Ok, right THERE is my problem.  Science simply falls back on one variable, and one variable alone.... TIME. 

And more evidence is gathering that points to the universe as not being very old.  Time seems to be the catch all for unexplained science formula. 

Well, the problem with this is that it is not evolution but natural selection.  And it is heavily influenced by us humans.  If only .1% of the bacteria in the colony survive, then that leaves more food for them.  Their genetic resistance gets passed to each replication, and you get a full colony of resistant bacteria.  It isn't evolution, is simple natural selection, brought about by vaccines... humans.

The problem with chance is chaos.  The universe is chaos.  All things tend towards destruction, not creation.  And I have yet to see a species on this planet that is currently in transition to another species.  If it is as you say... there should be at least one creature that is evolving into something else...

And sure scientists can create life... but there is a little joke with that.

"Man challenges God to a building contest, a life building contest using only dirt, to disprove humans need for Him.  God agrees, and the scientists fire up their equipment and grab a handfull of dirt.  God interjects and says - Hey, make your own dirt!"

This illustrates the other objection I have.... where did mass/atoms/molecules come from?  How can life come from nothing? And you realize this here...

 

True, none of these answers need to be figured out to survive.  But the very fact that we ask them shows something more....

I just don't want to survive.  I want to live.  And to live is to find purpose.  Purpose can only be understood, if you understand your background.  That is why I question what I do... to find purpose.

Indeed, but when isn't time a major factor? Almost every measurement out there is x over time. And while our estimates could be quite wrong, the combination of Cosmic Microwave Background, the life span of stars, which we occasionally see going super nova, and the fact that we can see galaxys millions or billions of light years tells me the universe is more than old enough for life to develop on its own. To disprove that you basically have to prove that astronomers have gotten their distance calculations wrong on everything, which is basically done by the very down to Earth math of trigonometry.

I should point out that the only thing that is ever claimed to be independent of time seems to be God. Forgive me if I happen to think there is a reason he's the odd one out.

Natural selection is the mechanic of evolution. It simply requires two more things, more time and usually isolation. In a sense, the principle of evolution can also be observed in languages. Take two groups of English speaking people, send one to the moon with no way of them communicating, and eventually they will "evolve" into different languages, as over time more words are added to one and not the other, etc. Just substitute the random changes and additions of language with mutation/natural selection, and its basically the same thing.

But destruction is sometimes creation no? As Capitalism puts it "creative destruction". If everything stays the same, nothing can be created. The old must first be destroyed, so its building blocks can be used to build something new.

Evolution is probably going on before your very eyes. The problem is if you want to see it in your life time, the things you need to watch are microscopic. Bigger organisms do evolve, but a mere century is only going to let you see a few generations.

But I AM living. I do not need to know where the atoms that make up my being originally came from to be able to enjoy life, to find purpose in this world of ours. I think we should be thrilled that our limited means and intellect has enabled us to be reasonably certain of what has happened in the last few million years on this Earth. That is more than enough background for me.

Of course, it may not be for you. I think this very nicely shows the core differences we have. Again ideology does not matter. Far more important are just how you accept three things; Time, Chance/Chaos, and Ambiguity (the problem you seem to have with purpose). I can (mostly) imagine the enormity of time, accept the influence of chaos, and remain flexible enough to deal with the ambiguity inherent in almost everything. For whatever reason it seems you do not. And really, if we do not reach agreement on these essentially simple concepts, obviously our world views will be radically different.

Maybe I was on to something here Sinperium...

What evidence is that? WMAO launched in this millennium independently verified the Hubble age (which was based on the expanding universe) of the universe at 13.75 Gys, same as Hubble and this is as of 2011. So maybe you could site your source at least? I will rely on WMAO and Hubble data … at least as long as it takes to gather some facts to the contrary … your just saying so doesn’t amount to much without something to back it up is all.

I think this is applicable to all of us, don't you? But it is not up to you to try and decide my purpose for me … or to deny it (not you personally). Maybe the difference actually goes more like this. Theists seem to need to find their purpose in the past (the very  past) and atheists tend to look to the future for purpose which is only natural for us. If you were giving the complete theological mess as true facts ... what knowledge would you gain about molecules and atoms or anything else you don't already know? Absolutely none, but you are just ok with god did it. Without science, you wouldn't even know there were atoms to discuss.  I am open to suggestions here ... ? Besides is this even valuable knowledge ... not to me ... seemingly just to you. I have a few better things to do than waste my time with imponderables. That is the realm of theists and scientists ... I just go over the results. Maybe it would help if you proved your case first, before you try to disprove ours?

 

It is obvious that you have not actually "read" (or maybe simply do not comprehend)the legislation so let me provide a link to what is the actual pending legislation which I assure you is only pending because politicians are doing what they do best....playing politics....during election season.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913

Now when you realize that what some have called "special interests groups" also includes "people of all religious faiths".......

Then you will realize that this bill also helps protect people who wish to do this:

From people who wish to do things like this:

Scene of Christmas Day car-bomb explosion at St. Theresa Catholic Church

 

 

 

 

I'm actually aware of the contents of the legislation and in a truly altruistic world would be fine and unconcerned with it.

You mentioned the "election season" and alluded to the political games that come with it and that's exactly my concern.  The winds change all the time in society and a law that in one age would be perfectly benign suddenly becomes a concern.

A good example is when it was decided in the 90's to go ahead and bend the RICO statutes and Hobbs Act to apply to abortion protesters.

The judicial system stepped in (taking nearly a decade to finalize it) and corrected it but it was that same judicial system that allowed it in the first place.

We're currently shuffling dozens of laws regarding privacy and information for individuals because of concerns over terrorism--and I fully am appreciative of the effort.  At the same time, I am not comfortable with these laws lingering after their purposes are served or becoming too status quo.  It's a dangerous area.  I don't mean this as a Christian I mean this as an American.

People can quickly be whipped into a fervor by politics and change and one day's inconceivable scenario is the next one's breakfast news.

No groups should be subject to violence, no religion, group or movement can claim immunity from prosecution for using it.  but we have laws for people who commit acts of violence.  When we start crafting conceptual laws that try to pre-qualify intents and motives for crimes that haven't yet occurred a lot of care and safeguards should be there.

I'm not a "liberal activist" but water boarding as an example is abhorrent to me.  By  approving it, we've given tacit permission for any other government we've had a conflict with to use it against us in the same manner.  Something like water boarding being proposed before 9-11 would have caused an uproar from every segment of society--now we just shrug.

I don't advocate the release of the really malevolent Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere but I absolutely cringe at the idea of "indefinite detainment".

So I think it's better in all cases to look ahead at these things.

I gave European examples because overall, the "big" European countries have really embraced the idea of a universal human rights along with the concept that they should be less dependent on national entites to police and rather more dependent on international ones. The ADL law actually was applied to two Christian pastors in Australia--not because Australians demanded it but because the international human rights treaties they are signatories to seemed to require it.

As I said earlier, I grew up during the Cold War.  Because I was a Christian I was very aware of some of the imprisonments and tortures used by the state against Christians.  The other group that was just as targeted were the intellectuals--a fair number of whom were atheists or agnostics.

Laws eaily become abused  Philadelphia arrested 11 Christians under their ADL statute back in 2005.  The reason they had the law on the books was to show support for international law regarding human rights.  To keep in stride with that, arresting Christian protesters was necessary.

To much change is happening globally now to simply say, "It will all be fine, the government checks are absolute safeguards".  I think that become less true every day now.

These types of crimes have happened in this country already.  For many decades. It's getting worse.

Actually now that I think of it I think Jesus fell victim to this sort of crime centuries ago.

Not really sure though ..its old news so it might just be some sort of propaganda

Much more than that.

The charges were criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.

The Westboro Baptist Church still very openly,freely and frequently exercises its freedom of speech so I don't know why some are so panicked. Must be all the propaganda they expose themselves to.

Most of the "Christian" groups that propelled efforts in these areas by their behavior quite frankly deserved it--as individual groups.  The concern comes when a group calling itself "Christian" gets legislation targeted at "All Christians" (or whatever group).

Yes--it has been getting worse.  We no longer have leaders in government anymore--just professional political bureaucrats --who legislate for personal/party advantage and we have an increasingly ignorant populace that supports them.

I'm no fan in anyway of the Westboro cult of personality.

Its actually "targeted" to protect all religious institutions. You still haven't read the bill?

 

 

"Theory" and "Practice" are what's at issue here.

Amazing how this:

Ends up at this:

 

How about we don't go back to trolling?

Its not trolling. When someone claims that laws are affecting the education of children. Then incidents that happen at parades, and laws that protect everyone against violence are somehow presented to back that up then there is obviously good reason to pull out the truth-o-meter. You may not like it but if you can't back up what you claim you will be called out for it.

How you respond has a lot to do with it.

I didn't address education as there are plenty of readily identifiable things there. One that comes to mind is a case where an atheist teacher spent some time in class explaining to her grade school students that "Christianity was a myth".  You can find cases where it has gone the other way as well.  School policies that have forbid children from bringing a bible to class, or from using the bible as a book report subject or disallowing moments of silence where prayer might occur are all educational factors by the mere message they send to a young student.

There is precedent with these same laws overseas in multiple nations to cause concern for people practicing religion.  How it relates to here is that when groups of society start publicly spewing hostile rhetoric at other groups of society to discredit and whip up sentiment that will further their agenda it's easy to next push for restrictions on the vilified side.

To wit, you and the conversation in this thread have been a microcosm of this very thing.

Let's take turns--you bring up something to make a simple point and then I'll line by line challenge you on each sentence and item demanding documentation--growing more insulting as I go?

It's juvenile and annoying.

I don't really see how the core of your argument has anything to do with atheism. I mean do you really think people should be able to go up to other people and shriek in their face that they're evil? You don't need a new law to get arrested for that, its called disturbing the peace, and while there is a very fine line surely you don't think that such behavior should be protected. There is a big difference between coordinated antiabortion rallies (should be constitutionally protected) and random radicals pestering people at abortion centers (should not be).

Threatening and  violent people should be locked up.  It's only the extremes on both sides that are a concern here and they should be able to be regulated by already existing laws.