"Good soul?" A level of the developing soul where the creator is proud. It is anyones guess. "Define soul" soul-making is allowing the eternal essence to enter and experience the outer world through all the orifices of the body ... so that the soul grows during its time on Earth. It grows like an embryo in the womb. Soul-making is constantly confronting the paradox that an eternal being is dwelling in a temporal body. That’s why it suffers, and learns by heart. "Reward" I once had a near death experience which over stimulated my brain with emotions, created some form of a dreamlike but colored. It felt like a message that was sent from God to ease me. Maybe God exist and is a few dimensions away and by using more of the brain, causes the human eye to see beyond the ordinary and also hearing too. I've learnt that we do not “see” with our eyes but, rather, with our brains. Our eyes merely are the beginnings of the visual process. What happens when 100% of the brain is working? What will we see?
Yes, as I've heard plenty on the forums. Throughout history people have fought for their beliefs, whether it be religion or ways, cultures, etc. And if not for God, but for protection of their country and other things. And sometimes forcefully overendorsed others with their cultures and such. God is just one aspect. And if not for God, it would be other excuses people use to act forcefully on someone else. It's not the nature of most traditional religion to be violent, it's the nature of man. You can give me a one sentence religion telling me to 'be nice' to someone and if I'm a violent person it will mean being possibly violent to someone to promote someone being nice. Meaning is sometimes lost or twisted in vague teachings from various religions. So why use religion? Well, the law keeps people at bay somewhat. But law governs action, religion governs thought. Law says what we can and can't do with disregard to the fine health of a person. Religion governs the fine health of a person, how we should act on a more minute scale, as far as manners go. As I said before, religion is like martial arts. It's not merely a law, it's a way of life and a way of training so you're prepared to do the right thing in an impulsive act so that it becomes instinct. - Pertaining to blaming groups instead of individuals. Yeah, but we're talking morally. It would be rather ignorant of me to do so. Depends on your definition. You can agree they have no belief in God so therefore they have a common belief. But I won't get into it. I'm not part of that group so it's not for me to try to exclaim any assertions that it is a group of people who have a belief, or religion. But there is no definition I"m aware of that says God has to be seen or observable by science, even though my belief is contrary, so if it can't be seen by definition, how can you believe you don't see it or others don't sense it. So really, it just makes the disbelieving party seem a little uneducated. It's like saying, I don't believe in something which can't be observed and would be shallow and ignorant for any scientist to think that. Any true scientist has to have an open mind to possibilities. So can we just blame this on humans? Or just humans with a certain mind that may believe? Where do we draw the line? Obviously not all people who believe in one of the major traditional religions have killed someone. So should the rest suffer. Should we generalize? Suppose, just imagine, an alien race took over the planet who had no beliefs and killed us all because we believe. Would that be right for them to generalize? Is it really religion which may seem to you as making people make mistakes or is it the people themselves or take it the wrong way? Should we try to make an effort to get rid of the belief to generalize that some people have? Where to draw the line? Should we thin the herd so everyone has the same thoughts or beliefs? Isn't that hypocritical when you're fighting what you think is people who have a violent religion? It does what it's designed to do, each of them. The muscle cell isn't made to be as intelligent. But each takes an input or fuel and outputs the work or data, if you want to call it, that it should. You arrange one machine with one set of gears to do work, and one with a whole complexity of gears. Is the more complex one more intelligent? Surely, if designed so, could give more intelligent results. So at the macro level, they behave like different machines but at the micro level, they really have the same basic consituents to compose the seemingly intelligent output. Consider yourself as a gear in the machine of the universe, doing your job, not knowing the complexity of the output the whole machine is doing. A rock could be compared to the muscle cell in complexity, and us, perhaps, a neuron. Each of different levels of complexity designed or evolved, whatever term you deem politically correct, to do as it is needed. Just because an object outputs a more intelligent or complex data doesn't mean it isn't composed of the same fundamental particles another object is composed of which outputs less complex data. You would be surprised of how it really is. Intelligence is not input, it is output. It is not how the solution is done, it is the solution itself which defines intelligence. If you are fed 2+2 and the computer is, you both arrive at the same answer, hopefully. Are you intelligent because your head uses different molecules to go about it? Or is it because computers are dependant on our energy thus far to maintain what they have? We are dependant on the fuels or calories from the Earth, does it mean it is more intelligent than us? Do you not see them as intelligent because we had to construct them and give them what intelligence they have, or as you see it, none? So is the Earth/Universe more intelligent since it evolved us? If the answer is no, because you say we are a random process of events, then that makes the computer also from a random process of events, therefore, doesn't discount it could possibly be called intelligent. Intelligence isn't input as I said, or material data, it's the output. If we use apples or oranges to add 2+2=4, we still arrive at the same raw mathematical data and get what we need. On the contrary, that's the whole process of debate here. And as I notice here, if you claim to believe in God, all you have to do is sit back and wait for others to try to shoot it down, which anyone is welcome to. I can't help you see it the way I see it unless you question me and see what we need to resolve so that you can or that I can see it your way. So that's all I'm saying. If you want me to see it your way or try to, all you got to do is chip in and try to debunk mine in the traditional operation of a forum. As viewed in law, any undebated claim is taken as true. If you want to fight for your view, you got to take the stand. That's right, I believe the Universe is collectively one intelligent or complex entity, or God as I call it, composed of simpler or less intelligent compounds. It's hard to disprove a complex Universe as the one we live in now so the burden lays on the disbelievers. Unless our eyes and instruments decieve us, disbelievers simply have no evidence.
usp8riot, Nice fantasy, but fantasy nevertheless. BS. You make the claim – you prove it if you want anyone else to believe you LOL. You haven’t learnt anything here have you.
Ok, let's take out "I believe" and "God" and a few choice words to make it simpler for the non-religious. The Universe is collectively one complex entity composed of simpler components. There you go. It's no fantasy any more. I have no burden other than to make conversation and discuss what we've all came here to discuss. The burden is not on me to prove or you to disprove, it's just conversation or friendly debate. It's already proven to me, and if you don't see it, and want to discuss it, then I guess the burden is on you to let me know why you don't so I can explain what you don't understand or so I can perhaps understand something you know and see it more your way. You got to realize that is part of the process to verbally trade thoughts. Yes. I've heard the "can't prove a negative" phrase here plenty times. To me it was like telling me I can't prove what I see or how I see it. I just thought I'd try to flip it around so you can perhaps see it my way. I was counting on some athiests here to think, 'hey, you can't use that, that's our phrase'.
It's also vastly different from your original statement: I believe the Universe is collectively one intelligent or complex entity, or God as I call it, composed of simpler or less intelligent compounds. I hope you're not saying the two statements are the same??? Fallacy. You are debating. In any debate, or even any conversation, you should be able to support your claims with evidence - otherwise they will be treated as the irrelevant comments they are. The only difference between forums such as these and casual conversation with friends is that in these forums you get called out for not providing evidence. Which is why we are telling you that there is no evidence to what you claim. Then you misunderstand - as you CAN prove what you see. Interpretation is subjective, but first everyone has to see the same thing. "Can't prove a negative" is merely saying that you can not prove something does not exist - as to do so you would have to examine EVERY piece of existence at the same time - which is impossible. Therefore the burden on proof is on the one making the positive claim. In order for your tactic to work, you need to understand what you are "flipping". So in this case it appears that your idea failed due to poor execution.
So you agree with the latter revised statement apparently. Okay, just trying to see where you stand. So apparently you may disagree with it being called God, which is just semantics, and I'm sure you disagree with the whole, intelligence is derived from complexity notion. I see how you're thinking that, I assume, you are perhaps thinking it's in the arrangement of the molecules in the cells which make them intelligent or not. Yes, that's true. But what are they made of? Does the muscle cell and the neuron have a or some common denominator(s)? Of course. I'm just stating, a complex object is composed or simpler objects and a complex action also birthed from less complex reactions. So if we account for all the simple actions going on in the universe, it as a collective is one complex action. We, as humans, have a common denominator and nominator (perhaps it's not the right use of the word, but it sounds good). As we evolved, it was basically, this doesn't work, take it away or that works, let's keep it. That is laymans evolution. As our learning goes in life, this works, brain says try to keep this or make this connection, or this doesn't, you can discard this info or connection, basically. After all, the first step in learning a complex machine is learning the basics, the simplicities of it and teach it that way. Evolution is basically an add and subtract function. That's how we got from simple to complex organisms. And us human are perhaps the leading edge of evolution, like an ever evolving math equation, we are the most complex. But we were evolved by mathematical calculations, or boolean equations, if you wish, and from less complex boolean functions. We are merely a set of functions that shows an obvious product of how far it's came by showing it's complexity. The universe is composed mostly of simpler compounds of functions but as a collective, is it not intelligent since it is a complex set of functions as we are? But we as humans show the sum of an equation from evolution and our bodies are like a living record of that along with other living organisms. You may have to think deep on it or else you'll miss what I'm talking about. Our bodies are nothing more than a complex collection of simpler 'add this, take away that' functions over time. We just are the product of more which were advatageous to the growth of our sum. Sure, you say, even fish went through as much evolutionary phases. Perhaps, it's irrelevant, but they and other creatures may have went one step forward, then one step back or sideways in evolution pertaining to their real evolutinary complexity. None reached where we are since we are the serial product of some of the simpler life forms around us. Our complexity is such, that we have a higher consciousness than other animals. We have the calculative powers to calculate what we're calculating, or, what I define as consciousness. A calculator with extra memory to see what it is calculating and double check. A mirror as such. To keep us in check. To let us know when we are out of line even without someone to keep us in check although anyone extra helps. The power to self-reflect and think how should I act to someone else. What if I were them? I shouldn't do to them what I wouldn't do to my ownself. The power to imagine and belief that there is a set way of doing things, something that keeps us in check. And an overall set way in which the Universe works, the way things are, or God's law, as I call it.
Two things.... 1. Complexity does NOT equate to intelligence. It might well be a requirement for intelligence - but does not equate, by itself, to intelligence. 2. The universe, as a whole, has not evolved - and has no need to evolve. It exists. It is all. Just as a creature does not evolve in any way in its lifetime, so this Universe has never evolved. It requires reproduction to evolve - and an environment in which to sit. Therefore, your logic of using an evolved, complex and intelligent creature as an analogy for the Universe is flawed.
usp8riot, Your ideas on complexity being composed of a collection of simpler things is going in the right direction. But think it through a little further. You should see that everything complex we know has been derived from something simpler. Taken to its ultimate we can see that everything is formed from the fundamantal particles and forces that comprise the universe. I.e. complexity comes from simplicity first. Think of the universe as the source of basic building blocks from which complexities can be formed. With this in mind the god concept, whether pantheistic or otherwise, that begins as something immensely complex makes no sense and simply breaks all the rules, and more importantly is entirely unnecessary.
I disagree with that anaology or what religion is intended to do, but that disagreement is beside the point. As an obvious computer science student you should be able to see that the following statement reflects what you have been asserting: If ( (religion is intended to "govern thought") AND (you think Christianity is a non-destructive "thought governeor") AND (the results of Christianity support this) ) { :: MessageBox (0, "True Statement", "T R U T H", MB_OK); I can consequently show evidence where you stated condition 1) and 2) and show evidence (well technically I have already) where condition 3) is not true; therefore, we're not dealing with a true statement. Why? All definitions of 'belief' boil down to acceptance as truth. The context of our conversation is regarding 'religious belief' which is a specific variant that doesn't take evidence into account. Maybe the distinction is too subtle for you. Some atheists assert that the claim of 'Gods' existence is unsupported and therefore has not been established as true or false. Some atheists assert that specific claims of 'God's existence are false because of no supportive evidence and plenty contradictive evidence; although, they don't hold the concept if 'God' in general as true or false. Some atheists assert that all claims of 'God's existence are false. There may be variants as well. There is so much sacrafice of logic and knowledge in that statement it's "unbelievable", but I'll chalk that up to a pretty hefty failure of the educational system. I believe the zaboombafoo dimension exists and it's diving inhabitants, the parelian thor, guides us to prosperty if we're willing to listen. According to your logic, you are going to become very shallow and ignorant in just a moment. IMO, the core issue is 'belief' (religious belief that is). It's a method of evaluating assertions as truth based on how it makes people feel. Religion tends to promote this type of evaluation rather than the one that better aligns to reality (i.e. evidence-based thinking). I think the point was missed. Both myself and now you have contradicted your claim of collective-constuent intelligence. We have an example of 2 collectives. One is intelligent and one is not. Your claim asserts that all collectives are intelligent; hence, the universe is but clearly these two cell types contradict that assertion and you have agreed on that. If you're going to continue down the 'design' path as a resolution to the contradiction then you would have to prove a 'designer' exists for both the cells in question and the universe. Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence Pronunciation: in-'tel-&-j&n(t)s Function: noun 1 a : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations b : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) I am sorry to say that your AMD-64 doesn't do this no matter how many times it executes 1+1. That's consequently not how the law is. A prosecutor for example has to provide evidence that the defendant is guilty. You have come here with a mountain of claim based on a mountain of belief and the evidence is lacking. There's nothing really to debate except thought process. The universe is complex (that is a self-evident) and I have no idea why you think someone would try to show otherwise. If you wan't to convince me that the universe is intelligent then you are going to have show evidence that meets the ALL the criteria of the definition of intelligence (not one that you made up). Until this happens, your assertion won't be accepted as truth. If contradictory evidence surfaces then your assertion will be falsified and you'll have a notch on your belt of inventing a fantasy and trying to pass it off as truth.
I was going to put this thread to rest thinking you atheists won't get it but I hate to lose hope in anyone not understanding where I or others are coming from who believe in a single, unifying entity. And apparently a good bit of time was put in for the replies so I won't ignore them. But we are all linked in some way and all interdependent as seemingly one unified complex machine, if you will, although I don't like to use that term since especially the hardcore believers in God don't like to depersonalized things. At the root, it's very simple. A simple set of boolean functions merged together to create a complexity. Perhaps those functions aren't merged to act as complex or intelligent but to keep the "intelligent" sustained. Perhaps we view the muscle cell as unintelligent but yet, it is somewhat complex in layers. The muscle cells, in themself, sustains the neurons by the obvious, as a collective, to hunt and feed the body. The Earth could be considered one big rock, unintelligent, but complex, yet it sustains what you will call "intelligent" and one big machine which is interdependent on each component. The Earth is dependent on life to keep it as it is and we are dependent on the Earth to keep us as we are. Yes, the universe changes every day, second, and so on. It evolves through time. Evolve means to change to adapt for survival or to fit in. No doubt if we didn't evolve in our lifetime and stayed babies, mankind wouldn't be here. Evolution is simply change, or specifically change advantageous to sustaining a being if speaking of life. Cris, to me, belief in God is not really necessary but you realize that we are all part of something great, we are the universe, all working in unison and that there is no waste, no human without purpose, we should take care of the earth and each other to be healthy as we are all one unified complex machine. You realize the importance of the smallest creatures/things and the largest. No CC, I'm not in computer science. I have had computer oriented classes before but still have a common, ordinary, non-computer oriented job. Although I have 10 years experience using them, what drew me as a kid was subconsciously I kind of felt it amazing that raw, mathematical data from the universe could be taken and put into the machine, giving sometimes a very accurate prediction of what is going to happen. Although in a much simpler scope as a kid. You sort of realize the implications it holds. Do I need to say why it's ignorant to say everyone has the same beliefs or does exactly the same thing, ie, to generalize? If you see it a failure, perhaps a failure for me to argue for others and to get into the philosophical view of it. Others believe God can't be seen, which I don't, I believe God is all around us. Be hypothetical if you want, but I'm not one to tell you what you see. All I can do is say I don't see it. I have just as much skepticism as anyone but less fervor to debate it. I tend to think of myself for the underdog and in general society, I stand up a lot more for atheists since I know where they're coming from, for the most part, and their marriage to the rational. But here, I'm more fervent on debating the atheists since a lot of people who are religious here are the underdogs. I try to promote understanding of both views as long as a party is willing to open their eyes or ears. There are just as many atheists as theists who don't want to open their eyes and see where the other is coming from. Should I direct you to a popular beliefs some atheists hold? How many times is the word belief/believe used there? Which, btw, I could make an entire thread of the contradictions just in that bit of text. Some of it I see as irrational. Can someone show me a religion or moral code that holds up and doesn't seem hypocritical? Some people like to play the hand of having no house so they can try to poke holes in others without fear of retribution of their moral foundation being attacked. The worst thing someone can do who wants to be right all the time is tell someone where they stand so they know which carpet to pull out from under their feet and make them fail. So therefore they try to pull the carpet out from others' feet while leaving others in the dark and not seeing their foundation and the failures of it. Take a stand and make your own belief system then. Be pro-active. We should have constructive criticism here, and not just knock what we don't like or don't think acceptable, but discuss better ways. If you're smart enough to know 2+2 doesn't equal 3, then tell someone the answer or how to get to it then just being critical. It seems there's too much pessimism around here sometimes. I know the frustration in trying to tell close-minded religious zealots the facts of life, that real world science does in fact contradict a lot of religious people's beliefs, but it's much more interesting when it's debated as mature adults, not that you're not. But it seems the world "belief" is seen as a dirty word here. I see it as an educated guess, or educated assumption, if you will. There is no one I know that doesn't have a belief in anything. And the typical atheist view has no foundation for it without a root belief in why we're here. If there is no God, then nothing holds merit other than 'just because I think so' or 'it seems right' which is a belief. It doesn't hold together without some unifying belief in what is right or why we're here. You may say I won't kill because it's not nice. Well why? Because it's not good for my survival or theirs? Then why? Because I think I should survive? Why? So my offspring can? Why? So they can advance? Why? So they can survive? Why? Get it? It's rhetorical? Then I would ask, why not kill yourself since you have no God or purpose here? Then perhaps they say, "well, I guess you got me. There is some purpose for us so I won't kill myself, or loved ones, or others". Then I ask, "So what if you do kill yourself or them, what's going to happen". They say, "well, I don't believe in God so nothing bad other than what they do to me". I say, "So, who's to say your purpose isn't to kill them and why are you scared of what they do to you? Are you scared to die and face your own God's retribution for hurting his creation". They say, "no, just because I believe it's bad". So what God put that in your head that bad can't be good". Nevermind the bad punctuation but I could go on and on, it's so much hypocrisy I hear from both sides because of an apparent lack of thought or interest. I would hate for my head to be a soup of mixed up thoughts with no real beliefs or direction in life, I've been there. I'm like the kid who asks why to why this or why that and why to those, and so on. Some think they're farther ahead by being farther behind. But sometimes you just have to stop questioning and realize in an infinite universe, there are infinite answers. Once you do, you are farther ahead by being farther behind. Others are only farther ahead in their brain being a soup of infinite unanswered questions but they don't realize and see the end, so they see themselves as intelligent when in fact, the real intelligent ones are the ones who look ahead and see, there is no de facto answer and at some point, you will have to just believe because you will never know. As an agnostic, that was my journey and sort of still is. I still somewhat keep looking to push the boundaries of why's when I'm mischevious but yet, I always come back to God knowing He will always be one step ahead of everyone. We are the proverbial monkey chasing a banana on a stick which is in turn tied to us. You're farther ahead in humbling yourselves and knowing to stop and just asking the one who knows the answer. Degrading the imperfect authors who made holy texts and exclaiming how imperfect they were is like telling a fish it can't walk which is obvious. So who looks the fool? I used to be told this by a family member who is into law. In that situation, you're right, but in the sense that if you don't represent yourself or be represented, it's man's nature to assume it's true. As can be with rumors unfortunately. So as you see, I see the Universe as an intelligent system, or entity. And I call it God. My birther, your birther, and that which lets us be here to nurture our bodies and our thoughts, whether you believe it is a random process or not, it was a complex process of boolean functions. Our complex brain is a sum of a complex change, all at it's heart, simple boolean functions composed of more complex ones while each nurture and interdepend on the other, sustaining a complex system of boolean functions, comprising one intelligent, adaptable being. God is of us all, and for us all. Just as much close to you as is to me. He is cut off from no one and will cut no one off from Him. My beliefs are almost as complex as He is on a minute, detailed scale but as simple as He is when viewed as a whole. And as a whole, that is love. A oneness with everything, completeness, a belonging and realization of where we fit in the scheme of things.
Again - the Universe has shown no evidence of being intelligent. In fact, it's not actually that complex - governed as it seems to be, by a number of Laws. Just because we individuals might deem ourselves "intelligent" does not mean that the Universe is. What you are saying is pure speculation with no supporting evidence. Rubbish - the Earth was quite happy as a rocky ball without any life on it at all. One day it will even be that again. The Earth is NOT dependent upon life. The Earth merely IS. Go and learn about evolution. Mere change is NOT evolution. The Universe does not EVOLVE - it merely changes, with time, according to the laws which it obeys. There is no environment in which the Universe sits for it to adapt to - as that environment must be EXTERNAL to the Universe - and thus utterly unperceptible to us and thus non-existent other than as speculation. Humans do NOT evolve in a single life-time. You are born - and you will NOT evolve from that moment until you die. Only your offspring can be said to have EVOLVED - and even then it is highly unlikely that a parent will see any change within their offspring as being neccesarily more beneficial. They may have larger feet, they may have more hair over their bodies. These slight changes MIGHT result in their preferred survival, should a disease rampage through the less-hairy or smaller-footed population. But again I stress that mere change is NOT evolution. Likewise, growing from babies to adults is NOT evolution occurring in a person. The growth from babies to adults that animals go through has undoubtedly sprung from evolution in the long-distant path, but it is not, per se, evolution happening in front of your eyes, as you seem to think. You have no real concept of evolution.
usp8riot, Why would you want to? The typical view of a scientist is Einstein, and with his hair ruffled, and one shirt collar pointing upward, he becomes the typical view of a mad scientist. In other words 'typical' is something which is a perception repeated over and over in society, till it becomes the norm. What do you mean by "given in to science"? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you mean you have given in to the powerful people/organisations who have uspured 'science'? I do not understand your concept of universe being intelligent, nor do I understand the bit about earth being God and all that. Maybe there is sense to it all, but you need to find a way to put it across. To begin to understand what and who God is, you must first accept that you don't know anything (humility), most probably in the same way you "gave in to science". The atheist denys God, period. They may try and say they are rational people, based in reality, and refuse to believe in something that cannot be verified by scientific-method, but that is nonsense. They purposely deny God, and wouldn't accept His authority or supremecy if it bit them on the ass. In fact I believe it would anger them more because it would mean they have to come up with new arguments to justify their denial of Him. God is one, this is verified in all bona-fide scriptues. I would recomend you read the Bhagavad Gita to gain full understanding of who and what God is. Having read that you will gain a better understanding God in the bible or qur'an. The reason is neither difficult or complex to understand, our reaction to it, is. If you like reading the bible, then read the gospels and take the teaching of Jesus to heart, everything you need to know lies therein. There's nowt wrong with Darwins ideas untill he comes to point that one species changes into an entirely different one. As an idea its pretty clever, as a scientific fact it pretty non existent. What is Abrahamic Law? Jan.
The most complex known things in the Universe are the brains of we Human beings. But our intelligence does not make the Universe intelligent. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Universe is necessarily more complex than the human brains within it. In fact the vast bulk of the Universe is not complex at all, it is very simple, and operates entirely according to blind laws. You've made some kind of assumption that any complex entity consists of simpler entities, but the outcome of scientific discovery has been the exact opposite. I happen to be an Atheist, in that with no evidence I see no reason to believe in God. I also believe that I would not accept His authority or supremacy if it bit me on the ass! But that's a separate issue. It isn't necessarily true of all atheists. This stuff really makes me laugh. How do you determine a "bona fide" scripture against any other kind of human-made writing? The vast, vast majority of believers in any kind of religion automatically reject the bona fides of the rival religious texts (with no better reason than yours for accepting them). And they reject the minor differences in the one religious text within each religious grouping!
Silas, Assming you are talking about 'scientific-evidence, are you implying that the only reason one should believe in God is because there is such evidence? Then exactly what is the point of this reply, or any discussion you engage in, regarding God? You're right, it isn't. It is a scripture, other kinds of human-made writings, aren't. Which is why there are more than one. But the intriguing thing is that the essence of all scriptures is exactly the same. But the essential point remains the same, which makes the scriptures bona-fide. Remember we are not discussing the masses, we are discussing God. Jan.
I know this was directed towards Silas, but I must say my piece... The only 'evidence' is entirely self-generated via the imagination... However it is so easy for you to say it's from 'the holy spirit' or some other trite response which is all theists have to fall back on. God effects all of us. This is manifested through the damaging behavior of the theists of the world. Therefor it obviously concerns atheists. Anybody can write scripture, create religions, perpetuate myths, etc... As are suicide cults practically the same also. Intriguing, huh? Copycat behavior is prevalent in all manner of human activities - religion is no different. There is no such thing as bona-fide religious scripture. Even moderates who try to skew the scripture to try and make it sound more rational fail miserably. Literally, it is simply fiction. Scripture is only concerned with gaining followers by any means possible... this can only mean embellishment. And by reading it... it is easy to see the thousands of places where it was embellished.
Thank god. Because if communicating in this manner were a requisite for membership here, I would have to leave while still in my crush-turning-into-lust mode. I think I love this site. On topic, I think that god can surely be denied, but you have to be willing to put forth some claims about your god first. Here is an example of a disproof of a diety, posted in a separate thread because it is very long and very dull, and I hate to ruin this pretty thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57134
