If we accept that our personality and the knowledge we accumulate in life is stored by interconnected neurons in our brain, and that these interconnections are volatile without a regular blood supply, then surely nothing of our personality or knowledge can remain or exist when we die.
Also I am still wondering how 'God' was able to move the tectonic plate beneath Banda Aceh in order to cause the recent Tsunami? (And why?)

Neohuman,

Regarding you comments about slavery and Christianity, a few points:

1. Every civilisation (yes, EVERY civilisation) practiced slavery.
2. The Bible never actually condones or sanctions slavery. The writers merely accept it as the reality that it was at that time, but does give instructions to be both slaves and slave owners regarding how they should treat each other (ie. with respect).
3. "Biblical" slavery (ie. slavery in this period of time) was nothing at all like the cruel and inhumane African slave trade.
4. Who started the cruel and inhumane African slave trade? Answer: Black chieftains.
5. Who brought the African slave trade to Europe and America? Answer: Arab Muslims.
6. Who stopped the African slave trade to England and America? Answer: Evangelical Christians.

You say God is a mass murderer and war criminal. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Morgan,

Re your comments on science and repeatability, do yo understand that this is precisely why evolution is a fairy tale? It is not repeatable.

Also, don't pretend to be a totally objective scientist. You reject belief in God. Ok. But you do so by faith alone.

Christians believe in God by faith.
Atheists reject belief in God by faith.
Thus, atheists are just as religious as Christians.

The difference is that Christians think it is entirely rational that the nature of existence points to a personal first cause. Atheists, on the other hand take the completely irrational view that nothing suddenly fluctuated and rapidly expanded into everything!

It never ceases to amaze me how some educated and intelligent people who are atheists/deists can believe such complete irrational, illogical nonsense.

Arjay,

You said: "There are no absolute truths in the evolution of human beings."

However, saying there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute truth claim.

Like all moral relativists you end up speaking total nonsense.

Aslan
All your points on slavery are irrelevant and you are wrong there are numerous passages where ‘God’ says to take slaves.

If your god can communicate directly with Moses and tell his people -through him- to forget millennia of tradition, say there is only one god and that here are the laws you should abide by; if you were serious you would acknowledge that he could have outlawed slavery no matter how kindly they were treated or how many practiced it, for however long.

Here is your Christian moral relativism and cognitive dissonance and one of your biggest blind spots.

Slavery in an absolute moral system would be wrong regardless of circumstance.

BTW when the Roman Empire became Christian slavery wasn’t outlawed. Reason, in the Bible it is a routine practice.

>You say God is a mass murderer and war criminal. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Come on Aslan read the Bible without rose coloured glasses.

-Go kill that tribe everything even the animals and take the virgins as sex slaves.
-The flood
-The Egyptian first born.
-Sodom and Gomorrah
I’m sure I could go on and on, if any of us did what your god did by mundane means we would be tried as war criminals.

If you want I’ll get the exact passages but you should know all the stories.

Morgonzola,
“I see that poor old Timmy's”

Please supply your scientific evidence to show that I am “poor” and “old”

I am quite aware of statistics and how they can be used and misused http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/info_vac.htm , and I am quite aware of the range of ethics of various scientists, some of which have been highly questionable ethics from Dr Joseph Mengele http://www.123student.com/4830.htm to Dr Susan Maushart http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4040621%255E17282,00.html

I am also aware that science does produce a lot of theories, most of which are never proven to be accurate and are latter rejected.

For example :- for the creation of the universe, there has been the “Big Bang Theory” http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, the “Inflation Theory”, http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm the “String Theory”, (or “Super String Theory”, or “M-Theory”) http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/
, the Black Hole Origin Theory http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_black_hole_origin_theory_of_the_universe_frontiers_of_speculative,_current_physical_cosmology.htm and more recently the “Multiple Universe Theory”. http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/213/213transcript.html

Which is the best theory?

Which is the best religion?

I presently do not belong to any organised religion, but it is probable that some religions can operate in parallel with science, and can be of constructive use to people. If someone has a use for a religion, then they can practice that religion, as long as it does not negatively affect someone else.

Your unsubstantiated name calling of others such as labelling someone “poor”, “old”, “uneducated”, “unevolved”, “unintelligent”, “ignorant” etc can of course negatively affect others, and I am only left to wonder where you were educated, and by whom.

However my experience with feminism leaves me completely unsurprised that you have previously described yourself as being a supporter of feminism, as I have seen your characteristics displayed many times over by many other feminists

Neohuman,

You say that God says to take slaves. Not true. He allows foreign slaves to be bought and allows people to sell themselves into slavery to fulfil a debt but He never commands people to take slaves as far as I am aware.

Again, “Biblical slavery” is nothing like the dehumanising slavery of the Roman world or of the African slave trade. God commanded that slaves were to be treated with respect and dignity and all slaves were to be set free in the year of Jubilee.

Nevertheless, your objections to slavery in the Bible have absolutely nothing at all to do with moral relativism.

Again, moral relativism is the lack of an absolute standard. Your objection to Biblical slavery is an objection to that absolute standard. Ok – fine. Noone is forcing you to accept the Bible’s absolute moral standard.

However, because you don’t happen to like Christianity’s morality doesn’t mean that Christianity adopts moral relativism.

You say: “Slavery in an absolute moral system would be wrong regardless of circumstance.”

On what basis can you say that slavery would always be wrong in an absolute moral system?

Saying something is “always wrong” implies that you are making an absolute statement, so what is your absolute standard which allows you to make such a statement? You are making a moral judgment (slavery is always wrong) but you can only make such moral judgments according to an absolute standard. What is your standard?

It can’t be Christianity because Christianity allowed slavery in those particular circumstances. If you don’t have an absolute standard outside of Christianity then you are speaking nonsense.

The flood, Egyptian firstborne, Sodom and Gomorrah and the instructions to exterminate other groups were all instances of divine judgment. In most cases, God warned the people and gave them time to repent. God threatened to wipe out the people of Ninevah but they repented so God spared them.

Again, you are free to agree or disagree with Christian morality, but Christianity most certainly does not employ moral relativism.

Neo ... on slavery. I take your points on board, about God allowing certain slavery related practices. You did not take Aslans points about what 'slavery' actually 'was' in those days. Because it was not just ONE thing. That IS a valid point, and we are just as much 'slaves' to 'Which Bank' etc.. when u work out how long most of your working life goes to pay nothing but the interest on your mortgage, u are their slave to that extent.

Slavery as Social Welfare.
Neo, the simple fact is that you have not to my knowledge lived in a world where u were surrounded by it, and faced the real possibility of yourSELF becoming a captive slave to an invading people.
I don't expect you to be able to identify with it, and the plight of a man divested of all the social supports that previously existed prior to invasion. It may well have been that YOU were the invader who happen to have lost the battle, in which case if u had the choice of starvation, death, or slavery under 'fair and reasonable' regime, I think I know which one u would choose.

I've used the same arguments as you, about 'absolute truth' applicable for all time against Muslims when it comes to allowing the rape of captive girls. i.e. "True then, must be true now" kind of thing. The difference is, that Sura 8.5-6 are similar to the 10 commandments in import, they are specifically laid down as 'how the believers should be forever'
I think you need to distinguish between the 'abiding commandments' and the social necessities of a particular historical time. If u compare the attitude of Aristotle and Socrates toward the 'slave' class, the OT comes out squaky clean. The 10 commandments have nothing about allowing slavery, a reading will show that they are supportive of very fair dealings with all humanity.
Remember please, that Israel was in the midst of a 'kill or be killed, rule or be ruled, enslave or be enslaved' historical situation, and into that situation God spoke.