mm Sirius thanks that was interesting but goes against what i thought are the differences .

I was lead to believe that a psychopath although may be born like that can be taught to be normal so to speak , it depended on weather the person had a good mother or not but that article seems to say the opposite .

I'm wondering if that was from an American site as they seem to have different explanations than European views

---

Which says a lot about Atheists, given how Atheists for the most part believe that science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, and argue that true Christians take their bibles literally.

What is your basis for stating this?

---

Which says a lot about Atheists, given how Atheists for the most part believe that science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, and argue that true Christians take their bibles literally.

What is your basis for stating this?

Dawkins himself. Read his book, at pretty much no point does he even acknowledge that what he's tearing into are essentially the views of a tiny minority of Christians. In reality, and research supports this, most people simply accept the theory of evolution regardless of religion.

And every single time I meet an Atheist on the internet and we get this discussion about religion, their arguments are always the same and they are always geared towards people who take the bible literally. There is an example of that right here in this thread just a few posts back where someone pretty much states that you can't really be a Christian if you don't take the bible literally. Excuse me? I can't be a member of the Catholic church according to some dude on the internet because I have the sense to recognize that the Bible is not a historical account?

(To be fair, I don't subscribe to Christianity, but that is so because I have decided that I've got not enough with Christianity in common to be a Christian and not because some Atheist says I can't be a Christian because I don't fit in his dogmatic view of what Christians are. Technically I'm probably still a member of the Catholic church).

Мишель it's a bit off topic and wrong thread for religion but ask you local priest this .

what did Jesus mean when he was on the cross and he said " I am the morning star "
What does the Bible say in the old testament about the immaculate birth

there is one other question but that is for a later time and another thread .

Answer these questions and you may just have to look at what you believe

---

I think you have a very European view, but this is a site where the majority are Americans, and their views are a little different.

The latest US poll, in May 2014, found 42% of Americans still believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

Only 19% totally believe in evolution.

31% accept evolution but god guided it. Which personally I think is very illogical.

Yes, it does. And not probably but actually. For confirmation just look for history and meaning of this term: yurodivy, "God's fool".
Religion serves as positive selection for many mental illnesses. It's the medical fact :)
Many such cases described in literature.

Most of those cases from times when mental illnesses where not understood as they are today and times when the vast majority of people where religious. Again, the only reason this is the case is statistical inevitability. If 90% of the people are religious, then chances are that 90% of the people with a mental illness are religious. More so when you take the socio economic factors into account that determine who is religious and who is most likely to get a mental illness. Does religion therefor attract mental illnesses? Hell no, there is absolutely no proof to support such a notion. All you got is correlation, but as everyone should know, correlation does not equal causation.

You still refuse to see the point. Religion acts (at least acted but I'm quite sure same is true today too) as positive selection for mental illness.
In other part of society such men were cured, church made them saint.
You refuse the fact that religious peoples wanna resemble saints ? It's not correlation it's just as I said, positive selection :).

Fact or wishful thinking? I would be glad if it will be so but afraid it's not.

Except that the Catholic church has officially stated that evolution is in fact a fact. And there are plenty more moderate churches that accept science as fact and don't bother with creationism. In pretty much every Western, Christian dominated country creationists only make up a minority of the people. So the idea that creationism is widespread among religious people is just utter nonsense.

LoL, what catholics can do just to remain at money flows and not be forgotten... No probs, I know what their next revelations will be, hehe. What they say regarding gay marriage? What they said 1-2 years ago and what they will say 1-2 years after... But such mimesis doesn't change the fact that religion is parasite on humanity.
The art of interpretation of seven days of creation by modern priests always amuses me.

What is a Christian? Well anyone who believes Christ is his Lord and Savior and who died on the cross for humanities sins. If you believe that, you are a Christian. It says absolutely nothing about having to believe that the Bible is literal world history. I would argue that every Church that does not take its bible literal, and who accepts that science and religion are not mutually exclusive are moderates.

Really? Really no connection to bible? And then comes the question - who is Christ? From what source one knows he named Christ, not Iogann, not Mustafa? W/o Bible?
And to take one strings of that book and refuse/ignore or re-interpret at own will the others... well, just shows true face of church IMO, hypocrisy at highest degree. And quite good surviving abilities, that's it really have...
BTW, that whole conception of "humanities sins"... I even started to write big post regarding it but abandoned at that time, maybe later, but not in this thread. Just to say that's conception is the second reason why religion, and christian religion in particular, is evil.

Which says a lot about Atheists, given how Atheists for the most part believe that science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, and argue that true Christians take their bibles literally.

Nope, they most probably doesn't take their bibles literally. They as I said above adapt it to each new situation, that makes whole this thing even more amusing.
Also, why atheists? As I understand atheists don't believe in existence of any deity, right?
If one has faith that deity exists, but sees no reasons why that deity/god/super-power should be named exactly Christ or Magomet or whatever? In what category that one falls? Religious? In my terminology not, not religious cause one doesn't confess any particular religion. One has faith. But not religious. It's the big difference I trying to show. World religions along with smaller groups (that large groups called sectarian cause they have less number of followers, LoL) usurped faith, parasite on faith, make other peoples faith to serve their needs. One needs priest to speak with god to not to be heretic, priest says he is needed, he is required - or where he will get his donations, his tribute, his tithe?...

Yep, gap increasing. And gap should be wide, indeed. So wide that at some point to "not accept evolution" will be real nonsense! Gap should increase!
Think about it as gap between base and excited energy levels in atom ;)

The bigger the gap, the more difficult you make it for people to cross the gap to come to your side.

Or to cross the gap in another direction. In my "atom levels" analogy base level is evolution of course. If creationist sees he looks to others just as some silly if not dumb it could be just one more reason to educate himself.

The facts say opposite. They have own agenda and got finanses very well for their agenda. Even if some peoples dishonour them. You mix 2 areas here: those who look for reputation and radicalism not needed to be convinced about evolution as rule of thumb :) And crowd we discussed earlier as main driving force for politic (remember own conclusion regarding that astrophysisist) - crowd likes hot news ...

Being a good politician goes beyond simply being well known. It also means you get your interests represented. A controversial politician will have a hard time getting his interests represented because no one likes working with controversial figures.

I agree that being politician not only about being known. With remark about advertisment in politics too I just wanted to stress that to become known is very first and important step. Not single step, but first and important one.
And regarding elections:
One reads in newspaper that candidate A said (...) insert anything emotionally bright there. After few months one forgets who is A, what he said, about what he said... but his impressed hippocampus keeps link. And then after another few months passed one recived voting paper with some names A, B, C, D... One doesn't know much about those, but bingo, hippocampus gives signal - I know A. "Don't know from where but I know it!". Guess who will be selected?
Yep, not all vote such, definitely not politically active and educated ones... but we speak about crowd, not?... It's just one of democratic technologies... but lets leave "democracy" to another time.

Religion acts (at least acted but I'm quite sure same is true today too) as positive selection for mental illness.
In other part of society such men were cured, church made them saint.
You refuse the fact that religious peoples wanna resemble saints ? It's not correlation it's just as I said, positive selection :).

Religion is a curse at times. Few people stay rational and realistic when they're convinced of their beliefs. Mentall illness stands apart from all of that, it's not correlated.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

So Robert if you score less than me but get the same description as i did , does that mean the test is crap ? or you put your score with my description .

At what score are you a psychopath then .

Darn i thought i scored high enough to be a nutter , darn i'm gona have to be careful i mite lose my pension then as that will be Abbott's next move to refuse a pension unless your a bona fide nutter .

This is the description given to me by the test. I think we can assume there are only three descriptions.

1) Innocent as a newborn
2) Normal
3) Dick Cheney

LMAO!!!

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think you have a very European view, but this is a site where the majority are Americans, and their views are a little different.

The latest US poll, in May 2014, found 42% of Americans still believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

Only 19% totally believe in evolution.

31% accept evolution but god guided it. Which personally I think is very illogical.

Actually I was talking world wide. The polls you refer to are a dependent on how you ask the question. You get significant differences when you ask the question with an obvious religious intent and when you ask the question in a more neutral manner.

And yes, a lot of people do think that evolution is true but that God had a hand in it. Honestly I wouldn't get so upset about people like that. They are just one step removed from accepting evolution completely. And that group of people also includes people who accept evolution completely but make an exception for human beings who were created or guided by God.

Is it silly? Nah, I think it can be explained by our incessant need to feel special and unique.

You still refuse to see the point. Religion acts (at least acted but I'm quite sure same is true today too) as positive selection for mental illness.
In other part of society such men were cured, church made them saint.
You refuse the fact that religious peoples wanna resemble saints ? It's not correlation it's just as I said, positive selection :).

And now you are just completely and utterly wrong. Mental illnesses are a new thing, they literally were not recognized up until a hundred years ago and back then our understanding of them was close to non existing. You say religion made saints out of insane people while everyone else cured them? In most cases its impossible to really cure people from their mental illnesses, so that statement is just flat out nonsense. Does religion turn them into saints? Well, prove it. Prove to me that those who the church turned into saints were actually all insane. Oh right, you can't. You don't have the necessary data to back up such a claim.

LoL, what catholics can do just to remain at money flows and not be forgotten... No probs, I know what their next revelations will be, hehe. What they say regarding gay marriage? What they said 1-2 years ago and what they will say 1-2 years after... But such mimesis doesn't change the fact that religion is parasite on humanity.
The art of interpretation of seven days of creation by modern priests always amuses me.

Oh no, god forbid a social institution updates itself to be more in line with modern day sensibilities. But really we all know deep down inside that no matter how progressive the Church might get, that really they still think like back in medieval times and secretly they all want to go back to that time.

Really, you have decided to hate religion and nothing the church does will change your mind. Now who is being close minded and dogmatic?

Really? Really no connection to bible? And then comes the question - who is Christ? From what source one knows he named Christ, not Iogann, not Mustafa? W/o Bible?
And to take one strings of that book and refuse/ignore or re-interpret at own will the others... well, just shows true face of church IMO, hypocrisy at highest degree. And quite good surviving abilities, that's it really have...
BTW, that whole conception of "humanities sins"... I even started to write big post regarding it but abandoned at that time, maybe later, but not in this thread. Just to say that's conception is the second reason why religion, and christian religion in particular, is evil.

By accepting Christ as Lord and Savior and the Son of God you essentially already believe in at least a big part of the New Testament of the Bible. But that still doesn't mean you have to take everything in there literal.

And sure, the church is filled with hypocrites. Newsflash, humanity is filled with hypocrites. Hypocrisy is the order of the day. And is it bad that the church is hypocritical in what parts of the bible it takes seriously and what parts it ignores? No, I don't think its bad to update your believes to fit with modern standards of what is acceptable. You guys say science is great because of its ability to recognize when it was wrong or outdated, so why is the church suddenly evil when it recognizes that parts of its doctrine are wrong or outdated? Why must the church confirm to some medieval standard in order to not be evil (only to then be condemned as evil for being so outdated).

Or to cross the gap in another direction. In my "atom levels" analogy base level is evolution of course. If creationist sees he looks to others just as some silly if not dumb it could be just one more reason to educate himself.

You assume that evolution is the base level for everyone, but that is just your perspective and you are expecting everyone else to conform to your perspective. A creationists will see creationism as the base level and he fully expects you to recognize how silly you were for rejecting God and once you do he expects you to come over to his side. And why would a creationist think he looks silly in the eyes of others. All the others he really knows and cares about are the people he goes to church with and who conform to roughly the same belief pattern as he does. In his community he doesn't look silly or dumb at all.

I agree that being politician not only about being known. With remark about advertisment in politics too I just wanted to stress that to become known is very first and important step. Not single step, but first and important one.
And regarding elections:
One reads in newspaper that candidate A said (...) insert anything emotionally bright there. After few months one forgets who is A, what he said, about what he said... but his impressed hippocampus keeps link. And then after another few months passed one recived voting paper with some names A, B, C, D... One doesn't know much about those, but bingo, hippocampus gives signal - I know A. "Don't know from where but I know it!". Guess who will be selected?
Yep, not all vote such, definitely not politically active and educated ones... but we speak about crowd, not?... It's just one of democratic technologies... but lets leave "democracy" to another time.

Assuming that only A ever said something that went into the newspapers. Generally people get overloaded with soundbites from a dozen or so different politicians. Unless you actively avoid the media in its totality, its unlikely that you won't have heard of more than one politician.

And yes, a lot of people do think that evolution is true but that God had a hand in it.

Depends how you ask the question, and the responders interpretation.

Perhaps many believe a God 'Started' The Universe, then let evolution take its course.

Agree it is a step in the correct direction.

Anything inexplicable would be Gods work to religious people. Die hard scientists would do anything to attain an explanation or rather an answer otoh.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Which says a lot about Atheists, given how Atheists for the most part believe that science and religion are indeed mutually exclusive, and argue that true Christians take their bibles literally.

What is your basis for stating this?

Dawkins himself. Read his book, at pretty much no point does he even acknowledge that what he's tearing into are essentially the views of a tiny minority of Christians. In reality, and research supports this, most people simply accept the theory of evolution regardless of religion.

And every single time I meet an Atheist on the internet and we get this discussion about religion, their arguments are always the same and they are always geared towards people who take the bible literally. There is an example of that right here in this thread just a few posts back where someone pretty much states that you can't really be a Christian if you don't take the bible literally. Excuse me? I can't be a member of the Catholic church according to some dude on the internet because I have the sense to recognize that the Bible is not a historical account?

(To be fair, I don't subscribe to Christianity, but that is so because I have decided that I've got not enough with Christianity in common to be a Christian and not because some Atheist says I can't be a Christian because I don't fit in his dogmatic view of what Christians are. Technically I'm probably still a member of the Catholic church).

So you concede that your opinion of atheists is based upon the words written by one person, and because of "some dude(s) on the internet" that you have interacted with. With respect, I don't think that's an authoritative set of sources.

I'm an atheist, but in my family and social circles, it's something I keep to myself, because of the risk of ridicule and stigmatisation by believers of all descriptions. I find the "dogmatic views" you mention to characterise many of the believers I know of or interact with. I think that having a few very intelligent but blunt spokespersons for atheism is a good thing; among other benefits, it provides a very necessary refutation of the volume of dogmatic propaganda that is spewed forth endlessly by all the religions of the world.

---

And is it bad that the church is hypocritical in what parts of the bible it takes seriously and what parts it ignores? No, I don't think its bad to update your believes to fit with modern standards of what is acceptable. You guys say science is great because of its ability to recognize when it was wrong or outdated, so why is the church suddenly evil when it recognizes that parts of its doctrine are wrong or outdated? Why must the church confirm to some medieval standard in order to not be evil (only to then be condemned as evil for being so outdated).

The problem with your argument is that the advancement of science is evidence-based, whereas religion requires a belief in the supernatural, no matter how many times, or for whatever reasons, the particular religion reinvents or updates itself. (The reasons, I suspect, are usually based on public opinion and a fear of losing followers, which will have, shall we say, negative economic consequences.)

---

So you concede that your opinion of atheists is based upon the words written by one person, and because of "some dude(s) on the internet" that you have interacted with. With respect, I don't think that's an authoritative set of sources.

Atheists in general? No, just Atheists like Dawkins and his little clique of followers on the internet. I don't dislike Atheists or Atheism, I dislike Dawkins and I dislike the people that parrot everything the man says.

As for what Atheists in general think about whether science and religion can mix, I got that from a study done at the Faraday center.

I think that having a few very intelligent but blunt spokespersons for atheism is a good thing; among other benefits, it provides a very necessary refutation of the volume of dogmatic propaganda that is spewed forth endlessly by all the religions of the world.

I dunno, the fact that in certain places Atheists rank just above sex offenders of people who parents trust to look after their child doesn't say a lot of good about your public image. And having a blunt guy like Dawkins be your unofficial spokes person who actively tries to polarize the debate can't help.

The problem with your argument is that the advancement of science is evidence-based, whereas religion requires a belief in the supernatural, no matter how many times, or for whatever reasons, the particular religion reinvents or updates itself.

The point is that the church gets criticized if it sticks to the old outdated social norms on those norms but just as much gets criticized by the same people if the church admits that parts of it were outdated and updates its views. People criticize religion because the bible contains some really messed up parts in the old testament but when the church says 'look, we know thats outdated thats why we no longer advocate parents stoning their disobedient children' those same people say 'but now you are just picking and choosing what parts of your holy book you take literally'.

Science updates itself based on evidence that suggests the previous idea was wrong and gets applauded for it, religion updates itself based on evidence that suggests their previous idea was wrong but it gets criticized for it. Oh yeah sure, it keeps believing in a supernatural entity. But is that wrong? No, no that is not wrong. Its something that falls outside the realm of science, but that doesn't make it wrong to keep believing in it.

They are just one step removed from accepting evolution completely.

Not sure you are right there. I think they grudgingly have been forced to accept the world is older than 10,000 years but cannot accept that there doesn't need to be a god for life to evolve.

If there is a god why did god make so many errors in the path from apes to us?

And now you are just completely and utterly wrong. Mental illnesses are a new thing, they literally were not recognized up until a hundred years ago and back then our understanding of them was close to non existing. You say religion made saints out of insane people while everyone else cured them? In most cases its impossible to really cure people from their mental illnesses, so that statement is just flat out nonsense. Does religion turn them into saints? Well, prove it. Prove to me that those who the church turned into saints were actually all insane. Oh right, you can't. You don't have the necessary data to back up such a claim.

OMG, I did not say all religious have mental illness (even all marked as saint ones). That I said and it's true that religion attracts such persons and making them more important than they are in other parts of life (and again, just look what term yurodivy means) it creates positive selection for such persons. Positive selection <=> attracts more than refuse. It absolutely doesn't matter was it recognized as illness at those times or not. All those revelations and saint possessions known to be mental illnesses today. In that past they just rise status of person, provided person was close to church so not just usual delirium but revelation. That is what positive selection means, not attribute to me something I did not mean like "all religious are ill or so forth". But positive selection/attraction of such persons by church as organization is just a fact.

Oh no, god forbid a social institution updates itself to be more in line with modern day sensibilities. But really we all know deep down inside that no matter how progressive the Church might get, that really they still think like back in medieval times and secretly they all want to go back to that time.

No comments, who those "we" I don't know. But too much variation in views sometimes means no views at all..
It's quite different when church updates versus any other institute. Church reveals its knowledge as ultimate truth, as revelation from the high sky, as god's words... That is, in quite dogmatic form. And yes, when these dogmas (and dogma is religious word, it used to other cases only by similarity, btw) are changed.... it rises some questions about what then Dogma is. Quite naturally for anyone who remember past dogmas :)

Really, you have decided to hate religion and nothing the church does will change your mind. Now who is being close minded and dogmatic?

Well, it's just you decided so. Actually not, there are quite a lot of things church could do to inflict less damage. But these things don't include bible reinterpretation to just remain afloat...

And is it bad that the church is hypocritical in what parts of the bible it takes seriously and what parts it ignores? No, I don't think its bad to update your believes to fit with modern standards of what is acceptable. You guys say science is great because of its ability to recognize when it was wrong or outdated, so why is the church suddenly evil when it recognizes that parts of its doctrine are wrong or outdated? Why must the church confirm to some medieval standard in order to not be evil (only to then be condemned as evil for being so outdated).

And I think it's bad anyway. Just because of essence of religion. You trying to compare it with science, with other institutes... but all your comparisons are flawed by hiding main difference and (when we in count, third?) reason why religion is evil - essentially dogmatic nature of church. It was created such, I repeating, but that it is, there are dogmas like axioms. If you change axiom you recive another theory. If you change dogm - call what becomes another name, it's not christianity anymore, it's something other (maybe better but other).
And keeping same "brand" in such case... is questionable at least. But very in line with thesis that "god is only enterprise". Enterprise requires good known brand mark ;)

[Musical interlude, lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6H7UfLPRes ]

A creationists will see creationism as the base level and he fully expects you to recognize how silly you were for rejecting God and once you do he expects you to come over to his side. And why would a creationist think he looks silly in the eyes of others. All the others he really knows and cares about are the people he goes to church with and who conform to roughly the same belief pattern as he does. In his community he doesn't look silly or dumb at all.

It's not in my view or his view, it's objective reality. There is some distribution of energy level population with base being most populated (I just elaborate on my analogy to make it more understandable). What I mean is the social pressure on such persons. For example: some don't know how to read. In medieval ages it was quite close to base level cause number of who don't know how to read was big enough, even bigger than otherwise. Currently (at least in countries that pretend to be developed) near 100% of population know how to read. So, if such person develops who learnt in school so bad or even did not attnds school at all he will be on "excited level" with very small population dencity. And I think you can imagine social pressue he will have, in many different ways. There is the same needed for those creationists. That's about this was. And looking on statistics numbers above - yes, we quite far from such state, and very because of this Dawkins approach is required.

Assuming that only A ever said something that went into the newspapers. Generally people get overloaded with soundbites from a dozen or so different politicians. Unless you actively avoid the media in its totality, its unlikely that you won't have heard of more than one politician.

Exactly assuming he went into newspapers, that about to be known is after all :))) It just shows how "to be known", even no matter known by what, can be used. It's exploit of human brain organisation peculiarity nothing more but also nothing less cause it allows to pass elections sometimes.

OMG, I did not say all religious have mental illness (even all marked as saint ones). That I said and it's true that religion attracts such persons and making them more important than they are in other parts of life (and again, just look what term yurodivy means) it creates positive selection for such persons. Positive selection <=> attracts more than refuse. It absolutely doesn't matter was it recognized as illness at those times or not. All those revelations and saint possessions known to be mental illnesses today. In that past they just rise status of person, provided person was close to church so not just usual delirium but revelation. That is what positive selection means, not attribute to me something I did not mean like "all religious are ill or so forth". But positive selection/attraction of such persons by church as organization is just a fact.

I never said you said that all religious people have a mental illness :\

And no it doesn't. Yeah, cultures that don't particularly care about mental health as being a thing will sometimes give religious meaning to certain symptoms of mental illnesses. But that does not mean religion attracts people who are mentally ill. Thats like saying religion attracts lightning storms because in cultures that don't understand the science behind lightning and thunder, lightning storms have a religious meaning. Mental illnesses have a statistical occurrence in every given population and depending on the social and cultural norms of that population, a mental illness can be seen as a sign of God or as a disease that can be treated with medicine and therapy. And even here, we are talking about mental illnesses with very obvious delusional symptoms, psychotic breakdowns and schizophrenia, not psychopathy which was your original claim.

No comments, who those "we" I don't know. But too much variation in views sometimes means no views at all..
It's quite different when church updates versus any other institute. Church reveals its knowledge as ultimate truth, as revelation from the high sky, as god's words... That is, in quite dogmatic form. And yes, when these dogmas (and dogma is religious word, it used to other cases only by similarity, btw) are changed.... it rises some questions about what then Dogma is. Quite naturally for anyone who remember past dogmas :)

Perhaps a lesson for everyone that not even the churches word is absolute.

And I think it's bad anyway. Just because of essence of religion. You trying to compare it with science, with other institutes... but all your comparisons are flawed by hiding main difference and (when we in count, third?) reason why religion is evil - essentially dogmatic nature of church. It was created such, I repeating, but that it is, there are dogmas like axioms. If you change axiom you recive another theory. If you change dogm - call what becomes another name, it's not christianity anymore, it's something other (maybe better but other).
And keeping same "brand" in such case... is questionable at least. But very in line with thesis that "god is only enterprise". Enterprise requires good known brand mark ;)

That requires the assumption that the churches word and actions are absolute and infallible and any deviation from the original word essentially creates a new church and overrides the old one. But both assumptions have been refuted by the Church itself, throug its own actions and admissions. The church is conservative yes, and it is slow to change, but it does change, eventually. That is just another part of the church. So why can't the church change? Why does it immediately become something 'other' as you say?

It's not in my view or his view, it's objective reality. There is some distribution of energy level population with base being most populated (I just elaborate on my analogy to make it more understandable). What I mean is the social pressure on such persons. For example: some don't know how to read. In medieval ages it was quite close to base level cause number of who don't know how to read was big enough, even bigger than otherwise. Currently (at least in countries that pretend to be developed) near 100% of population know how to read. So, if such person develops who learnt in school so bad or even did not attnds school at all he will be on "excited level" with very small population dencity. And I think you can imagine social pressue he will have, in many different ways. There is the same needed for those creationists. That's about this was. And looking on statistics numbers above - yes, we quite far from such state, and very because of this Dawkins approach is required.

Well that is what you say, and that is something they will disagree with you on. For them objective reality is that God is real, that he made humanity and this world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. They are utterly convinced this is the case and they are baffled by the fact that you do not recognize this fundamental truth, their 'objective reality'. Of course, their views are slowly dying out naturally, and there is some pressure from the outside to give up these views. Which is why so many of them have retreated to their own little communities of like minded people. Where they homeschool their children and where they interact mostly with people who have similar world views. And sure, sometimes they clash with people from the rest of the world, but for the most part they don't. They wont be ridiculed into giving up their world view.

Look, if you what you say is true, then creationism would have died out long ago and arguments on the internet would never persist. Objective reality would be recognized by all and only a few contrarians would resist it, most for the sake of resisting it.

Exactly assuming he went into newspapers, that about to be known is after all :))) It just shows how "to be known", even no matter known by what, can be used. It's exploit of human brain organisation peculiarity nothing more but also nothing less cause it allows to pass elections sometimes.

Again the point was that only works if you are the first and only politician to do it like that. Which is not the case.

Just a thought, is every one in here
agreed that the universe needs a God?

---

And yes, a lot of people do think that evolution is true but that God had a hand in it.

Depends how you ask the question, and the responders interpretation.

Perhaps many believe a God 'Started' The Universe, then let evolution take its course.

Agree it is a step in the correct direction.

Anything inexplicable would be Gods work to religious people. Die hard scientists would do anything to attain an explanation or rather an answer otoh.

inexplicable = beyond their IQ to understand

---

No no, what I mean is:
Is it necessary that a god
exists to in order to have
a universe? Could it all have
just happened naturally?

---