I'm not sure I do.. could you elaborate?

...what I was thinking.. free will. Not that I don't take a person's feelings into account, because I do.. but to me free will is the ultimate line.. I cannot imagine trying to influence that... to me to do so would be like theft on a grand scale...

But then, that brings up a whole other issue.. in order for someone to influence another's free will, that person would had to have given it up in the first place, no?

...like they pick and choose what rules of the bible to follow that suit them.

There is no "hell" in the Nativity message. It is created by those who want it to be there IMHO.

They don't have to make their expression directly next to someone elses. What they do could be compared to me covering their sign everytime I see it.

Sure, I will tell you that as soon as you tell me how covering the sign and writing over it that "Athiests go to hell with Adoplh Hitler" would negate the sign and violates the right to have expressed the sentiment in the sign.

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.

I think that statements like this, from the Purposes of the FFRF, clearly show they think that religion is an impediment to social and moral progress. . .

. . . and is close to saying that "religion is the greatest evil in the world". . .

which has been said by many, and there was even a thread started on this site by people of this view.

Clearly, it is inflammatory, and can only have the purpose to insult and denigrate the characters of religious persons.

Sometimes a minority voice must be loudly and publicly intolerant of an unacceptable status quo in order to bring wider attention to and force a conversation about a perceived inequity or an injustice imposed upon them by the majority. Sometimes the refusal to move quietly and obediently to the back of the bus is required to force a conversation some people would rather not have.

In this instance, it would appear the conversation being forced is about the perception many people have that the government favours some of its citizens over others - and if one holds the words "that all men are created equal" to be self evident, and the idea worthy, then to permit even the appearance of such favouritism to go unchallenged would seem to me to be unacceptable.

You got to be Ignornant to put a sign up beside a nativity scence debasing someone elses concepts...its not different than the Nazis painting slogans on Jewish graves.
Whos right and whose wrong is of no concern if it doesn't involve you!

I emphatically agree. That is why placing the sign directly next to the Nativity is such an affront. They don't have to make their expression directly next to someone elses. What they do could be compared to me covering their sign everytime I see it. I wouldn't have to steal it.

The only "inherent and implicit message of the Nativity" is the birth of Jesus.

I don't think freedom of expression supersedes the right to public peace.

If a sign advertising a new chicken sandwich was up somewhere, I doubt people would prefer if signs saying ...
'Support the systematic breeding and slaughtering of innocent life, simply to appease your tastebuds!'
... were allowed to be put up next to it.

Msg: 6

I agree that what is missing here is tolerance.

The presentation of the sign was deliberately insulting, inflammatory, and an exclusive truth claim

A Nativity scene does not say, "we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus" as Barker claims.

It's immaterial to the matter whether the Winter Solstice has been celebrated before Christianity or not.

I think the American Humanist Association's bus ad ("Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake.") is a good example of getting an alternate message across without being confrontational and intolerant. They promote their view without attacking another view.

A Christmas tree and Santa Clause are great pagan symbols for Atheists.

PHILOSOPHICAL WARNING: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CAN BE NEITHER PROVED OR DISPROVED.

....and a liberal doling out of lumps of coal to both sides.

It is funny that the Supreme Court said that you can "TAKE DOWN" something as precious as the US Flag and burn it within your rights to freedom of expression. It seems that everyone involved was using the same rights.

The sign sounded antagonistic.
Maybe it should have read 'Happy Winter Solstice everyone!'.
Then if it was taken down, there's something wrong going on.

I think the word we are missing here is tolerance.

Basically 2 conflicting ‘opinions’.

Education is the way to show people that what they are doing is not only hurting themselves but others and not to take a proactive aproach to resolve the issue.

(CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation had a placard up in the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington.

An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch.

"I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to."

The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part.

The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said.

The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."

"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."

Gaylor said that police are checking security cameras pointed at the building's entrances and exits to see if they can see anyone stealing the sign.

"It's probably about 50 pounds, " Gaylor said. "My brother-in-law was huffing and puffing carrying it up the stairs. It's definitely not something you can stick under your arm or conceal."

The Washington State Patrol, which is handling the incident, could not be reached for comment.

Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.

Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)

"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.

In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.

"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."

That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.

Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.

Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.

"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."

The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.

But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.

"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."

The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

At the season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

That many make the same claim without proof simply shows the power of popular thinking. It's a fallacious Appeal to Popularity or The Majority. It really has nothing to do with the validity of the claim. Evidence is what supports the claim. Thus far, none.

. . . what is the basis for believing that there exists a separation between humanity and its god or gods?

Why should we be expected to accept as a given the assumption that "finding a way to God" is a necessity?

Christians and non Christians believe in the benevolence of god.

If the evidence is proven to work and it goes against the current theory, the current theory is tossed... That's the way it goes... To believe in I.D. after it has been proven to go against evolution (which is proven) then it is I.D. that gets thrown out, not evolution.

Feral, I thank you for your compassion. But I would like to educate you on what compassion really means.

Say that you develop the exact same symptoms. But you don't want to go to your doctor...

What you would want, is for others to realise that you are a smart person, that you have a degree, that when you talk about anything else but this, everyone thinks you are the smartest person they ever met.

But in this one thing, you suddenly become a dumba**.

People should think that it is going to take a substantial amount of evidence to disprove your claim, because people do believe that you are smart about everything else.

They don't have to believe you. But for them to be compassionate to you, they have to give you the respect they would do about anything else.

Frankly, when you are being "compassionate" with others, you are basically implying that you are smarter than them, but you'll pretend that you aren't.

I love science. But when people throw the word "science" at you, as if it means something that will disprove your POV, when all it means is a method of trying to understand things, and your POV, in the first place, you feel like there is no point in talking to them.

Either way, it's disheartening.

If you don't believe that science has a lot of dogma in it, that is your POV. But considering that many others have found that science as we know it to be filled with dogma, it isn't a POV that I find supportable.

I can quote just one example, although there are many others.

That is how many people feel about science in our current times.

But you can only trust these things for sure, because you can see it working for yourself, not because a doctor or a scientists told you it worked.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

Tolerance
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b: the act of allowing something : toleration

Intolerance
1: the quality or state of being intolerant

Intolerant
1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

Intolerance
2: exceptional sensitivity (as to a drug); specifically : inability to properly metabolize or absorb a substance

Satire
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Parody
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Caricature
1 : exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics

That's a good answer, trace dimorphism back to distant ancestors so that we always were male and female.

Yet it doesnt completely solve the puzzle. Even if you reduce it down to much simpler forms of life, with dimorphism it still took two to make one so there was never .....or rather, there always were ........two that made one and never a one of anything, whatever it was.

The only answer...

...there was at some point some hermaphrodite that could inseminate itself, somehow, and somehow it spun off other hermaphrodites that were more male and some more female, and somehow one of the males inseminated one of the females and more and more dimorphism appeared.

But then, whatever this prototype was, it must have been able to both inseminate itself as well as be inseminated ........ and i wonder if thats possible? Are there any critters today that reproduce both asexually and sexually?

But, I have never seen this riddle answered in any evolutionary theory .

Feral, sorry, buddy, you didn't even BEGIN to provide an answer.
Try reading it through, thinking a little, rather than assuming you know the answer.

I'm not coming to this with any slant...

Every person born comes from two parents, a male and a female. So, for every one, there was first two.

We can go back into evolution at earlier forms of man into cro-magnons and neanderthals and australopithicus, etc. and even to the apes...

...for every one person born, there were two parents....a male and female.

The question is: how can there be a first man or first woman in evolution when it always takes two, a man and woman, to make one?

Was there ever a time when there was a one producing a one, some kind of hermaphrodite creature that reproduced itself?

And, if so, did this creature somehow evolve to separate out its sexual organs so that they became divided into male and female and one fertilized the eggs of the other?

Did this hermaphrodite creature coexist with ones who became male and female for a time and the hermaphrodites die out?

How is it possible that there was ever a hermaphrodite creature that "split" into males and females? If a female were born from it, she couldn't reproduce without a male and vice versa...

...unless the hermaphordites began to morph and some were "more" male or female than others, and gradually they all began to spin out other hermaphrodites who were more male or more female.

but then, all animals and even plants reproduce "sexually" ... asexual reproduction is pretty rare and down at a low level, like amoebas.

The argument is more about exposing the alleged incoherencies of non-Christian attempts at explaining logic, science, and ethics.

Remember though that the argument is transcendental, so it's dealing with those fundamental categories that lay the groundwork for intelligible experience.

...what is known as the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). ...basically states that the existence of the Christian God provides the necessary, metaphysical foundation for all logic, science and ethics.

OP

I am fascinated by, and enjoy learning about religion(s).

What interests me more than WHAT people believe is WHY they believe (that their particular religion is true).

I would suspect that the most common reason is a cultural one (training from an early age).

Some poeple claim to have had revelations. Some claim their belief is a LOGICAL deduction.

This is for all the believers out there. Help me out. Is your belief based an event? Logic? Inspiration? Is it because it just makes you feel good? Does it just SEEM right? In any case, please share.

Because although the title of this thread is "Creation vs Evolution", it is in fact very tightly bound paradigm-wise

I have capitalized his words "facts" and "proof" and I suggest that herein lies the the problem.

Since it is a well understood fact in the scientific community that one cannot prove a negative, It becomes necessary to prove the positive.

IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A PLANET WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION AGAINST ENTROPY, THEN YOU CANNOT HAVE BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION.

The problem here seems to be what individuals accept as proof of anything.

What we have here is an unwillingness on the part of Evolutionists to see the evidence against their Theory. They want so much to deny the existence of God that they look for any excuse to deny the obvious.

Speaking of proof, please tell us some proofs for creationism such that it can proven or disproven in an experiment.

One proof is a set of footprints fossilized in a riverbed.

Another proof is the experiment of a Creationist putting a modern day beef roast in an oven and cooking it.

THE FOSSIL RECORD

DECAY Of EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD

THE GLOBAL FLOOD

It is a very simple question which has become so very convoluted that we can't even recognize the original form anymore.

I have been challenged time and time again by certain parties that seem to be fully convinced that nothing lies beyond what we can see, touch, feel, or better yet, prove scientifically. Does anyone else see the absurdity in claiming "reason" to be the driving force behind this mentality?

Accepting the possibility of God requires an acknowledgement: Things exist beyond the realm of my understanding.

That is not a profound statement. It is not mystical, supernatural, delusional, or insane. It is in my opinion, the very pillar of self-awareness and self-consciousness.

1. Reason is my guiding principle.
2. I accept nothing beyond the realm of measurable evidence.

I have posted a few times here, and the first thing I learned was to phrase my viewpoint without drawing fire. I'm sorry. I can't help it this time.

I was not only disgusted with what I learned about this movie, but also deeply sadened.

I can't describe how hurt I am that a hate-promoting author has made it into the mainstream media with a deliberate attempt to remove God from the minds of our children.

This movie is based on the first book of a children's trilogy called His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman.

Phillip Pullman stated he wants to kill God in the minds of children. ...The mainstream speculation is that he intends for the movie to promote the books, thereby giving the children the uninhibited story when they read them.

CHILDREN CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES! They become what we make them by careful molding of their delicate personalities.

It is NOT your right to try to fill our children's minds with hate for God!

If truth is something that we strain for, why do we look so hard to find it?

Is it something that we desperately want to know to fulfill something in our lives?

Is it something that we need to find out who we are as humans?

Maybe truth disguises itself for a reason.

Either way, truth has a tendancy to reveal itself in a way that the person who is really searching can understand it.

Is truth never ending? What are we really searching for? Is it truth? Or is it Purpose?

It should also be noted that truth never changes; it is immutable. If 'P' is true, it is true absolutely—in all places, at all times, and for all agents.

Truth is immutable; what changes is our understanding or knowledge.

Happy Birthday Scorpiomover!!!!

What would you ask this wandering preacher?
Remember you have not a clue as to who he is or what he is.

this is very much a lets pretend thread.

Basically if it was the only path, I would be on it... Which I am not... Nor are alot of folks... There are many paths.

Emphasis on their own... Once you start trying to raise other kids on the block into your dogma, you have crossed the line... And there are many out there who do preach to other peoples kids.

What is Holy to Americans???

One of the things that has been bothering me whilst trying to have an open discussion with any Christian is not feeling as though they see me as an equal.

Even being told by some that I am not.

If you are a Christian can you see everyone else's faith and Religion equal to your own?

If your not a Christian have you had any related experiences positive or negative that could illustrate feeling equal or not?

If you don't or can't, do you think its possible to have an open and honest debate about beliefs and religions?

Everyone feels the same way, but many people say "My beliefs are right for me and your beliefs are right for you", but I can't get behind that idea, because I believe in universal truth.

How can you project your experiences, beliefs and feelings out onto others as though they are, or must be true for everyone... ??

Considering that none of us really have the answers...

Anyone who holds beliefs must believe that they are right, if for nobody else but themselves.

I find that most people who say "My beliefs are right for me, your beliefs are right for you", aren't very accepting of anyone who doesn't believe that same way.

For me to say "Your beliefs are right for you" requires that I call Jesus a liar...

I freely admit that Christians don't often act this way, but that reflects on them, not Christianity as a religion.

Generally though,faith is an instant conversation stopper.If someone says,"I believe abortion and homosexuality are evil and I will never accept either".Then there is no room for discussion,the conversation is essentially over.

It's not about you not feeling the same way, it's about you claiming yours is the only real path, when it's all too obvious it isn't.

I found this little tidbit on the internet about tolerance what do you think?

curious where all the Christians are??? surely you have an opinion on this?

If a particular Christian or group of Christians, wants to believe that they are right and every other religion, and person is wrong, so what? I mean what, or who, does that really affect except themselves?
...But how does that affect anyone else?
...So way not accept that? Isn't that part of tolerance?
...So expect that they will offer up religious tid-bits of opinion and scripture to support why they have to disagree, and then let it go.

Unless, of course, there is any fear that any of their religious doctrine, could affect our laws, and thereby make us all bound to that same doctrine.

Perhaps we need to be arguing the constitution with our politicians, instead of religion with the righteous.

what about the innocent children of Christians what do you think happens when they don't believe?

Msg 12

I think it is harmful to teach children to fear what they don't understand.

If I accept the possibilty that there may be other truths and other possibilities than I am in doubt of, and questioning the teachings and instructions laid out in the bible. I believe this would be very displeasing to God.

In order to have prayers answered and miracles worked in my everyday life it is important that I believe with my whole heart.

So Jesus was very tolerant of other believes. And so too should christians.

If, however, by honest and open debate you mean - am I open to having my mind changed - I'd have to say the chance of that happening is next to impossible.

Being right precludes any discussion other than asserting one's righteousness.

The whole world wants to tell you your script, but only you are capable of knowing it.

Comparing people and peoples religion are two different things, doll.

So be tolerant, and judge not, unless you see a person who bears a seed you fear, then with prejudice born of fear, it is your right to judge and without any further attempt to understand much less to continue to be tolerant, they are now judged and found guilty of being the enemy.

Which is more important your faith or your doctrine? So if any part of your doctrine is proven to be incorrect, what’s the worst that can happen, will you then loose your faith? Or will you simply conform and repent the error of your prior ways?

I don't even think along those lines anymore!

Its kinda hard to talk about one and leave out the other, isn't it?

1.Much of our politics and law is based on Christian values...

2.The war on terror is a conflict with radical Islam...

3. Republicans and Democrats alike keep sticking to their parties with religious like conviction

...as if ethier side has the will or ability to fix any of the worlds ills...

Armageddon is on the horizon one way or the other. ...or a self fulfilled prophecy...

...but the Republican party has seemed to be Christian, as far as I can tell, and greatly depends on Christian votes, yes.

Christians don't have values, not any that don't shift and warp to suit every purpose. Religion is a handy way of predisposing populations to react favorably to authority.

Politics is the art of lying to people so they will have a way to align their personal desires with your larger aims.

The link between religion and politics is that religion indoctrinates people to obey authority without thinking for themselves, and government is the authority in daily life requiring unthinking obedience.

Politicians want to win over religious voters to get elected.

If mankind follows things like "the golden rule" for millenia then has christians lay clame to it...doesn't make it a christian value.

However, you will still see that natural order in effect today, if you look to our leaders, and our government you will find them to be predominantly
men, not woman in places of authority.

Today's "system" or order, as I like to refer to it as, is infact built on Biblical principles but has been somewhat distorted to please man..sad, that.

"It is said that you are not supposed to discuss religion and politics in conversation. I find it difficult to have an interesting conversation without discussing religion and politics".

Well Congress opens each session with prayer to this very day;

Our laws however are based on judaeo-christian values.

I can asure you there is very little Islamic influence in our laws. Sharia Law works in stark contrast to the US code.

Our money has "in god we trust" imprinted on it... The plege of aligiance we were taught to say has "one nation under God" in it.

If you are spiritual, YOU ARE RELIGIOUS.

But one would expect a Christian to proselytize.

An atheist would expect a Christian to act from emotion and not reason to spread the word of a God which can't be proven.

But atheists who base their beliefs on what can be proven, on reason, one does not expect them to waste their time interrupting religious threads with off topic emotional challenges.

select option C which I guess he meant to be 3.

I also know what "belief" is and am very aware of it being different from knowledge.

It is frustrating to hear someone spout a truth off but not support it with anything more then mere belief.

Imagine if teachers all taught like that, I think we'd be in a world of hurt! Don't question it, just follow it.

What's that - you don't believe as I do? HELP HELP I'M UNDER ATTACK I'M A VICTIM I'M A VICTIM!!!

Christians like those are a credit to their faith and present an excellent example for others to follow.

Ive found that virtually everyone recieves "questioning" of their faith or belief well, even glad for the oportunity to share and to learn.