right you are about to tell me about the work of the genome project guy. well, your guy worked for the government end of that research, which was inferior to the private research, and for all i know he was a political appointee by a christian administration. and i would be happy to depend on his work, as long as he didnt use any magic in his research. but i would also expect there are men superior to him in his field. if you make this point you have to explain where god came from. you would be smart not to use that point.
The point I have made is you are unable to objectively look at facts based on your contempt for Christianity. You contend facts are facts, yet you are willing to continue to diregard the work of extremely gifted individuals based on their religious beliefs. Once again, you have stereotyped Christians to fit your attempted argument, and when presented facts that state otherwise, you have no response other than falling back on your "magic and myths" crutch.
Well, atually my post was being made before your reply, so there, bub. Now you have attempted to discredit him because he works for the government. Whatever it takes to make you feel better I guess.
if you say so. i do not have answers to those sort of questions. any situation is always made better by some H L mencken quotes: "The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked..." "The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails."
So, in other words, like Christians cannot offer concrete proof that there is a God, you can offer nothing concrete that disproves the existance of God. Your beliefs are based on theory, much like Christianity is based on faith. The fundamental element of your arguments against God is stereotyping all religious people to to suit your purpose at the time. When a Christian tells you they are open to what science has proven, your reaction is to tell them they can't be, because all religious types believe the same thing. You are either very naive or incapable of coming up with a credible argument against them, yet you continue to make some sort of attempt to discredit them. Wasn't it Mencken who also said: "The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown." Seems to me the way he was forced to live out final years of his life could have indeed proven there is a God after all.
you have such a poor understanding of my beliefs. i do not deny there is a god, there very well may be a god. my beliefs are not based on theory, not one tiny bit. for all i know, god made everything. i see no reason to think he did, so i will hold off of believing that for now. the difference between me and religious people is that i do not make anything up to believe. i accept ignorance. i dont recall ever claiming that there is no god, but if i did it was a mistake on my part. however i am pretty sure i never said that. i realize that hasnt stopped you from misrepresenting me. the poor guy had a stroke and was unable to talk or even recognize his friends. i am not sure what you mean, but that sounds like sort of a mean and not a particularly jesus-like thing to say.
Fair enough, but this seems to contradict much of what you have posted previously. . Well, I am human, not of divine origin, so I am subject to such things. Christians are like everyone else, subject to imperfections. Using their imperfections to make an argument against the word of God, however, is quite unfair.
