Atheism

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
In the 19th Century, there was no evidence that time could speed up or slow down. While there was no evidence it was possible, it would have been wrong to say it was impossible.
[/QUOTE]
Because there was evidence that time existed, therefore speculating about it’s nature was not foolish.

[QUOTE=Apos]
And again, what is the POINT of confidently asserting that it does not exist?
[/QUOTE]
Simple consistency. That’s how I - and most people - act towards other ideas with a similar silliness quotient.

82

I once did not believe in Christ.

Events ocurred which changed that.

Those events were the evidence, and the evidence changed my belief. However, the evidence created my faith. The evidence was not factual, repeatable, (Although it was repeated) or available to me to be used to convince someone else. It was not an intellectual experience, and provided no referance for others. It did make me a Christian. I happen to also think that it did not make me an idiot.

But, I will contend with someone who claims I am not a Christian, and I won’t contend with someone who claims I am an idiot.

One is a fact, one is an opinion. Evidence is for arguments, and attempts to convince people. The burden of proof only exists for those who desire to prove to someone else that something is true. That doesn’t always apply to every aspect of human experience. I cannot prove that I love you. I can try to demonstrate it, but in the end, either you accept my love, or you don’t.

I am commanded to love you, and I will try.

Tris

83

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
Revenant, if I may interject with a question: Do you entertain the possibility that the cognitive science of “belief” will one day provide an entirely natural explanation for “believing in the supernatural”?

(I am thinking of the mental combination of properties which allows us to take memories of eg. horses and memories of men and “photoshop” a man-horse combination, centaur, which does not actually exist.)
[/QUOTE]
I certainly think it’s possible there’s a cognitive explanation for “belief”. I’m not so sure it would be a mental combination of properties, as you describe, and quite possibly due to a lot of different factors.

Of course, it’s possible that it’s due to the supernatural existing and us actually being perceptive. Who knows. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
I am commanded to love you, and I will try.
[/QUOTE]
What, i’m not lovable unless you’re commanded? I’m hurt. :wink:

84

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because there was evidence that time existed, therefore speculating about it’s nature was not foolish.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t see the significance of your distinction. The point is that it’s an example where stating that it was impossible would have been incorrect.

If you want an example regarding existence itself of an entity, let’s take sub-atomic particles. Before they were discovered, one might have proclaimed that the atom was the smallest thing in existence, and that it was impossible for anything smaller to exist. There was a time when there was no evidence for the existence of subatomic particles. But again, to say they couldn’t exist would have been wrong.

No evidence is not equal to impossible

85

I think I know who you’ve been talking to. :slight_smile:

If I may put the same question, delicately, to you that I put to him (not Revenant!), do you entertain the possibility that this “event” had a natural, cognitive scientific, cause?

86

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
What, i’m not lovable unless you’re commanded? I’m hurt. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that was a generic you. Loving you is not a real challenge. ;). Fred Phelps, and Charles Manson though, that takes some serious prayer.

Heighten my limbic system’s sensitivity, and cause chemical fluctuations in my synaptic threshold? Sure. However, criticizing Got on His technique of creating faith isn’t really germane to the event. That might well completely invalidate the experience as proof of anything to anyone but me. But, it was never about anything but me and the Lord.

When Peter threw a net into the sea, and found a shekel in its mouth, there was no big deal miraculous event to prove anything to anyone. Peter got to pay his taxes, and pay for Jesus, as well. Peter was the only one who cared about it. The Romans didn’t even care about it. None of the other Apostles got shekels, and didn’t seem to care much about it either. The Lord spoke to Peter. The creation of faith is a miracle. Now, you ask me if there could be a natural scientific caused event? Uh, yeah. Fish bit a shekel, fisherman caught a fish. Very ordinary.

You could have stood right next to me and seen nothing, and heard nothing. Nothing remains now to prove that I didn’t imagine everything. So, yes, the event was entirely ordinary, and mundane. But, I stopped looking for proof of the existence of God. God did not present me with proof of His existence. He assured me of His love.

Tris

“Don’t you want somebody to love?” ~ Grace Slick ~

87

Many thanks for a beautiful post, Tris. Would you say, then, that you had any choice in how you interpreted your “event”? That you simply could not live the rest of your life simply as though you’d had a brief neurological ‘episode’ (a little like deja vu)?

The reason I ask is because I am doing exactly that after my episode, which suggests to me that faith in God is a choice rather than a necessity.

88

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Actually, that was a generic you. Loving you is not a real challenge. ;). Fred Phelps, and Charles Manson though, that takes some serious prayer.Heighten my limbic system’s sensitivity, and cause chemical fluctuations in my synaptic threshold? Sure. However, criticizing Got on His technique of creating faith isn’t really germane to the event. That might well completely invalidate the experience as proof of anything to anyone but me. But, it was never about anything but me and the Lord.

When Peter threw a net into the sea, and found a shekel in its mouth, there was no big deal miraculous event to prove anything to anyone. Peter got to pay his taxes, and pay for Jesus, as well. Peter was the only one who cared about it. The Romans didn’t even care about it. None of the other Apostles got shekels, and didn’t seem to care much about it either. The Lord spoke to Peter. The creation of faith is a miracle. Now, you ask me if there could be a natural scientific caused event? Uh, yeah. Fish bit a shekel, fisherman caught a fish. Very ordinary.

You could have stood right next to me and seen nothing, and heard nothing. Nothing remains now to prove that I didn’t imagine everything. So, yes, the event was entirely ordinary, and mundane. But, I stopped looking for proof of the existence of God. God did not present me with proof of His existence. He assured me of His love.

Tris

“Don’t you want somebody to love?” ~ Grace Slick ~
[/QUOTE]

Tris, if you read the above title of my post, you will note that I am using “Begging the Question” in its classical and correct sense, namely, I am charging you with the logical debating fallacy of refusing to prove your point and jumping to the conclusion you wish to arrive at (i.e. the “question”) as if your point were already proven. In other words, you are asking, like a beggar, that the “question” or point under debate be conceded to you for free without your having earned it through establishment of evidence.

God assured you of his love. But since you have no proof of his existence and since by your own admission you stopped looking for it, you have no way of knowing if the entity that you believe assured you of his (or her,? or its?) love even exists.

Let us do a little logical exercise, shall we Tris?

  1. Do you believe that the Hindu gods truly exist as deities that created the world and rule it? Answer yes or no.

  2. Do you agree that ten, perhaps hundreds of millions of Hindus could testify to you that these gods have personally helped them and protected them after they prayed to them, and that they have faith in the existence of these gods and feel them acting in their lives? Please answer yes or no.

Assuming that you have answered “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second, do you therefore agree that propositions number 1 and 2 lead us to the inescapable conclusion that it is possible for millions of otherwise rational and sane human beings to be firmly convinced of the existence of nonexisent biengs, to pray to them and to be fully convinced that these beings can love and protect them and act in their lives? Please answer yes or no.

We are both really atheists, Tris. The only difference is that I disbelieve the existence of ALL gods for lack of evidence, and you disbelieve the existence of all gods except one, in which you believe in spite of a complete lack of evidence.

Now here is another question, Tris. If your god really exsists and gets humans to believe in him without evidence by communicating his love, why does he do so in a geopgraphically and temporally selective fashion? Why does the Christian God of the Bible seem to touch hearts and convince people of his love in the Christian west but not in, say, rural China or India? May I propose to you, Tris, that if you had been born in a Muslim country, you would perhaps be on this forum stating with equal conviction that you believe in Allah and that Jesus was a prophet of Allah but NOT his son?

Why do you suppose the correctness of your view occurs to people in Christian societies and the correctness of the Muslim view occurs to people in Muslim societies?

After all, it is the same God in both cases. Remember, “Allah” is NOT the Muslim word for God. It is the ARABIC word.

It is true that most of the people who say “Allah” are Muslims, but this does not change what I have said. For that matter, most of the people who pray to “Dieu” are Catholics (some Huguenots and French Jews notwithstanding), but nobody would claim that “Dieu” is the Catholic word for God. It is just the French word. Christian Arabs in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq use the word “Allah” in their churches, and say that Jesus is the “son of Allah”.

So it is clear that the God/Gott/Dieu/Dio/Allah to which Christians and muslims pray is the same being (assuming he exists at all). So why does he not move in the hearts of one billion Muslims as he has moved in your heart, Tris, and tell them that Issos (Jesus) whom they revere and honour as a prophet, is actually his only-begotten son?

89

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
Many thanks for a beautiful post, Tris.

[/quote]
Thank you.

Yes, I could. In fact, two weeks later it happened again, and I was quite chastened. Yes, I could, but it would first require me convincing myself that it wasn’t really the Lord that I had encountered. Now, people are able to believe what they want out of what happened to them, but . . . well, I did believe, and meeting the Lord will get your attention. Especially the second time, if you screw it up!

Well, if you experienced divine revelation, and still choose to treat it as chemicals, I guess your atheism is more devout than my Christianity. :eek:

Like easy targets, do you? Logic has nothing to do with my faith. Yes, I was begging the question, although not in the meaning you used. But then, you weren’t the one I was begging!

Please, consider me entirely refuted, unconditionally demonstrated to be holding a position devoid of logical significance. Of course I believe I started out that way at the point I entered the discussion. Logic is a very useful thing. I actually can and do use it. But I don’t worship it. I don’t limit myself to considering only those aspects of the universe that logic can consider.

I also don’t mind if God hangs out with Hindus. He can invite Pagans to come to heaven, and I am still going to come along.

It wasn’t a triumph of reason that made me a Christian. It was a fuckin’ miracle! But I cannot prove it, don’t wish to convince anyone of it, and think that using logic to explore faith is kinda like using a net to carry water.

So, you win.

Tris

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung

90

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Believing or disbelieving in God (or any god) is not a choice.
[/QUOTE]

Sure it is. It may take some work to put rational thought and evidence before belief in fairytales, but you can control what you believe. A world without god may not be pleasant, but that doesn’t mean you can’t see it for what it is.

91

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Logic is a very useful thing. I actually can and do use it. But I don’t worship it. I don’t limit myself to considering only those aspects of the universe that logic can consider.
[/quote]
Tris, looking at the universe without logic or rational evidence has a very long pedigree. It includes witch trials, burning of heretics, beliefs in ghosts and evil spirits, bleeding patients, astrology, Nostradamus, belief in Bigfoot, and of course, religion.

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
It wasn’t a triumph of reason that made me a Christian. It was a fuckin’ miracle! But I cannot prove it, don’t wish to convince anyone of it, and think that using logic to explore faith is kinda like using a net to carry water.

So, you win.
[/QUOTE]
Of course I don’t WIN, Tris. Our demon-haunted world is still filled with ignorance, superstition, Christians, Muslims and Hindus killing one another for their god or gods. People fly planes into skyscrapers, the religious right is on a rampage in America, Muslims and Hindus have inter-faith riots in which they slash the belllies of pregnant women. . . . .The monstrous, evil bitch that is religion continues to poison the heart of humanity. You are newly converted to Christianity and bragging, yes bragging, that your beliefs rest on no logical or rational basis. I feel no flush of victory, Tris. I have not convinced you and people like me remain a tiny minority in this world over which religion continues to churn out death and hatred.

92

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Of course I don’t WIN, Tris. Our demon-haunted world is still filled with ignorance, superstition, Christians, Muslims and Hindus killing one another for their god or gods. People fly planes into skyscrapers, the religious right is on a rampage in America, Muslims and Hindus have inter-faith riots in which they slash the belllies of pregnant women. . . . .The monstrous, evil bitch that is religion continues to poison the heart of humanity. You are newly converted to Christianity and bragging, yes bragging, that your beliefs rest on no logical or rational basis. I feel no flush of victory, Tris. I have not convinced you and people like me remain a tiny minority in this world over which religion continues to churn out death and hatred.[/QUOTE

I apologize for my ineptitude in quoting other posts. The sentence in the middle of the quote above is one that I added, but it looks like it is part of Tris’ original posting. I am not really very good at splitting up another person’s quote to address the elements separately. Sorry for the confusion.

93

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Tris, looking at the universe without logic or rational evidence has a very long pedigree. It includes witch trials, burning of heretics, beliefs in ghosts and evil spirits, bleeding patients, astrology, Nostradamus, belief in Bigfoot, and of course, religion.
[/quote]
Wow, do I believe in Astrology, and Bigfoot? I had no idea. Sorry about the witch trials and heretic burning, although I think I apologized for that already. Nostradamus was hack poet. I couldn’t even finish the book.

Wow. No wonder I have been so tired. I hadn’t realized how busy I have been!

Well, don’t worry, I’m gonna take a break now. All this churning has taken a real toll on my energy level. You can get back to saving the world from my illogical faith when you get your second wind.

Tris

94

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Wow, do I believe in Astrology, and Bigfoot? I had no idea. Sorry about the witch trials and heretic burning, although I think I apologized for that already. Nostradamus was hack poet. I couldn’t even finish the book.Wow. No wonder I have been so tired. I hadn’t realized how busy I have been!Well, don’t worry, I’m gonna take a break now. All this churning has taken a real toll on my energy level. You can get back to saving the world from my illogical faith when you get your second wind.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Tris, I never said that you personally have ever killed or attacked anyone in the name of religion. Nor do I know or care if you believe in Astrology or Bigfoot. I am simply pointing out that beliefs unsupported by evidence are. . . . . well. . . . beliefs unsupported by evidence, whether it is God or Bigfoot.

But at the risk of being accused of reductio ad Hitlerium, I would point out that people who support religion are. . . .well. . . people who support religion. Tens of millions of Germans supported Hitler and enthusiastically joined the Nazi party. I REFUSE to believe that tens of millions of Germans were essentially evil, cruel or murderous individuals. However, under strains, fears and the need for security they DID to some extent surrender their reason and their rationality to something that was irrational and ultimately destructive and murderous.

But at the individual level, I am willing to bet that tens of millions of German Nazis did nothing worse than bang drums, carry banners, or even participate in downright laudable acts such as volunteer road-building and winter relief for the poor.

I feel you are attempting to shoo me away with sarcasm, because you are in fact as rational a being as I am, probably MORE intelligent than I am, and in your deepest being you realize that religious belief is unproven nonsense, however comforting it may be.

If you wish to ignore me totally, because I make you uncomfortable, go ahead. Our ability to do that is after all the nicest thing about a forum like SDMB. I would prefer to speak with you and thus encourage the healthy rationality and skepticism that is your birthright as a human being and the noblest aspect of our human brains. But I cannot force you.

There is also NO REASON WHATEVER for you to apologize to me or to anyone for the burning of heretics and witches, unless you have personally participated in such murders. The dictates of common reason would tell you that an individual in the 21st century can hardly be responsible for the actions of people like Tomás de Torquemada in the 15th century.

It is interesting to note that if you use the common sense that you surely possess as a rational human being, you would grasp all of the above distinctions. But like so many people of religion, when it is pointed out to you that you are believing extraordinary propositions for which there is no rational proof, you choose to make necessity a virtue, and call it “faith”. You openly admit that your beliefs are unprovable, untestable and unsupported by evidence, and then you rejoice in your ability to believe them anyhow.

In so doing, you are giving the back of your hand to the most precious and enobling aspect of your humanity: your power to reason.

In summatry, Tris, what I am pointing out to you is not that you are personally responsible for the crimes of religion. I am pointing out what has happened in the history of humanity when persons were willing to trade rational thought for the comfort of faith.

95

[QUOTE=Valteron]

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Of course I don’t WIN, Tris. Our demon-haunted world is still filled with ignorance, superstition, Christians, Muslims and Hindus killing one another for their god or gods. People fly planes into skyscrapers, the religious right is on a rampage in America, Muslims and Hindus have inter-faith riots in which they slash the belllies of pregnant women. . . . .The monstrous, evil bitch that is religion continues to poison the heart of humanity. You are newly converted to Christianity and bragging, yes bragging, that your beliefs rest on no logical or rational basis. I feel no flush of victory, Tris. I have not convinced you and people like me remain a tiny minority in this world over which religion continues to churn out death and hatred.
[/QUOTE

I apologize for my ineptitude in quoting other posts. The sentence in the middle of the quote above is one that I added, but it looks like it is part of Tris’ original posting. I am not really very good at splitting up another person’s quote to address the elements separately. Sorry for the confusion.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know what it is that causes people to commit crimes against other human beings but I think we can say that God belief isn’t the determining factor. I’ve seen people point to the evils of religion over and over and make the same connection you make. God belief = myth and superstition= evil in the world.
Along with that is the often expressed belief that if we got rid of religion the world would be so much better. Also an opinion without any real foundation.

read the other discussions going on. Calling all Atheists in the Pit has gotten good . PAy speacial attention to the posts by fellow atheist Lemur866 here
here and here

Life and whatever belief system we have, spiritual or otherwise, is not made up only of logic or reason and scientifically determined facts. It’s made up of our objective and subjective experiences, our emotions, and our intuition as well. That is true for you as well as** Tris**, so your subtle ridicule of Tris bragging about not using reason is not his error, but yours.

96

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Valteron]

I don’t know what it is that causes people to commit crimes against other human beings but I think we can say that God belief isn’t the determining factor. I’ve seen people point to the evils of religion over and over and make the same connection you make. God belief = myth and superstition= evil in the world.
Along with that is the often expressed belief that if we got rid of religion the world would be so much better. Also an opinion without any real foundation.

[/QUOTE]

You are destroying a straw man of your own creation, because I never alleged that evil would not exist without religion. I think the Nobel-prize winning physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg said it best when he said:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

In other words, try telling 19 atheists that an invisible being will receive them in a garden filled with rivers of honey and wine and 72 virgins if they hijack some planes and suicide-crash them into buildings killing thousands of innocent people as well as themselves. See how far you get.

As to a world without religion, we have never really tried it, have we? But if religion were necessary to make people good and moral, then our prisons would be filled with atheists and agnostics. I believe studies have shown that A&A have a LOWER rate of criminality than the population as a whole.

97

[QUOTE=Valteron]

You are destroying a straw man of your own creation, because I never alleged that evil would not exist without religion.
[/QUOTE]

Note that I did not accuse you of saying that.

You like quotes eh? I like the Jefferson quote and I agree. That’s my point. You essentially implied that belief in God means reason and logic have been abandoned did you not? If not them please be more specific. Is it just organized religion that is the object of your derision rather than belief in general?
Questioning the existence of God is fine. Coming down on the “I believe” side is not an abandonment of logic or reason.
as for this quote, He’s got a high IQ a Nobel prize, and an opinion. So what? It is essentially meaningless. Do atheists who see themselves as good people do bad things sometimes?
IMHO it’s more honest to note that good and bad people exist in and out of religion, in and out of God belief. That seems to indicate that the determining factor for a persons values is not just God belief or a lack of it. That makes “religion sucks” no more helpful or accurate than “atheists are untrustworthy”
The more pertinent issue might be to try and understand what the determining factor is. If bad to horrible behaviour isn’t just a off shoot of whether we believe in God or not, what is it’s source and how do we do something about improving things?

Try telling an atheist he can be Czar of Russia and see how he handles that.

Since you’re fond of reason and logic and I’m genuinely curious, do you have any evidence that the Muslim beliefs you mention were the primary motivation for the hijackers? I’m not claiming it isn’t correct. I’m asking if you personally have seen the evidence that it’s true.

Please cite those studies. It may be true but I find it hard to fathom what criteria they would set up. Is it simple belief or not? Since your bug seems to be organized religion I’d like to see a study showing if active members of churches are more or less likely to commit crimes and what kind of crimes? Sounds interesting doesn’t it? Do you think it would prove anything?

98

If someone asked me if I believed a golden celestial teapot was currently orbiting Pluto I would say no. In fact, I would step out on a limb and say there isn’t such a thing. How would a golden teapot make its way to Pluto? Where would it come from? There is no evidence for such a thing. I would expound on my reasoning and feel confident in my logic.

In 200 years a Plutonian ship could come across the golden teapot which is silently orbiting over their launch pad. The discovers will look back on me and my ilk and laugh, saying how I was closed minded and arrogant not to accept the truth of the teapot.

I think most people would be teapot atheists. Technically, perhaps, we should be teapot agnostics. But it’s easier and more common just to be atheists and change our minds if further evidence comes along with regard to the teapot.

This also applies to theists, except wholly removed from the physical realm in most cases. I don’t think any Christian on this board believes in Woden, Zeus or the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea. Or Mithra. This is just an accident of geography, of course – but they believe in Jesus, even though he is one religion of thousands, and not even a very original one at the time; it’s comical to me how many messiahs were running about but this guy gets his own world wide religion out of all of them. I suppose one had to, though.

The point is, we’re all atheists when it comes to 99.9% of the thousands upon thousands of gods and religions that societies have ever created. Some of us just go that extra 00.1%.

Maybe 300 years ago I could see the justification but at this point it’s pure inertia. There is no need. It has no explanatory power. The theists (well, the sane ones, anyway) have had to make their gods weaker and weaker as science probes more and more areas. At this point if there is such a god(s) it resembles no major world religion’s deity, certainly doesn’t deserve worshipping, and IMO would be more likened to a powerful alien who came from a previous universe and is having some fun (who might, of course, have arisen from Darwinian natural selection anyway – in which case he isn’t a god at all).

99

[QUOTE=Valteron]
I think the Nobel-prize winning physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg said it best when he said:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
[/QUOTE]
Thus proving that even Nobel-prize winning atheist physicists can lose their power of reason when they address the topic of religion.

Would you be so kind as to point out either the deliberate evil and malice or the religious foundation (or even involvement) with the Tuskeegee syphilis study, the “examination” and treatment of the Kalikaks and subsequent imposed sterilization of poorer members of that family and others, or any of the similar acts of scientists that resulted in eugenics-based sterilization of normal (but poor) persons, the refusal to permit immigration by (or the subsequent deportation of) people falsely identified as having lower intelligence, the premature administration of Thalidomide, or the persistent testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere even after radiation was recognized as a hazard?

100

[QUOTE=mstay]
If someone asked me if I believed a golden celestial teapot was currently orbiting Pluto I would say no. In fact, I would step out on a limb and say there isn’t such a thing. How would a golden teapot make its way to Pluto? Where would it come from? There is no evidence for such a thing. I would expound on my reasoning and feel confident in my logic.

In 200 years a Plutonian ship could come across the golden teapot which is silently orbiting over their launch pad. The discovers will look back on me and my ilk and laugh, saying how I was closed minded and arrogant not to accept the truth of the teapot.

I think most people would be teapot atheists. Technically, perhaps, we should be teapot agnostics. But it’s easier and more common just to be atheists and change our minds if further evidence comes along with regard to the teapot.

This also applies to theists, except wholly removed from the physical realm in most cases. I don’t think any Christian on this board believes in Woden, Zeus or the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea. Or Mithra. This is just an accident of geography, of course – but they believe in Jesus, even though he is one religion of thousands, and not even a very original one at the time; it’s comical to me how many messiahs were running about but this guy gets his own world wide religion out of all of them. I suppose one had to, though.

The point is, we’re all atheists when it comes to 99.9% of the thousands upon thousands of gods and religions that societies have ever created. Some of us just go that extra 00.1%.

Maybe 300 years ago I could see the justification but at this point it’s pure inertia. There is no need. It has no explanatory power. The theists (well, the sane ones, anyway) have had to make their gods weaker and weaker as science probes more and more areas. At this point if there is such a god(s) it resembles no major world religion’s deity, certainly doesn’t deserve worshipping, and IMO would be more likened to a powerful alien who came from a previous universe and is having some fun (who might, of course, have arisen from Darwinian natural selection anyway – in which case he isn’t a god at all).
[/QUOTE]

Very cute and clever. We’ve seen this one form or another over and over and over again. It also has no explanatory power. Religion and the spiritual journey is much much more than just explaining where we and the rest of creation came from. It’s about our relationship with that creation and each other.
I’m glad to see science gradually help us let go of certain myths and traditions. All part of mankind moving forward. As you can see, the application of science , and the application of religion hasn’t always been good for mankind. Science plays it’s role and IMHO religion also plays a crucial role. The bumps in the road come with the journey.