Why do people deny evolution?

Most of the atheists in this forum...whether they assert it or not...GUESS that there are no gods. Most atheists on this planet do.

It is a belief system...whether the atheists have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge it or not.

If that were not the truth...they would call themselves agnostics.

The claim was not what you are pretending it was.

I specifically said:

IF there is the possibility of a god...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

After seeing your evangelical brand of agnosticism spread throughout this forum, I would not even consider applying the label of agnostic to myself. There is no need to make a guess about any nondescript gods. They are of no concern to me.

Then don't do it.

But don't pretend that if you use the word atheist to identify yourself...that you are not guessing there are no gods.

Mesquite. I think like most fence hangers frank just likes to be liked. If there is life after death then it has to be that consciousness is already in the state of death before death of the brain takes place.Dead things cant die right and death causes life forms to change . Of course theres scope for adaptation not linked to death. But death is the main player in evolution. Consciousness exists independent of the brain so it cant die. That means your consciousness is the exact same as say fish consciousness. Consciousness cant die because its nothing. Consciousness is love. Love created the universe out of nothing which is consciouness. God is love. All you need is love. Remember you know you are the fish thats why you respect the fish.

I'm not a fence hanger. I am very out front about my opinions...and do not waiver or equivocate. Anyone who thinks my posts represent fence sitting of any kind really is out to lunch.

I'm pleased to hear it, you don't want a fence up on your wall. Stick to hanging paintings.

Nice to hear that frank someone who is willing to risk looking a fool for what they believe to be right aint sitting up on no fence.

What field of science would that be?

All of science, Blue.

Anything that can reasonably be designated science.

Science can no more show that there are NO gods...than it can show that there is at least one. It can no more show that it is more likely there are no gods...than it can show it is more likely there is at least one.

All science can show is that we do not know.

Respectfully as possible, agnostic denotes that better than atheistic.

Yep the same old status quo holds . Neutrality holds. But will selfishness win the day with the forests and wildlife disapearing fast. Could it be paradise lost.

For adam did eat of the tree of knowledge and became an observer with a reference frame .

Pssst...there was no Adam. Why are you referring to someone who never existed?

Tree of Knowledge...is that like in the Oak family?

Its metaphorical ragsy me old china. Adam and Eve is a metaphorical truth. Adam and eve were in nonlocal consciousness(god) but fell from that graceful state into local event knowledge consciousness . Its wasnt there fault but the story puts it that way to give the right effect for an enqiurer. The enquirier is lost consciouness.

So, you assert that science can show that we do not know if there is a god.

How is that relevant to meteorology, for example?

Out of curiosity when you're composing what you want to write, do you take your words and feed them into a Vegematic food blender?

It is not just the language problem. The logic is not there, as well.

Essentially I am saying that science, logic, and reason cannot get us to "there is at least one god", "there are no gods", "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods." The best that reason, logic, and science can do is to show that we do not know if there are gods or not.



What in hell are you talking about.

You used the general expression "science". You are being challenged to explain why a particular focus (which is what all sciences are about) has relevance to your simplistic evangelical agnosticism. Meteorologists by definition, don't give a toss about "gods", and nor do atheists. Only a self valedictory ex-religious believer such as yourself could be understood as having the psychological need to neurotically hammer home your view about the equality of positions about the existence or non-existence of "gods". If there had been a socially established religion of "fairy worship" with which you had dabbled, you requirement to justify your former dabbling as "not futile" would have resulted in the same evangelical agnosticism.

Rags mate what im am saying is clear enough. God is nonlocality! Love is nonlocal. God = love=nonlocality =consciousness. Consciousness is the nonmoving mover. You that is to say your consciousness is alway stationary in what ever ref frame.

Ah...so "God" is the ultimate reference frame....the eternal versus the transient...the psychological insulation against the void of our apparent insignificance...the antithesis of Shakespeare's worrying observation that:
(abbreviated)