Christians assert that morality can only come from God and one quote that comes to mind comes from my theistic scientist friend who said, "The human race is both marvelous and broken at the same time". Now my friend wasn't a YEC er, but he wasn't a liberal Christian either, so it leads me to question this "broken" state of man. If something is "broken" then there had to have been a time in which it was "fixed". YEC ers point to the Garden of Eden, yet we all know they can't produce evidence of Adam and Eve or even a good fix on where the G of E was. What do theistic evolutionists point to as man's "fixed" state? Are they talking about a future state of man after Christ returns? Is it a state of spirit that doesn't exist on the material level? What evidence is there of a "fixed" state that man would've had to be in before he became "broken?"

Some Christian folks on here and other sites have stated that they look at reports about fundamentalist churches and their claims of traumatizing children with the critical eye of doubt. Doubt is healthy and I encourage this. Here I have compiled a few things that report similar experiences to mine growing up.
I found this forum interesting as it says that fundamentalism is particularly hard on children who may suffer OCD.


http://forum1.aimoo.com/walkaway/CLA...-2-569516.html

Since scrupulosity is a form of OCD and is associated with religion, this shouldn't be surprising. Here is a google page of scholarly articles written by mental health professionals.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=p...ed=0CFEQgQMwAA

Here is one that refutes Patrick Glenn's support of the anthropic principle.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/healthier.html

Here is another article on fundamentalism and psych problems.

In a recent thread, A_Nony_Mouse suggests that we should not at all be impressed by the fine-tuning of the universe. He suggests that it's easy to produce big numbers, and he uses an example:

   If there are 10^7 sperm cells 'racing' to fertilize an egg, the chance of any sperm cell fertilizing the egg is 1:10^7. But here you are, despite the odds! Nony says we should not be     so impressed by this, and so we should not be impressed by the small chances of a life-prohibiting universe either. 

This is a flawed argument.

Any given sperm cell would result in a unique human being. Any number of possible constants would result in a unique universe. 

It is certain that a unique human being will be born. The chances of a unique human being (given that the egg was fertilized and carried to term) are 1:1. The chances of unique possible human being A (me, say) are 1:10^7, as are the chances of unique possible human being B. So my chances versus the chances of another possible unique human being are not 1:10^7, but rather 1:1. 

Similarly, the chances of the unique set of universal constants A obtaining may be equal to the chances of unique set B obtaining. But that is not what we're talking about in the fine-tuning argument. This is where Nony's analogy ends. 

Here, a simple example will make the point:

I like to duplicate my posts and place them not only here but on the CARM site's forums as well. It's interesting to compare the differing points of view from Christians who post there as well as atheists. I've come to the conclusion that debates and arguments are unwinnable from an objective point of view and when one side concedes, its in reality, a draw because its two polar opposite points of view with no testable way of determining which one is correct to anyone's satisfaction but their own.

Here's how Jean put it when he was trashing one of my posts:

Such thought isn't exclusive to Christianity, but that's beside the point. He goes in a typical condescending manner with smug self righteousness and egotistical pride.

I made a blog about this (http://blog.trollingwithlogic.com/#post6) but I wanted to share it here and sort of expand it.

We all have seen or heard of the film the Wizard of Oz, just like everyone saw or heard of Titanic or Superman. Im sure it is unnecessary for me to tell the whole story, but here it is in a nutshell. The City of Emeralds is ruled by the great and almighty wizard Oz. No one has ever seen him, save for one person who clams to be his messenger. When the main characters of the story finally meet the great Oz himself, they see a great talking head who claims to be Oz – and man does this guy look scary and very powerful. And spoilers, at the end the main characters learn that the giant head is a fake, and there is actually a man hiding behind the curtain pulling all the strings and speaking into a microphone. This imposter is the actual wizard, all this time he was hiding his true identity and fooling the people that he was some epic figure.

Once in a Blue Moon, you read a forum site like this one where someone who was formerly an atheist decides to covert to Christianity. Far be it from me to cast dispersions on a person's life choices, usually I stay away from posts like that, save for a few peripheral comments. I don't care for debates as I have no agenda to try to change people, its of no concern to me what a person believes, it seldom has influenced my opinion of a person, AS a person one way or the other. The person who changes their mind on faith or non faith has no doubt spent some considerable time mulling over points and counterpoints in their mind, while contemplating their personal lives and feelings. This is the Christian apologist's "target demographic" (or what marketing experts more accurately call "psychographic", meaning the segment of populace that is determined by their personal convictions, values and beliefs). Timing is critical for them, for they want to be there during the time the person is still undecided, for one emotional point the other way and the game is lost. This is how it works in political advertising as well. Republican campaigners know its a waste of time to try to win over die hard Obama supporters, so they research and go after undecided "fence sitters".

Who pulled the trigger that caused the bang ?

 This is a repost from the CARM site. I mention Metacrock simply because he's one of the chief arguers. I like to post the same thread on the two sites, its an interesting contrast.

When I was an atheist, rather militant actually, what I hated was religious dogmatism, and I just happened to not think a God exists. I don't think I would've been disappointed had God made an appearance. When I began to study philosophy I heard substantial formulations of the arguments that folks like Dawkins set up only to be easily defeated, and found that they had some force, even if they were not solid proofs. I read Mackie, for example, fervently. I hoped to find complete refutation for all arguments for God, because at that time my hero was Chris Hitchens. I loved Hitchens long before he became associated with the New Atheism. I thought the religious were all fools. My conclusion, after a fierce struggle to believe otherwise (because I thought it would make me no different from the idiots I'd been calling delusional for so long), was that there are reasons, or rather, I want to say, I came to the conclusion that it is not utterly unreasonable to suspect that there is an intelligence of some sort at work in creation. 

So I admitted that belief in a Creator God is reasonable given the experience of life. I did not admit that religious belief was reasonable nor did I begin to believe in God. I merely admitted it's not so ridiculous as the popular authors would have it. 

One of these forum posts, can't remember which one and who it originated from, said that the reason atheists can't believe is that we havn't been called. OK fine, God's not interested in us. I guess (at least in the minds of some Christians) he knows in his infintie wisdom that we'll reject him anyway, so he doesn't waste his time and effort ( can time be in short supply to God? Can effort be tiring to an omnipotent being?). Why then, did he create us in the first place if he knew we would reject him? I guess this is the pardoxical argument against free will, but it just struck me as odd and something that many Christians haven't given much thought to. Most Christians describe the "calling" as a response to an "inside emptiness", something which I've never felt, except temporarily when a loved one or pet died or I broke up with a girlfriend. I eventually got over it. This "emptiness" has been explained by secular psychology, but for the sake of argument, lets say we just didn't get that "hole". Did God create us merely to condemn us, or allow us to condemn ourselves?