten commandments, I am unaware of any documented cases.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi]Here ya go.[/url]

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
It was also written in the Bible that when Aaron created the golden calf, Moses was so enraged he broke the tablets over the calf. This symbolized the Israelites had already broken God's most basic of laws even before he (Moses) had finished speaking with God.

I was not aware of the Hammurabi code until you pointed it out. It is intriguing. Also on that wiki page are links to two even older 'code of laws'. It is quite interesting to see how God lays out the foundations of his plans for the Israelites even before they became his people.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>It was also written in the Bible that when Aaron created the golden calf, Moses was so enraged he broke the tablets over the calf. This symbolized the Israelites had already broken Gods most basic of laws even before he (Moses) had finished speaking with God.

How convenient.

Also, if Moses smashed the tablets, how do we know with any certainty what was written on them?

>I was not aware of the Hammurabi code until you pointed it out. It is intriguing. Also on that wiki page are links to two even older 'code of laws'. It is quite interesting to see how God lays out the foundations of his plans for the Israelites even before they became his people.

<winces really hard> Don't do that. What you said was this: "[the ten commandments] were inscribed by God upon stone tablets as a concrete guideline for his people to follow and to lay the foundations for the modern laws we follow now." So you're cheating when you claim one thing, then when it's disproved, you alter your claim so it still fits.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
We know what was written on the tablets as it is recorded as such in the Bible. However, I will concede the point about the age of the ten commandments. The Hammurabi code did precede them, yet they are still the first recorded example of such a code being established for the Israelites. Why is it so difficult to believe that God determined his people needed a concrete set of laws to abide by, written in stone as it were, and therefore no longer open to 'liberal interpretation'? By the same token, it is easy to believe that the Hammurabi code was also given to the King, by God to lay the foundations for his own people.

Of course, you first need to believe in God, as I do.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>We know what was written on the tablets as it is recorded as such in the Bible.

That isn't proof. If it was, then the Golden Fleece and Atlantis must also exist.

>Why is it so difficult to believe that God determined his people needed a concrete set of laws to abide by, written in stone as it were, and therefore no longer open to 'liberal interpretation'?

Because it necessitates first believing in 'God'. Not only that, but a God that [i]intervenes.[/i] Not only [i]that,[/i] but a God that chooses one group of humans over all the others as his favorites; an unnervingly human behavior.

>By the same token, it is easy to believe that the Hammurabi code was also given to the King, by God to lay the foundations for his own people.

It's much, much easier to believe that Hammurabi just wrote them himself.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
It is irrefutable proof to me. I have no opinion on the golden fleece or Atlantis but I'm sure there are some people who also believe that the Harry Potter books or Star Wars movies are based on factual events, or even a few silly people who believe that the Origin of Species is anything more than a fairy tale, written by a frightened man to explain and rationalize what he doesn't understand, an idea that is still to this day nothing more than an unproven theory that had been altered, re-written and changed as the years go by, yet people still choose to believe in it based of of little more than anecdotal evidence and *gasp* faith.

Which is ironically what people say about the Bible.

I do believe there is a God. I believe he can and does intervene in human lives, yet still allows them their free will. And as to God having an unnervingly human trait.. God made mankind... in his image.

It may be easier to believe Hammurabi wrote it, but people once found it easier to believe the world was flat. Didn't make them right.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>It is irrefutable proof to me. I have no opinion on the golden fleece or Atlantis but I'm sure there are some people who also believe that the Harry Potter books or Star Wars movies are based on factual events

And they have exactly as much evidence for their belief as you do: because someone wrote it down in a book.

>or even a few silly people who believe that the Origin of Species is anything more than a fairy tale, written by a frightened man to explain and rationalize what he doesn't understand, an idea that is still to this day nothing more than an unproven theory that had been altered, re-written and changed as the years go by, yet people still choose to believe in it based of of little more than anecdotal evidence and *gasp* faith.

You are right to call those people "silly" [i][color=#888a85][EDIT: this is me not yet realizing that he's calling people who accept evolution the silly ones][/color][/i], but wrong to say they believe based on 'anecdotal evidence and faith'. People believe in evolution because of the CENTURIES OF EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION BY THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS ALL OVER THE PLANET, [b]ALL OF IT LEADING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.[/b]

>Which is ironically what people say about the Bible.

There is no comparison. If thousands of archaeologists had been testing the Bible's theories for centuries, with all of them coming to the conclusion that the Bible was a source of historical fact, [i]only[/i] then would it be equal to Darwin's book.

>I do believe there is a God. I believe he can and does intervene in human lives, yet still allows them their free will.

Those two things are mutually exclusive. Does a Sims character have free will? Even if you could program him to be a full A.I., the fact that you can still click on things and alter his behavior means he is not free.

>And as to God having an unnervingly human trait.. God made mankind... in his image.

It is far easier to believe that mankind made God... in his image.

>It may be easier to believe Hammurabi wrote it, but people once found it easier to believe the world was flat. Didn't make them right.

That was only true in ancient times. Now, in the 21st century, it is easier to believe that Hammurabi wrote his Code himself, than to believe that powerful, unseen, animal-headed beings existed to write it for him. And it is harder to believe the world is flat, because you first have to rationalize away tons of scientific fact.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
The Bible is an eye witness account of historical facts and events as told by hundreds of people that personally experienced them *going back thousands upon of thousands of years*, Taken from their writings and experiences and consolidated into one book. See the context I put it in here? No different from how you described Darwinism. It all depends on who looks at it as to whether it is factual evidence or fake.

To me, The Theory of evolution is just that. A fallacious, unproven theory based on anecdotal evidence created by man to attempt to prove there is no God due to the fact man is too arrogant to admit that there is a being out there better than him in every respect.

Why does free will and God's guidance need to be mutually exclusive? God is an omnipotent being. A man has the free will to try and do anything he wishes, yet why should God not determine how he fares? Be it running in the olympics, researching a cure for disease or committing genocide. Can you honestly say you can instruct God how he should watch and guide the future of HIS universe? If the man did not try in the first place, God would have nothing to judge upon.

Is it easier to believe? Really? For you, perhaps.

The 'that was then this is now' argument is a very narrow minded view. Whats to say in another 500 years the entire viewpoint of everything man knows now hasn't shifted yet again to a new set of 'truths'? Man will always believe what they want to believe, be it wrong or right.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
See response here. [###]


*****


[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
It disappoints me, really, to see how the religion that I was born into is suffering like this. No, their people aren't suffering, no, slash that, they are. Suffering from stupidity and ignorance. I still call myself Christian, despite not going to any churches. It's not that I dislike it at all...but I've seen so many problems and hypocrites. I can't stand it. In the end, finding the truth is the right thing, and these people are way messin' it all up.

In the same breath these people say "God is Love" will say "Get rid of people we believe are wrong." When the truest mission of a Christian is supposed to be spreading the word and bringing people in, they go around, spitting venom and turning people away from it. All because of these people that fear change, people that believe what they're told and not what they learn or teach themselves.

In fact...'bible thumpers' are the ones that piss me off the most, in the end. One that believes that the 'bible' itself is the infallible word of God, when...it simply isn't. It's the condensed, abridged, omitted, and edited-by-human beings book that had been handed around, when much of the word has been messed with. The moment things have been changed, it stopped being His word and became the word of man, and to me, is pretty invalid. But of course, no fundamentalist Christians would ever believe me if I told them.

My point is, it isn't Religion, nor is it Christianity that's the problem, it's the idiots that think that they're right and only choose to work with the things that seem right to them...they are the problem, and it's disgusting...as...hell.

That's how I see things. From a non-bias standpoint. Sad when I can sit around and shake my head as a Christian foxy, laugh at the stupid stuff that I see, and say "no wonder there are so many atheists."

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to SKYBLUE
>In the end, finding the truth is the right thing, and these people are way messin' it all up.

I hate to say this, but the people are not what's messing it up. They never have been. Religion doesn't [i]create[/i] anything good; it can only take credit for the good that comes from humanity's inborn morality.

I can understand the allure of staying loyal to a tradition you grew up with. But I would ask you to search your heart and ask yourself [i]what does your religion do for you?[/i]

>All because of these people that fear change, people that believe what they're told and not what they learn or teach themselves.

Maybe that's because, at the heart of faith is the idea that people should believe what God tells them to, regardless of any earthly evidence. And of course, the voice of 'God' is simply what your own conscience tells you to do. So if you have a good heart, 'God' will tell you to do good things. But if you have a shriveled, mean, petty, hateful heart, then God will tell you that all your most bigoted impulses are sanctified. Religion is a way for anyone to believe anything they want to believe, and feel 100% justified.

>One that believes that the 'bible' itself is the infallible word of God, when...it simply isn't. It's the condensed, abridged, omitted, and edited-by-human beings book that had been handed around, when much of the word has been messed with. The moment things have been changed, it stopped being His word and became the word of man, and to me, is pretty invalid.

All that is dead-on true. But if you can use your own reason to figure out that the Bible is not a source of morals, why not go the extra step and accept that the only true source of morals is YOU?

>My point is. It isn't Religion, nor is it Christianity that's the problem, it's the idiots that think that they're right and only choose to work with the things that seem right to them...they are the problem, and it's disgusting...as...hell.

<applause> I wholeheartedly agree. Religion may be a set of wrong ideas, but it can't do anything on it's own. It's as neutral as a tool. A hammer can be used by a person to pound in nails, or to pound in skulls.

>That's how I see things. From a non-bias standpoint. Sad when I can sit around and shake my head as a Christian foxy, laugh at the stupid stuff that I see, and say "no wonder there are so many atheists."

I'm sorry if you feel like I'm putting you on the spot, but I have to ask: why do you feel the need to identify yourself as a Christian? That's a real question, because I don't understand why someone would.

For example, I like Star Trek. I've watched most episodes of most series. I'll quote it. I have episodes saved on my hard drive. But I don't call myself a Trekkie. It's simply a show I like, not something that defines who I am. So why can't Christians be Bible fans without labeling themselves Christians?

It seems to me like people in our culture are pressured to feel like they have to define themselves by a faith, even if that faith isn't a big part of their lives. I see moderate Christians who've never read the Bible and who never go to church, yet still call themselves Christians. That's like having a gym membership and never going there. Why? Is it just a way to have something in common with other people? Like, the way Trekkies gather at conventions: you have an instant friend because they're in the same group as you. Is it the same way with religions? I really don't understand that, because I have a bunch of friends and labels mean nothing to us. They all play lots of video games; I don't. They have fetishes I don't share; none of us minds. About the only thing that ties us together is being furry, but it's not like we'd stop being friends if one of us wasn't anymore. Sorry if I'm rambling. I just honestly do not see what unique benefit religion brings to anyone's life.


*****


[b]RED[/b]
From what I've seen, especially with fanatics, faith is to willpower as guns are to people- those who have strong wills on their own have it, sure, but those who are normally weak willed rely heavily on faith to give them willpower. In and of itself, this is not really a bad thing, the problem being that those with weak wills and fanatics tend to have fucked up interpretations of their religion. Seriously, there was a preacher that said we should put all the homosexuals into fenced in concentration camps and let them die off since they can't reproduce- you know, because only homosexuals produce homosexual offspring. Then, there was another recently that admitted he would like to see homosexuals actually killed, though he also realized that it would be wrong to do so.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to RED
>faith is to willpower as guns are to people

WELL SAID. <applause>

>those who have strong wills on their own have it, sure, but those who are normally weak willed rely heavily on faith to give them willpower.

I just read yesterday about how pro athletes have a term for when fans in the stands yell threats at them that they'd [i]never[/i] carry out face-to-face. They call it 'beer muscles'. Sounds to me an awful lot like the strength faith imparts.

>Seriously, there was a preacher that said we should put all the homosexuals into fenced in concentration camps and let them die off since they can't reproduce-

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu4q2-nbvrw]I am totally agin' that.[/url] ;)

>Then, there was another recently that admitted he would like to see homosexuals actually killed, though he also realized that it would be wrong to do so.

Poor bigots. They have to walk such a thin line between what their religion will allow them to get away with saying, and what'll cause moral outrage. I guess it's okay to hate the gays, and say they'll burn forever in fiery agony, but threatening them with death directly is still a no-no.

~~~

[b]RED[/b] to AlexReynard
No idea why, but your approval and agreement made me feel better than is explicable. Maybe it's just the realization that there are people that actually get it and all hope isn't lost yet.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to RED
That does feel nice, dunnit? I'm really glad to be able to pass that feeling on. ^__^


*****


[i][color=#888a85][At this point, I had another conversation with the user GREY, in which he argued that Christianity is only Christ's teachings, and that Jesus never advocated violence. I counterargued that he seemed to be saying the entire Old Testament was irrelevant to Christianity, and that I thought most Christians would disagree rather strongly. Also, I pointed out Jesus' [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19&version=NIV]parable of the ten minas in Luke 19[/url], which might not explicitly endorse violence, but still seems pretty sketchy to me.][/color][/i]

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Anyone with true knowledge of God's word knows that he has established a new covenant with his chosen since the time of the old testament. "Now there is neither jew, nor greek, slave nor free, male nor female...." He has done way with the old and established the new. The old testament as it stands is an historical record. You'd be surprised as to how many 'Christians' selectively overlook that fact.

As for the parable, it is a tale with a meaning. A story told to impart knowledge. The words Jesus spoke there were the words of the Nobleman in the parable. It is *not* a direct quotation of his own feelings.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>The old testament as it stands is an historical record. You'd be surprised as to how many 'Christians' selectively overlook that fact.

Maybe it's because Jesus said this:
[i]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."[/i]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think I've proven the Bible (once again) is sending mixed messages, at least.

>As for the parable, it is a tale with a meaning. A story told to impart knowledge. The words Jesus spoke there were the words of the Nobleman in the parable. It is *not* a direct quotation of his own feelings.

That I know. But from what I read of the parable, Jesus seems to be on the Nobleman's side. That seems confusing to me.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Key word there is 'Law'. The law that still exists to this day and that all right thinking people obey. That is, murder is illegal (thou shalt not murder) and such. When he abolished the old to establish the new, the Lord spoke of religious practices and customs. That is, that things such as sacrificial offerings, circumcisions and the like are no longer necessary. Such things have been rendered obsolete with the coming of Christ. Yet these modern so-called 'Christians' ignore this fact and seek to use the old testament and it's outdated methods as an excuse for their extremism.

Thus, these people are neither religious nor Christian and it irritates me to see them called either.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>Yet these modern so-called 'Christians' ignore this fact and seek to use the old testament and it's outdated methods as an excuse for their extremism.

Interesting thought: Does that mean the Jews should still be practicing animal sacrifices?

>Thus, these people are neither religious nor Christian and it irritates me to see them called either.

I can understand that, much as I've been busting your chops. And that is a pretty substantial reason against their BS.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
The Bible states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek... slave nor free... male nor female...." The Bible also states "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.."

As for our little discussion, I'd hardly call it 'busting my chops' XD . It's both refreshing and enjoyable to find someone willing to debate their beliefs and points of view in a rational, enlightened manner without name calling or random insults.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>The Bible states, "There is neither Jew nor Greek... slave nor free... male nor female...." The Bible also states "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.."

Okey dokey, I'll trust that you've proven this point well enough. It does rather amuse me though; millions of Christians and Jews directly disobeying their holy books while still convinced they're devout.

>As for our little discussion, I'd hardly call it 'busting my chops' xD . It's both refreshing and enjoyable to find someone willing to debate their beliefs and points of view in a rational, enlightened manner without name calling or random insults.

Insults are for rude people. I will brutally attack a bad idea, but I'll always restrict my fury to the idea itself if the person saying it is polite enough to do the same for me. :)

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Indeed. :3 I've been enjoying myself no end. Unlike many 'religious' people, I love having my beliefs challenged.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>Unlike many 'religious' people, I love having my beliefs challenged.

I do respect that. However, I'm noticing an uncomfortable trend in your arguments. You don't really allow your beliefs to be challenged. You keep them so amorphous that my arguments are simply deflected away. If you keep redefining your terms in a way that lets you always continue to believe the way you do, that's not real arguing.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
This is where we differ. I was simply exchanging what I believe, with what you believe. One opinion for another. it does not mean that what I believe is any more or less a valid view that what you, or any member of this planet believes. I accept that you believe what you believe as the absolute truth and expect the same in return.

The only way I would try to 'argue' with you is if I could give you absolute proof that God exists and thus prove to you 100% that you are wrong. I cannot. I could point out any number of scriptures and personal experiences as evidence, yet without being able to physically opening a door to heaven and showing you, I cannot prove without question that God exists.

By the same token, I have asked many people to give me absolute, unquestionable proof that God does not exist. To this day, no one has managed to do so.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>it does not mean that what I believe is any more or less a valid view that what you, or any member of this planet believes. I accept that you believe what you believe as the absolute truth and expect the same in return.

You will not get that in return. I cannot in good conscience agree to that. Because I detest this idea that 'all beliefs deserve equal consideration'. Of course they don't. It's that kind of thinking that leads civilized people to be silent about another culture's barbaric behaviors, all because 'it's wrong to say one culture is better than another'. Insanity. Even if something cannot be [i]proven[/i] to a perfect certainty, there is almost always some way to test if one culture, or one belief, is better than another. We can test if one culture results in happier, healthier, more prosperous citizens. We can test if one belief is more useful, if it leads to more positive results. Or we can look at the behavior of the people who believe in a certain idea. Are more of them happy? Depressed? Criminal? Even if we can't prove truthfulness, there are many ways to test the [i]practical value[/i] of keeping an idea around.

H.L. Mencken said it beautifully: [i]"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."[/i]

>By the same token, I have asked many people to give me absolute, unquestionable proof that God does not exist. To this day, no one has managed to do so.

[url=http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/2329]Click here.[/url] It takes a while for him to build up steam, but this guy, Joe Lyles, puts forth the best argument I have ever heard that it is a [i]virtual certainty[/i] that we do not have a God who intervenes. And so, if God does not have a presence in our lives, then whether or not he exists is a moot question.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
You cannot in good conscience accept it and cite silence and complacency in the face of 'barbarous practices' yet have I not also stated that 'A person is free to believe what he wants so long as it advocates no harm to another man'. So in essence I agree with you on this.

Yet he does not and can not prove that there *Is No God*. Nor can he state that God never intervenes. Ever heard of modern miracles? A terminal cancer patient whom modern medicine cannot help yet recovers through the power of faith and prayer, for instance.
[url]http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/terminal-stomach-cancer-miracle-healing.html[/url]

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>You cannot in good conscience accept it and cite silence and complacency in the face of 'barbarous practices' yet have I not also stated that 'A person is free to believe what he wants so long as it advocates no harm to another man'. So in essence I agree with you on this.

There you go again, redefining things to get out of conceding a point. You DO NOT agree with me on this. What I cannot accept is the idea that 'all beliefs are equally worthy of respect'. That was my point. You and I [i]do[/i] agree on 'as it harm none, do as ye will', but we absolutely do not agree on the point I was just discussing.

>Yet he does not and can not prove that there *Is No God*.

You could not possibly have listened to that hour-long podcast so quickly. And even if you had, you completely missed his point that 'does God exist?' is the wrong question to care about.

>A terminal cancer patient whom modern medicine cannot help yet recovers through the power of faith and prayer, for instance.

In that example you just sent me, the person's cancer returned two years after his 'miraculous' healing.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
I have said, multiple times, that a man is free to believe what he wants and his beliefs are no more or less valid than mine providing he does no harm. I will respect what he believes, even if I don't agree with it personally. I would not say I have 're-defined' this view. I try to clarify what I mean.

If he cannot prove that God does not exist, anything else he might have to say is meaningless. If he is asking 'why do we need God'? That's something left up to the choice of the individual person.

Yes, his cancer did return. Yet he was given two years of extra life when his prognosis was mere weeks.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
See response here. [###]


*****


[###] [b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
To GREEN:

>I would not say I have 're-defined' this view. I try to clarify what I mean.

By 'redefine' I mean that you changed the terms of the argument. I said that we disagreed on point A and you tried to prove that we actually agreed by bringing up point B.

>If he cannot prove that God does not exist, anything else he might have to say is meaningless.

That is as closed-minded as it gets. You're saying that if he can't give you a yes or no to your question, nothing else he might say matters. I wince when I remember you saying "I love having my beliefs challenged."

>If he is asking 'why do we need God'? That's something left up to the choice of the individual person.

No, he isn't asking that. I already summarized what his point actually is.

>Yes, his cancer did return. Yet he was given two years of extra life when his prognosis was mere weeks.

That sounds like a pretty weak miracle to me. Was the cancer stronger than God's will? Or did God intentionally only give that man two more years?

BTW, since you didn't listen to it, Joe's example pointed out a moment in history when literally [i]millions of lives[/i] could have been saved if God had simply moved someone's foot a few inches. If he had, a plot to kill Hitler would have succeeded and World War 2 would have ended years earlier. If God couldn't have been bothered to intervene there, what makes anyone think he would intervene in their daily lives?

>This is why I made the point about not having the right to say a man is wrong without proving him so and then giving the example of the space believer who may be a fruitloop, but does no harm. These two things were meant to be taken together and I apologize if it didn't seem that way.

No; I understood your point. I'm just saying that it doesn't apply. When I said I don't think people have the right to hold onto a lie, I admit that's a personal belief. And to clarify, I mean that if someone presents me with an idea I believe is a lie, I will argue against it. Even if it gives them comfort. Because I have a lot of reasons to believe that nothing good can grow from a lie, and any comfort a false belief gives is unsustainable. I have worked my ass off to scrub myself of as much dishonesty as I possibly can, and it has been so beneficial to me that I want to share it with everyone. I want to show people how corrosive and unnecessary self-denial is. You could call me an missionary of Truth.

>Forgive, me I am not used to such lengthy philosophical discussions and tend to get sidetracked.

I don't mean for this to sound snarky, but I can tell. You argue like someone who has never truly had their beliefs challenged before.

>Yet without absolute proof to the affirmative or contrary, such discussion will yield very little fruit, even though it may be informative and enlightened.

You keep bringing up this concept of absolute proof as if it's possible. Maybe in math, okay. But in all other things, asking for absolute proof is essentially a way of putting an impossible task in front of someone who's trying to change your belief. No matter how much they prove their point, you can always say that they haven't proven it [i]absolutely.[/i] It's a cheap way of deflecting evidence, not a real argument.

>My apologies, the context was different and in retrospect, it made me facepalm to read it. If you'd care to repeat the question, i'll give you a proper answer instead of dicking about.

You can go back and read it again.

>As to the Garden of Eden, man was created innocent. Yet man chose to believe the lies of the serpent (devil) over the word of God. Even then, God gave man the free will to make his own choice and when it was made, God then passed judgement. So your analogy is incorrect. It would be more appropriate to say that there was another person in that room telling one of the children that the gun would make a fun toy.

That still doesn't let God off the hook for LEAVING THE GUN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, what if I had two children and one day they got into the cookie jar after I told them not to. So to punish them, I cast them out of my house forever and made them live in the backyard. Is that how a good parent acts? Does a good parent give their children permanent punishments, with no chance to learn, repent, or be forgiven? Or is that how an abusively controlling parent acts?

>The Bible is an eye witness account of historical facts and events as told by hundreds of people that personally experienced them *going back thousands upon of thousands of years*, Taken from their writings and experiences and consolidated into one book. See the context I put it in here? No different from how you described Darwinism.

Completely wrong.

For starters, eyewitness accounts? From what I understand, most of the stuff in the Bible wasn't written about until LONG after it had actually happened. For instance, the Gospels weren't written until forty years after Christ's death. That doesn't sound like an eyewitness account. Now, it has been a while since I heard this, so I might be wrong on the numbers. But I do know that archeologists have discovered contemporary sources that conflict with the Bible. Such as the fact that the Egyptians were very good at recording their history, and nowhere is it ever mentioned that they kept Hebrew slaves.

Secondly, you've completely missed my point. The GARGANTUAN DIFFERENCE between how you described the Bible and how I described Darwinism, is that I pointed out how thousands of people have all tested and retested and REtested Darwin's theories and the results have come out the same. And even when they didn't, it has been over minor issues that, once understood, led to new discoveries that have [i]added[/i] strength to the theory, not the other way around. Simply put, the more people who test evolution, the more certain we are of its trustworthiness. The more people who test the Bible, the LESS certain we are of its trustworthiness.

>It all depends on who looks at it as to whether it is factual evidence or fake.

And in this case, primitive nomadic tribesmen, vs. almost all the scientists in the world. It does indeed matter who looks at it.

>Why does free will and God's guidance need to be mutually exclusive? God is an omnipotent being. A man has the free will to try and do anything he wishes, yet why should God not determine how he fares?

BECAUSE IF GOD DETERMINES HOW HE FARES, THE MAN IS NOT FREE AND NEVER HAS BEEN. If someone tells you to make a free choice about what number he is about to say, and he is actually planning to change his answer to make sure you cannot ever get it right, then you never had a free choice in the first place. This is really, really simple.

>The 'that was then this is now' argument is a very narrow minded view. Whats to say in another 500 years the entire viewpoint of everything man knows now hasn't shifted yet again to a new set of 'truths'?

That may happen. But right now, all we have is the present. And judging by the evidence we have available in the present, for all practical purposes, it is usually better to believe a simpler explanation that fits all the facts, unless compelling evidence comes along to strengthen a more complicated theory.

>To me, The Theory of evolution is just that. A fallacious, unproven theory based on anecdotal evidence created by man to attempt to prove there is no God due to the fact man is too arrogant to admit that there is a being out there better than him in every respect.

I saved this till last because reading it was like being punched in the ribs. I read that just before heading to bed, and I [i]literally could not get to sleep[/i] because I could not fathom how it's possible for you, a person who is eloquent and obviously intelligent, to believe something so [i]immeasurably wrong.[/i]

For starters, I hate the fact that I actually have to explain to you that, in scientific terms, a 'theory' is the word used when an idea has been proven so thoroughly that, for all practical purposes, it can be relied on as a fact.

Secondly, evolution is unproven? No. If you think that, then all you've proven is that you can't, or won't, look at the evidence. SCIENTISTS KNOW MORE ABOUT EVOLUTION THAN THEY DO ABOUT GRAVITY. Evolution is possibly the most thoroughly credible scientific idea there is. It is observable in every species that exists or has ever existed. For crying out loud, you can see it for yourself if you watch any nature program about the relationship between predators and prey. You can see how both species changed to adapt to one another. (Also, if evolution isn't true, then why do doctors keep having to update their flu vaccines?)

Thirdly, I cannot wrap my brain around how you could possibly think people invented evolution to disprove God. Even if they did, it doesn't disprove God! The two things have nothing to do with each other! Do you have any idea how many Christians accept evolution? How many of them have no problem whatsoever accepting that, even if God did create us, that evolution was his method? If you believe you are God's creation, then you are [i]spitting on his work[/i] to deny the self-evident truth of it. Can you even imagine how rude it would be, to walk up to an artist, point at his painting and say, 'You didn't really paint every one of those tiny brushstrokes! You just brought it into existence with magic!'

Fourthly, arrogance? ARROGANCE!? You tell me that you know better than everyone alive who accepts evolution, you tell me that you know the [i]real[/i] motives of the people who put together the theory, you insult the intelligence of practically every scientist on Earth, [i]and you have the gall to say, without irony, that EVERYONE ELSE is arrogant!?[/i]

[b]You are a citizen of the 21st century; act like it. Not accepting evolution is as stupid as not believing in the sun. It is as primitive as practicing ritual animal sacrifices. It is as shameful as denying the Holocaust. It is UNACCEPTABLE, and you should be ashamed of yourself.[/b]

On top of all that, you were the one who told me [b]"True religion is this; "Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself." Nothing more, nothing less."[/b] There is absolutely nothing in that to justify denying a thoroughly-researched and thoroughly confirmed scientific truth, simply because you're ignorant about what it is. You liar. You hypocrite. You can't even be true to yourself.


~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Everything you have said up to this point is still personal beliefs and supposition and I have maintained my stance that I can respect your beliefs. Yet you think you can call me a liar and a hypocrite in a baseless, childish personal attack just because I ruffled your pretty little feathers with an uncomfortable truth? Time to set you straight.

1 .Theory and it's meaning.

the·o·ry
noun /ˈTHēərē/  /ˈTHi(ə)rē/
theories, plural

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
- Darwin's theory of evolution

If evolution was Proven scientific fact it would be called that. It is not. It is called the theory of evolution because no matter how much 'evidence' is concocted, dug up or hypothesized about, or how much a part of the scientific community may want to believe it, it CANNOT be proven as there are NO examples of true evolution in nature. I have heard accounts of fish, moths and other species' so called evolution that also have perfectly plausible explanations for their 'evolutions' that have nothing to do with Darwin's erroneous theory. It all depends on whom you choose to believe. You know, that funny concept of freedom of choice and free will.

If creatures or man *evolved* we would see foxes with wings, capable of flying to catch pigeons in flight, or a man with eyes in the back of his head to counter the obvious flaw of not having 360 degree vision and not just one single random 'mutation' but the entire species would change. Ever since Darwin formulated his theory and as long as natural records have been kept there has not been one single documented account of true evolution that cannot be explained away by other means. Evidence that the evolutionary scientific community chooses to ignore. "Oh evolution takes millions of years". This smacks of the same kind of convenient excuse you accuse the Bible of.

Next, the Bible tells us exactly how the universe was created. Read Genesis. There's your explanation. You think it's ludicrous to believe in an omnipotent entity creating life on earth? What about how stupid evolution is with all it's variables and inconsistencies? To me, 'evolution' is as likely as a tornado blowing through a scrapyard and leaving behind a fully functioning jumbo jet. The ONLY reason to say 'God didn't do this' is to try and prove he does not exist or has no power over the world. For a Christian to say he believes in evolution when such a notion is clearly anathema to GOD'S OWN WORD, such a person is in serious need of re-evaluating his faith.

As to arrogance, if you and the scientific 'community' can presume to 'know better' than the BILLIONS of people who believe in God, or Allah or ANY deity, as well as the other half of the scientific community, Creation Scientists every bit as learned and intelligent as your evolutionists, then I can stand up and say without shame or fear that 'Evolution is GARBAGE.'

>You are a citizen of the 21st century; act like it. Not accepting evolution is as stupid as not believing in the sun. It is as primitive as practicing ritual animal sacrifices. It is as shameful as denying the Holocaust. It is UNACCEPTABLE, and you should be ashamed of yourself.<

Who gave you the authority to say that? By who's definition is not believing in evolution 'unacceptable'? I should be *ashamed* of myself for believing in the word of my God over the LIES of mankind as do BILLIONS of other people on this planet including many eminent, learned scientists who ALSO believe in Creation over evolution?!

"True religion is this; "Love the Lord thy God, Love thy neighbor as thyself." Nothing more, nothing less." How is believing in an a theory written by a mere man that is contrary to God's own words and an attempt to destroy everything the Bible tells us about God's power and wisdom by saying that God did not create the world in seven days "Loving the Lord thy God?" I learned about evolution even before I knew about salvation. Even as a child, evolution was a joke to me. A laughably bad joke, so claiming I am 'ignorant' of the subject without knowing the slightest thing about me only displays your own 'ignorance'.

You call me Liar and hypocrite? I am true to myself, to my beliefs and to my God. You are true to nothing but empty words.

So I say to you, read Matthew 7, 1-6.

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbors eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor 'Let me remove the speck from your eye' whilst the log is on your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbors eye."

Verse six is a favorite of mine.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn to maul you."

Take that how you will and I bid you good day, Sir!

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
I'd thought that maybe I could shame you into waking up. Instead, you chose to defend the indefensible.

I want you to understand the scope of how wrong you are. You are in the exact same position as someone who believes in a flat earth, or a geocentric universe. No matter what you have been told by other creationists, there is no debate in the scientific community about the basic truth of evolution. No debate. None. There may be disagreements about details, but as I said, scientists know more about evolution than they do about gravity. The only debate comes from creationists trying to force one in. I want you to understand your place in this argument.

>Everything you have said up to this point is still personal beliefs and supposition

I'm afraid you fail at understanding the difference between 'personal belief' and 'objective truth'. That is the central difference between us. You think that you can change reality by choosing to believe a more comforting belief. You think your perceptions shape reality, not the other way around. Whereas I believe in something greater than myself: Truth. The kind of truth that never changes, no matter how many human beings believe in it. I am humble enough to accept that I can never change the truth just by wishing for it. When I'm confronted with a truth I don't like, I swallow my embarrassment and accept it. When confronted with a truth [i]you[/i] don't like, you find ways to twist it into something you can dismiss.

With this attitude, you will never be any smarter than you are right now. That is a tragedy.

>I have maintained my stance that I can respect your beliefs.

I don't need your respect.

>Yet you think you can call me a liar and a hypocrite in a baseless, childish personal attack just because I ruffled your pretty little feathers with an uncomfortable truth?

No; I call you a liar and a hypocrite (and a cheater and a fool) because your own stated beliefs contradict each other.

>Time to set you straight. ... 1 .Theory and it's meaning. ... If evolution was Proven scientific fact it would be called that.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory]Read it and weep.[/url]

>it CANNOT be proven as there are NO examples of true evolution in nature.

I just gave you TWO in my last post. The fact that you chose to ignore them says everything I need to know about your honor and how much you "love" to have your beliefs challenged.

Consider this also. Do you believe in dog breeding? That humans can selectively breed in characteristics they like and breed out ones they don't like? How do you think dogs' genetic code allows that to happen? Maybe because we are utilizing a process that developed naturally?

Also, I dare you to read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution]this article[/url] all the way to the end. It is not only a good example of observed evolution, but also how a scientific idea is attacked, how scientists accept what was wrong with the original experiment, and how they perform new ones to get to the real truth.

>I have heard accounts of fish, moths and other species so called evolution that also have perfectly plausible explanations for their 'evolutions' that have nothing to do with Darwin's erroneous theory.

Please, tell me these perfectly plausible theories.

>If creatures or man *evolved* we would see foxes with wings, capable of flying to catch pigeons in flight, or a man with eyes in the back of his head to counter the obvious flaw of not having 360 degree vision and not just one single random 'mutation' but the entire species would change.

I wish you could see the look of disbelief on my face, that you could think those are actually good arguments.

All you've just demonstrated is that you are attacking a version of the theory of evolution that doesn't exist. If you actually understood evolution, you would know in a heartbeat why everything you just said is outrageously goofy. You are pointing out the holes in a distorted, fake theory, that's all. You are vigorously attacking a strawman, thinking you're hurting the real thing.

For starters, you could not have picked a worse example of something craaazy that could never happen. [url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4jV2etiJcQg/TGumsXobR5I/AAAAAAAAAA4/gSQpDwKsbeA/s1600/flying+fox+pic.jpg]Because here's a picture of a fox with wings.[/url] They're even called 'flying foxes' for crying out loud.

And before you ask, 'Why do regular foxes not have wings too?', the answer is simple; because they don't need them. Evolution is all about [u]species adapting to their environment in the simplest, most efficient way.[/u] Foxes are good enough at catching prey with what they already have, that there is nothing forcing them to adapt or die. Flight takes an incredible amount of energy. Flight is only possible in warm-blooded animals that are small enough to counter gravity easily, or in environments where food is so abundant that they can take in the energy necessary to fly.

Why don't humans have eyes in the back of our heads? Because we don't need them. We evolved from predator species. Predators need 3D vision -forward-facing eyes- to zero in on prey. Have you noticed that most prey mammals have eyes on the sides of their heads, giving them pretty-close-to 360 vision, just like you said? Because being alert and running away are more important to their survival. For predators, catching prey is more important, so they don't starve to death.

Lastly, [i]of course[/i] the whole species changes instead of just one random mutation! Every single time two creatures have sex, there's a chance for near-infinite mutations. This happens all the time. Offspring with bad mutations die off, offspring with neutral mutations carry on as normal, and offspring with beneficial mutations have a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on that mutation. That is the SELECTION in natural selection.

That's what evolution actually is. I don't know what you've been [i]told[/i], but you have been misinformed. Of course evolution sounds ridiculous to you, because you've been given a 'funhouse mirror' version of it. Even in high school science classes, it's still not usually explained well enough. I can understand why you're misinformed, but that's no excuse for clinging to the misinformation because you don't want evolution to be true.

That is your ONLY REASON for not believing in it. But what if it were true? Actually ask yourself that. It would mean only that Genesis is a metaphor at best. That's all. Not so horrible, is it?

>Evidence that the evolutionary scientific community chooses to ignore.

What you call 'ignoring' is more likely 'look at, test it, realize it is flawed, and discard'.

>"Oh evolution takes millions of years". This smacks of the same kind of convenient excuse you accuse the Bible of.

If I told you the earth takes 365 days to orbit the sun on a diagonal rotation, would that be a "convenient excuse" for why the seasons happen?

>What about how stupid evolution is with all it's variables and inconsistencies?

It actually hurts my heart that you can't see how that makes evolution the [i]stronger[/i] belief.

Imagine two fortresses. In one, they have complete faith that their fortress will last forever. In the other, they are constantly checking for flaws in their walls. The other fortress sees this as a sign of weakness. Yet the second fortress swaps out the cracked bricks they find with better ones. While the first fortress neglects repairs forever, simply believing that the strength of their faith will also apply to their fortress walls.

>To me, 'evolution' is as likely as a tornado blowing through a scrapyard and leaving behind a fully functioning jumbo jet.

Thank you for proving that your beliefs are not your own. You were told this. I have heard the jumbo jet example many times, and I actually groaned in pain to see it again. It betrays your misunderstanding of evolution.

Instead of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, imagine a great big shallow cardboard box filled with tiny puck-shaped magnets. If you shake the box, the magnets will roll around. Eventually, a few will stick together. And if you keep shaking, inevitably you will end up with all the magnets stuck to each other; a formation larger and more complex than any of its individual components.

Your jumbo jet example is lacking an essential component: evolution is random events PLUS selection for beneficial outcomes.

>The ONLY reason to say 'God didn't do this' is to try and prove he does not exist or has no power over the world.

Why do you insist on seeing it that way? Like I said, plenty of Christians believe in evolution and see it as God's paintbrush. They see 'seven days' in Genesis and ask, 'How long is a [i]day[/i] to God?' You are seriously trying to say that, if God watched millions of years of life developing, subtly nudging events to happen to produce his desired results, that shows he has NO power!?

>For a Christian to say he believes in evolution when such a notion is clearly anathema to GOD'S OWN WORD

No. The word of MEN. If the Bible was the word of God, then why are there many different versions of it?

The clearest word of God is HIS OWN CREATION. THE NATURAL WORLD. [b]THE ONE YOU SPIT ON BY IGNORING ITS SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS IN FAVOR OF WORDS WRITTEN BY MEN.[/b]

And you were the one who spent so much time decrying "the religion of man".

>Creation Scientists every bit as learned and intelligent as your evolutionists

Name five.

>By who's definition is not believing in evolution 'unacceptable'?

Mine.

>I should be *ashamed* of myself for believing in the word of my God over the LIES of mankind

You don't, and I just proved it.

>including many eminent, learned scientists who ALSO believe in Creation over evolution?!

There is no such thing. Learned, maybe. Eminent? Absolutely not.

>How is believing in an a theory written by a mere man that is contrary to God's own words and an attempt to destroy everything the Bible tells us about God's power and wisdom by saying that God did not create the world in seven days "Loving the Lord thy God?

'Love' does not mean 'believing everything you read about a person without ever questioning it'. The people I truly love? I can challenge them and argue with them and call them wrong, and they will do the same to me, and I will love them [i]more[/i] for having the courage to be honest with me.

>I learned about evolution even before I knew about salvation. Even as a child, evolution was a joke to me. A laughably bad joke, so claiming I am 'ignorant' of the subject without knowing the slightest thing about me only displays your own 'ignorance'.

You just admitted that you heard about a complex, often poorly explained theory when you were a child. And rather than trying to understand it further, you declared it a joke and decided you didn't need to know anything more about it. That is what I call the apex of ignorance.

>You call me Liar and hypocrite? I am true to myself, to my beliefs and to my God.

Throughout this discussion, your behavior has shown without doubt that you are true to none of those things. You are dishonest to yourself by ignoring the evidence I give you when you ask for it. You are dishonest to your beliefs by contradicting them with your own words and actions. And you are dishonest to God by believing in a book instead of looking at his creation with your own eyes.

>You are true to nothing but empty words.

I am more loyal to my god; Truth, than you are to yours.

>So I say to you, read Matthew 7, 1-6. "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

That is a cowardly belief. I judge others because I don't fear their judgement. I know that being judged only makes me stronger. When my beliefs are challenged, the sharp edges get sharper and the chaff is burned away.

When your beliefs are "challenged" they remain exactly the same afterwards, don't they?

>"Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn to maul you."

You say that, and all I can imagine is your hooves trampling centuries of scientific observation into the mud.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Yet again I find myself deciding to respond to you rather than simply agreeing to disagree.

Firstly, Newtons Law of Gravity. See that? Newtons LAW of gravity. That is what it is called in modern times. In the article you showed, Newton's law was called a theory in reference to it's history. It is now called Newton's Law of gravity. Evolution is still the Theory of evolution. Unproven supposition . A system of erroneous ideas. Nothing more.

Thank you for posting that article. It proves everything I have ever believed about evolution and was a particular example I was going to use to debunk this tripe. Scientists say 'we got it wrong' Yep. So how much of the rest of their theory is complete hogwash as well? I know, 100%. A few grubby, soot stained moths do not evolution make.

Why is is so difficult to believe, or even countenance that God simply created the world as it is today? The heavens, the earth, the sky, the seas, man, plants and animals as they are now? You explained evolution to me exactly as I understand it. I still consider it false. Take the mammary gland for an example of why I can't see evolution as even being remotely plausible.

Now, mammals had to evolve this gland in order to feed their young. What happened in the meantime? Why are their any breast milk feeding mammals still alive on this earth if the process took millions of years? Obviously, before mammary glands evolved, mammals found an alternate method of feeding their young. It's only logical to assume this. By Darwin's own law then, these new mammary glands serve no purpose what-so-ever and would be rejected as an unfavorable mutation long before they even had the chance to finish evolving. Not the boobies!! Almost every evolutionary process has this similar flaw.

Before you say 'that's not how evolution works', That is exactly how evolution works as I was taught in school and college and for the past 20 years. Hmmm? Whats that you say now? Evolution has been re-written and re-defined in modern times? You mean in the exact same way the Bible has been re-written and re-defined? If evolution is the absolute truth, then why are there all these different versions of it?

As to my beliefs not being my own... you also believe what others have told you. What evolutionists have told you. You weighed up what they said with what you knew and found it favorable. I weighed up what evolutionists said with what the Bible said and yes, with what other Christians said and I sided with God. My beliefs are as much my own as yours are.

>The clearest word of God is HIS OWN CREATION. THE NATURAL WORLD. THE ONE YOU SPIT ON BY IGNORING ITS SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS IN FAVOR OF WORDS WRITTEN BY MEN.<

How.... can you even say this with a straight face? Please tell me you aren't serious. God's own CREATION. HE created this world in seven days. It did not 'evolve'. Why should I ignore the self-evident truth of the Bible in favor of.. words written by MEN?!

[url]http://creation.com/creation-scientists[/url] <-- Creation scientists, past and present. I've heard of more of these than any of your evolutionists.

I looked at God. I looked at what I knew of God and of the world. I believe God created heaven and earth in seven days. As to 'ignoring evidence' I have refuted your 'evidence' and posed my own. Evidence you have 'ignored'. You don't think it's evidence? It's plenty compelling evidence to me. Again, read Genesis. There's your evidence. The word of God as written down by men, yes. It is still the word of God. Has not the Theory of evolution been changed since it's conception, to make it more accessible to the common man and help with his understanding? So has the Bible been translated.

>I am more loyal to my god; Truth, than you are to yours.< When your 'truth' is founded in a lie? By who's definition? Mine.

I'm simply going to agree to disagree with you on this whole subject. I would still like to take the time to thank you for sharing your opinion even if I cannot, in good conscience, agree with you as you cannot agree with me.

But I will ask you one last thing.

Let us suppose for one minute that you are correct. We evolved from monkeys, God did not create us. Then what does it matter in the end? You live your life in the knowledge your truth is real, you live a happy and healthy person, as do billions of others.. I live my life as a happy, healthy person secure in the knowledge that what I believe is true, as do billions of others. We both die. That's it. Game over. Neither of us will care any more. We're dead.

Now let us suppose for a minute what happens if you are wrong and I am right. Think about it.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
I judge you as much by the points you responded to as the ones you chose to ignore: [i]The difference between personal belief and objective truth. My three different examples showing evolution. Proving that you contradict your own beliefs. Your refusal to give me the 'perfectly plausible' alternate theories you said existed. The flying fox. Why humans have forward facing eyes. What would happen if evolution was true. My example about a "convenient excuse". My metaphor about the two fortresses. My obliteration of your jumbo jet example. Why you can't believe that God uses evolution as a tool. My definition of love. Your apex of ignorance. The three ways you're dishonest. And my fear of not being judged.[/i] Since you didn't even bother to acknowledge those points, I'm just going to conclude victory in all of them. You just keep circling around to the few points you're comfortable arguing about. Anyone else reading this can see it.

>Yet again I find myself deciding to respond to you rather than simply agreeing to disagree.

Of course you did! Because, just like everyone else who argues like you, you always lie when you say you're going to leave. "I bid you good day, Sir!" I knew you wouldn't. I knew you couldn't.

>Evolution is still the Theory of evolution. Unproven supposition . A system of erroneous ideas. Nothing more.

So you're trying to convince me of the definition of the word 'theory', yet you still persist in defining it incorrectly as 'something which hasn't been proven 100% correct, therefore it is 100% false'. I try not to think in absolutes.

Also, once and for all, [url=http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law]this explains it better than I could.[/url] [b]A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.[/b]

>Thank you for posting that article. It proves everything I have ever believed about evolution and was a particular example I was going to use to debunk this tripe. Scientists say 'we got it wrong'

Thank you for proving you selectively ignored whatever parts of that article you didn't want to acknowledge, because that is literally the only way you could come to that conclusion. What you concluded is the opposite of what actually happened.

>So how much of the rest of their theory is complete hogwash as well? I know, 100%.

I can't understand why creationists only think in black and white. They think evolution is a house of cards; prove one detail wrong and everything tumbles. No. You would have to prove literally hundreds upon hundreds of examples wrong before evolution as an idea would be imperiled at all. That's like visiting the the Eiffel Tower and thinking, [i]'If I pull out this one loose bolt I found, the whole thing will come crashing down!'[/i]

>A few grubby, soot stained moths do not evolution make.

Wow. You don't even realize that the moths were soot-[i]colored.[/i] Yeah, you really understand what you're talking about.

>Why is is so difficult to believe, or even countenance that God simply created the world as it is today?

Because why would a being powerful enough to [i]create life from nothing,[/i] create a world so horrifyingly flawed? There are a million and one things in space which could wipe out all life on this planet. Birth defects kill millions of babies every year. All life can only exist by harming, killing, or stealing from other life forms: we are all in constant conflict. We breathe, talk and eat all through the same hole, which means humans choke to death every day. Viruses exist. Parasites exist. Humans have instincts that prevent them from livingpeacefully with one another. These are only a FEW examples.

It would be much easier for me to believe that God made this world if it were BETTER.

>You explained evolution to me exactly as I understand it.

No, I didn't. I pointed out multiple places where your own words proved you were attacking a strawman.

>Now, mammals had to evolve this gland in order to feed their young. What happened in the meantime? Why are their any breast milk feeding mammals still alive on this earth if the process took millions of years? Obviously, before mammary glands evolved, mammals found an alternate method of feeding their young. It's only logical to assume this. By Darwin's own law then, these new mammary glands serve no purpose what-so-ever and would be rejected as an unfavorable mutation long before they even had the chance to finish evolving. Not the boobies!! Almost every evolutionary process has this similar flaw.

You are thinking in black and white terms again. Either something [i]works perfectly in the form we see now[/i], or it's [i]completely useless.[/i]

I already told you about neutral mutations. Thank you for proving you aren't really listening.

If a mutation pops up that neither hinders or benefits an organism, there is nothing to make it go away except chance. If it happens to catch on in the species, it may change to something harmful or beneficial [i]later.[/i] I admit, I don't know much about mammary glands. But I'm betting that there was an earlier form of them that served some kind of other purpose (possibly sweat glands), until it happened that babies who lapped the fluids from these glands gained a tiny edge over babies that didn't, and natural selection eventually led to more developed glands over many years and many different species. This is also how the eye evolved, in case you were about to bring that up as the next example of the empty theory of Irreducible Complexity.

Think of a mousetrap. Take away the trigger and it no longer functions as a mousetrap. Ah, but you could still use it as a tie clasp or a tiny clipboard. THAT is the fatal flaw of irreducible complexity: just because a simpler form of a complex structure couldn't do what it does now, doesn't mean it couldn't do something else.

>That is exactly how evolution works as I was taught in school and college and for the past 20 years.

Then you had shitty teachers. And hey, I did too. In my high school science class, my teacher told me that humans would all lose our wisdom teeth in a few generations because we no longer need them. That is a catastrophic misunderstanding of the theory [i]she was teaching.[/i] To understand evolution as well as I do, I have had to do it mostly through my own research. So, again I can understand why you're misinformed, but it doesn't excuse holding onto that misinformation.

>Evolution has been re-written and re-defined in modern times? You mean in the exact same way the Bible has been re-written and re-defined? If evolution is the absolute truth, then why are there all these different versions of it?

Evolution, a scientific theory, is meant to be discussed, debated and changed, like all scientific theories. Your Bible is supposedly the eternal word of God. ETERNAL. Yet it isn't. That's a far bigger problem for you than me.

>As to my beliefs not being my own... you also believe what others have told you. What evolutionists have told you. You weighed up what they said with what you knew and found it favorable. I weighed up what evolutionists said with what the Bible said and yes, with what other Christians said and I sided with God. My beliefs are as much my own as yours are.

Fair. I will concede that one point.

>How.... can you even say this with a straight face? Please tell me you aren't serious. God's own CREATION. HE created this world in seven days. It did not 'evolve'. Why should I ignore the self-evident truth of the Bible in favor of.. words written by MEN?!

Because the Bible IS words written by men.

Like I already said, when an artist creates a painting, does he will it into existence out of nothing? Or does he painstakingly add every individual brushstroke? And when he does, isn't it still called a creation?

Literally, the only source of your information about the creation is the Bible. Words in a book. Where is your proof that these are the words of God? And where in Genesis does it say HOW God created the world? Does it say explicitly he simply poofed everything into being? Or could he have created it slowly, like an artist does?

Again I ask, how do you know how long a day is to God?

>http://creation.com/creation-scientists <-- Creation scientists, past and present. I've heard of more of these than any of your evolutionists.

Creation scientists. Listed on a creationism site. Absolutely unimpressive. Find me a list of creation scientists on a neutral website, whose work on creationism is peer-reviewed and found to be worthy of consideration.

Also, I'm unimpressed that scientists before Darwin didn't believe in evolution, because if they did, it would mean they were psychic.

[url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Steve]Also, you might find this amusing.[/url] It's about a list of scientists who accept evolution. [i]But it's limited only to scientists named Steve.[/i] And yet that list is still longer than any list of scientists who believe in creationism. While the number of believers doesn't prove a belief is true, it should at least make you wonder why so few scientists are on your side.

>I looked at God.

How? Did he show his face to you? Did he speak words to you? Or did you look in your own heart and go with what [i]it[/i] said to you?

>I believe God created heaven and earth in seven days.

If you had never heard of the Bible, would you have come to that same conclusion from observing the world?

>As to 'ignoring evidence' I have refuted your 'evidence' and posed my own.

You have acknowledged only a very small amount of my points, and you have refuted exactly one.

>You don't think it's evidence? It's plenty compelling evidence to me.

That's because you want to believe in it, not because the evidence itself is compelling.

>Again, read Genesis. There's your evidence.

Which creation story am I supposed to read again? The one that starts on Genesis 1:1, where animals are made before man, or the one that starts on Genesis 2:4, where man is created before animals?

>The word of God as written down by men, yes. It is still the word of God.

How do you know? Where is your proof? What if I claimed [i]my[/i] words were dictated to me by God, would that make them all true?

>Has not the Theory of evolution been changed since it's conception, to make it more accessible to the common man and help with his understanding?

No. It has been explained differently, but the theory itself has not changed.

>I'm simply going to agree to disagree with you on this whole subject.

That's awfully convenient for you. You get to just walk away, as if we're on equal ground and merely arguing about opinions.

>I would still like to take the time to thank you for sharing your opinion even if I cannot, in good conscience, agree with you as you cannot agree with me.

I am not disagreeing with you because of my [i]conscience.[/i] That is the fundamental difference between us, as I already explained. What I [i]want[/i] to be true has absolutely no bearing on the truth itself. There have been times when I've had to lie for the benefit of myself or others. Even though what I was doing overall was good, I was still lying. The truth didn't change just because it would have been better for me if it did.

>Let us suppose for one minute that you are correct. We evolved from monkeys, God did not create us.

Or, God used evolution to create us. You're still thinking in binary.

(BTW, we did [i]not[/i] evolve from monkeys. Both humans [i]and[/i] monkeys come from a common ancestor. That is literally the most common mistake people make about evolution.)

>Then what does it matter in the end? You live your life in the knowledge your truth is real, you live a happy and healthy person, as do billions of others.. I live my life as a happy, healthy person secure in the knowledge that what I believe is true, as do billions of others. We both die. That's it. Game over. Neither of us will care any more. We're dead.

What does it matter? [b]I will have a better life than you.[/b] Devoting myself to an objective truth outside myself has been one of the best decisions of my life. I am saner since deciding not to bullshit myself anymore. My relationships are stronger, because they are grounded in honesty. I have already become smarter than I ever dreamed I could be. Not because I'm special. Simply because I listen to people smarter than I am. I am always looking for ways to cut out bad ideas and add in new ones. I don't put myself through the stress of whining and deflecting when I'm proven wrong. I accept it gladly. I let myself grow from it.

I allow myself to grow, while you keep yourself permanently stuck where you are.

>Now let us suppose for a minute what happens if you are wrong and I am right. Think about it.

If I am wrong and you are right? Nothing happens. The world itself will not change based on what we believe. Only we will.

But let's say I get called before God, and he asks me why I didn't believe he willed the world into existence in a poof of magic. I tell him, 'the only evidence that you did was in a book, and the evidence of evolution was literally everywhere else in the world'. Now, if he is a just and loving God, he will forgive me. Maybe he will even be proud of me for being curious and inquisitive, as he made me to be. But if he punishes me for doubting, then he will have proven himself a petty bully, not worthy of my worship or anyone else's. Like I said, real love is never unquestioning.

And if everyone on earth is wrong about evolution, what then? Then me and every true scientist in the world will rejoice. Because the only thing that could ever prove evolution wrong would be a stronger theory that better explains life on earth. A theory like that would be immeasurably useful. Our understanding would expand.

That's what a mature person does when they're proven wrong: they are grateful.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
BTW, if you think an evolution FAQ isn't a reliable source of information about what a scientific theory is, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory]will this do?[/url] [b]"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative."[/b]

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
You win. I've finally found someone more stubborn than I am. I didn't think it was possible.

You, and men like you can not and will never acknowledge the truth of God no matter what is put before you. You simply can not do so. Your nature and beliefs will not allow it, just as my own beliefs will never allow me to countenance what you call your 'truth', no matter how long you speak.

You claim your life will be better than mine. Perhaps it will be, yet in all the ways you mentioned you have grown as a person? I have also grown in the same way through the knowledge of the Love of God.

*However* You have managed to do one little thing. Since I've started talking to you, I've stopped looking at the world in simple black and white terms. 'Thinking in binary" as you put it.

Has my opinion changed on evolution and God? No. Do I still believe God created heaven and earth in seven days? Yes. Do I believe my views on how the world works and functions and the beliefs of man remain the same? No. You managed to dissect out a portion of my mind I never thought I'd be rid of, that I thought was an integral part of me, that I'd never even realized I had and wanted to be rid of until you came along and said 'Why does it have to be that way?"

It hit me... yesterday I think, that the entire way I thought about things was changing. My views were the same, but the way I viewed it was not. I was thinking objectively and had stopped 'bullshitting myself' as you put it.

As astounding as it may seem, No-one has ever said to me before 'It doesn't need to be like that, you don't have to think that way, think for yourself " *and had the conviction to back it up* enough to get the point across to me. If that was your objective all along then you are one sly, sly fox and I take my hat off to you.

For that *truth* at least, I am grateful, more than you will ever know.

Thank you.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
I'm very happy that you've had an epiphany and I'll get to that in a moment. But first there are some things I need to correct.

>You win. I've finally found someone more stubborn than I am. I didn't think it was possible. You, and men like you can not and will never acknowledge the truth of God no matter what is put before you. You simply can not do so. Your nature and beliefs will not allow it, just as my own beliefs will never allow me to countenance what you call your 'truth', no matter how long you speak.

First off, I don't feel like I won anything.

Secondly, I'm not the stubborn one here. To be stubborn, I'd need something to resist against.

I try my best to be a [i]good[/i] skeptic. Skepticism is not automatically debunking everything that seems a little spooky. That's just stupid. True skepticism is this: [b]I will believe ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING you tell me, so long as you can prove it.[/b]

I don't believe your side of things because you simply haven't given me any reason to. Not even a little one. Frankly, your arguments have been terrible. There's been nitpicking, semantics, strawmen, and arguments I've heard from dozens of other creationists, which are so thoroughly debunked by now that no one but a creationist could be swayed by them anymore. The [i]one thing[/i] you said that gave me pause was the example about the mammary glands. But even then, it was not a solid point. [i]It was just a question that I, personally, couldn't answer after researching it for only a few minutes.[/i] That is literally the best you could do. The greatest difficulty I have had in this 'debate' was when you'd said something [i]so[/i] wrong that it took me a while to figure out where to start unraveling it.

I would have no problem giving up my belief in evolution if you could give me a better theory to take it's place. You haven't offered me anything except, [i]'Believe me because I say so.'[/i] You are insulting me when you say that I'm the one who can't change my beliefs.

Do you know what it would take to get me to believe in God? For him to ask me to. Simple as that. Just one unambiguous sign that I could not easily explain otherwise. It would take as little as him saying, "I AM," inside my head, in a voice that was clearly not mine. (I don't honestly know if the knowledge of his presence would change my behavior any, but I'd believe he was there.)

You are the stubborn one. Because you are the one who has been pushing back. You ask a question; I give you my best answer; you shove it away unexamined. Your position has always been, [i]'I believe in this, and I'm frustrated because you won't believe it too.'[/i] Or maybe, [i]'and I'm frustrated because you won't make it easy on me to keep believing this way.'[/i]

>You claim your life will be better than mine. Perhaps it will be, yet in all the ways you mentioned you have grown as a person? I have also grown in the same way through the knowledge of the Love of God.

If that's true, then I'm happy for you. You, specifically, may not be my enemy. But your mindset is.

The person who thinks, [i]'I must deny evidence because my God needs me to'[/i] is the same kind of person who is capable of thinking, [i]'I must deny evidence because my political party needs me to'[/i] or [i]'I must deny evidence because my preacher needs me to'[/i] or [i]'I must deny evidence because my favorite talk radio host needs me to'[/i] or [i]'I must deny evidence because my race needs me to'.[/i]

You prioritize authority over evidence. [b]That is dangerous.[/b] Again, I am not saying that, you, specifically are. But people who think like you are the cause of a lot of human misery. A person who believes that whatever their leader says must be the truth, [i]because he's their leader,[/i] is the kind of person who can be made to believe literally anything. The kind of person who can perform terrible atrocities while believing their conscience is clean. Keep in mind that no one detonates a bomb strapped to their chest while on a bus full of innocent men, women and children unless they believe wholeheartedly that what they are doing is an act of purest good. Because someone else told them it was. I consider it my duty to do whatever I can to make sure there are less people like that in the world by the time I leave it.

>As astounding as it may seem, No-one has ever said to me before 'It doesn't need to be like that, you don't have to think that way, think for yourself " *and had the conviction to back it up* enough to get the point across to me. If that was your objective all along then you are one sly, sly fox and I take my hat off to you.

It doesn't astound me at all. In fact, it saddens me that I sometimes feel so lonely saying these kinds of things. I wish my teachers had. I wish my therapists had. I wish my parents had. I wish [i]anyone[/i] had, instead of me being forced to piece it together for myself over the years.

I am glad you've had an epiphany, even if I'm a bit unclear on what you say has changed. But that's beside the point.

I want you to imagine me reading these last paragraphs in a voice of sad, tired disappointment. That is what I feel.

I don't want your thanks. I am not your friend. I will never be your friend. And the reason is simple. I want all my friendships to be rooted in honesty and respect. I can't be friends with someone who will ignore what I say rather than face it. You haven't been rude in this discussion, I will freely give you that, but you have ducked out of answering so many of my points, always returning to only the arguments you're comfortable with making, that I can't respect you. I can't respect a person who says they "love" having their beliefs challenged, and will then say anything they can think of to make sure that never happens.

I am a firm believer that choices should come with consequences. Your choice to prioritize authority over evidence has cost you a connection to another human being. Permanently. It is not because you believe in god. It is not even because you don't believe in evolution. It is because of the way you argue with dishonesty and dishonor. I don't like being lied to, and I don't allow people to lie to me without consequences.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
As you wish. I can't dissuade you from that line of thought. However, to lie to you firstly I would need to believe that what I was saying was a lie. I do not. I still believe in the word of God. I still do not believe in Darwin's evolution. However, things such as selective breeding are a part of the natural order. It is idiotic to say otherwise as you so patiently pointed out.

As to ignoring what you said, Yes, I did. I had a 'deaf ear' mentality, and have had one for most of my life. That will change soon enough.

Am I happy the way I am now, as I said? Hell no. Explained in the journal below.

And finally, as to prioritizing authority over evidence... [color=#888a85][A link to one of his journals, which I will not include as to preserve his anonymity][/color] If I can break my own vicious cycle of 'authority', the rest will surely follow.

This is, in part, your doing simply for standing up and asking 'Why?' when no one else I've ever known has had the courage to do so.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>I still do not believe in Darwin's evolution. However, things such as selective breeding are a part of the natural order.

I wasn't planning on replying much, but those two sentences are staggering. [i]"I still do not believe in Darwin's evolution. However, things such as selective breeding are a part of the natural order."[/i]

You just basically said that you believe in the idea, but not when it's called by a certain name. That is the most amazing example of compartmentalization I have ever seen.

>And Finally, as to prioritizing authority over evidence...If I can break my own vicious cycle of 'authority', the rest will surely follow.

I'm happy to hear that. Friends or not, I'm always glad to see when someone has a desire to better themselves. If we don't want to be more than what we are, why bother being alive?

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
>I wasn't planning on replying much, but those two sentences are staggering. "I still do not believe in Darwin's evolution. However, things such as selective breeding are a part of the natural order." You just basically said that you believe in the idea, but not when it's called by a certain name. That is the most amazing example of compartmentalization I have ever seen.<

Again I fail to clarify. >.< My apologies. Something such as selective breeding is or inherited traits is clearly visible in the natural world. However the idea that man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor, rather than God's creation still seems a tad far fetched to me. :3 A bit too much of a stretch right now, if you like. I'll sort myself out first.

~~~

[b]AlexReynard[/b] to GREEN
>Something such as selective breeding is or inherited traits is clearly visible in the natural world . However the idea that man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor, rather than God's creation still seems a tad far fetched to me.

Imagine you're immortal, and for whatever reason you've been tasked to draw exactly the same drawing over and over again for the next three hundred and fifty years. Every time you finish a drawing, it is taken away, so you only have your memory of it to go by. Now... is your final drawing going to look [i]anything like[/i] your first one?

If you can accept that small changes happen within species, all you need to do then is imagine an uncountable number of small changes happening to an uncountable number of different species over [i]three and a half [b]b[/b]illion years.[/i]

BTW, I am glad to see that you listened to one correction I made. That's commendable progress, and I'm not being sarcastic. Accepting the other person's argument for what it is, is honorable.

~~~

[b]GREEN[/b] to AlexReynard
Cheers. :3 I'm going to look at things a little more objectively and take what I'm told with a grain of salt from now on. I prefer my information with a little flavor, though it's an acquired taste, is it not? Glad I was able to sample it, one way or the other.


