Moontanman

Soooo, you do not draw a line anywhere? Anything enough people tell you is probably true? How many people? Two? 100? 10,000? This is a serious question, where do you draw the line? For me the number of people who claim something is meaningless... If I went by numbers of people I would have to say that UFOs absolutely are alien space craft visiting the earth. Literally millions of people have seen them, I view religion the same way, lets see something more than what someone claims, claims are easy, evidence is hard. I was raised fundamentalist Christian, if i had a nickle for every claim of gods presence i have heard i would be rich for sure... I was told quite recently by someone I know and trust that a during church services they saw an angel walking down the center isle, no i don't mean a pretty girl either, several other people saw it too, interestingly no one saw it until one person claimed to have seen it... then several others "saw" it too....

That's not logical at all, all we know about is what we can observe, we have no idea of anything other than what we can observe. There are models that postulate that what we see as the universe is really only a small part of something else but these are models and cannot be tested at this time. But to say with any authority that nothing existed before the universe is as nonsensical as saying something exists outside the universe...

Questionposter, I will agree you do have a right to your own point of view, you do not how ever have a right to your own reality, many people claim many things, seriously, where do you draw the line?

So, what is your standard for accepting evidence? The number of people who tell you they've experienced something? Can anyone say alien abduction? I've heard it's very similar to what your brain looks like when you are having a conversation with yourself...

Where did ya park your squad car?

"If" is a very big word in that context....

This ad placement thing seems t happen quite a bit, i think you can pay to have your ad placed in certain places but I'm not sure. There is a war going on with in youtube. Creationist types are indeed doing things as mundane as trolling science channels and as sinister as false flagging videos they disagree with on a regular basis.

Well that would be the $64,000 question...

Mind control has not been implied here as far as i know. I see, preemptive thinking, lol Mind control has not been implied here as far as i know. I see, preemptive thinking, lol

if you believe that i have a bridge i would like to sell you. so now we are into alien dragons? Well it's not just my point of view, the idea of human rights is held by more than a few people. What does that have to do with applying human moral values to animals? You should investigate this further, this idea has been brought before the law makers of several states in the US, In Kentucky (i think) it has been passed that teachers can teach creationism if it's what they believe. Creationists are quite adamant that creationism should be taught along side evolution. To protect the rights of others? I don't see how this has anything to do with freewill. The god described in the bible is a psychopathic monster, if you can ignore the parts you don't agree with then you can go for it i guess. All i am saying is that if what you believe infringes on the rights of others then it cannot be tolerated. good for them All i have to go on is what people do, as i have said before if your religious views do not infringe on the rights of others than there is no problem. No one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, if you believe you do have the right to infringe on the rights of others then you are broken. yes it's a civilized belief based on harm to others not on belief in a god. Go for it, make up another religion, make another god, but the god will still be made up, why not just follow the rule of respecting the rights of others? let me ask you a question, where would you rather live, a place where you can believe as you want as long as your beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others or a place where some one's personal beliefs were enforced as law?

Hmmm, no definition of divinity has it that divinity can be less than all powerful? A great many gods have been believed in that were not all powerful, in fact I would venture to say that most gods of antiquity were less than all powerful. Thor, Loki, Venus, the list is quite long and none of them are all powerful.

That would depend on the speed of such processes, the concept of Gaea doesn't need instant response, in fact most of the responses would take place over a very long periods of time. Recent research has shown that virus's might be the most numerous creatures on the planet in both mass and numbers, in fact the number of virus particles is so huge that it might very well be impossible to know what all of them do. I have no doubt that if the Gaea hypothesis has any reality to it at all the ways the super organism influences the earth would be huge and the virus wouldn't be something our immune system would see as an invader since it is part of us. I'm not sure how this applies to this idea.

Questionposter, i know you think you are being intelligent by saying there is a .0000000000000000000000000001 chance that dragons exist but that is stupid to say that. Dragons do not exist, many reasons why not, not the least of which is that they do not fit in with life on earth. there are no vertebrates with six limbs on planet earth. No creature that large could possibly fly, they spew fire out of their mouths, they are a myth or misinterpretation of other animals but no dragons exist. If is a huge word questionposter, i will not assume god exists so you can postulate impossible things as real. It's an animal, human rules do not apply. Actually a great many creationists are saying just that... Why not? And i say why if god can do anything did he have to kill all the animals on the earth? why not just make the wicked vanish? But it goes far beyond that, the bible only mentions land animals, it says nothing about fish and invertebrates all of which would have been killed by said flood. in fact the bible, by saying the animals had to be saved, shows that that concept of god was limited in power. please, now you say you have talked to more religious people than i have as evidence I am wrong, seriously? You keep saying that Christianity hates science and that i am saying that theists are bad people, i doubt you can make good on either of those claims. You need to come down off that arrogant high horse and realize that just because someone don't agree with you doesn't mean that they haven't looked into religion. you also need to stop putting words in my mouth. reread the list i posted, realize that I do not condemn people who believe in god, only those that would force those beliefs on others. You can believe in anything you want as long as you don't use those beliefs to infringe on my rights as a human being. Sadly most religions require that you infringe on the rights of those who do not agree. this is true to the point that different groups, within for instance Christianity, have gone as far as killing members of other groups of Christians. other religions do the same, where does it end?

I personally do not see any logic in the idea of god or gods but lots of things that are true seem illogical to me. The idea that you can assume that god is real as an axiom and then use that to prove god is broken to me. I can proclaim the idea of dragons being real as an axiom but dragons will still not be real. I take all mod notes seriously, you should as well if you want to continue on this forum... You do not understand what I am saying, if you want to believe that killing flies is wrong, by all means don't kill flies, if you think your beliefs should dictate whether or not i should kill flies then you are broken. But killing other humans to eat them is harming others, my assertion is that as long as your beliefs do not harm others then you have a right to believe them. Killing humans for food seems a bit outside that idea. If you think creationism should be taught as science then you have a problem, if you insist on it then you are broken. None the less, religion is ok as long as you don't harm others with it. it can be as illogical or logical as possible but most religions do indeed infringe on the rights of others. As i pointed out you or me do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we believe something. You have not shown religion to be logical in anyway so far and you have yet to show any evidence of your assertions other than your assertions. You have claimed many things about the bible and religion in general that you cannot back up with anything but assertions, evidence is required to show the idea of god as real. But you do not have the right to dictate what others can or cannot do because of what you believe... The number of people who believe in something is irrelevant to the truth of that belief... Yes, i would agree that there is intelligence in the universe, i have no idea what you mean about quarks... This makes no sense, evidence shows we evolved, there is no evidence of a creator. I came from my parents, if you were created in some other way i think you should tell us so you will be famous. This is nonsensical, the laws of the universe allow these things but to say the universe knows these things makes no sense. I ask you with no deception what so ever, please show us this evidence. No, they are simply asserting the truth. There is no evidence of any god or pantheon of gods or goddesses. I don't remember impossible characteristics being on my list...

Who said the main arguments against religion was that it is illogical, Mr. Spock? Humans do lots of things that are illogical and as long as that doesn't harm someone else there is no problem with it. Humans are murdered everyday, if you think it's logical to kill someone does that make it ok? No, the only way to approach this problem is to allow anyone to believe in what ever they want as long as it's impact on others is insignificant. The main argument against religion is that there is no evidence it is true, not that is it illogical...

It doesn't matter, those are my personal beliefs, they do not depend on how many others agree. I base it on respecting the rights of others, I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how I believe. it doesn't really matter what I or you believe in, none of us has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how we believe... As long as your belief doesn't infringe on my rights or my belief doesn't infringe on your rights then we can believe in what ever we want.... Logic doesn't have to be a part of it...

I think there are degrees to this idea of "broken" If you are religious and believe the bible or any other holy book or teachings is the inerrant word of a god even though it is demonstrably wrong about many things then you have a problem. If you think your religion deserves some sort of respect that no other religion deserves then you have a problem. If you feel like this respect should be the enforced then you have a problem. If you feel like it's your right to proselytize your religion but no one else does then you have a problem. If you feel like anyone who violates any behaviors you think your religion demands should be punished in some way you have a problem. If you think your religion deserves to be taught to everyone's children in public schools you have a problem. If you think your religion should be the law of the land then you have a problem. If you think your religion is true and it gives you special privileges then you have a problem. In other words if you think your religion should be used to suppress the rights and privileges of others and give the members of your religion special rights and privileges then you are broken...

I have heard the argument that intelligence might be more likely to evolve in the form of a humanoid, much like the idea that a dolphin, an ichthyosaur, a shark, and a tuna are shaped the same way due to their environment. The idea is that our body shape is best for a tool using intelligence. I'm not sure if that can be supported in anyway but the main thing to remember is that even though all these animals have the same general body shape they are in fact quite different and even if an alien intelligence was humanoid it's doubtful our sex organs would be compatible even if they looked human enough to be sexually desirable... Humanoid could mean bigfoot, or something like this dinosaur... It seems unlikely that something that evolved on another planet would be sexually appealing to a human (then again some humans are sexually attracted to animals and even inanimate objects) One thing is for sure, even if they looked exactly like us cross fertilization would be about as likely as us reproducing with a pine tree, actually the pine tree would be more closely related genetically...

Can you show me anymore evidence for your God more than any other god or even fairy tale? This is a strawman, no one claims that something came from nothing, we simply don't know what the universe came from. Science does not claim there is no creator, just that there is no evidence for one. Science is not in the game of propaganda. Again with the strawmen, Scientism? Pure chance? Something from nothing? Evolutionary processes are not pure chance. Scientists who ask the right questions are persecuted? You seriously need to support those assertions. But you need to do it in another thread, in this on it is off topic... This is a good point, I'm not sure if any studies have been done to see if humans are being influenced by a Gaea type god. It may be more likely that we are more like a cancer, an uncontrolled growth of organisms that are taking over the earth. There is also another possibility as well and this is even more far out but could humans be the way that a Gaea type organism would try to reproduce it's self? We have the ability to spread earth life with us as we spread into the solar system and the galaxy. Where ever we go we take our animals with us, it is one of the characteristics of humans. If we spread out via Terra forming other planets or artificial habitats we would probably take our ecosystems with us, admittedly on a smaller scale but with out intelligence Gaea cannot reproduce.

Your slant on this is in the minority but more importantly it does nothing to support the reality of god or the idea that people who believe in god are broken or not. You or anyone else can interpret the idea of god or gods all you want, you can twist it to mean anything and people often have but it still ignores the fact that you are believing something extraordinary with no evidence what so ever... That is your assertion, you have shown nothing to support that assertion other than your assertion. in fact the idea that the flood was indeed limited and described in other earlier cultures tends to indicate that god is simply an idea, not a reality and that god is nothing more than a made up concept no different that Thor or Zeus or any other god that has been placed on the dust bin of outdated ideas.

No, the reality of the situation is that Noah's Ark is easily shown to be a fairy tale with no basis in reality. No, in the past those people were mainstream, they were not fringe groups, they were the church. you were the one that claimed that god was most likely real because he could not be disproved. Being ridiculous has nothing to do with it, there is no evidence that supports the reality of a god or gods. Belief does not support reality, you can believe in the hollow earth or a geocentric solar system but belief does not make anything true. None the less, if you start out with a flawed axiom then your conclusions are flawed as well. I don't believe they are real but if they are real do then god is a ravening psychopathic monster. Now you are being insulting, i think it's called a personal attack, that is against the rules here, please read them again. yet another personal attack please stop being insulting please show some evidence of this other than your assertions Then god is dishonest... What people believe about god is not evidence of gods existence Again, this is meaningless in this conversation.

H2O, none of what you have asserted is evidence but besides that your argument has been debunked he many many times. Believe it or not you have presented nothing new and many of us on here are very familiar with your argument. You are off topic and proselytizing, this is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up here. If you want to assert your 'evidence" of god there are many threads already here to do that. This thread is not about debating the existence of your favorite fairy tale.