Well, Einstein never did have success with the development of a "Theory of Everything," and also had difficulty in his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics.

Please note however, that I say not that to in anyway to undermine or belittle his "HugE" contributions to science and society. He was, by most accepted definitions I suspect, a giant in the intellectual arena.

However, I would be surprised to learn that he didn't know the difference between "belief" and fact, as science and law accept the definitions of these words.

The problem that I have with people like mjbp, and you too bach, is not that you have a Monotheist God concept, and not because you want to believe. It is because you assert "belief" as fact.

You can believe something, but that does not make it so. And if you run around stating belief as fact, you will soon enough be tagged as being delusional.

On the contrary, there is certainly much scientifically acceptable evidence in both the fossil and genetic record to suggest that the "theory of evolution" has much merit, though I would personally accept that this does not preclude the existence of Gods, or God ..

Of course, I don't think that serious science asserts evolutionary theories for the purposes of disproving God concepts.

As for abortion, that is the sole right of the individual who is pregnant i.m.o. Not some raving fanatic who seeks to tell what others may or may not do with their own body.

As already said by others:

"Keep yr rosaries off our ovaries!"

you asserted in your initial post that if one was to state 'there is no evidence of the existence of god' then that person is likely rational. Are we to assume if any evidence of god existed than you'd know about it? That you've done the research yourself?

In my last post I drew your attention to the fact that Einstein believed in the existence of god. To which you replied: "Well, Einstein never did have success with the development of a "Theory of Everything," and also had difficulty in his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics."

I'm curious to know what difficulties Einstein had in "his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics." because from what I know, Einstein was a pioneer in the field.

Though it seems that Einstein and any scientist, doctor, philosopher, academic etc who sees the evidence of the existence of god, by your standards are merely irrational disillusioned fools.

Now, to the worn mindless chants of "keep your rosaries of our ovaries". I'd like to point out to you that it's not actually your ovaries that pro-life advocates care about, rather anything after the point of conception. The reasoning is is that we actually believe that all beings have a right to exist (as irrational as that may seem to you). Therefore not even a mother has the right to terminate her child's life. If we knew at exactly what point life was life than we could understand abortion. Yet the truth is is that no one knows when a life is a life. So rationally, because life is so very valuable, we can't in good conscience endorse the decision to abort.

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Many mothers (or dead infants) who have abortions frequently go through immense episodes of chronic depression. Research the techniques that 'practitioners' use to terminate life, and also the agony in-which the unborn baby goes through and also the mental and physical scars that a mother must live with.

I suspect that if there was more than just subjective testimony as to the evidence of God, Gods, non corporeal existence or otherwise, that it would very quickly become BIG NEWS.

" ... I'm curious to know what difficulties Einstein had in "his understanding of the fundamentals of particle physics." because from what I know, Einstein was a pioneer in the field. ... "

*Eistein* by some accounts was a lover of certainty and predictability. With particle physics, we have not the tech to do more (as of the last news that I read) than to express in terms of probability. i.e. it is likely that the majority of the particles will fall within the confines of area "y" Of course, he did make a famous contribution in the understanding of the wave particle duality.

A good introductory book i.m.o. is something like:
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
As for Einstein, you may care to refer to the chapter entitled:
"Einstein doesn't like it."

I think that for purposes of discussion, it is helpful if "we" can agree on the definition of certain terms, as I suspect what you consider to be the definition of evidence by scientific and legal standards is somewhat other.

No, the mother does have the right. The likes of you simply "believe" otherwise, and we note the catholic churches history of persecuting free willed women during the witch hunts.

I agree with the Belgians, the delusional head of the vatican should not be heard. Otherwise perhaps he ought consider focusing on feeding the children that are, instead of letting them starve by the thousands whilst he wastes precious resource on his dogmatic, misplaced idealism and religious fervor.

http://www.misoprostol.org/File/guidelines.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

Misoprostol/mifepristone (RU-486)

The World Health Organisation has a lot of scientific medical info on the matter.

From the ovaries comes the egg and the fact that the egg may become one with a sperm does not constitute grounds for others to claim rights over the body of the individual in question. If said individual wishes to induce menstruation on grounds of rape, health, youth or if she simply does not want to make the necessary committment for her own reasons, then that is her right.

catholics in particular ought be wary of making representations likely to incite violence.

DreamOn,

”Maybe its U who are not normal?”

Perhaps. But that doesn’t change the fact that he questions any normal understanding of the Christian faith. It is no secret that believing Jesus is God or that God exists are a normal part of the faith. Most atheists would be aware of that.

”To say that there is no evidence of "God" does not make you an atheist. It just means that you are very likely rational, or perhaps you can enlighten us to the existence of such evidence mjbp?”

When people say there is no evidence of God it indicates that they are an atheist. There is a theoretical possibility that a Christian could somehow have that belief and they made the statement to explain a particularly pedantic and surprising belief system. But that would be very surprising and it would be even more surprising if they didn't explain a statement like that if they did believe in God given that it makes them appear to be an atheist. Haven’t you heard about the evidence for God? You know creation, Jesus etc.? To suggest that anyone who accepts evidence of God is irrational is a little over the top.

” I seem to recall you alleging as fact that the concept of there being many paths to God was a "new age" nonsense.”

I don’t. Do you recall the exact words or the discussion topic? It is difficult to discuss something I don’t recall saying.

As regards ovaries I am still unclear how you are linking abortion to ovaries. The gamete from the ovary is not considered a living being. It is only when it combines with sperm and resides in the uterus it is considered a living being. The slogan doesn't seem to make sense. I don't know what you mean about inducing menstruation after rape? If it isn't the periodic blood flow and you are referring to the result of an abortion drug which looks similar surely it wouldn't be menstruation? Could you put your explanation another way?

No, I regret that my view remains that you continue to assert belief as fact.

You may "BELIEVE" that JC is God but not all Christian faiths are so. So, no it is not a fact that that he questions "normal" Christian views, whatever normal is supposed to mean.

Again, to say that someone who expresses the view that there is no evidence for God of necessity makes them an atheist is a nonsense and goes to support the contention that you simply do not understand what the word "evidence" means.

No, it's not over the top. The fact that there is a "creation" as you put it does not "evidence" that God exists. Neither does a story about a man called Jesus evidence that there is a God. For all you "know" it could just be a fairy tale.

If you were to say "I believe" that there is a God, and that IT created everything in 7 days or whatever, and something about JC, then that is fine. But you do not "know" of your own senses that these things are so, and neither do you have the "evidence" that it is so. These words have very particular meaning.

Unless of course you claim to have had 1st hand experience of God and that he has somehow made you aware that God made everything etc etc?

..

Maybe you should read the published medical threads if you wish to understand medically induced menstruation/abortion.

..

I have to wonder whether the vatican is really primarily concerned about their so called right to life notions, or perhaps rather is being driven by their belief that Baby Jesus will come again and they are doing their bit to ensure the risk of him becoming medical waste is minimised?

Afterall, didn't they even fiddle the calendar in an attempt to avoid the for want of a better term, "Herrodian Impulse"

Or does someone know that secretly somewhere Baby Jesus is growing up as we speak?