washed,

I'm not disputing that you think a god has revealed himself to you. I am opposed to what that idea does collectively and negatively to other people. I am opposed to implanting un-evidenced supernatural fears and promises into the malleable minds of children. I consider people are more important than vague ideas of one of the gods.

I don’t follow any dictator. Why anyone would love a god is way beyond me. I figure it is the Stockholm-syndrome at work. Love is a two way street and it cannot be forced. If it is, as in your case, it is subservience.

That you are so judgemental about the alleged ‘sins’ of others is quite revealing. It shows arrogance and one that is only justified by imagination. Gosh, you must be frightened out of your skin about supernatural-repercussions.

You have to be told what is right or wrong and that is a very dangerous character flaw.

If your god told you to kill me, would you? (Answer required)

Look up the word nihilism. It roughly means anarchy. Point out where I advocate that. My world view concerns the only world I am ever going to live in. It is a most enjoyable place and I will be sad for it to come to end one day. However, all-encompassing wishing for it to continue is a waste of life. Feel free to do that.

You are overstating a war between creationism and science. A recent survey at the Academy of Sciences showed only 7% of respondents believed in any kind of a god. These are the top-scientists in their fields. The war is in the head of creationists. Better said, a nuisance.

Again, you have a distorted idea of science. If creationists could prove there is another force, even a supernatural one, at work in the universe, mainstream science would love it. Discovery is the name of the game.

You have been told this kind of rubbish with anecdotal stories in support but it is a false picture. Your persecution complex is showing. Many religions rely on persecution thoughts.

David

AJ Philips,

you wrote: "Sorry mhaze (and washed), but it appears you've bother missed where I discredited that line of argument on this thread..."

Well AJ I admire your chutzpah in believing that your post totally demolished a way of thinking. But I read your post and, with respect, I have to say I was profoundly unconvinced. Merely asserting that something isn't so, isn't the same as proving it isn't so. Indeed in some circles, it would be assumed that if the best argument against a particular point is mere assertion, then that point has gained in status.

you wrote: "Funny too, mhaze, how you mock belief and faith on another thread....and yet it seems to be alright here?"

Now AJ, I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Just because I was making a point about the relative equivalence of unprovable beliefs in religion and some parts of science, didn't and doesn't mean that I was supporting one over the other. Indeed I am agnostic on the question of a deity.

I note within these threads a certain absolutism among the activist atheists...'you're either with us or against us'. So in my post, since I hadn't come out unequivocally opposed to any thought of the divine, I must be, according to AJ et al, an advocate for Yahweh. Well, it is actually possible to be uncommitted, if that's OK with you.

As to mocking beliefs, I wasn't. I'm a big believer in beliefs :). I was however pointing out that there is much in science that is held to be true with the minutest of evidence, and often just on faith. What I do mock is the failure of many to see this, unquestioningly asserting that all science is based on meticulous research and hard fact. And, refering to the other thread you mentioned, AGW is right up there in that regard. Indeed 'green' is a religion based on superstition and faith, just like all other nascent belief systems.

It seems to me, reading through these posts, that the believers in the divine, have made a mistake in being forced to defend their beliefs from a scientific viewpoint. Asking for and/or trying to provide proof or disproof of God is foolish. Trying to prove God using science is as impossible as trying to disprove God using science.

Nothing science has discovered in the last century or three disproves God. If you buy evolution, its still possible to think that God guides it. If you buy the big bang, you can still believe that God was the catalyst for it.

The appropriate response to the provocations of the activist atheist is for the theists to simple say that God exists but his existence is beyond scientific proof. That doesn't make it any less real to the believer. Science can't work in religious terms and religion can't work in scientific terms.

Equally the appropriate response to the assertion from the activist atheist that they are only thinking of the kids is to treat it with disdain and recognise it as merely a device to try to impose their beliefs of lack of them on others. Absolutism again.

mhaze,

“Equally the appropriate response to the assertion from the activist atheist that they are only thinking of the kids is to treat it with disdain and recognise it as merely a device to try to impose their beliefs of lack of them on others. Absolutism again.”

This is a simplistic statement that is not backed by what has been said in this thread unless you want to be selective by using creationist tactics. It appears you have no respect for anything but your own narrow point of view. And using ‘active atheists’ as a derogatory phrase at every chance you get shows only a desire to misrepresent . You really are pathetic.

Yes, children need protecting from supernatural thoughts that terrorise them but the upshot of that protection is that they will then have the chance to grow into adults who make political decisions based on empirical evidence and not faulty fantasy. Society in general benefits from this.

Why are you opposed to it?

What beliefs or lack of beliefs are atheists trying to impose and how are they achieving this?

And while we are at it, explain this phrase. “Absolutism again.”

Your response will be most interesting. Best you read the thread first.

David

I note in Stephen Hawkins TV presentation he is concluding the Universe has design. I wonder who designed it? Design means a consistent, predictable and controlled order that the human mind can grasp. So there is superintelligence in the Universe that Stephen can understand!

How God is revealed in our world is by the following evidences:
1. A love that cares and acts even for the welfare of an enemy.
2. A Joy and security that is not dependent upon the surrounding threatening circumstances.
3. An inner peace that is not disturbed even in the middle of a warzone.
4. An unmoving patience that believes good will win in the end.
5. A kindness that gives good gifts to an enemy.
6. A peaceable and gentle heart
7. A spirit that is always in control of the body.

These are ways God is revealed in human society, all these have reference in Christ

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond
the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

Happy New Year one and all! May it surpass all of
our expectations!