The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Mr. Clandestine]

i like how the guy or whoever starts off by saying it's dumb to believe in 1 or the other. as there could be another way all this happened, but then call only the people that believe in id stupid, and starts to show his true colors, and what he really believes in evo.and the thing is if this is true and there is no god. like most on here believe then thats means all this is happening with no purpose, and that means our life really has no purpose at all. as we all just happened now that makes me feel good about life. wow we all have no purpose that has a good ring to it, and to think i thought there was a reason to all this bullshit, "life" guess not.

Well, in defense of many atheists and general non-believers in intelligent design, they don't place their morals and life-purpose in the same boat that religious people place theirs. For instance, I'm a Christian, and can base my morals around the teachings of my Savior, Jesus Christ. But if one chooses not to follow the teachings of Christ, they still have a moral prerogative to do what's right. For instance, theft and murder are sins in my religion, but to a non-Christian they're simply not the right thing to do. Regardless of how one chooses to view religion in general, the Golden Rule has always been a good one: you should treat other people in the same way that you'd want to be treated.

These people have a very well-meaning purpose in life, well, most of them. I have no qualms with someone who doesn't believe what I do, yet still strives to better themselves and the world around them with their actions.

[Mr. Clandestine]

i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about

I'd like to hear Ron Paul's name mentioned more often. I can relate to many of this policies and beliefs - not just the MMJ ones, though they help! - and respect him as a man and possible presidential hopeful. I think he'd be better off running as an Independent, as Guiliani & Romney seem to be leading the polls for the Republicans, but I heard he managed to generate over $4 million in campaign contributions in just one day of last week! When he starts spending that money, I have a feeling the MSM and general public will start hearing his name more frequently.

[Mr. Clandestine]

In fact the common thinking at the time was Earth sitting on elephants backs standing on a turtle.

LoL, that is an interesting opinion...I must admit!

Then when you start getting into prophecy, the detail it Crazy. Like the Fall of Babylon, was writen 200 years in advance. The name of the conquering leader is written, then even going into detail of how babylon would be taken.

Careful, when you start delving into apocalyptic prophecies, you tend to stir the melting pot of unscrupulous atheists. Though I do agree that this has all been prophecied, along with many other matters, long before anyone had any reason to make such a prediction.

[dragonrider]

Another thing that I think complicates these discussions is a difference in the use of terms.

When I speak of Logic, I am speaking of a specific branch of philosophy that codifies how arguments are formed. It is like Mathematics in that it has strict rules. The various forms of fallacy are codified as well. The video in this thread talks about one form of logical fallacy with respect to how it is applies to one argument in the evolution vs creation debate.

But the words "logic" and "logical" are often not used in such a strict way in common usage. So when someone says, "you are not being logical," they often mean, "you are being unreasonable." When I say, "that is a logical fallacy," what I mean is, "your conclusion does not follow from your premise, because it is not formulated as a stricly Logical argument." It does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is not a reasonable thing to assert (although that might be the case too, and I do object to the formulation of the argument), and it is not meant to say, "you are unreasonable."

I think sometimes a video like this wants to have it both ways, or at least fails to clarify the scope of what exactly it is saying. The assertion it makes, that this one particular argument is a logical fallacy, is absolutely correct. But I think maybe it also wants to suggest that intelligent design in general is unreasonable as a belief by saying it is "illogical," without actually saying so.

Proponents of intelligent design sometimes do the same thing. The example that comes to mind is the effort in certain states in the US to get textbooks that teach evolutionary theory stamped with words to the effect of, "Evolution is only a theory, not a fact." In a strict scientific sense of the words "theory" and "fact," that statement is absolutely correct --- evolution is a theory. But the comoon usage of the terms "theory" and "fact" are not the same as the strict scientific usage, so the phrase sounds like it is diminsihing evolutionary theory by suggesting it is an unsubstantiated idea. And I think that is the intent of those who would like to see the phrase on the books. The honest truth in scientific terms is that evolution is a very well founded theory, substantiated by many facts.

There are many other examples of scientific terms that have different meanings in common usage, and examples on both sides of intentional misuse of terms to desparage the other's line of thinking.

[Hardcore Newbie]

...it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance.

Evolution doesn't state this.

I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance.

There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.

You're also stating that the complexity you see before you cannot have been here all along, but something more complex to create that complexity could have always existed?

It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ... I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...

I was calling myself the sceptic, I was looking for these historical documents that validate your belief system.

It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.

I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.

I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.

Carbon dating has limitations, but carbon dating still works when you are apparent of its shortcomings.

But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.

Dragon rider has an excellent post on what logic means, and he's written it quite well, so I won't retell what he's eloquently told. Suffice to say this example will show how logic will give us the correct belief.

Q: Do aliens exist?

A1: "Of course not, there's no proof"
This is illogical because of the axiom -absence of proof does not equal proof of absence-. We can state this axiom to be true because we can show many instances where it shows itself to be true, which I can demonstrate if you'd like, but I'll assume for the time being that you agree.

A2: "There might be aliens, you never know"
This is logical, because we know that without full and complete knowledge on a subject, that nothing can be taken as an absolute.

A3: "Of course there are aliens, the universe is huge"
This is illogical, because it assumes that a set rule is true without even testing it. It's akin to saying "Of course it was designed, it's too complex to come about any other way"

Having gone through three possible answers, the most logical answer is the "maybe" answer. If you want to believe that aliens exist, that's up to you, but you can't state that your belief in aliens has anything to do with proof, because you'd clearly be wrong.

Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.

So back to the original intention, if i were to state that aliens don't exist, and you stated that they were possible, you'd have the most logical argument. I can claim my argument to be of sound logic, but if I'm not following logical rules, then I'm obviously lying or I'm mistaken.

But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.

Again I have to disagree. The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.

Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.

If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.

I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance. Ignorance can be, and usually is, a dangerous thing, which is why I want to prevent others from being so.

The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.

Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?

But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.

An attack on a belief is not an attack on the person. Is telling a child that Santa isn't real an attack of some sort? No, it's truth. No matter how heart broken a child is from hearing this seemingly bad news, no matter how much they are in denial, it's not an attack on the child.

This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.

Needing proof is not circular logic. The scientific method of proof means that it must be able to be reproduced. This is why the scientific method takes precedence over any other type of proof.

I can tell anyone that I can fly by flapping my arms, but if I can not produce results over and over, then have I really proven anything?

[Krogith]

LoL, that is an interesting opinion...I must admit!



Careful, when you start delving into apocalyptic prophecies, you tend to stir the melting pot of unscrupulous atheists. Though I do agree that this has all been prophecied, along with many other matters, long before anyone had any reason to make such a prediction.

yeah the elephant thing is funny you can find some crazy ideas they had back in thoses times. The elephant one came from asia I think.

[dragonrider]

yeah the elephant thing is funny you can find some crazy ideas they had back in thoses times. The elephant one came from asia I think.

I don't even remember where I heard this but it went someting like this:

"The earth rests on the back of an elephant."

"Well, what does the elephant stand on?"

"The elephant stands on the back of a turtle."

"Then what does the turtle stand on?"

"The back of another turtle."

"Then what does that turtle stand on?"

"It's turtles all the way down..."

That one always cracked me up for some reason.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Evolution doesn't state this.

But evolutionists commonly do. Evolutionists are quick to tell a creationist to look up to the sky, and observe that microwave radiation is and has been permeating the open space of the universe since the beginning of time. But, my main objection to this theory is this: how can they predetermine when "time" actually began? They simply can't. They can claim that solar systems, planets, life, etc., were the result of millions upon billions of years of accumulation of matter by gravitational forces, as well as other mystifying phenomena, but the proof isn't as evident to me as it is to them. As for evolutionist theory regarding the evolution of species, it's common for someone to refer to biological evolution as infallible logic, because biological evolution can be observed in laboratories. But, even after all of their theories have been propagated, and they seem pretty conclusive in the fact that humans share commonalities with chimpanzees in terms of DNA structure, they rarely are open to admit that human DNA also shares a lot of commonalities with mushrooms! (There's a fungus among us.)

There are two problems with this line of thinking, you're assuming that the only two options are creation and randomness, the randomness is the strawman.

Unfortunately for creationists, we generally limit ourselves to these two sets of existential circumstances. Being unwilling to deviate from this belief is what is keeping most creationists in the dark. I'm willing to believe that evolution is possible (if not probable) because I see that certain organisms do, in fact, evolve. Other creationists may disregard this concept completely so as to adhere to their own personal beliefs, or just to be stubborn. But, even with all the so-called "evidence" pointing towards the sky claiming that the universe created itself, or simply always existed, I still find it hard to believe that these extraordinary circumstances just fell into place on their own, and without at least some assistance from the God that I believe to be true. I simply cannot wipe God from my mind simply because I am having difficulty proving that He's real, and especially when no one can logically prove that he isn't real.

It may very well be the words of Jesus himself, and they may have much meaning to you, but in no way to they constitute as proof. Even if it's the man's writing, there has to be a way to validate the claims that Jesus makes, most importantly, that he is the son of God.

Actually, in these particular texts, Jesus makes few claims that He is the Son of God. The only way to validate these claims would be to ask the Man, Himself. And because that's not really an option for sane individuals, we'll just have to rely on our faith.

I've heard it (many times), but I've never been pointed to an actual study that shows that carbons degrade in a way that differs from what scientists already know.

It's a little crude, but interesting to read nonetheless: CHAPTER 7 - DATING METHODS Part 1

There are others, but some are obviously written by creationists. I try to only keep relevant and seemingly non-biased reports bookmarked, so let me know if you're interested in seeing more. Though most of them only point out the same arguments you've probably already heard dozens of times.

Just because things are possible, that doesn't give us an excuse to believe in them as if they were true.

Well, it does actually...because of the inherent possibility of truth. You're right that one would not be backing their beliefs with fact, but that doesn't always mean that it's impossible for it to be factual. It just means that scientific studies haven't been able to prove it yet. Keyword: "yet".

The principles of math predate humanity. If this were not true, we could state that the sides of a right angled triangle are added up as... A squared + B squared = C cubed. This is false, the laws of math make it false. Math is a language that cannot be changed arbitrarily like we can with our languages. We can not say that humanity has created mathematics, math is something that humanity has discovered.

I could just go on to say that I wasn't referring to mathematical equations in the same sense that I was referring to principles of language in general. You made that correlation, but I was just trying to correlate the interpretation of coded language to the discoveries that mankind has made.

Which again, invalidates the claim that all languages are created, unless you can prove that something created math.

I don't necessarily attribute mathematics to being a form of language as I do to it being "the science or branch of knowledge dealing with measurements, numbers and quantities." Does that make either of us wrong? No. It just means we have varying opinions on the definition/origin of mathematic principles.

I, personally, want to live in reality. If I have a belief to myself that isn't logical, I want people to point that out. I don't hide my beliefs because I'm not afraid for them being wrong. If someone doens't feel the need to live in reality, then they are living in ignorance.

Ignorance can be a dangerous thing, you're right. But I only consider blind faith in religion (believing only because you were told to do so) ignorant, not believing because you honestly have faith in what is being taught. My faith revolves around many things...my belief in intelligent design, my own findings in scriptures (even the heretical ones denied by the granddaddy of all orthodox Christian churches), the faith that I witness in others, and so on. I'm not ignorant for adhering to my faith...maybe a bit stubborn...but no less educated than you are. I've probably heard many of the theories that you hold near and dear to your beliefs, and disregard them for the same reasons that you disregard mine. But I would never consider you ignorant for staying true to these beliefs.

The only reason I'm asking for your beliefs is because, from what I've read in the thread, you don't have a full understanding of what logic actually means. I'm not doing it to show you that I'm better somehow, or that you're a bad person. That's not my intention at all.

Simply stated, my opinion of logic differs from yours. In many respects, they're probably identical...but in terms of logical relevancy concerning religion, faith, or the lack thereof...I simply disagree with you on many levels.

Unfortunately, this might come off as preachy. You don't have to spill your guts, that's your choice, but what purpose does serve to keep your thoughts to yourself, and not offer them to be scrutinized?

Again, I do often share my views with others. Even with those that are only going to rip them apart and try to impart their views on me. The only discrepancy that I have now is that I've done it so many times, I don't feel that I'm going to get anything useful out of it. I mean no offense to you, because I enjoy the intellectual conversations I'm able to have with you...but still, I highly doubt you'd be able to point out terribly many things that I haven't already heard, and considered to great lengths in my own mind. Regardless, ask me for specific opinions, and I'll be glad to give them to you. I simply can't generalize them all because, like you, I have tons of opinions.

[Hardcore Newbie]

But evolutionists commonly do.

Evolutionist isn't a real "belief" system.

Evolutionists are quick to tell a creationist to look up to the sky, and observe that microwave radiation is and has been permeating the open space of the universe since the beginning of time. But, my main objection to this theory is this: how can they predetermine when "time" actually began? They simply can't.

I've never heard of anyone claim to know when time begins. Maybe time "as we know it", or the universe "as we know it". To lump anyone who recognizes evolution with people making claims about the universe, which evolution doesn't even deal with, it just doens't make sense to me.

But, even after all of their theories have been propagated, and they seem pretty conclusive in the fact that humans share commonalities with chimpanzees in terms of DNA structure, they rarely are open to admit that human DNA also shares a lot of commonalities with mushrooms! (There's a fungus among us.)

We share lots of DNA with lots of different things. Keep going back and you'll keep seeing similarities.

Unfortunately for creationists, we generally limit ourselves to these two sets of existential circumstances. Being unwilling to deviate from this belief is what is keeping most creationists in the dark. I'm willing to believe that evolution is possible (if not probable) because I see that certain organisms do, in fact, evolve. Other creationists may disregard this concept completely so as to adhere to their own personal beliefs, or just to be stubborn.

The reason that (some) creationists have to do this is because they believe so much in their Bible, that if any one part of it is wrong, or if any part of it is a story, then there can be no defining line between what is real in the Bible, and what isn't. The Bible never tells you "this is just a moral story (or fable)". That's why they draw the line at "100% Real"

But, even with all the so-called "evidence" pointing towards the sky claiming that the universe created itself, or simply always existed, I still find it hard to believe that these extraordinary circumstances just fell into place on their own, and without at least some assistance from the God that I believe to be true. I simply cannot wipe God from my mind simply because I am having difficulty proving that He's real, and especially when no one can logically prove that he isn't real.

No one can logically prove that he isn't real, correct, but that just puts god on par with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Magic Creation Dust. Just because someone can't prove that these things aren't real, that doesn't substantiate them, at all.

If someone couldn't conceive of a world without Creation Dust playing some part in making it, that doens't make their belief logical.

Actually, in these particular texts, Jesus makes few claims that He is the Son of God. The only way to validate these claims would be to ask the Man, Himself. And because that's not really an option for sane individuals, we'll just have to rely on our faith.

Actually, asking the Man wouldn't prove anything, either. And some people do claim to speak with God, quite a few people.

It's a little crude, but interesting to read nonetheless: CHAPTER 7 - DATING METHODS Part 1

There are others, but some are obviously written by creationists. I try to only keep relevant and seemingly non-biased reports bookmarked, so let me know if you're interested in seeing more. Though most of them only point out the same arguments you've probably already heard dozens of times.

I've been pretty busy the past little while, hence the giant gap of time between our last posts, but I'll try to get around to reading it.

Well, it does actually...because of the inherent possibility of truth. You're right that one would not be backing their beliefs with fact, but that doesn't always mean that it's impossible for it to be factual. It just means that scientific studies haven't been able to prove it yet. Keyword: "yet".

Again, lots of things are possible. Creation Dust just hasn't proven to be true.... yet.

I could just go on to say that I wasn't referring to mathematical equations in the same sense that I was referring to principles of language in general. You made that correlation, but I was just trying to correlate the interpretation of coded language to the discoveries that mankind has made.

I don't necessarily attribute mathematics to being a form of language as I do to it being "the science or branch of knowledge dealing with measurements, numbers and quantities." Does that make either of us wrong? No. It just means we have varying opinions on the definition/origin of mathematic principles.

In this case we'd just be arguing semantics, which does nothing for the claim that "all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages". Math is at the very least an "intelligent" code, but regardless, it's still semantics at this point.

It'd be like me saying that all birds can fly, and someone inevitably says "what about an ostrich?", to which I reply "An ostrich isn't a bird, it can't fly". This is obviously a very simplified version of semantics, but it illustrates the problem with "what is a language".

Ignorance can be a dangerous thing, you're right. But I only consider blind faith in religion (believing only because you were told to do so) ignorant, not believing because you honestly have faith in what is being taught.My faith revolves around many things...my belief in intelligent design, my own findings in scriptures (even the heretical ones denied by the granddaddy of all orthodox Christian churches), the faith that I witness in others, and so on. I'm not ignorant for adhering to my faith...maybe a bit stubborn...but no less educated than you are. I've probably heard many of the theories that you hold near and dear to your beliefs, and disregard them for the same reasons that you disregard mine. But I would never consider you ignorant for staying true to these beliefs.

My beliefs all lay with facts. My suppositions, however, are just that. I love to think of how the world came to be, or the effects of time travel, or the power of a mind that is 100% in tune with its surroundings, or even what God might be like.... but they are all "what ifs" Things that are fun to think about, but when it comes down to it, there are no proofs for these suppositions, so at most they are day dreams with no basis in the real world, and I recognize them as that.

As well, finding meaning in scriptures is totally different than saying "These words are 100% true". If you're not saying this, then I apologize, but at the same time, you'd be saying that the words you believe in are not 100% true.

Simply stated, my opinion of logic differs from yours. In many respects, they're probably identical...but in terms of logical relevancy concerning religion, faith, or the lack thereof...I simply disagree with you on many levels.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence... are you saying
"my opinion which is based on logic differs..." or are you saying
"my opinion on what logic means differs...". It's a very important distinction and I don't want to assume which one you mean.

Again, I do often share my views with others. Even with those that are only going to rip them apart and try to impart their views on me. The only discrepancy that I have now is that I've done it so many times, I don't feel that I'm going to get anything useful out of it. I mean no offense to you, because I enjoy the intellectual conversations I'm able to have with you...but still, I highly doubt you'd be able to point out terribly many things that I haven't already heard, and considered to great lengths in my own mind. Regardless, ask me for specific opinions, and I'll be glad to give them to you. I simply can't generalize them all because, like you, I have tons of opinions.

I don't think i have to ask for any specific ones, we're talking about a lot of them here (as well as my own) so we needn't tack on any more for now. But no offence taken

[Mr. Clandestine]

To lump anyone who recognizes evolution with people making claims about the universe, which evolution doesn't even deal with, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Getting lumped together with all evangelical Christians, many of whom assault others with their dogma and sharp criticism...which most other Christian denominations seldom have to deal with...actually makes plenty of sense to me. Christians all over the world are being persecuted, and for one thing: being Christian. Even in the U.S., where it's becoming more and more common to see people getting all up in arms over a picture of the Ten Commandments in public places. It is just a picture of stone, after all.

We share lots of DNA with lots of different things. Keep going back and you'll keep seeing similarities.

We also share DNA with lots of our ancestors. "Logically", I find it difficult to believe that I could have possibly evolved from a truffle, or even a chimpanzee, just because of similarities - some less subtle than others - in our DNA. I do believe that I am a product of my ancestors, though...and I have tangible proof of my lineage, accounting for hundreds of years. I can only speculate what came before that, but I can rest assured that it's probably been of human origin for quite some time. Nobody has ever been able to prove me otherwise, and I doubt if they ever will. After all, we only have "X" amount of years on this earth, right?

The reason that (some) creationists have to do this is because they believe so much in their Bible, that if any one part of it is wrong, or if any part of it is a story, then there can be no defining line between what is real in the Bible, and what isn't. The Bible never tells you "this is just a moral story (or fable)". That's why they draw the line at "100% Real"

That's just as ignorant as believing every word of every textbook you've ever read, and "drawing the line" at 100% Fact. Much of the Bible, Christ's own words, even the Old Testament deals exclusively with parables. And most people who read it understand this. There are also some "100% Real" facts in these words that even history can't deny. I won't bother you with historian accounts, uncovered documents, fulfilled prophecies, and the like because I'm sure you've heard it before. You simply chose to ignore them, and adopted your own opinion on the rest, which were meant to be construed as fictional accounts in the first place.

Just because someone can't prove that these things aren't real, that doesn't substantiate them, at all.

Who determines what substantiates a religious belief? The spaghetti monster? You? Me? Maybe the person who believes it? Bingo. Last I checked, Judeo-Christians still account for the majority of the human population on this little planet. While not trying to argue that my beliefs are superior than others, it's tough to ignore why such a large number of believers believe what they do. It isn't because of indoctrination, it's because to some people it just makes sense.

And some people do claim to speak with God, quite a few people.

I call several of these people "prophets", while the rest I call "crazies". Rest assured, there is a difference.

I've been pretty busy the past little while, hence the giant gap of time between our last posts, but I'll try to get around to reading it.

No worries here.

Math is at the very least an "intelligent" code, but regardless, it's still semantics at this point.

You're right, there are many things that we'll never see eye-to-eye on. In the case of religion we can both be right, and we can both be wrong, but civility should be a common courtesy at all times. Earlier you admitted that you don't attack people, you attack their ideology. If this is the case, there are many other (far more corrupt) religions that might be better worth your time. Christians, in general, don't attack others who don't believe what they do. If they harbor animosity towards another faith, that's their own business...but most of them will still keep it to themselves.

My beliefs all lay with facts. My suppositions, however, are just that.

But you also believe in theories, and I'd assume that it's because many of them make sense to you. You've chosen to ignore some of the facts found in various Christian scriptures, and chose rather to focus on scripture that better suited your own premise. I've done the exact same thing, and there's no reason why you should consider me as someone who doesn't live in the "real world".

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence... are you saying
"my opinion which is based on logic differs..."

That'd be the one.

Look, I hope that one day you'll change your stance on my religion...and maybe even become a believer. But before you reply to this with a big resounding "Yeah, right...", just remember this: regardless of what you choose, I will never judge you for the decision you eventually make or already have made. Religion is something to fight for, but it's not something to start fights over. For mortals, there's no such thing as being "holier than thou." And I'm sorry if anyone of my faith has tried to present themselves as such.