God Is Real

[Mister Agenda]

Proofs are for mathematics and whiskey.

Framing that.

KD - there's also this: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Dire...cast/18776

I enjoyed listening to that podcast, which is all about evolution. If you really are open to learning, give it a whirl.

That part wasn't original to me, btw, but I don't know who said it first.

---

I meant to address this yesterday, but didn't have enough time. On a related not, I hope KdThaKing hasn't run off for good. I think he really hasn't been exposed to many differing ideas from what he was raised on and although debate rarely changes the minds of the debaters, it does tend to help us understand better why we think what we do.

It is difficult to understand things because if we rely on the wisdom we currently have as a whole of humans our progression is very slow and very limited.

I suppose that's why the world has hardly changed at all in the last hundred years.

If i was to be a freethinker about everything then i would say that there is no truth or no lie just the fact that things are here now and thats what i believe.

Why would you say that? Most people who actually are freethinkers don't.

If i were to think like that then recorded history of miracles,signs,even appearances of spirits would all be false and nothing more than the imaginitive devices of delusional people.

What you think has no effect on whether those things are true or false, only on what you think about them. It's impossible to say for sure that those accounts are false. It is possible to say that they are hearsay, there are reasonable alternative natural explanations, and many of them contradict each other, which means they can't all be true. They can, however, all be false. That doesn't mean all such accounts are imaginative devices. It is very easy to misunderstand what we perceive, that fallibility is one reason it is wise to treat accounts of the supernatural with caution and skepticism. It wasn't delusional to think Thor caused the thunder a thousand years ago, people didn't know what caused thunder and explained it in terms to which they could relate. It might be delusional to think so with a modern science education.

I would say that some people are inferior to others and that the inferior ones are suffered with psychological problems and physical problems and i would assume that i was not one of those people yet i was in the highest range of people.

Why would you say that? I don't know of any real freethinkers who do.

The train of thought for freethinking in my opinion leads nowhere but destruction what do you think?

I think you profoundly misunderstand freethought. A good definition of freethought (Merriam-Webster) is that it is the philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason. and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Reading up on freethought may clear up some of your misconceptions about it.

So are you saying that natural selection is an entity within itself which dictates on its own who does what and so on?

Natural selection is what happens when it is impossible for all of an organism's offspring to successfully reproduce. It is not an entity, it is a sorting process, like a sieve through which all surviving life today has successfully passed (so far). There are many reasons why an organism's offspring might fail to reproduce, many of which have nothing to do with the offspring's fitness. A puppy that's 5% smarter than its parents might have been crushed in an earthquake. On average though, dogs (for instance) that are less well adapted to their environment will be less likely to reproduce, and the characteristics that make them less well-adapted will become rarer in the dog population. That's natural selection.