I stumbled across this, as you do

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

It's got me thinking, ( I'm not too happy about this, as it distracts from eating doughnuts and watching wrestling )

? anybody else seen this before 

I watched some of the debate between the RRS and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  I love and respect their ministry immensely, but I was disappointed in Ray and Kirk for not knocking the granny toss out of the park!  I’m referring to the idea that the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Conservation of Energy) somehow “proves” that the universe is eternal and therefore needs no Creator.  It does no such thing.  When one takes into account the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Entropy), this notion crumbles.  To avoid debates about my definitions of each law, I’ve provided the definitions from www.physicalgeography.net:

Has anyone read this book? I have noticed a few Christians constantly using this book as a reference point for arguments for evidence for Christianity. I was wondering if you guys have read this or know anything about this. Also you should try to get the author on the show.

why the stupid bible god is always asking  for money? 

Primarily because it amuses me to watch theists twitch when science disagrees with them, I'll post this again.  It's kind of old, but oddly enough, it just didn't get a lot of media coverage.

Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality
Researchers Examine Relationship Between Brain and Religion
By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post
Sunday, June 17, 2001

In Philadelphia, a researcher discovers areas of the brain that are activated during meditation. At two other universities in San Diego and North Carolina, doctors study how epilepsy and certain hallucinogenic drugs can produce religious epiphanies. And in Canada, a neuroscientist fits people with magnetized helmets that produce "spiritual" experiences for the secular. The work is part of a broad effort by scientists around the world to better understand religious experiences, measure them, and even reproduce them. Using powerful brain imaging technology, researchers are exploring what mystics call nirvana, and what Christians describe as a state of grace. Scientists are asking whether spirituality can be explained in terms of neural networks, neurotransmitters and brain chemistry.

Atheists have a most intriguing imagination when it comes to their creativeness in coming up with new "techniques" to disprove God. In all, that is the very predetermined conclusion most make. Their mind has already being shut to the concept of an Almighty God, even if under the self delusion they are open minded.

Dawkins may not even exist, applying the same "logical" principles he applies to God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis



Archaelogical evidence affirming the Bible:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

I've heard many people describe themselves as godfearing christians, as though this is a good thing. I find this symultaneously confusing, depressing and enraging. Confusing because these same people talk about how much they love God and how benevolent he is. Depressing because these people are living their lives in fear. Enraging because someone indoctrinated them with this fear.

To me the sort of god that makes us fear him is not worthy of worship. He deserves to be challenged.

Would anyone here describe themself as godfearing? If so.

For those, that can receive BBC4 

Absolute Zero (Tue 9pm)
1/2. The Conquest of Cold: Part of the Science You Can't See season. Looking at how science harnessed the art of cooling. From 17th century inventor to Clarence Birdseye, king of frozen food.
     Absolute Zero  (Wen 9 pm)

2/2. The Race for Absolute Zero: Part of the Science You Can't See season. Scientists James Dewar and Heike Kammerlingh Onnes compete to reach within a few degrees of Absolute Zero.

This is a new science program, ? I'm not sure how dumbed down it will be but it may be of some interest for those with an interest in science, and the history of science

There was a time when I seriously considered adopting christianity as a belief system. There are a lot of different denominations to choose from, but I never got as far as determining if any of them agreed with the minor quibbles I had. I didn't get that far because I failed to agree with a basic tenet that is required of all christians of any denomination.

Christians are defined as as accepting the sacrifice of the son of god Jesus Christ to atone for thier sins, and I could not accept. Neccesarily, this short description makes a lot of assumptions. First you have to believe in a god. I was open to that. Next you must believe Jesus Christ was the son of god. The circumstances around that were hard to believe, but I could suspend my disbelief for the sake of argument and perhaps more permanently. When I was questing, I wasn't doing it with a rational mindset of proof required. I was going along with what the preachers suggested, and looking inside myself for the idea that this story would be validated from within. My major stumbling block was the rest of the sentance: Accepting sacrifice as atonement for sin.

There is a lot of rhetoric and otherwise manipulative prose out there that we must be careful to avoid if we are to seek the truth about reality in an intellectually responsible and careful way. Whether you're theist or atheist, you should be on guard against all forms of sophistry; do not let quick soundbites, dazzling slogans, and other superficialities do your thinking for you. Instead, get to the heart of the matter by closely analyzing the actual arguments that people have.

 An argument is valid when its premises lead logically to its conclusion; if we were to accept the premises of a valid argument, then we would be forced, as it were, to accept the conclusion. If an argument is valid, there will be a rule of logical inference that guarantees the conclusion, given the premises. With this in mind, let's look at what Dawkins calls his "central argument":