Nice hate site.

Thanks for sharing your xtian luv.

Anonym-ass drive-by fundy spews: "Nice hate site."

Nice strawman.

Feel free to drop on in and actually read the testimonies...that is, if you have the guts to come back. BOO! lol

LOL

"boomslang" is less anonymous than what -- at least this "strawman" can spell -- and, whoa, even think (and speak) for themselves. Want to try that sometime, boomer?

I've actually read several of the "testimonies"; hence, the comment.

Maybe you can lead me to one (on this hate site) worth reading?

Hate site? Why, because an associate pastor is exposed for engaging in child pornography?

And, why the defensive pique, are you capable of empathizing with the pastor on a level, that makes you uncomfortable?

Don't feed the trolls.

" 'boomslang' is less anonymous than what -- at least this 'strawman' can spell -- and, whoa, even think (and speak) for themselves. Want to try that sometime, boomer?

I've actually read several of the "testimonies"; hence, the comment.

Maybe you can lead me to one (on this hate site) worth reading?"

-----------------------

Yes, Anonymous # 1,908,587.... "boomSLANG" gives me anonymity, however, when exchanging ideas on this EX-Christian site, at least no one gets me confused with the other 1,908,586 "Anonymous" fundies who drop by. And yes, they too can "think" for themselves, but somehow, they can't seem to hit the "other" button and dream up an alias.

BTW, I meant "strawman" as in weak argument....e.g.."nice hate site"---I didn't mean it as a person who is made out of straw. lol! So, yes, one of the proper spellings is "strawman".

Okay, I'd be willing to bet that if you, or anyone else could provide objective evidence for a "God", namely the X-ian biblegod, that the Webmaster would agree to change the site's name to "Hatesite.org". Waiting.

This is a hate site and all are without a clue(except for the Christians). Therefore, God exists.

Attention!!! This is a Hate site!!!!

We hate lies, myths, assumptions, halftruths, falsehoods, hearsay, fairies, religions, beliefs, superstitions, ghosts, spirits, prayer, faith, insanity, religious trolls, politics, deity inspired books, people that believe in invisible beings.

ben said:

"Attention!!! This is a Hate site!!!!

We hate lies, myths, assumptions, halftruths, falsehoods, hearsay, fairies, religions, beliefs, superstitions, ghosts, spirits, prayer, faith, insanity, religious trolls, politics, deity inspired books, people that believe in invisible beings. "

You also forgot to mention tolorance, diversity, respect, non-conformity, and Christians.

David, you're confusing a hatred for a mind-controlling superstition with a hatred of people.

You just don't get it. People who have extracted themselves from destructive lifestyle do NOT want to be lured back into that lifestyle. For instance, reformed alcoholics have all kinds of despairing terms for alcohol they toss about in their meetings. Does that mean that reformed alcoholics hate alcoholics? Of course not! However, if an alcoholic keeps coming to the the meetings drunk, offering bottles of liquor to everyone there, with a sour attitude against anyone who harshly condemns alcohol, eventually people will seriously question why the man comes to the meetings at all.

Dave, you are that alcoholic.

Christians who insist on trolling this site, yet never answering direct questions, frequently posting rude quips, and so on,... Well, what do they expect?

Very well put, WM.

In regards to Ex-Christians willfully acknowledging their hatred for the mind-controlling religious cult of Christianity, David added:

"You also forgot to mention tolorance, diversity, respect, non-conformity, and Christians."

A few things on "tolerance": In the first place, you support a book that has this to say about being "tolerant":

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God...." Deuteronomy 13:5

Secondly, like all Christians, you have ZERO evidence that supports why we should NOT be Ex-christians. Your argument amounts to "I still believe". Goody for you. Thirdly, you're here posting aren't you?...your posts haven't been scrubbed have they? And a good question arises: Why would anyone want to hang around a place where their objective is to merely be "tolerated"? I "tolerate" my neighbor's barking, slobbering, and pooping dog.

Look, no one's going to "win us back" to Christianity by telling us that we're "haters", or telling us how f%cked up we all are. Also, "prayer" is obviously useless, as there's been a gazillion prayers on our behalf already, and yet, NO results. Where is the evidence that Christianity is an objective universal truth? If you don't have it, then why hang around? That's my question.

Articles Posted:
Evangelist arrested on federal charges, Pastor Arrested for Video Voyeurism, Pastor arrested for domestic violence, Pastor arrested for rape of congregant, Pastor Facing Abuse Charges Flees to Mexico, Pastor arrested for sexual assault of 11-year-old, Pastor to stand trial on porn charges, Pastor arrested: web sex charges,
'Miracle baby' pastor held in UK,
Youth minister charged with sex crime

Explain to this ex-Christian what the point of posting the above articles, and posting several of the responses above, if not to propogate hate?

Interesting, I've been tarred and feathered a xtian, a Fundie, a pervert, by those who take exception to my proposition. Tolerance here seems to apply to a single point of view.

You want to pick fights with xtians, when not feeling sorry for yourselves, its your life.

Still, need to stick to the facts... that 8/17 post ought to be excised for its blatent misrepresentation of the facts... the stuff about fancy cars and airplanes is pure bunk... and the jerk who wrote it, knows it.

Anonymous one:

How do you equate posting true stories from the press as propagating hate? I mean, if it happened, it happened. Right?

Regardless, the primary reason the stories are here is to illustrate that there is no magical Holy Ghost leading and protecting HIS church. Jesus supposedly said, "I will build my church." Well, apparently, throughout history, he hasn't done a very good job of it. Either HE's incompetent or HE doesn't exist.

I opt for choice number two.

A secondary reason is to help refute the claim that Christianity instills a superior set of moral values in believers. These stories seem to contradict that idea.

In any event, the stories certainly give one pause for thought.

wm, said:

"David, you're confusing a hatred for a mind-controlling superstition with a hatred of people."

BZZT! Wrong. You have not been really reading these posts sir. Many of these ex-ians do hate anyone associated the Christianity. They do not just hate the institution. This is so evident in their posts. These are not the words of recovering Christians but of hateful, angry people who are just looking to slam others to build themselves up. I don't see a lot of posts from ex-ians asking others how they cope since leaving Christianity, or what strides they have made in the recovery process. That would be the way to "encourage those who have decided to leave religion behind” Instead I see only angry attacks and hostile reactions.

wm said:

"Christians who insist on trolling this site, yet never answering direct questions"

Christians have answered direct questions. You just don't like the answers.

Remember, the first step in recovery (in this case deep-seeded hate and animosity) is to admit you have a problem.

David, again, you're confusing a hatred for a mind-controlling superstition with a hatred for people.

All that is happening here is a discussion of ideas.

IDEAS DAVE, IDEAS!

Can you name a single act of hatred against even a single Christian because of this site? Please name the single act of hatred you've observed.

Please name ONE SINGLE ACT OF HATRED you've observed on this site!

Dave, again, these are ideas. Frustration, anger, impatience — all these emotions are expressed, true. Hatred? How do you define hatred?

Okay Dave, I'll see it your way. I admit, especially after exchanging comments with you, that I hate the system of Christianity and I hate religion. There, I've said it.

Now, how is any of that hatred toward you, or other believers?

Dave, this is direct question: How is hating Christianity the same thing as hating people?

Dave, that's a direct question!

Here's another direct question Dave: Where do you believe those who reject Christ will spend eternity?

Dave, that's also a direct question.

Christians who refuse to answer direct questions are those Christians who refuse to answer direct questions. Not all Christians refuse to answer direct questions. But those Christians who DO REFUSE TO ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS, are trolls.

Dave, here's a direct question: Why do you refuse to answer direct questions?

Dave, anger is NOT HATRED! Anger is a normal human emotion. Dave, you have anger. Is your anger hatred? Dave, that's a direct question.

Dave, frustration, irritation, anger, annoyance, feeling fed up, wearing of answering Christian trolls, shaking the head in disgust at mind-numbing lunacy of religion — all these things I feel toward you, Dave. However, none of these things is hatred. Dave, you're thick, but I don't hate you. I'm tired of you. You're frustrating, but I don't hate you. If I hated you, I'd condemn you to eternal damnation. That, Dave, is true hate.

Dave, if you don't want to see hostile reactions to your ideas, then stop trolling the site. You see, Christians who absolutely abhor the free expression of ideas against Christianity, and abhor hearing people condemn their invisible friend, and insist on posting, and posting, and posting, and posting, more, and more, and more, and more mind-numbed preaching are the reason there are harsh attacks. Without all the poking and prodding from fanatical Jesus worshippers, there'd be no REACTIONS to be had.

Dave, you really just don't get it.

Dave, why don't you hang out at one of the thousands of Christian forums. There are thousands of them! Why do you insist on hanging out here?

Dave, that, again, was a direct question.

To wm,

You will have DIRECT answers to your questions in the AM.

Actually this is a shared love site, we share our love of ideas that we nonchristians feel after leaving xtianity. We openly express the hatred of religions and beliefs that were forced upon us as children as being pure fact, when not one single shread of evidence has ever been shown, yet we are to believe with "faith" imaginary faith that does not exist. Even Jesus supposedly said if one had as much faith as a mustard seed, one could cast a mountain into the sea, although saying such nonsense does not prove it to be true, and apparently Jesus never believed it himself.

If one had as much faith as a mustard seed, then one could move a mustard seed, I've never seen this done, yet we are still to believe in something that makes no sense and has never been proven, just because someone like you Dave, insists in believing in imaginary beings, does not in any way prove to us it's true, therefore we have a hatred for lies and a distain for false beliefs and people that openly reject reality.

Give us some evidence why we should believe in invisible beings as you, so we can stop hating imaginary myths and out-right lies.

Not one word in the Bible can be proven to be true, Not one word!!!! and yet people are supposesd to believe why, Dave?, because someone says it's true, is that all the evidence one needs?

How about the Holy Q'uran many millions of people sware it's true and it's "Holy", yet I imagine you reject it's teachings, when all along you know it's got to be true, otherwise why would so many people be willing to believe it????

I know Satan has deceived all those millions, but not you Davey, no sir! Not good ole truth detector Dave!!!

The Q'uran has to be the truth or it could not easily sway so many people to believe it, Right Dave??? But I'll bet your belief is the correct one, because it is the one you were exposed to first, right Dave?

I know you studied the Earth over for the correct belief and Christianity just happen to be the one you recognize as being the true one belief, Right Dave???

It must feel so good inside to know that Dave himself has found the correct religion in it's pureist form, knowing for absolutely certain without a shread of doubt, of course, there's that Faith Card Dave throws out from time to time, how does it feel to know 100% that your religion is the absolute trueist one, having that pure self-righteous feeling inside, do you think the little children starving in Africa share the same warm and fuzzy feelings and self-glorified feelings that you do, just because you happen to have been born on this side of the planet? Huh Dave??? Aren't you glad you can sleep in a warm comfortable bed and have hot and cold water awaiting you in the morning supplied by the love of Jesus????

Dave get a life will ya and grow up and face one minute in reality, try to, that is!!! This is really asking alot from you Dave...

"Actually this is a shared love site, we share our love of ideas that we nonchristians feel after leaving xtianity."

I confess that I am new to this site, and not too sure WHAT it is really about, but I sure DO NOT get a shared love sense...

Not when the primary focus appears to be to bring xtians down -- like they need any help -- hence my squabble over the emphasis on the negative articles posted -- as if the intent were to stir up hatred -- which, btw, I saw reflected in some of the posts following my comments.

Seems to me, that the site does have a potential purpose, just stunted by... venomous outbursts.

Now, I come at my ex-xtianity different than y'all. I aboslutely reject the silly notion of xtianity as "brainwashing". I think that your site overtly enables a sense of victimhood, which hardly seeems like a "cure" healthier than the "disease".

One controls their own mind... even the exceptionally weak minded do... and one makes their own decisions.

I wonder if AA sites post all the alcohol-related mayhem stories that they can collect? Do they preach hatred toward drinkers?

wm... the distinction between hating religion and not the religious would hold water if the attack (the ad hominum postings)were not so personalized.

In fact, I think it rather disingenuous to believe that ex-xtians need to be reminded how fallible xtianity is... yours is a circular, nonsense argument. Who is the audience?

I would argue that it is, in fact, the so-called "trolls" you rail against. Ask yourself: What continues to attract them?

Anyway, you do seem to focus ona very narrow slice of xtianity that is as representative of the whole as radical Islam is to that religion. Xianity is not mono-lithic, nor as simplistic as the assinine knee-jerk responses of some posters...

Fundamnetally, the first argument/question is: Is there a God?

If there is, what kind of God?

If a God of Juedeo-Xtian tradition, a whole host of questions propogate.

You seem to have zeroed in on, IMHO, one of the least important -- if God, or Jesus, is in charge, why are things so f-ed up? A question asked and answered by too many philosphers to cont... something called, er, free will...

But, apparently, y'all don't believe in that..., or you're not quite sure what you believe... hard to tell.

The existance of a Xtian God fails the logic test... it requires faith... no faith, no religion.

Those looking for "proof", aint gonna find it.

Lack of proof, is a sufficient basis for deciding not to embrace xianity. EOS

Anonymous_one,

Your opinion is appreciated, as are all the other opinions posted here.

In maintaining a widely inclusive site, a significant diversity of expression has been allowed. It's a big world, and not everyone feels, thinks or argues exactly the same way. Some approaches are more effective for one person, some more effective for another. In Christianity one of the things that really annoyed me would be when self-appointed leaders threw aspersions thinly veiled as helpful criticism on any who marched to a different drummer, yet contributed very little themselves. What I'm saying is that if you find this site less than satisfying to you, and believe your approach to the topic would be more constructive and useful, then by all means craft an article or two that encapsulate your unique viewpoint. Or, create your own site, and only allow posts that conform to your own high standards.

Don't get me wrong. I accept your criticism, but I don't think that there is only one right way to get any message across.

Conversion to Christianity is, for many, if not most, a highly charged emotional experience. De-conversion is also a highly charged emotional experience. Just the thought of speaking disrespectfully about GOD, or not praying, or not reading the Bible, or not attending church, or telling family about the de-conversion, or speaking to friends about doubts, sends many ex-Christians into a frenzy of fear and guilt. The reality is, a superstitious hold on a mind is hard to break. Many Ex-Christians do need to be reminded of how fallacious Christianity is. Many that come here are only beginning to understand just how fallacious the religion is.

If I were to guess, I would suspect that you either are a Christian now, or were never as involved in Christianity as many who flock here. You apparently have little comprehension of the various stages in de-conversion. For more information on those stages, please check out this article by Marlene Winell.

Finally, this is large site that's been on the net for five years now. I wonder if you have really spent the time to read all the articles or all the comments before making your assesment of relative merits. I don't recall seeing you in the forums either.

Regardless, as I said, there are many good sites out there, and no two of them are exactly the same. And that is a good thing.

DIRECT ANSWERS

Wm: Dave, this is direct question: How is hating Christianity the same thing as hating people?

It isn’t the same. But most do not just hate Christianity. You’ve read the same posts that I have read. I see it but you don’t. We all see what we WANT to see. Maybe I want to see ex-ians hating Christians, but I really don’t think that’s the case.

Wm: Here's another direct question Dave: Where do you believe those who reject Christ will spend eternity?

Hell. There it is. And spare me the “That sure sounds more hateful than what we say to Christians.”

Wm: Dave, here's a direct question: Why do you refuse to answer direct questions?

I don’t.

Wm: Dave, anger is NOT HATRED! Anger is a normal human emotion. Dave, you have anger. Is your anger hatred? Dave, that's a direct question.

Anger IS a normal human emotion and all emotions lead to an act. Sadness is an emotion that leads to crying; joy is an emotion that leads to smiling. Anger is an emotion, which if encouraged and not monitored, can lead to hate.

Wm: Dave, why don't you hang out at one of the thousands of Christian forums. There are thousands of them! Why do you insist on hanging out here?

Dave, that, again, was a direct question.

Christian sites are boring and the forums are always empty. Besides, how can you learn anything about the world or other people if you stay in the same small bubble all the time?

Wm: You see, Christians who absolutely abhor the free expression of ideas…………..there'd be no REACTIONS to be had.

Are you saying that you are not responsible for your behavior? Are you saying that the lovers of truth and free thought are merely reactionary being reacting to their environment? Very Interesting.

And finally,

Wm: Please name ONE SINGLE ACT OF HATRED you've observed on this site!

Anonymous wrote:
Christians are a bunch of ignorant pathetic fools. I hate them all.
Posted 6/05/06 12:56 PM EST.

wm: Please name ONE SINGLE ACT OF HATRED you've observed on this site!

achristiansworstnightmare said:

".......christians constant complaints and criticism makes me want to decapitate some christians and spread the blood all over the wall."

Posted: 7/08/06 3:26 AM EST

Thought you might want another one.

Just ignore them, David, they don't have the "True interpretation" of Atheism. They were "never really" an Atheist. You "can't let the actions of one or two" ruin the "underlying message" of Atheistianity, Dave. Just "surrender" your brain to Science. Listen to me, Dave....."I think you are angry". You see, free thought has "worked wonders in my life".... "you just have to be open to receive it". Just remember, it is "better to live your life" as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him. Okay?

Okay, I will hope and hope and hope and hope for you, Dave...that you would invite reason into your brain so that you may "see the light" and the wonderful things that the laws of probability have done for me. After all, pure white maggots anxiously await you at your final destination. I hope and hope and hope and hope that you enjoy your eternal sleep. Please email me so I can help you: Reasonismysavior@blahwho.com

God 'less.

Yes boom, please help me. I want to invite reason and science and probability and randomness into my life. Please lead me there. I want to beleive in science so badly, I just don't know how. If only you could provide proof for things like evolution; proof beyond THEORIES I mean. And if only scientist could agree on things so I would know what to beleive. I want to beleive them, I really do. They just change things so often; Pluto is a planet, then it isn't. Eggs are bad for you, then they aren't, then they are again. Oil comes from dinosaurs, now it doesn't. The Earth is flat, now it isn't.

Please tell me how I can reconcile these contradictions so I can beleive. Please save me with your belief in randomness and unproven theory and hopelessness.


I WANT TO BELEIVE.

The Earth is flat, now it isn't, to David, now it is.

The Earth is flat, now it isn't, to David, now it is.

David wrote:
"Yes boom, please help me. I want to invite reason and science and probability and randomness into my life. Please lead me there. I want to beleive in science so badly, I just don't know how. If only you could provide proof for things like evolution; proof beyond THEORIES I mean. And if only scientist could agree on things so I would know what to beleive. I want to beleive them, I really do.
Please tell me how I can reconcile these contradictions so I can beleive. Please save me with your belief in randomness and unproven theory and hopelessness.
I WANT TO BELEIVE"

Danno suggests:
David! Pick up a copy of "Intelligent Thought," (science versus the Intelligent Design Movement), Edited by John Brockman.

This book just may be your ticket from unbelief in science, and a mediocre mind to real hard-core abandonment of mysticism, and an ability to see the world as it really is.

Dan (who prefers randomness to dogmatism)

No one knows how the universe was created, but the people that wrote the Bible did, although they never saw God create it, they just know he did. So god created man out of dirt, so what did god create the animals out of, more dirt? What did god create Satan out of, thin air? Then god regretted making man, but he never regretted making Satan, then he kills everyone except Noah and his family because they were so unwicked during the flood and then at Sodom and Gomorrah everyone was so wicked, why did not the flood filter out wickedness, since Noah and his family was so pure and unwicked, wasn't the flood supposed to clean out all wicked people? Wasn't that the purpose of the flood?

Yeah David I can see why you think the Bible is the absolute word of god, makes so much sense doesn't it?

"...proof beyond THEORIES I mean."

David, since you seem unwilling or incapable of finding things out for yourself, here's a little primer on what a "theory" is in science as compared to how most of us use it on a day-to-day basis.

Most people use the word "theory" to refer to a hunch, a guess, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or other loosely framed or unproven idea. For example, you may theorize that those who are ex-Christians never really were Christian to begin with, without any basis in fact.

On the other hand, a scientific theory is anything but a hunch, guess, speculation, or opinion. It has its origins and support from experimental evidence. In other words, it is a formal expression of a logical and testable idea and is well-substantianted. It is our attempt, as humans, to transcend our natural bias and describe reality independent of what people believe about it.

Yes, it's true that scientific theories are in principle tentative, subject to falsification and/or inclusion into other theories. Essentially, a theory stands until it is proven wrong or incomplete. However, it should be noted that gravity is a theory. See here for a list of scientific theories that have been replaced/superceded, along with what they've been replaced by.

You would paint this as a disadvantage when it isn't. As we learn more about our universe, we are able to add to our knowledge base and correct ourselves.

"Pluto is a planet, then it isn't. Eggs are bad for you, then they aren't, then they are again. Oil comes from dinosaurs, now it doesn't. The Earth is flat, now it isn't."

In other words, scientists need to make up their damn minds once and for all, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, right? Sounds a lot like dogma and faith. Is that what you want from your doctor?

Who gives a damn whether Pluto is called a planet or not? Someday when some probe is sent to orbit Pluto it's status may change again. So far, it hasn't been visited by a spacecraft, and so it's basically still an open question. Eggs themselves aren't bad for you, but you do want to moderate how many you eat and which parts (the whites have almost all the good stuff). Oil comes from fossils of any kind, and some fringe scientists who say it really isn't a fossil fuel does not a conflict make. The flat earth theory originated during the period when men still believed lightning was caused by a god, and was disproven by scientists. Don't even try.

As for evolution, see here for a primer and here for a modern, real-time example. You really need to stay better informed.

"Please tell me how I can reconcile these contradictions..."

By understanding what a scientific theory is, and realizing that as we learn and grow so too does out knowledge of our world and the universe. You want real contradictions, see your own Bible.

"I WANT TO BELEIVE."

Bullshit.

Dave, the problem could be that you still suffer from the side effects of "religioso convictionitis". Don't let the term scare you. Y'see, science doesn't deal in absolutes, Dave. We've been over it a gazillion times. The only absolute is "change". Conversely, religious convictions are NOT subject to change. Hell, Dave....we may NEVER know if chicken abortions are good for us to ingest. 'Tell ya what---if the fact that the knowledge about the health benefits of eating eggs is inconclusive and it is interfering with your quest for "truth", may I suggest egg beaters(the whites) in the mean time?

Also, you might be stuck on the word "theory", too. Y'see, evolution is both theory AND fact. Many things are both theory AND fact. Like, we may NEVER have conclusive knowledge about the health benefits of eating eggs---but we DO know that if the egg rolls off the counter, it will faaaall...i.e.."drop". This is because of "gravity", Dave. Say it with me: "G-R-A-V-I-T-Y". See?

Now, I know that nasty fever of yours has a grip on your mind, but still, I don't think that even YOU would say that gravity "is only a theory", or wait....would you? lol. Kinda like, Atomic theory is "only a theory", right? Breathing oxygen?.... "only a theory"? Here, try this simple test so we can determine your prognosis: Where do humans come from?

A) The stork
B) Other Humans
C) They magically materialize
D) Aliens

Riiiight, "B"....very good. We "KNOW" that people come from other people, Dave. So science says: Procreation is both theory AND fact. On the other hand, the stork bringing babies to people is what we call a "fable"..or, "myth". A "myth" is something imaginary or invented; things that defy logic and reason. For instance, the age-old story of a human being having a conversation with a reptile(you're familiar with that one, right?)...well, that's what we call a myth. M-Y-T-H. Rivers made out of blood? Myth. Talking donkeys? Myth. Firey chariots? Myth. Swimming hammers? Myth. Flat earth covered with a huge dome? Do you see the trend, Dave?

So, in conclusion, no, science may never agree on where oil comes from or if eating chicken eggs is good for you. However, they have agreed on the difference between myth and reality. If you really, really, really want to get well, Dave, you need to quarantine yourself from the people and ideas that you got sick in the first place. BTW, I don't hate you Dave.... so don't misread me, but we're all going to die. So whether you like it or not--- death will be your cure. 'Sorry buddy.....::sniff, sniff::

God 'less.

David: "Please tell me how I can reconcile these contradictions so I can beleive. Please save me with your belief in randomness and unproven theory and hopelessness.

David, you obviously hate the fact that "change" is a constant. You can continue to believe (imaginatively), that change isn't a constant, oh, for about the next so many years, right up to the point that you "change" from the living to the dead.

What do the following have in common? The changing name of a planet (according to mass), the changing egg consumption levels for healthy humans (according to volume), the changing process for oil production (according to composition), and the changing shape of the earth (according to geometric shape, which is more an oblong pear, not flat nor round). The answer is "Change".

So, if your point, is that "Change" undoes the credibility of science... then of course, you'd have to be consistent with such criticism, and agree that religious doctrine and all religious tradition is also part of the "Change" factor, and just as credible, right.

The obvious difference, is that science embraces change... and religion is so absolutist that it refuses to accept change. Why? Because Change creates an environment of relativity, and religion doesn't embrace relativism.

boomslang,

Your last post in this tread said that evolution is fact. Can you show me these facts? I am very intersested in seeing this factual evidence.

Dave Poole

"Your last post in this tread said that evolution is fact. Can you show me these facts? I am very intersested in seeing this factual evidence."

No, you weren't addressing me, but I have already provided links for you to follow. Here they are again, plus one extra. Visit Understanding Evolution, Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Evolution:Fact and Theory, and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for starters. Then, see Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes for one modern, real-time example.

Like the X-Files, the truth is out there. Don't be too lazy to go find it.

Actually David, after this post, I won't waste another second discussing the theory of evolution with you. 'Tell ya what though, since you like to "self-isolate" yourself from the gaggles of information(your local library, maybe?) that concludes that the theory of evolution is accepted by the scientific community as FACT---much like they accept "gravity" as FACT---then consider this: There are thousands---HUNDREDS of thousands, Dave---of "God fearing" liberal Christians right here in the United States who ACCEPT the theory of evolution as FACT. Maybe one of your own ilk can penetrate cement, but I doubt it.

PS: When the bird-flu *virus* makes it's way to the U.S., please, please, PLEASE...DO NOT get the vaccine.

To Jefftheubergeek,

Thanks for the links. I read them all except the last one. I still do not buy it. Some of the topics were a bit over my head but I was able to keep up with most of it. It bothered me that because a majority of the researchers, not a majority of the population, agreed that the "HYPOTHESIS" of 'UNIVERSAL COMMON DECENT'" is accurate than it becomes FACT. It is only a hypothesis, as identified in the article.

I found it 'charming' how one of the 'proofs' that backs up the theory is that there is no hypothesis or theory to disprove it. I thought it was impossible to disprove something? Also, some very interesting fossils were depicted on different sea mammals with humanoid limbs where the flippers should be. Even more interesting were the drawn in 'conjectured' bones that scientists wished were there (tarsals and metatarsal). I guess those parts must have been eaten or otherwise lost.

The theories of evolution, from what I read, all stem from a need or necessity; things don't just change because they want to but because they have to. But all the 'evidence' listed seemed more like abnormalities (a girl with a 'tail', a whale with embryonic limb nubs, or a sea cow fossil with abnormal flippers).

It was interesting and I appreciate you sending them to me. However, I am still not convinced. It was nice to give 'reality' a try.

Dave Poole

Translation: Since evolution has gaps and some of the parts went over my head, I'm sticking with my conviction that Creationism..i.e..'magic' is true.

"Poof!"...And God said---"Let there be a 125 billion gallaxies!".....or wait, maybe looking through an empty wine bottle works better than the Hubble Telescope? LMAO!

David,

"I still do not buy it."

Fair enough. Would you perhaps be more interested in learning about evolution from both a scientific and Christian perspective? Visit the American Scientific Affiliation. Specifically, see their Creation/Evolution page. Their statement of faith is right on the home page, and I think you'll find it agrees with your worldview.

At the very least, I'd like you to consider the notion that science - evolution, specifically - does not have to conflict with your faith. I'd strongly recommend reading everything on the page concerning evolution I linked to above. Although I disagree with many of the scientists who've contributed to the ASA on a theological level, there is some very sound scientific thinking and work being done by more than a few of them.

"...I was able to keep up with most of it."

Great! Much of the apparent conflict we see today is the result of a great many people not understanding what evolution is.

"It bothered me that because a majority of the researchers, not a majority of the population, agreed that the "HYPOTHESIS" of 'UNIVERSAL COMMON DECENT'" is accurate than it becomes FACT."

David, you're off-base here. The researchers are the ones with direct access to their work and the work of others, and their authority is therefore relevant to the discussion. Much of this material is, as you yourself admitted, above the lay person's head. The public doesn't get the finished product until it has been subject to a process called peer review. Even then, it may not be accepted by lay people for many reasons (perceived conflict with deeply held beliefs, for example) and yet remain factually accurate.

As for why the populace - in the U.S. anyway - does not entirely accept evolution, it certainly has something to do with the fact that 80% of the population are adherents to Christianity in one form or another. On the origins of human life for example, several polls indicate the population favors divine origin. Furthermore, if this True Origins article is accurate, the dominant belief is in creationism.

Of course, polls aren't necessarily trustworthy.

"I found it 'charming' how one of the 'proofs' that backs up the theory is that there is no hypothesis or theory to disprove it."

There has been no competing theory to date that provided an adequate or as complete an explanation for the observed phenomena as evolution. Neither creationism nor intelligent design are backed up by evidence or experimental observation, relying instead on attacking the prevailing accepted theory.

In any case, a new theory needn't debunk evolution to supplant some of its current conclusions. Perhaps any new theory could be integrated to make the ToE more complete, depending on its conclusions.

"I thought it was impossible to disprove something?"

Once again, one of the hallmarks of a good theory is that it is subject to the principle of falsifiability. That means that, in principle, it can be disproven.

"I guess those parts must have been eaten or otherwise lost."

The reason scientists must do this is partly because fossilization is not a perfect process. Fossilization is actually a rare occurrence because most organic material tends to decay rather quickly. Completing the fossil record is further complicated by the fact we have not explored every inch of every layer of the Earth's crust, and very likely never will.

"...things don't just change because they want to but because they have to. But all the 'evidence' listed seemed more like abnormalities (a girl with a 'tail', a whale with embryonic limb nubs, or a sea cow fossil with abnormal flippers)."

You're getting it. However, consider that what appears to be abnormalities to you may represent the perfectly natural process of change. Of course they seem abnormal to our eyes, because we're accustomed to seeing these creatures in their present form.

Of course, they may just be abnormalities or aberrations. Not all speculation about evolution is correct, nor are all apparent indicators actual indicators. That's why finding, identifying, and categorizing evidence takes so darn long; the aberrations, hoaxes, and mistakes need to be sifted out regularly.

And finally, you're welcome.

So, is the consensus, one in which we should chose which hypothetical to believe in, as they are all equal? That appears to be the Christian position here.

There are some hypotheticals that can not be falsified, and thus, are permanent hypotheticals. Some worship their hypothetical and call it truth. I could argue that the attributes used to create a hypothetical are self-refuting.

However, there are other hypotheticals, that don't require or suggest worship. As well, these hypotheticals can be proven false with information and close scrutiny. Thus, "information" can be obtained, even if fragmented, and "truth" can be pieced together in the most honest manner possible.

In short, something is better than nothing, when searching for the truth, at least there is a starting point for those who hold to a hypothetical that can be studied.

"webmaster":

How nice it is to be "appreciated", but apparently NOT as all the other opinions posted here.

It seems to me, first, that I have been specifically targeted to be taken at less than face value. How so? First, by being branded a 'fundy'. Now, by having my ex-Xianity questioned. All beacuse, I don't neatly fit whatever paradigm and/or experience you feel all ex-Xians fit.

Ironically, you suffer from a similar disease as those you rail against. Just the flip side of the same coin.

Thrice challenged, please direct me to an article on this site of some substance... I have taken hours to read the, er, "stuff", here, and so far am thoroughly unimpressed with the whole lot... nothing you have responded so far has given me a hint of what, other than a manifest hate of Xianity, this site is about. Since YOU questioned my conclusion -- that this is a hate site, nothing more -- and offer no help otherwise -- I mean, just site one article, topic, is that so darn hard?

"In maintaining a widely inclusive site, a significant diversity of expression has been allowed."

I think that you have demonstrated how that is not so.

"In Christianity one of the things that really annoyed me would be when self-appointed leaders threw aspersions thinly veiled as helpful criticism on any who marched to a different drummer, yet contributed very little themselves."

Here the pot calls the ketlle black.

I honestly don't get your bit about 'conversion' to xianity, since everything that I've read here speaks to brainwashing, not conversion. Me, I was originally 'born into' a xian family, accepted its beliefs and practices for a while, questioned them as an adolescent, rejected them as an adult. I think this far more typical, and normal, than what you appear to believe (as best I can tell). Highly charged emotional experience? Hardly... Like so many, Xianity was a turn-off, boring, irrelevent, contradictory, and yech, hypocritical. Unpacking that was hardly emotional, or painful... frankly, I think that you are attaching other personal and/or family psycho-problems with Xianity and/or religion.

If you don't have reason to believe that God exists, the only fear would seem to be of being wrong about your beliefs... hardly fear of the god that doesn't exist should be possible... you don't make sense.

You speak as though you know of what you are talking about, but I see no hint of either self-awareness, nor clinical background, nor grounding in reality.

No wonder you imagine that I am anything but what I represent myself to be.

"You apparently have little comprehension of the various stages in de-conversion. For more information on those stages, please check out this article by Marlene Winell."

Refernce?

I am, as I have repeatedly said, new to this hate site, so no, I don't have a long history with your forums, nor a complete reading of every article. My fault that you put the garbage front and center?

I can only imagine how the accumulation of five more years of news about xian sinners will eventually crowd out any meaningful discussion.

Anonymous_one,

I'm not exactly sure what you're so angry about, or what point you are trying to make, but the reference to Ms. Winell's article is linked in my comment above. Just click it.

Peace.