For those that are interested....

[kpierce]

Hmmm. Let's see. How can I dumb this down so Michael can understand. Ok, let's turn Dawkin's assertions into questions from Kevin:

1. Are there irrational, militant extremists that are harming and killing others in the name of religion?

That is incidents that support your contention, not proof. These have been in existence for centuries.
I wasn't trying to provide proof. I was asking you a question. Proof would be 9/11.
2. Has there been examples of our government trying to restrict our freedom to criticize religion?

Show me please. Has your right to free speech been constrained?
The fact you post your diatribe here refutes your point.
Sorry, typo, I missed the s on government. I'm referring to governments throughout the world as I'm talking about religion throughout the world.
3. Does religion encourage independent thought, or does it have your thoughts and beliefs set out for you to accept.

I'm sure some does. Does that me all do? No
Yours does.
4. Does religion want you to doubt or probe into it's teachings or accept them as truth?

I for one encourage an informed faith not blind faith.
I have nothing to fear in questioning biblical accounts.
What is lacking is my understand not the account itself.
Questioning your understanding of the teachings is not doubt. Religion prohibits doubt.
5. "Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt questing the evidence, logic and reason to draw conclusions." "Faith by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties." I'm not sure even you would disagree with these descriptions. But you could.

See #4 above.
You are mischaracterizing others beliefs to fit your preconceived notions.
How so?
6. "...so a scientist is constantly asking questions, being skeptical..." "...religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time..." You could also disagree with this but it's pretty clearly just describing reality.

Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.
The rest is Dawkins unfounded assertion that it applies to all belief systems.
You defend other beliefs, why not yours? Christians fit directly into this assertion. What other beliefs are you referring to?

Truth is unshakable.

It was once considered a "truth" that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.
Now when it was discovered to be false was that truth invalidated?
I say it wasn't truth in the first place though most thought it was.

Real Truth is unshakable.
I agree.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

By your argument, no one can believe that any historical figure ever existed, but is fiction, because you can't prove their existence empirically.
Wrong, anyone can believe that they existed. No one is likely to prove empirically that they did. Again, there's no reason to doubt that Abe Lincoln existed. There is an overwhelming sense of doubt to believe that Jesus came back to life and is the son of God.
That's a pretty weak argument. The only reason I can see you demanding it is because you can not admit that we might be right.
I admit that the possibility exists that you are right. It just hasn't been proven empirically and is extremely unlikely that it ever will.

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

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Catholic and Protestant aren't different religions.

Mark, do you follow the Catholic denomination?

[Michael Larson]

We're done hear. Circular argument produces nothing.

Interested parties can make their own judgment as to the openness of certain individuals minds.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

When we gain a better of understanding we may learn the truth.
For now all we know iis that it has characteristics of both.

The truth has not been discovered if full.

Truth is not relative as much as you want it to be.

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey... So now truth is only truth when you can prove it, where is your faith? Furthermore what is the value of your faith in a world where truth is mailable and where light can be a wave or a particle.

Mathematicians working in Quantum Mechanics were wise enough to understand that truth is not absolute when they realized that the observer effects the outcome of the observation. One of the ways they have dealt with mailable truth is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which simply states that One cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy.

I realize it is tough for someone who spends his days studying ancient texts to grasp where science & technology have expanded our knowledge of the world, but just because you don't believe something has no bearing on its reality or significance within our world.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

And you call us weak minded.

Blow me!

[Michael Larson]

Joey, Joey Joey, your definition of truth is deficient.

I am beginning to think you have limited intelligence.

Actually I have though that for some time.

Sorry for stretching the truth.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Your arrogance and ignorance shine again.

All laws are legislation of someones definition of right an wrong. They are for the collective good. You can set all religion aside, and the truth still remains. Certain activities between consenting adults are harmful those persons, and others. Homosexuality (avg. life expectancy of gay male approx. 54yrs., avg hetro male approx. 74), excessive consumption of alcohol (alcohol poising, car accidents, abuse, destroyed families), pornography (child abuse, sex addiction, sex slave trade, prostitution, etc.), gambling (addicions causing the loss of homes, and families), have all been proven to be blights on society as a whole, and harmful to those who participate.

Yea, lets just make everything legal except Christianity. That's going to sove all the worlds problems.

Listen dipsh!t we are either free Americans living under the Constitution or we ain't, no one wants your friggin' church determining what is best for us, get it asshole? Damn I am arrogant when it comes to freedom & liberty and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to maintain mine.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by kpierce

Ok, let's turn Dawkin's assertions into questions from Kevin:

1. Are there irrational, militant extremists that are harming and killing others in the name of religion?
Yes there are. That doesn't necessarily make religion itself the root of the problem.

Thousands of Americans murder fellow American every year, does this mean being an American predisposes one to be a murderer? Females tend to have higher achievement rates in math and science in high school, is this empirical evidence that our public school system short changes young males? Adams County in Wisconsin has a median household income at the level of poverty, does that prove that the residents of that county are a bunch of lazy rednecks?

2. Has there been examples of our government trying to restrict our freedom to criticize religion?
Sure there are. There are also examples of governments restricting its citizens from practicing any religion (the Soviets being the best example). Countless theocracies have come and gone throughout history.

I'm not understanding what this question is trying to get at. Are you trying to assert that religion is inherently oppressive because tyrant politicians and religious figureheads have manipulated it for centuries to advance their agendas? Going along that logic, guns cause murder because they are often used to commit the crime.

3. Does religion encourage independent thought, or does it have your thoughts and beliefs set out for you to accept.
This question is WAY too vague for me to answer.

4. Does religion want you to doubt or probe into it's teachings or accept them as truth?
Why is it relevant what religion "wants"?

5. "Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt questing the evidence, logic and reason to draw conclusions." "Faith by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties." I'm not sure even you would disagree with these descriptions. But you could.
Science and faith are what they are. I don't see anything constructive coming out of pitting the two against each other.

I can conclude through scientific deduction that my wife is a heterosexual female. But I can only conclude through faith that she will not commit an act of infidelity against me. Am I wrong for trusting my wife because I don't have empirical evidence that proves she wouldn't engage in sexual activities with another man?

6. "...so a scientist is constantly asking questions, being skeptical..." "...religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time..." You could also disagree with this but it's pretty clearly just describing reality.
Can you explain to me what makes religion "untested" and why contrasting it to science is relevant to the discussion?

If you choose to believe religion is false based on your interpretation of the facts or the apparent lack of them, go ahead. Religion like the theory of evolution hasn't been scientifically proven, so we are free to come up to our own conclusions on them. But in Dawkins' case, what makes his conclusions on the non-existence of religion "truthful" when he has yet to empirically prove them?

For the longest time European scientists believed that the Earth was flat and was the center of the solar system. Were these beliefs the truth, despite lacking empirically proof, because they were not proven to be false?

Now, can we get to debating real facts, instead of slanted questions? As a Weak Agnostic, a constructive debate between the existence and non-existence of God is of immense interest to me.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Joey, Joey Joey, your definition of truth is deficient.

I am beginning to think you have limited intelligence.

Actually I have though that for some time.

Sorry for stretching the truth.

I have limited intelligence because your only scope of knowledge lies within a 2000 year old text of dubious origin, yeah right Mikey.

[klott]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Listen dipsh!t we are either free Americans living under the Constitution or we ain't, no one wants your friggin' church determining what is best for us, get it asshole? Damn I am arrogant when it comes to freedom & liberty and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to maintain mine.

Joey, even if you completely erase all Christianity, you will still be a nasty little troll. The answer to your problem is in Christianity.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

I have limited intelligence because your only scope of knowledge lies within a 2000 year old text of dubious origin, yeah right Mikey.

Admitting your limitations is a healthy sign Joey.

Congratulations.

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by kpierce

I believe it is highly likely that Shakespear existed as I believe it is highly likely that Jesus existed. To claim that there is absolutely, positively, 100% certainty that either of them existed is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. It's called historical evidence. Writings, records of first hand accounts, etc. Not to mention the archaeological evidence that supports it. Just because it is impossible to prove something in a specific way, doesn't preclude proof of another form. And it doesn't preclude accepting that evidence at face value when there is much supporting it. Only one closed minded in their approach to the possible conclusions would not accept it.

The problem I face is not that a man named Jesus Christ existed and was a good man that was looked up to by many but that he is the son of God, returned to life and performed magic. Historical accounts of over 500 eye witnesses. No one claims that Shakespear did anything supernaturally so it doesn't create an overwhelming sense of doubt. I also believe that it is likely that the Bible has some accurate recordings of ancient geographic history. So accurate that none of it has been shown to be incorrect. Therefore those parts that are still "undiscovered" can be trusted. That doesn't mean that I buy the story that the entire Earth flooded and Noah saved all life by gathering billions of species of life on a gigantic boat. Even the face of geological evidence that points to a huge global flood? Even in the face of numerous written sources (other than the Bible) that also tell of a global flood?

Religion has many aspects that I commend and I feel that many people are better off following the positive aspects of the Bible. However, there is also a very divisive, brainwashing, damaging and dangerous side of religion that comes with the package. This I cannot commend. And what dangerous brainwashing are you talking about? If you actually read Will's, Mikes, and my posts here with an opened mind, you will see that we are all VERY studied individuals. I can't speak for them, but for me it has been a lifelong quest to understand these questions. I know that if there is just one thing in the Bible that isn't true, then I can't trust any of it. That's why I have litterally studied for years about many of these same questions that you have posed. I've studied the science behind creation theory AND evolutionary theory. I've studied different religions so I can better understand them. I've studied different denominations and Christian church history.

It all works together. These "contradictions" that you guys point out, are not contradictions at all but errors in interpretation of evidence. When you look at the big picture, and start to put the FACTS that you have in place, it is fairly easy to infer that the places where you don't have evidence to support something, is true also. (If a=b, and b=c, then a=c)

[mnahrgang]

Kevin,

Let me get personal (in a friendly way.)

Religion isn't really the point. People do religious things every day. I am "religious" because I shower, brush my teeth and then I go get a cup of coffee in the morning. I do this religiously each and every day. People of different faiths also do religious things. I go to church on Sunday. Moslem's pray 5 times a day. And others do other things.

Along with that, religion has been used, and is used as an excuse for many horrible things. But if it wasn't religion, it would be something else.

Christ didn't come to this earth for religion. He came for a couple of other reasons. He came to fulfill prophesy, he came to save the lost, he came to establish a personal relationship with each person on earth, he came to be our sacrifice so we could have that relationship, he came to prove he is God by raising from the dead.

That's why I say, Protestant & Catholic are both "Christian" denominations within the Christian religion. Even tho they have differences in the minor details, they believe those same things.

But here is something else... Not every protestant is a Christian. Not every Catholic is a Christian. Not every Pentecostal is a Christian. Not ever Baptist is a Christian. Protestant, Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist is a persons "Religion". Christ came for a relationship. All who have that relationship with Him are Christians. That's why Will, who is a Jewish believer, and Michael, and Ken, and I are all Christian brothers. Even though we all worship differently, and have different points of view on certain "in house" debates.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) are really, and sincerely interested in continuing this discussion, please PM me and I will send you my e-mail address. Otherwise, I don't really see a point in continuing on this thread.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Kevin,

Let me get personal (in a friendly way.)

Religion isn't really the point. People do religious things every day. I am "religious" because I shower, brush my teeth and then I go get a cup of coffee in the morning. I do this religiously each and every day. People of different faiths also do religious things. I go to church on Sunday. Moslem's pray 5 times a day. And others do other things.

Along with that, religion has been used, and is used as an excuse for many horrible things. But if it wasn't religion, it would be something else.

Christ didn't come to this earth for religion. He came for a couple of other reasons. He came to fulfill prophesy, he came to save the lost, he came to establish a personal relationship with each person on earth, he came to be our sacrifice so we could have that relationship, he came to prove he is God by raising from the dead.

That's why I say, Protestant & Catholic are both "Christian" denominations within the Christian religion. Even tho they have differences in the minor details, they believe those same things.

But here is something else... Not every protestant is a Christian. Not every Catholic is a Christian. Not every Pentecostal is a Christian. Not ever Baptist is a Christian. Protestant, Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist is a persons "Religion". Christ came for a relationship. All who have that relationship with Him are Christians. That's why Will, who is a Jewish believer, and Michael, and Ken, and I are all Christian brothers. Even though we all worship differently, and have different points of view on certain "in house" debates.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) are really, and sincerely interested in continuing this discussion, please PM me and I will send you my e-mail address. Otherwise, I don't really see a point in continuing on this thread.

Thank you for your input Mark. You clearly are a very well read and intelligent man. This will indeed go in circles for centuries to come. Thanks for sharing your views.