The God Delusion-Richard Dawkins

[alpine_aw11]

This is probably the wrong section, but I'm just wondering if anyone else has read this masterpiece. Plus this is the only section anyone cares about. I finally got it yesterday and I can't put it down. Anyone, religious or not, as long as you don't have shit for brains seeing as you wouldn't understand it, should read this book. Dawkins is blowing me away with this stuff, anyone who is anti-atheist should definitely pick this up to clear their understandings.

[flak_monkey]

Pick up "The Antichrist" by Nietzsche

[Ran]

Probably about as mind-blowing as The Purpose Driven Life. Meh.

[alpine_aw11]

I guess it depends on whether you agree with what he's saying or not. I thought it was going to be really abrasive, I was surprised. The clerk at Borders looked at me like I was Satan when I bought it.

[Ran]

I guess it depends on whether you agree with what he's saying or not. I thought it was going to be really abrasive, I was surprised. The clerk at Borders looked at me like I was Satan when I bought it.Any argument can be persuasive if written well. I've read my fair share of religious and anti-religious literature and they're always hit and miss. I might flip through it the next time I'm at the bookstore, but most of these types of books just spout off the same roundabout justification while throwing mud in as much of a non-offensive manner as possible.

Can you throw us anymore info on this one?

[alpine_aw11]

Any argument can be persuasive if written well. I've read my fair share of religious and anti-religious literature and they're always hit and miss. I might flip through it the next time I'm at the bookstore, but most of these types of books just spout off the same roundabout justification while throwing mud in as much of a non-offensive manner as possible.

Can you throw us anymore info on this one?

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature. Another part of it I liked was criticizing the notion that religion can't be criticized, although his goal is clearly to convert people towards atheism it's very interesting regardless of your religious views. Dawkins is very interesting, his perspective is different from the average anti-religous man considering his educational background. I also like him because he recognizes the possibility that god does exist, he just mainly negates God in religous contexts. There is a chapter devoted why God "almost certainly" does not exist but it definitely isn't typical anti-religious rhetoric. It would be worth a try for you I'm sure, but this book probably speaks to me a lot more (no bad intentions from that) than it would to you. My views align with his pretty consistently so that probably makes my perspective a little biased.

[David88vert]

Dawkins is a zoologist, and pretends to understand genetics. In reality, he makes up his terminology and ignores the observed behavior of genetic coding. The biggest issue is that he determines what he wants the result to be, then only uses theorys and facts that support his viewpoint, and discards all others. His well-documented hatred for the structure of the Church of England is what fuels his literary dictation railing against God.

And yes, you are in the wrong section. You should have this moved.

[flak_monkey]

http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Great-Books-Philosophy/dp/1573928321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224710398&sr=8-1

[DrivenMind]

I just finished "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens about a month ago. I told the conservative jesus monger in the library that I wanted to hear "the insane heretics" were talking about and she eyed me with suspicion. I think she knew I was being sarcastic but she told me "we'll you be mad at him for expressing his opinion..."

Of course when I came back to pick up several books by Stephen Hawking and Hunter S Thompson she knew I was freak.

A Brief History of Time was fucking awesome though.

[Ran]

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature.If it's less on the criticizing part and more of the debate of information and fact then I'm in.


Another part of it I liked was criticizing the notion that religion can't be criticized, although his goal is clearly to convert people towards atheism it's very interesting regardless of your religious views. Dawkins is very interesting, his perspective is different from the average anti-religous man considering his educational background.I don't see how religion can't be criticized since it happens everyday, but perhaps I'm not understanding the meaning behind that. Any anti-religious text has the same intention just as any religious text does. Anyone that can't accept that notion going into it is ignorant to begin with. Also, more often than not, the writers of such pieces have some sort of educational background. Atheist text written by former church officials, religious text written by college professors, it's nothing uncommon. It does help though.


I also like him because he recognizes the possibility that god does exist, he just mainly negates God in religous contexts. There is a chapter devoted why God "almost certainly" does not exist but it definitely isn't typical anti-religious rhetoric.Sounds like he's merely padding the attack as to try and not spark any direct conflict. It's also a good way of rallying cautious non-religious readers to reinforce themselves without saying they're completely denying the possibility.


It would be worth a try for you I'm sure, but this book probably speaks to me a lot more (no bad intentions from that) than it would to you. My views align with his pretty consistently so that probably makes my perspective a little biased.We all have our biased sides. I am pretty accepting of the fact that there is some sort of higher existence such as God, gods, reincarnation, or whatever but am well aware that there are just as many arguments going for it as there are against it. I may actually pick this up and give it a run through. Again, it'll all depend on the delivery of the argument more than anything but, considering your brief synopsis, it sounds pretty interesting. Thanks!

:cheers: (You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to alpine_xj again.)

[DrivenMind]

I know this is a serious issue but this quote by Hitchens made me laugh my ass off. IRL

"I pose a hypothetical question. As a man of some fifty-seven years of age, imagine I am discovered sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture your own outrage and revulsion. Ah, but I have my explanation all ready. I am a mohel: an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce, and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the amputated flap along with a mouthful of blood and saliva."

[alpine_aw11]

I know this is a serious issue but this quote by Hitchens made me laugh my ass off. IRL

"I pose a hypothetical question. As a man of some fifty-seven years of age, imagine I am discovered sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture your own outrage and revulsion. Ah, but I have my explanation all ready. I am a mohel: an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce, and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the amputated flap along with a mouthful of blood and saliva."

:lmfao:

Yea atheist writers tend to have a good sense of humor. The Dawkins book is very funny as well, I'm sure you would love it.

And to Ran-The book doesn't necessarily debate facts for religion, because, uhhhhh, there aren't any. But it does present all the arguments, which he precedes to sarcastically tear down in an intelligent way. If you wouldn't find it intellectually stimulating you would probably find it humorous in the least. He definitely doesn't "soften up" anything. You're average Jesus freak would get PISSED at this book.

[alpine_aw11]

Dawkins is a zoologist, and pretends to understand genetics. In reality, he makes up his terminology and ignores the observed behavior of genetic coding. The biggest issue is that he determines what he wants the result to be, then only uses theorys and facts that support his viewpoint, and discards all others. His well-documented hatred for the structure of the Church of England is what fuels his literary dictation railing against God.

And yes, you are in the wrong section. You should have this moved.

Proof of any of these accusations?

And if you read the book you would definitely know the comment you made on his views of the Church of England is bullshit.

[osnap]

i swear to god im e in love with you.

a, because you have the cybernetic ghost of christmas past in your sig
and b, because you are referring to an awesome literary work.

we need to meet up irl one day and see the movie Religulous.

[RL...]

I'm not even halfway through it yet. With most anti-religious texts it deals with just negating any proof, but it goes more in depth than just criticizing the existence of God as a religious person would know. It deals more with the moral aspects and human nature. biased.

There is no such thing as human nature. There is only human behavior. Greed, corruption, good and bad, are all things religion teaches us as human nature but these traits are as natural as wearing clothing. Humans aren't born bad, good, evil, corrupt, or so forth. We are as we are because of outside influences that have shaped our personalities. This is the truth, whether you believe it or not.

And all religion is BS. There might or might be some supernatural entity that created everything, that is impossible to prove/dissprove. But religion, especially christianity is joke, and christianity is a rip off of egyptian mythology. Christianity has ripped off of so many religions it's just a big joke. Do some research, it's true.

The ONLY THING RELIGION OFFERS IS INTANGIBLE EMOTIONAL SOLICE FOR THOSE THAT REQUIRE IT, IT SOLVES NOTHING, IN FACT IT DOES QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT CREATES PROBLEMS.

:D

[RL...]

:lmfao:

Yea atheist writers tend to have a good sense of humor. The Dawkins book is very funny as well, I'm sure you would love it.

And to Ran-The book doesn't necessarily debate facts for religion, because, uhhhhh, there aren't any. But it does present all the arguments, which he precedes to sarcastically tear down in an intelligent way. If you wouldn't find it intellectually stimulating you would probably find it humorous in the least. He definitely doesn't "soften up" anything. You're average Jesus freak would get PISSED at this book.

you should visit http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ and watch the zeitgeist addendum movie. Interesting stuff....

[alpine_aw11]

I'm very familiar with both Zeitgeist installments.

[alpine_aw11]

i swear to god im e in love with you.

a, because you have the cybernetic ghost of christmas past in your sig
and b, because you are referring to an awesome literary work.

we need to meet up irl one day and see the movie Religulous.

Awwwww, I e-love you too. I would def. be down to see Religulous.

[metalman]

Making fun of phony Christian beliefs/religions is easy.
What cracks me up is that some people are so driven and interested in trying to 'disprove' the existence of God with mere weak human philosophies...while totally disregarding any/all physical evidences that might be around them. I have to ask myself...what is it they really fear? Why does it matter to them so much that there might be a Creator or a God?
Ahh yes...little things like accountability and judgment....thats it. Its all about hoping such doesn't exist. If it was only about origins it wouldnt matter much at all. Its the pesky future that concerns folks. ;)

[man]

Making fun of phony Christian beliefs/religions is easy.
What cracks me up is that some people are so driven and interested in trying to 'disprove' the existence of God with mere weak human philosophies...while totally disregarding any/all physical evidences that might be around them. I have to ask myself...what is it they really fear? Why does it matter to them so much that there might be a Creator or a God?
Ahh yes...little things like accountability and judgment....thats it. Its all about hoping such doesn't exist. If it was only about origins it wouldnt matter much at all. Its the pesky future that concerns folks. ;)

Agreed, why do these morons feel that they have a right to tell people what to think? I'm not religious but I have to say that anti-religious people are the cancer of our society. There is a difference between being atheist/agnostic and being the douchebag who spends his life trying to disprove/argue against religions. I find it hard to believe that people are that closed-minded, but I see them every day so...

If you aren't religious just live your damn life.. How does it make sense to disbelieve in something yet center your life around it?

[alpine_aw11]

LOLOLOLOL you guys are acting like Dawkins put a gun to every religious person's head and made them read the book. And also being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in a God. You guys are acting like this is some petty debate, but um I have a feeling it's important. If neither of you can grasp that concept, that's not my problem.

[Maniacc]

I like to argue when it comes to this topic. But recently I've moved away from trying to make people see eye to eye with me and rather just laugh at them and call them idiots. I mean, I'm sure not all of them are but the majority of them are.

Absence and presence create a new duality, for starters. If God is all powerful and created human beings, how can human beings act outside God's power?

What gets to me is when people always use evil or satan when something 'bad' happens. I know this is offtopic but first find me a way to measure "God" before people claim "evil" is the absence of it. That's all I ask. I know David and metalman are both smart enough to argue about this for days. But like I said, this whole religion thing is fun to make fun of but trying to debate it will get us no where.

[man]

LOLOLOLOL you guys are acting like Dawkins put a gun to every religious person's head and made them read the book. And also being an Atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in a God. You guys are acting like this is some petty debate, but um I have a feeling it's important. If neither of you can grasp that concept, that's not my problem.

Atheism literally mean "without god" so I don't know where you pulled that from... No one's debating here I simply posted what I felt on the subject and I'll leave it at that. Wasn't a personal attack on you, just my thoughts on the ego-tripping people who write these things. No shame in reading them (I've read plenty) I believe that hearing someone's viewpoint can be very important. But to be honest I'm just getting sick of closed-minded fools that think they are right on a subject that know one knows the answer to...

PS: Oh Jesus, it's the Maniac lol Let the shit fest begin!!!!!!!!

[Maniacc]

PS: Oh Jesus, it's the Maniac lol Let the shit fest begin!!!!!!!!Hydro + religion discussion = win. We should try it. LOL

[osnap]

hey maniac and alpine...

HEATHEN SQUAD ASSSSSEMMMMBLLEEEEEE!

[alpine_aw11]

Atheism literally mean "without god" so I don't know where you pulled that from... No one's debating here I simply posted what I felt on the subject and I'll leave it at that. Wasn't a personal attack on you, just my thoughts on the ego-tripping people who write these things. No shame in reading them (I've read plenty) I believe that hearing someone's viewpoint can be very important. But to be honest I'm just getting sick of closed-minded fools that think they are right on a subject that know one knows the answer to...

PS: Oh Jesus, it's the Maniac lol Let the shit fest begin!!!!!!!!

You can be an Atheist and still acknowledge the possibility of God existing, like myself. Before reading into this (not just this book) I placed myself as an agnostic, but that just means believing that we will never know whether God exists or not and living on as such. I like Dawkins because he never actually says God doesn't exist, he's just 99% sure about it. I agree with you though, a lot of people are just ego-tripping assholes simply trying to insult people's beliefs. They do suck, but I think it's just retaliation to religious dickwads that say you're going to burn in hell if Jesus isn't your one and only savior. I know I've always remained realtively calm about my views, but I've had to go ape shit on some inbred Christians in my day and would gladly do it again if provoked.


PS.......who said bud?

[osnap]

all e-gay jokes aside, its uncanny how often we see eye-to-eye on some things, this included.

[alpine_aw11]

No osnap, I'm not going to fellate you.

[osnap]

had to try.

[man]

Hydro + religion discussion = win. We should try it. LOL

MMMM.... sounds tempting

I've been sober for about 3 months though so I'd probably be a zombie, but I guess that might help me explain the whole jesus resurrection/zombie thing...

[Maniacc]

I'm gonna add something random as hell right now.

This is a copy and paste of something I posted in my blog. It's fucking sweet!

Before I begin, I'm not a Satanist. But the actual subject of Satanism kinda intrigues me, considering all the misconceptions people seem to have about it. With a little reading, it's seen that Satanism doesn't actually involve killing goats, sodomizing children, sacrificies, rituals or any of that bullocks that commonly gets thrown around. That is the doing of cults, which are on a totally seperate track. Basically extremism in the same way that you see Muslim extremists blowing themselves up on the news. In the most general sense, the devil has nothing to do with it. From what I've seen, it's just a self-help lifestyle in which you're supposed to look out for yourself first and foremost, indulge in what you can, and take responsibility for your mistakes instead of pleading to some god for mercy and help that you're not going to get.

The 11 Satanic rules are as follows...

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure that they want to hear them.
3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have used it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Seems to make sense to me. A hell of a lot more sense than the 10 commandments. Except for the bit about magic, of which I have no opinion.

[Maniacc]

MMMM.... sounds tempting

I've been sober for about 3 months though so I'd probably be a zombie, but I guess that might help me explain the whole jesus resurrection/zombie thing...
Hahaha, we should definitely set something up in the future.

[osnap]

interesting.

[Maniacc]

You can be an Atheist and still acknowledge the possibility of God existing, like myself.
By definition, you're agnostic.

[osnap]

agnostic existentialist, checking in.

[man]

You can be an Atheist and still acknowledge the possibility of God existing, like myself. Before reading into this (not just this book) I placed myself as an agnostic, but that just means believing that we will never know whether God exists or not and living on as such. I like Dawkins because he never actually says God doesn't exist, he's just 99% sure about it. I agree with you though, a lot of people are just ego-tripping assholes simply trying to insult people's beliefs. They do suck, but I think it's just retaliation to religious dickwads that say you're going to burn in hell if Jesus isn't your one and only savior. I know I've always remained realtively calm about my views, but I've had to go ape shit on some inbred Christians in my day and would gladly do it again if provoked.


PS.......who said bud?

I feel you on that and I too dislike the forcefully religious, to me though the difference is that most religious people (even some of the forceful ones) seem to be genuinely interested in helping people (at least they think they are helping people) I just never get that vibe from the other side.

[alpine_aw11]

I've always found Satanism to be extremely interesting. If I had to align myself with a religion philosophically Satanism would honestly be the closest match. I mean there's some weird fucking shit running around in some Satanic ideology (i.e. the magic stuff, I mean really?) but the basic ideas seem to make MUCH more sense than believing in the Christian God and "his" values.

[alpine_aw11]

By definition, you're agnostic.

Technically, no. The true definition of Agnosticism is that there is equal evidence existing that God exists, and that God doesn't exist. I personally cannot completely deny God's existance, but I'm about 80% sure there isn't an intelligent being watching me shower every morning, which excludes osnap of course. I really don't understand the concept of Atheists that can acknowledge the possibility of God, but according to Dawkins and other atheist writers Atheism does not necessarily exclude it.

[Maniacc]

Technically, no. The true definition of Agnosticism is that there is equal evidence existing that God exists, and that God doesn't exist.
I know this.

But this is what you said.


You can be an Atheist and still acknowledge the possibility of God existing, like myself.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

So, what are you? If you were a real atheist you wouldn't have a God figure in the back of your mind. You would instead put that aside and completely ignore the fact that there might be a God out there.

[BKgen®]

I've always found Satanism to be extremely interesting. If I had to align myself with a religion philosophically Satanism would honestly be the closest match. I mean there's some weird fucking shit running around in some Satanic ideology (i.e. the magic stuff, I mean really?) but the basic ideas seem to make MUCH more sense than believing in the Christian God and "his" values.

no offense, but how can one believe in Satan but not in God? They're both part of the Christian religion, correct...?

[alpine_aw11]

I know this.

But this is what you said.


Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

So, what are you? If you were a real atheist you wouldn't have a God figure in the back of your mind. You would instead put that aside and completely ignore the fact that there might be a God out there.

I acknowledge the possibility of it, but I don't believe it to be true at all really. The notion of a God has no effect on my life whatsoever. I just don't rule it out completely because personally I think it's ignorant to do that. It doesn't mean I'm not atheist, because I'm definitely not agnostic.

[osnap]

no offense, but how can one believe in Satan but not in God? They're both part of the Christian religion, correct...?
nobody said they believe in satan. they're talking about the institution of "satanism" in and of itself, and the doctrines thereof (which were just listed) have nothing to do with the biblical antagonist satan figure.

[man]

I acknowledge the possibility of it, but I don't believe it to be true at all really. The notion of a God has no effect on my life whatsoever. I just don't rule it out completely because personally I think it's ignorant to do that. It doesn't mean I'm not atheist, because I'm definitely not agnostic.

I think you may be confused because I am definitely confused by what you're saying, no offense

[Maniacc]

I acknowledge the possibility of it, but I don't believe it to be true at all really. The notion of a God has no effect on my life whatsoever. I just don't rule it out completely because personally I think it's ignorant to do that. It doesn't mean I'm not atheist, because I'm definitely not agnostic.
So why even put yourself in a category?

If you're not fully aware of what your stand on this is then why make a conclusion without first knowing? I think that I'm in between but tend to lean more towards atheism at times. You're obviously lost.



no offense, but how can one believe in Satan but not in God? They're both part of the Christian religion, correct...?
I think you read too much into it.

[BKgen®]

nobody said they believe in satan. they're talking about the institution of "satanism" in and of itself, and the doctrines thereof (which were just listed) have nothing to do with the biblical antagonist satan figure.

just wondering. because to acknowledge the existence of Satan, but not God (in a biblical sense) is a bit of a contradiction. a lot of a contradiction.

[BKgen®]

I think you read too much into it.

just clarifying.

[osnap]

...uh. did you even read my post? lol

[BKgen®]

i haet u so hard chris.

[osnap]

but i wub j00, variable banana timing and electronic peel control.

[BKgen®]

LOL

[alpine_aw11]

I think you may be confused because I am definitely confused by what you're saying, no offense

Shit I know what you mean I was confused about it for a while. This info is straight from the book, and I've found it in other resources as well.

Agnosticism-belief that it is equally likely that God exists or doesn't exist. Agnostics do not attempt to prove the existence of God, because they believe it can never be proven. My problem with agnosticism is that it ignores the factor of probability, so they essentially do not pay any attention to any evidence that God does not exist(or that God does in fact exist).

Atheism-Dawkins outlines different types. No atheist is absolutely certain God exists. This part I don't get personally, but it isn't just Dawkins that says this, the entire atheist community apparently regards belief in God's existence as part of "weak atheism." Even weak atheists, however, believe God's existence to be highly improbable. That's where I fall.

I am NOT agnostic. I definitely do not believe God exists, but I can't rule it out totally. If I was agnostic, I pretty much wouldn't have an opinion on whether or not God is real because they essentially don't care.

Maniak- I'm not lost. I understand how it would seem that way, maybe this cleared it up.

[man]

Shit I know what you mean I was confused about it for a while. This info is straight from the book, and I've found it in other resources as well.

Agnosticism-belief that it is equally likely that God exists or doesn't exist. Agnostics do not attempt to prove the existence of God, because they believe it can never be proven. My problem with agnosticism is that it ignores the factor of probability, so they essentially do not pay any attention to any evidence that God does not exist(or that God does in fact exist).

Atheism-Dawkins outlines 7 levels. Level 1-Atheist that is absolutely certain God exists. I don't get it personally, but it isn't just Dawkins that says this, the entire atheist community apparently regards belief in God's existence as part of "weak atheism." Even weak atheists, however, believe God's existence to be highly improbable. That's where I fall.

I am NOT agnostic. I definitely do not believe God exists, but I can't rule it out totally. If I was agnostic, I pretty much wouldn't have an opinion on whether or not God is real.

Alright so here's my understanding of what you're saying, in much simpler terms: "I definitely do not believe God exists, but I can't rule it out totally."
Is kind of like saying "I know for a fact that 2+2=4, but it could be 5..."

Just seems like you aren't as confident in your beliefs as you think you are. I can see how you wouldn't put yourself into the agnostic category but, it doesn't sound like you are a full blown atheist either.

[Maniacc]

It's Maniac. LOL

[man]

It's Maniac. LOL

She's a maniac, MAAAAAAAANIAC on the floor

[alpine_aw11]

Alright so here's my understanding of what you're saying, in much simpler terms: "I definitely do not believe God exists, but I can't rule it out totally."
Is kind of like saying "I know for a fact that 2+2=4, but it could be 5..."

Just seems like you aren't as confident in your beliefs as you think you are. I can see how you wouldn't put yourself into the agnostic category but, it doesn't sound like you are a full blown atheist either.

Look at it this way, Dawkins describes himself exactly as I do. We are both basically positive God is not real, but it technically cannot be proven even though evidence against God is pretty overwhelming. It's strange, I know.

[DrivenMind]

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

Until I see it presented as such, I will be inclined to disbelieve.

[metalman]

Even weak atheists, however, believe God's existence to be highly improbable. That's where I fall.


Thats certainly what people of that confirmed philosophy are definitely hoping. The whole accountability/judgment thing would be a bitch.
They would prefer just to 'skip' it....IF possible.
Thats exactly what drives that method of thinking....If somehow God doesn't exist, then we are free to do as we see fit within our own mind without any eternal accountability.



I definitely do not believe God exists, but I can't rule it out totally.

The real problem with that philosophy, in addition to ignoring any physical or spiritual evidence, is that just acknowledging there could be a God, or might be, or accepting it once 'proven' in ones mind...won't be enough to save one from 'judgment'...IF there is a God...because to the naysayer sufficient 'proof' will come 'too late'...likely not at all, nothing will ever be convincing enough...as its the strong desire of such philosophy to disbelieve to begin with...in order to escape the consequences. A belief in a God would then require action...and thats where the problem is. Man would rather do his own will then the will of any God.

[RL...]

The GOD I believe in is not christianity's version nor any other religions portrait of GOD.

But there does appear to be something divine about this world, and our universe. Like there's was a thought process behind it's creation. Like someone/something created it. Like GOD, whether it is a guy/girl, or whether GOD is several GOD's. Either way, something has to be out there, and whether one believes it or not, his existence doesn't depend on your faith, he is there, and transcends all.

Sometimes on a nice sunny day I'll just look up at the sky and feel like something is up there

Everything makes too much sense and is too balanced out. The food chain, how it takes a man and woman to reproduce. EVERYTHING. I don't believe all of this could've just happened.

But whether there isn't a GOD or there is, one hting is for sure, ALL religion is garbage, and completely false. It's the biggest scam ever invented.

[metalman]

evidence against God is pretty overwhelming. I

I really have to laugh at that narrow minded statement.
Evidence totally surrounds us and is even within us of a thoughtful creative power beyond human comprehension. Saying it isnt so doesnt make it all go away. lol...
Of course...if one subscribes to philosophies without really honestly looking for evidence I would imagine it quite hard to then 'see' any evidence.
Its easy to ignore all of it (evidence) when its ones base desire to do so.

[VooDooXII]

I've been meaning to pick that up.

[Ran]

But whether there isn't a GOD or there is, one hting is for sure, ALL religion is garbage, and completely false. It's the biggest scam ever invented.I disagree. Religion in itself is a relatively good thing. It's when business and corrupt individuals get involved that things spin out of control. I'm not a fan of organized religion because it tends to produce too many sheep and zealots, but I have no problem at all with a religion or personal beliefs.

[osnap]

I really have to laugh at that narrow minded statement.
Evidence totally surrounds us and is even within us of a thoughtful creative power beyond human comprehension. Saying it isnt so doesnt make it all go away. lol...
Of course...if one subscribes to philosophies without really honestly looking for evidence I would imagine it quite hard to then 'see' any evidence.
Its easy to ignore all of it (evidence) when its ones base desire to do so.
PLEASE elaborate. You're so hard-set on laughing at him because the evidence is "so obvious", and yet you give ZERO examples. I challenge you to produce ONE piece of evidence to support the presence of the omniscient Christian God... and I don't mean "Oh, well look how intricate and beautiful this plant is and how huge the universe is", etc, becuase that is not in any way evidence that there is a God. It is evidence that our world and universe is indeed very complex, and I can certainly understand how people could interpret that as a probable reason to believe in a divine God, but its NOT evidence. Saying "oh theres evidence but its beyond human comprehension" is a complete cop-out, because if something can't even be fathomed, it certainly can't be identified as evidence.

There IS, however, that grilled cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary's face - now THAT is a sign :lmfao:

All jokes aside... Seriously, amuse me. Show me the proof.

[osnap]

I disagree. Religion in itself is a relatively good thing. It's when business and corrupt individuals get involved that things spin out of control. I'm not a fan of organized religion because it tends to produce too many sheep and zealots, but I have no problem at all with a religion or personal beliefs.I think religion is good on an individual level because it gives people something to cling to, and generally religion teaches followers to be good people. HOWEVER, religion from a holistic perspective is, in my opinion, a horrible thing. Religion has by far spawned more bloody wars and deaths than any other institution. Its an isolating element that polarizes the world and pits those of one belief against another. Essentially these people are blindly adhering to what they're told, and letting nothing stand in their way... if it means mercilessly slaughtering those who are clearly "wrong" in their beliefs, then by god, they'll do it.

Oftentimes Christians hear that and say, oh well CHRISTIANS dont do that. And you know, modern Christianity isnt a violent religion overall (or at least they dont START it anyways... Bush is a very devout and representative christian and hes led countless to death in the current war), but Christianity is historically a notoriously brutal doctrine. Crusades, anyone? Mass extermination of "heathens" because of differing beliefs is unacceptable for ANY religion.

[civic95]

There might or might be some supernatural entity that created everything, that is impossible to prove/dissprove. But religion, especially christianity is joke, and christianity is a rip off of egyptian mythology. Christianity has ripped off of so many religions it's just a big joke. Do some research, it's true.

The ONLY THING RELIGION OFFERS IS INTANGIBLE EMOTIONAL SOLICE FOR THOSE THAT REQUIRE IT, IT SOLVES NOTHING, IN FACT IT DOES QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IT CREATES PROBLEMS.

:D


Exactly! Any form of organized religion is a fraud. It was merely a form of early government, ethics/morals training, or peace keeping if you will in the days before organized law enforcement. I wouldn't have a problem with people finding solice in it, if it did not generate hatred or superior feelings over people of a different religion or none. There are wars that continue, and have been for decades all because of peoples false beliefs. I'm not saying there isn't a god, or creator but if you believe he had a son named Jesus that was sent to earth you're brainwashed just like millions of other people.

[Ran]

I'm not saying there isn't a god, or creator but if you believe he had a son named Jesus that was sent to earth you're brainwashed just like millions of other people.Using the term "brainwashed" is a bit harsh and unjustified I think.

Why is okay to accept the belief of a God or gods, but not okay to believe in a divine act or presence? I mean, it's perfectly fine for a deity to create the world and all existing creatures but for him to have a son is just too far fetched, right? :thinking:

[alpine_aw11]

PLEASE elaborate. You're so hard-set on laughing at him because the evidence is "so obvious", and yet you give ZERO examples. I challenge you to produce ONE piece of evidence to support the presence of the omniscient Christian God... and I don't mean "Oh, well look how intricate and beautiful this plant is and how huge the universe is", etc, becuase that is not in any way evidence that there is a God. It is evidence that our world and universe is indeed very complex, and I can certainly understand how people could interpret that as a probable reason to believe in a divine God, but its NOT evidence. Saying "oh theres evidence but its beyond human comprehension" is a complete cop-out, because if something can't even be fathomed, it certainly can't be identified as evidence.

There IS, however, that grilled cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary's face - now THAT is a sign :lmfao:

All jokes aside... Seriously, amuse me. Show me the proof.

What he said.

And when I say no evidence that there is a God, I mean in the sense of how God is presented by various religions. Imo it is ridiculous to believe in a supreme intelligent being as defined by Christianity, Hinduism, etc... and for that there is no proof whatsoever. If you have any, then please divulge it to the world because religions have been trying for a couple thousand years now and it hasn't worked out.

[Ran]

All jokes aside... Seriously, amuse me. Show me the proof.I, personally, think the Prophecy of Babylon in the book of Isaiah is pretty good evidence of some sort of divination. Is it proof of God? Eh, not specifically but it's pretty strange how a prophecy (that was documented hundred of years before the actual event) were able to tell where the battle would happen, how it would happen, why it would happen, how there would be so few casualties on one side, and even gives the commanding general's identity by name. It also specifically states that no city or structure would be erected in it's place and, as you know, Babylon is still a desolate wasteland to this day.

Just something I found to be interesting.

[Z28]

Just in case folks want to follow up on this, a pretty good website is: http://www.infidels.org

It is very secular, but a lot of the conversation that occurs is half decent.

I'm agnostic, but several of their recommended readings are always interesting, too.

[metalman]

Again, some here demand 'evidence' of a God when they are in fact living with such evidence within them. The very demand of evidence is laughable. Its all AROUND US.

One can START by considering one minuscule item....say the endocrine system of the human body. The extremely delicate nature of the balance of body chemistry where just one minor detail being off screws up and/or kills the whole thing. Study that awhile.....Then add to that the millions of other lifeforms and THEIR delicate systems, all which must be in harmony with each other for life to continue...how each one fits perfectly within the system...and on and on. Eventually we'll get around to details within the earths foundation that are evidence of instant creation etc but for now just start with the stupidly obvious.

But of course...one might say...this all came about accidentally?? By chance???? Yeahhhhhhhh sure. Now thinking that is some faith if I ever saw it. Talk about faith in the face of evidence otherwise! LOL..

The list of EVIDENCE is virtually endless. One may prefer to read into that evidence what conclusion makes them happy...BUT to suggest that there is no evidence is plainly stupid.....and WISHFUL THINKING put forth by people who prefer that there be no God/Creator and subsequent accountability. ;)

Also...using the fact that man has free moral choice to act as evidence that there is no God is seriously flawed reasoning. That again is another piece of evidence that the Creator God of the Bible just may exist.

Please dont take any of this as an personal attack against anyone who might be atheist. I fully understand the typical reasons that persons often embrace that belief beyond a hope that there is no accountability. In my experience most have a reason...that typically being the misuse of religion and/or distortion of it.

[alpine_aw11]

Again, some here demand 'evidence' of a God when they are in fact living with such evidence within them. The very demand of evidence is laughable. Its all AROUND US.

One can START by considering one minuscule item....say the endocrine system of the human body. The extremely delicate nature of the balance of body chemistry where just one minor detail being off screws up and/or kills the whole thing. Study that awhile.....Then add to that the millions of other lifeforms and THEIR delicate systems, all which must be in harmony with each other for life to continue...how each one fits perfectly within the system...and on and on. Eventually we'll get around to details within the earths foundation that are evidence of instant creation etc but for now just start with the stupidly obvious.

But of course...one might say...this all came about accidentally?? By chance???? Yeahhhhhhhh sure. Now thinking that is some faith if I ever saw it. Talk about faith in the face of evidence otherwise! LOL..

The list of EVIDENCE is virtually endless. One may prefer to read into that evidence what conclusion makes them happy...BUT to suggest that there is no evidence is plainly stupid.....and WISHFUL THINKING put forth by people who prefer that there be no God/Creator and subsequent accountability. ;)

Also...using the fact that man has free moral choice to act as evidence that there is no God is seriously flawed reasoning. That again is another piece of evidence that the Creator God of the Bible just may exist.

Please dont take any of this as an personal attack against anyone who might be atheist. I fully understand the typical reasons that persons often embrace that belief beyond a hope that there is no accountability. In my experience most have a reason...that typically being the misuse of religion and/or distortion of it.

I know what you're getting at, but personally I believe in evolution and that things did in fact grow and change from tiny insignificant organisms to produce what we are today. I have a big problem with the idea that God is the proverbial kid with a magnifying glass standing over an anthill. I do not think the Earth was created with human beings as a part of it, nothing has been found that points to any evidence of human life ever existing until fairly recently, considering the age of the Earth. If there is in fact, a creator, which I've stated is not impossible and I have not ruled it out, I wouldn't like to view it in the aspect that religion has put forth in that the Earth simply popped up with human life included. I don't believe in the Gods of religions because quite simply the way God is presented makes him/her/it to be a childish and maniacal douchebag with no concerns other than fulfilling self interest and power. It's not about accountability, it is about exclusively cherishing the life that we are given and not wasting it on living it to God's standards in fear of our day of judgement. I would rather value the time I am given here than spend it waiting for a supposed eternal life and being accountable for fulfilling God's wishes.

[soul]

read it loved it

[RL...]

I think religion is good on an individual level because it gives people something to cling to, and generally religion teaches followers to be good people. HOWEVER, religion from a holistic perspective is, in my opinion, a horrible thing. Religion has by far spawned more bloody wars and deaths than any other institution. Its an isolating element that polarizes the world and pits those of one belief against another. Essentially these people are blindly adhering to what they're told, and letting nothing stand in their way... if it means mercilessly slaughtering those who are clearly "wrong" in their beliefs, then by god, they'll do it.

Oftentimes Christians hear that and say, oh well CHRISTIANS dont do that. And you know, modern Christianity isnt a violent religion overall (or at least they dont START it anyways... Bush is a very devout and representative christian and hes led countless to death in the current war), but Christianity is historically a notoriously brutal doctrine. Crusades, anyone? Mass extermination of "heathens" because of differing beliefs is unacceptable for ANY religion.

You make some good points. But I still feel all religion is bad. You're right when you said religion gives people something to cling to, emotional solice, but that's all religion offers. And not every one needs it. I feel it is a coping mechanism to deal with the stress of everyday life, much like a drinker would take to a bottle, one might take to a prayer. While that is better than drnking, lol, whether you pray or not it will not change the outcome of anything.

I believe religion is one of the foundations for corruption. As are money, and politics.

[RL...]

I think religion is good on an individual level because it gives people something to cling to, and generally religion teaches followers to be good people. HOWEVER, religion from a holistic perspective is, in my opinion, a horrible thing. Religion has by far spawned more bloody wars and deaths than any other institution. Its an isolating element that polarizes the world and pits those of one belief against another. Essentially these people are blindly adhering to what they're told, and letting nothing stand in their way... if it means mercilessly slaughtering those who are clearly "wrong" in their beliefs, then by god, they'll do it.

Oftentimes Christians hear that and say, oh well CHRISTIANS dont do that. And you know, modern Christianity isnt a violent religion overall (or at least they dont START it anyways... Bush is a very devout and representative christian and hes led countless to death in the current war), but Christianity is historically a notoriously brutal doctrine. Crusades, anyone? Mass extermination of "heathens" because of differing beliefs is unacceptable for ANY religion.

You make some good points. But I still feel all religion is bad. You're right when you said religion gives people something to cling to, emotional solice, but that's all religion offers. And not every one needs it. I feel it is a coping mechanism to deal with the stress of everyday life, much like a drinker would take to a bottle, one might take to a prayer. While that is better than drnking, lol, whether you pray or not it will not change the outcome of anything.

I believe religion is one of the foundations for corruption. As are money, and politics.

[Z28]

You make some good points. But I still feel all religion is bad. You're right when you said religion gives people something to cling to, emotional solice, but that's all religion offers. And not every one needs it. I feel it is a coping mechanism to deal with the stress of everyday life, much like a drinker would take to a bottle, one might take to a prayer. While that is better than drnking, lol, whether you pray or not it will not change the outcome of anything.

I believe religion is one of the foundations for corruption. As are money, and politics.

Do you believe having a personal religion is a bad thing? Is Deism bad? Or do you think mainly more widespread religions are "bad"? I wouldn't say religion is a foundation of corruption, but that human involvement can cause it, instead of it being a rooted principle.

[David88vert]

PLEASE elaborate. You're so hard-set on laughing at him because the evidence is "so obvious", and yet you give ZERO examples. I challenge you to produce ONE piece of evidence to support the presence of the omniscient Christian God... and I don't mean "Oh, well look how intricate and beautiful this plant is and how huge the universe is", etc, becuase that is not in any way evidence that there is a God. It is evidence that our world and universe is indeed very complex, and I can certainly understand how people could interpret that as a probable reason to believe in a divine God, but its NOT evidence. Saying "oh theres evidence but its beyond human comprehension" is a complete cop-out, because if something can't even be fathomed, it certainly can't be identified as evidence.

There IS, however, that grilled cheese sandwich with the Virgin Mary's face - now THAT is a sign :lmfao:

All jokes aside... Seriously, amuse me. Show me the proof.

DNA, Physics, and Mathematical Probability - just to start. Study it and determine the mathematical probability that it all happened by chance. They are almost completely impossible (nothing is completely impossible).
Now that does not say that it is the Christian version of God, or actually a "deity", rather, the odds of this universe coming into existence without some sort of external influence are very unlikely mathematically.
Also, just because something is beyond your capability to comprehend it, does not mean that no one else can.
Belief in the Christian God is completely taken on faith, and nothing else. Likewise, belief that the universe spontaneously came into being from nothingness must also be taken on faith, as it cannot be completely proven or disproven currently.

[David88vert]

I know what you're getting at, but personally I believe in evolution and that things did in fact grow and change from tiny insignificant organisms to produce what we are today. I have a big problem with the idea that God is the proverbial kid with a magnifying glass standing over an anthill. I do not think the Earth was created with human beings as a part of it, nothing has been found that points to any evidence of human life ever existing until fairly recently, considering the age of the Earth. If there is in fact, a creator, which I've stated is not impossible and I have not ruled it out, I wouldn't like to view it in the aspect that religion has put forth in that the Earth simply popped up with human life included. I don't believe in the Gods of religions because quite simply the way God is presented makes him/her/it to be a childish and maniacal douchebag with no concerns other than fulfilling self interest and power. It's not about accountability, it is about exclusively cherishing the life that we are given and not wasting it on living it to God's standards in fear of our day of judgement. I would rather value the time I am given here than spend it waiting for a supposed eternal life and being accountable for fulfilling God's wishes.

It's actually easier to disprove evolutionary theory than religion. Evolution involves finite observations, while religion only requires faith. Evolutionary theory as it currently exist is fatally flawed, as many observations poke huge holes in it. Granted, it is still an amazing hypothesis, and was written in a time when we did not have the power to observe and calculate as we do today. I am sure that it will be rewritten again and again as they gather more data. Only with observation and time can they determine if they wish to stick to a theory.

[Maniacc]

It's actually easier to disprove evolutionary theory than religion. Evolution involves finite observations, while religion only requires faith. Evolutionary theory as it currently exist is fatally flawed, as many observations poke huge holes in it. Granted, it is still an amazing hypothesis, and was written in a time when we did not have the power to observe and calculate as we do today. I am sure that it will be rewritten again and again as they gather more data. Only with observation and time can they determine if they wish to stick to a theory.
Theory this theory that.

When it comes to a scientific theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or that it's a theory with no evidence to back it up. Evolution, the big bang, they're all events that 'could've' taken place and just because someone says that it covered in flaws doesn't disprove it. Big bang - http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/bbt.php

Lemme add something else.

A lot of people may say that evolution has yet to be observed. Well, so much for THAT argument, eh? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I mean, if you guys want to see a monkey give birth to a human.

Then the type of evolution that you guys are looking for just can not be observed. And asking for it would be idiotic.

[Maniacc]

Again, some here demand 'evidence' of a God when they are in fact living with such evidence within them. The very demand of evidence is laughable. Its all AROUND US.

One can START by considering one minuscule item....say the endocrine system of the human body. The extremely delicate nature of the balance of body chemistry where just one minor detail being off screws up and/or kills the whole thing. Study that awhile.....Then add to that the millions of other lifeforms and THEIR delicate systems, all which must be in harmony with each other for life to continue...how each one fits perfectly within the system...and on and on. Eventually we'll get around to details within the earths foundation that are evidence of instant creation etc but for now just start with the stupidly obvious.

But of course...one might say...this all came about accidentally?? By chance???? Yeahhhhhhhh sure. Now thinking that is some faith if I ever saw it. Talk about faith in the face of evidence otherwise! LOL..

The list of EVIDENCE is virtually endless. One may prefer to read into that evidence what conclusion makes them happy...BUT to suggest that there is no evidence is plainly stupid.....and WISHFUL THINKING put forth by people who prefer that there be no God/Creator and subsequent accountability. ;)

Also...using the fact that man has free moral choice to act as evidence that there is no God is seriously flawed reasoning. That again is another piece of evidence that the Creator God of the Bible just may exist.

Please dont take any of this as an personal attack against anyone who might be atheist. I fully understand the typical reasons that persons often embrace that belief beyond a hope that there is no accountability. In my experience most have a reason...that typically being the misuse of religion and/or distortion of it.
It'll be pretty retarded to say that everything happened by chance and that everything was created by nothing. I understand why people will argue this. It's dumb and just doesn't make sense. But saying that the 'God' mentioned 'in' the bible was responsible for all of 'this' is also pretty dumb.

[David88vert]

A lot of people may say that evolution has yet to be observed. Well, so much for THAT argument, eh? http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html



Your example is that of a bacterium having a mutation, not the creation of a new species - they are still bacterium. There is a huge difference between the two. There are lots of mutations in this world, in fact, plenty of humans have them also. But that does not mean that you suddenly can go form homo sapiens to homo erectus. In fact, they can't even map all the genetic differences between the 2 species yet.

Show me a genetic change from one species to another. That is the core belief that one species can give birth to a new improved species. Show me one species that you can definitively show transformation through natural genetic mutation. Science has yet to find an observable link between 2 species as such. Currently, all "links" are not substantiated by genetics. They have yet to show that a naturally occuring genetic mutation improves a species, and can be passed on to future offspring, to the point of creating a new species.

[David88vert]

It'll be pretty retarded to say that everything happened by chance and that everything was created by nothing. I understand why people will argue this. It's dumb and just doesn't make sense. But saying that the 'God' mentioned 'in' the bible was responsible for all of 'this' is also pretty dumb.

On this, I understand your point completely. It is not necessarily the Christian God that created everything - if you are using scientific observation.
Any belief in a deity is just that - faith. And that is up to the individual.

[DrivenMind]

I'm not against spirituality, or having an appreciation for all the finer details that make up the world.

I simply don't think religion has anything to do with either of them. It would like to pretend it does, but it doesn't.

[Maniacc]

Your example is that of a bacterium having a mutation, not the creation of a new species - they are still bacterium. There is a huge difference between the two. There are lots of mutations in this world, in fact, plenty of humans have them also. But that does not mean that you suddenly can go form homo sapiens to homo erectus. In fact, they can't even map all the genetic differences between the 2 species yet.

Show me a genetic change from one species to another. That is the core belief that one species can give birth to a new improved species. Show me one species that you can definitively show transformation through natural genetic mutation. Science has yet to find an observable link between 2 species as such. Currently, all "links" are not substantiated by genetics. They have yet to show that a naturally occuring genetic mutation improves a species, and can be passed on to future offspring, to the point of creating a new species.
There was something similar a while back...

http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Feb04/r022004

Basically, they took e coli mutants that couldn't make the disulfide bonds needed to produce their flagella, dumped 'em in a petri dish for a game of Swim or Die. And sure enough, they managed to evolve flagella again, but this time with some other chemical instead of disulfides.

What I got from your post is that you're not going to be satisfied until you actually see an organism evolve into an even more complex organism. Or seeing a monkey walk up-right and show signs of intelligence. I mean dude, you know as well as I do that this requires time!

Just because we can't truly observe it doesn't mean it has mathematical errors. DNA similarities are there. What else do you have that can disprove evolution?

[David88vert]

If you understood genetics, you would understand that it is not mathematically probably for evolution. I can PM you some links if you like, or you can go search for earlier threads in the correct section, where this has already been addressed.
The time that you need for it to work will not fit into the physical limitations of our world. How old do you really think the sun can be in order for Mercury to exist? For the moon to exist? Do you realize the rate that the sun shrinks? Or that the moon is moving away from the Earth? Do you understand how that affects gravity, and how life is affected as well? Physics shows that the time that you are relying upon is not as large as you would expect.
Physics, mathematics, and genetics are just some of the issues that an evolutionary theory has to answer. However, if you wish to believe it solely on faith, that is up to you and is similar to those that believe in religion on faith.

[Maniacc]

If you understood genetics, you would understand that it is not mathematically probably for evolution. I can PM you some links if you like, or you can go search for earlier threads in the correct section, where this has already been addressed.
The time that you need for it to work will not fit into the physical limitations of our world. How old do you really think the sun can be in order for Mercury to exist? For the moon to exist? Do you realize the rate that the sun shrinks? Or that the moon is moving away from the Earth? Do you understand how that affects gravity, and how life is affected as well? Physics shows that the time that you are relying upon is not as large as you would expect.
Physics, mathematics, and genetics are just some of the issues that an evolutionary theory has to answer. However, if you wish to believe it solely on faith, that is up to you and is similar to those that believe in religion on faith.
I remember you talking about this in my God vs. Science thread awhile back.

What I'm saying is that we've already observed some things that could help out the evolutionary theory. No matter which way you look at it.

And yes, I am a little familier on how gravity plays a role in our galaxy and the universe. I'm not as dumb as other IA members lol.