' Yes, and it's wrong, too. Faith is the antithesis of reason'
Oh dear someone who has faith in the big bang and idiotic irrational evolution fantasy. How blind can one be.

If you say so, Alan B.

<<Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?>>

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

<<I don't know why some folk believe in the still unproven theory of evolution?>>

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because all the evidence supports it? Just throwing it out there.

Unless, of course, you know something the rest of us don't? But given that you think that a 747 being assembled in a junkyard by a tornado is analogous to evolution, I seriously doubt it.

The rest of your post is one big fallacious appeal to incredulity and ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Here's a little educational video to give you some idea of what is actually hypothesised by scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

Dear David,

«I cannot look at all the travail in the world as a result of man's inhumanity to his fellow men without being convinced that the all caring God to whom Christians bow down is just a heap of hogwash.»

Why, would you rather bow down before some ugly and cruel monster?

Like it or not, we all bow down (as a manner of speech, even if we don't physically kneel on our knees) before one (or more) thing or another - be it riches, fame, pleasures, longevity, progeny, family, nation, leader, health, science, wisdom, philosophy, beauty, power, etc. etc.

All those objects are limited.

God is not limited, but alas, God has no form, no shape, no attributes, not even the attribute of existence, God is not an object, not even an idea, we cannot see Him with our eyes, we cannot even conceive Him in our minds, so how are we to possibly hold our attention on Him without being distracted?

So due to our human shortcomings and weaknesses we need to imagine God with some attributes, and best assign and adorn Him the most endearing (for us) attributes we can, inventing a representation of His that can hold our flow of loving attention the longest.

The attribute of caring is one of those.

The Christian faith has selected this specific attribute, as well for example as omniscience, omnipotence and the holy trinity. If this is what benefits Christians and helps them to keep their attention away from the other gods, including the aforementioned temptations of the world, then I cannot understand your objection.

Similarly, likening God to light suits others better. It is only a technique: everything is God, light is God, caring is God, power is God, knowledge is God, yet God is neither light, caring, power or knowledge. Yes, man's inhumanity to his fellow men is also God, but would you not agree with me that it's an unattractive attribute, which most of us wouldn't like to keep our attention on?

Easy, there is no God

Dear Geoff,

Given that there is no such thing as God, why would you (and others) treat and worship things as if they were God?

Your concept of God could be quite different to the author's and I respect that, but one who truly believes that there is no God (by that I don't mean just the Christian or the god of any particular established denomination), would be completely apathetic, valuing nothing, in fact they wouldn't even bother to breath, certainly not to comment here.

Alan B.

I think I know what you meant now.

<<Being able to produce labels, with surnames attached to them, proves nothing other than a very obvious confirmation bias!?>>

You’re talking about my mentioning of Hoyle’s fallacy. In typical creationist fashion, you attack style over substance. How about you explain how Hoyle’s analogy was not fallacious instead?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

--

Yuyutsu,

There is nothing impressive about your apophatic, obfuscationist theology. You simply agree with atheists that god doesn’t exist and then go on to talk about him as though he did, while completely redefining God to mean something that no other person is talking about when they mention him.

What you do is dishonest.

Your entire modus operandi is to keep what you’re talking about as unclear as possible to so as to prevent others from ever getting a toehold on what it is you’re talking about. That way, you can feel clever when those with whom you converse simply walk away puzzled over what it was that they just read.

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.” - W.C. Fields

How would you perceive what I said if I debated Christians and Muslims by claiming that God DOES exist, and then proceeded to talk about him as though he didn’t?