I have often felt that it is a very good thing that most people are moral than their religions and that people are mostly people first.
Otherwise, how could good people stand to have any sort of fundamentalist or puritan around.
I suspect it has to do with the desert origins of those religions and difficulty of survival. The result is that women are regarded as valuable livestock, and men are worried that nudity might lead to rustling.
Other societies carry on just fine with lots of nudity.
12jTartar, I hope that you are aware that creationism is promoted by organizations of professional liars who make a living by fooling gullible religious people.
You seem to have fallen for their scam, hook, line and sinker.
Just a word to the wise.
I stumbled across a web site called ummah.com today. My word! What a stewpot of bigotry and superstition! I earnestly hope that what one reads there is not typical of muslim thinking. Perhaps folk here would be so kind as to let me know.
Anyway, something that particularly shocked me was...
So, why do those who carry out these atrocities claim to be good muslims, mostly very enthusiastically?
The proof is in the pudding. Where one finds a muslim society, one also finds atrocities such as these.
Let's see: I have a book called "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". It's a very big book with thin pages. Everything in it has been carefully checked. That's more authentic than the scribblings of desert primitives.
aside: since the book is published by the Chemical Rubber Company...
Consider your example of a cosmological argument. What you describe is reasonable. However, you left out the fraudulent next step in the argument: "therefore god". That is the sort of cheap trick I am objecting to.
I suppose that coming to religion can feel like using logic and evidence. Religion is an age-old con game that has been carefully nurtured over millennia to have just that effect.
Unfortunately, the logic offered is fraudulent in sometimes subtle ways (eg Aquinas' arguments) and the so-called...
You seem to be ignorant of one of the central notions of evolution, variation.
If a necessary variation happens to occur after a change in the environment, those individuals with that variation continue their lineage.
If no such variation happens to occur, the species goes extinct, as so very...
You have the wrong end of the stick. Living things are as they are because those forces are as they are.
Speaking of natural forces cooperating is just silly anthropomorphizing.
Balderdash. There certainly is agreement among these methods. You have failed to address that agreement.
Simply repeating your superstition-based idea is not debating. You must show how your idea explains what is observed. Otherwise, your idea can be justly dismissed as religious mania.
Dodged again, I see. You have failed to address the consilience among the phenomena.
Mind you, I have never seen a creationist fail to dodge that.
I suppose the mountebanks at the YEC mills haven't thought up a suitable fantasy yet.
You are claiming that disparate processes, such as sedimentation in lakes, formation of tree rings, deposition of layers in cave formations, layer formation in glaciers, growth of corals, shifts in the earth's magnetic field and radioactivity, were all different in the past exactly so as to...
Dodge, dodge, dodge. Hey, it must be a creationist!
Our observations of objects laid down in the remote past conform to what must be expected based on current knowledge. Many independent dating systems give good agreement. I cannot see a better way of showing that things worked in the past as...
So all these independent phenomena changed in just the right way to look like they hadn't?
Har-har. Pull the other one, it has bells on it! The desperation of creationists has become riotously funny.