Intelligent Design

Plumberboy

Plumberboy

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Oh no. The farce that is intelligent design corrupts yet another science curriculum.

CNN: School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory

Those unfamiliar with intelligent design, it is yet another attempt to thwart the theory of evolution by asserting the universe is so complex that it could only have resulted from, well, an intelligent designer (i.e. God). It has been rejected by virtually all credible scientists.

*Edit CNN Link is Dead, MSNBC: School board OKs challenges to evolution
 
But what about the Chriastian Sciencist groups?!?! Aren't they credible?!

:D

Some great quotes from that...

Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian
and believes in creationism, ``This is not an attempt to impose my
views on anyone else,'' he said.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah whatever you say...

"We have a vocal group within the community who feel very
strongly in an evangelical Christian way that there is no
separation of church and state,'' Carol Brown said. ``Our
responsibility to is to represent the viewpoints of all members of
the community.''
Click to expand...

No they don't! It would be like saying that before the 1960s it is the responsibility of schools in the south to teach slavery is right.

The point of the school is to teach the FACTS, and the fact is that evolucion is proven, countless times.

We have dinosaur bones, and different stanges of human bones, all of which prove evolucion and throw that creation bullshit out the window.
 
[quote name='David85']But what about the Chriastian Sciencist groups?!?! Aren't they credible?![/quote]

Yeah the Christian Scientists are right there on my list next to the Raelians (Cloneaid).
 
HAHAHAHA

I think I trust the Cloneaid people more. At least we knew they were freaks, I mean look at the spokeswomen. *shivers*
 
I wonder what other "theories" they can teach as well, now that the standard has been set low enough for ID to pass through. Maybe reality is simply a shared hallucination? That nothing that you don't directly percieve actually exists? That the world is flat? That the earth is actually a hollow shell filled with delicious custard?

All - and I mean every single one of those theories meets the same scientific criteria as "Intelligent Design."

Lovely! Mmmmm. Delicious custard!

seppo
 
Ad a few more "theories"...

1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.

2. I was born in 1985, and will travel back in time in the year 2019 and begin the universe!

3. Aliens started life on Earth, but their "God" is playing marbals with our universe, and God's God is playing marbels with the God that is playing marbals with ours. :) AKA MIB

4. A professer from the future made a box that holds the universe. AKA Futurama :)
 
Pennsylvania. It happened in a Union state, the damn neo-cons are getting to far north, we need to unite once again to push those bastards back down south of the Mason-Dixon.
 
[quote name='David85']1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.[/quote]

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved
Click to expand...

What about the existence of a 'creator' ?[/quote]

I believe the implication in our society is pretty clear that God and "the creator" are one in the same. Do you see them as being separate entities?
 
Creator = God

I think the thing that pisses me off the most is the fact there is proof of evolution, and that the Adam and Eve story (stories if you read the Bible) is complete bullshit, yet they try to say there is proof for creation.

Because the human brain can't comprehend the universe doesn't mean there isn't a "simple" answer to why it was created that isn't God.
 
This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.
 
[quote name='Plumberboy'][quote name='bmulligan']
the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved
Click to expand...

What about the existence of a 'creator' ?[/quote]

I believe the implication in our society is pretty clear that God and "the creator" are one in the same. Do you see them as being separate entities?[/quote]

You may attribute a connotation of creator to mean god, however, realizing there was intense debate about using the word "creator" instead of "god" in the Declaration of Independence tells me the founding fathers knew there was an important difference.

You may also note that neither word appears in the Constitution.
 
[quote name='defender']This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.[/quote]


I agree, but nothing is fair and balance, the teacher could be an asshole and teach his/her religous ways more than the others, nothing would ever be fair, and would never work.

But it is a good idea, just never would work. And I will explain why later. Got to go to class now.
 
As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.
 
Oh to be a science teacher with this foisted upon them. You could take the time to totally dismantle it (5 minutes or so) for the kids and get them on the path of thinking rationally. It would be awesome to send them home to their parents not wanting to go to church anymore.
 
[quote name='coffman']As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.[/quote]

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.
 
I pray to my toaster oven, and he says he doesn't know where the fuck we came from, but that it was alot quieter before we got here.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='coffman']As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.[/quote]

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.[/quote]

This is why the country is in so much trouble.

Four more years of Bush is livable, but once the Supereme Court judges start dieing and Bush adds some new people all hope for the next 50 years is gone.
 
The religious right will never stop until we are all sheep in thier flock and doing exactly what they tell us to do. Intelligent design...what crap.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You may attribute a connotation of creator to mean god, however, realizing there was intense debate about using the word "creator" instead of "god" in the Declaration of Independence tells me the founding fathers knew there was an important difference.

You may also note that neither word appears in the Constitution.[/quote]

Regardless of what the founding fathers meant by "the creator," it is clear that "God", "the creator", or an "Intelligent Designer" is not based upon scientific principles. Therefore, ID is not suited for a science curriculum.

What do you propose the connotation of creator is, if it is not God?

[quote name='ZeroSupporT']I pray to my toaster oven, and he says he doesn't know where the shaq-fu we came from, but that it was alot quieter before we got here.[/quote] :rofl:
 
But "God" and his creation don't need to follow scientific reason because he is all knowing and powerful, yadda yadda...
 
[quote name='defender']This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.[/quote]

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='coffman']As it so happens, this is occuring in my school district (Dover, PA). Luckily, my daughter is too young to start school, so by the time she is in high school I anticipate this will no longer be in the curriculum. There is no way it will survive a lawsuit as the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools. I thought the goal in our public schools was to leave no child behind. This kind of backward thinking will be leaving countless children behind. Next, teachers will be forced to teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.[/quote]

I think that you forget that the people that appont justices were elected by the fundamentalist Christian midwest. That's right, just under half of congress, a little over half of the representatives, and the president believe that creation should be taught exclusively.[/quote]

This is why the country is in so much trouble.

Four more years of Bush is livable, but once the Supereme Court judges start dieing and Bush adds some new people all hope for the next 50 years is gone.[/quote]

I wouldn't worry too much. The democrats can thankfully still use the ol' filabuster card. If Bush nominates someone that's way too conservative they'll at least be able to do something. That's what I love about our government, it makes it as difficult as possible for one group or person to sieze too much power.
 
And the designer saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

[-o<
id_miyamoto.png
[-o
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='defender']This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.[/quote]

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.[/quote]

I think a theology class would be a better place for it than philosophy.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='defender']This doesn't belong in BIOLOGY class.

Personally I think somewhere in 10th-12th grade all students should be given one semester of theology class and taught about ALL religions. This would be fair and balanced and possibly help with religious tolerance in this country.

Most people never take the time to learn anything about a religion outside their own and this is a BIG mistake as most religions are more similar than most think. Also the intent of religions are all about the same...they deal with death and the after-life according to how you lived your life.[/quote]

Actually, they should teach it in philosophy class in highschool. What's that you say, you don't have philosophy classes in your highschool?

You should.[/quote]

I think a theology class would be a better place for it than philosophy.[/quote]

Creating a theology course in the public school system would be like diving into a swimming pool full of sharks. Philosophy class would not only give kids thinking tools like logic, it's the perfect place to discuss ways of thinking that include god, and those that do not.
 
If you're going to study Philosophy, you should study Plato. But to understand Plato, you need to know about Platonic magic and it's place in paganism. So lets break out the old timey gods and let the fun begin!
 
Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.
 
I also find it very funny how you radical pieces of shit make religion bashing threads like this and then have the nerve to deny the liberal movement to eliminate religion from everywhere except people's closets.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.[/quote]

But wouldn't you agree that any of the scientific theories to the creation of the universe make more sense than a magical old man in the sky making it all in 6 days with nothing but thought?

[quote name='Scrubking']Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.[/quote]

Science is not a religion, because nothing is assumed based purely on faith. Science requires quantifiable evidence to support itself. Religion offers no proof, only demands you believe it.

[quote name='Scrubking']Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.[/quote]

The majority of the country isn't religious. Oh, they'll rally behind it when it's convenient to them or advances their cause, such as in keeping homosexuals from getting married, but that's not religion, that's lip-service. God is pretty much dead in the USA.

[quote name='Scrubking']I also find it very funny how you radical pieces of shit make religion bashing threads like this and then have the nerve to deny the liberal movement to eliminate religion from everywhere except people's closets.[/quote]

Do you really not understand why religion needs to be confined from public institutions? We're the most [frivolously] litigious society on the planet right now, so unless you're going to cover every single crackpot faith there is out there you can't have any at all, or you'll get sued. Blame lawyers if you want to, but science really doesn't care what people do. It just reports findings.
 
Well said jmcc.

Scrub, why are you so uncomfortable with accepting the origin of the universe (and all that is in it) is unknown? Yet, you accept "God" has always been here, but it is inconceivable to you that it is possible the universe was actually here before your "God."

Religion is a creation of man and to believe one religion is absolute is not only arrogant, but foolhardy. It quickly becomes dangerous when those in power attempt to legislate their faith or destroy others in the name of their "God."

If indeed there is a Heaven and Hell, I would wager religion turns out to be a byproduct of the latter. After all, God and religion are not necessarily synonymous. I cannot comprehend a compassionate "God" judging and casting people aside based on many of the dogmatic laws imposed by religion.

With that said, many of the posts here did not directly attack religion. Most simply agree ID is not science. You have conceded as much by referring to this as a, "religious bashing thread," when the thread is clearly titled Intelligent Design. Therefore, if ID is to be taught in our public schools, there are curriculums more suitable for the topic. I don't see anything radical or liberal about that.

BTW, what does your "God" think of your potty mouth?
 
Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here.[/quote]

Yes, it can.


Bitch.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.[/quote]

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.[/quote]

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.[/quote]

Sure it's easy. You just have to prove that your explanation is a simpler explanation than the current one and that it explains more things.

And science isn't a religion since religion relies on faith. Science has no faith. It's based solely on what's observable, measurable and reproducible. Science without at least one of those things is bad science.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']Yeah dogmatism is the real problem.

Y'all should read David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
I always loved how the dogmatic debator was shown to be the real idiot by the end of the debate. Ironic thing is, if the book was the US election that guy would probably win.[/quote]

The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.[/quote]

You're break'n my bawls Hans! You're break'n my bawls!

Science is based upon empirical evidence and from that evidence, theories emerge. Granted, some theories are more plausible than others. However, unlike religion, the scientific community expects theories to be challenged and discourse (both supporting and dissenting) is welcome. As theories are disproved, they are discarded and new theories are drawn. These are fundamental differences between science and religion.

You are correct; it is not an easy task to thwart an already established theory, nor should it be. Theories are often constructed and scrutinized over extended periods of time. “Because I said so,” simply is not acceptable among the scientific community the way it is with religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The realms of science are replete with dogmatism. Every day, scientific paradigms are hearalded as truth when they have no provable basis in fact. Sometimes their only certainty is a consensus or a majority of scientists who believe a certain theory to be true. Science IS a religion, in a way, basing knowledge on a series of theories and the facts that corroborate them. the scientific method allows for a change in theory when the facts warrant, but it is not often an easy task to thwart an already established scientific belief.[/quote]

Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

And to scrubking - I think you've proved to me that there is no intelligent designer. If there was a legitimately intelligent designer, they certainly wouldn't have designed *you*.

seppo
 
[quote name='Plumberboy'][quote name='David85']1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.[/quote]

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.[/quote]

You shouldn't make blanket statements like that. Quite a bit of levelheaded people who are honest with themselves are not agnostic... (and not necessarily religious...).
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.[/quote]

Wow, it sounds like you must have failed your science courses in high school.
 
[quote name='Plumberboy'][quote name='David85']1. The Matrix Theory. More people probably belive that then the "God" crap.[/quote]

I didn't want to debate the existence of God in this post. I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

My issue regarding this post is confusing religious faith with science and trying to pass one off as the other. ID offers no empirical evidence of a creator and therefore falls in line with other faiths whether it be Christian, Hindu, or Jedi. As a result, it belongs in a theology course (elective), not science.

However the promoters of ID have an agenda which is to devalue evolutionary theory while attempting to more closely align Christianity with fact. This agenda can only be satisfied if ID is given the same credibility of evolutionary theory by placing both side-by-side in science curriculums.[/quote]

That Matrix crap is based on that Descartes crap: "I think therefore I am"

However I think it happens to be pretty good crap.

I'm no religion hater, but I'm not throwing my microwave out the window either.

There's enough room for both science and religion in life. You can look at a dog and see a mass of muscle, blood, and bone and then you can also see an ankle-high being infused with a spark of divine life. The two views do not necessarily conflict.
 
[quote name='Plumberboy']I believe anyone who is honest with themselves can only accept the concept of agnosticism; the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.[/quote]

[quote name='pumbaa']You shouldn't make blanket statements like that. Quite a bit of levelheaded people who are honest with themselves are not agnostic... (and not necessarily religious...).[/quote]

[quote name='camoor']I'm no religion hater, but I'm not throwing my microwave out the window either.

There's enough room for both science and religion in life. You can look at a dog and see a mass of muscle, blood, and bone and then you can also see an ankle-high being infused with a spark of divine life. The two views do not necessarily conflict.[/quote]

I do feel religion, and the absolute certainty with which it is taught, can be very dangerous. It didn't take 19 hijackers flying planes into buildings to convince me of that.

I have no issue with the idea of a divine entity, but until someone can provide incontrovertible proof as to the existence of a "God", or lack thereof, I believe it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the possibility that those who oppose your view point may be correct. I understand this may be difficult for some people to accept. Once those who are religious acknowledge this possibility, their entire religious foundation is destroyed.

I am quite aware my statement addresses more than just those who are religious. In a previous post, in this same thread, I even noted "God" and religion are not necessarily synonymous. The agnostic statement is equally true for atheists who assert there is no "God."
 
I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?
 
[quote name='Plumberboy']...I have no issue with the idea of a divine entity, but until someone can provide incontrovertible proof as to the existence of a "God", or lack thereof, I believe it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the possibility that those who oppose your view point may be correct. I understand this may be difficult for some people to accept. Once those who are religious acknowledge this possibility, their entire religious foundation is destroyed...[/quote]

I must disagree. I assume that you are adressing the issue of religious faith, where people are called upon to believe something despite having no proof (This is the dogmatic approch to religion). 2 points:

1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope.
2. Not all religious people put all their eggs in the "faith" basket. Many people (the "natural religion" people) are open to finding truth in the many different religious perspectives of the world, even if they tend to feel strongly about their own personal beliefs.
 
[quote name='camoor']1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope. [/quote]

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo
 
[quote name='jmcc']I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?[/quote]

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top