SeVeR

Belief in a possibility is not the same as faith, which is belief in a certainty.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

NBV: If you believe something that has a wealth of evidence in support of it, then you are not stupid. If suddenly a load of new evidence comes out in support of the opposite !@#$%^&*umption, then you are only stupid if you fail to change your mind after evaluating the new evidence. Thus, my logic is simple, follow the evidence when it becomes available. It may turn out that Christianity was true all along, but non-Christians are not stupid for not believing in Christianity because the evidence doesn't point to it at this moment in time. Good question. Currently, we have found many extra-solar planets using Earth-based telescopes, and so the evidence for believing there are more planets to be found is growing stronger! Statistically we may have observed a thousand stars with close enough precision to detect planets, and found that 30% have planets. Thus, it would be an intelligent guess to say that 30% of all the billions of stars in our universe have planets. When new evidence becomes available we will be able to refine our estimates. So no, its not stupid to believe we will find thousands more planets at the moment. It's worth mentioning the scale of a belief. Believing in God can be a simple inconsequential belief that has no effect on the actions of the individual. How can someone who says "I believe in God, but don't do anything about it" be stupid in comparison to someone who says "I believe in God and have altered my entire life to his worship". Obviously the second person has a little more faith in their belief. This is therefore important when asking the question about the existence of extra-solar planets. Some scientists will say "I believe we will find thousands more planets", but they won't stake their life or their reputation on it. A better example. If someone devoted their life to the belief of aliens (like these UFO nuts) then i would say they are being stupid. If someone wrote a paper on evolution at the molecular level and compared the findings with a spectroscopic analysis of extrasolar planets (that we could get from our telescopes in the same way we do for stars), and found a match, then i would call that evidence. One must also count our existence on Earth as evidence that planets can support life. Thus there is a small amount of evidence that requires a small degree of consideration. One would certainly be stupid to have faith! A Greek scientist called Eratosthenes calculated the cir!@#$%^&*ference of the Earth over 2000 years ago using sticks and shadows. But lets be clear that a theory is not a belief. I think you're confusing theory and belief again. You can make a theory from the smallest amount of evidence. The next step is testing the theory. The very fact that you're testing the theory means that you don't believe it until you get the results of the test!

Memory: I find it far more interesting that you would believe me to be an atheist rather than an agnostic for the sake of calling me a hypocrite. It says alot about you. Believing what one wants to believe is a common characteristic among Christians. I know what i believe, and you can either trust me or not. But i ask you, how can someone that doubts everything be anything other than agnostic? An atheist believes there is no God, and that is an !@#$%^&*umption for which there is no evidence. For the sake of this discussion, trust me; for the sake of your ego, don't. What i'm saying applies to most religions and most Gods. In the words of the Greek philosopher Xenophanes: "No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even know they had done so" In other words there are no known truths, but truth must exist for us not to know about it. This is what you originally said:"I must conclude that the argument is for something that does not physically exist, and is therefore irrational." Then i said: "You mean immaterial" I then gave you a definition of immaterial which, is "something that does not physically exist". It seems to fit... Nice of you to say. How? Actually, no. God, by Christian definitions, is timeless and knows the future. He created a world where certain people would "find the Lord" and go to heaven, whereas others were destined for eternity in !@#$%^&*. Thus, we never were created equal. Its best to choose at this point, either God is not omnipotent and doesn't know the future, or all men were not created equal. It was an example of how doubt can pervade every !@#$%^&*umption. The example doesn't reserve any special treatment for the idea of omnipotence. Please explain the paradox of which you speak. Exactly, but you don't have to desire it do you. It's possible to find reasons to doubt anything. Desiring to doubt something may help you doubt it, but ultimately desire has no place in logic.

Jesus never censored/killed/stopped the devil did he?

Well yes, a ban in public places such as bus-stops, pubs, banks, and so on should be enforced. But smoking in the comfort of your own home or out on the street away from crowds of people if fine in my opinion. I know what you mean about pubs though. I hate the way the smoke makes my clothes smell the day after.

So you're going to tell you what i believe now? Look no further than the definition of an agnostic to see why i am so anti-Christian. I am agnostic because i despise faith and the propagation of !@#$%^&*umptions through religion. If i were an atheist then i would be nothing but a hypocrite. I know you understand this, as it's what you were trying to make a point about a few posts ago. All Gods, any God. I suppose if one believes that something is not worth believing, then that is a belief. I guess the only truth we know is that no other truths can be known. One !@#$%^&*umption based on everything reality indicates... i guess that's faith in it's most singular form, but no-one is infallible are they. Look it up. It doesn't just mean irrelevent or inconsequential. It has a second meaning that describes God quite well. (not material; incorporeal; spiritual; Having no material body or form; not consisting of matter) You still don't understand what i'm getting it. All people have an idea of what is possible for them to achieve in their life-time. This limit on achievement is what i speak of when i say perfection. The perfect human and the perfect God are two different things. A Christian believes that their limits are far superior to non-Christians (heaven), and they believe they know the path to getting there (words of the Bible). Surely you can see how this "rule-book to paradise" provided by Christianity can be appealing to beings such as ourselves. There is no amount of evidence that can produce absolute faith. However, there are near-certainties that we accept without too much quibbling. If God were to appear to me at my death and assign me to an after-life then i would accept him. However, he may just be an advanced being with limited power, who has managed to harness the passage of the (as of yet) undiscovered human soul. Christianity may be true in every !@#$%^&*umption apart from God being omnipotent; indeed if "God" told the Bible-writers such lies, what reason would they have not to trust him. So, as i said earlier, there is ALWAYS a reason to doubt. That is all of which i am certain.

There is no proof of anything. There is only evidence to indicate the likelihood of truth. Believing in a truth because it is supported by evidence is not stupid. Believing in a truth which is supported by no evidence at all (or very little evidence) requires stupidity. BTW, you reply too quickly, i sometimes edit my posts.

Thanks, what i meant was there is "no evidence for God" (editted last post accordingly). This is not the same for other philosophical issues; at least not the kind i like to debate. In fact by saying there is no proof, you also say there is no wrong. At least there is no wrong known to us. That i agree with.

To say otherwise would mean that you don't think it's right to be gay. I obviously think it's fine to be gay (and that's what i meant by my post). People can choose how they want to live. You disagree?

TJ: So would you say that living in this way is what God wants you to do? Would you say that following the orders of the most perfect being in the universe is the best thing to do? Certainly a better thing to be doing that not living how he wants... yes? Every man has a limit on what he wants from life. My perfect life would be wealth, security, freedom, love and so on. Your limits are obviously higher, as your reward is heaven. We must both agree that going to heaven and living forever in paradise is an end-point that far surp!@#$%^&*es anything on Earth. Your quest for this level of perfection is laid out for you by the Bible, and the end-point is known to you. Surely then you recognise the psychological implications of believing in a rule-book to paradise... and how naturally desirable that is to any human being. I never thought it would spark such debate, it was more of a joke actually. But the fact is, there is no evidence for God, and therefore any belief in God is based on suc!@#$%^&*bing to some level of stupidity. I won't go into examples, but so far i haven't met many Christian intellectuals, and as i said elsewhere on this forum, i've encountered more than an average number of Christians who can't use the English language properly.

Memory: So because i don't believe in God i am religious? Before you answer, i'm not an atheist either. God might exist, but there is no evidence either way. I make the choice not to believe. How can a choice and a belief be the same thing?!?!? You mean immaterial... If you follow God's plan enough to get to heaven then you are as perfect as a human being can possibly be. Human beings desire a purpose and a way of improving themselves to the maximum extent that they believe to be possible. Religion gives us this path to perfection. So i don't understand why you think this perfection can never be fulfilled, as Christians outwardly believe that it can! But Christians believe God's level of perfection is unattainable. Perfection for man is eternal life in heaven. Even my goals are not that high.

good for them

That's true about self-esteem. When Americans talk of taking an exam it's always like "I got 97%" or "What? You only got 60% in your exam, you must suck". What they don't realise is, American exams are full of easy questions to build self-esteem, while European exams have a low p!@#$%^&* grade but with much more difficult questions to stretch the student. The p!@#$%^&* grade in English university examinations is 40%, the maximum degree level is for 70% and anything over.

The Bible tells you how to live. Therefore it gives you a path to perfection that is decided upon by the most perfect being in the universe. If you ask a Christian what the most worthwhile thing to do in your life is, it would be to become a Christian and follow the Bible. And it is a path to perfection. What else do you call following a path that God laid out for us, with heaven as the end-point. Christianity is not only for the poor; you obviously didn't read too well. It's also for the young and the desperate. Those who have suffered a huge emotional loss or are in psychological turmoil are prone to the promises of religion. More importantly though, the young are easy to convert, and are not guaranteed to be poor when they are older. So yes, thank-you for your point about there being some rich Christians, but it's quite irrelevant. Christianity and intellectual are two words that should never be in the same sentence. Where did you get that idea?

One of the greatest drives of any human being is the need to improve oneself. Thus, much of our time is spent learning new things, going to the gym, using cosmetics to improve our appearance, or picking up social skills. Indeed, it is natural for us to show our "best face" in order to win over potential mates. The path to perfection is a continuing source of human effort. What then would be the appeal of believing in the combination of human and divine within a single en!@#$%^&*y? Quite obvious i would think. Jesus, our man-god, is the path to perfection that our biology so craves. Christianity is designed to play on our natural biological urges for the purpose of conversion to that system of belief. Why aspire to be succesful and strong in every-day life when perfection, eternal life, moral goodness, ultimate knowledge, safety and security are a leap of faith away? Why do you think the ill, desperate, weak and young turn to religion? Religion is the real temptation.

You can never ban something based solely on the number of deaths it causes. It has to be deaths as a percentage of usage. For instance, car accidents cause more deaths than drugs but cars are used billions of times every day by millions of people. Thus, the car is not a very dangerous object when looking at how often it's used. I imagine choking to death on bones within food, or bee stings cause alot of deaths too, but we're not going to ban those. So the point is, millions of people use tobacco, and if the same number of people used drugs then we'd see a much bigger rate of people dying from drugs than with tobacco. Thus drugs are more dangerous than tobacco and are more deserving of a ban.

1. I didn't ask for sources. 2. I really don't have time to read papers on sociology when i'm doing a physics phd. 3. i made a simple point, and if you've read the paper then you'll be able to counter accordingly without me having read it. 4. You're beginning to make me think i've pointed out a serious flaw in your source.

Good question, but it's not standards of morality, it's standards of status. Iran is a religious country, but so are alot of other countries. They don't commit human rights offences, they don't attack other countries, they don't attack their own people. Yet they have a status, developed largely by the western media, as some sort of evil, terrorist breeding, jew hating, nuke building, war-mongering bunch of racist Christian killers. So i have a problem with that status. Jews are welcome and feel welcome in Iran (largest population in the Middle East apart from Israel). Iran co-operates with the IAEA on the nuclear issue, and this representative agency of the UN has even said there is no evidence whatsoever of nuke-development. They haven't invaded any other countries and they're a peaceful state. Charities have existed for years and always end up doing more harm than good. Have you ever had a bird-feeder in your garden? The birds will use it and become dependent, just like the people in Africa do. They lose their capacity to help themselves in what little way they can by taking whats given to them. Now ask yourself if charities tend to help people out of poverty? Typically, no. They have food for a month, they bring another starving child into the world, the problem gets worse, they go back into starvation. Charities don't help people, they prolong the misery. If the weak are too weak to stay alive then let them die, and if you want to help them, then help them to help themselves. I believe in empathetic acts, but only when that smiling face will still be smiling in 50 years. Charity is deemed to be the ultimate good, but it's clear to me that it's incredibly pernicious if it's just for the sake of believing you're doing a good thing. Charity has to be interpreted with a survivalist at!@#$%^&*ude: i.e. help the weak to become strong, so that you may have a strong ally. Iran is deemed to be the ultimate evil, but it's clear to me that their image is greatly exagerated. I feel that image is being used to unfairly restrict their advancement. I dislike their mixture of government and religion, and i dislike their laws, but i'm not going to let that bias my judgement of what the other side is doing. So it's an objection to status. Things are not the way they're made out to be. I've come to understand that everything has a purpose, even religion, even corruption. If you see the world through what i call 'survivalism', then you'll see that the bankers who hold a noose around America's kneck are not "evil", they're simply doing what they can to remain number one. Surely then it is our natural duty to topple them from their position, and do exactly the same thing, but better. It's not evil, it's survival. So i couldn't really say that i hate anything, just like i couldn't call anything evil. It's beyond good and evil. If someone were to threaten my life, i'd kill them, i wouldn't hate them, and i probably wouldn't have any qualms about doing it either. Hate just seems so... irrelevent. Survivalism may seem harsh and selfish but consider this: In a world of war, anger and hatred, survival is more difficult.

Iran is an extremely religious country, and i cannot support that kind of regime. Bush is either stupid or a liar, i'm more swayed to believe the former. The Federal Reserve is powerful, greedy, and if the full details of what they do were known to the American people, they wouldn't exist. However, they're not evil, they're at the top of the food chain The people of the USA are not evil. The Pope i have no idea about, one man doesn't epitemise a religion. Charities are full of !@#$%^&*, and we'd be better off without them. That's just my opinion, and i won't call them evil (and never did) Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran and thus doesn't deserve any special reverence. He is however standing up for his right as a leader to develop nuclear power. Even though i despise religion and Iran's regime, it doesn't cloud my judgement on international politics. Maybe you should be a bit more objective. Now its my turn for a question. Are you thick? Can we have a proper discussion now? Oh God, please tell me where i've shown "hate" in my last post. Seriously WTF! I'm not even gonna read anymore, i have no idea what you've been smoking today Aileron, but it doesn't do much for your debating skills.

It depends on the details of the survey. I don't have time to read it, but if they just compared homosexual parents to heterosexual parents with no consensus on adoption (i.e. not all the heterosexual parents in the survey were adoptive parents) then we could say that adoption is the cause of the homosexual parents being worse, and that the heterosexual parents would have been no different if they were all adoptive parents. Understand?

Paper money is backed by nothing except the debt it produces. The biggest debt contributer is the war, not welfare. The poor countries are in debt to the big countries, thus enabling the rich to continually limit the poor's capacity to become rich. The rich countries are in debt to the international banks, thus allowing the banking ins!@#$%^&*utions to remain the most powerful political and economic force in the world. The Federal Reserve is not a Federal ins!@#$%^&*ution, it has nothing to do with the state, it is a private bank which can lower or increase interest rates and cripple the stock markets at their disgression. I think it was around 1917 when the Federal Reserve became the "Not Really Federal" Reserve, and from that point the world was not in the control of elected governments. Believe it or not, we're going backwards as far as political systems are concerned. The currency rate might be hard on US importers, but think about how well exporters are doing in the US. Everyone will want to get supplied by the US thanks to their cheap currency. Let the charities handle the poor? Charities are even worse at helping people, and usually take a larger slice of the money they gather for themselves. But then that's probably what extreme conservatives want, most of them set up charity funds for the little bit of money on the side it generates.

It's interesting you bring up adoption. Gay parents have to adopt, so surely the studies you quoted could be interpreted as a case against adoption rather than a case against homosexual parents.... thus making the studies irrelevent.

The studies do not prove that single parent families, where the one present parent is loving and nurturing, are any worse than two parent families where the same is true. They also do not prove that a male and a female presence, above that of two male or two female parents, is necessary either. It's just a complete load of misinformation. Simply put, if there's an % chance of a parent being loving and nurturing, then a two-parent family (of no specific sexuality) has a 96% chance of providing a loving parent to a child. A single parent family has % chance. That's all it is. That explains the data. Trying to come to the conclusion that the sexuality of the parents is paramount is ridiculous because there is no basis of comparison for gay families. Coming to the conclusion that a single parent family guarantees an increased state of disfunctionality is equally ridiculous.