<p>Wasn't this thread just 8 pages long? How did it jump to being 4?</p>
<p>I believe in science.</p>
<p>I believe in God. The world and life cannot just happen from nothing, someone must put it all together. Maybe you should try looking at nature, how everything fits together just perfectly. Try to pray about it..... just try....</p>
<p>evolution is kinda stupid...
so some monkeys were smart enough to become humans but the other monkeys stayed monkeys
i am fully human... not part monkey or any other animal :)</p>
<p>lol. Just a question for thought: why do all primates and most common animals have the same face layout? By this I'm asking why do we have 2 eyes up top, a nose in the middle, a mouth below the nose, and ears on the outsidE? Surely there would be other layouts which would work just as well that God could choose...</p>
<p>Personally, I believe that GOd guided evolution but evolution occured none the less.</p>
<p>i think a lot of you are getting the wrong idea about evolution. the monkeys that exist today aren't the same monkeys that existed when humans evolved. we share a common ancestor, and that ancestor's descendents (through natural selection or what have you) ended up splitting into separate species, one of which is homo sapiens. today's apes evolved from that common ancestor, too; they just evolved in a different direction.</p>
<p>this just goes to show that evolution isn't taught properly at school. the theory amounts to a hell of a lot more than 'monkeys turning into people'.</p>
<p>now go read some richard dawkins (here[/url</a>] and [url="<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618005838/qid=1117570566/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/102-8511695-1075323?v=glance&s=books&n=507846%22%5Dhere%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618005838/qid=1117570566/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/102-8511695-1075323?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]here</a>) and please get the facts right next time.</p>
<p>My friend's college roommate is a creationist, and he thinks carbon dating is an atheist conspiracy ROTFLMAO</p>
<p>oh my.</p>
<p>+characters (speechless)</p>
<p>I sometimes think there is a supernatural force behind everything, but I like going through life relying on and believing in myself. I have always felt (no flames please) that the idea of God is for weak people, who, when they have no hope, are at least left with the idea that "everything is in God's hands."</p>
<p>Atheist. Try to 'save' me all you want (actually, no, that gets old REALLY fast) but I'll be an atheist until after the end.</p>
<p>^That's the spirit!</p>
<p>Agnostic athiest. I haven't been persuaded that God exists, so therefore I assume that it does not. I truly hope God exists, and I'd be willing to listen to rational evidence, but I apply the same scientific standards as to anything else.</p>
<p>"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
--Richard Dawkins</p>
<p>(No offense to the agnostics, but I think it's a pretty good point. ;) )</p>
<p>Actually, that is a pretty good point. I'm agnostic, and while I sure as hell don't think there are fairies, my mind remains open to almost anything.</p>
<p>I fail to see how operating under the assumption that something does not exist, yet remaining open to the possibility, is so bad. Take Dawkins' scenario. I say: since there's no evidence that there are fairies, let's operate under that assumption. However, if evidence arises that proves there are, we should accept that as well.</p>
<p>The point being that agnosticism is more a willingness to accept that something might be true, while operating under the assumption that it isn't. Or at least my brand of it.</p>
<p>^Precisely what I was trying to say.</p>
<p>Closed-mindedness is never a good thing. I'm fully willing to change my views should credible scientific evidence appear. The reason I consider myself atheist rather than agnostic is that I'm fairly confident that there will be no such evidence; agnosticism as I see it is much more indecisive, equally open to both possibilities without really leaning either way.</p>
<p>Notice I called myself an agnostic atheist. There's a subtle difference between that and a complete agnostic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point being that agnosticism is more a willingness to accept that something might be true, while operating under the assumption that it isn't. Or at least my brand of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did read your post, and I wasn't referring to it specifically when I posted the quote. I just thought it was interesting and relevant to the thread. FWIW, I agree with your perspective.</p>
<p>I'd say I'm probably a strong atheist, since I couldn't accept the existence of God. In my view, if a God who has behavioral standards and enforces them by sending people to heaven or hell exists, there is no freedom, since it's along the same lines as saying that you're "free" to disobey the laws of an oppressive dictatorship. A possible objection: maybe heaven and hell don't exist and God doesn't have moral standards. However, I would ask, what's the difference between a God who does nothing and no God at all?</p>
<p>However, I also have my weak atheist tendencies, since I am a fan of the scientific method and all. I am also extremely disillusioned by all the death, destruction, slavery, oppression, and anti-intellectualism that various religions have engendered over the years. However, I primarily don't believe in God because I cannot accept the prospect that I have no freedom. If God does indeed exist, I hate him.</p>
<p>In fact, I think my cell phone banner says "Kill God" right now.</p>