I agree with that. I'm more spiritual then anything. I don't like when people push God onto other people either. My aunt sometimes goes over board with her belifs and it makes me feel like shit so i know what your saying. Beliefs are a persons own fairy tale that they hope is real. Whether I'm right for believing in God or wrong no one has the right to say I'm stupid for my choice and visa versa to a non-believer.

Im Pentecostal
or a "Crazy Penty"
in my friends words
i believe in most of all that christians do
but im more relaxed about it

like for example
my grandma utterly hates gay ppl
but i dont mind

No, you don't understand. I'm saying I can't wait for a future when you're a minority and people dislike you for your beliefs. I can't wait till everyone thinks you're crazy for thinking some dude walked on water, healed the sick, and came back from the dead. I can't wait till the world grows up just a little bit.

Science is not greater than God. God is greater than everything and will not reveal himself.

Just think of that. There will always be a controversial debate over this piece of shit. Let it be. There's always going to be some lame Christian forcing people into their beliefs. At the same time, there's always atheist who will not tolerant illogical cases.

same here. my grandma's cathlic but hates blacks. he's an idiot. lol just because you believe in something doesnt make you a saint or better then anyone else. i believe in God, and i dont think anythings wrong with being gay...but yeah, like i said i'm more spiritual then religious. I can relate to christians the most but i don't clame to be one. I'm in my own religion. I believe in God, in Love, and Equality! BOO YAA! lol

Also, like ive said before...God is a fantasy until proven. Theres nothing wrong believing theres a Santa Clause is there? If you choose to believe great, if you dont great. I only made this debate to see how people felt on the subject...not to bash each other.

Sorry but God > Science is not true. God is not greater than everything. If you ask me there are things science can prove that "God" can't, and there are things science can't prove, yet religion have a very strong argument as to why things are why there are. So with this in mind, Science actually have facts, but God and religion are all about faith and beliefs, but have no guarantee facts to them. I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there that God = Science. Both are neutral imo.

I believe in God and evolution. I guess thats what your gettin at right?

I believe in God.

Close thread please, there's no actual debate going on...

"... he does not hear- and if he heard he still would not know how to help. Worst of all: he seems incapable of clear communication: is he unclear?"- Nietzsche on God the 'father'.

I re-read "Beyond Good and Evil" (or tried to) last night and stopped at that. Funny.

so where is your evidence on evolution? where is the missing link for the proof of macroevolution?

atheists must also take evolution on guess what: faith.


okay, same with the post above. where is your fantasy of evolution?


Won't happen, buddy. Religion is growing, and Christianity is stronger than ever.

As the "great" Nietzsche said; "God is Dead." But God is not dead.

Nietzsche is dead.


There is a reason why Christians push their religions unto others. Because of damnation. We don't want anyone to be damned for all eternity. It's just the process in which we do it that is pretty wrong.

Like the man said, God sure is unclear about his being alive. Dead or not, that made sense to me


The face that Christians push Christianity onto other is also a reason why people will be damned. They learn about Christianity, but it doesn't make sense to them so they choose not to follow it. This will damn them. They were better off not knowing.

If you read any of the literature you might know. The amount of available transitional fossils are in exactly the quantity that scientists had predicted them to be in. They are numerous and convincing (the observation of transitional fossils between the land massed whale to the sea worthy mammal is most impressive [1]). But, in the end, your request is not only ignorant, it's also highly deceptive. What are you going to demand next? A transition between a transition (might as well start discussing Zeno's paradox).

Not to mention, believing in "micro-evolution" (which I assume you do), but not believing in "macro-evolution" is equivalent to believing in squares but not rectangles. Macro-evolution is merely the accumulation of micro-evolution over the course of many generations.



What? What backwards f**king place are you from? Evolution is a scientific theory supported by and found in hard evidence, reason, logic, and rigorous observation and experimentation. Where belief in religion requires no scrutiny whatsoever and lays claim to no evidence of any sort but fallacious and mistaken philosophical whimsy, Evolution has been one of the most disputed and contended theories of all biology and yet it persists and confirms its existence in each biological principle, new or old : genetics, genealogy, anatomy, physiology, medicine, taxonomy, etc. etc. etc.

There is enough peer reviewed literature and evidence on evolutionary biology to fill an entire over-sized library and that's after half of it had already been burned by insecure psychotics.



1. Atheism is growing too, a lot, and without half the indoctrination. I mean, how proud can you be of the fact that churches are just enormous and elaborate intellectual rape machines - you have to realize kids believe in Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny after they've already been convinced by their parents and their clergymen that God made them.

2. Nietzsche meant that God is dead to men. It isn't relevant to whether or not a literal god exists or not. He meant to say that the idea of a god no longer has the same influence as he once had, and, in a sense, Nietzsche was very much correct. The archaic vengeful gods of the past were most certainly replaced by more loving and caring gods which would later be replaced again and again.

3. You suck.

^Wow. I love you for that.

2. I realize Nietzsche meant that God was dead to men. Exactly why I said religion is growing. Please, actually read what I'm typing to you instead of trying to be an elitist jerk-off.

Also, me believing that micro-evolution exists while believing that macro-evolution does not exist doesn't any way contradict each other.

I still have yet to see hard evidence for macro-evolution. Instead of telling me there's thousands and thousands of books that have evolution proven, then please do give me links to those books. If evolution was truly proven 100%, then we wouldn't have this debate, then.

actually, God is greater than everything, because he created everything. Science is just our way of trying to understand what He created, but we never fully will.

So who is God again?

I respect religion, I really do. I just think science makes more sense than religion do. I mean all religion ever say to explain things is, like "It's God's doing", or it's just faith. I'm a person who want explanations that makes sense, and I believe in that over "having" faith.

I'm a biology major, and I've taken many Anthropology classes, and the stuff they have discovered about evolution are amazing.

See, the obvious trend her is that Christians try to use reason, science, and philosophy to disprove... guess what? Reason, science, and philosophy.

God is irrational. Emotion is irrational. Love is irrational. These things can't be scientifically explained, so don't try to do it.

Evolution is rational. Cars are rational. Apples falling is rational. These things can't be scientifically disproven, so don't try.

See, aethists attack Christianity with reason and science; something they have a greater understanding of.

Some of you people are trying to defend Christianity with reason and science, which is great and all, but don't talk about what you don't know, because you will simply be setting NoSex and other more "interested" aethists an opening to show the ignorance of Christians.

Christians are perceived as invasive, closed-minded, and generally inconsiderate jerks. Don't strengthen the stereotype. You inform people about God. They don't want God, great for them. Leave them alone now. You've done what you're told to do, and whether people decided to accept Jesus or not is up to them.

Quit trying to defend Christianity and shove God down these people's throats. They obviously are set on aethism, and there really is nothing you can do except make a bigger ass out of yourself trying to convince people otherwise.

what kinda things do you want explanations for??

^ Did you not read my post? You can't explain or prove God by rational means, just like you can't disprove evolution through irrational means (faith, etc.).

yes you can
but its up to the individual
whether they believe you or not

"Believe" isn't the right word. For example, if I say "Aliens exist" ,and you disagree, then you are not "believing" what I say. If I say "Aliens exist because I have an unidentified object in my backyard", what I'm saying is TRUE, it IS in fact unidentified, but it doesn't mean aliens exist. You can't logically explain something that is in essence illogical.

You CAN'T prove Christianity through science and reason, trust me, I've tried.

But, see, you miss the point: Nietzsche is concerned, greatly, with perspectivism. This is because he realizes the power of belief and is concerned greatly with The Will to Power, or man's desire to impose those powerful beliefs on others. The issue is that with more and more modern society we have scientific, philosophical, psychological, and sociological paradigm shifts. Because of these new discoveries, our society effectively changes. We no longer believe that mentally retarded individuals are cursed by demons, instead, we can begin to explain their maladies and treat them more appropriate (as opposed to praying over them or burning them). We no longer believe the world to be the center of the universe and thus have been given enormous perspective as our "true" place in this life.

Essentially, society has greatly shifted from a world which was dominated and controlled by outside and unexplained forces - our technology and new sciences have been able disspell a great majority of the myths that once were propagated on this pale blue dot. Most of any of the gods that had ever lived, Osiris, Zeus, Dionysus, The Sun, are dead. They no longer effect our lives or our society in such a forceful manner. The same is most certainly true for the Juedo-Christian Gods - at least in the sense that they have changed greatly from what they once were, even since during Nietzsche's time. The reality is that even if God is believed in, his influence is of an entirely different nature - most people aren't going to deny medicine because of "god's will." So, I propose, that Nietzsche was far more correct than you ever put on.



Sure, it isn't a direct contradiction. However, what you don't seem to realize is that these two concepts just represent a gradation of one more central idea - evolutionary theory. Micoevolutionary change is merely in specious allele variation and transformation while macroevolutionary change is the actual speciation after the accumulation of allele transformation through mutation, genetic drift, hybridization, etc. etc. They are both the same thing, essentially. They both move from the same exact principles. They both operate on exactly the same mechanisms. It's just that, one is going much further than the other and all you need to believe in the one is time. The accumulation of small evolutionary changes increases the genetic different in a population, once the genetic difference reaches a point of enough variation an animal with speciate and "macroevolve" when, really, all that is happening is one other "microevolution" being stack on top of a few generations worth of other "microevolutions." Are you beginning to see why these terms are exactly popular in the biological fields? They aren't exactly meaningfully divided - they don't actually represent anything fundamentally different.

The only place you find these terms used so frequently are from the mouth of babes - creationists love these terms. It allows them to more easily deceive themselves as well as their parishes. But, really, it just makes them look that much more ignorant and or deceptive. Sure, it isn't exactly a contradiction, but it's against all observation, study, and evidence, to suggest that macroevolution simply hasn't occurred, especially when you have no issue with micoevolutionary change.



1. Well, actually, macro-evolution can been proven a lot more easily than by reflection of micro-evolution. Try the fact that we have witnesses dozens and dozens of instances of speciation (or macro-evolution), in both the laboratory and in nature, in the last century [1]. Hard enough for you?

2. Go to a f**king library, it isn't that hard. All you're demonstrating to me is that you never had the honest curiosity to actually investigate the issue seriously yourself.

3. I wonder why you don't believe in it? Think about it. f**k, there are still people who don't believe that the Earth is spherical or that we revolve around the Sun. But, I suspect that your religious faith gives you something, emotionally, that this science just can't offer you, and as Lemuel K. Washburn once said, "most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion." I plead psychological selection of data. Clearly you haven't read the literature, and, if you're as dispassionate as you would like us to think, maybe if you did take some time to read a f**king book, we wouldn't even be here right now.



You're really not helping any cause here.

There's no point. I'm not supporting Christianity because it's pointless, nobody's going to be convinced here. I'm not supporting evolution because I don't believe in it. I am Christian, after all.

/sign