I don`t forsee much Hope for AMERICA in the future. Here is why:........

[The True Adonis]

And this proves or disproves the existence of God how?

Disproves YOUR thesis, not Dostoevsky`s of "All is permitted".

Your previous thesis is not valid when considering who breaks the law and who does not and who is in prison and who is not.

If you have forgotten what you have wrote, please scroll up.

[luvvsuNOT]

so you see vast complexity as requiring a creator?

Not requiring. Just sort of pushing the odds in favor.

[The True Adonis]

Also let me add, the probability for your God existing is lower than for God not to exist.

It is simply not either or and equal.

[Necrosis]

Not requiring. Just sort of pushing the odds in favor.

wouldn't god have to be more complex then the universe?

wouldn't, by your logic, that then require an explanation for him since such high degrees of complexity could not happen by 'chance'?

whenever you evoke something outside the universe to explain the universe you are opening pandora's box. Taking a leap of faith is only required to quell your anxieties about death and the unknown. The intelligent position IS to say you don't know. However, from this creation,i can safely make some assumptions about a creator if he did exist.

[The True Adonis]

Natural Selection is not pure chance and has nothing to do with chance.  Just thought I would point that out as well.

[luvvsuNOT]

Disproves YOUR thesis, not Dostoevsky`s of "All is permitted".

Your previous thesis is not valid when considering who breaks the law and who does not and who is in prison and who is not.

If you have forgotten what you have wrote, please scroll up.

I had a thesis? I spoke of prison and prisoners where exactly?

Only psuedo intellectuals like to speak in terms of thesis.

BTW, I sense anger. Remember what Bertrand Russell said about anger in a debate? (google it).

[Necrosis]

Natural Selection is not pure chance and has nothing to do with chance.  Just thought I would point that out as well.

hey adonis, your writing is looking familiar to someone who drinks piss, that wouldn't be the case would it?

[The True Adonis]

To do good solely for it's own sake it truly the sign of... well,  goodness. And I'm not being sarcastic as I take you at your word. Especially in a world that can be so cruelly and brutality unfair. At times it seems that doing the right things gets you the short end of the stick. In fact, there are times when I think that doing the right thing in life virtually assures that you will get the short end of the stick. As if God is testing your sincerity. After all, anybody can do anything if they are immediately rewarded rather than some, often faint hope, of future heavenly glory. But can you really realistically hold human nature to these saintly standards?

You mentioned earlier that it's sad that people need a God and a heaven to behave. Whether it's sad or not does not take away from reality. Forget God. You can say it's sad that people need the police, laws and the threat of prison or death to keep you line. Say society announces that we will have the same laws but that they just no longer will be enforced. This may have no effect on your behavior but what effect do you think it will have on crimes? Rape, robbery, murder.... Go up? Down? Stay the same?

As I said before, I don't trust human nature and when a person only has to answer to themselves, well, as Dostoesky put it, "All is permitted."

Did you forget that you wrote this?

[Drama Queen]

Let me put it to you this way....for the sake of argument, let's pretend god is real. I go thru life, doing everything in my power to be the best human being, and loving my fellow humans. If that is not enough for me to get into "heaven" then fuck it, I wouldn't want to be there with such a "god" anyways. I've known some pieces of shit, who "believed", and by that theory they are awaiting heaven and all its glory.

Makes no sense to me....

BTW, for those of you who "believe"....how the hell do you know your religion is the right one, and your "god" is the one to follow?

WOW  Gordiano, you took the words right out of my mouth  .

[The True Adonis]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_32


Misconceptions about natural selection

Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

Formula for natural selection


 

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

[luvvsuNOT]

Also let me add, the probability for your God existing is lower than for God not to exist.

It is simply not either or and equal.

How?

[luvvsuNOT]

Natural Selection is not pure chance and has nothing to do with chance.  Just thought I would point that out as well.

Agreed.

[luvvsuNOT]

Did you forget that you wrote this?

No. My point being that without a system of reward and punishment we would have a very different society.

[luvvsuNOT]

wouldn't god have to be more complex then the universe?

wouldn't, by your logic, that then require an explanation for him since such high degrees of complexity could not happen by 'chance'?

whenever you evoke something outside the universe to explain the universe you are opening pandora's box. Taking a leap of faith is only required to quell your anxieties about death and the unknown. The intelligent position IS to say you don't know. However, from this creation,i can safely make some assumptions about a creator if he did exist.

Actually, I made it abundately clear that I didn't know and we are speaking of matters of faith. Either matter always existed or that there was a creator that always existed. As Carl Sagan, an avowed atheist, said, it's just a matter of one step. He stopped at matter. That there was always just matter and everything happened purely by chance. Fair enough.

[luvvsuNOT]

Shoots! I have to go. This is a great site. I was bored to tears at BB.com

Where else can you go to read about David Henry's back, Nasser Nights, Fartchair switcheroo, Protein Powder prices, gh15 god of hormones, Mentzer's magnificant stache, Urine Therapy, Coleman/Yates back and to discuss Life, The Universe and Everything. This place is a gold mine! I'd die for you bitches!

So long (for now) and thanks for all the fish!

[Cavalier22]

TA, you know relating those statistics of religious affiliations among prisoners isn't the best evidence you could use to refute the opinion of luv.

Just because someone marks themself down as christian on their entry form going into Prison hardly makes them a believer and follower of Jesus Christ.  I would suggest that most of them never thought once or twice about religion or spirituality.  If more of them did there would probably be more who claim themselves to be atheists...i doubt much more than half of those in prison even know what an atheist is.  The kind of people who populate state and federal prisons are overwelmingly uneducated.

Also, you must take into account that claiming to be a christian, or a differnt religion, opens up doors to you inside the prison. In some prison systems, it allows you more time out of your cell to go to religious ceremonies and educational classes.  Claiming to be a christian and to have refound your faith inside is a common statement among those seeking parole.

[The True Adonis]

TA, you know relating those statistics of religious affiliations among prisoners isn't the best evidence you could use to refute the opinion of luv.

Just because someone marks themself down as christian on their entry form going into Prison hardly makes them a believer and follower of Jesus Christ.  I would suggest that most of them never thought once or twice about religion or spirituality.  If more of them did there would probably be more who claim themselves to be atheists...i doubt much more than half of those in prison even know what an atheist is.  The kind of people who populate state and federal prisons are overwelmingly uneducated.

Also, you must take into account that claiming to be a christian, or a differnt religion, opens up doors to you inside the prison. In some prison systems, it allows you more time out of your cell to go to religious ceremonies and educational classes.  Claiming to be a christian and to have refound your faith inside is a common statement among those seeking parole.

2 things.

Most uneducated people are Christian. 

and

I didn`t realize there were certain rules to being a Christian.  Can`t anyone just say they are a Christian and that they love Jesus and POOF! they are saved and are a Christian in just one statement thus making them a legit Christian?  Or am I missing something?  Is there a Christian Litmus test so to speak?  Who makes the rules?  Who decides who qualifies?

[Oldschool Flip]

The higher the IQ, the less belief in deities and religion. That's a fact.

[luvvsuNOT]

The higher the IQ, the less belief in deities and religion. That's a fact.

Though I haven't seen any studies or examine how they were conducted; intuitively, I would not doubt this. People with low intelligence would be more easily drawn into, well, anything. Whether it be Catholicism, Satanism, toad licking.... An intelligent person would tend to be skeptical of pretty much everything. But again this doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's the difference between causation and correlation. It's been proven that households with a lot of books tend to be better educated and have a higher intelligence. That of course doesn't mean that if I start dumping a load of books into inner city households that suddenly intelligence will go up. Having books doesn't cause an increase of intelligence but there is a correlation between those who actually buy and read books and intelligence. In other words, if you're a smart dude chances are you going to be interested in reading books.

Believing in God doesn't make you dumb anymore than not believing makes you smart. William F. Buckley, a devote Catholic, seemed pretty smart to me. But I have to admit, in an attempt at objective honesty, that if one is raised in a strict religious upbringing where diversity of thought is not only discouraged but even punished, then surely that would stifle any intellectual blossoming.

[The Ugly]

Though I haven't seen any studies or examine how they were conducted; intuitively, I would not doubt this. People with low intelligence would be more easily drawn into, well, anything. Whether it be Catholicism, Satanism, toad licking.... An intelligent person would tend to be skeptical of pretty much everything. But again this doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's the difference between causation and correlation. It's been proven that households with a lot of books tend to be better educated and have a higher intelligence. That of course doesn't mean that if I start dumping a load of books into inner city households that suddenly intelligence will go up. Having books doesn't cause an increase of intelligence but there is a correlation between those who actually buy and read books and intelligence. In other words, if you're a smart dude chances are you going to be interested in reading books.

Believing in God doesn't make you dumb anymore than not believing makes you smart. William F. Buckley, a devote Catholic, seemed pretty smart to me. But I have to admit, in an attempt at objective honesty, that if one is raised in a strict religious upbringing where diversity of thought is not only discouraged but even punished, then surely that would stifle any intellectual blossoming.

Kinda long, but well said.

[Soul Crusher]

Kinda long, but well said.

I was raised Catholic but now believe most religions as it is today is a bunch of garbage.

I believe in God, definately, but not organized religion as it is today.

[The Ugly]

I believe in God, definately

This thread suggests you are foolish.

[Soul Crusher]

This thread suggests you are foolish.

I guess Albert Einstein was foolish too??

[The Ugly]

I guess Albert Einstein was foolish too??

You'll have to take it up with the thread starter.

Expect lots of pasting.

[loco]

The smartest man in America believes in God.

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan has developed his own "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4]

Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test, scoring "off the charts". Novelly was said to be astounded, saying: "Chris is the highest individual that I have ever measured in 25 years of doing this."[5]

In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[5]

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible" [6]

1 For the figure of 195, see Sager 1999, McFadden 1999, Fowler 2000, Wigmore 2000, O'Connell 2001, Brabham 2001, and Quain 2001. In Morris 2001, Langan relates that he took what was billed as "the world's most difficult IQ test" in Omni magazine, and gives his IQ as "somewhere between 190 and 210."

2 For the phrase "the smartest man in America", see Sager 1999, Fowler 2000, Wigmore 2000, and Brabham 2001. O'Connell 2001 (in the standfirst) uses "the smartest man in the world", and Quain 2001 (on the cover) uses "the Smartest Man Alive".

3 CTMU Q & A - What is the CTMU?
http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU

4 Preston, Ray (November 15, 2006).

5 McFadden, Cynthia. (December 9, 1999). "The Smart Guy". 20/20.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030811145631/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html

6 ABCNEWS.com Chat Transcript
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816004851/www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_991210_iq_chat.html