| Name |
Views and Comments | Date |
| Scott Chastain |
This argument is entirely specious. Was the author implying that evolution by natural selection or the big bang theory are "unproven?" They are proven. Intriguingly enough the latter theory was postulated by a man of the cloth in order to "prove God" and now that it has been accepted by science based on the evidence that supports it, it has become the delusion of the atheist, apostate and heathen. Why are humans so intelligent? Are they? That is debateable. Our behavior patterns are not significantly different from the other animals. We have superior communication abilities, to be sure - and the invention of writing allowed us to promote our own survival (or eventually end it) by enhancing that communication. When it comes to it, we are like the other apes in many respects. Preening in a bar to attract to a mate. Posing to thwart potential competition, and so forth. What isn't interesting is that we have hair on our heads where we need it to protect our thin scalps from the sun, but why we don't have it all over our bodies (unless you suffer from that rare genetic disorder trichtomania). If God could produce hair to "patch over" the weakness in our scalps, why not just invent tougher scalps to begin with? Why would God give us a "barely manageable" frame to stand erect?
The reason human females suffer so much during childbirth (the curse of Eve according to Genesis) is not because she ate some fruit and rewired the entire universe and indeed the genetics of every living thing by her own act of ignorant disobedience (she hadn't eaten that fruit yet, so could not know that what evil was), but because our ancestors spent the last 700 million years walking on all fours. For whatever reason we started walking upright (and there are numerous hypotheses on this - some better than others, I won't recount them here), we did - and suffer the consequences including back problems, headaches, death during chilbirth (the child has to navigate out at an angle in our species), along with other sundry issues. Our larger brains mean a great cost to the mother, the child during birth, and to the energy that can be spent on other functions such as limb strength and sensory sensitivity.
As for other inconsistencies, well H sapiens (our ancestors) and H neandertal (our cousins) were humans. What about our eyes and noses being in place? Compared to what? Of course our sensory packages are going to be focused on the forward part of the body (in non-upright animals, the head is the front of the body, facing the direction of locomotion). If God were really extant and our creator, why not an extra eye or two where they would be useful for something other than throwing things at prey animals - like the back of our heads?)
No, the reason one shouldn't have faith in God is because it is entirely unsupported by the evidence - there is simply no reason that would support it. It is a house built on sand. Science isn't perfect, nobody said it was. In fact this is what makes science superior to faith. Faith is built on doctrines, wild claims, and circular reasoning. When it changes what usually happens is a new sect forms, rather than any progess in understanding being made. Science is tentative. It changes when the evidence demands it change. It is hard for any of us to give up cherished beliefs and understanding (consider the uproar over the deplanetary status of Pluto), but with science it is possible - and does occur over time. The theory with the best evidence triumphs - eventually. There is a good reason it does, the evidence demands it.
There is no evidence that there is a God. There is no evidence to support Intelligent Design or anything even similar to it. There is no evidence to warrant faith in invisible talking sky people. |
6/22/2008 |
| gina |
I LOVEYOU...PROUD TO BE UR DAUGHTER!!! gotta have faith |
10/9/2006 |
| Vic |
Try to scrutinize and exhaust your force in embracing men's science i.e., physics, astronomy etc. in finding the answers of everything's existence and eventually you will find anything realizing that it's time to go what is beyond physics. |
7/3/2006 |
| Eugene DeFazzio |
What kind of nonsense is this? Don't you take responsibility for your own life? Your type of spirituality is no more than mundane thinking. There is nothing new here, only the ramblings of one who is unintelligently devout. |
7/3/2006 |
| Chris |
Another sad testament to man needing an all-powerful, omnipresent imaginary best friend. To believe blindly because one has a certain "feeling" and certify it as "Faith" is just another way to say "I leave my brains at the door" to embrace my religion. This kind of mindless abdication of any intellectual responsibility is what gets people burned at the stake for daring to tread beyond the dogmatic bounds of any particular relgion, especially theistic ones. ("My God says that you are bad and I can do anything I want to on his behalf" - boom goes the bomb, whoosh go the flames and God is pleased). If you find that you have this kind of spiritual adherance, perhaps you should take a look at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (see venganza dot org) for a refreshing new take on collective delusion. Now realize that I am not atheist. Being athiest is just another side of the mindless religion coin. To say with certainty that ther is NOT a God is just as much of a statement of unprovable Faith as saying there IS one. I believe in the deep mystery of the cosmos and fervently hope that if there is a supreme intelligence (or multiple ones) that it is a loving one(s) or at least benign. In the mean time, could we all stop killing each other just to prove who has the best imaginary friend?!!??!! |
7/3/2006 | |
