What do you believe?

[DarkAngel_]

Research and open-mindedness is what helps you separate the b.s from the truth.

Research correct, if a claim is made you need to properly evaluate that claim, and it must be done in a skeptical and inquisitive manner or you are not doing your proper research. After your research is done, you simply evaluate the claim, is there enough evidence for it, in which case accepting it doesn't require anything but the facts you have. The only reason to demand someone not to be skeptical is to desire someone not to do their proper research. And to demand someone not to do their proper research, is to suggest that ultimately you have no confidence in ability of the claim to be verified, and if you have no confidence in the validity of the claim, you are believing due to desire and not as a result of evidence or research.

i believe what you said is quite true, if you don't mind i will look more logically in my belief of mankind and will infact research it's validity.

Also as another thought inspiring idea, what has made the most effect on mankind?

to my knowledge, gods and demons are not of an effect, but are more psycological.

[DarkAngel_]

Also, science can disprove many aspects of individual religions, for example a lot of the bible can be disproven. Also, science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing God. Common sense would also suggest that it wouldn't make much sense for the God who created us to also judge us. Afterall, how can we help but be 'sinful' when we are nothing but God's creatures? By judging us, He is really judging himself. Doesn't make much sense to me

as being an individual, seemingly, judging one's self is a determination to a means, but if god is all knowing, his determination, is a sign of humanity, so infact, a finding may be a goal of a god, but then that would not make him a god, look at it like this: if a spaceship 1 million years in advance to our technoligy, was orbiting earth, cloacked, and malfuctioning making effects on earth that could not be explained, does believing it is a god, make it a god? i think it makes the illusion, maybe the objective term: god, is infact 'unknown.'

god: 'ultamite unknown'

if you ask me, its a mental paradox.

[betsy]

You can't, there is no possible way. Faith and science have as much to do with each other as white wine and steak. You can't use them together, I'd suggest that they exist outside of each other's grasp really.

But scientific theories are based on, and confirmed by, evidence. If further evidence contradicts that theory, then yes it would have to be modified. The problem is that there is no verifiable evidence at all that God exists. If there was any evidence at all, then the theory could be taken seriously.

But that is what faith is all about! No requirements of proof or evidence.

It's like asking me to prove that you are not an alien. I can not prove that you are not an alien, but I have no reason at all to believe you are. Therefore, it's safe to say that you are probably not an alien.

Tell me what steps you would have followed to go about proving he is not an alien?

Your statement is not logicall...it doesn't make sense.

"It's like asking me to prove that God does not exists. I cannot prove that He does not exists, but I have no reason to believe that He does. Therefore, it's safe to say that He probably does not exists."

You can't conclude anything from this. Except that you've decided to abandon the inquiry.

Anyway, by your last statement, He could either exist...or not exist!

And Geoffrey could either be an alien...or not an alien!

[betsy]

Also, science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing God.

How?

[cybercoma]

is anyone interested in extra sensory? that may be our scientific link to "other worldlyness" exept it is in this world, i'll look it up and see, also i agree that religion was formed as a perseption of what was never looked at, but science, not religion, has made us benifit from it, all a crying statue does is give hope, or take every last bit of it away.....

James Randi deals with extra-sensory and other 'paranormal' claims in a scientific environment. Anyone who can prove these abilities in a scientific environment can earn themselves or a charity of their choice $1,000,000 US.

[newbie]

is anyone interested in extra sensory? that may be our scientific link to "other worldlyness" exept it is in this world, i'll look it up and see, also i agree that religion was formed as a perseption of what was never looked at, but science, not religion, has made us benifit from it, all a crying statue does is give hope, or take every last bit of it away.....

James Randi deals with extra-sensory and other 'paranormal' claims in a scientific environment. Anyone who can prove these abilities in a scientific environment can earn themselves or a charity of their choice $1,000,000 US.

Randi is a major con man and has been proven to be a genuine fake. His test is set up to fail. No one can meet his expectations, much like Victor Zammit will give 1/2 million if someone can prove there is no afterlife.

[gc1765]

Tell me what steps you would have followed to go about proving he is not an alien?

Your statement is not logicall...it doesn't make sense.

"It's like asking me to prove that God does not exists. I cannot prove that He does not exists, but I have no reason to believe that He does. Therefore, it's safe to say that He probably does not exists."

You can't conclude anything from this. Except that you've decided to abandon the inquiry.

Anyway, by your last statement, He could either exist...or not exist!

And Geoffrey could either be an alien...or not an alien!

It makes perfect sense. I have no reason to believe God exists (despite many people trying), just as I have no reason to beleive that Geoffrey is an alien. It's important to note that I can not say with 100% confidence that Geoffrey is not an alien just as I can't say with 100% confidence that some sort of God exist. But it seems highly unlikely that either are true.

How?

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

God (and the Universe) can not have existed forever (this can easily be shown). Therefore, God can not have known the initial conditions of the Universe. Without that, it's impossible to tell what is going to happen.

[betsy]

Your statement is not logicall...it doesn't make sense.

"It's like asking me to prove that God does not exists. I cannot prove that He does not exists, but I have no reason to believe that He does. Therefore, it's safe to say that He probably does not exists."

You can't conclude anything from this. Except that you've decided to abandon the inquiry.

Anyway, by your last statement, He could either exist...or not exist!

And Geoffrey could either be an alien...or not an alien!

It makes perfect sense. I have no reason to believe God exists (despite many people trying), just as I have no reason to beleive that Geoffrey is an alien. It's important to note that I can not say with 100% confidence that Geoffrey is not an alien just as I can't say with 100% confidence that some sort of God exist. But it seems highly unlikely that either are true.

Well then, you cannot be 100% sure...therefore the possibility still exists!

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

God (and the Universe) can not have existed forever (this can easily be shown). Therefore, God can not have known the initial conditions of the Universe. Without that, it's impossible to tell what is going to happen.

This is just another of the many theories...whatever it is. I didn't bother to read it at all, to be honest.

Your answer above is proof enough....that your link had failed in providing the proof that would've given you that 100% confidence!

[betsy]

Assume for a moment that it is provable that the universe had not existed forever. Now you have the un-enviable task of describing what existed before it.

Maybe you'll find it's God.

[gc1765]

Well then, you cannot be 100% sure...therefore the possibility still exists!

Yes, I've never argued otherwise.

This is just another of the many theories...whatever it is. I didn't bother to read it at all, to be honest.

If you didn't bother to read it (and I suggest reading other sources besides Wikipedia, but I thought that would be a good start) then how can you make an informed decision? Is that what having a rigid dogma is all about...someone shows you proof of something and you decide to ignore any evidence/proof that contradicts your dogma.

Your answer above is proof enough....that your link had failed in providing the proof that would've given you that 100% confidence!

I said that I am not 100% confident that some sort of God (however you can define that) exists. What I can say with confidence is that an omnipotent, all knowing God does not exist.

[betsy]

I said that I am not 100% confident that some sort of God (however you can define that) exists. What I can say with confidence is that an omnipotent, all knowing God does not exist.

That's a declaration. Not a proof. Declarations don't count.

Well then, you cannot be 100% sure...therefore the possibility still exists!

Yes, I've never argued otherwise.

Then why are we arguing????

That's all I've been saying all along here! No one can prove that God does not exists anymore than anyone can offer undeniable proof that He does exists.

Since you've acknowledged that you've never argued otherwise, and acknowledged the possibility exists...therefore, we agree!

Hasta la vista...

[gc1765]

That's a declaration. Not a proof. Declarations don't count.

The proof was shown above, remember? The whole thing about the uncertainty principle?

Then why are we arguing????

That's all I've been saying all along here! No one can prove that God does not exists anymore than anyone can offer undeniable proof that He does exists.

Since you've acknowledged that you've never argued otherwise, and acknowledged the possibility exists...therefore, we agree!

Hasta la vista...

We started arguing because you asked me how I could prove that God was not omnipotent. I provided that proof. If you want to argue the omnipotence of God, as we have been doing all along, then I would be happy to. If you want to change the subject as you have done and argue the existance of God, there isn't much point as you've already stated that we agree that the idea of a God (though that term would need serious defining to have any meaning in this discussion) has not been disproven (to my knowledge). But if someone could give a more concrete definition of such an abstract idea as "God", then perhaps that definition could be disproven.

[cybercoma]

I said that I am not 100% confident that some sort of God (however you can define that) exists. What I can say with confidence is that an omnipotent, all knowing God does not exist.

That's a declaration. Not a proof. Declarations don't count.

Religion is nothing more than a declaration that a book has all the answers because some divine power inspired the people who wrote it.

Please see Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot theory. Better yet, I'll save you the time of looking it up:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

So, logically the person who believes in the teapot should have to prove that indeed there is a teapot out there. To say that it's impossible to prove and everyone should just believe in it and in fact, are insane for not believing in it is just ridiculous. The burden of proof is in your court betsy.

And, I'd like to also point out Richard Dawkins's quote on the wikipedia page containing the celestial teapot theory which outlnes why "organized religion merits outright hostility":

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Unlike teapots, religions are dangerous and glorify irrational belief. The teach children it is wrong to rationalize and use their intelligence to formulate an opinion based on evidence and to subsequently change their opinions should new and better evidence arise. No, religion makes it a virtue to believe unwaveringly in something as irrational as a teapot in the sky, they just like to call him God.

Regardless, I don't know why anyone is even bothering to respond to you or the rest of those on this forum like you. Carl Sagan said it best when he wrote, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

There can be no disproving your declaration of God because you dont' have any evidence to disprove. You're arguing about belief and the very last thing you're willing to offer is evidence.

[betsy]

We started arguing because you asked me how I could prove that God was not omnipotent.

I responded to this statement you made:

Also, science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing God.

How?

[gc1765]

We started arguing because you asked me how I could prove that God was not omnipotent.

I responded to this statement you made:

Also, science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing God.

How?

Exactly. Just as I've been saying all along. Science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all knowing God, but has not (yet) disproven the idea of a God (especially since there are so many possible definitions). In other words, God (however you define it) may or may not exist, but He is certainly not "all-knowing". That's what I've been trying to say all along.

[betsy]

Please see Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot theory. Better yet, I'll save you the time of looking it up:.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

So what? Bertrand Russelll staunchly defended Communism until he realized its flaws and its inadequacies. He was an ardent pacifist until the horrors of the second world war made him realize what a nonsense it was to be a pacifist. He changed his mind about a lot of things. For all you know he could’ve had a change of mind (again) about his faith…..but had remained quiet about it so he wouldn’t be known as flipflopping Bertrie!

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

As for Dawkin’s quote, what of it? He could’ve as easily said this:

The reason organized liberal propaganda machines merit outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, liberal propaganda machines are powerful, influential, tax-supported and systematically passed on to children in public schools and daycares too young to defend themselves. The liberal propaganda machine that teaches my children to accept a relative morality and other that I disagree with is no different than religious beliefs being taught to children.

Unlike teapots, religions are dangerous and glorify irrational belief. The teach children it is wrong to rationalize and use their intelligence to formulate an opinion based on evidence and to subsequently change their opinions should new and better evidence arise.

Just like any other belief...like liberalism for example.

Regardless, I don't know why anyone is even bothering to respond to you or the rest of those on this forum like you.

I don't have a clue. You should know the answer, since you keep responding to me and others like me! I swear I don't dabble in witchcraft...so you're not under any spells that make you respond against your will.

Carl Sagan said it best when he wrote, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

There can be no disproving your declaration of God because you dont' have any evidence to disprove. You're arguing about belief and the very last thing you're willing to offer is evidence.

Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.

[Slavik44]

Scientific method is based on the proving wrong of set out theories, no? (I'm not a science person, I'd be the first to admit).

So then really Slavik, I could turn those questions back to you and say, empirically prove to me that God does not exist.

Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.

Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire.

Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists.

[betsy]

Scientific method is based on the proving wrong of set out theories, no? (I'm not a science person, I'd be the first to admit).

So then really Slavik, I could turn those questions back to you and say, empirically prove to me that God does not exist.

Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.

Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire.

Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists.

Burden of proof is for the law courts. Nobody has to prove anything here. No one can prove the existence of God. No one can prove the non-existence of God. No one can define truth. No one can define divinity or love. Does it mean we shouldn't talk of any of them?

Save scientific proof for science. God knows scientists have enough trouble proving their scientific theories.

We'll stick with speculation and discussion when it comes to philosophy.

[Slavik44]

Scientific method is based on the proving wrong of set out theories, no? (I'm not a science person, I'd be the first to admit).

So then really Slavik, I could turn those questions back to you and say, empirically prove to me that God does not exist.

Believers believe, and non-believers don't. Just remember that you have not proven the non-existence of God anymore than I'd proven He exists. That's all there is to it.

Okay see the issue I would take is where the burden of proof is placed. You see if you want to believe in Ogres, Santa Clause and talking donkeys you can, but it is as a result of nothing more then a desire.

Because when there is no proof of existance it is only logical to say that there is no Existance. BUT when that question is turned around and asked if there is proof of non-existance it is not logical to conclude existance, it is only logical to ask what then is the proof of existance. And if there is no proof of existance than it is only logical to say that until there is proof of existance, there is no need to take the step and conclude that such a thing exists.

Burden of proof is for the law courts. Nobody has to prove anything here. No one can prove the existence of God. No one can prove the non-existence of God. No one can define truth. No one can define divinity or love. Does it mean we shouldn't talk of any of them?

Save scientific proof for science. God knows scientists have enough trouble proving their scientific theories.

We'll stick with speculation and discussion when it comes to philosophy.

It is not neccessary to proove the non-existance of God, all that is neccessary is to require proof that he does exist. Because if there is no proof of the non-existance of God it does not allow you to make a conclusion, it only leads you to ask another question, and that is what proof is there of the existance of God and if there is none, the only reason then to believe in God is out of desire. Having no proof of something leads to a conclusion that until proof exists there is no reason to acknowledge existance save desire. But having no proof of the non-existance of something does not suffice to lead to a conclusion.

If I accused you of fantisizing about having gay sex with farm animals you cannot actually disprove that claim. Does that mean I can write in this thread, I KNOW YOU FANTISIZE ABOUT HAVING GAY SEX WITH FARM ANIMALS, even though you and others have said YOU KNOW, based on no evidence. There may very well be a God, but unless there is solid evidence indicating his existance, believing in him is done only out of desire.

[betsy]

It is not neccessary to proove the non-existance of God, all that is neccessary is to require proof that he does exist. Because if there is no proof of the non-existance of God it does not allow you to make a conclusion, it only leads you to ask another question, and that is what proof is there of the existance of God and if there is none, the only reason then to believe in God is out of desire. Having no proof of something leads to a conclusion that until proof exists there is no reason to acknowledge existance save desire. But having no proof of the non-existance of something does not suffice to lead to a conclusion.

I am not required to prove to you anything.

Go ahead ask me: can you prove that God exists?

Answer: No.

And so what? You can go your merry way or argue with somebody else about it. And while you're on your merry way, figure out how you can prove that He doesn't exist. Actually, if you can prove...PROVE...that He doesn't exist, I'll believe you. But of course, you can't.

If I accused you of fantisizing about having gay sex with farm animals you cannot actually disprove that claim. Does that mean I can write in this thread, I KNOW YOU FANTISIZE ABOUT HAVING GAY SEX WITH FARM ANIMALS, even though you and others have said YOU KNOW, based on no evidence. There may very well be a God, but unless there is solid evidence indicating his existance, believing in him is done only out of desire.

If you accuse me of fantasizing having gay sex with a girlie farm animal, I'll see you in court. And the burden of proof will definitely be yours! This is not philosophy. This is slander! The nerve...GAY SEX!

It's telling that you suggest that I would be fantasizing...not doing...very Liberal, mind control, social engineering and all that.

[Higgly]

I believe that people who cannot be bothered to spell words correctly, nor use proper grammar, should be blocked from posting their opinions in written form.

[Slavik44]

I am not required to prove to you anything.

Go ahead ask me: can you prove that God exists?

Answer: No.

And so what? You can go your merry way or argue with somebody else about it. And while you're on your merry way, figure out how you can prove that He doesn't exist. Actually, if you can prove...PROVE...that He doesn't exist, I'll believe you. But of course, you can't.

As I have been trying to explain,

No conclusions can be made off of having no proof of non existance, conclusions can only be made based on having or not having proof of the affirmative.

In which case you have already said you have NO PROOF, kinda makes your claim that you KNOW there is a God absolutely meaningless

If you accuse me of fantasizing having gay sex with a girlie farm animal, I'll see you in court. And the burden of proof will definitely be yours! This is not philosophy. This is slander! The nerve...GAY SEX!

There is of course a philosophical implication to that statement.

It's telling that you suggest that I would be fantasizing...not doing...very Liberal, mind control, social engineering and all that.

I would accuse you of fantisizing because it fits with the example...its all in the mind void of any hard physical evidence either way. But we shouldn't accept it just because the claim is made.

If you can also in the future refrain from slandering my name, and resort to just fantisizing about me being a supporter of mind control and social engineering.

[Slavik44]

I believe that people who cannot be bothered to spell words correctly, nor use proper grammar, should be blocked from posting their opinions in written form.

Can you show me a poster with perfect english?

[GostHacked]

I believe that people who cannot be bothered to spell words correctly, nor use proper grammar, should be blocked from posting their opinions in written form.

Then I should be banned, drawn and quatered. My nick has a spelling mistake. It should be GhostHacked, but I messed up. I good no at Internets.

Your reply did nothing to further the conversation. I will be going over all your previous posts with a fine tooth comb pal. So to save me the trouble, you should go back and edit all your replies in any thread here on MLW so they are correct. I have faith that you will, and I know I can grant you at least an A-- when all is said and dun.

Not everyone is an expert on the English language. Some who come here don't even speak English as a first language.

Betsy, you are right that you should not have to prove your god exists. However, if you are trying to convince someone that your religion is right, then you would need some evidence to show that person that the religion is true and god exists. I wondered how the church was able to 'dupe' so many people. Dupe in the sense of that, you just need faith, that is all (the desire to believe in something bigger than you) just imagine and believe he is there. You do not need evidence. This clearly goes against logical thinking. That is what I and many others have a problem with religion. It dictates an unsupported belief in something that is not logical. If that does not cause some internal conflict then you may not be thinking with the logical or critical, or annalytical mind. ClearlyWest gave me a passage to check out. I have not done so as of yet. But I shall. I am not sure what I will walk away from it. But if I have more questions than answers, my faith has not yet been defined.

Religion has been around for centuries and has a book and a belief as evidence.

Static - This is it and that is all. Stagnant and unchanging.

Science has been around for centuries (not as long as religion) and is backed up by, math, physics, studies to annalyze predictions and then the 'belief system' is changed once we understand the true meaning. Science has evolved and is forever evolving and expaninding our true understanding of our environment.

So what? Bertrand Russelll staunchly defended Communism until he realized its flaws and its inadequacies. He was an ardent pacifist until the horrors of the second world war made him realize what a nonsense it was to be a pacifist. He changed his mind about a lot of things. For all you know he could’ve had a change of mind (again) about his faith…..but had remained quiet about it so he wouldn’t be known as flipflopping Bertrie!

Well, Communism as a concept works. Democracy as a concept works. IN practice the human factor has much to do with the outcome of Communism and Democracy. Anything can be frigged up by self serving people. If Russell was always changing his mind, then that means to him, he has found new irefutable evidence that permanently changed his belief system. A man who says 'I was wrong' gets much credit from me. Russell would be a fool to continue believing in something he now has proof against the belief. Changed, evolved, realizes.

The Egyptians thought they could take possesions with them to the holy land. Turns out that maybe King Tut did not really need all that stuff in the afterlife. He left it behind for the archeologists. Maybe the belief system was flawed.

[betsy]

Betsy, you are right that you should not have to prove your god exists. However, if you are trying to convince someone that your religion is right, then you would need some evidence to show that person that the religion is true and god exists. I wondered how the church was able to 'dupe' so many people. Dupe in the sense of that, you just need faith, that is all (the desire to believe in something bigger than you) just imagine and believe he is there. You do not need evidence. This clearly goes against logical thinking. That is what I and many others have a problem with religion. It dictates an unsupported belief in something that is not logical. If that does not cause some internal conflict then you may not be thinking with the logical or critical, or annalytical mind. ClearlyWest gave me a passage to check out. I have not done so as of yet. But I shall. I am not sure what I will walk away from it. But if I have more questions than answers, my faith has not yet been defined.

I know I chose the right religion. I am not trying to convince you or anyone. It is right for me.

However there is ample evidence in scripture to anyone who isn't wilfully blind to it to show that Christ existed, and His life was exceptional in the view of many and geographically isolated witnesses.

Of course you don't have to believe that that proves He is God. You don't have to believe that Hitler was a bad guy either. But you do have to consider the evidence.

Religion has been around for centuries and has a book and a belief as evidence.

Static - This is it and that is all. Stagnant and unchanging.

So what?

Science has been around for centuries (not as long as religion) and is backed up by, math, physics, studies to annalyze predictions and then the 'belief system' is changed once we understand the true meaning. Science has evolved and is forever evolving and expaninding our true understanding of our environment.

Science may have been around for quite sometime, but the fact remains, it still has not even proven how the world was created. It's all a bunch of theories floating about. And like I said before....maybe science had not reached that higher level...to unearth the fact of creation. They can't even fully undertsand the human brain yet....and again, who knows....the human brain might hold the key to unlock some more!

But I'm willing to put my money that if they ever happen to stumble onto the truth about creation, they're most likely to admit that creation is the result of Intelligent Design! Highly speculative? Of course.

The possibility of actually establishing a viable theory for the creation of the universe is highly speculative...never mind coming up with the actual truth.

But the odds for the creation of the universe being explained adequately by random chaos theory would make the 6/49 lotto look like a sure thing!

Well, Communism as a concept works. Democracy as a concept works.

How can Communism work if it's not practiced? A theory is something you intend to base your conclusion on. How can it work if you haven't tried it. I think the common expression you're looking for is, "sounds good in theory."

Anywhere Communism is being practiced, it hasn't been for the better of the population by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you're a communist, I'm sure you'll agree....

A man who says 'I was wrong' gets much credit from me.

From me too.

Too bad in the case of Bertrand, one of the eminent philosophers of the 20th century, it took a violent war to convince him that his theories of pacifism were nonsense.

Shows that pacifism doesn't work! Good thing he didn't decide to become a human shield. At least he was wiser than that.

The Egyptians thought they could take possesions with them to the holy land. Turns out that maybe King Tut did not really need all that stuff in the afterlife. He left it behind for the archeologists. Maybe the belief system was flawed.

or maybe Egyptian heaven is inside a pyramid.