By-Tor.com

I heard a debate once between a creationsist and an evolutionist once. The creationist got the evolutionist to admit it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator.

I must agree that for me it would take more faith to believe there is no G-d than it does for me to believe He lives.

I haven't chosen my path because it was easier but because the faith I had when I was in my early teens has been destroyed. I was once a christian, not a particularly devout one I'll admit, but I did believe in a lot of what the church said with some reservations.

Then I began to look around the world and saw what was happening and was unable to reconcile faith with experience and reality. There are times when I almost wish I did believe and others when I'm glad I don't. I use the 'don't know, can't be bothered approach' because it tends to throw people off balance. Those who know my opinions on religion expect me to be a frothing at the mouth atheist so when I come up with that line it tends to make them think. And, in my mind, that is a good thing as blind faith is dangerous and wide open to abuse.

I will argue the pitch about anything for two reasons - I love a good argument (of the debate nature) and I want people to think, not accept things blindly.

Often, I feel that a belief of some sort would be helpful - a crutch, if you like, to support you through times that are bad. A belief in a higher being who has has an unknown and unfathomable plan for humanity would mean that existance does have a purpose. Those of us who have chosen the path of agnosticism and atheism do not have that support mechanism so it cannot be called an easy path.

So I say to everyone - believe what you want but don't walk blindly forward. Question everything, even the things that you are told that you should not question, and keep your eyes open.

awip2062 wrote:I heard a debate once between a creationsist and an evolutionist once. The creationist got the evolutionist to admit it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator.

I bet it was an oral debate. All they can ever prove is who's the better public speaker.

Why do creationists, and "young-earth" creationists in particular, so rarely engage in a written public debate?

I must agree that for me it would take more faith to believe there is no G-d than it does for me to believe He lives.

Hmm. If god exists, he's gone to a great deal of trouble to make it appear that he doesn't. There is simply no objective evidence that he exists. And so while it certainly requires faith to believe, I don't agree that any is needed to disbelieve.

Devil's Advocate wrote:Hmm. If god exists, he's gone to a great deal of trouble to make it appear that he doesn't. There is simply no objective evidence that he exists. And so while it certainly requires faith to believe, I don't agree that any is needed to disbelieve.

As a very wise man said 2079 years ago, "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

To firmly believe that it all happened purely by accident requires conviction, make no mistake. It's kind of along the same lines as the jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial ignoring the DNA evidence. They were so eager to see an end met that they pretended the evidence didn't exist, even though it was right in front of their faces.

Please note that though I have used a biblical reference in an earlier post, I have not declared my view as to which of the religions who believe the bible to be the word of God is correct, and I hope nobody tries to turn the discussion in that direction. I'm purposefully sticking with the simple idea of divinity existing or not existing. If this turns into a Protestant vs. Catholic vs. whatever debate... I'm out of here. There's just no way that I'm going into that on a message board.

Y'know, the irony of where this thread has gone as opposed to where it started struck me earlier today. Dunno if any of you have spotted it, but it's there.

Oh great...now you did it. Once you get D.A. on the subject of politics or religion, there is no stopping him. Quick, change to something different!

Did any of you guys ever hear of this one band out of Toronto called Rush? They're really cool, eh?

Thank you Elfie! Who likes Rush?

I worship Rush. They're my gods. Okay, maybe not the right direction to go to...

funky cm wrote:I worship Rush. They're my gods. Okay, maybe not the right direction to go to...

At least you've got proof that they're there! Either that or we've all been duped by a really elaborate hoax...

ElfDude wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:Hmm. If god exists, he's gone to a great deal of trouble to make it appear that he doesn't. There is simply no objective evidence that he exists. And so while it certainly requires faith to believe, I don't agree that any is needed to disbelieve.

As a very wise man said 2079 years ago, "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

2079? The Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century!

And regardless of when that quote was written, there's no reason to suppose it's correct. It says, in essence, that the existence of Stuff proves God exists. And that, as it stands, is a non-sequitur. Augustine used a similar argument, but his version is also logically shaky.

To firmly believe that it all happened purely by accident requires conviction, make no mistake.

Accident? Who said anything about an accident?

It's kind of along the same lines as the jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial ignoring the DNA evidence. They were so eager to see an end met that they pretended the evidence didn't exist, even though it was right in front of their faces.

I don't think that's what happened. I'm not familiar with the way DNA evidence was presented in the OJ case, but the way it usually goes is that the expert presenting the evidence is asked for the odds that the DNA match is with the wrong person, and they answer something like a million to one.

Which seems at first glance to be rock-solid.

But then you ask: what's the population of the country (or even city) where the crime occured. Compare the answer to the "million to one" odds, and you'll find that your rock-solid DNA evidence could match quite a few people in the area.

Factor in the high probability of contamination - it was OJ's home, after all, so his DNA would have been present, whether he was guilty or not.

And after doing all that, I doubt if the jury would rate the DNA as being any more significant than any of the other evidence they saw.

I'm purposefully sticking with the simple idea of divinity existing or not existing.

Fine with me.

rushlight wrote:Oh great...now you did it. Once you get D.A. on the subject of politics or religion, there is no stopping him. Quick, change to something different!

Devil's Advocate wrote:Why do creationists, and "young-earth" creationists in particular, so rarely engage in a written public debate?

Actually, there are tons of books out there debating this from the creationist view. There are also many out there that are written by those who are not believers in G-d but think that evolution is bad science.

Devil's Advocate wrote: 2079? The Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century!

It was translated in the 19th century.

Devil's Advocate wrote:I don't think that's what happened. I'm not familiar with the way DNA evidence was presented in the OJ case, but the way it usually goes is that the expert presenting the evidence is asked for the odds that the DNA match is with the wrong person, and they answer something like a million to one.

Which seems at first glance to be rock-solid.

But then you ask: what's the population of the country (or even city) where the crime occured. Compare the answer to the "million to one" odds, and you'll find that your rock-solid DNA evidence could match quite a few people in the area.

That's the ODDS, not actual matches. If I happen to like a unique combination of foods, or some relatively obscure poet, what are the odds I'd find someone in my city that has the same tastes? It might be a million to one, which could mean three people or whatever, but that doesn't mean I'd actually find three people. I might not find anyone or I might find five people. Those are just the odds.

Since only identical twins share the same DNA, if two samples match in a test using a large number of markers, it's pretty conclusive. The more markers in common, the smaller the likelihood that it's someone else. After all, what are the odds that out of a possible three people (or whatever) the odds may predict having that same combination, that it's NOT that person?

Devil's Advocate wrote:Factor in the high probability of contamination - it was OJ's home, after all, so his DNA would have been present, whether he was guilty or not.

I think it was the other person's blood on his socks that was the determinant for me. His DNA all over the place is obvious, but how he could get Ronald Goldman's blood on his socks is a question I can't answer.

This is fun! I agree that everyone has the right to choose, and to me that's the most important right of all. If a person chooses to have a belief in a higher power of some sort, or a religion, cool. If a person chooses not to have a religion or belief in a higher power, cool. I'm not going to try to convince anyone to believe my way any more than I would like anyone to try and convince me to believe theirs. I just wish there were more people on the planet who acted the same. (I'm not referring to people here, but to the folks out there in the world who obnoxiously try to convice people that their way is the only way.)

Panacea wrote: This is fun! I agree that everyone has the right to choose, and to me that's the most important right of all. If a person chooses to have a belief in a higher power of some sort, or a religion, cool. If a person chooses not to have a religion or belief in a higher power, cool. I'm not going to try to convince anyone to believe my way any more than I would like anyone to try and convince me to believe theirs. I just wish there were more people on the planet who acted the same. (I'm not referring to people here, but to the folks out there in the world who obnoxiously try to convice people that their way is the only way.)

Herein lies my problem with religion (note that I have nothing against god or people that believe - they go their way, I go mine. At least, that's how it should be).

The main thing that I object to is the sort of thing that happened to me a couple of years ago. I was talking to a friend of mine (who is a committed christian0 when we were joined by two women who attend the same church as he. After complimenting me on how beautiful my two children were, they discovered I was not married to the mother (I am now). Even though they had met me me about five minutes earlier, they proceeded to lecture me at length on how disgusting and wrong my behaviour was and what a poor example I was setting for my children (the oldest was about 2 at the time).

The fact that I was not a christian did not enter into their self-righteous rant, not did the fact that I love my chldren and the lady who is now my wife very deeply.

My friend was highly embarassed by their behaviour while I was angry. What right do they have to lecture a total stranger about the eay he lives his life, especially one who does not share their moral and ethical beliefs. Of course, when tackled on the matter by my friend at a later date, they claimed it was their duty and their 'God given right' to do so.

Incidentally, I would react the same if a Muslim gave me the same speech on drinking alcohol, or a Jew about eating Pork, or any other religion about their belief.

I know that the argument has been advanced about the intrepretation of god's intentions by his followers but, if he does exist, then surely he shopuld take some responsibility for their actions.

After all, as a father, I am held accountable for what my children do.

Panacea, you GO, girl!