Replies

Throw around all the insults and condescension you can muster, there Mr. Einstein, I can play that game too.

As far as the Carlinesque questions as to whether my God is "better" than the Hindu god, or the Buddhist god, I can only believe that the God to whom I pray is the One True God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Or, for those who prefer a little reverent humor, as I'm sure God himself does from time to time, they can be referred to as Big Daddy G, Junior J and The Spook. :) Christianity stems from the Holy Land events as recorded in the Bible. Whence cometh the beliefs of other religions, I do not know much about that, nor do I care.

My evidence to support God creating the world is in the Holy Bible, book of Genesis. "In the beginning, the earth was without form, and void, and the spirit of God moved upon the waters..." I see no need to spend time, sweat and money trying to prove or disprove that which cannot be proven or disproven. That is the job of those who fear death and what awaits them in the hereafter so much that the must attempt to assuage their trepidation through meaningless junk science.

The clincher here is this, if I'm correct in my belief in the book of Genesis, I'll be spending eternity in a field of clover with a cold drink right there whenever I reach for it. Meanwhile, you and your buddies will be stoking a furnace while Asmodeus, Judas Iscariot and Adolf Hitler take turns jabbing you in the glutei with a trident should you stop shoveling for a moment to wipe your brow.

If you're correct in your belief that science holds the key to how our universe originated, then neither of us will ever know it. Death will be the end of all our thoughts, and all things will over and done with for us.

I'll stay with my line of thought. It suits me better. Thanks for your interest.

Throw around all the insults and condescension you can muster, there Mr. Einstein, I can play that game too.

I've no doubt of that, though it doesn't impress me. I'd actually be impressed if you could actually support your claims with evidence and refute the relvant science rather than appealing to bogus strawmen and lying about the purpose of science.

As far as the Carlinesque questions as to whether my God is "better" than the Hindu god, or the Buddhist god, I can only believe that the God to whom I pray is the One True God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I never asked whether your good was "better". I merely pointed out that you arrogantly assume that a cabal is out to get you and your god, over all others, when they propose hypothesis or theories that contradict your literal interpretation of a single religious text.

Christianity stems from the Holy Land events as recorded in the Bible.

Please tell me something that I don't know.

Whence cometh the beliefs of other religions, I do not know much about that, nor do I care.

Yes, that was my point. You can't seem to get it through your head that your personal religious beliefs are special to you only. They are not special to me (a non-believer) and they are not special to the scientists who are deriving conclusions that contradict your literal interpretation of religious "history" -- and as such they are not out to "disprove" your religion.

My evidence to support God creating the world is in the Holy Bible, book of Genesis. "In the beginning, the earth was without form, and void, and the spirit of God moved upon the waters..." I see no need to spend time, sweat and money trying to prove or disprove that which cannot be proven or disproven.

In other words, your "evidence" is your assertion that the specific words of a single religious text are literally true, but you have absolutely no evidence to offer to show that they are, in fact, literally true.

That means that you don't have any evidence. Dressing up an unsupported assertion and calling it "evidence" doesn't make it so.

That is the job of those who fear death and what awaits them in the hereafter so much that the must attempt to assuage their trepidation through meaningless junk science.

And here you demonstrate that you have utterly ignored my previous point, thus showing me that you choose to be ignorant of the facts, and that you would rather libel the nature of science than try to understand it. I do hope that you're happy wallowing in your willful ignorance.

One more time, just in case you ever wish to bring yourself into reality: science is NOT about disproving your particular religious beliefs. Science is about the study of the natural universe. When the conclusions of scientists contradict your religious beliefs, it is because that is what is best derived from their observations of reality, it is NOT, despite your incredible arrogance, an attempt to disprove your religion for fear of some horrors in an afterlife.

The clincher here is this, if I'm correct in my belief in the book of Genesis, I'll be spending eternity in a field of clover with a cold drink right there whenever I reach for it. Meanwhile, you and your buddies will be stoking a furnace while Asmodeus, Judas Iscariot and Adolf Hitler take turns jabbing you in the glutei with a trident should you stop shoveling for a moment to wipe your brow.

If you're correct in your belief that science holds the key to how our universe originated, then neither of us will ever know it. Death will be the end of all our thoughts, and all things will over and done with for us.

And if the Muslims are right, then we're both screwed. And if there exists a god who prefers scientists and rationalists over religious zealots, then I have paradise awaiting me and you'll be the one facing eternal torment.

Pascal's wager is a worthless argument, relying upon the fallacy of the false dilemma. That you use it indicates that you've given absolutely no thought whatsoever to the subject at hand.

I'll once again point out that you have fallaciously equated evolution with atheism. Evolution != atheism. Once again, you are incredibly ignorant (or dishonest) to make such a claim. Not everyone who accepts evolution as a realistic scientific theory is an atheist. There are those who believe that evolution is true and that a god exists.

I do not consider it an insult but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means. - Clarence Darrow Scopes trial 1925.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/clarence_darrow/why_i_am_an_agnostic.html

The truth is that the origin of what we call civilization is not due to religion but to skepticism. So long as men accepted miracles without question, so long as they believed in original sin and the road to salvation, so long as they believed in a hell where man would be kept for eternity on account of Eve, there was no reason whatever for civilization: life was short, and eternity was long, and the business of life was preparation for eternity.

When every event was a miracle, when there was no order or system or law, there was no occasion for studying any subject, or being interested in anything excepting a religion which took care of the soul. As man doubted the primitive conceptions about religion, and no longer accepted the literal, miraculous teachings of ancient books, he set himself to understand nature. We no longer cure disease by casting out devils. Since that time, men have studied the human body, have built hospitals and treated illness in a scientific way. Science is responsible for the building of railroads and bridges, of steamships, of telegraph lines, of cities, towns, large buildings and small, plumbing and sanitation, of the food supply, and the countless thousands of useful things that we now deem necessary to life. Without skepticism and doubt, none of these things could have been given to the world.

The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom.

The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry, as the ancient world was the child of fear and faith.