Quote :

"I watched this. Even ignoring the bias of the source, it wasn't very impressive. I'd be happy to argue about it in another thread, but in spite of attempts (like yours) to derail this one I won't play along here."

The point was that religious beliefs can and do affect behavior. That's all you really needed to take from it. If you actually believe that you're going to go to heaven after you die, that will change how you view life. If you believe that prayer works, that will change how you deal with problems. Your beliefs may not affect every single action you take, but it certainly will affect some of them.

1/27/2010 10:03:59 AM

The original argument was whether an employer should have the right to consider an applicant's religion during the hiring process. My question was whether this might be allowed if the employer felt that "certain (or all) religious beliefs" were indicators of poor critical thinking skills. In other words, is it the employer's right to decide for his or herself what does or does not constitute a reasonable test for intelligence, even if that test happened to involve religion? Whether or not it is actually a good test is irrelevant. Whether or not "certain (or all) religious beliefs" are potentially rational is even more irrelevant.


[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 10:12:22 AM

Technically, "whether or not" is redundant.

1/27/2010 1:23:53 PM

Quote :

"The point was that religious beliefs can and do affect behavior. That's all you really needed to take from it."

It didn't even do a particularly good job of that, especially in the context of this thread.

Quote :

"In other words, is it the employer's right to decide for his or herself what does or does not constitute a reasonable test for intelligence, even if that test happened to involve religion?"

No, because what employers decided was a "reasonable test for intelligence" in the past has been shit. They fucked that up. Maybe if they had demonstrated an ability to have some discretion in the matter without abusing it to deny employment to people or groups they personally dislike, we could talk. The employer has no more right to use religion as a basis than they do skin color, especially given that there are objective means, separate from the employer's bias and without discrimination against any group, that can be used instead.

And all of that is to say nothing about the fact that your employer shouldn't be looking into your personal life at all, though drug tests have made people forget that.

1/27/2010 1:40:59 PM

Quote :

"The point was that religious beliefs can and do affect behavior. That's all you really needed to take from it. If you actually believe that you're going to go to heaven after you die, that will change how you view life. If you believe that prayer works, that will change how you deal with problems. Your beliefs may not affect every single action you take, but it certainly will affect some of them."

NOT believing also has the same effect on a person. Everyone deals with problems and stress differently regardless of religion. After reading most of your posts I don't think you have a grasp on religion or how it effects people other than the fanatics you've been reading about in the news.

Fanatics are everywhere and not just in religion. Perhaps you mean to say you don't want to hire anyone thats certifiably crazy? A simple mental health exam should fix that for you.

1/27/2010 1:45:06 PM

Maybe they're arguing that if you really believe the crap in the Bible, then you must be certifiably crazy. I think you need to establish the crazies like this between the people that just go to church once in a while and lead otherwise normal lives.

1/27/2010 1:50:48 PM

Well thats just crazy, why would you go to church if you don't believe in the Bible?

1/27/2010 1:57:35 PM

Quote :

"In other words, is it the employer's right to decide for his or herself what does or does not constitute a reasonable test for intelligence, even if that test happened to involve religion"

No, because we, as a nation, have decided that freedom from discrimination trumps freedom to practice business.

Historically, religion is not disctinctly exclusive from critical thinking. There are other ways of testing critical thinking that provide 100% accurate results. There is no justification for using an inferior test.

1/27/2010 2:05:39 PM

Quote :

"NOT believing also has the same effect on a person. Everyone deals with problems and stress differently regardless of religion. After reading most of your posts I don't think you have a grasp on religion or how it effects people other than the fanatics you've been reading about in the news."

My grasp on religion is fine. I think you don't like what I'm saying, so you have convinced yourself that it's a misunderstanding on my part, rather than yours. I won't claim to know the in and outs of every denomination or sect of Christianity, or any other religion. I don't. People believe so many different versions of the same religion, even within a single denomination, that it's impossible to say "All Christians believe X" or whatever.

I'm more than aware that (somewhat) reasonable Christians exist. I grew up in church, and attended church from the time I was a toddler until my late teens. I've attended many different churches, gone to various multi-denomination events, and had a lot of interactions with Christians of all different backgrounds. Some of the kids I went to church with had sex and did drugs when we were ~14. I know that, a lot of the time, Christians are not much different than non-Christians, especially outside of church.

I'll never say that all Christians are crazy, or anything of that nature. What I did say is that beliefs have consequences. They don't have to be negative consequences. For instance, the caller in the video said that if you believe in a heaven, you might be a little happier on your death bed. That's probably true.

There can be negative consequences though - on the job. I know that the Christians I grew up around believed strongly in the power of prayer. They sometimes believed that prayer could actually heal people and cure diseases. I do not think that this was limited to my church or denomination. I remember getting lost on a hike with a group of church kids, and one girl said, "I think the best thing to do right now is pray." And we did pray. Surely enough, some parents found us minutes later. It was proof that prayer works, as far as we were concerned. But, from the perspective of an employer, does he want to hire someone that is going to resort to prayer before practical actions? If you're working on a power pole, and your co-worker falls 15 feet and breaks his neck, should you pray first, then call 9-11? If you actually believe that prayer works, you should definitely pray first. Paramedics pale in comparison to an all powerful God.

Again, I'm not saying that all Christians are going to behave irrationally in that kind of situation. I'm saying that their religion very well could drive them to behave irrationally.

1/27/2010 2:17:22 PM

Quote :

"Well thats just crazy, why would you go to church if you don't believe in the Bible? "

What % of at least semi-regular church goers do you think believe that every word in the Bible is literally true? Surely it can't be that many because there's a shit ton of people going to church. People go to church for the social aspect too, and because they've always gone. Listen to someone squawk for an hour, meet friends, get some lunch.

At least I think people do this. I just go to the park on Sunday mornings.

1/27/2010 2:19:45 PM

Quote :

"I remember getting lost on a hike with a group of church kids, and one girl said, "I think the best thing to do right now is pray." And we did pray. Surely enough, some parents found us minutes later. It was proof that prayer works, as far as we were concerned. But, from the perspective of an employer, does he want to hire someone that is going to resort to prayer before practical actions? If you're working on a power pole, and your co-worker falls 15 feet and breaks his neck, should you pray first, then call 9-11? If you actually believe that prayer works, you should definitely pray first. Paramedics pale in comparison to an all powerful God. "

You're not talking about religious people. You're talking about insane people. No sane person is going to rely on prayer to the exclusion of any practical solution.

Hiring an insane person is a risk every employer takes. Luckily, acquiring a college degree, or even GED precludes this possibility.

1/27/2010 3:07:47 PM

Golovko hit the nail on the head though.

The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." There are many passages just like this. And it's not like it's in the OT where it can be ignored.

It clearly states that prayer works. over and over again. So if you choose Ambulance over prayer, then what in the world are you religious for in the first place?

Which, ties back to the original notion that if you're *really* religious then you're nuts and that should be a good reason not to hire someone. I think the problem is that most people are not *really* religious (they'll take the ambulance) so you can't weed the crazies out from the not crazies.

1/27/2010 3:26:43 PM

This really is not worth getting into, but you can't just pick verses out of the Bible and think you have an understanding of a very complex system of belief that takes people lifetimes to get a grasp of. The Bible does not promote people just sitting around expecting God to take care of everything without doing anything for themselves. You're making a lot of assumptions about a faith you haven't taken the time to understand.

1/27/2010 3:44:13 PM

Please please start a new thread where you explain to me how "whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" doesn't unambiguously mean what it says.

1/27/2010 4:28:12 PM

Quote :

"Hiring an insane person is a risk every employer takes. Luckily, acquiring a college degree, or even GED precludes this possibility."

Oh, really?

1/27/2010 4:32:41 PM

I'm not a theologian and would not be able to give you an adequate response without doing some research. But I do know that God is not some cosmic genie that grants our every wish. If that were the case, then God would actually serve us.

I guess there's no saving this thread now. So it seems we're all in agreement that we should not restrict freedom by legislating our own individual views of a just society? Since that is settled, let's start voting that way, ok? Thanks.

1/27/2010 4:44:15 PM

Quote :

"No, because what employers decided was a "reasonable test for intelligence" in the past has been shit. They fucked that up. ... The employer has no more right to use religion as a basis than they do skin color, especially given that there are objective means, separate from the employer's bias and without discrimination against any group, that can be used instead. "

Well, at least we seem to understand the question. But I have two problems with your response.

First, it is totally absurd to equate skin color with religion. A person cannot choose his or her skin color (Michael Jackson notwithstanding). But despite whatever nonsense mambagrl is trying to pass off on you, a person's religion is entirey a matter of choice, at least for adults. That's the whole point. No one is genetically required to believe in the authenticity of a 2,000-year-old human sacrifice, or any other religious myth. It is, therefore, a matter of thinking.

Second, while I do take seriously your historical objections, I would have to strongly object to the idea that employers should be collectively punished for the misdeeds of their ancestors. That sort of thing is wrong no matter who's advocating it, be it the reparations crowd or those who harp on about original sin. It's a wicked idea that ought to be discarded.

Quote :

"And all of that is to say nothing about the fact that your employer shouldn't be looking into your personal life at all, though drug tests have made people forget that."

You don't think criminal background checks are OK? How about immigration status? How about government agencies and government contractors? Should they not be allowed to make sure the applicant doesn't have a sketchy personal history? (If you think drug tests are invasive, don't bother applying for a government job that could require a secret or top secret clearance)

1/27/2010 11:07:53 PM

Quote :

"First, it is totally absurd to equate skin color with religion."

I understand this objection, but I'd make a couple of points:

1) I'd argue that a great many people don't make a choice regarding their religion, even if they could. If it's something they've been involved with since they can remember, and it's generally brought them comfort, support, a sense of community, etc., without negative repercussion, I don't think it's entirely reasonable to demand that they be compelled to reassess it over threat of unemployment, or even to expect that they now be capable of reassessing it without bias (even if they are capable of doing so in an otherwise rational manner).

I love Bojangles fried chicken. From a purely rational standpoint I understand that this is unhealthy, and thus a bad idea, but I've been eating it since I was little and it always makes me happy.

2) Religion is a choice. So is one's political stance. Presumably there is a perfectly rational choice in either case. I don't see how opening the door to religious discrimination won't open it to political discrimination, even if indirectly. The sword will cut both ways, remember. I give it a week before religious employers start turning down applicants whose religion answers don't seem anti-abortion enough, and vice versa.

3) Religion and race are different in terms of origin. They are not different in terms of their guaranteed effects on work, which is to say, both are zero.

Quote :

"Second, while I do take seriously your historical objections, I would have to strongly object to the idea that employers should be collectively punished for the misdeeds of their ancestors."

They're not being punished. They have free and ready access to far more reliable tests for competence and critical thinking than, "What are your religious beliefs?"

Quote :

"You don't think criminal background checks are OK? How about immigration status?"

I would argue that getting arrested is not personal, it's public. And they only reason I'd consider doing immigration checks are because the government will come down on me hard if I didn't.

Quote :

"(If you think drug tests are invasive, don't bother applying for a government job that could require a secret or top secret clearance)"

I said they're invasive and I didn't like them. I didn't say I wouldn't take one. The whole reason I'm in grad school is to get a specific government job with a secret-or-above clearance.

1/28/2010 12:18:29 AM

1. I think most self-respecting religious people would be deeply offended by the suggestion that they are too stupid to think for themsleves. And even if you were correct, this would rather prove the hypothetical employer's point about religious belief being indicative of unsophisticated thinking.

Quote :

"I love Bojangles fried chicken. From a purely rational standpoint I understand that this is unhealthy, and thus a bad idea, but I've been eating it since I was little and it always makes me happy."

And if I were hiring a nutritionist, I would probably find this fact to be quite relevant. Is it impossible that you could still be a very fine nutritionist? Of course not, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue that good nutritionists, on average, are not in fact cognizant of their own nutrition!

2. Besides being a hugely unsubstantiated slippery slope, this argument presupposes that no employers should be allowed to screen for political affiliation. As a matter fo fact, this happens at political organizations and advocacy groups all the time. Should the RNC not be allowed to inquire about a person's partisan affiliations before hiring him or her? Wouldn't that be ridiculous?

3. You can keep saying that religious beliefs cannot possibly affect a person's qualifications, but you won't make me believe it. You have to know that I could give you and endless list of particular religious beliefs and the jobs they would conflict with. And you've got to be pretty naive if you think that a college diploma can solve for this.

1/28/2010 10:06:53 AM

You're going to argue that a college diploma is not proof enough of critical/rational thinking?

Really?

1/28/2010 10:56:04 AM

You act like it's an either/or proposition.

1/28/2010 11:05:15 AM

I often wonder what would happen if religious people with college degrees would just apply a little critical thinking to their religious belief...

1/28/2010 11:05:32 AM

Quote :

"You're going to argue that a college diploma is not proof enough of critical/rational thinking? Really?"

It's not proof of rational thinking or critical thinking. It's proof that you learned to "play the game."

1/28/2010 11:57:51 AM

I don't know that having any degree is proof of rational or critical thinking, but I think certain degrees (such as those from the college of engineering) are a reliable indication.

1/28/2010 1:38:23 PM

boo hotlink

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2010 1:47:49 PM

Please explain how you attain even the simplest accredited degree without being able to make rational decisions.

^4 google "albert einstein on god". He offers some broadly-mirrored insight on religion, though you may dismiss him out-of-hand for being an irrational deist.

1/28/2010 1:59:11 PM

Yup.

1/28/2010 2:08:09 PM

Quote :

"I often wonder what would happen if religious people with college degrees would just apply a little critical thinking to their religious belief..."

dude, we get it you don't believe in God or religion, move on.

1/28/2010 2:21:45 PM

Quote :

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

The god Einstein would often refer to has nothing to do with God of Christianity. You could call him a deist, but that doesn't validate modern religions in any way. If you choose to call the unseen mechanics of the universe "god," then alright. Just understand that definitions of what a god is vary drastically between people, making the word nearly useless unless terms are defined from the get-go.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2010 2:28:20 PM

In the context of this thread we're talking about the whole of religous belief, not one specific religion; or sect, or church, or prayer group.

And in the context of disco stu's post, to which my suggestion was a response, Eistein does indeed call himself a "religious" person.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2010 2:38:34 PM

But it's just semantics. He was referring to the mystery of the unknown that science is constantly working to uncover.

To compare him to someone who believes in the power of prayer is ludicrous.

^^^It's relevant to the topic at hand. I have a hard time trusting people that really believe that shit, like the people that let their children die instead of going to the hospital. If it wasn't so popular, Christianity would be labeled a mental illness. Well, actual Christianity, not "go to church every once in a while because I feel guilty" Christianity.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2010 2:45:28 PM

Quote :

"^^^It's relevant to the topic at hand. I have a hard time trusting people that really believe that shit, like the people that let their children die instead of going to the hospital. If it wasn't so popular, Christianity would be labeled a mental illness. Well, actual Christianity, not "go to church every once in a while because I feel guilty" Christianity."

first, you've said the exact same thing in every one of your posts, hence the 'we get it, move on'

second, what Christianity are you even talking about? You clearly don't have a single shred of understanding of Christianity or any religion for that matter. All you've done is alienate yourself because you've written off every single person on the planet that believes in something that you don't nor can wrap your head around. You sound very silly.

1/28/2010 2:51:34 PM

Quote :

" You clearly don't have a single shred of understanding of Christianity or any religion for that matter."

Ok, in the interest of enlightening my totally ignorant self, please correct this statement:
----------------------
The New Testament, in addition to condoning slavery and blatant misogyny, repeatedly states that praying to God will result in God answering and fulfilling said prayers.
----------------------

And what's the point of all this? My claim is that people who actually believe the stuff that's printed in the Bible are nuts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Neumann_case These are people that actually believe what's in the Bible. And they shouldn't be parents, and I would not hire someone with this kind of judgement.

V I'm not trolling. You're illustrating my point. The people that choose medicine over prayer do not truly believe what is written in the book that they claim is the infallible word of God. And that's actually a good thing, because it means they're not nuts and have decided to use common sense. Which is my point above; you can't just write off everyone who claims to be a Christian, because most of them are rational and don't truly believe the Bible. Or they just don't read it.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2010 3:01:00 PM

^I've already stated that I'm not here to change your mind about anything. If you're that interested there are many people a lot better than I that can help answer some of your questions. Nobody wants to read your rant about how you think religious people are stupid and you're superior to them because of your lack of faith. You've said it more than enough in this thread alone.

ok...

Quote :

"both followers of Unleavened Bread Ministries, an online church that rejects medical intervention"

lol...now you're just obviously trolling...we're done here.

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2010 3:06:35 PM

Quote :

"But it's just semantics. He was referring to the mystery of the unknown that science is constantly working to uncover. To compare him to someone who believes in the power of prayer is ludicrous. "

You didn't say anything about prayer. You said "religious people".

If your definition of "religious people" is whoever believes the entire bible is absolutely true exactly as it is written, then maybe you should make that distinction; because thats wholly irrepresentative of people who practice religion, or even Christianity for that matter.

1/28/2010 3:24:18 PM

Lol, every post I've made recently has been making that distinction. Here. I'll make it easy for you.

Choose Ambulance over Prayer = not nuts.
Choose Prayer over Ambulance = nuts.

Since most "Christians" are in column A, you can't just write them off of the hiring process. And the people in column B probably wouldn't admit it anyway, so what's the point of caring about that when you're hiring someone?

My sub-point is that people in column A are obviously not reading their Bibles. Maybe that's one of the complexities of Christianity that will always elude me, since everyone is willing to tell me that I'm ignorant, but not *how* I am ignorant.

1/28/2010 3:32:55 PM

If you were a Christian, God would tell you to ignore those verses.

1/28/2010 3:36:31 PM

Quote :

"My sub-point is that people in column A are obviously not reading their Bibles. Maybe that's one of the complexities of Christianity that will always elude me, since everyone is willing to tell me that I'm ignorant, but not *how* I am ignorant."

people in column A are reading their Bibles (most at least)

people in column B are reading something entirely different much like the crazy fanatic Muslims (or fanatics from any religion or non-religion for that matter). But I'm glad to see your college education has helped you distinguish differences between these groups.

Also, your ignorance is obvious because you claim to know everything there is about Christianity by quoting one passage from the Bible. You must have done very well in school, congrats you've got an extraordinary ability!

1/28/2010 3:38:17 PM

So are you saying that the New Testament does not teach that prayer works? Or am I going to get a "you have to be a theologian your entire life to understand the Bible" kind of answer? Prayer is fundamental to Christianity, is it not?

There are many many passages in the New Testament where Jesus is telling you to pray and if you truly believe, shit will get done. If there are no passages which you can interpret literally, why would one use this as a guideline to live?

What does it take besides reading the New Testament to get an understanding of Christianity? What other sources are there? I thought that was it.

V

[Edited on January 28, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2010 3:43:35 PM

Quote :

"lol...now you're just obviously trolling...we're done here"

1/28/2010 3:53:19 PM

The problem here is that you're arguing about details of a religion which people within that religion don't even agree on. Christians have many different views about things such as prayer. I will say that prayer is illogical. It doesn't make any sense to me. But that is an aspect of a faith system, not the faith itself. I believe it to be perfectly logical to believe in God. Beyond that, there is no possible way for us to really understand that God or how he (she, it, whatever else you may believe) operates. If there is a higher power that created this universe, it is so far beyond our rational thinking that attempting to apply any rational thought to it is useless.

So in that sense, I suppose people of religion may hold some irrational beliefs. But ultimately the beliefs are rational, in that God is capable of working in ways beyond our comprehension. Otherwise that would not be a very powerful god.

So, arguing over whether prayer makes sense is also useless. But the Bible doesn't just say to pray for things. It also teaches that we should do things. Like work hard, care for people, save money, etc. Anyone who thinks all we need to do is pray and let God take care of everything does not have a proper understanding of the entirety of scripture. Does the Bible teach that prayer is important? Yes. But does it teach that we should depend on it without taking responsible action when we can? Absolutely not. I think most Christians take the stance that we should do all that we can in any given situation, but that God is working at the same time. In this case, they would act just as rationally as anyone who didn't believe in God.

Fundamentally, the only question is whether or not belief in God is rational. If belief in God is rational, then it is rational to believe that God is omnipotent and we cannot begin to understand what that means.

1/28/2010 4:21:32 PM

Quote :

"If belief in God is rational, then it is rational to believe that God is omnipotent and we cannot begin to understand what that means."

How is it rational to believe in something that you cannot begin to understand? I cannot think of a rational thought process wherein a person looks at the world around them and logically concludes that there must be something outside the realm of observation running things. If you can't see it, you can't see any of its effects, why even postulate that it exists in the first place?

Belief in God (the all-loving, all-powerful type) is not logically consistent with observation of the world around us ergo, belief in this type of God is not rational.

1/28/2010 4:34:17 PM

The belief that God created the universe is a rational belief because a rational argument can be made for the belief that is at least as strong as any other theory. The behavior of that God, on the other hand, is something that we can speculate about but never comprehend.

1/28/2010 4:40:33 PM

Does that mean that "I believe that God created the Universe" is as logically consistent as "I believe that invisible pink unicorns float around us in a realm that you cannot observe"?

When something is unprovable, does "being as strong as any other theory" mean anything? Could not also a giant turtle have created the universe? Surely pink unicorns and giant turtles are not rational theories, just as a God creating the Universe is not rational. And I mean really really big turtles, not those impostors in Galapagos.

1/28/2010 4:49:34 PM

There is no logical reason to believe in invisible pink unicorns. There is a logical reason to believe in God, as I pointed out earlier. We know that the universe exists. Something must have created it. I find the argument for a intelligent creator to be more convincing than any other explanation. Therefore, it is logical. Of course you could also take the stance that it is impossible to know for sure so I'm just not going to believe anything. But as I mentioned before, the whole of philosophy is about contemplating things that we likely will never know for sure.

1/28/2010 4:54:36 PM

Quote :

"How is it rational to believe in something that you cannot begin to understand? I cannot think of a rational thought process wherein a person looks at the world around them and logically concludes that there must be something outside the realm of observation running things. If you can't see it, you can't see any of its effects, why even postulate that it exists in the first place?"

You just pretty much eliminated half of science with that statement. good job.

1/28/2010 5:01:59 PM

Golovko, what half of science did I eliminate? Metaphysics? "Cannot begin to understand" does not exist in science. Science is the attempt to understand. There is no science for things that exist outside the realm of observation. That is metaphysics.

Quote :

"There is no logical reason to believe in invisible pink unicorns. There is a logical reason to believe in God, as I pointed out earlier. We know that the universe exists. Something must have created it. I find the argument for a intelligent creator to be more convincing than any other explanation. Therefore, it is logical. Of course you could also take the stance that it is impossible to know for sure so I'm just not going to believe anything. But as I mentioned before, the whole of philosophy is about contemplating things that we likely will never know for sure."

"Something must have created it" is not a given, but even if you accept that, why must it be God that did so? Could it not be any other infinite possibilities of entities or forces that exist outside of the realm of observation? Could there not have also been some strange non-divine energies occurring that erupted into our dimension and triggered the beginning? That's my point.

Maybe we need to define "rational". I don't find "picking an explanation that is just as plausible as an infinite number of other explanations" rational. The rational choice is differing to conclude on "what created the Universe" until more evidence is discovered. Imagine you come across a strange rock on the ground, but have no way of knowing how it got there. Without further evidence, is it rational to decide that it was placed there by God? I mean, it's there. It must have been created, therefore it had an intelligent creator and it was God.

Finally, I don't buy into the "things that exist must have been created" bit. Things are not created. They are assembled from existing parts. Everything. I exist, but every atom that is in me existed before my body was assembled. The atoms of my parents existed before their bodies were assembled. All our atoms were forged in stars, whose atoms were forged by giant collapsing gas clouds, whose atoms were dispersed into the Universe during the Big Bang.

What caused the Big Bang? Who knows? Until further evidence is revealed (if that's even possible, since it's generally conceived that this was the beginning of observable time/Universe) there's no reason to definitely say anything on the topic as all theories are equally absurd.

1/28/2010 5:25:35 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/01/crimesider/entry6162918.shtml

I guess what I don't get is why aren't all Christians "faith healers" and why is it not valid for me to mention these crazies when talking about Christianity. They're just doing what the good book tells them.

2 Chronicles 16:12

Quote :

"And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians"

Queue the "Can't pick and choose passages" crowd.

[Edited on February 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2010 4:13:34 PM

disco stu, it's pointless to argue with someone who won't even bother to type more than a sentence and ends half his posts with "/thread" or

2/8/2010 2:58:09 PM