Peanut Butter = Evolution is a lie

[LBJefferies]

That's bad logic.

If there is a god, how do you know you are believing in the right one? Just because your parents and friends and rabbis, preachers or imams say so doesn't make it so.

Besides, if god can see into your heart, won't he know whether you are a "cover your ass" type of believer, or not?

Lastly, if god can do anything, and heal anyone he wants to because, um, he's god, how come he can't figure out a way to heal amputees?

Meh, it's not really bad logic. It's actually a very famous argument called Pascal's Wager.

[z31maniac]

But if you "believe" just to avoid hell, not because you think he actually died for your salvation, do you REALLY "believe?"

[mar1t1me]

But if you "believe" just to avoid hell, not because you think he actually died for your salvation, do you REALLY "believe?"

Eggzachary!

[sonnyqm3]

have fun discussing this issue guys..

[markseven]

But if you "believe" just to avoid hell, not because you think he actually died for your salvation, do you REALLY "believe?"

Nope.

Eggzachary!

Ed Zachary disease? Have you heard the joke?

[z31maniac]

It was a rhetorical question :)

If there is a magical, omnipotent and omniscient zombie in the sky, he would know those are your feelings and your entry would be denied.

Pascals wager or whatever is a fundamentally flawed thought experiment.

[mar1t1me]

have fun discussing this issue guys..

Have fun finding that error-free holy book!

[sonnyqm3]

Have fun finding that error-free holy book!

I have found my book and believe in it very strongly.. Now you go ahead and find the fact to your theories.

[markseven]

I have found my book and believe in it very strongly.. Now you go ahead and find the fact to your theories.

Bingo. As believers in our respective faiths we have poured ourselves into the research and development of our walk, a personal expedition if you will.

Where as the "scientists" are merely relying on other's research, regardless of the conditions of the study, agenda and motives of the researcher, human error, peer reviews, etc. Unless they have done the research themselves, they are exhibiting FAITH in science, which makes it (mentioned by CK_Taft) a religion of its own :p

[Nic01101011]

Yeah you're right, why think for yourself when there's a book that conveniently does it all for you!

[z31maniac]

See but you are also misrepresenting science, you are acting as if all science is theories that can't be proven.

[markseven]

See but you are also misrepresenting science, you are acting as if all science is theories that can't be proven.

Nope, not misrepresenting science. Unless you have performed the experiment yourself, unless you have done the research yourself, you are relying on someone else's findings. You beliefs are based, you are exhibiting faith in someone else's work. You are taking their word for it.

[markseven]

Yeah you're right, why think for yourself when there's a book that conveniently does it all for you!

The Bible is a part of it, not all of it.

[sonnyqm3]

we humans were given a brain/knowledge, so its up to us to find the right path.

[z31maniac]

Nope, not misrepresenting science. Unless you have performed the experiment yourself, unless you have done the research yourself, you are relying on someone else's findings. You beliefs are based, you are exhibiting faith in someone else's work. You are taking their word for it.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I still think you are off the mark.

Because although I have not done it, the "laws" of science can be proven. However, no one can "prove" the existence of god. I thnk that is an important distinction.