Allow me to begin with a short retail of my intellectual endeavors: I am currently reading "the republic", I am well versed in string theory, I have excepted inter species evolution as a fact and an intelligent design, and I am 16 and in college. I tell you this not to flaunt my achievements but to establish to you my ability to "think for my-self". If I'm not mistaken you view religion to be the Marx's "Dope Du Man"; which has been the proud mantra of many like minded people through the ages.
In response to your statement, "... generation to generation.", I purpose this theory. the development and knowledge of man is in consent evaluation (In the last two centuries Science has elapsed more then the previous millennium)continuously changing and adapting "from generation to generation". Yet not one of mans achievement could have been conceived without the revelations of prior generations. How can you be sure the next people will not see some grate fault in your ideology.
So it comes down to choice, belief and free will; which I believed was endowed to us by our creator out of love, so that we might choose to follow him rather then his control. Only through love are we redeemed. If my words have no sway on your thoughts, at least take this one truth with you: Christ, God, Loves you.

HERE! HERE! I CONCUR!!

There is a fine line between genious and insanity sometimes.
All human endevours have been carried out by humans for good or ill. (Many of the ill in the name of religeon)
Most of the scientific and technological achievements have been brought about by the hard work and curiousity of Atheistic scientists without any contribution of Ra, Zeus, Allah or any other of the multitude of superstitious deity's.
Be yourself, you don't need to look for that which is supernatural and unproven.
Rob.

Intellegent design?
Please read Darwins "Origin of species"
I have been around 30 yrs more than you and have seen all the Dogma and inacuraces religeon has to offer.
Oh to be young and idealistic !!!
Rob.

Stupid people are stupid. a simple phrase yet so easily over looked. Anyone willing to do insane and violent deeds in the name of a religion will do it in the name of anything else.
You seem to have some issue with religion, when in reality you complaints solely address those who follow them. I am a Christian, and Christianity is discipleship through the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ , the son of God, taught love and tolerance. All good things are manipulated by some to control the many; even Science (social Darwinism and Eugenics, to name a few).
My God showed me the ultimate expression of love through the gift of Free Will. God installed in me my passions and gifts to multiply them not to suppress them. It is not for confidence in the "supernatural an Unproven" that I am christian. My walk has been a real experience, more then any other.

When I said evolution was attributed to intelligent design I was unspecific. I don't understand why so many Christians are threatened by the idea of evolution. I mean if there was an intelligent creator would he not have foreseen the need for his creators to adapt to change?
I know that you believe you understand all the "dogma and inaccuracy" of religion, but I assure you your negative experiences where a result of those ignorant followers, and not of God. Sir, God loves you, and his sole desire is for your betterment. Please read the New Testament without the corruption of the church or the preconceived of its critics; then show me your issues.

Well said. I don't doubt your theory, but may I kindly point out that religion, as wonderful as it may be in providing a moral compass to everyone who follows it, (well Christianity anyways), however for something of the past to provide structure to future discoveries, it has to provide just that: a structure. I fail to see what possible foundation could be inferred from the history of Christianity and it's teachings

Once again my friend you seem to be completely missing the basic point. I will tar you (as a christian)with the same brush as Muslims, budists, scientologists, cargo cultists and all the other "religeous factions out there, who abdicate human responsibilities to a "higher being". Although it is not your fault as a human being....rather the fault of your parents and educators within your individual society.
There is no "creator" for the following reasons:
1.
If there were....surely we (humanity) would all know about it and would be blissfully singing from the same hymn sheet.
2.
If "it" (non gender specific) did a good enough job (and presumably "it" is perfection) then we would all be perfect with no need for medicine, Police and Armies....etc. Therefor, "It" is flawed from the begining.
3.
All the prayers that humanity makes on a daily basis would be answered.....which they are not.

My friend you miss understand my "theory" on religion. My case is not that morality is a purpose of religion, but rather the secular aspect of belief. morality is not the foundation of my religion; merely the peel on the orange; what is seen by the world.
As for structure (referring solely to Christianity):
The soul of Christianity, true fellowship with the lord, is the idea that we worship (devote time to) a LIVING God. like the parable of the wine parcels, Gods structures are constantly changing. the Vatican and "fire-and-brimstone preachers" are simply a structure God set up for the time, but man stuck to for fear of change. who better to follow into the future the the one who makes it.

1) 2). Free Will. the God of the universe, as I know, is a God of love. He could have shown himself to the world an that would indeed be the end of it, But god loved us so much so that he gave us Free Will. the ability to choose between love (God heaven) or the absence of love (sin, Hell). Would we rather have a dictator, a God who forces to choose him, or A Loving God, Who allows us our freedom. We have all these problems (exemplified in 2.) because we are apart from love; because as a people we choose to be separate.
3)God knows what is needed God knows what is just; what prayers God chooses to answer are between God and the individual and that individuals spiritual progression. What Prayers of YOURS has God not answered. Where has God let YOU down. these are question that are between you and God. I know that if you accept his grace, and bring allow him to bring you back into love that you will find your answers.

It is interesting to note your logic in response to and your firm belief that we are free in our actions to do or not to do something. However , can you defend this premise logically?

In modal logic if a premise is necessarily true then it necessarily follows that the conclusion is necessary. Right!
Lets assume a hypothesis: Someone may say that in order for someone to have absolute libertarian freedom of his will he must be able to choose between choosing or not choosing to do something. If God therefore knows before the creation of time that you will read this reply then it is not possible for you not to read this reply? Right?
But according to Libertarian freedom in order for you to be free you have to be able to choose either to read or not to read this reply. Right?
Again, if god saw you reading this reply before the creation of the world would you be able not to read this reply? How can it be that what God believed, in the distant past, that you would read this post would not come to pass? . You in fact must do what he saw you doing or he is not omniscient!
Here’s the premise:
Premise 1: God is omniscience and knows all future contingencies(including all future freewill actions).
Premise 2: It is not logically possible for God to know future free will actions without determining those actions.
Premise 3 : God necessarily determine future free will actions of his creatures.
He in fact determines them. How would you refute this logic?

Mike, thank you for your response, if there is one good qaulity in mankind we can both agree upon it is that we can communicate in a civil manner despite the enormity of difference in opinion.
You talk of Logic ? I see no logic since I am viewing Humanity from a completely different stand point from you.
God, Allah....etc etc, whatever... does not exist and the only mechanism that has got the planet to this stage of its development is evolution and (natural selection)......which if you open your eyes, you can see happening all around you right now.
There is no logic in natural selection....only genetic survivors and we are the products of those who have gone before us. Incidently, there is Natural selection in religion also and many of the religions that are worshiped by some human beings today will be forgotten in the future and be seen as cults by our childrens children.
Robbie.

Not to mince words but when you say you see no logic you are in fact logically deducing an inference in my statements? There really is no way around it. You continue in this vain by stating emphatically that there is no logic in natural selection. There is no logical selection only natural selection. The arguments are circular.
You have a premise that says natural selection follows natural conclusions.

You say there is no logic . Then how is it possible that one is able to decipher this without using logic?

You say you have another way of viewing.
Ok . So you stand on another point of view. So how is this any different in producing anything more than an opinion? Opinon is nothing more than personal commentary.

You say God does not exist. Again , how is this proven without logical inquries in thought?

You say evolution selects and as such determines all that we see around us. Once again your pretext for proving something is nothing more than preaching.

Logic is a human trait and something used by Humans for humans. You demonstrate this admarably my friend.
Why should i have to logically prove the existance of a supernatural being that does not exist? surely you should prove the existance to me......as theologists have been trying to do for 2000 years without success.
Good luck .....and thank you for being so human.

My concern is not with the proving of a transcendent being my concern is why you are playing a double standard with logic. You are quite comfortable in saying that logic is of no use in attaining enlightenment but you continue to say it is of value in demanding verifiable truth.
Which is it? Is logic a responsible approach to truth or is it a useless tool to approach truth?
Now once you enter into a arena wherein we can logically discuss fallacies in our approach to truth then we can determine where we have gone wrong in our approach to truth. Personally I belive that metaphysics has as much to say about truth as science without having to go back and reinterpet itself . This is where science is deficient. It is evolutionary and therefore runs the risk of having to say it doesn’t always hold to static theories of truth.
For example: If you say that faith has no value in proving the existence of God then all I need to do is show you where tangible evidence has failed to validate scientific truth in objective absolutes . If this can be shown to be a precedent in the past then I have a case for fallacy in demanding that physical evidence is always useful in proving something valid 100 percent of the time.
Right?
Ok. Now I can point to some things that people have believed to be true by use of their senses but later have been shown to be deficient and therefore fallacious. Lets look at the following example of what many people believe about physics.

Albert Einstein formulated a theory of time and space called the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). His theory created a geometrical line( with the addition of time as a fourth dimension) through space and time in which all matter, including us , were found to be in a clearly deterministic universe. He was quoted as saying ," God does not play dice with the universe". This defines his theism. He believed in a universe that was predictable to certain laws of physics.
However some time later Neil’s Bhor, the great Danish physicist came along and challenged Einstein on this very point saying “ How do you know what God thinks?”… . In an experiment suggested by Einstein himself it was found that pathways of atomic particles were observed as NOT BEING PREDICTABLE to Einstein’s dismay, and therefore his findings were turned away from the model of a static universe. A timeless universe would be a static universe where no past, present and future states can be defined in any specific location or in any specific time. This is what Einstein was saying that we are all on some imaginary geometric line that includes past ,present and future states as inseparable.
This means there are preferred aspects of inertial frames of reference whereby we indeed can believe in relational frames of reference. We can in fact see in Bhor's experiment the allowance of free-will itself! This was an astounding revelation! This relational understanding turns the tables on the idea the there are no preferred inertial frames of reference. Even though Einstein’s revolutionary paper on STR showed a tenseless universe , Bhor’s quantum mechanics shows it to be deficient. Because of Bhor's findings we can allow as true the existence of a tensed universe. This gives credence to certain types of traditions that see god as working within time frames. Open theism would be one of these.
Remember that Einstein was a empirical verificationist and under his mentor Ernst Mach approached physics by deciding to throw out anything that could not be verified through the physical senses. So he was successful in showing through STR the idea of a determined universe. His revolutionary paper on STR shows how impossible it is that when setting into motion theories of time and space that measuring devises would be able to show us similar frames of reference. Let me give you an example: Prior to Eiestines relativity others has been working on relativity all the way back to Newton himself. But just prior to Einstein a man named Hendrick Lorentz formulated his Lorentzian relativity. He agreeing with Newton believe in absolute time and space, but realized at that time there being no way to discern these experimentally since motion through the aether affects one’s measuring devices. Before knowing this he knew unlike anything else in the universe that a wave of light is always constant. Knowing this he proceeded to set measuring devices on waves of light outside of the earth’s course around our star and thereby deduce its progression in time and space. However, when he looked at the results of the experiment he and others were perplexed. There did not seem to be any movement through the aether of the earth itself. They theorized the earth might be pulling the aether along with it so accounting for it not seemingly moving through space. This was dismissed from looking at other experiments. Finally, it was understood by Einstein that there are no inertial frames of reference. This solved the problem. I will try to give you an example of what Einstein figured out. Imagine yourself in a body of water like the ocean. If you are in the water and remain still then any waves approaching you will take a certain amount of time to reach you. If you were to move toward a wave as it was approaching you then the wave would arrive at you sooner. Conversely, if you were to move away from an approaching wave it would arrive at your location later. Now lets imagine you are in space and a wave of light is approaching you and if you remained still or moved toward it or if you moved away from it what do you think would happen in each of those situations? The beam of light as it approaches you in any of those circumstances would be the same. Whether you moved toward it or away from it or if you remained still the beam of light would not vary and would reach you at the same moment in time! Now knowing this Einstein went on to show that in spite of light being uniform in this way it could not however be used by two independent sources to verify uniform time. This is one of the examples he gave to show this as follows; Suppose a space craft was approaching the earth on a parallel path and as it arrived adjacent to earth it relayed a message to someone on earth to set its clock to the same time as it had its clock set to. Then someone on the earth at the same time as someone on the space ship would send out a beam of light to a distant planet. Now he is where it gets hairy. Again knowing that the beams of light travel at the same rate through the aether it would therefore be assumed that the light would be reflected back to the earth and the spaceship and arrive at the same time that was beforehand synchronized on each of the clocks. Lo and behold it was not! Why not ? Remember the example I gave on lights uniformity? Here is what happens according to Einstein equation. There is no absolute frame of reference for the spaceship and the earth to compare to. Each being in a separate inertial frame of reference cannot relate in the same time frame. Why? Because we don’t know what the preferred frame of reference is. Is it the spaceship? Is it the Earth? Is it the distant planet ahead of them? Or is the earth moving away from the planet ahead of it. Or is the planet ahead of the spaceship moving toward the spaceship? We cannot know what is at rest in relation to what is moving! This is so counterintuitive that only a handful of people understood what Einstein was saying and even then it took some time for him to convince them of this. Now because of non-preferred frames of reference there is no absolute frame to compare yourself to when you are trying to relate to someone else in past , present or future states of reference throughout the universe in either time or space. It therefore follows that god himself would not be able to relate to anyone or anything at any specific frame of reference seeing we all are at different states of time and space not knowing if we are at rest to each other in movement in time or space. Simply put there is no preferred frame of reference for anyone. God himself would not know where we are! Furthermore if he wanted to know where each one of us were in different times in space he would have to break himself up into many different frames of reference to accommodate the many myriad frames of references we are all in! This would remain true for us in that the past , present or future does not include any of them being in any preferred frame of reference. Ultimately time itself becomes blended and all of us are only points on a geometric tenseless line of timeless events. Ultimately all events have to be determined. Freewill is an illusion. By looking back at what happened with Einstein equation you see how science is evolutionary in that it took another 30 years for quantum mechanics to dump this theory and to show that this is no longer an absolute truth. So Einstein was indeed a great physicists but after all just a man who was not infallible.
This is an uncontrovertable example how verifiable truth is not always trustworthy. Let me know what you think?
Mike

Let apply reason to this scenario: I cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, prove to YOU that there is a God, and You cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, prove to me there is not a God. So logically we cannot argue the validity of our beliefs but simply the merits, and philosophies of our beliefs, and from the conclusions of discussion we may each form an opinion.
You may begin, what ideals of the Christian faith do you find fault with? If you give a specific question I can give you a specific answer.

May I propose to you all a theory, and please, feel free to provide feedback.
Religion provides the answers to 2.1 billion people, for questions that seem incredibly impossible to find answers to when you're asking an atheist, or a rationalist as some would call a person like me. Having said that, as humans, were afraid of what we don't understand. For example, death. Death is an amazingly frightening subject for a person like me, at seventeen years old, to think about. And it is wholly because I don't understand it. I don't know what happens when I die. Does my spirit go with god? Do I turn into a tree? Am I reincarnated? I don't know, which is why it frightens me. Humans use religion as a coping device. To cope with the things we don't understand, such as death, or who or when the first human being came to be. Other than being a moral compass, this is one of christianity's, or any religion's, prime usage. What do you guys think?

Nick, thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. And that is Human fear and the abdication of responsibilities by humans to a higher deity. We would all like to think that the life we are leading has some sort of significant meaning in the greater scheme of things.
I have no problems with death as an Athiest, I have no control (other than keeping fit,safe and healthy for as long as i can) over it. Just as all other life on our tiny planet is born and dies, we are part of a glorious natural cycle and the only mechanism for change and adaption is NATURAL SELECTION as explored by Charles Darwin.
Please do not waste your time reading publications which preach damnation and hell fire and tell you how many virgins you are going to get when you die. If these publications had 1 iota of credence then they would have been written in such a way that their would be unequivically no ambiguity and would be understood by every human on the planet. If you do read any of these plublications just bear in mind who wrote them and WHY they were written and make your own mind up as to the validity.
The Christian church thinks it is a Moral Compass and indeed such is Mankinds need to be led and told what to think, Many humans happily prescribe to the notions of the various factions. However, I am a good and happy human who helps and encourages my fellow humans to live a good and fulfilling life. Do I need superstition? Do I need all the inherited paraphinalia and strange ceremonies that go hand in hand with religeon? NO, NO, NO.
Rest assured, as far as science can tell and going by Natural Selection, your genetic material is the driving force by which we all live and passing that genetic information on is a major componant of life. Religion is one of many mechanisms used in the Natural Selection and indeed i would go as far as saying that it has been pretty successful although completely invented by our early ancestors several thousand years ago.

Mike, you are tying your self in knots. I try not to use quotes, especially from great humans such as Einstein,
as Religious nutters have been using them in the wrong context for hundreds of years.
We can only speculate as to what people were thinking when they said the things they said. I think it is generally aknowledged that most great scientists are Athiests although many of them are aprehensive or just plain scared to pubish their thoughts for fear of persicution. Galileo was brave enough (or foolish enough) to stand up to the Catholic church with information which today is totally incontrovertible based on his scientific observations......and look what happened to him!
I agree with parts of the "moral codes" which some religions decree, but these can be used in a good and just society without the use of supernatural deity's that do not exist.
Robbie.

Gods structures are constantly changing. the Vatican and "fire-and-brimstone preachers" are simply a structure God set up for the time, but man stuck to for fear of change. who better to follow into the future the the one who makes it.

WHAT !!!
If this is gods idea of a job well done...then she should get the sack.
My friend surely you as a free-thinking human being can see that what you have written above is the worlds biggest TRUMP card.
Man changes (grows) all the time, given a chance. It was the Catholic church suppression that held us back for hundreds of years with an element of suppression still remaining today.
Thankfully education, science and technology have triumphed over ancient superstition.

Look, science is not the end all of human reason. Simply to categorize religion as immature to the modern mind and therefore superstitious is quite shallow when compared to the dimensions of the human psyche. Galileo believed in the supernatural and science without conflict. Does that mean he was mistaken about his world life view? Isaac Newton also believed in God and he was labeled the father of physics by Einstein himself. How do you square this with human perception. Surely Galileo and Newton were as sophisticated as any 21 first century scientist as their views are still largely understood a foundational to modern science. Why do you suppose they too believed in God? If you say it was because of their enviroment you are foolishly presupposing something that they were not aware of. Superstition.
I think you are mixing together two different forms of inquiry and thereby misappropriating the meaning of reality To state that they are approached in different ways and therefore one must be wrong is to be misinformed. There is a difference between Metaphysical and empirical enquiry.
Empirical inquiry is made by the use of the physical senses. As such it uses verification to the physical senses in defining physical reality.
Metaphysical inquiry makes use of reason about reality outside of the use of material reality.
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. Areas of metaphysical studies include ontology, cosmology, and often, epistemology.
Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. Metaphysics, therefore, uses logic based on the meaning of human terms, rather than on a logic tied to human sense perception of the objective world. Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. As such it is attain by both reason and faith of which the latter demands that we exercise a certain amount of trust in our approach to this unseen reality. In other words , if I could prove my faith by verifying it physically then I really would be dispensing with faith! Right?
Now lets us not be ignorant of the meaning of superstition when it comes to reasonable faith. Superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand is to fall into superstition.

Consider the words of Christ himself on this matter. Matthew 23:16-22 (para. #2111)

16-22"You're hopeless! What arrogant stupidity! You say, 'If someone makes a promise with his fingers crossed, that's nothing; but if he swears with his hand on the Bible, that's serious.' What ignorance! Does the leather on the Bible carry more weight than the skin on your hands? And what about this piece of trivia: 'If you shake hands on a promise, that's nothing; but if you raise your hand that God is your witness, that's serious'? What ridiculous hairsplitting! What difference does it make whether you shake hands or raise hands? A promise is a promise. What difference does it make if you make your promise inside or outside a house of worship? A promise is a promise. God is present, watching and holding you to account regardless.

Where do you draw the line?
you are quoteing lines from the Christian bible so i am presuming you belong to one of the many Christian sects.
What makes those words any better than those of the other so called "Holy" books, such as the Tora, Koran, etc,etc.
Can you not see that you are simply a product of your society upbringing and education system. If you were born in the area that is now Egypt 3000 years ago you would worship the pharoh as a living god and there would be a fair chance you would have spent your life toiling on the construction of his tomb. If you were born in the area which is now modern Australia 8000 years ago you would survive wandering and living off the land, looking up at the stars each evening making up stories about your ancestors and passing them down the generations.
Where was the Christian god then? Did he forget about the Aborigonals and the Africans and the Eskimos etc etc. No, because He was invented by small sects in the middle east to control and justify their ways and means. They wrote a "family code of conduct" if you will, AKA the old testiment. Fotunatly the Human race has moved on but unfortunatly some people have not and still believe what has been passed on through tradition within their society.
Please don't think I am simply trying to bash Christianity. There are many admirable qaulities to which I prescribe as someone existing in a Christian society. I just do not believe we should waste time with superstitions.....no matter how frightened we may be by the implications of deconstructing the fabric of what many people have been brought up to believe is the unequivical truth.

With all due respect I would draw the line at ignorance! You seem ignorant to sound reasoning. I wonder if you know how difficult you are at reasoning with. I have given you numerous examples of logic and reasoning along with familiar personages in history not to mention academic backing to such examples and you just continue on with no engagement in sound thinking. So I guess you are unapproachable intellectually. You seem academically deficient in your ability to engage in this debate. Do you have any understanding of these other disciplines . Personally I think not. You need to reevaluate you scope of understanding. Allow for a more broad minded approach to these other disciplines and will learn what you are obviously lacking. That being a well rounded education. Once you do this then and only then will you be able to debate. Until then you are only pontificating ( (pn-tf-kt, -kting)1. to speak or behave in a pompous or dogmatic manner). I hope you take this to heart otherwise you will never learn anything.
Sincerely, Mike

Is it not possible that we use religion to make sense of the fantastic questions in our life?

Is this not the will of GOD ?

Bravo! You have returned my reply without being frazzled! You have a fairly thick skin.
Lets hope this skin does not disallow real inquiry. It is just this kind of an answer that keeps this dialog alive.
Let no one suppose that the gutter of ignorance is the end of all hope. However repellent, the gutter is the last vestige that keeps one hoping that truth is retrievable. Retrievable yes!, but it is near its final end! You must be careful you do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, before it enters the sewer and is forever lost!
If you are looking for truths I have found that they do exist. There are many false truths and many false teachers but the only real truth revealed itself by selflessly entering the temporal. The balancing act of moving from the eternal to the temporal is what metaphysicians call transcendence.

Actually I worry more about my accountability before God than I do about my death. Let me be clear . I do worry about physical death but I believe that it is just a necessary step into a new existence. Like going from the womb and being delivered into the world.
Is this helpful?

My fellow Human, do not fear death, for it is one certainty all of us will face. I, as an Athiest, perhaps should fear it, but I do not....because it is part of the human journey and indeed the jouney of all life on earth. The short time we are here we should spend improving and studying and not worrying about that which is not there.
Life on earth will cease to exist one day long into the future. Our Atomic energy will still exist. As astronomy discovers distant planets on a daily basis, the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe rises astronomically. That is exiting. Please stop worrying about yourself and think of all the other humans living in abject poverty and dispair.

Yea right! Your not afraid of death. Who do you think you are kidding?
As for the rest of your post its all suppositiion.

My goodness, what synacism !! You do not believe me.
Why? I am a honest man telling you how I feel and yet you doult my word!! Perhaps if all the people of the world were the same healthy synics as you ......There would be No religion.

In revelations the bible also makes quote to satan tangling the words of the bible up so maybe we are awake just confused. i am a catholic and i am also superstitious.

I don't think physical death is something to be worried about. It happens to everybody and everything on this planet. Its a natural process. What can be worrying is the manner that it may take. I personally just hope that I go in my sleep!

If God already knows what is going to happen, then why pray to him to do anything you or I want or need from him? All we have to do then is exist and let things play out. For if God has already determined and knows what is to happen then praying to him about it is futile and you just have to "trust" God to do what you need.