FaramirK

There is evidence that evolution couldn't happen by chance, and it's adherrant's are beginning to outnumber the atheists, because atheism is morally bankrupt, and chance evolution is unscientific. You can't personify evolution if you believe it's random. Your statement alludes to intelligent (dramatic) manipulation of nature... Open deism, I believe its called.

Good Thing. Good Thing. Bad Thing.

Thanks for clarifying. There is no faith in Scientific process, but don't tell me that all evolutionists are totally subjective templars of truth. When the data ends, the faith begins... What species grew wings? None. Or at least none who's fossils we've found. Many species have lost things (cave fish have eyes but are born blind, wingless beetles on small islands identical to winged beetles on the continents etc.) There is no good scientific reason to believe that an animal can "create" new systems from scratch, by chance. This too is taken in faith by atheistic evolutionists.

What are you talking about? My statement is? Why? Thanks for the info, but I already knew that, and it has nothing to do with anything I said! What does this have to do with what I said? Illogical responses aside, I agree. What does this have to do with what I said? I also agree. I didn't say it wasn't! What are you talking about? I was talking about the difference between ATHEISTIC evolution (process without God) and THEISTIC evolution (process with God).

Very true. That is because the more "hateful" (and I am NOT referring to the author of the thread) anti-christianity views on this thread are expressed by people who can't cope with others holding to a moral system that is opposed to their lifestyle. As Metadigital pointed out, if some of the world religions I have rejected are right, I am in deep, deep trouble. But that doesn't mean I run out and verbally abuse and hate Islam or muslims. Who is of stronger convictions? The one who tolerates the opposition and actively supports their right to government protection from violent bigots, or the one who angrily and provocatively attacks your beliefs and hates everything you stand for enough to seek that your religion and beliefs are banned? Remarkably civil for a gaming forum, any way...It's been fun.

That is a loaded question... Before you again find your self in error, this is the second time you have both mis-read my posts and sought to put me down as irrational...I assume your silence regarding my correction of your reply to my argument on marriage in society means you agree you mis-read? I am saying that pretty much all atheists have faith in an evolutionary process that happened by sheer chance, and that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Atheism is the evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Atheistic Evolution is what I was taught in school, primarily to re-emphasise that there was no guiding hand in creation, as opposed to (for example) Theistic Evolution, which states that a god used evolution to create. But the Evolutionary tree has hit a few walls, and the Scientific community is currently divided on how best to explain it.

Truly religious I suppose. The way I see it, something had to have created the universe. But when you look at the universe, stars aren't placed in lines, plants don't grow naturally in rows, entropy in the universe is always increaing, and the most complex and highly ordered system we know of, mankind, only uses such a highly ordered system to spread even more chaos and disorder. With all this chaos around, how can any religion that stresses order, inner peace and following rules millenia old be correct? Why would a creator make a universe filled with chaos and then tell us not to participate? Thus it seems to me that if there is a Supreme Being, it has to be one that sees benefit in Chaos. And Eris is that Supreme Being. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An interesting theology. Thanks for sharing.

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> do you usually beleive only in the things that you have good reason to believe in, or do you beleive in every thing that hasn't been shown not to exist? can you prove that unicorns didn't exist? sound familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is more evidence for an intelligent (any intelligence) creator who designed the universe than there is for the idea that it just all happened. I recommend Micheal Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". As for unicorns, we can only speculate.

... or the jews. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, actually, the Rabbi's today teach that non-believers go to a sort of purgatory and are cleansed for eons, then let into heaven. Sound strange? I thought so too... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hadn't heard that bit of gossip. Then again, Christianity is just a group of schismistic offshoots of Judaism, anyway. How many sects of Judaism are there? Hassidics, progressives, conservatives? I dunno lots. I haven't got the figures to hand, but, assuming Christianity is about 1 billion, that leaves upwards of 5.5 billion people who aren't going to heaven. Not sure what the most populous religion is -- Hinduism, Islam; Buddhism; maybe Taoism? Certainly there are going to be a lot of disapointed dead people. Unless they're all dead. (Nihilism.) And there are more people alive today then were ever alive during the whole of human history. (oops, that should have been in the useless info thread. ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, they all contradict each other anyway, or at least they do if you haven't bought into relativism, so may aswell pick one...

Is your intrest in Eris truely religious or merely out of Philosophical intrest?

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it.

... or the jews. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, actually, the Rabbi's today teach that non-believers go to a sort of purgatory and are cleansed for eons, then let into heaven. Sound strange? I thought so too...

That made me jump! I read baley and Silver's comments and was expecting something dark and spooky, then I was thinking...how can this be scary its sunny...rest is history.

Rangers, Celtic, Rugby or none of the above?

Hmmm, 5:30 already. Enjoy your all-nighter, mine's almost over... Eris? I am unfamiliar with her... As for knowing its the right being, I became convinced of the Bible's truth, and decided to live by it's commands, and prayed to God for forgiveness. Since then, I've felt great peace. I have "faith" that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and that the presence I feel is him. Of course you can argue I'm being totally decieved, but that's not going to convince me I'm wrong...

I think you may have over-compensated for the godless state of Communism to bound headlong into an intimate relationship with a metaphysical being, but each to his/her own ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

Though the media is keen to polarise perceptions about 'who' and 'what' a Christian is, the fact is that there is a large range of theologies denominationally that indicate that there is really no 'normal' or 'standard' point of view. The Radical Theology with which I feel comfort is neither dominant nor fringe, it has a voice within the Church as an extension of the Body of Christ. It is easy to engage in polemic against Christianity by citing verse literally to challenge those who claim literalism as an authority for their more fundamental theology - sort of ironic. For me, I find that there is so much history and depth to Christianity that it requires an intentionality that takes a lifetime to begin to find comfort with it as an expression of one's spirituality, as opposed to dogma. Part of any difficulty that revolves around a discussion of Religion is the use of language. The set of assumptions and biases that are never checked can end up juxtaposing people before they even attempt dialogue. Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings. Though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would say that the RC tradition has in fact a great respect for women. I would contend, though I may disagree with my Brothers and Sisters of the RC denomination with various areas of interpretation and theology, that there is indeed a sanctity with which the RC tradition holds and honours women. Blanket statements about anyone's tradition can be difficult to defend on a personal basis. I am not an apologist for the treatment of women within the RC tradition, but nor am I comfortable using a generalisation to identify a truth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're a very resonable sort of dragon...

Yes, I did. Why waste your breath attacking a comedy? But I've never had much respect for your Archbishop's choice of battlegrounds...

Reminds me of Monty Python and the quest for the Holy Grail... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You read my mind. I can see it now... Like I told 'Vixen, its a speciality of mine... If your asking about the series of events that took me from Communism to Christianity its a long, long story...and I do sense God's presense in my life, even if he doesn't physically manifest himself and talk over a hot cup of tea.

Well, didn't the Lady of the Lake have something to do with it?

What about Schizophrenia? God could see it coming. He gave them the choice to obey or disobey. Why is this concept of personal freedom proving so hard to understand?

Hmmm. May I suggest Prague or Edinburgh for nice internet cafes, clean streets and thriving night life?

But how is their spelling, grammar, and punctuation? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I believe that's known as a coup de grace...

Or both? If a child is trying to grab a hot iron and will not listen to "No", a quick slap on the wrist is exactly what the doctor ordered. It teaches them the consequences of touching a hot iron (pain) and also protects them form a much greater injury. And, consequently, there are many times in the bible that God uses this method to teach.

Fair enough. No point continuing that part of the discussion. Once again, your made up personality change doesn't exist. He chose the Jews to be his special representatives on earth, and they ultimately rejeccted him, and were taken into captivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians. He doesn't. He created a paradise that mankind lost through sin. He fforgave them, and offers a way to escape eternal punishment, which YOU CHOOSE to stay in. If you are guilty, and the Judge says "You must return what you stole or face a much more severe penalty", and you refuse, it's your own fault. But this is a moot point if you don't believe you are guilty, and so I think this discussion also ends like the first point. Really? Why attack something so violently that you are convinced isn't real? Guilt? " Without purpose? So, in your philosophy, everything is meaningless? If you truely believe that, I pity you. You essentially said that you, your morality and your knowledge are purposeless and futile. I have no problem comprehending oblivion, it is rather simple. If you are right, I will have lived a very happy life, and die knowing I tried to make the world a better, happier place - even if in vain. What if I'm right, A.S.V? My most favourite game of all...one I'm very well educated in...