The Faith & Religion mega Thread

This is probably going to appear choppy, as it was edited in an editor that, but for hard line breaks, would put all text in one line. This may cause format problems when I paste it into Linux Questions forum.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD @swgeek: You only argue about Christians and Atheists. You may be right about the "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must do so in Spirit"-thing, but when you only can belief in your god, not knowing about him, what makes you think that the Cristian god is the right one. Why not be a Muslim? Or a member of some of the other hundreds of religions?

Why the Christian God (specifically the Jewish God - He's the God of Israel, and Jesus is Jewish, he's the Jewish Messiah (my apologies if you are Jewish and not a Jewish Christian, but thats what it says ), why the Bible.

First as I said, If God exists, and I believe that He does, then we are dealing with (As the bible says of God) IAM. All religiousness of men is garbage, and what is true is what this "I AM" does, and is doing.

One of the first replies to my original post (other than TobiSGD's) stated:

If the god existed, then you wouldn't be able to know what it would do.

That is exactly correct - except if He told you.

I can hear you saying "Oh Crap, and that's the Bible - go away". Consider the following.
Among all the men and writings of men that purport to reveal the God that is, all speak of a variety of ways to God, and all involve improving one self, seeking some spiritual plane of near non existence, being good, and other human ways of appeasing or at least pleasing this God person. All speak of "what can I do" to find God, enlightenment, whatever.
One book, and only one tells a story of God reaching into human history, and doing something to reach man - Informing us that we do not measure up to Him, and in all ways fall short, but giving a solution to this, problem created by Him. The bible states "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather that the world might be saved through Him" (see the Gospel of John Chapter 3). The word "gospel" comes from the old English "Godspell", a translation of the Greek word for "good news".
Now if there was not so much argument about the bible, Christianity et al, and it was revealed by some universal unequivocal means which no one could argue with that God was not pleased with humanity's actions, and in fact condemned the actions of man (note I did not say condemned man IE humanity itself), then all would say "OK, Guilty, but what can I do, this is the way that I am" and the answer was that God had provided a solution, everybody would say "Whew, thank God for that, that sure is GOOD NEWS". OK, so I am being facetious, but that is the long and short of it. The only problem, the only fly in the ointment, as it were, is exactly what the bible says "but men loved darkness more that righteousness" (John 3). And in reality when God says "All have sinned and fall short of the righteousness of God, but are freely justified by His grace in Christ Jesus", we, generally as a race say "Oh F**K Off, and shut up, I want to go get drunk." That may sound sharp or profane, but it is exactly what we in general are saying. IE its not good news because "we" hate it, not because its not true or that it sure is good news.

Now aside from the uniqueness of the message: why the bible, and why (not Christianity, Christianity is a religion, and as stated before only has any validity as a religion in as much as it helps widows and orphans in their distress (Bible on religion - see James 1) Christ. One of the main original preachers of Christ, Paul the Apostle (humorously, a former virulent, vitriolic, murderous persecutor of Christians) did not say "I come preaching the religion that Jesus founded." Jesus didn't found any religions - Paul said "I will know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified" - that is one of the letters to the Corinthians, I believe first letter, and I believe first chapter.

First, most religions and religious writings originate with one person. Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, oh, the role of single source theology goes on, and on. The bible was written across two thousand years by farmers, prophets, poets, governors, fishermen, doctors, kings, and others. It contains 66 books (not one). It spans three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). While other religions have been opposed at one time or another, and their people subject to persecution, no other book on this planet is so loved and so hated. (The bible is the most published book of all time, and the most vilified - I could note the virulence of some of these 200 some odd posts). Kings, Kingdoms, and leaders have tried to stamp it out. In spite of them, it has flourished. Voltaire said (I paraphrase here) "It took 12 disciples to preach Christianity, it will take one Frenchman to stamp it out." Voltaire rots in his grave, and this Jesus thing goes on.
As to its veracity, I would as in a former post, point to fulfilled prophecy. Note the discovery in the 1940s and 1950s of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls and fragments of scrolls, written by the Essenes, a Jewish sect which flourished between 125BC and 70AD wrote them, and apart from commentary, they contain large portions of the Old Testament, and specifically the book of Isaiah (several copies in various places and portions, but when considered as a whole, one of the best preserved of the books of the Old Testament). Isaiah is probably the most messianic of the Old Testament Books, in that it speaks much about the Messiah, the Christ, The Savior. It was considered of ancient origin at the time of the Essenes, and obviously predates any historical record of Jesus by hundreds of years. From what I understand, it differs from modern translations in 8 or 9 ultra minute manners (single letter,word, or punctuation differences) which change its meaning not one iota.
Isaiah 53 (NIV) says:
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
I have heard it said that a man went about asking "who does this speak of" without noting its source. Universally Christians, unbelievers, Buddhists, Muslims, all said "Jesus". I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s. If you, at that time, widely and loudly proclaimed that in 2011 the USSR would be a republic, not a communist state, that the Berlin wall, recently constructed and ultra zealously guarded would lie in ruins, with East and West Germany united, that a black man would be president of the United States, and that the greatest threat to the western world would be comprised of small groups of Arab and other terrorists, you would have been put in a straight jacket and sequestered where the sun did not shine. Now, we, being unable to predict fifty years into the future (if you wish further humor, go back to the 50's and 60's magazines Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics and read their copious volume of predictions), must stand in awe of a man who accurately predicted the characteristics of the Messiah hundreds of years before He was born. This is what Peter the Apostle meant by "men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (Second letter of Peter, first chapter).
To those who say, but this is all from the bible, and we don't know if Jesus actually existed, I say "oh bosh", Josephus and other extra-biblical sources mention Christ. The issue is not whether he was, but rather who he is. "Jesus never claimed to be God" Yes he did and so does the bible. Compare John 8, specifically 8:58, Isaiah 9:6, and John 1. Jesus is Lord, God, and is come in the form of a man according to the bible, and I do believe it.

This is "Why the bible" and "Why Christ" and not "Christianity" as some know it. We Christians must hang our heads in shame that we sometimes are not at all like Jesus, for that is what it means to know God. The only thing that I can say is that I / we are no different from other men, even in our sins, except to the extent that Christ has worked in us, separating us from them. He is not finished with me and sometimes I stink at following Him, yet I have this hope within me, that by His word, he will not leave me.
Later
The SWGeek

Yes, I will say: This is all from the bible. The fact that Jesus may have existed and may be mentioned by other sources doesn't make the whole book true.
So actually it is:
Did Jesus exist? May be.
Is the story about Jesus true? We don't know.
Are all stories in the bible true? We don't know, but chances are high that they are not.

Originally Posted by SigTerm This is not exactly right. The problem "non-believers" have with bible is there is no proof that bible tells the truth. For non-christian bible looks no different from pyramid scheme, nigerian scam or greek mythology. You waste a lot of time for something that can be a lie. Another problem is that christian god requires different kind of universe. The universe we are in is obviously non-human centric, so it is kinda incompatible with christian deity. IN my opinion while there might exist SOME kind of deity, there is no proof of its existence, and it most likely have nothing to do with christianity or humans. I.e. if there is a creator, then it is most likely non-human (non-human intelligence), indifferent and/or insane/"evil". In this case a lot of things start making sense. This is just a speculation. If the god existed, then you wouldn't be able to know what it would do.

Please see a post posted after your post and before this one, as to the fact that God is non-human, a non-human intelligence, that is exactly correct, and he does not act like a man (thats what the bible says of Him, anyway). In Christ, he BECAME man, a non-human action if there ever was one. If we (as men) were asked to die for another man, we might perhaps be willing to die for a good man, but if we were asked to sacrifice our son to save someone, we would be "So Sorry, say "Hi" to hell for me", yet as the bible states God demonstrates his love towards us in that while we were sinners, rebelling against him, He sent His son and made him to be sin, who was sinless, that we being sinful might become the righteousness of God. That paraphrases Romans, either Chapter 5 or 6. So yes, God acts in non-human ways. He is also ultimately right, and pure in all things (whether we agree with that or not) and while He has made provision to forgive our sins, he cannot abide them and as we would so often wish He might say "Aw, thats ok". They cannot be ignored, we must receive His forgiveness, and as He desires, live with Him, in Christ; or not, ignore what He says, what He Himself has done, and perish, according to our own will (not His 2cnd Peter 3:9).
Thats curt, sorry, gotta go now. But that is the short and sweet (or bitter if you choose it to be) of it.
Later
The SWGeek

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Yes, I will say: This is all from the bible. The fact that Jesus may have existed and may be mentioned by other sources doesn't make the whole book true. So actually it is: Did Jesus exist? May be. Is the story about Jesus true? We don't know. Are all stories in the bible true? We don't know, but chances are high that they are not.

Well, I would encourage you to search this out. Look well. In times past men stated that the bible was untrue because a city as great as Babylon had never been found, and the great kingdom of David had no historical backing. Babylon has been found, and now there are evidences of Davids Kingdom. Like I said search it out, look well. If Dawkins and others are right, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, but if in fact there is any truth to what the bible says, much less if every little bit of it is true, regardless of how we interpret it, then as Paul says "How shall we then live?". Richard Wurmbrand, a prisoner for Christ put it this way: "I have heard many communists crying out on their deathbed for Christ to save them, I have yet to hear a believer cry out for Lenin."
What I am saying is this: If Christ is who he says he is, and is risen, then what should we do.

I would also like to finish with this, as I have to go to work (I almost lost it posting, and rather will post here and now, and go to work.

Hi Gang;
The discussion we just had is, the Gospel, "Good News" in a nutshell. I am willing to discuss further, but I need to get to work.
If this convicts,interests, or intrigues you, search it out. God is not afraid of your doubt, questions, unbelief, anything, so long as you are honest, and honestly seeking him (don't try to fake Him out, He created you while in your mothers womb, and knows your every
thought before you even think it according to the bible).
Get a bible and search these things out for yourself, and don't let other men form your mind for you.

A lady I once heard preach said (of her conversion) she was unutterably frustrated with herself, didn't like Christians, did not like God, and did not want to necessarily be a Christian, but wanted the peace they had so she sought God praying : "God, I don't necessarily like you, and I hate your kids, but I want what they have got". She was honestly seeking God, and willing to come to Him. By her own testimony, she then felt a peace that was past what can be understood, and now preaches the Christ and the Bible she despised among the people that she formerly hated. Come on, jump in, the water's fine so to speak. Being a Christian is only hard because we want our own way (yes, men are stubborn, Christians too, but God is patient, like the father He is), otherwise, its better than sliced bread, to modify an old saying. God's waiting for you, not you on Him, He finished His work on the subject two thousand years ago.
Later
The SWgeek

Originally Posted by swgeek Please see a post posted after your post and before this one, as to the fact that God is non-human, a non-human intelligence, that is exactly correct, and he does not act like a man (thats what the bible says of Him, anyway).

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. "Non-human intelligence" means that you can't communicate with it at all. No communication is possible. Achieving understanding is also impossible, no matter how much time you spend trying. There's a book named "Solaris", it describes similar (fictional) being. I think that this scenario more realistic than "god becoming a man" or "god communicating with humanity".

Regarding all bible-based arguments. The reality I see around me is incompatible with with stories told me about bible. In other word, I do not see a word created by "good" god. The reality seems to be designed in rather twisted way, so if there's a creator, then either humanity is an unintended byproduct of god's will (i.e. humans are created by accident), or the creator is a cruel being with a very twisted sense of humor. In other words, judging by my life experience, I think that there's a 50% probability that *some* kind of god exists (I'm agnostic, after all), but there's less than 1% probability that bible tells the truth and this god is the one described in bible. You won't be able to change that opinion by providing more quotes.

Originally Posted by swgeek Well, I would encourage you to search this out. Look well.

Well, I have already. In fact, reading the whole of the book is what made me to abandon my Christian believes. That whole book is absolutely inconsistent and contradicts it self more than one time.

In times past men stated that the bible was untrue because a city as great as Babylon had never been found, and the great kingdom of David had no historical backing. Babylon has been found, and now there are evidences of Davids Kingdom.

The book was written back in times from people that knew of Babylon and the kingdom of David, so it is not astonishing that this was backed later by the science of history. But that doesn't prove that the story about the Jewish/Christian god is true, in the same way that a evidence for the existence of Jesus doesn't prove that he was the son of that god.

I have heard many communists crying out on their deathbed for Christ to save them, I have yet to hear a believer cry out for Lenin.

Simple logic, just because Lenin is known not to be a supernatural being.

Get a bible and search these things out for yourself, and don't let other men form your mind for you.

Sorry, but that is a contradiction. If your believe is solely based on the bible then your mind is formed by those other men that have written that book.

A lady I once heard preach said (of her conversion) she was unutterably frustrated with herself, didn't like Christians, did not like God, and did not want to necessarily be a Christian, but wanted the peace they had so she sought God praying : "God, I don't necessarily like you, and I hate your kids, but I want what they have got". She was honestly seeking God, and willing to come to Him. By her own testimony, she then felt a peace that was past what can be understood, and now preaches the Christ and the Bible she despised among the people that she formerly hated.

And that are you posting because of what?

but God is patient,

You obviously haven't read the Old Testament.

He is also ultimately right

He finished His work on the subject two thousand years ago.

Sorry, but from what I got from the bible this can't be true. He made his first mistake just at the beginning: He punished the first two people on this world for an act they have done before knowing about good and evil (you remember, Adam and Eve recognized what is good and what evil after eating the forbidden fruit). As the all knowing being he also had to know that they will eat the fruit nonetheless he forbid it.
After that his plan seemed to not really work out as he thought, so he had to start from scratch, at least with mankind (the Deluge). But the second attempt of this all powerful being was also flawed, so he tried a different approach to fix it (at least he seems to be able to learn) and sacrificed his son (breaking his own rules about murder with that action).
As we can see today, this also was not really successful, so if your god really exists I really would like to know what is his next plan to fix the mess he caused.

OK, now something more funny: If the bible really would be true: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sum...tes-worl,2879/

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Are all stories in the bible true? . . . chances are high that they are not.

On what basis?

Originally Posted by bluegospel On what basis?

Just one example, the whole mankind based on only two beings (or later on only Noah's family). On that incestuous basis mankind wouldn't have existed very long, I would think. Or the whole Deluge thing at all, all kinds of species on earth in a boat (logistically impossible, I would think), and after that they also proliferate without any signs that are normally caused by such incestuous relations.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Well, I have already. In fact, reading the whole of the book is what made me to abandon my Christian believes. That whole book is absolutely inconsistent and contradicts it self more than one time. The book was written back in times from people that knew of Babylon and the kingdom of David, so it is not astonishing that this was backed later by the science of history. But that doesn't prove that the story about the Jewish/Christian god is true, in the same way that a evidence for the existence of Jesus doesn't prove that he was the son of that god. Simple logic, just because Lenin is known not to be a supernatural being. Sorry, but that is a contradiction. If your believe is solely based on the bible then your mind is formed by those other men that have written that book. And that are you posting because of what? You obviously haven't read the Old Testament. Sorry, but from what I got from the bible this can't be true. He made his first mistake just at the beginning: He punished the first two people on this world for an act they have done before knowing about good and evil (you remember, Adam and Eve recognized what is good and what evil after eating the forbidden fruit). As the all knowing being he also had to know that they will eat the fruit nonetheless he forbid it. After that his plan seemed to not really work out as he thought, so he had to start from scratch, at least with mankind (the Deluge). But the second attempt of this all powerful being was also flawed, so he tried a different approach to fix it (at least he seems to be able to learn) and sacrificed his son (breaking his own rules about murder with that action). As we can see today, this also was not really successful, so if your god really exists I really would like to know what is his next plan to fix the mess he caused. OK, now something more funny: If the bible really would be true: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sum...tes-worl,2879/

Um, a couple of points.
As to contradictions in the bible, I have not found any that were provable in totality, as to God's lack of mercy in the Old Testament, I would put before you that he showed great mercy on many occasions. Lets take for example one instance that is always brought up. Sodom and Gommorah. God, in discussion with Abraham decided that if there were but 10 righteous men in the entire region, He would spare them. There was only one. You then also have the reluctant prophet Jonah, who God used to save Ninevah from a similar fate, and had to go to extreme lengths to get him to do it. I know, I know, you don't believe the bible, yet that is what we are critiqueing is it not - God's actions in an Old Testament that few here believe.
As to Adam and Eve, they were not asked to not eat the forbidden fruit on the basis of judgement of good or evil (that is exactly how they got into trouble - ignoring God, listening to the serpent, and following him and his logic instead of following God). They, having a personal relationship with God, not based on "belief" or faith, chose to ignore what he said. Were they tempted yes, would I have done better, given my track record, obviously not. Was God unjust, no. As he cast them out of Eden, the first promise of a Savior, a deliver, went forth.
Were men universally condemned at this time - no, according to my bible, Enoch walked with God, and Noah found God's favor, and was saved. Now all this means nothing, because you have chosen to disbelieve it all. I on the otherhand, not knowing or understanding "absolutely everything" about God and His Word, have chosen to take Him at His word. You think that I am a fool for doing so. If the Atheists are correct, I am a fool, however, i believe there is enough evidence to take a second look. And that is what I am encouraging. I however, must go, I will continue again later.
Later
The SWGeek

Originally Posted by swgeek Lets take for example one instance that is always brought up. Sodom and Gommorah. God, in discussion with Abraham decided that if there were but 10 righteous men in the entire region, He would spare them. There was only one. You then also have the reluctant prophet Jonah, who God used to save Ninevah from a similar fate, and had to go to extreme lengths to get him to do it.

You are right, saving a few people makes him a merciful and patient god, but only if you choose not to see the extinction of the whole mankind, including children (again the Deluge), later the slaughter of literally thousands of men, women and their born and unborn childs, ... . Yes, that few people will totally make him look merciful. Especially when one thinks about that this god claims to be all-knowing and all-powerful, which means that he knows what happens before it happens. So he created mankind in a way that he knows what will happen, actually lets it happen and then punishes his creations for things he knew before. Doesn't sound merciful to me, but as you say, may be I am biased.

As to Adam and Eve, they were not asked to not eat the forbidden fruit on the basis of judgement of good or evil (that is exactly how they got into trouble - ignoring God, listening to the serpent, and following him and his logic instead of following God). They, having a personal relationship with God, not based on "belief" or faith, chose to ignore what he said.

And how should they know that not obeying him is a bad thing without even knowing what good and evil is?

Were they tempted yes, would I have done better, given my track record, obviously not.

Again, to be tempted you need to know about good and evil. You know, they didn't, so you can't compare.

Was God unjust, no.

Yes, he was. As an all-knowing god he had to know that this would happen, so he could have easily avoided that situation, but he chose to let them run into what I would call a trap and punished them for that.

i believe there is enough evidence to take a second look.

I haven't seen any evidence at all for the existence of any god, not even enough to take a second look. Would you mind to share your evidences with us?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Just one example, the whole mankind based on only two beings (or later on only Noah's family). On that incestuous basis mankind wouldn't have existed very long, I would think. Or the whole Deluge thing at all, all kinds of species on earth in a boat (logistically impossible, I would think), and after that they also proliferate without any signs that are normally caused by such incestuous relations.

First, humanity's incestuous origins actually corroborate the essential message of the Bible--after Adam's sin, humanity is grossly sinful. Second, if God is who the Bible says he is, then he could sustain the human race and the animal kingdom in spite of scientific law.

Ultimately the question is this: Is there a God? If yes then he trumps scientific law. He's not subject to it, nor are his actions. After all, he created everything from nothing but from his own will. So, if the evidence were perfectly clear (which it is) that there is a living God who hides himself from us sinners, then in that case would you still hold that the Biblical record surrounding Christ is, as you say, "highly improbable?"

Originally Posted by bluegospel So, if the evidence were perfectly clear (which it is)

Please show me that clear evidence of the existence of your god.

that there is a living God who hides himself from us sinners, then in that case would you still hold that the Biblical record surrounding Christ is, as you say, "highly improbable?"

Yes, I would say that. May be not highly improbable, but improbable nonetheless. If that god would hide from us you can't be sure if he is the Christian god or any other known or not known god.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Please show me that clear evidence of the existence of your god.

It's not for me to show you what God has already shown. As God attested to the selfish man who wished from hell for God to send someone from among the dead to warn his brothers--"If they've not listened to those I've already sent," said God, "they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead."

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Quote: that there is a living God who hides himself from us sinners, then in that case would you still hold that the Biblical record surrounding Christ is, as you say, "highly improbable?" Yes, I would say that. May be not highly improbable, but improbable nonetheless. If that god would hide from us you can't be sure if he is the Christian god or any other known or not known god.

You've just proven that it's not that you believe the falsehood of God. You either deny what you know to be truth, or you deny that God loves you.

He hides from us not because he doesn't love us, but because awesome holiness cannot have fellowship with what's perverse. When we submit to godliness, we can then begin to build a relationship with the living God. He sent his Son to reconcile the holy to the unholy.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD You are right, saving a few people makes him a merciful and patient god, but only if you choose not to see the extinction of the whole mankind, including children (again the Deluge), later the slaughter of literally thousands of men, women and their born and unborn childs, ... . Yes, that few people will totally make him look merciful. Especially when one thinks about that this god claims to be all-knowing and all-powerful, which means that he knows what happens before it happens. So he created mankind in a way that he knows what will happen, actually lets it happen and then punishes his creations for things he knew before. Doesn't sound merciful to me, but as you say, may be I am biased. And how should they know that not obeying him is a bad thing without even knowing what good and evil is? Again, to be tempted you need to know about good and evil. You know, they didn't, so you can't compare. Yes, he was. As an all-knowing god he had to know that this would happen, so he could have easily avoided that situation, but he chose to let them run into what I would call a trap and punished them for that. I haven't seen any evidence at all for the existence of any god, not even enough to take a second look. Would you mind to share your evidences with us?

On your last point, excuse me, I believe that I did just that a few long posts ago.

On your other points, we as human beings expect, and get obedience from our children long before they discern good and evil, in fact as soon as they can discern "no" and correct them and discipline them when they do not. That is accepted and practiced by the entire human race in one form or another. And you judge God for treating us as we justifiably do our own children? That could be called gross hypocrisy.

What gives Him the right? He is God.

Now as to the deluge, The bible states that at the time of Noah, men were grossly evil, and that the thought of their heart was nothing but continual evil, and God destroyed them. Um, hello, that is what we as Christians are saying - he can will and does judge people, nations, and this present world. You may scream "I don't like that", uh, we are back to that "I AM" thing again.
Tobi, I do not, have not and will not lampoon you or anyone else for "unbelief" for being an atheist, or any other thing. I have at points in my life hated God, considered Him unjust, and was very bitter towards Him (my father died when I was twelve after a six year horrendous battle with brain cancer - I blamed God). I will tell you that through my life, even when I was bitter at Him, He cared for me - I could give examples, but I have some other things pressing and this needs to be relatively short.

Did God ever promise anyone long life. No.

Was not my father, and indeed all men in God's hand. Yes

Do I fully know the relationship between my father and God, and do I discern fully God's purpose in the situation. No

Do I have any kick coming. No - I won't even fully understand the situation until I stand before him.

Many people here stand in judgement of God, and His Word, and actually count themselves more righteous than God (that is a strong statement, and yet that is exactly what is being
done - I have not heard a more damning, malicious, virulent condemnation of God than I found the other day in one of Mr. Dawkins quotes.).

People here are making broad inclusive statements (like the Bible is full of errors and inconsistancies) with no examples, no back up, nothing. I might as well say "I think that the concept of Evolution is improbable, and stupid" - that is what the atheists are saying of my position. Scientists through history have been a mixed bag, coming from nearly every walk of life, just like christians, and some of the greatest were staunch believers, not because an established religion said they had to be, but rather that they actually believed, and believed that there was a reasonable basis for that belief. If you went back to the days when the Caloric theory reigned in science and stated that work and heat were equivalent, you would have been ostracized from the scientific establishment, and scorned, yet you would have been correct. If you asked Newton if God created, he would (and historically did) say "Unequivically yes", and would back that up. My point is that there is room for argument on both sides, and while the majority of the current batch are on one side, this was not always so, and to this day it is possible to be a thinking person, and believe, and yes to be a scientist (there is still a minority that does).

Now evolution, just like the bible is a belief system that is unprovable (no one was there when the earth or man came into being), both systems have things that give certain evidences, and I would put to you to make broad unsubstantiated statements in this arena is not intelligent, counter any scientific method, and unproductive. If I am to "give the devil his due" so to speak, and read Dawkins (bought a copy of "The God Delusion" today), and Sagan (Son owns some of his stuff), then I would suggest that it would benefit your side to read some of Christianity's works, (and not just the bible (although I would suggest that)). How about a couple of books by Josh McDowell (Evidence that demands a verdict), or Strobel (The case for Christ, The Case for a creator) or even C.S. Lewis, a staunch strident unbeliever, who published books castigating Christianity, and the Christ it preaches, until he became converted, and became one of the 20th centuries greatest christian writers.
Now we are speaking of spiritual things, in my case and in such a complete no God cosmology in your case, that it becomes spiritual or anti-spiritual / a belief system (just as there is Christian "dogma" so is there evolutionary "dogma") that precludes the acknowledgement of God. In either case, the conclusions drawn have grave impact on how we live. I would suggest that people, even people here consider that important (I doubt that there are many threads here with almost three hundred posts), if only to agree with the (local) establishment creed of secular humanism / evolution / atheism, and anti-christianity. If this is an important topic, and I believe that it must be, lets state what we believe, present logical reasons for that belief, and if we must wax philosophical, the let us do so in a scholarly fashion, respecting each other.
Later
The SWGeek

Originally Posted by swgeek On your last point, excuse me, I believe that I did just that a few long posts ago.

No, you appealed to the Bible as proof a few long posts ago. It's a rare atheist that would find that compelling. It's what we call "begging the question".

Many people here stand in judgement of God, and His Word, and actually count themselves more righteous than God (that is a strong statement, and yet that is exactly what is being done - I have not heard a more damning, malicious, virulent condemnation of God than I found the other day in one of Mr. Dawkins quotes.)

That's because the Abrahamic god does terrible, immoral things in the Bible. And yes, the New Testament is better, but the Old Testament is still part of the book. Jesus by and large sets a fine example. Excepting the emphasis on obedience, faith, and the whole hell thing.

If you went back to the days when the Caloric theory reigned in science and stated that work and heat were equivalent, you would have been ostracized from the scientific establishment, and scorned, yet you would have been correct.

Except that science changes its mind in light of real evidence.

If you asked Newton if God created, he would (and historically did) say "Unequivically yes", and would back that up. My point is that there is room for argument on both sides, and while the majority of the current batch are on one side, this was not always so, and to this day it is possible to be a thinking person, and believe, and yes to be a scientist (there is still a minority that does).

The fact that some scientists believe in God or have believed in God is irrelevant to whether its true. Truth is not decided by popularity or celebrity.

Now evolution, just like the bible is a belief system that is unprovable (no one was there when the earth or man came into being)

Well, that's simply wrong. We did not have to be there to have overwhelming evidence of evolution. But it's been discussed in depth in previous pages. Read through talkorigins for a primer. This anti-intellectualism and denial of reality is, in my opinion, religion's greatest sin. It infuriates me at times, but mostly it just makes me sad that so many people are closing themselves off to the pleasure of inquiry (or as the physicist Richard Feynman put it, "the pleasure of finding things out") and the beauty of nature.

If I am to "give the devil his due" so to speak, and read Dawkins (bought a copy of "The God Delusion" today), and Sagan (Son owns some of his stuff), then I would suggest that it would benefit your side to read some of Christianity's works, (and not just the bible (although I would suggest that)). How about a couple of books by Josh McDowell (Evidence that demands a verdict), or Strobel (The case for Christ, The Case for a creator) or even C.S. Lewis, a staunch strident unbeliever, who published books castigating Christianity, and the Christ it preaches, until he became converted, and became one of the 20th centuries greatest christian writers.

Why would you think that atheists are generally ignorant of the Bible?

Personally, I love C.S. Lewis, and it was reading Mere Christianity that compelled me to stop identifying as an agnostic and start identifying as an atheist. If someone of his education and intelligence couldn't offer better than that rubbish, well... (The writing was excellent and entertaining as always, but the arguments, yikes!)