Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[RandomSand]

So you 'guess' that they just guess?

Are you actually attempting to guess that I guess that they guess ?

Seems a little too much guess-work is going on around here for my liking.

I really think it better if we first form a hypothesis. What's the subject again? Oh yes; it's religion isn't it... not the stork theory of reproduction.

*edit; spellingz.

Edited January 19, 2014 by RandomSand

[canman]

If some one engages in foolish activities one might be considered foolish.

Calling such man a fool is also foolish and anyone doing that better be prepared to include him self under such title.

.

That's just PC bullshit. Sometimes it is more beneficial to call a spade a bloody spade. Thousands of years of history demonstrate that it is almost pointless trying to instil common sense or reasoning into the brainwashed masses who continue to assert their belief in a jazzed up version of the tooth fairy.

Not sure that holds true today. I believe people are are turning away from religion in growing numbers. The reasoned arguements of the atheists may very well be contributing to this trend. One study here; there are plenty more with similar results: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

Edited January 19, 2014 by canman

[wym]

So you 'guess' that they just guess?

Are you actually attempting to guess that I guess that they guess ?

Seems a little too much guess-work is going on around here for my liking.

I really think it better if we first form a hypothesis. What's the subject again? Oh yes; it's religion isn't it... not the stork theory of reproduction.

*edit; spellingz.

He's trying to lead you toward: the scientific method.

Which as discussed above has open-mindedness and willingness to admit ignorance at its core.

And "religion" is not a good hypothesis - for a start it's missing a verb.

I would posit this hypothesis:

There are dimensions, beings and realities unknown to human science that have caused and continue to cause phenomena that people have interpreted in such a way as to give rise to spiritual and religious beliefs.

[canman]

Why do those people believe in things for which there is no evidence?

Would it not be better to phrase it as something like why do some people believe in things when there is no logically valid reason for them to do so?

In an evolutionary sense we need this when we are children. The glow of a fire can be alluring and mesmerising so when our parents tell us not to put our hand in it we believe them....or when our parents tell us not to go to such and such a place because there are wild animals which could eat them, they believe it. The ones who did not would be less likely to pass on their gene which will over time filter out those who do not listen to their parents. This is natural selection rather than selective breeding which we see in dogs for perhaps their appearance, horses for their speed or stamina and even pigs for their ability to gain weight or taste of their meat.

There is no doubt that simply believing what you are told by parents and or trusted elders is of benefit but what if the information being fed to the child is untrue or just the personally held belief (for no valid reason) of the parent/ elder. etc? What then? This is the 'I believe it on faith but know it to be true' issue which has been brought up a couple of times on the thread. Just in itself there is a fatal flaw because if you know something to be true then why would you need faith to believe it? It's a meaningless statement and the impressionable clay like mind of a child should not be subjected to it.

An interesting theory, I would counter that human progress has been led by those who do not accept the common dogma of their time. People who if you tell them x=y will go out and see if it really does. I don't think there is as much selection pressure to select for people of blind faith as you seem to imply.

[sirineou]

Why do those people believe in things for which there is no evidence?

Would it not be better to phrase it as something like why do some people believe in things when there is no logically valid reason for them to do so?

In an evolutionary sense we need this when we are children. The glow of a fire can be alluring and mesmerising so when our parents tell us not to put our hand in it we believe them....or when our parents tell us not to go to such and such a place because there are wild animals which could eat them, they believe it. The ones who did not would be less likely to pass on their gene which will over time filter out those who do not listen to their parents. This is natural selection rather than selective breeding which we see in dogs for perhaps their appearance, horses for their speed or stamina and even pigs for their ability to gain weight or taste of their meat.

There is no doubt that simply believing what you are told by parents and or trusted elders is of benefit but what if the information being fed to the child is untrue or just the personally held belief (for no valid reason) of the parent/ elder. etc? What then? This is the 'I believe it on faith but know it to be true' issue which has been brought up a couple of times on the thread. Just in itself there is a fatal flaw because if you know something to be true then why would you need faith to believe it? It's a meaningless statement and the impressionable clay like mind of a child should not be subjected to it.

An interesting theory, I would counter that human progress has been led by those who do not accept the common dogma of their time. People who if you tell them x=y will go out and see if it really does. I don't think there is as much selection pressure to select for people of blind faith as you seem to imply.

Though you are right ,in what you are saying, this is not what they are talking about.

They are talking about the contribution evolution has taken in the development of human beliefs or disbeliefs.

The difference between what they are talking is evolutionary rather what you are talking which is revolutionary

for instance , you are told you should not try to ride wild animals,

if you are a believer, you listen , and you do not , surviving long enough to pass your believer genes to the next generation. Believers who heed caution from those with experience thrive, and the believer gene becomes prominent

Every once in a while some one with a Non-believer gene comes a long.

Such a person will not heed the advise of those with experience and will try to ride wild animals, For the most part such persons will be killed and not survive to pass their Non-believer genes to the next generation, In essence such person will win the Darwin Award http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2013-01.html

But every once in a while one will succeed,

"hey riding this animal is pretty good, I am able to cover vast distances fast, and not be exhausted when I get there." "I think I will call this animal Horse"

Now this is a revolutionary advancement in Human kind, the only difference is that this advancement does not change the genetic pool, Sure the nonbeliever survives this time to pass on his genes, but given his unbelieving nature, it is only a mater of time until he tries to ride an other animal who looks a lot faster, the one others later called a tiger.

And even if he does survive to pass on his genes his offsprings will most likely engage in revolutionary acts that most likely also will win them the Darwin award.

His discovery of the Horse does in no way contribute in the advancement of Non-believer genes, since most of the people who would benefit from such discovery would be Believers.

Hence the the spread of the Believer gene.

It is no accident that Atheism is becoming prominents only lately,

It is only lately that Natural selection is becoming less prominent. And human selection (being burned at the stake) not applied with as much zeal as in the past,

giving as Non-believers a better chance to contribute in the evolutionary pool.

[canman]

Why do those people believe in things for which there is no evidence?

Would it not be better to phrase it as something like why do some people believe in things when there is no logically valid reason for them to do so?

In an evolutionary sense we need this when we are children. The glow of a fire can be alluring and mesmerising so when our parents tell us not to put our hand in it we believe them....or when our parents tell us not to go to such and such a place because there are wild animals which could eat them, they believe it. The ones who did not would be less likely to pass on their gene which will over time filter out those who do not listen to their parents. This is natural selection rather than selective breeding which we see in dogs for perhaps their appearance, horses for their speed or stamina and even pigs for their ability to gain weight or taste of their meat.

There is no doubt that simply believing what you are told by parents and or trusted elders is of benefit but what if the information being fed to the child is untrue or just the personally held belief (for no valid reason) of the parent/ elder. etc? What then? This is the 'I believe it on faith but know it to be true' issue which has been brought up a couple of times on the thread. Just in itself there is a fatal flaw because if you know something to be true then why would you need faith to believe it? It's a meaningless statement and the impressionable clay like mind of a child should not be subjected to it.

An interesting theory, I would counter that human progress has been led by those who do not accept the common dogma of their time. People who if you tell them x=y will go out and see if it really does. I don't think there is as much selection pressure to select for people of blind faith as you seem to imply.

Though you are right ,in what you are saying, this is not what they are talking about.

They are talking about the contribution evolution has taken in the development of human beliefs or disbeliefs.

The difference between what they are talking is evolutionary rather what you are talking which is revolutionary

for instance , you are told you should not try to ride wild animals,

if you are a believer, you listen , and you do not , surviving long enough to pass your believer genes to the next generation. Believers who heed caution from those with experience thrive, and the believer gene becomes prominent

Every once in a while some one with a Non-believer gene comes a long.

Such a person will not heed the advise of those with experience and will try to ride wild animals, For the most part such persons will be killed and not survive to pass their Non-believer genes to the next generation, In essence such person will win the Darwin Award http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2013-01.html

But every once in a while one will succeed,

"hey riding this animal is pretty good, I am able to cover vast distances fast, and not be exhausted when I get there." "I think I will call this animal Horse"

Now this is a revolutionary advancement in Human kind, the only difference is that this advancement does not change the genetic pool, Sure the nonbeliever survives this time to pass on his genes, but given his unbelieving nature, it is only a mater of time until he tries to ride an other animal who looks a lot faster, the one others later called a tiger.

And even if he does survive to pass on his genes his offsprings will most likely engage in revolutionary acts that most likely also will win them the Darwin award.

His discovery of the Horse does in no way contribute in the advancement of Non-believer genes, since most of the people who would benefit from such discovery would be Believers.

Hence the the spread of the Believer gene.

It is no accident that Atheism is becoming prominents only lately,

It is only lately that Natural selection is becoming less prominent. And human selection (being burned at the stake) not applied with as much zeal as in the past,

giving as Non-believers a better chance to contribute in the evolutionary pool.

I understand the premise I just believe the basic logic is flawed. The 'faith gene' theory at the end of the day says those with the faith gene are more prolific breeders. Using your horse example; I would say those who conquered their fear of riding a wild animal became better hunters and better warriors and thus were much more prolific in spreading their gene's around. Further to this, those with the faith gene would be more likely to be monogamist while those without, less so and therefore produce more progeny with a greater genetic diversity.

[sirineou]

Though you are right ,in what you are saying, this is not what they are talking about.

They are talking about the contribution evolution has taken in the development of human beliefs or disbeliefs.

The difference between what they are talking is evolutionary rather what you are talking which is revolutionary

for instance , you are told you should not try to ride wild animals,

if you are a believer, you listen , and you do not , surviving long enough to pass your believer genes to the next generation. Believers who heed caution from those with experience thrive, and the believer gene becomes prominent

Every once in a while some one with a Non-believer gene comes a long.

Such a person will not heed the advise of those with experience and will try to ride wild animals, For the most part such persons will be killed and not survive to pass their Non-believer genes to the next generation, In essence such person will win the Darwin Award http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2013-01.html

But every once in a while one will succeed,

"hey riding this animal is pretty good, I am able to cover vast distances fast, and not be exhausted when I get there." "I think I will call this animal Horse"

Now this is a revolutionary advancement in Human kind, the only difference is that this advancement does not change the genetic pool, Sure the nonbeliever survives this time to pass on his genes, but given his unbelieving nature, it is only a mater of time until he tries to ride an other animal who looks a lot faster, the one others later called a tiger.

And even if he does survive to pass on his genes his offsprings will most likely engage in revolutionary acts that most likely also will win them the Darwin award.

His discovery of the Horse does in no way contribute in the advancement of Non-believer genes, since most of the people who would benefit from such discovery would be Believers.

Hence the the spread of the Believer gene.

It is no accident that Atheism is becoming prominents only lately,

It is only lately that Natural selection is becoming less prominent. And human selection (being burned at the stake) not applied with as much zeal as in the past,

giving as Non-believers a better chance to contribute in the evolutionary pool.

I understand the premise I just believe the basic logic is flawed. The 'faith gene' theory at the end of the day says those with the faith gene are more prolific breeders. Using your horse example; I would say those who conquered their fear of riding a wild animal became better hunters and better warriors and thus were much more prolific in spreading their gene's around. Further to this, those with the faith gene would be more likely to be monogamist while those without, less so and therefore produce more progeny with a greater genetic diversity.

Archaeologists estimate that modern humans have being around for about 200,000 years

Very little advancement in technology has occurred , until about 5,000 years ago. Why?

because before then do to limited populations, and the Run and Hide strategy for survival was most successful .

It is only in the past 5000 years that the process you describe began to take a foothold.

Not a very significant time scale in evolutionary terms.

Please explain why you believe that people with faith would have a higher tendency to be monogamistic.

[wym]

"evolution" happens much more quickly than what can be explained by current genetics-only theories

monogamy is a strategy that favors women, but not men's DNA propagation and successful spawning

and its programming via religion is a social control mechanism, not a spiritual factor.

IMO

[sirineou]

"evolution" happens much more quickly than what can be explained by current genetics-only theories

monogamy is a strategy that favors women, but not men's DNA propagation and successful spawning

and its programming via religion is a social control mechanism, not a spiritual factor.

IMO

Statements are more convincing when presented with supporting evidence

Why do you think any of the statement you made above are correct?

and I am not , at least not yet, saying that they are not, I am just saying why do you think that they are?

explain why:

Evolution happens more quickly that explained by genetics

monogamy favors women

Monogamy does not favor Man

Monogamy is programed by religion

[drx13]

"evolution" happens much more quickly than what can be explained by current genetics-only theories

monogamy is a strategy that favors women, but not men's DNA propagation and successful spawning

and its programming via religion is a social control mechanism, not a spiritual factor.

IMO

Statements are more convincing when presented with supporting evidence

Why do you think any of the statement you made above are correct?

and I am not , at least not yet, saying that they are not, I am just saying why do you think that they are?

explain why:

Evolution happens more quickly that explained by genetics

monogamy favors women

Monogamy does not favor Man

Monogamy is programed by religion

This Book.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn explains a lot of the theories and much more

II have the audiobook if u need

[sirineou]

"evolution" happens much more quickly than what can be explained by current genetics-only theories

monogamy is a strategy that favors women, but not men's DNA propagation and successful spawning

and its programming via religion is a social control mechanism, not a spiritual factor.

IMO

Statements are more convincing when presented with supporting evidence

Why do you think any of the statement you made above are correct?

and I am not , at least not yet, saying that they are not, I am just saying why do you think that they are?

explain why:

Evolution happens more quickly that explained by genetics

monogamy favors women

Monogamy does not favor Man

Monogamy is programed by religion

This Book.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn explains a lot of the theories and much more

II have the audiobook if u need

It will take me more than a few days to read this book. so in the interest of expediency,

if you could paraphrase what you learned from this book and how it supports your position.

For instance, rather than me just saying

I believe monogamy favors Men just as Much as women

I would say, when it comes to reproduction and natural selection it takes two to tango

Monogamy has a positive influence in the survival of humanity in that it insures the protection of the woman during the dangerous period of pregnancy,improves the odds of the pregnancy coming to term, and improves the odds of survival of the offspring, thus helping the genetic proliferation of both Men and woman.

So,, how according to that book is Monogamy programed by religion rather than the process I described?

[drx13]

Can we lighten up a little ?

My version of something from Klein and Cathcart .."Plato and a Platypus go into a bar"

.............................................................................................................................................................

Man to guy preparing to jump off bridge "Don't, there is so much to live for"

What ?

Are you a Christian ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist of the Reformed Church ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist of the Reformed Church of 1842 ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist of the Reformed Church of 1842, Living Church of God ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist of the Reformed Church of 1842, Living Church of God, Disciples of Christ ?

Yes

So am I, Are you a Baptist of the Reformed Church of 1842, Living Church of God, Disciples of Christ, Jesus Army ?

No

Jump! Revisionist A*hole !

[wym]

For instance, rather than me just saying

I believe monogamy favors Men just as Much as women

I would say, when it comes to reproduction and natural selection it takes two to tango

Monogamy has a positive influence in the survival of humanity in that it insures the protection of the woman during the dangerous period of pregnancy,improves the odds of the pregnancy coming to term, and improves the odds of survival of the offspring, thus helping the genetic proliferation of both Men and woman.

The individual's evolutionary goal is to propagate and ensure survival of as many descendants as possible.

Men want to spread their seed widely, but women can only spawn so many babies.

Therefore men aren't as concerned with survival of any given set of babies.

Women want the guy to stick around, provide and defend.

Social forces are driven by women and those who want to control the masses, and these forces, including religion, strive to make polyamory taboo.

Great take on this in the "Ejaculation Control Conspiracy" in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon.

[sirineou]

For instance, rather than me just saying

I believe monogamy favors Men just as Much as women

I would say, when it comes to reproduction and natural selection it takes two to tango

Monogamy has a positive influence in the survival of humanity in that it insures the protection of the woman during the dangerous period of pregnancy,improves the odds of the pregnancy coming to term, and improves the odds of survival of the offspring, thus helping the genetic proliferation of both Men and woman.

The individual's evolutionary goal is to propagate and ensure survival of as many descendants as possible.

July 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM ET

Emory University

Til death do they part? Primates such as chimpanzees get an evolutionary boost from monogamy, researchers now find.

NEW YORK - Whenever a public figure cheats on his wife, pundits can be counted on to trot out the tired old claim that males are simply wired by evolution to be promiscuous.

Two studies released on Monday beg to differ. By sticking to one female, they conclude, males of many species, especially primates, can increase their chances of siring many offspring who survive long enough to reproduce - the key factor in determining whether a particular behavior survives the brutal process of natural selection.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/males-monogamy-can-have-evolutionary-benefits-6C10789538

[wym]

Just another ECC propaganda outlet. . .

[sirineou]

Just another ECC propaganda outlet. . .

could be, I guess it is a mater of perspective

Now how about back to religion a subject I know a lot more about than Evolutionary biology

At least so far most of us agree on a world older than 6,000 years

or do we?

[sirineou]

Just another ECC propaganda outlet. . .

Dont know what ECC is

are these organisations related to ECC?

UCL, University of Manchester,, University of Oxford and University of Auckland

[sirineou]

double post

Edited January 20, 2014 by sirineou

[wym]

You guys do keep on setting up those straw men. . .

Has ANYONE in this thread even tried to defend any stupid dogma from an organized religion? Other than the Apostle John guy. . .

[wym]

Just another ECC propaganda outlet. . .

Dont know what ECC is

are these organisations related to ECC?

UCL, University of Manchester,, University of Oxford and University of Auckland[/size]

As I stated, Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon - fictional but enlightening, and a GREAT read:

http://www.euskalnet.net/larraorma/crypto/slide66.html

Edited January 20, 2014 by wym

[Dimpys Dad]

You guys do keep on setting up those straw men. . .

Has ANYONE in this thread even tried to defend any stupid dogma from an organized religion? Other than the Apostle John guy. . .

I must say that it will be very hard for anyone to logically defend "stupid" dogma. May I ask if you consider any dogma to be stupid? Do you think there are any dogmas worth defending?

Dogma is one of those words that has acquired a negative connotation in modern times, especially if it is considered to be without adequate grounds. And because it is usually associated with beliefs held by a church and therefore religious in nature, those who are biased against churches and religion will have a hard time accepting the tenets contained within such dogma.

If one does not believe in the most basic foundation of a particular dogma, i.e. the reality of the person of Jesus Christ, it will be next to impossible to defend the ancillary tenets springing out of that fundamental belief. So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses.

But your answers to my initial questions will be helpful.

[drx13]

quote "So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses."

There were lots of Jesus figures with similar tales

see http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

[thailiketoo]

quote "So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses."

There were lots of Jesus figures with similar tales

see http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

It scares me that people with the above opinion have a vote and the right to raise children. That is one of the reasons I came to Thailand. Not that I would be in favor of taking the right away but I had to leave.

You know the people who say if you don't like it get out. Well I did.

[Dimpys Dad]

quote "So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses."

There were lots of Jesus figures with similar tales

see http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

It scares me that people with the above opinion have a vote and the right to raise children. That is one of the reasons I came to Thailand. Not that I would be in favor of taking the right away but I had to leave.

You know the people who say if you don't like it get out. Well I did.

I am also of the opinion that I should live by the teachings of Jesus which say:

Love your God and love your neighbor as yourself

Do good to everyone

Seek peace

Pray for your enemies

Do not be a hypocrite

Care for the sick and dying

Which of these things scare you?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Dimpys Dad

[thailiketoo]

quote "So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses."

There were lots of Jesus figures with similar tales

see http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

It scares me that people with the above opinion have a vote and the right to raise children. That is one of the reasons I came to Thailand. Not that I would be in favor of taking the right away but I had to leave.

You know the people who say if you don't like it get out. Well I did.

I am also of the opinion that I should live by the teachings of Jesus which say:

Love your God and love your neighbor as yourself

Do good to everyone

Seek peace

Pray for your enemies

Do not be a hypocrite

Care for the sick and dying

Which of these things scare you?

The absolute hypocrisy of a culture that would espouse those things and have the death penalty. No universal health care and kill 50,000 neighbors in three days at Gettysburg. Seek peace? I got drafted and was told to kill women and children I had never met and had done nothing wrong.

Edited January 20, 2014 by thailiketoo

[canuckamuck]

The only real conclusion I can come to from this thread so far is that atheists appear to be very rude and seem to consider calling people stupid because they have an opposing view to be normal conversation.

This was a good thread, and I applaud the members who resisted the urge to name call and seemed interested to hear other arguments.

One thing I would like to ask is: is it possible that, because atheists create their own moral code based on what they feel is right, are they more likely to have inconsistent ethics because there feelings change day to day?

[Brevity]

The only real conclusion I can come to from this thread so far is that atheists appear to be very rude and seem to consider calling people stupid because they have an opposing view to be normal conversation.

This was a good thread, and I applaud the members who resisted the urge to name call and seemed interested to hear other arguments.

One thing I would like to ask is: is it possible that, because atheists create their own moral code based on what they feel is right, are they more likely to have inconsistent ethics because there feelings change day to day?

I said in another post, I was subjected to a Roman Catholic education and saw some of the worst, most unethical, most vicious, and most non-compassionate behavior from Catholic nuns and priests. On top of that, some of the most heinous acts against mankind have been done in the name of religion, and finally, I've met my share of "Christians" and "Buddhists" whose conduct would tell me that they probably don't even know what the words 'Christianity' or "Buddhism" really mean. So, I feel that we are all born with a moral compass and the situations in our lives mold our moral code. If someone is born into extreme poverty, their moral code may be compromised (in our opinion) but perhaps these people did what they did because of the awful situation they were born into. I guess to answer the question directly, I disagree that atheists, or anybody for that matter, make their own moral code. Society, the environment one grows up in and situations make one's moral code.

[thailiketoo]

The only real conclusion I can come to from this thread so far is that atheists appear to be very rude and seem to consider calling people stupid because they have an opposing view to be normal conversation.

This was a good thread, and I applaud the members who resisted the urge to name call and seemed interested to hear other arguments.

One thing I would like to ask is: is it possible that, because atheists create their own moral code based on what they feel is right, are they more likely to have inconsistent ethics because there feelings change day to day?

Looking at your post I would say you are the one being insulting. I went back and looked and it seems like there was only one non believer being insulting. Remember no one told the atheists to turn the other cheek. Who was that, hmmm... or Seek peace or Pray for your enemies. Which one are you doing?

[canuckamuck]

quote "So I'm not certain how to begin a defense of the dogma of basic Christianity other than by saying Jesus Christ was a real person. That means that he was born, lived on earth and was killed in the manner described in the bible. He was a great teacher, healer, miracle worker and said he was the son of God. Those I do believe. I believe the accounts provided by eyewitnesses."

There were lots of Jesus figures with similar tales

see http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

It scares me that people with the above opinion have a vote and the right to raise children. That is one of the reasons I came to Thailand. Not that I would be in favor of taking the right away but I had to leave.

You know the people who say if you don't like it get out. Well I did.

in regards to your last post. here is an example of someone being insulting. Guess what? It was you.

[canuckamuck]

The only real conclusion I can come to from this thread so far is that atheists appear to be very rude and seem to consider calling people stupid because they have an opposing view to be normal conversation.

This was a good thread, and I applaud the members who resisted the urge to name call and seemed interested to hear other arguments.

One thing I would like to ask is: is it possible that, because atheists create their own moral code based on what they feel is right, are they more likely to have inconsistent ethics because there feelings change day to day?

I said in another post, I was subjected to a Roman Catholic education and saw some of the worst, most unethical, most vicious, and most non-compassionate behavior from Catholic nuns and priests. On top of that, some of the most heinous acts against mankind have been done in the name of religion, and finally, I've met my share of "Christians" and "Buddhists" whose conduct would tell me that they probably don't even know what the words 'Christianity' or "Buddhism" really mean. So, I feel that we are all born with a moral compass and the situations in our lives mold our moral code. If someone is born into extreme poverty, their moral code may be compromised (in our opinion) but perhaps these people did what they did because of the awful situation they were born into. I guess to answer the question directly, I disagree that atheists, or anybody for that matter, make their own moral code. Society, the environment one grows up in and situations make one's moral code.

Interesting that you feel we are born with a moral compass. How'd that get there?