-

[floridaorange]

Re: -

Wholly shit son, are you paranoid or what?

And to respond to your troll comment, my friend from New York who moved to Tampa wanted to get a table for his birthday and invited me. That's a far cry from me ordering a table at a nightclub.

[Illuminate]

Re: -

My response to your propositions are as follows:

After all I've revealed to you about my own experiences, and you have revealed nothing & answered no questions I posed to you, that you can call what I've written "feel good traditions" is beyond me.

I completely understand your experience. At a time in your weakest affirmations you found God. Now you seek no other, as this has been completely reaffirming, that anything you do, believe, connote you just have to pray and everything will be alright. Furthermore, from our ancestral homo sapiens development of communal recognition and patterns of sharing experiences to explain a phenomenon, similarly within a church or place of worship I don’t believe much development has incurred from our ancestors to now.

To your oblique on ‘revealing’ and answering questions, where I believe you stated the following:
Let me ask you .... Is your father still living? How about your mother? Have you ever reached the end of yourself at anytime in your life yet? If you haven't, I believe you will at some point (maybe, maybe not). Have you ever had something happened that literally knocked you down it was so shocking, jolting, upsetting? Or has life been relatively smooth and easy for you thus far? I'm just curious. If anything ever really jolting happens to you, something that fills you with angst and unanswered questions, maybe you'll be inclined to contact Kiwi? I'd like that.

I am in an utter interrogation as much to a methadone addict who has had his hit and now imagining spiders crawling out his body, on what actually are you trying to emphasise nor question here? The topic of this thread was my rebuttal on the mediocrity if not foolishness of religion bringing much barriers if not cognitive failures to our societal development. I will not personally answer any of those questions as they are blatantly out of topic, and I believe unworthy of discussion in a public forum. If it is some form of spiritual connection that you aim to reason with my failures I am certain if not, I may undoubtedly correct this with either philosophical or psychological meaning.

Furthermore, I still await my initial questions that I had asked on your scientific education, qualifications, and a clear answer on your reasoning behind statistics?

ALL purchased with currency that reads "In God We Trust"

This motto was only adopted on paper notes 1956, however adopted on coins from 1861. There is actually a good background to this phrase, which again reclaims my affirmation on secularism. The phrase used as a battle cry in the Civil War by unionists to believe that God was on their side (http://www.treasury.gov/about/educat...-we-trust.aspx). Albeit, the case was brought forward by Reverend. M.R. Watkinson, it can be further depicted on the constitution that should have forbid government passing any law irrespective of religion. There was even a case (432 F. 2d 242 - Aronow v. United States) on the usage of this motto, where its findings found that:

9. It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

Moreover, in:

12. While "ceremonial" and "patriotic" may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact

3. "Currency has been issued by the United States Government since 1861. Thus, for almost a century, there has been no inscription on our currency reflecting the spiritual basis of our way of life." Senate Report No. 637, 1955 Cong. & Admin. News, p. 2417
(http://openjurist.org/432/f2d/242/ar...-united-states)

Thus concluding that this is a mere war cry/motto than having any religious significance to its value. Additionally, proclamation of Jesus Christ when he was at the local markets placed conveniently in front of churches, walking around tipping over tables because he hated the sight of money in front of churches? Theodore Roosevelt found this offensive, some form of sacrilegious he pledged, didn’t really get too far.

This country was fathered/founded in prayer and Christianity with the law that all are free to believe what they want to believe. This country's pledge states "...One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all..."

Again refer to 432 F. 2d 242 - Aronow v. United States, District Judge Thompson noted:

12. "There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."

So comprehensive was this case even the Jehovah’s Witness argued why Americans were worshiping the flag as opposed to the God? I believe the first case was Minersville School District v. Board of Education (No. 690). I see why this is not a legitimate case of perpetrating Christian beliefs of idol worshipping?

And your point on America being founded on Prayer and Christianity is absolute drivel. Obviously I am going to refer to Article 11 or the Treaty of Tripoli, where President John Adams stated that:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussel- men--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

From the article Allen B. Our Godless Constitution. Nation [serial online]. February 21, 2005;280(7):14-20. Available from: International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 7, 2014. (I usually rely upon peer-reviewed journals, as opposed to further drivel from the internet):

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as "God" but with some nondenominational moniker like "Great Author" or "Almighty Being." It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism

I have no idea what that currency is based off or their foundations. Again, I apologize for my lack of education on those matters.

‘I thank God’ that we have no religious mottos on our currency. I’m sure Jesus would be proud, as he hates money being related to churches.

I can only relay to you from the person I am today trying to explain Christian beliefs, which does not mean I'm on a fence. I am not. I'm also not trying to cram anything down your throat because I, myself, hate that and have been on the receiving end of that in my life from well-meaning Christians. No human being is perfect. But I don't hold what some do against the whole lot of them, not even Catholics, although I've had some very bad experiences with that form of organized religion as many people have as well in our society.

I exclaimed on your previous disarray priori to finding God, I believe it was your mid 20’s where you found a spiritual connection – where prior to this a fence sitter as I like to call those agnostic types? And questioning my past on family, weak points in my life, recommending a need for a deity are typical psychological traits of persuasion. Usually administered by cult leaders, fundamental religious beliefs, and even financial advisors. One can only brace the mouth opened further to this.

But, it takes practice to control one's thoughts and no one teaches this to their children (how to do it) so we're conditioned to believe what we think even when our thoughts have no basis in truth. No sees things completely clearly through their thoughts, we can only know what we see/experience without knowing/seeing the bigger picture involved.

So all the children in this world who attends a public school, parented by atheists are undoubted raping, torturous, stealing, and cunning betided minded human beings. I believe I find Dr. Seuss series more signifying in proclaiming morality, ethical reasoning, and capabilities for human development as opposed to the bible.

Much agony begins with our minds, because our thoughts are constantly running, if we don't take control of them, they run rampant with our egos like wild horses, & that causes us trouble. We don't think with our hearts, as quoted, we think with our minds.... but our minds are playgrounds. The quotes you mentioned remind me of this - conscious thought running a muck.

You nor anyone’s religious experience of “I suddenly realise the universe is all about me.” As cleverly depicted by Daniel Dennett, can bear a true resonance to your phrasing. No one needs mind control by transcended means to live happy and prosperous life in sustenance of oneself and others around us. This has been going on for millions of years, I apologise the Bible only claims 6000 of this.

That's why every prisoner is sent to his cell with a Bible. Bibles are the one item a prisoner can have even if under severe solitary confinement. Because even though the person is physically locked up, no longer free to roam, commit crimes, etc., they can find freedom in the words of that book, and they can then endure incarceration, even solitary incarceration.

It’s a book for the fainthearted by the fainthearted. I can only assume that most felons may seem anything beyond their abilities dwelling into philosophy may be too difficult to comprehend. However, the library within most prison institutions may hold more of an answer rather than being in confinement.

And your views of women being treated ‘equally’ in the bible, in rebuttal I offer you these lovely transfigurations to ponder and further explain:

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

In addition, as a feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton the leading lady of the women’s rights movements in America had once said:
“The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation.”

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

I rest my case on the bible.

May you rest freely in "great secularism." Our country is free and none of it has come about without spirituality and moral compass.

Useless line, and in conclusion to this rebuttal I pose you the same in defence as once venerated by Thomas Jefferson:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

[Illuminate]

Re: -

Wholly shit son, are you paranoid or what?

And to respond to your troll comment, my friend from New York who moved to Tampa wanted to get a table for his birthday and invited me. That's a far cry from me ordering a table at a nightclub.

If you read that thread, I actually supported your stance. An no it was not a 'troll' comment, a mere analysis of human behaviour asnd psyche of relations in traits of behaviours.

[Illuminate]

Re: -

In layman's terms that is, I mean... are you kind of understand the contradiction if not confusion that religion initiates? Again I'm not here to prove you wrong, but from much reading, understanding, and discussion in relation to all of this I just simply fail to comprehend confusion, delusions, and bluntly obvious contradiction. I appreciate both of your reasoning that believing in religion transfigures your lives, I appreciate that. However, in my case I had been exposed to too much philosophy, psychology, and the scientific principles of demanding evidence in addition to thinking critically, has all but alluded my views of religion.

The reasoning behind its barriers of advancement and peace as I had mentioned previously, is what discourages my participation nor association to a mere phenomenon.

[KiwiTollway]

Re: -

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Got it! You're a lawyer, law student or paralegal, 30-something, raised in an atheist's home, have both your parents living as well as anyone you really care about, and have never been critically ill a day in your life, probably never seen anyone die before. No more explanations and long dissertations needed! The secret, non-physical aspects of this world have not yet been revealed to you.

I rest my case and throw my humanness [and all of its God-designed perfect flaws] on the mercy of your justifying mind & critical thinking COURT. I have made a conscious choice not to put any personal, specific details about my life on this forum. It is in no way a method of dodging your questions. What do my science degrees have to do with this discussion? Who even cares?

I had no spiritual awakening/experience in my 20s. I said I was pursued all through my 20s, the example I gave was when I was 21. Another instance of how you turn what I write around completely distorting the meaning of it with obscure conclusions you conjure. That you continue to misrepresent what I write is what's turning me off to this discussion.

As much as you find my beliefs to be delusions, I find your opinions about something you know little about (despite your constant siting of opinions from humans who correspond with your own beliefs), which you consider more real, equally absurd & contradictory. Just because you don't believe doesn't make God any less alive & real and ALL around you illuminating all goodness & beauty that exists.

Thomas Jefferson and our other founding fathers wanted this country to contain inhabitants free to believe whatever they choose, that in no way discounts Christianity, in fact, it corresponds quite nicely to Christian beliefs that we are all free to choose and that there be a wall of separation between church and state so that it's inhabitants are, indeed, free. That doesn't make those who believe to be fools as you believe we are. In fact, just the opposite. Free will is celebrated all throughout the Bible. The separation of church and state is critically important to the Christian citizen and the secular citizen, so? How does that dispute Christianity? It doesn't. It's unfortunate you still view Christian beliefs as confining when they are, in fact, freeing. But, so be it, that's your choice in not understanding the book itself.

Every year scientists discover physical, scientific evidence of various accounts of facts in the Bible, including those long thought to be absurd. Just like human beings once thought the earth was flat.

With all my humble effort, I can see nothing I offer would be good enough for your consideration as even remotely valid, so it's all just aggravation now. My desire for participation has been extinguished. You can't even concede that "In God We Trust" printed on every dollar bill (i.e., trusting in a deity called God) is religion inside every purchase you ever make and that our country was founded on Christian beliefs of freedom to choose, which is just blatant denial of the most obvious. Also, every single day in your life (if you've ever validated your days are numbered by a calender or celebrated your own birthday like the rest of us) began with the death of Christ (this is year 2014 A.D.= After Death of Jesus Christ) and has been counted that way ever since for over 2,000 years for good reason! How many generations of "fools" do you think really exist that these beliefs continue to be perpetuated and you really believe they're ALL wrong and you're obscure/random beliefs are valid... it's an educated ego at its finest! There is no confusion, no "phenomenon" about days of the year, money, the court systems, the freedom that exists in America, the millions of churches and billions of believers in the world, but you're convinced your views are correct and ours are all wrong despite "God" being acknowledged all around you? I mean, how much further can denial go? I'm not interested in knowing. But, I'm really done now.

[KiwiTollway]

Re: -

In your first appearances Kiwi, I use to think you were an alias of Florida. Using the same smileys, only responding to his posts, liking the same artists, and all of this at at time when he was getting bombarded for ordering a table in a night club. But only our creator knows. He knows everything from your sick perverted thoughts, to commanding your illiterate methods of cognitive dissonance.

And this is just rude & uncalled for -----clearly evidence something I've written has stuck a serious chord with you because now you're resorting to insults. Cool! A bit immature for your intelligence I once found attracting. Oh well. All things must end.........

[audrey_w]

Re: -

Interesting and thought provoking thread....

[audrey_w]

Re: -

Wholly shit son,

Pun intended or not? Either way, very funny

[floridaorange]

Re: -

^(intended)

At the very end of the day, our planet and all of it's intricacies, how it spins on it's axis, it's proximity to the sun, and the many many other amazingly intricate examples in nature could be compared to a rolex watch, to the extent that the way it works as clearly designed by something intelligent, not just random. If I were walking through the desert (universe) and found a swiss watch on the ground among rocks and sand I would make the assumption that it was put there by something, especially upon admiring all of its incredible detail, craftsmanship, etc. The earth is a lot like that rolex, and the galaxy of stars and planets, etc is a lot like that desert.

Here's an interesting article from the Guardian about "Chaos Theory and Divine Action."

Chaos theory and divine action | Mark Vernon | Comment is free | theguardian.com

t's with that recognition that there is a possibility of giving an account of divine action within nature, which is compatible with science. It relies neither upon a God who intervenes outside the usual play of nature, nor seeks low-level causal gaps. Rather, God's action could be viewed as analogous to top-down, emergent causation – particularly when it implies signs of purpose or intentionality.

An obvious – though obviously contentious example – could be the relationship between mind and the neural components of the brain. To put it simply, if neurons affect our consciousness from the bottom-up, mind might be said to do so from the top-down. That'd be one way of understanding human agency. Divine agency could be described by analogical extension.
Whether or not you buy that will depend much on your prior metaphysical assumptions. We all have them. But be they theistic or otherwise, there is a general conclusion that can be posited about science: from the point of view of mathematical description, what chaos theory and reductionism more broadly demonstrate is that most of nature is scientifically underdetermined – which is to say that scientific explanations are limited. Further, it's not an epistemological gap that's being appealed to in John Polkinghorne's work, but rather an ontological causal openness. Hence the possibility, at least, of making the link with divine action.

I won't pretend to know all the answers Illuminate, that's not what this thread is about for me. I am just saying, I have a tough time assuming we humans and our beautiful planet are not one giant accident. I enjoy this specific church because it contains people from all over the world who appreciate the freedom to gather and connect on a spiritual level. The religion part can go f*ck itself quite frankly.

[floridaorange]

Re: -

Actually, what benefit can one attain, vice-versa by sharing spiritual experiences? Apologies for dwelling into the psychology of this question, but a former study by William James (1901), a leading philosopher, analysed on this reasoning by conveying his study on the science of Religion (http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmani...es-rel-exp.pdf)

Titled The Varieties of Religious Experience he had found that "Men’s religions need not be identical - is religion a “survival”of primitive thought?"

I don't have a problem with anyone practising religion, as I had mentioned above, but I may hold discourse on the enforcement of its value having no significant reasoning of its purpose to the evolvement of the individual.

One day when you have a wife and kid(s) you may re-think this. I have also found churches to be help combat extreme loneliness, which I have experienced in my past when I lived by myself in a part of the country that was 2,000 miles from all I knew. Church helped. There aren't that many environments where men and women gather humbly to collectively praise a power greater than themselves. In such a setting problems actually can be solved, on deep personal levels. Connections can be made on a level higher than the human level. It can be rather special. Also intimidating, because church and God do surpass our understanding as humans, we can hardly grasp infinity or other concepts associated with God, especially the highly intelligent earth dwellers. They tend to have the toughest time with it. Also people who like to pretend to be in charge of everything, like one of my Uncles .

At any rate, I'm reading this article again now that I have time, thanks for posting it.

[Illuminate]

Re: -

Pun intended or not? Either way, very funny

Taking the Lord's name in vain?

[floridaorange]

Re: -

Well I'm not perfect

[Illuminate]

Re: -

If I can get to your responses in chronological order, commencing at Kiwi's post.

You're a lawyer, law student or paralegal, - Nope
30-something, - Nope
Raised in an atheist's home, - Yes, to an extent.
have both your parents living - Nope
as well as anyone you really care about, - Nope
and have never been critically ill a day in your life, - Nope, came close to losing all my fingers on my right hand once.
probably never seen anyone die before. – Nope, I’ve witnessed first-hand a human being getting shot. Do you know what it is like to see someone lose their life in a matter of one second?

If you really want to find out my biography – a point of reference could be here: (Where is everybody from / (New) Member sign-in sheet - Page 38)

The secret, non-physical aspects of this world have not yet been revealed to you. – They have in a way, and I have somehow managed to find a probable reasonable explanation for it. Mainly thanks to Sigmund Freud

What do my science degrees have to do with this discussion? Who even cares?
Two reasons:

1. It is a rarity for scientists to believe in a form of religion, there was that statistic at only 7% of leading scientists in America believing in a form of religion. I found this really interesting in your case, and wanted to know what sciences you had a history in, and probably would have dwelled more into finding correlations in scientific practises and religious beliefs.
2. If you had any probable qualifications to explain on your statistic dilemmas. Still trying to figure this out myself on the statistics side of things.

Another instance of how you turn what I write around completely distorting the meaning of it with obscure conclusions you conjure. That you continue to misrepresent what I write is what's turning me off to this discussion

Isn’t this the whole problem of interpreting conjunctive information nor individual reflections? I do apologise if I had misinterpreted your explanations, by no means have I had intention to wordsmith nor change things, but I personally have difficulties understanding personal religious recounts, as I had mentioned previously fail to comprehend.

As much as you find my beliefs to be delusions, I find your opinions about something you know little about (despite your constant siting of opinions from humans who correspond with your own beliefs), which you consider more real, equally absurd & contradictory. Just because you don't believe doesn't make God any less alive & real and ALL around you illuminating all goodness & beauty that exists.

It is not something I know little about, it is something I choose to know nothing about. I can only cite on precedence of evidence, knowledge, in a personal way it makes sense for me. Please feel free to post my responses and contradict it with a religious brief, such as a pastor’s interpretation, or other biblical phrases. One cannot interpret enough. How exactly does the points I raise equally absurd & contradictory, if you can point out any of the mentioned, I will be happy to research further and hopefully clear any absurdness or contradictions. And again, I honour your religious practises, I’m glad you find happiness amongst this, but unfortunately I don’t – this does not mean God does not exist to you. You choose the path you have created I cannot pertain you from choosing that, however, I personally would like ‘further information’ before I may forego into the path. Your tone in the last sentence almost sounds as if I had completely threatened the facet of your ‘God.’ I hope I have not offended this, I know I have broken a few commandments in the process of providing my rebuttal, but by no way should this by any means threaten your devotion if not capitulation to the heavenly being.

Thomas Jefferson and our other founding fathers wanted this country to contain inhabitants free to believe whatever they choose, that in no way discounts Christianity, in fact, it corresponds quite nicely to Christian beliefs that we are all free to choose and that there be a wall of separation between church and state so that it's inhabitants are, indeed, free.

You raised a point that America was founded on Prayer and Christianity, I can only point out on evidence where this is not true, similarly to the fact of “In God we Trust.” To the point of corresponding to Christianity, you had mentioned that Christianity was not a salad bar, so how does this correlation be provocative in its sense of freedom to choose? The separation I believe in, however at times religion as a whole does try to break down this wall – this I find amusing if not profanely senseless.

Free will is celebrated all throughout the Bible. The separation of church and state is critically important to the Christian citizen and the secular citizen, so? How does that dispute Christianity? It doesn't. It's unfortunate you still view Christian beliefs as confining when they are, in fact, freeing. But, so be it, that's your choice in not understanding the book itself.

In Luke 19:27 Jesus mentioned a parable, that read: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me.” I see the bible as entire debate of which religion is more promising to God, and the eternal struggles to reign supreme. Take the Dome of the Rock for example.

Every year scientists discover physical, scientific evidence of various accounts of facts in the Bible, including those long thought to be absurd. Just like human beings once thought the earth was flat.

And this is where we reside our opinions. There has not been any probable account to validate the key reoccurring’s of the bible. Finding locations is nothing ground breaking, and yes the bible is a collection of writings, journals and not immediate recounts. The New Testament itself was noted to be written at least twenty years after Jesus’ death.


You can't even concede that "In God We Trust" printed on every dollar bill (i.e., trusting in a deity called God) is religion inside every purchase you ever make and that our country was founded on Christian beliefs of freedom to choose, which is just blatant denial of the most obvious.

Did I not clarify on this matter? I thought I had abbreviated clearly on your interpretation of this, whereas, I had referred to cases in precedence, and original recounts of the founding fathers i.e. the Treaty of Tripoli. If your faith is compelled by this connotation, then I am regretful to say that I cannot take your claim as reality.

Also, every single day in your life (if you've ever validated your days are numbered by a calender or celebrated your own birthday like the rest of us) began with the death of Christ (this is year 2014 A.D.= After Death of Jesus Christ) and has been counted that way ever since for over 2,000 years for good reason!

Again, if a monk had formulated a calendar based on his faith (Dionysius Exiguus) and reaffirmed by Pope Gregory XIII of its modern adaptation in Europe and soon the world, I cannot claim that this is the signification on the evidence of Jesus. There is the C.E – B.C.E debate to overturn the A.D/B.C phrasing, but I don’t believe no one really takes this far enough to consider its validity, moreover, I am positive the catholic church may hold subject to that.

There is no confusion, no "phenomenon" about days of the year,
There is an ongoing argument of the adaptation of the Georgian calendar, from the Julian calendar. I believe there has been some confusion on the exact dating methodologies between Exiguss’ convergences of adopting the Easter table. Moreover, there is the debate of when Jesus was actually born. And why does the orthodox church hold a different adaptation to the calendar?

money,
No point repeating from end on this.

the court systems,
I don’t understand this argument?

the freedom that exists in America,
Sure, there is freedom in religion, and most first world countries had adopted this. Again, I don’t fully understand your argument here.

[Illuminate]

Re: -

At the very end of the day, our planet and all of it's intricacies, how it spins on it's axis, it's proximity to the sun, and the many many other amazingly intricate examples in nature could be compared to a rolex watch, to the extent that the way it works as clearly designed by something intelligent, not just random. If I were walking through the desert (universe) and found a swiss watch on the ground among rocks and sand I would make the assumption that it was put there by something, especially upon admiring all of its incredible detail, craftsmanship, etc. The earth is a lot like that rolex, and the galaxy of stars and planets, etc is a lot like that desert.

I believe you are trying to explain the fine tune argument here, and not provoking the design argument in its clearest form. The Fine-tuning argument takes the existence of life as evidence that an agent had a hand in making the universe. The argument is thought to hinge on the claim that ‘fine-tuning’ of various parameters is required for life to evolve. Who/What was this causation/agent for the development of the universe is a common theological question. Even Stephen Hawking remarked “And why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?...If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10¹⁰, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10¹⁰, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In either case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop? But amidst its origins there has been many studies concluding that the argument does not really propagate a creator if not adjuster of the universe, I have personally loved the way an article written by Christopher Sirola (Asoc. Prof. of Physics and Astronomy at University of Southern Mississippi) defined the way we may view fine tuning with relation to your points of Earth (Rough-Tuned Universe, Sirola, Christopher. Skeptic, 16.4 (2011): 50-52,64.):

Consider the following: we humans, the only intelligent species on our planet with an advanced technology, must fulfill a number of requirements to sustain our existence. We are land-based creatures who must live in locations where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold, where the air is thick enough to breathe, where fresh liquid water is readily available, and so on.

A quick glance at any Earth globe reveals an obvious fact - about three-quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by salt water. Humans cannot live in the oceans. Yes, we can build ships to carry us, but what is a ship if not an artificial piece of dry land? Nor are we able to build artificial islands to host more than but a tiny fraction of us - and then again, we are merely recreating land, not living in the sea proper.

Further investigation reveals significant portions of the Earth's land are also uninhabitable - places where the temperatures are too cold (at the poles), the air is too thin (mountains), or the ground is too dry (deserts). In reality, only about 10% of the Earth's surface is readily amenable to human habitation. Design proponents proclaim how wonderfully attuned the Earth is for life using factoids such as its distance from the Sun, the rate of the Earth's rotation, or the tilt of the Earth's axis, but they always seem to skip considerations such as those above.

Further, moving out into space we note that Earth is the only known habitat for life in our solar system, that the space between objects in the solar system is barren vacuum quite inhospitable to life, that the solar system is but one of hundreds of billions in our galaxy, that our galaxy is but one among tens of billions of galaxies in the known universe, and that when one considers the long view the cosmos is quite hostile to complex life such as ourselves, Thus, design proponents should not be allowed to defend the "fine tuning" of the universe with such impunity.

Of course, I realize that defenders of design will point to the fantastically precise values of various fundamental constants of nature that make even atoms and molecules possible, without which there could be no life of any kind. To answer this claim we must consider what is meant by a "constant" of nature. A "constant," in physics and astronomy, is a number whose value is set. Readers will likely be most familiar with the mathematical constant Tt (pi), the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and whose approximate value is familiarly given as 3.14. Another example is the speed of light, made famous by Einstein, with a value of approximately three hundred million meters per second. Other important constants include, but are by no means limited to, the mass of a proton, the universal gravitational constant, and Planck's constant (basic to quantum mechanics).

As it turns out, the design defenders are both ahead of (sort of) and behind the science. First, they leap ahead of current physics in the sense of assuming that their favorite constants are truly fundamental - they appear to believe that these numbers are set in stone, that they are inalterable, and that they are independent of each other.

No physicist would argue that any constant of nature is fundamental in this restricted sense. It is true that modern metrology (the science of measurement) has elucidated wonderfully precise values for physical constants - for instance, the speed of light is known so well that physicists have decided to define other units of measurement from the speed of light, rather than further refine the value of the speed of light in terms of other units. But that doesn't automatically imply the speed of light is fundamental. In fact, one of the great results in the history of science was the determination by James Clerk Maxwell that the speed of light is the combination of two other constants, one electrical, one magnetic.11 The speed of light, therefore, isn't independent after all. Which of these three numbers, therefore, is fundamental?

In addition, to periodical jurisdictions, I must refer back to Hawking in a simple summary within this newspaper article:

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...67921609024244

I enjoy this specific church because it contains people from all over the world who appreciate the freedom to gather and connect on a spiritual level. The religion part can go f*ck itself quite frankly.

You go to church, believe in God, Jesus, and fundamental moral and ethical beliefs of Christianity, probable to causation of sins and bearing forgiveness, and you conclude on the point that religion should go fuck itself? But… isn’t everything you believe a form of religion? I can assume this from the last time I checked on the definition of Religion.

One day when you have a wife and kid(s) you may re-think this.

Sure, the contradictions of religion prolonging free thought and personal individual critical development.

At any rate, I'm reading this article again now that I have time, thanks for posting it.

This is just one of many, let me know if you had found this of interest. I would also suggest this: