Real Life believes

[obesebear]

@ Borde

Are you sure dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist?  In one of my religion classes I remember hearing about some type of proof that they did live together.  The reasons Dinosaurs grew so large was because of a layer of ice covering the Earth's atmospere creating a sort of greenhouse effect that allowed all life to live much longer than we consider normal these days.  Which would explain the different ancient texts with accounts of humans living hundreds of years.  This layer of ice was obviously destroyed by a meteor(s) and caused a massive flood... anyways, I'm interested if anyone else has learned or at least heard of this before.

@ Squeeble

I'm glad you don't need a higher force dictating the way you act because of the threat of extreme punishment.  That's great.  I grew up in middle class America and was force fed religion until I was 18, so I had very little interaction with Atheists.  While I consider myself open minded in all things, it doesn't mean I completely understand other religions (or lack thereof).  But I do have trouble comprehending how Atheists don't believe in a higher power/being, though being Agnostic does make a lot of sense...

 

[Synergy Blades]

In one of my religion classes I remember hearing about some type of proof that they did live together.

 :-D

Maybe this would be right up your religion class teacher's alley. The best way to describe this sort of thing is that attempting to twist science to prove an outcome you've already decided upon (based on a religious book, or whatever), is a bit dangerous, and surely the antithesis of the scientific method.

But I do have trouble comprehending how Atheists don't believe in a higher power/being

I suppose atheists think the same of religious believers. Personally, my train of thought runs parallel to that of logic; ideas that you can come up with that contain religion, I apply logic and reason to. For instance: there is a Heaven. Where? What proof is there of this? Is there any science/hard fact that can back up such an assertion? Ultimately, what most (if not all) of this logical questioning comes back to is something like the following: "because Jesus/God/... said", or "because it says in the Bible" - or rather, "because it just is, and my religion/I choose to believe it that way" - with no actual logic, reasoning or proof behind it (the discussion of the motives behind the writers of religious texts is another post altogether).

To point to the mysterious, the unknown (and moreover, the never-knowable... "how can you prove god doesn't exist?") just because there are gaps in our understanding - such as you find with Creationists against evolution - is really the fall of the provable and the rise of the fanciful; this sort of thing could often be found in centuries past where concepts such as the stars in the sky being "heavenly bodies" or twinkling gods watching over us were common - because we simply lacked the understanding, and filled in the gaps with whatever mysterious ideas our heads could collectively come up with. As we enter recent centuries, "the unknown" gives way; our scientific and mathematical understanding grows, and so the need for religion seems to be slipping with regards to the immediate world around us, and long-established religious bodies become afraid of change. Not so with science. Take again the theory of evolution - you know what, it isn't perfect, it has holes, but it's the best working explanation we've got, with provable, tangible evidence and postulates. It may morph into something entirely different as we continue to push and poke at it, but that's the beauty of science - it moves forward, it accepts critique, it can even do a complete U-turn, but there's always the scientific method/logic/proof used to get it there.

Alas, as much as our understanding moves forward in leaps and bounds, human suffering lingers on, and many people's lives can be stricken with difficulties, and so the need for people to reach out for an otherworldly presence watching over them - comforting, reassuring - when bad things happen, or to get them through life on a daily basis, remains, and probably will for centuries to come.

Pardon me for the monologue.  :-D

 

[Jari]

@ Borde

Are you sure dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist?  In one of my religion classes I remember hearing about some type of proof that they did live together.  The reasons Dinosaurs grew so large was because of a layer of ice covering the Earth's atmospere creating a sort of greenhouse effect that allowed all life to live much longer than we consider normal these days.  Which would explain the different ancient texts with accounts of humans living hundreds of years.  This layer of ice was obviously destroyed by a meteor(s) and caused a massive flood... anyways, I'm interested if anyone else has learned or at least heard of this before.

Religion. Educating people about biology since 0 AD. :lol:

I do not even dare to ask why religion class is doing Creationism / Young Earth brainwashing instead of... you know, teaching things about religions in general.

I think that I can answer for Borde, though: scientific proof. All the reliable sources suggest that dinosaurs - save for their avian offspring; birds - perished about 65 million years ago. First humans - and these are not even Homo Sapiens - appeared about 200 000 years ago. There's a 64 800 000 year gap between them. Which is 324 times longer period of time than the 200 000 years during which humans have existed in some shape or form.


EDIT: Damn you Synergy Blades! Damn you and your fast fingers! :lol:

 

[Synergy Blades]

EDIT: Damn you Synergy Blades! Damn you and your fast fingers!

Ah, but Jari, would you rather have my fast fingers, or your ability to condense my argument down to three lines?  :lol:

 

[Tsetra]

Theories based on theories...

I think everything in this topic points towards one thing. We don't know jack.

 

[The Black-caped Man]

Synergy Blades is absolutely right!

The reason why I dislike all Chrisitans I know is that theyre all like you said: They insist on their religion, are not open minded, dont understand anything else. They just say the things you wrote: Because Holy Bible said bla bla, because Jesus once said bla bla....Why should Jesus be more holy than me or you guys? We never got to know him. I think he was just a good speaker and lived in a time where people could easily be convinced by supernatural things thats all.
I have no problem with Chrisitans in general, but I hate the way the influence people in their belief:
It starts with the stupid baptism. What are they thinking? They are more or less forcing you to be in there, if you want it or not. I wish I had never been baptised. Then they continue with Religion as a subject at school. Thats just wrong. You are told: This is so, this is that way. Thats just completely wrong. Then we got the church, which uses its religion to make money with it.(=>church rate) And the best thing is when I confront my religion teacher with that, he always says: "But we have to show them the "right" way of belief"!
WRONG: There is no right way. At least no way thats righter than others.

I think religion as a subject at school should be completely forbidden till High School or so. Then there should be such a subject, but the teacher shouldnt just say: That is this way and so on. He should ask the pupils what they believe and maybe put his own belief in. It should be a kind of supernatural discussion where everyone says what he believes and where others accept that and do not try to convince him. This would be and ideal idea right?

 

[Master Ridley]

Since this is the greatest Final Fantasy forum on earth(or at least the greatest I found ) I am sure Final Fantasy VII is more than a game in your eyes. As for me, it changed my way of thinkin in real life. Yes I do have the belief of Final Fantasy VII. I believe that everything consists of a combination of Life stream particles(or as the christ would say: the "soul") and I do believe that our spiritual energy returns to the planet when were gone, as does our body(=decay). Then our consciousness joins the main Life Stream so that the particles are somehow shuffled and then somewhere else we are reborn. We are no longer WE but I'm sure that sometimes certain particles are the same than in our previous lifes. We are combinations of Life Stream particles and human DNA.

This is my belief.

Now I wanted to ask what you guys think? whats your believe? And did Final Fantasy VII also affect your way of life like in my case?

Change soul to spirit and your on the right track. It has been scientifically proven that the Literal, physical spirit (that potentially can become a ghost) is actually the magnetic field of the human body. The Spirit is not only the bodies magnetic field but also the current consciousness of that life. When you die, your magnetic field becomes part of the planets magnetic field.

Your Ghost is a complete copy of your spirit that is created by your spirit attaching itself to an object of great importance, most likely a precious item within a house or the house itself and it becomes active after the person dies. A Ghost even has a consciousness, somewhat.

The soul is something different. It's your essence and that can travel elsewhere, either after you die or before you die during a traumatic event. If the Soul leaves your body early, your spirit takes over your consciousness. Of course, you won't notice though.

If this is confusing, sorry.

 

[Borde]

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but I'll do my best: Creationism is a threat to sience and, don't doubt about it, a threat to society itself. But I just can't grasp the reason why the Christian church has come up with this absurd idea. It's because they are loosing belivers? Maybe it's because science has proven wrong theories mistaken as absolute truth by the church? If they really want to be taken seriously they should just accept that their duty is to confort people's heart's and give moral advice (even if religion isn't the only way), not to explain the world around us. If their sacred texts are wrong (or at least unlikely) why not just say that they are figurative? I think it would be the most elegant way to settle down this useless discussion of once and for all. When used correctly, religion cannot contradict science because they play in completly separeted fields.

Telling the students to simply ignore the currently accepted theories looks like a very dangerous lesson to me. Sure, anyone can come up with it's own theory about anything that hasn't been explained irrefutably (that is, nearly anything). And that's not bad, in fact this is the way science advances. But it just cannot be directly put at the same level of the current theory accepted by the sientific community. And the reason is that those theories are backed up with a collection of facts that make them more likely than all the others.

 

[obesebear]

I think science is a large reason why a lot of orthodox churches are shrinking in numbers and followers.  Hundreds of years ago the church believed the Earth was the center of the universe, but when the Heliocentric system was proposed it was considered blasphemous. 

It's a good example of how any religion cannot be taken too literally.  The sun being the center of the universe has nothing to do with God existing, and it took some years before the church finally understood this.  It's much the same today with evolution being the forefront of disproving creationism.  Though it is possible evolution could have happened on such a massive scale over billions of years, whats to say a greater power didn't have a hand in it?

The problem is many people take their religion far too seriously causing them to be blindingly close-minded.

 

[The Black-caped Man]

Exactly. Its that close-mindness that really dissappoints me. Good to see that I can talk with you guys about this topic without being called "Anti-Christ Fucker" or "Unholy Metal Ass".
These are the terms people usually use against me although Im very open-minded. Well, this is how far it has come in todays society.......

 

[squeeble]

Good to see that I can talk with you guys about this topic without being called "Anti-Christ f***er" or "Unholy Metal Ass".
These are the terms people usually use against me although Im very open-minded. Well, this is how far it has come in todays society.......

You should tell those people that grammar fails them and to think of a better slanderous comment, rather than sounding like a 10 year old lol.

 

[The Black-caped Man]

Thats precisely what I do but in fact it doesnt help me much.......well I dont mind these people anyways.....

 

[Freman]

The reason why I dislike all Christians I know is that they're all like you said: They insist on their religion, are not open minded, don't understand anything else. They just say the things you wrote: Because Holy Bible said bla bla, because Jesus once said bla bla....Why should Jesus be more holy than me or you guys? We never got to know him. I think he was just a good speaker and lived in a time where people could easily be convinced by supernatural things thats all.

That's very open minded of you. Especially considering almost every criticism you level at them could be turned back on you. The central tenet of Christianity is the resurrection, either it happened or it didn't. If it didn't then Christianity is false. Unlike evolution (defined as the idea that all living things are descended from a single form which in turn arose from non-living matter) it could have been falsified. It wasn't.

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but I'll do my best: Creationism is a threat to science and, don't doubt about it, a threat to society itself. But I just can't grasp the reason why the Christian church has come up with this absurd idea. It's because they are loosing believers? Maybe it's because science has proved wrong theories mistaken as absolute truth by the church? If they really want to be taken seriously they should just accept that their duty is to confront people's heart's and give moral advice (even if religion isn't the only way), not to explain the world around us. If their sacred texts are wrong (or at least unlikely) why not just say that they are figurative? I think it would be the most elegant way to settle down this useless discussion of once and for all. When used correctly, religion cannot contradict science because they play in completely separated fields.

Creationism is not a threat to science, after all most fo the founders of science would have been described as young earth creationists. Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, etc. Creationism is not a threat to society but Evolution might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Its logical that as the Biblical claims about history are rejected then its moral claims will be rejected also.

I think science is a large reason why a lot of orthodox churches are shrinking in numbers and followers.  Hundreds of years ago the church believed the Earth was the center of the universe, but when the Heliocentric system was proposed it was considered blasphemous.

I would say that the atheistic dogma being pumped into students is indeed resulting in falling numbers of Christians in the west. Your knowledge of history is somewhat limited however. Heliocentric cosmology has been around since the time of the Greeks, Copernicus proposed it as an alternative to the Aristotelian geocentric model and it was treated as an interesting model. Galileo ran into trouble for two main reasons, in the wider geopolitical conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism someone who challenged the authority of churchmen to interpret scripture was instantly offside with the Church. His other fault was allowing his book to be seen as mocking the Pope. At least it was the Pope, a secular leader would probably have chopped his head off. Meanwhile Galileo couldn't present evidence to support his contention that wasn't equally well explained by Tycho Brae's geocentric model that had the Sun revolving around the Earth and the other planets revolving around the Sun.

Actually you can still mathematically construct a geocentric model of the Solar System that provides all the predictive power of the heliocentric model without anyone being able to prove it wrong.

Religion. Educating people about biology since 0 AD. cheesy

I do not even dare to ask why religion class is doing Creationism / Young Earth brainwashing instead of... you know, teaching things about religions in general.

Are you familiar with the name Carolus Linnaeus, a devout Christian and YEC whose biological classification system is still used today?

To point to the mysterious, the unknown (and moreover, the never-knowable... "how can you prove god doesn't exist?") just because there are gaps in our understanding - such as you find with Creationists against evolution - is really the fall of the provable and the rise of the fanciful; this sort of thing could often be found in centuries past where concepts such as the stars in the sky being "heavenly bodies" or twinkling gods watching over us were common - because we simply lacked the understanding, and filled in the gaps with whatever mysterious ideas our heads could collectively come up with. As we enter recent centuries, "the unknown" gives way; our scientific and mathematical understanding grows, and so the need for religion seems to be slipping with regards to the immediate world around us, and long-established religious bodies become afraid of change. Not so with science.

You've managed to display your own indifference to logic. There are positive logical, philosophical and historical arguments for the necessary existence of God. There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

My life driving force is love, love of my friends family, the girl I'm painfully in love with, and I don't need any god or something telling me if I don't do right I'll burn because I do whats right out of the kindness of my heart not a book or a higher being telling me how to do it.
But it seems common sense isn't so common anymore these days with groups of youths...

You've just described why you do something, not why it's right or wrong. That's the key issue; why is something right or not? Meanwhile the Christian insists that all human beings (being originally created in God's image) know at least something of right and wrong so your position is entirely consistent with our beliefs.

So and we can ask the question what creates the world around us he or she will say energy, well describe energy; it can never be created or destroyed, it always was and always has been, it is everything that ever existed it always exists, and its moving into form, through form and out of form.

So you can go to a theologian and say what created the universe and he or she will say god, ok describe god; always was and always has been, never be created or destroyed,  it always was and always has been, it is everything that ever existed it always exists, and its moving into form, through form and out of form.

Its the same description just different terminology

So who are we? We are spritual beings, we are an energy field operating in a larger energy field.

It's wonderful to construct other people's arguments. It avoids having to engage with real arguments.

Energy exists only in the sense that it's always present. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the sum total of available energy is in a state of decrease. The general term for that in an increase in disorder. Visualize it as a clock running down. Consequently it actually is part of an argument for a creator, if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

 

[Synergy Blades]

the atheistic dogma being pumped into students

What dogma is this? The dogma that people can believe what they like, make up their own mind (preferably when their minds are at an age they can comprehend what's being told to them), and are free to do so and live without influence by one particular religion over the populace? Or perhaps those atheists that go round countries converting everyone by the sword, or those atheists that fly themselves into tall buildings to make them topple? Or perhaps those atheists that kill their own family because their son-in-law belongs to the wrong caste? Yes, atheists do bad things too, but usually that's a psychological, mental or other societal problem, not because a twisted dogma tells them they're doing the right thing.

after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Ergo, all evolutionists are dangerous? Surely a poor argument; Hitler was a Christian but the argument that, therefore, Christians are likely to be the most dangerous is ridiculous, since not all Christians are alike (though some share the same source for their beliefs, without being able to use free will and free decision about their ethics and morals, which could be construed as dangerous). I could also say Hitler and Stalin have moustaches, ergo, all people who have moustaches are the biggest threats to humanity.  :|

You've managed to display your own indifference to logic. There are positive logical, philosophical and historical arguments for the necessary existence of God. There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

Logical, philosophical and historical arguments that simply lack any verifiable or even falsifiable proof. That lack of falsifiability means we can make no arguments against religion or a higher being - it becomes "untouchable". I already mentioned that evolution has holes, and as a person behind the cause of science it doesn't mean that I'm willing to substitute the notion of some almighty creator - without proof - where those holes reside. So evolution may not be totally correct; what are you suggesting in its place? Something unprovable by science, that cannot be seen, touched, felt, observed, calculated, or even understood - and if so, why?

if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

You're doing what I suggested here, jumping straight to the fantastical from a lack of knowledge.

 

[Jari]

Creationism is not a threat to science, after all most fo the founders of science would have been described as young earth creationists. Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, etc. Creationism is not a threat to society but Evolution might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Hitler and Stalin were evolutionists.

Evolution is not a threat to society but Christianity might be; after all the biggest butchers in history like Pope Urban II, Pope Eugene III, Pope Innocent III - har har, what a funny name - and Pope Honorius III were not only Christians, but also leaders of the church.

Its logical that as the Biblical claims about history are rejected then its moral claims will be rejected also.

Yes! Because I think Dubya should be hanged - preferably by some other part of his body than neck - I also shall not use neither Intel's or AMD's CPUs or nVidia's cards, because by golly, these are eeeevil American companies. It's extremely logical!

Anyway, do I even need to ask why someone who believes in the invisible man in the sky suddenly developed an interest in logic?

I would say that the atheistic dogma...

Since atheism is not a religion, it doesn't have dogmas, either. I admit that some atheist certainly act like it's a religion, but that's their problem.

Actually you can still mathematically construct a geocentric model of the Solar System that provides all the predictive power of the heliocentric model without anyone being able to prove it wrong.

Considering that James Bradley proved it wrong in 1725, I'd beg to differ.

Religion. Educating people about biology since 0 AD. cheesy

I do not even dare to ask why religion class is doing Creationism / Young Earth brainwashing instead of... you know, teaching things about religions in general.

Are you familiar with the name Carolus Linnaeus, a devout Christian and YEC whose biological classification system is still used today?

*facepalm*

Familiar enough that I know his given first name.

I can also see that you really hit the nail on the head, there. Totally got my point, and all that.

There are actual positive arguments against the idea of evolution (as described above) not least that all observed changes in species involving sorting and loss of existing genetic information, not the gain that would be necessary for an amoeba to become an anthropologist. That's why evolutionists usually resort to equivocation, the whole "we see dogs form new varieties of dogs, therefore a reptile turned into a dog" argument.

Oooops. And this.

It's wonderful to construct other people's arguments. It avoids having to engage with real arguments.

Energy exists only in the sense that it's always present. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the sum total of available energy is in a state of decrease. The general term for that in an increase in disorder. Visualize it as a clock running down. Consequently it actually is part of an argument for a creator, if a clock is winding down then at some point something had to wind it up. Since energy is the most fundamental unit in the universe whatever raised the energy to its initial level is probably outside the universe, this is accepted as one of the qualities of God.

Why are you just quoting some Creationist / ID handbook for arguments, then? If you'd want real arguments, you should come up with your own.

Plus, here's something you might want to read about second law of thermodynamics.


PS. Awesome lolcat, SB. :-D

 

[Synergy Blades]

Btw, your argument about holes in evolution reminded me of this.

Theory: When I jump in the air, I float off into the sky.
Observation: I don't float off, I come back down to earth.

Because the atheist cannot prove beyond doubt that there is a force of gravity pulling me back down, God exists - and is pulling everyone down.  :?

Welcome to Intelligent Falling.  :-D


Thanks Jari, thought you might like it, you seem to be in a bit of a lolcat phase.  :-D

 

[squeeble]

[offtopic] Bring back the dog with the laser eyes![/offtopic]

 

[The Black-caped Man]

I just wanted to say, next time you want to put something in that was said by another person use the insert quote function^^

 

[†Slashâ€]

Religion, as a whole, attempts to justify who we are, what we are, and where we came from (much like science). However, unlike science, religion is a much more primitive way of thinking and simply falls short of providing viable answers to what humanity may or may not be.

Perhaps the greatest flaw of the human mind is its insatiable desire to discover its own origin, and to explain things around it. I'm sure, on more than one occasion, early man tried to explain his own surroundings, just as modern man does with religion and theories such as evolution. If a cave man goes to the river to get something to drink, and it starts to rain, he can scoop up water with his own hands and make it "rain", as well. He thinks "By Jove, I've got it! There must be someone like me, but bigger and immortal above me making it rain!". If there's a forest fire, early man can come to the conclusion that since he can make fire, there must be great gods in the skies making fire on a larger scale.

Religion generally offers a set of ideas; some good, some bad. Christianity, for example, teaches good virtue and morality. According to the Bible, you must live a somewhat Christ-like life to gain admittance into Heaven and become born again. This requires having faith in God and Christ without having any solid facts or clues that point to their existence, or proof of the validity of the Bible.

The Bible states that God is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful lord that created humanity as well as the world we live in. However, if he's so merciful, why is it if we don't follow his teachings, we are condemned to eternal suffering in the pits of a fiery Hell? Is God not just a tyrannical overlord that continuously bullies his subjects? Christians follow the Bible blindly. For example, Christians will praise God for saving one survivor in the infamous World Trade Center attack, yet not blame him for killing the other three thousand. If Hurricane Katrina spared a family's home, it's clearly by God's mercy and love, yet it's Satan that brought about the destruction and pain for the thousands of others.

Then there's the issue of proving whether or not God exists. "The Celestial Teapot" is an analogy written by Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, that helps show that it is entirely the Christian Church's responsibility to prove the existence of God and their Bible. Atheists and other non-believers should not have to prove why God doesn't exist or why the Bible is wrong.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

This applies to other parody-religions, as well. Who can say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Atheism has brought evolution and facts to the table, but what do Christians have to show? For that matter, what does any religion have to show? Certainly the Bible isn't based on fiction alone. I'm not trying to say that none of it is true. I'm sure some parts were based on actual events, places, or people. However, as far as "God" goes, I see no evidence, facts, or proof of his existence.

This post is intended to show my view on religion, not attack Christianity, or any other religion. I use Christianity as an example, because it's probably the religion most are familiar with. I have nothing against Christians, or other religious orientations.

 

[obesebear]

The Bible states that God is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-merciful lord that created humanity as well as the world we live in. However, if he's so merciful, why is it if we don't follow his teachings, we are condemned to eternal suffering in the pits of a fiery Hell? Is God not just a tyrannical overlord that continuously bullies his subjects? Christians follow the Bible blindly. For example, Christians will praise God for saving one survivor in the infamous World Trade Center attack, yet not blame him for killing the other three thousand. If Hurricane Katrina spared a family's home, it's clearly by God's mercy and love, yet it's Satan that brought about the destruction and pain for the thousands of others.

Just to clear some things up, being merciful doesn't mean allowing no bad or evil to happen.  It means showing mercy.. showing forgiveness or sympathy.  If you seek forgiveness and accept Jesus as being God's son, all you need do is ask for his mercy/forgiveness and there you go, you are forgiven just like that.  Christians also believe God gave people free will, which means assholes will be assholes and fly planes into buildings and God won't necessarily interfere.

Also you must lose something (or never have had it) in order to be grateful for it.  If God only allowed good things to happen at all times, there would be no appreciation of said good things.  And sometimes humanity needs the tragedies to realize what we have.  Unfortunately it seems the tragedies are what brings out the best in people.

Perhaps God doesn't exist and everything in the universe just happened by off chance.  If anyone can quickly sum up the facts evolution has brought to the table I would sincerely like to hear them.  I know evolution does happen, such as humans slowly losing wisdom teeth and animals adapting to their environment, but I still haven't seen a fish become reptile.  If it's survival of the fittest... wouldn't only humans and a few select other species still be around, or at least still evolving?  If anyone can enlighten me, I'd like to know more.