One of the arguments I have seen from non-believers is this: They claim that most people who believe in GOD do so because they were brought up in church and that is what they have been taught . . . the term brainwashing rings a bell.

To me there is some validity to this in some cases. I'm sure there are believers that believe just because they have been taught that their whole lives.

But . . . couldn't that be true the other way around? I mean, if you have never set foot in a church or your parents were non-believers . . . wouldn't that affect your own beliefs?

So my question is this. How many of you non-believers will admit that they either 1) have never been to church or 2) believe the way they do because their parents were non believers also?

I consider myself what you term a "non-believer," though I identify as Jewish which is what my family is. My family went to synagogue once a week pretty consistently when I was growing up, and we observed most traditions of a non-orthodox household.

Also, the term "non-believers" is fallacious. It very clearly implies that there is something to believe in, and we choose not to. That would be like addressing you as "unaccepters," or maybe something a little more clever like "fairy tale believers."

I am fairly sure I'm a non-believer, but I go to church every sunday, and at least one of my parents is a believer.




LOL

Believe in GOD is very vague. Are you classifying all non-christians as non believers? All non catholics? It is impossible to ignore that MOST people will tend to believe what they were brought up to believe, unless they explore other possibilities. But even then, you tend to believe based on LEARNED information. When you are born, you have no understanding of religion, no concept of God, etc. You are introduced first to whatever religion is practiced in the home, then to your peers (neighbors, other kids in school, teachers, etc.), and ultimately society. This topic is far too deep to discuss in one post. But for sake of your post, I am a non-christian although I do believe in a power greater than myself. I have been to church on many occasions, and my parents were both christians.

I'm an an athiest. My mother was/is Catholic, my father was/is Baptist. I went to church every week (sometimes Catholic, sometimes Baptist) until I was 15. I went to CCD and attended Catholic school from 6th grade through high school.

So I have plenty of experience with attending Church/Church functions. My parents both were/are believers in one faith or another.

In my experience, children who have parents who are unbelievers are encouraged to explore different religions and figure things out for themselves. Children with religious parents are brainwashed to the degree that their parents believe.

This always bugged me when people claimed to be an atheist. I dont want to start something here but can you really prove that God DOESNT exist? It seems that those who claim to be atheist are really just agnostic.

Hello,

I think there are many believers who were not raised in a religious environament that environment. I also think that if you are raised being told something is a fact and that your belief in that fact measures whether you or good or bad it is going to be difficult to challenge that belief or try to examine it objectively. I think so called non-believers can also have a deep and profound influence on children to think a certain way. However, it is possible to step outside your families belief system. I know this because I was raised in the church. I went every Sunday and my parents still do. When I was a teenager I started to be exposed to many other points of view. The first question that occoured to be is why Muslims, Jews, Hindu's and the majority of the world didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God? How could they all be wrong or misguided? That's where my questioning started. I then became angry, not at my parents but at the church, at having a belief structure imposed upon me. My parents wanted me to have values and a strong sense of community, they wanted me to have all the positive aspects that come from a religiousd community and I love them for that. However, I began to see what struck me as a level of hypocrisy that was rampant in most organized Christianity. It seemed to me that if there was one message Jesus was trying to get across, one message above all others it was that none shall judge but God. None of us should be casting judgement on others. Yet all I could see was judgement. All I could here was church leaders preaching about the right and wrong way to live and believe. The right and wrong relationship with God. There are exceptions to all rules and generalizations but that was my experience. In my anger I lost all faith. I labelled myself an athiest. To make a long story shorter. I have grown up and see things much more balanced now. I believe there is something larger than human exsistence. I believe in an ambigious spirituality and I believe that I am on a journey to know my spirit and to understand the place I have in this world as it relates to everyone else in this world.

I think Christianity has one thing right if nothing else. We are all sinners, we are all flawed. If that meant that our focus was on maximizing the good we do in the world and minimizing the harm we cause to others. I wish I had the discipline to live my life like that. It is an ideal I hold and I'm working towards living my life that way. I try to know myself and to know my insecurities, the power of my desires and the traps of my limitations. By knowing these things I will get closer to my ideal. However when this struggle is judged to have a right or a wrong way, it distracts me from the journey itself. When I have toi worry about a perpetual and eternal punishment if I don't measure up, it distracts me from my journey. So organized religion creates to many distractions for me. If Christianity really followed and listned to the teachings of Christ, maybe I could have continued to be a believer. Christ reached out to those who were seen as the most immoral and said that they too were God's children. I just don't see it these days.

So, to get off my rant and soap box and get back to the original question. I think believers and non-believers can strongly influence their families and loved ones. I think it's difficult but not impossible to get outside of your environment.

Sorry I got off on a tangent there. My two sense and please let me be clear, I am relating my experience and my truth. I do not begrudge you yours, whatever that may be.

-Bear

I agree that many agnostics label themselves atheistic, but it seems to me just as impossible to prove that he doesn't exist as it is to prove that he does, and yet millions/billions seem willing to accept some proof of that.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics. I don't believe in god and it's not up to me to prove he doesn't exist, it's up to believers to prove that he does.

You're right, you can't prove that God doesn't exsist. Faith isn't a question of proof either way. It's about belief. You believe he exsists and see evidence of it or your don't and see no evidence of it. What believers see as proof non believers see as science, coincidence or some other explanation that makes sense to them.

As I understand it Athiests fully believe there is no God. Agnostics simply don't subscribe to the conventions of organized religion and question the nature of spirituality. They question wether humanity can ever have a true understanding of spirituality. My personal take as someone who labels themselves now as an agnostic is that it if there is power grerater than all of humanity then it would require an absured level of arrogance to think you could understand it enough to lead and teach others a proper way to learn, love and live within it. Perhaps that is an overly cyunical or naive point of view. I unlike many others am able to admit I don't "know" and that I am capable about being wrong about anything involving this topic and many others. Especially poker.

-Bear

But the basis of your 'belief' as an atheist is that you dont believe he exists. That, in and of itself, says you can prove that he doesnt, otherwise your belief is based on something you can't prove. Most self professed 'atheists' I know are very analytical people and tend to have a scientific approach to almost everything. Why would your core belief system be based on something you cant prove? That is my only question. At least an agnostic takes a claim where he isnt sure if God exists or not, and lives his life accordingly.

Do you believe that wind exists? Can you prove that it does? Most would say that even though no one can see wind, it is proven by its effects. No one would deny that wind exists. But to say God doesnt exist seems to mean you have proof.

This is why I think there are no true atheists, only agnostics. But thats just my opinion.

Negatives can't be proven. You can not prove the non-existance of something. So if to be an athiest you most be able to prove the non-exsistance of God, then your're right there are no athiests. It's a self-fulfilling circular argument.

If you are saying that people who are athiests are hypcrites because they demand proof of God when they themselves can't prove he doesn't exsist well this is also a circular argument (see the point above).

The dictionary defines athiest as " someone who denies the existence of god". No mention of belief or proof. So there you go, athiests are just people in denial.

So Athiests deny God exists and you deny Atheists exsist. So can we prove Atheists exsist or should we just take it on faith?

-Bear

I was raised Jewish.

I'm more agnostic than atheist...but it's close.

Let's not do the whole "you can't prove it" thing. Nobody can prove whether or not "God" exists. That's why arguments between atheists and religious people can go in circles forever.

And FOOSE, it's annoying that everything is Church to you. That just shows that you don't at all separate YOUR religion from the belief in God. That's my biggest problem with Christians.

Well I guess that depends on your definition of God. Thats a pretty bold statement who cant prove his own beliefs.

Though I am not one of them, I do think there are people that consider themselves atheists, by that definition. Most use arguments that are not particularly cogent, but there are some which are just as valid as most proofs of the existence of god.

Come on. Nobody can prove that God exists...unless they use the Bible as proof, which is just laughable.

a·the·ist (th-st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

You know someone who has proven God doesnt exist!?




Who said anything about the Bible? Clearly your view of God is limited to a Christian perspective. I personally come from the perspective but it doesnt mean that a belief in a higher power that doesnt fit the Christian belief would be classified outside the atheistic view.

Honestly, now you're running circles around yourself. I'm not sure I even need to be involved in the conversation anymore.

I didnt ask you to respond in the first place.

Oh. I didn't realize you were given a written invitation to join the thread. I'll wait for mine before joining next time.

I merely meant that people's proof of the lack of existence of god are just as good as people's proofs of existence. i don't believe either are particularly valid.



mine went to my bulk mail folder, so check there.

Ah, there it is. I hate how stingy hotmail is about spam. I personally enjoy learning about viagra, sexy single japanese girls, and top stock options.

i wish i'd never been to chuch. wasted the first 17 years of my life there.

The odds are stacked against you when you ask this. Think about the generation of people that are the parents of 95% of the posters here. It's extremely rare for them to be anti-religion...so I doubt you'll find more than 1 (2 tops) who grew up without religion.

The more interesting question would be when did we all go to "the dark side"? For me it wasn't one event...just a gradual realization. Actually, I think on some level I was always apatheistic, because I don't remember ever really believing in God. I pretty much assumed it was just a story (the Old Testament).

the reason is because the old churches are so backward on some of thier thinking it's no wonder that so many people become Atheistic or Agnostic. My two sisters and I were raised in the church. Now none of us go and I would definitely consider one of my sisters to be agnostic based on conversations with Crow.

The thing is the "Church" has passed judgement on many things and the youth of today don't like it. It should be do you have a relationship with God. If you do then that's great if you don't then you will still go down the same life path as everyone else. I have hard times grasping why the religious right is so opposed to certain things. one thing now is stem cell research. The right is saying it is bad but for religious purposes cmon.

Anyway i'm not really sure where i was goin with that but hey I needed to get some things out of my mind.

I'd just like to point out, if it's not obvious to everyone, that these types of aguments against Christianity or any other system are fallacious (I stole your word mrdannyg. I don't even feel bad though..). I believe in special relativity because I believe there are good reasons to believe it, not because I was born after 1905. There is a difference between necessary (or favourable) circumstances to have a belief, and reasons for that belief.



Hi

In a Christian worldview, the claim is that God reveals himself to us by his grace, and through that same grace, enables a subset of his creation to understand him accurately (at some level) and to have confidence in that revelation. Do you believe this idea is fundamentally absurd, ie. if there is a God, is he incapable of performing such a feat?

Practically speaking though, since there are various mutually incompatible groups all claiming this same divine confidence, things get trickier. Maybe your claim is that in our situation, it is absurd that anyone should really be that confident in their beliefs.

And, this is where God officially lets me off the hook.

I'm not saying God is incapable of it, I'm saying there isn't much evidence of it. You sort of get what I mean. If everyone with religious faith is "divinely inspired" then God is revealing his grace through some serious mixed messages OR.... perhaps his grace is being interpreted by sinners who consciously and subconsciously intrpret and represent with pride and greed and self-interest. The absurdness comes in thinking that we can have free will and be sinners and that when divine inspiration comes it is not subject to human weakness and fraility. Adam and Eve were not able to abide by Gods will even though they were directed by God.

What I'm really saying is this: play the game broken telephone just once and you'll see what happens when people pass on simple let alone complex messages to others. So If God speaks or imparts his grace upon ministers, reverends, priests, fine and dandy but does he impart his grace so that priests and such can impart such grace in a godlike manner to others. Is it imparted in such a way that it is not susceptable to the sins, desires and free will of humanity. Each and every religious teacher will give you some variance as to the will of god and the meaning of scriptures (christian or otherwise) so clearly there is some limitation the the grace of god as it applies to the abilities of man to know and teach it. Does that mean there should be no spiritual teaching, of course not. However, the lack of humility and the lack of ackowledgement that it is all interpretation and that because none of us are God we can only be involved in a search for meaning. Not any one person can "know" God's will fully and completely. Yet religious leaders of all faiths speak as if they do know, that we the followers do not and that they can tell us.

To me that is what makes mean agnostic and a doubter or non-believer.

You don't have to agree but do you understand my point?

-Bear

I always go to church for weddings and funerals, yet still i dont believe?

As pointed out the term 'non-believers' is a poor one. I personally prefer 'free-thinker'.

To answer your question, I was raised by Christian parents, going to church regularly and was completly comfortable with God's reality.

Then I discovered the best piece of evidence against the existence of God. It's a great book and I highly recommend it to anyone who is a little unsure, as it will open your eyes to the blatant flaws in Christianity. You should be able to find it in most good book stores. Its called the Bible.

speedz . . . the only reason I said "church" is because most non-believers classify believing in GOD with going to church. I was trying to keep it simple. The fact is, if this is what you were referring to, there are a lot of people that believe in GOD that do not go to church. My belief actually is that you do not have to go to church to believe in GOD. So "church is not everything to me". Like i said I was trying to keep it simple. I guess I should have worded it different. Sorry.


Anyway . . . this is exactly the types of responses I was looking for. The whole "you can't prove GOD exists . . . you can't prove GOD doesn't exist" arguments are getting old so I figured this would be a nice break.





subtle sarcasm noted . . .

wedding crasher?

You were the one complaining about being involved in the thread at all. I simply stated I didnt ask you to respond. that was your choice.

Thats a very broadstroke with no explaination. Good job.

I understand (or think I do) what you are saying, and I agree with a lot of what you say, or at least can feel the force of your arguments. Obviously there is something wrong considering all the different competing claims to the truth.

Let me just state a couple of points, arguing from the presuppositions of a Christian worldview, which I understand you don’t necessarily accept:

God has revealed himself both through his creation and his word, and he is knowable at some level. Everyone is capable of understanding enough to be entered into a “right” relationship with him. The effects of sin are still real though, as you clearly understand, and these still effect how we perceive God and interpret his revelation. However, the Christian claim is that we receive an indwelling of the Holy Spirit (am I coming off too preacher-like? I certainly hope so..) which aids in our understanding. Though certainly a great deal of humility is still required, and probably sorely lacking in most or at least some Christian leaders.

That’s probably not too helpful, especially considering you grew up in a Christian household. Probably your big question is how does one “get to” the presuppositions of a Christian worldview.

I was pretty much forced to go to church with my parents every Sunday until I moved out of their house to go to college (18 years). At first, I was just bored, and didn't pay attention to what was going on. But as I got older, I started listening to what was being preached, and began to question it. This was not a popular thing to do in my family. The more they told me that faith was required without question, the more I realized that I was right to question what was being said. Until somebody can provide some valid evidence of the existance of God and proof that the majority of the events of the bible took place, then I will continue to question religion. I do not yet consider myself an atheist...more of an agnostic, if I were pressed to describe my belief structure. Even if I were convinced of the devine, and became a whole-hearted Christian, I would still reject organized religion. I believe that the whole structure is flawed and corrupt. I have not yet found an organized religion that did not represent the exact opposite of the ideals that they claim to hold dear.

The fundamental flaw in what you are saying is you are assuming that if God exists he would not pass his message or insipiration on to a flawed character such as man. From the christian perspective God is rarely understood completely but more understood on His(I say His as an identifier, I dont believe God has a gender) terms. If God revealed everything to man, then it would make him less of God in my eyes. And if we WERE able to grasp everything that God is what is the purpose of worshipping Him? From the christian perspective God's only evidence of human representation came in the form of Christ as 100% man AND 100% God. Impossible you say? Its not logical? Well again I go to the point of what makes God God!? He is able to things that the human brain cant fully grasp. In the book of Revelation when John is retelling his experience of the end times he himself professes a lack of understanding of what his own eyes see. He simply does his best to make it discernable through written text.

All this to say, the idea of a higher power dissolves if that higher power can be put into a box and study and understood. This is where 'faith' comes in. Now, a lot of 'religious leaders' and those in the public eye have watered down the fundamentals of a true spiritual experience with God for the masses to bring in more numbers. You have questioned whether or not God is capable of 'inspiring' man to write His words as a guide for this life. Again a supposition that God is limited in some way. If God is limited then He isn't God. It is against His nature.

You may ask why would God create Adam and Eve if they were in capable of following Him even when He walked among them!? God created man so that man could worship Him. God created man with the ability to choose because He receives more glory out of a being that CHOOSES to worship Him than from one that is forced to worship Him. This is the fundamental struggle that has plaqued man since time began. Choosing right from wrong. Defining right from wrong. God gave man His Word as a guide to these things. I do believe, however, that there are those out there that would sabotage the will of God in many ways there are evil powers at work in this world. All the more glory goes to God for those who are able to live in a world of evil still choose Him. The Bible says that it will only get worse as time goes on. The Bible says there will be more false prophets on the rise and from you cynicism of 'religious leaders' Id be curious which leaders those are. I dont put much stalk in televangelists seeing as most of them are just looking for money for a new jet. Christianity is a majority in this country and persecution is almost non-existent for us so it is always hard to debate the majority without coming off as a conformist, but I truly believe that believing God doesnt exist at all seems naive since there is no evidence that he doesnt exist.

Hardly a broadstroke. I've dozens of posts here discussing my views. I'm too lazy to repeat my self over and over.

Go here and read from begining to end.

If you don't think I've shown some valid reasons as to why the Bible should be found in the fiction section, feel free to comment.



Really, there isn't any sarcasm there. Some creative structuring of the text, but no sarcasm. It wasn't until I started reading the Bible objectively that I realised I was being conned.

I've read it a Christian and also as an 'analyst' - note well that I said analyst, not athiest.

Feel free to give it a go one day.



And I truly believe that believing God does exist at all seems naive since there is no evidence that he does exist.....

Seriously, anyone that continues to bang on with such a redundant and circular argument doesn't hold much potential


There is no evidence that Zues, Mars, Odin, Sol, Binbeal, Turrean and Ratri don't exist so therefore we've got a lot of worshipping to do

There is plenty of evidence that God exists in my life. I go back to the argument about the existence of wind. You can not see it but its there because its effects are seen everywhere.

Your second point is so laughable Im not sure I should even comment on it. If im not mistaken the worship of these gods you listed was the focus of religious activity before the popularity of Christianity and the incarnation of God as Christ. The fact that you again are missing the point entirely. Im not trying to justify the worship of Christian God, simply the existence of a higher power. the naivity comes in not believing in one all together because it can not be proven. If you take the agnostic view of simply not knowing concretely that God or gods exist then thats one thing but to claim that no God or gods exists without proof is naive. Try and keep up here.

I did . . . and I came to the opposite conclusion as you. If you've read anything that Ihave written on here in the past you will know that I was in my 20's when I started searching. So, I did read the bible looking for my own answers. I was raised in a home where we went to church on Easter and Christmas . . . that was it. Religion never came up in my house. So in my early 20's I wanted to do my own research . . . which I think everyone should do by the way. I came to the conclusion that GOD is real through my own research. So please don't confuse me with someone who was "brainwashed" into believing. I made my own choice.

hip boot check





you can see the wind. time to come up with a better analogy.

Really?? Wow! If youve got a picture of wind please pass it along!

the wind is waves of energy moving into/through whatever medium they encounter. just because you can't see the waves moving through our atmosphere because the gas is transparent doesn't mean you can't see the same waves moving elsewhere. whenever you see grass waving, steam or smoke getting blown, etc. technically you ARE seeing the wind.

twisting the fact that we normally can't see the waves moving through the transparant atmosphere to try to make it into some philosophical/poetic analogy is just mental masturbation. we see the wind and understand what and why it is with near-perfection. there is no comparison between the wind and invoking god to explain "stuff" in your life.

I don't understand the wind argument either. I can feel the wind. When I go outside it is windy. Maybe you're arguing that you can feel God in the same way, but i'd assume that if you do "feel" God, it's in a spiritual way, and not physical.

Same with "seeing" the wind. I can see the wind moving trees. Do you "see" God doing stuff?

Is this one of those "in the hearts of all men" type things, or a different argument.

And the arguments about the other Gods was perfectly valid. Your argument that it is not the same as worshipping the Judeo-Christian God assumes the story about Christ's incarnation is true, which makes your argument circular. Therefore to prove it, you must be able to present proof of God, which does not depend on a circular argument. "Seeing" him would accomplish that, but as I said above, I think you'll find it hard to prove that you "see" him or His doings in any way that isn't actual a simple scientifically-explainable phenomenon.

Care to share some evidence from your life that is not faith based then?



Wow that really is pathetic. It's not an argument, its straw clutching. Thanks for confirming that I was correct about your lack of potential.

Wind is simply the movement of a gas from a zone of high pressure to one of low pressure.

All you need is an opaque gas, a container that you can divide in two and the ability to control the pressure of the two halves.

You can see wind. Tangible and simple.



Actually you are very mistaken. There are Hindu, Celtic and Australian aboriginal gods in that short list that are still worshiped today. There exist thousands of others that are likewise still worshipped for which you have zero evidence of their non-existance.

Also, because the Christain faith may have replaced another it hardly stacks as evidence that is 'more' correct, because

1) Evidence is not a popularity contest, and
2) "Nobody expects the Spanish inquistion"


If you want to debate intelligently I would suggest you rapidly give up on circular arguments and inadequate analogies.




I've never suggested you were brainwashed, and my stance has always been that theists are simply of different (and in my opinion ,of course wrong) beliefs.

I like to show my support for my beliefs based within common sense and logic, and really only 'attack' arguments that are fundamentally flawed (or just stupid like wind analogies) or blatant lies like Lois's scientific fact posts

As far as your environment in your 20's, obviously I wasn't there with you, but being in a Christrian household (not practicing or pious obvioulsy - just pointing out your options for deities to work with), feeling the need for answers and reading the Bible. I think most would question the objectivity.

Still you could say the same of me as an unknown.

Ok im not going to sit here and re-explain my points that you guys have simply taken out of context. The point of the wind anology is not to say that I am comparing them DIRECTLY, im not an idiot obviously im not questioning the existence of wind but just because something cant be scientifically measured doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Can you scientifically measure 'love'? does it exist? yes. I am saying the idea that you cant see the wind but you DO see the effects is the same thing with God. God is not something tangible that can be held but His evidence is everywhere. The fact that we have been intelligently designed and not 'poofed' out of some primordial ooze millions of years ago has been proven scientifically.

From Wiki:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]



This isnt to say that this 'intelligent designer' is the Judeo-Christian God, that just happens to be my personal belief.

Im really reluctant to keep going back and forth on all this. My goal in all this wasnt to:

1. Piss anyone off.
2. Cause an argument
3. Demean anyone or make them feel as if I am right and they are wrong. (believe it or not I am a free thinker as well)

My whole point of this was to clear up the confusion I have with the term Atheist. It is a term that devoid of substantial evidence or reasoning. Agnosticism is a much more appropriate term.

Look, Im willing to say that its possible someone can be a true Atheist but I think it would take a lot of proof and most people who flippantly claim atheism are really just agnostic. that is all. I know this is an open forum but I honestly generally come here to just talk poker. Getting on here to talk religion is something I rarely do and realize we all come from different places and I can respect that. Im sorry if ive offended anyone or made you feel like you were attacked for what you believe... or dont believe. I hate Christians who do that and I dont want to be one of those guys. I hope that you guys can maybe see where I am coming from and if not then maybe we can just agree to disagree and move on.

actually there is a lot of direct evidence that all emotions have physical causes.

nobody is missing your point. you are trying to justify belief in the metaphysical by comparing it to physical things, which doesn't work.



as has been pointed out here numerous times there is no scientific evidence for ID, no objective scientists believe in it, and everything written in support of it has been shown to be unscientific propaganda.

Ive read a lot about it and seen numerous lectures on the subject at a non-religious University and the scientists involved have all taken a very objective approach and though most are christians I have heard arguments from the 'higher power' stance that claims no religious diety, but simply we were designed by some higher power.

We are hardly taking you out of context. You are putting forward wind as an intangible to create a connection with the concept of an invisible creator. We are pointing out that it is extremely inappropriate.

Wind is tangible, it has substance and the effects can be seen directly and real time.

A correct analogy would be to supply something that is intangible, without substance that has real world effects in the physical world.



I am no expert on the subject, however I believe there are scientific theories on love (and other emotions) and brain activity, which if true would imply that yes you can measure it.



Lets get one thing perfectly clear.

Intelligent Design is not a science.

It is simply a deceitful effort by fundamentalist creationists to enforce their teachings upon school students.

This has been shown in a court of law and is obvious to anyone which a pinch of intelligence. I rate anyone that suggests it is a science as filthy as those scum that created that pack of lies.

Religion is a very touchy subject and you need to realise that others will read/hear what you say on the subject. People's psyche and emotional well being are often very tied up within this realm and it is important that what we state as fact, is fact. I can't stand it when people are 'tricked' into a belief system.

If you want to expouse your beliefs, be my guest. We will debate civily.

If you want to sell deceipt and misdirection through circular arguments, inappropriate analogies and blatant false claims I will take you to task and not be graceful about it.

Perhaps ensure you have some substance to your points, or state when you don't and are tabling a subject for discussion.



OK. If this is the case, terrific. Just be careful what you sell as fact. You believe in God? Excellent. May He fill all your gutshots

yeah i've read and heard a lot of "scientific" arguments for it, too - ALL of them boiled down to philosophy and not objective science.

anyway how to you jump from a few scientists lecturing on ID to ID being "proven scientifically" when the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't even consider it science?