Yuyutsu,
"....having no interest in the toxic rubbish discussed at the atheist convention".
I assume by this comment that you were actually at the convention because if you were not then how could you possibly know what was discussed?
To what "toxic rubbish" are you referring?

Dear Tony,

"or what points you may be trying to make."

I was not trying to make any point - it was Newtus who classified me as an atheist, and while I don't like to see myself as such, technically he was correct.
The commonly accepted definition of an atheist is of someone who believes that God does not exist, so I fit that description, according to which I'm not merely a "weak" agnostic, but even a "strong" atheist.
I would be more than happy to see that definition changed to exclude people as myself and Peter Sellick - any suggestions?

Regarding the definition of "religion", I only use the original meaning of the word from the Latin "Re-ligare" - Reconnect, rebind [with God], which is the same as the Sanskrit word "Yoga" which comes from the root "Yuj" = Yoke, join, unite, attach [to God].

Dear Priscillian,

I only heard about the atheist convention through this forum, and what I gathered is that they are busy there mocking religion.
While not a bible-believer myself, I think that it still has some valid teachings which I appreciate and respect, such as Psalm #1:

Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked,
or stand in the way that sinners take,
OR SIT IN THE COMPANY OF MOCKERS,
but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,
and who meditates on his law day and night.

david/quote..""This question of "evolving a new genus".
You have lost me there.,,Can you explain to us what you mean..by this please?""

its not what i mean
its what the theory of evolution says

it claims..little step..[tiny changes]
make all the new genus...

[bacteria evolved into what?
fish evolved into other!

..[you know new genus...is when a fish
[lol]..has evolved..into a mammel..[there is no proof of this]

currently..im debating it here

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

been waiting to reply
so off to do it now

i simply ask three proofs..[via valid dna changes..[evolutions].:as the theory in affect claims

thus i ask
what is the newest genus
[ie what new animal egsistes now..NOT THE SAME GENUS as its parents]

ie none

i also ask what the first living genus
what did it evolve into

please look up genus/species..
no new genus...*has ever been recorded nor observed

let alone achieved by science method..or chance
if so prove it

If one believes that Jesus died on the cross; then one has to hold in an open mind the possibility of the opposite? Where is the evidence? Articles written hundreds of years after the event, and then repeatedly plagiarized by other writers adding bits in, so that the clearly embellished record is true to the, as yet to appear missing messiah?
Is there a God? Intelligent design? Well, if none of the foregoing, then there has to be magic; given something as complex as a human being, with around 30 trillion cells and all of them purpose designed, i.e., brain cells, skin cells, bone cells etc/etc, being a product of extremely well timed and fortuitous chance? Is roughly equivalent to a whirlwind whipping through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and flyable 747?
Well, it could happen if we just wait long enough? Ha ha.
We are carbon life forms and the big bang had to happen; and stars had die and be reborn numerous times over; to turn hydrogen into carbon and oxygen/water. The basis of all known life forms.
It is an immutable scientific law that energy can be neither created or destroyed, but had to exist in some form before it became the matter, which makes up the incomprehensible universe/unified field of energy, we are able to perceive in small part today. [Nothing begets even more nothing and most of us have plenty of that.]
Why, it is postulated that there are more stars in our own Milky way than grains of sand on every beach on the planet; and conceivably, Galaxies could be just as numerous? Chance? God? Magic? Intelligent design? The God particle? Who can say with any surety? One can merely have people think one a fool or remove all doubt by opening the mouth to utter some deeply held, if fundamentally flawed surety. In conclusion, let me say, all wars have had an element of religious conviction at their centre; or as a casual factor, none of which may ever be conclusively proved as inherently true! Rhrosty.

>>I only use the original meaning of the word from the Latin "Re-ligare" - Reconnect, rebind [with God], which is the same as the Sanskrit word "Yoga" which comes from the root "Yuj" = Yoke, join, unite, attach [to God].<<

Fail. You just said you were an atheist and that you believe God does not exist. How do you propose to rebind with something that does not exist?

>>I would be more than happy to see that definition changed to exclude people as myself and Peter Sellick - any suggestions?<<

How about we make it somebody who believes that God does not exist and does not then go on to talk about God as if it was a real entity in their very next sentence?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

"How do you propose to rebind with something that does not exist?"

Where did I ever say that God is something (or an "entity" for that matter)?

When you are dealing with things, with what exists, the best tool is science, not religion, but contemporary society places too much emphasis on things and is led astray by questions of existence.

God is not a thing - and it would indeed be blasphemy to attempt to equate God with a thing, a mere object (an unfortunate mistake too commonly committed by theists).

There is nothing you can positively say that God is, including that He exists. On the other hand, there is nothing BUT God - including ourselves, so the object of religion is to rediscover that (experientially, not just as an intellectual idea, which is easy), to rebind with God is to reconnect with who we really are (instead of the human facade which we falsely believe in), to remove the barriers of materialism and the illusion of existence which keep us in darkness about our true divine nature.