Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Huntster]

There's nothing wrong with speculation per se, but do you have any evidence that they were subject to divine revelation?

Obviously not. Did you really have to ask that question? Didn't you know the answer?

I'm sure in their minds they were reasoning it out to the best of their abilities but the same can be said of physicians who bled people.

Physicians bleeding people is physical. And it isn't done anymore. Science has learned better.

Creation beliefs transcend the physical. And they live on, despite being the among the oldest records we have.

There are many creation myths throughout human history. How are we to determine which were inspired by gods and which were just mythology?

Describe three creation myths.

First of all, no honest scientist would claim to have an error-free blueprint for anything.

Any PEs out there want to comment on that statement?

All scientific knowledge is open to revision in the light of new evidence.

Yup. Evolution continues, whether you like it or not.

But the fact that we longed to know our origins and the workings of the universe at all eventually led to the discovery of the investigative methodology we call "science".

The discovery of the investigative methodology we call science was a process of evolution, as well.

We shouldn't begrudge our ancestors their superstitions any more than we should begrudge astronomers who believed the Earth to be the center of the universe. But those who still cling to superstition in the face of contrary evidence are little different from an astronomer who still clings to Geocentricism.

Or as Issac Asimove put it:

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

The shape of the earth is a physical phenomena. God and spirit are not.

Science isn't even in the game yet, and it doesn't appear to be interested or even able to learn the rules.

If that is enough "evidence" for some to reject the mere possibility of God and spirit, oh well. They can go "in science."

I'll go with God, and have science in my briefcase, too.

 

[The Atheist]

That is what I meant. It is quite refreshing that we have a religous person on this forum that argues both respectfully and with some thought put into his words, rather than meaningless bible - spouting (a la KK).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.

To me, this is like a good tennis match - I think I'm beginning to understand how Russians watch chess as a spectator sport.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Sceptic Realist
That is what I meant. It is quite refreshing that we have a religous person on this forum that argues both respectfully and with some thought put into his words, rather than meaningless bible - spouting (a la KK).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.

To me, this is like a good tennis match - I think I'm beginning to understand how Russians watch chess as a spectator sport.

Actually, may I question that quote?

Have I been respectful?

My, my, what has happened here?

 

[The Atheist]

Describe three creation myths.
Any PEs out there want to comment on that statement?

"First of all, no honest scientist would claim to have an error-free blueprint for anything." Being the statement in question.

I think that statement is just a little vague for my liking. If you change the last word to "everything", then it is 100% factual. As long as 2 + 2 = 4, I find the statement, as it stands, incorrect.

Yup. Evolution continues, whether you like it or not.

In response to: "All scientific knowledge is open to revision in the light of new evidence."
Again, a bit dodgy for me. There are some absolutes in science. I accept that Huntster reserves the right for his god to change science if need be, that being a fair interpretation what a god should be able to do to qualify for godliness. **

The discovery of the investigative methodology we call science was a process of evolution, as well.

Bang on.

I'll go with God, and have science in my briefcase, too.

**I think that's a fair trade off for me letting your god bloke change science at will, if he ever saw the need.

 

[The Atheist]

Actually, may I question that quote?

Have I been respectful?

My, my, what has happened here?

I'll let you in on a secret, I have had no less than TWO of my brothers convert to catholicism at their marriage, and a more pious, hypocritical pair, you could not wish to meet. Almost without exception, I've found Catholics I've met to be very similar.

Maybe it's the hemisphere, or maybe the cold weather, but you put me very much in mind, in terms of thoughtfulness, intelligence and attitude, of Rowan Williams, one of the very, very limited number of christians I have time for. Alas, while I've corresponded with him, it isn't often, as he's a pretty busy bloke and talking to a heathen on the far side of the world isn't a high priority for him.

It could also be an age thing - I have as little patience for younger, 100%-proof-demanding atheists as I do for fundies. You may have even noticed that!

Do you actually attend church often? Given your attitude, you must have very liberal priesthood up there, if you go and partake of services?

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Maybe it's the hemisphere, or maybe the cold weather, but you put me very much in mind, in terms of thoughtfulness, intelligence and attitude, of Rowan Williams, one of the very, very limited number of christians I have time for. Alas, while I've corresponded with him, it isn't often, as he's a pretty busy bloke and talking to a heathen on the far side of the world isn't a high priority for him.

Are you refering to Robin Williams? If so, tell me how I can reach him.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you refering to Robin Williams? If so, tell me how I can reach him.

Nope, Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Can't stand Robin Williams, never could. Is he a christian?

 

[Oroborus]

I don't really want to spend too much time getting involved in this debate. However there is something I wanted to say.

I would like to appluad both Trick and Hunt for not turning this into the standard venom filled reiligious debate. Honestly I think you're both being fair and without any of that so very typical obstinate atittude. Keep it up.


@Atheist I think he's an Episcopalian

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

I don't "know." Why is that so difficult for so many to understand? To "know" is to establish as fact. It's like the difference between "evidence" and "proof" (which you actually deny even exists).

I cannot know a matter which requires faith. And double-blind tests simply won't work. This is a field which, by definition, is super-natural, because it is not of the physical world.

Bullsh*t. It’s completely physical and you’re just embracing your own willful ignorance to avoid scrutiny.

What I care about is my faith, my spiritual growth, my relationship with the Almighty God, and I don't have to worry about anything else.

How do you have a one sided relationship?

Because He absolutely requires faith. Christ stressed it repeatedly, past the point of obviousness.

Evidence destroys faith, and enables knowledge.

I wonder if, in the next life, obviously not physical, if knowledge has no utility, and faith is absolutely essential, and that's why it's important to instill and grow here?

Then it wouldn’t matter which god anyone worshipped. Got your golden calf handy?

Your religion exists apart from all worldly things and is not subject to the same rules or the same scrutiny.

It transcends the physical universe, and is not subject to physical law.

Again this is complete and utter BS.

Ossai

 

[Freethinker]

The first part of Genesis certainly appears to be. Indeed, how can people at such a time reflect with authority upon things that occurred before the dawn of humanity?

In fact, how can they reflect on the creation of the Heavens and Earth at all, unless they just guessed, reasoned very well, were subject to divine revelation, or a mixture of the above?

I think that is obvious and don't disagree with you, but in an earlier post, you cited Genesis as your source of the fact that the god of Abraham created man. My whole point was that Genesis had to be allegorical and was useless as a cite for anything but the beliefs and legends of ancient times.

So humanity, from before the dawn of sentient man to the advent of modern science, should have been prohibited from reflecting on their creation because they weren't technolgically achieved enough to draw up that error-free blueprint?

Man must be perfect, or don't show up?

I'm not talking about man's perfection, rather god's, in that most believers claim the words of the bible to be in some way from god.

I'm going to be lazy and ask you to clarify what you believe the bible to be. I've looked back at several of your posts and it seems like you waffle from word of god to legend when it suits you. However, that doesn't seem like what you intend. Is it the word of god? Is it divinely inspired words of men? Is it a recording of some of the legends and beliefs of early Middle Eastern civilizations?

Some of your arguments sound much like the arguments of an atheist or agnostic right up until the last line where you indicate that you choose faith when it looks to me that the obvious choice is doubt.

I'm sure glad you aren't God. You're a lot more cruel than even people around here claim God is.

Holding people to high standards is as cruel as killing babies, killing thousands upon thousands of people and condemning billions of people to hell for eternity? Interesting take.

 

[Tricky]

And I don't need to rely on faith in many respects, but spirituality and God require either faith or doubt. I have chosen faith.

According to the Bible, Jesus loved doubters. Remember Thomas? It’s not an either/or question as regards faith and doubting. You have faith in some things. You doubt others.

Correct, but the old knowledge is already here, packaged, catalogued, and available. All one has to do is consume it, remember it, and reflect on it.

New knowledge requires discovery. That can be difficult and expensive stuff.
I'll leave that to the discoverers.

You don’t have to be a discoverer to learn from discoveries. Buy a copy of Scientific American, ya’ lazy cheapskate.

All of the knowledge of the last century doesn't interest me.

But a good deal of it does. And even if it doesn’t “interest” you, it affects you, much more so than, say, the Talmud. Even if you don’t admit it, new knowledge is more important to your life than ancient scripture.

And it wasn't "speech" that is "heard."

An independent observer? He/she couldn't possibly participate, at least I can't imagine how.

Well, not really. The revelation came at a certain, significant point in prayer, and was directly related to the focus of that prayer. It was too powerful to require faith. There was an aura of certainty, both in my prayer, and in the revelation. And my life changed significantly afterwards. The matter of faith regarding that incident wasn't necessary. The power of the event combined with the change afterward negated the need for belief.

But you see, your description of this epiphany in no way indicates that God had anything to do with it. Indeed, it could be said that it was “all in your mind”. If it made you a better person (and I’m not sure I would have wanted to meet you before this event, ) then I’m happy for you, but I still don’t see this as a reason to believe in your God or His son.

Actually, I'm not sure whether atheism is a religion or an anti-religion.

It is neither. Atheism is absence of religion. Of course, some atheists are also anti-religious, but that is a separate issue.

At any rate, yes; I reject it out of hand for me. I'm not open to the possibility that there is no God. Others are free to choose as they wish.

Your attitude is a common one. It is one of the struggles we atheists must face in our society. You are fully open to learning from religions other than Christianity, but completely closed to learning anything from atheism. Different God is okay for you, but no god is not.

I don't insist you do anything, although I hope the atheists honor your order to shut the **** up (at least those who like to belittle my faith).

They won’t. I’m not even sure that you are sincere about wishing they would, otherwise, why would you bait them as you do? You don’t fool me. You like arguing.

I don't "know." Why is that so difficult for so many to understand? To "know" is to establish as fact. It's like the difference between "evidence" and "proof" (which you actually deny even exists).

So, then, you agree that you are agnostic. I’m happy to see that.

BTW, I don’t say that “proof” doesn’t exist, but only that it doesn’t have real meaning in science. Mathematical “proofs” do exist, though I have been told by mathematicians that the proofs are actually just circular definitions.

I cannot know a matter which requires faith. And double-blind tests simply won't work. This is a field which, by definition, is super-natural, because it is not of the physical world.

Yes I know. You simply “choose to believe”. This is the problem I have with religion. It is not a tool for establishing truth, yet most religious people insist that it is. If you are not among them, then you are indeed a rarity.

They're not so much different as they are not as limited as the beliefs of many Christians.

I know lots of Christians. Trust me, you’re much different. Most Christians I know are of the “Kurious Kathy” variety. They never bother to examine their beliefs and don’t even know what the Bible says other than what they’ve been told by their priest or minister.

I don't. Nor do I care. Nor do I know or care if the Yahwist tried or not to create a following.

I mention the Yahwist because it was cited by you in a response to the question, “how do we know what happened before man was created?” The answer from educated theologians was essentially, “some person or persons sorted through the myths of the time and chose and rewrote the parts they liked.”

What I see is that you do the same thing. Whether or not you attract a following may depend on if you lose your sandal or give away your gourd.

What I care about is my faith, my spiritual growth, my relationship with the Almighty God, and I don't have to worry about anything else. It's all taken care of.

To borrow (inexactly) from Inherit the Wind, “I weep for the fate of mankind if everyone had your burning curiosity”.

Nope. Not only do I not deny it, I'll openly state that I won't knowingly vote for an atheist for any public office.

I’m sure that is true. You wouldn’t vote for an atheist if his only opponent was Jesse Jackson. But we atheists don’t have such options. We cannot vote for an “atheists only” slate, because there are none, or at least none who are “outed”.


I would have to say that your position on this make it appear that you care less about morality or good government than you do about labels. It does you no credit.

Oh, please; you know: (1) That the "science is a religion" tack isn't universal, and I don't imply that all atheists treat it as such.

Well, you’ve used “atheism is a religion” or “science is a religion” several times, as well as calling my beliefs “dogma”. If that was sarcasm or parody, then I must say it was not up to your usual standards.

(2) your warnings, any weakness others perceive in my "position", and "gentle" atheists aren't considerations to me. I'll write what I see, know, and/or believe. I don't give much of a damn what others think of me or anything else.

LOL. Don’t even try that. If you didn’t care what people thought of you, then you wouldn’t bother to post, and you certainly wouldn’t spend so much effort crafting your posts. This is time consuming stuff, as you well know, so don’t even pretend that you don’t care.

Still trying to turn my faith against me somehow? Hate religion so much you just can't stand the idea of someone who is enjoying it?

Personal attack? Those are a couple of frikken questions!!

LOL. Just questions, eh? Tell me, are you still beating your wife? It’s not a personal attack, it’s just a question.

I have no problem with the joys and pleasures of the flesh, and nor does the RCC doctrine. There is a big difference between the joys of the flesh, the sins of the flesh, and the flesh as an enemy of the spirit.

The Song of Songs? Why do you think it was included in the Bible? It is a beautiful celebration of love. There is no prohibition of lovers' joy in Catholicism. It is encouraged.

Ah, but the line between “joys of the flesh” and “sins of the flesh” is rather fuzzy. Sometimes you need a priest to know whether or not you’ve “sinned.” Frankly, I decline to hand over my choice of what is moral to another person.

I don't see how, if they differ from those set forth by Christ.

You don’t? How then do you explain that people who follow the same Christ as you, wind up with vastly different moral codes? Did they misunderstand Christ? Did you?

When I'm hunting or fishing in the woods, I don't eat amanita mushrooms, either.

Ah, so the “sampling the fruits” metaphor meant you are not looking for new knowledge, only “sampling” that which you are familiar with.

I'm not stupid.

(Tricky bites his lip. “Too easy”, he thinks to himself.)

Not really. Like I've repeatedly written, I don't watch much TV. Who knows? These idiots might be parroting some silly TV thing.

It’s not from TV as far as I am aware, but it is true that popular phrases tend to get repeated. (Hey, are we almost getting back to the topic of “Bumper Stickers”?) No, Huntsy, the “sky daddy” stuff is an example of that thing you love so much called “sarcasm”. I’m sorry you didn’t understand it, but the gap between sarcasm made and sarcasm understood is called “sarchasm”.

Great tools, too. And fun!

Even more so if the intended target understands it.

Because He absolutely requires faith. Christ stressed it repeatedly, past the point of obviousness.

Evidence destroys faith, and enables knowledge.

Then it sounds like Christ, as you describe Him, would be against evidence. Somehow, He didn’t strike me as a Luddite.

I wonder if, in the next life, obviously not physical, if knowledge has no utility, and faith is absolutely essential, and that's why it's important to instill and grow here?

And I wonder if there really are talking lions in Narnia. (There’s those fun tools again. )

How many miles do you allow before religiously changing oil and filter?

(This is a test of faith. The number of miles will reveal your faith).

3,000 (or 3 months). The filter is a given and accepted part of the ritual, just like you don’t mention the string on your rosary.

The lady I talked to was a looker, too. I didn't think much of sex. I know what Mrs. Huntster would think of that, and this woman had a real way-out look in her eyes. Kinda scary.

Well, I was young and unmarried. She didn’t look weird to me. She looked hot.

As a hypothetical question (and non-sequitur), what would you do if Mrs. Huntster became an atheist?

Computers have come about through evolution.

Good answer. However, the term “evolution” has come to mean “biological evolution” for many. So much so that it is almost necessary to state if you are using it otherwise. But my point was that some knowledge doesn’t interfere with your spirituality, and some (apparently) does. The dividing line seems to be that the knowledge must not directly contradict the Bible. Certainly that is the case for fundamentalists. I know you are not one of those, but you still appear to have your own litmus tests.

I don't reject evolution at all. I accept it, including human evolution.

Good, good. Is there any knowledge you reject?

I just don't accept it as it is widely recognized. In fact, I find the "Scopes" culture war foolish, and hold science and pseudo-scientists to blame for that along with fundamental Christians. Many of the Christians have a decent excuse for their foolishness (a lack of education), but science (holding itself as so intelligent in it's "evidence" and even "proof") isn't so easy to excuse, especially when the pseudo-scientists try to use it to attack my religious faith.

To which pseudo-scientists do you refer? What makes them a “pseudo-scientist”?

The physical is just another part of my own "trinity". There is good and bad with it, just like everything else.

Okay, just like everything else, what do you consider bad about your God?

Absolutely nothing.

Then you misspoke yourself. Also you fall back on dogma, a development which I regret seeing in you.

Your religion exists apart from all worldly things and is not subject to the same rules or the same scrutiny.

It transcends the physical universe, and is not subject to physical law.

I have not seen, in my experience, anything that transcends the physical universe. You and other religious people use this as a way to escape logic, evidence and inspection. It is the ultimate cop-out. But that being said, I do understand why such “faith mechanisms” are important to you and to most humans. Ms. Tricky sums it up well. “I couldn’t go on if I didn’t believe that there was something after death,” she says. Maybe she couldn’t (though I think she is stronger than she imagines), and maybe you can’t. Some people can.

Such is the nature of religion. I don’t agree with it, but I know the rules of the game. I used to play it myself.

You still do, whether you like it or not.

Back to the old “your beliefs are a religion” tack Hunny? Well, since you like religion so much, that should cause you to have more respect for my beliefs. Sadly, you’re very inconsistent in applying this standard.

You may not have control.

Oh please please please don’t turn this into another of the endless discussions of free will.

 

[Huntster]

....There are some absolutes in science. I accept that Huntster reserves the right for his god to change science if need be, that being a fair interpretation what a god should be able to do to qualify for godliness.....

I think "transcend" is a better word than "change." To me, "changing" implies something more permanent than "transcending", or rising above momentarily.

When one studies reported miracles they are always momentary events.

I thing God set up the physical universe in the way we know it, and is allowing it to go forth without a lot of manipulation, but spiritual will is powerful enough to transcend the physical. Christ Himself told his disciples that even humans are capable of such power:

Jesus said to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."

Do we see such power among humans? Nope. We hear of people who claim to have such power. This forum is brimming with doubt of such claims, and I share those doubts.

I think that illustrates how little faith even the faithful have, and how powerful the spirit can be, if it is able to rise above doubt and is exercised properly.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Do we see such power among humans? Nope. We hear of people who claim to have such power. This forum is brimming with doubt of such claims, and I share those doubts.

I think that illustrates how little faith even the faithful have, and how powerful the spirit can be, if it is able to rise above doubt and is exercised properly.

Wait, I'm confused. You say you have faith, then comment on how people who have faith really don't, then you doubt those who have full faith in what you were just making a point with?

 

[Huntster]

........Maybe it's the hemisphere, or maybe the cold weather, but you put me very much in mind, in terms of thoughtfulness, intelligence and attitude, of Rowan Williams, one of the very, very limited number of christians I have time for.....

This is kind of a semi-secret that I'll reveal. I'm actually rather hesitant to do so, because I don't want to see much more change:

It's my neighbors. Alaskans. The people. Especially outside Anchorage, which is still Alaska, but is much more like many American cities.

Alaskans are among the most down-to-Earth people on the planet. Rural Canadians are much the same. Basic, handy, honest, no BS kind of folks. Cultural refugees. Frontiersmen. They're quick to fight, then will give you the clothes off their backs.

Truly incredible.

It could also be an age thing - I have as little patience for younger, 100%-proof-demanding atheists as I do for fundies. You may have even noticed that!

I have. It's true.

Do you actually attend church often? Given your attitude, you must have very liberal priesthood up there, if you go and partake of services?

I'm a Sunday Catholic, with a few extra-participatory activities per year. I was an avid altar boy as a youth, and active liturgical minister (eucharistic minister, hospitality host, usher, lector/reader, administrative, etc.) through adulthood.

Our priests? Alaskans. Some incredible, some average, some boring. Here in Alaska they have incredible ministries. Very remote sometimes. The ones who do the remote thing definately come back to rural areas changed people.

I've had the distinct honor of becoming close to two very, very special priests. Both, in my opinion, are uncanonized saints (although one is still alive, and will probably outlive me).

I also became a penpal with a former (now deceased) Bishop of San Francisco, the brother of our own retired Archbishop. His first name was the same as mine. An incredible man and author, we met when he visited our rural parish to celebrate Mass (we didn't have a resident priest) and I was the lector that day. He asked me to write him, and he'd send me his coat-of-arms, which he did. I read a couple of his books, and exchanged letters with him for years. He always had time for me. His brother, our Archbishop at the time, was also an incredible man, and was a close contender for Alaskan of the Century.

Relationships with people like that can influence a person profoundly.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
What I care about is my faith, my spiritual growth, my relationship with the Almighty God, and I don't have to worry about anything else.

How do you have a one sided relationship?

If you don't be nicer, you're going to find out.

My relationship with God is not one sided. Your relationship with me is going in that direction, though.

 

[Huntster]

....in an earlier post, you cited Genesis as your source of the fact that the god of Abraham created man....

I cited Genesis as my source for my belief that the God of Abraham created everything.

What's more, I believe that the God of Abraham (as recognized by the tribes of Israel) is the same God of the Athabaskan peoples of North America, who is recognized differently. Etc for the rest of the world. Early peoples, for obvious reasons, recognized God differently. That continues today, and is fine by me.

Originally Posted by Huntster
So humanity, from before the dawn of sentient man to the advent of modern science, should have been prohibited from reflecting on their creation because they weren't technolgically achieved enough to draw up that error-free blueprint?

Man must be perfect, or don't show up?

I'm not talking about man's perfection, rather god's, in that most believers claim the words of the bible to be in some way from god.

I believe the words of the Bible are written by men who the early leaders of my church believed were inspired by God.

I'm going to be lazy and ask you to clarify what you believe the bible to be.

It's a collection of books/stories/poems/songs/historical accounts.

I've looked back at several of your posts and it seems like you waffle from word of god to legend when it suits you.

I believe it is both, and much more.

However, that doesn't seem like what you intend. Is it the word of god? Is it divinely inspired words of men? Is it a recording of some of the legends and beliefs of early Middle Eastern civilizations?

All of the above, and probably much more.

Some of your arguments sound much like the arguments of an atheist or agnostic right up until the last line where you indicate that you choose faith when it looks to me that the obvious choice is doubt.

As human, I reserve the right/fault/weakness of both faith and doubt.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm sure glad you aren't God. You're a lot more cruel than even people around here claim God is.

Holding people to high standards is as cruel as killing babies, killing thousands upon thousands of people and condemning billions of people to hell for eternity? Interesting take.

You took me wrong. You're not allowing ancient people to be wrong in details they could not possibly understand, then use their ancient ignorances of science to condemn the God they (and I now) loved.

And, again, God doesn't condemn people to hell for an eternity. The people condemn themselves.

Finally, all people die biologically. Period. You, I, and Christ are included.

 

[The Atheist]

It's my neighbors. Alaskans. The people. Especially outside Anchorage, which is still Alaska, but is much more like many American cities.

Alaskans are among the most down-to-Earth people on the planet. Rural Canadians are much the same. Basic, handy, honest, no BS kind of folks. Cultural refugees. Frontiersmen. They're quick to fight, then will give you the clothes off their backs.

Truly incredible.

Aha, now I have it completely. We're a bit like that down here, although it'd probably be fairer to say "were like that down here", because there isn't a lot of pioneering spirit left. It's the same thing which ties us so closely to the Aussies, until not many years ago, we were both dozy little backwaters peopled mainly by agrarian types. Nothing like working the land to give a sense of perspective and there's a lot more of it up there, and just a little harsher in climate.

Thanks for that picture in words, very informative. I can get the rural Canuck bit, too, as a number of them hang around NZ from time to time and my sister married one for a while a number of years back.

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

I cited Genesis as my source for my belief that the God of Abraham created everything.

Which god? Genesis actually mentions two and implies quiet a few more.

If you don't be nicer, you're going to find out.

Oh, see me shake and tremble because of the threat.

My relationship with God is not one sided. Your relationship with me is going in that direction, though.

Pointless, how about actually answering the question. How do you have a one sided relationship?

Ossai

 

[Freethinker]

Finally, all people die biologically. Period. You, I, and Christ are included.

I don't believe I said anything about mere dying. I was speaking of murdering people, as your god was quite fond of doing in the bible.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Obviously not. Did you really have to ask that question? Didn't you know the answer?

So no evidence at all then.

Physicians bleeding people is physical. And it isn't done anymore. Science has learned better.

Science has shown that a lot of old beliefs were wrong. For instance, that the Earth is fixed and unchanging and was created about 6000 years ago.

Creation beliefs transcend the physical. And they live on, despite being the among the oldest records we have.

How can they transcend the physical when they claim to explain the physical?

Describe three creation myths.

How about 57?

Yup. Evolution continues, whether you like it or not.

When did I say I didn't like it?

The discovery of the investigative methodology we call science was a process of evolution, as well.

Yes, it most certainly is.

The shape of the earth is a physical phenomena. God and spirit are not.

So one believes by choice not evidence. What about those with mutually exclusive faiths? Are you willing to admit that Hindus or Muslims are every bit as likely to be correct as Roman Catholics?

Science isn't even in the game yet, and it doesn't appear to be interested or even able to learn the rules.

The day science gets into that game or allows those rules to govern it is the day that science is corrupted to its own destruction. Science does not deal with the unobservable and immeasurable. That is why no good scientist will claim proof that there is no god, only that it is extremely unlikely. The Christian God is just as unlikely as any of the other "false" gods that Christianity denounces.

If that is enough "evidence" for some to reject the mere possibility of God and spirit, oh well. They can go "in science."

I, for one, do not reject the mere possibility of a god or spirit. I do not reject the mere possibility that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or and Invisible Pink Unicorn either. How do you feel about the possibility that there is no "God of Abraham" and that the Hindu pantheon is the true nature of gods?

I'll go with God, and have science in my briefcase, too.

But when element of the two contradict one another, which will you discard?

Steven