Now about why we are here. I have one evidence ( i don’t know if it is considered “evidence”) which disproves that the universe and humans were created by “chance”, and at the same time has somewhat an idea of why we are here. If you think about it…. why does mating have a pleasant feeling? Did you ever think why…. do you think pleasant feeling is only there for people to get entertained? Ofcourse not. This pleasant feeling is only with humans because they have the choice to do what they want unlike animals who have their life dedicated to do certain things and daily routines which they do not mentally control. Like if mating didnt have a pleasant feeling would someone ever bother in pracising it, no because they have the choice not to…. anyway back to the point. This pleasant feeling ensures that mating constantly takes place in humans to preserve the human population, and why is that? because Man was created for a certain task and goal, which is to construct this world…. and ofcourse religion has a main influence here, but i think i should introduce it when you are convinced with what i am saying. So do you think that by chance, the human was created with it’s “self-characteristic” of preserving it’s population and so has a certain goal in hand. Ok ok you say that all organisms have their own ways of ensuring their population to survive, well yes as well because the human will not live without these other organisms, it’s an interlinking community with Man being most Intelligent and so because Man is most Intelligent and has the brain power to choose whatever he wants, then God created Man with this characteristic of pleasant feeling during mating to keep it’s population surviving and to construct this world. You see now I have introduced religion here, but i had to because there is no other source of convincing you. And again, im telling you it is good to think about this and many other things, but when you reach a point when you think…. oh who’s God and I dont see him and How was he created?!! Stop yourself because you are crossing the boundaries of your brain. How can you use your brain to think about the creator of your brain? No way.

There are many othe evidence for this and how religion really has the answer for your convincing, but you should look at things more deeply and don’t just take the opinions or comments of other people and agree. Becuase im telling you, if u really want to gather religious information, the Internet is not a good source because it is too open for anyone whoever wants to talk about anything, and anyone here inculdes people who want to mislead you, or think they are saying the truth but actually are putting you deeper into falseness.

If i want to say anything in it’s fullest form, i’ll be talking and talking forever, so i will stop here. Thank you for taking your time and using up your patience to read this. (by the way: what i said is not just “my opinion”, it was based on reading and information gathered from reliable sources)

thanks again

I was referring to the article Wolverine posted. Click on his link in this post:

Wolverine Says:
February 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Speaking of wilful ignorance

Yup, no doubt about your “digging for gold” comment.

Don’t feel too bad – we have a healthy supply of US based “missionaries” bringing fellowship, love, and tithing.

Hopefully, Australians aren’t as gullible.

Don’t feel too bad – we have a healthy supply of US based “missionaries” bringing fellowship, love, and tithing.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons”

While I don’t doubt the veracity of that, there still aren’t members of parliament or the senate tabling bills to get ID shoved into schools, or evolution pushed out, which was my point.

I’m well aware that there are plenty of people in the western world who, for whatever reason, choose the supernatural over the logical – but outside the USA, those people more-or-less keep quiet unless you ask them directly.

Speaking of wilful ignorance…

That article is absolutely frightening. WTF are we coming to? The damage these people are doing to our future scares the h*** out of me.

I’ll think of Ken Ham at lunch today when I bite into my ham sandwich.

What’s so wrong about being descended from apes…? It connects us to the great chain of being, the Tree of Life. It means we’re an integral part of nature and the world, and that what we do in and to the world affects us and our existence….

For many, I’m afraid that’s the problem. Many people want to thing that humans are above the rest of the world. These people cannot see that humans are unique regardless of origin and are likely afraid that if they admit that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that humans evolved from something “lower,” then we are no longer unique and special. Once that happens, their “faith” is destroyed, and life begins to have no meaning. (Disclaimer: this is not to say that many cannot have both religious faith and a respect for science, the above statements only apply to those who cannot handle both that I have observed.)

Trevor Wood says:

Looking at the USA from a distance (Australia) one has an impression of a country with a deep underlying belief in the supernatural…

With all due respect, Trevor, can you please not send us any more Australians like Ham.

“Answers in Genesis is the biggest of these ministries. Ham co-founded the nonprofit in his native Australia in 1979.”

As someone (in The Grifters? ) said, “Stupid and greedy, my favorite
combination!”

I suppose it’s all about education and suchlike but to be honest USA, sometimes you make even your friends uneasy!

I can’t disagree. It’s not always easy seeing what’s being done in my name.

beskeptigal Says:

A little too much Red Dwarf there Irishman?

lol! I suppose you could say this bill sounds a bit like an Arnold Rimmer idea…

I suppose it’s all about education and suchlike but to be honest USA, sometimes you make even your friends uneasy! When God tells your President to push the button, who’s to argue?

Well, if that’s the truth, then I suppose I’d want that taught. We don’t get to vote on the truth. I mean, if we can vote, I’d rather be descended from cats. Cats are so much cooler than apes. Okay, they don’t have thumbs, but if cats ever developed thumbs we’d be in trouble. They already know they’re better than us. Wait, that’s why they have us – we’re the cats’ surrogate opposable thumbs.

What’s so wrong about being descended from apes, who are descended from other mammals, descended from reptiles, descended from amphibians, descended from fish, descended from cyanobacteria? It connects us to the great chain of being, the Tree of Life. It means we’re an integral part of nature and the world, and that what we do in and to the world affects us and our existence. It means that all life is precious as it is, in some sense, us. It means that what makes us unique is not the means of our existence, but only the form and extent. It’s a far more amazing thing to realize that we can study and understand how we got here and where we came from, not merely chalk it up to popping out of nothingness on a random Tuesday. I find that a much more meaningful and satisfying answer.

My response to comments like that of Buttars is that I much rather claim to be more closely related to apes than to people like Buttars.

If someone chooses to be ignorant, that’s their prerogative. I just wish they didn’t then expect to be able to tell others how to live their lives, or consider themselves to be in a better position to judge what should or should not be taught in schools.

Unbridled ignorance nauseates me.

“It is important to make clear that physical reality attaches to the ideas and images of God and that they exist in the natural realm (i.e., the model-image is real). In contrast, the prototype is nonreal (nonexistent). Mechanistic naturalism is not atheistic; it does not deny the existence of God. Quite to the contrary, is has a rational position for all God-models within the total mechanistic system.”

Strahler may not think of this as atheism, but I imagine most Christians (and indeed adherents to most of the world’s major religions) would probably disagree. For the most part, believers do not think of themselves as worshiping the “model-image” of a god. They worship God himslef. (Yes, for most it is a him.) They believe God to be a real, genuine, extant being with an objective reality which extends beyond the neurochemical processes taking place in their own brains. No Christian is going to be comfortable with the suggestion that God wouldn’t exist if no one had ever thought of him!

After all, this exact same line of argument could just as easily be applied to unicorns, elves, and Santa Clause. While some people (myself included) may be comfortable putting “God” on that same list, most of the world (myself included) would certainly consider those people to be atheists.

and

BTW, ‘eh’ is not a myth. I live close enough to Canada to hear ‘eh’ and ‘aboot’ on a regular basis. Perhaps it’s a BC thing, eh?

are my only statements in the above post.

I left off a couple “” marks and my obsessive-compulsive nature is forcing my fingers to the keyboard to make this correction. Can’t …..resist….ahhhh.

It’s … one of the areas where Americans are very different from Canadians … It’s certainly an area where the US is substantially different from the UK, even though the UK doesn’t even have separation of church and state (actually, neither does Canada)…

…If an MP in Britain tried to table a private member’s bill to have creationism taught along-side evolution, or to “teach the controversy” or something similar, I’m sure the Queen herself would smack him upside the head with her mace… and she’s the head of the Church of England as well as head of state….

text guzzler Says: “Evolving Squid, you’re right on target: It’s a cultural issue, not a religious one.”

Perhaps you both should not be so sure this “cultural issue” isn’t spreading.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
“Britons unconvinced on evolution, Charles Darwin (PA)
Over 55s were less likely to opt for evolution than other groups
Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons”

BTW, ‘eh’ is not a myth. I live close enough to Canada to hear ‘eh’ and ‘aboot’ on a regular basis. Perhaps it’s a BC thing, eh?

And there is an organized effort to inject the Christian religion into all areas of government as well, time to call that spade too.

“though to be honest I wish people would simply call a spade a spade: creationism is wrong, and writing it into laws is a First Amendment violation.”….”(Dr. Plait)

Perhaps more scientists should be less afraid to confront religion with the tools of science as well. Earth sciences tiptoe around religious issues. Rather than saying there is no evidence for gods we say science doesn’t address gods. (We can make both statements.) Social sciences tiptoe around religious issues as well. Rather than saying there is anthropological evidence the Bible arose in a limited geographic area and until recently represented the beliefs of the people in that area alone, we do the research but ignore the obvious conclusion. Just as a multitude of parallel religious beliefs developed in other geographic areas the Bible is not qualitatively different from any other religion. If science has no trouble calling Zeus a mythological being, science should have no trouble calling ‘God’ a mythological being. [Raise the force shields, Spock, ready for attack. ]

There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for the theory of evolution. That statement maintains the terminology and gets past the public’s ignorance about that terminology. J.C., you need to catch up your school evolution education with the genetic sciences that have since added overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

Mechanistic naturalism, while I like the rest of your post, Chet, sounds like merely another term for cognitive dissonance.