If faith works how every religion says it works......

[RAD]

I wish somebody would show me the verifiable evidence for 11 dimensions and God knows how many parallel universes.

I believe they probably exist, by faith. I must be stupid.

I now define science as fascinating knowledge that nobody can possibly explain or prove, requiring more and more faith, the more it discovers and tries to explain. The more cosmologists learn, the less they seem to understand. They are starting to make mystics who only believed in two universes look sane and rational.

But at least we know how Jesus could be in two places at once.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Has it occurred to you that the "Enlightenment" was led entirely by Bible-savvy Protestant Christians?

Really? What about Hume, Paine, d'Holbach, Spinoza, Jefferson and Smith, to name but a few?

---

I wish somebody would show me the verifiable evidence for 11 dimensions and God knows how many parallel universes.

I believe they probably exist, by faith. I must be stupid.

I now define science as fascinating knowledge that nobody can possibly explain or prove, requiring more and more faith, the more it discovers and tries to explain. The more cosmologists learn, the less they seem to understand. They are starting to make mystics who only believed in two universes look sane and rational.

But at least we know how Jesus could be in two places at once.

There's a reason that mutiple dimensions and parallel universes are not considered scientific fact: there is no evidence for them. They are merely hypotheses which we cannot yet verify or falsify. They are, at least in principle, falsifiable, unlike God. That's why no-one claims to believe in them, though they can be put forward as a possible explanation.

You can define science how you like. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you, though.

[RAD]

Whilst I don't agree that theists are stupid, I think that citing people who were theists is irrelevant, as most people were theists for most of human history. Skepticism about religion has always been most prominent among the most educated and intelligent, though.

That seems rather subjective. Special pleading perhaps? Jefferson, who called Jesus' teachings "the most sublime BTW, seems to disagree.

Perhaps, but I have some objections to this hackneyed argument. 1) This was only because they had modern methods of government, which meant that they were better able to slaughter people than, say, the crusaders.

Um, they also had a leader who was completely paranoid, refused anything resembling fair trials if he had any at all, and who said Darwin "changed everything." Stalin made the Inquistors look fair minded. Would you agree? Also is it possible that people who read the sermon on the Mount, and actually think Jesus will judge them accordingly, (whether it is true or not) might think twice about committing wholesale murder?

2) Assuming that you're talking about the Communist regimes, there's no evidence that they did what they did becaue they were atheists, rather than because they were fanatical Communists.

OK except that atheists like Emma Goldman flocked to watch the working people take over the world, as if they were holier and more just than the rest of us sinners. I guess not.

3) If you're also referring to the Nazis, there's little evidence that Hitler was an atheist (and some evidence diectly to the contrary), and most of his followers certainly weren't. In fact, the Nazis capitalised on Christian anti-semitism that had existed for centuries (i.e. the 'fact' that the Jews were 'Christ killers').

That's a rather hackneyed, rhetorical argument itself, which requires us to discuss whether Flew's NTS fallacy came out of thin air and why it doesn't appear in any classic logic book. That said, Luther's writings were used to justify anti-semitism.

Yet it does matter what Jesus said and whether Christians followed it. Obviously Hitler never read Paul's warnings about persecuting Jews, or what Jesus said about his "brethren". And it is simple-minded IMO to just burn all the Christians at the stake, ignore the amazing social contributions of Protestants who hate to brag, and say it doesn't really matter what Jesus siad or who followed it. If Marx wasn't followed by one claiming to be a Communist, then I would say s/he was no true Communist, or an ignorant one. I don't believe everybody who tells me they are a true patriot. Do you?

---

Really? What about Hume, Paine, d'Holbach, Spinoza, Jefferson and Smith, to name but a few?

Way behind the Christians, eg in Paine's case, about 70 years behind the Quakers and 30 years behind the Methodists on slavery. Four Quaker men came out against slavery in 1680, with a Quaker woman objecting about 1670. And then we have Fox, accused of sounding like a walking NT, arguing for whomen's rights in court. BTW Voltaire was justifying slavery about the time Wesley called it "the scourge of the earth."

As for Jefferson, any idea why he called three Christians "the greatest," leaders "in the moral sciences."?

There's a reason that mutiple dimensions and parallel universes are not considered scientific fact: there is no evidence for them. They are merely hypotheses which we cannot yet verify or falsify. They are, at least in principle, falsifiable, unlike God. That's why no-one claims to believe in them, though they can be put forward as a possible explanation.

Fine. But other theories of the universe, dark matter, particle theory don't work without 11 dimensions, which means you can understand less, not more, than you did before. No?

You can define science how you like. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you, though.

I don't, although I get along well with people who can actually think.

It does amaze me what most atheists will refuse to discuss intelligently though, and how many logical fallacies they themselves commit. Maybe this site is different.

[The Omnissiunt One]

That seems rather subjective. Special pleading perhaps? Jefferson, who called Jesus' teachings "the most sublime BTW, seems to disagree.

What seems subjective? What's special pleading? Undoubtedly, most people were theists in the past. Plus, Jefferson was most likely a deist, not a Christian, though he liked Jesus' teachings.

Um, they also had a leader who was completely paranoid, refused anything resembling fair trials if he had any at all, and who said Darwin "changed everything." Stalin made the Inquistors look fair minded. Would you agree?

Clearly Stalin was a nutter. Whether he was worse than the Inquisitors or not, or worse than the persecution of Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England, or worse than the crusades, or the religiously motivated anti-semites throughout world history is, of course, an open question. My point was that more might have been killed in these circumstances had the religious fanatics had modern technology.

Also is it possible that people who read the sermon on the Mount, and actually think Jesus will judge them accordingly, (whether it is true or not) might think twice about committing wholesale murder?

It's possible, but it hasn't stopped millions of religious people from doing so.

OK except that atheists like Emma Goldman flocked to watch the working people take over the world, as if they were holier and more just than the rest of us sinners. I guess not.

So? She was atheist, but also an anarchist. Stalin was atheist, but also a paranoid nutter. You can't equate atheism with such atrocities unless you demonstrate that such acts are inevitable, or much more likely, given atheism alone, taking other factors like political beliefs into account.

That's a rather hackneyed, rhetorical argument itself, which requires us to discuss whether Flew's NTS fallacy came out of thin air and why it doesn't appear in any classic logic book. That said, Luther's writings were used to justify anti-semitism.

So, are you denying that Christian Nazis were true Christians? Or have I misunderstood you? If that's what you mean, then I can just deny that the Communists were true atheists. In fact, I'd argue that they weren't true secular humanists or rationalists, as they adhered to an irrational pseudo-scientific theory (Marxism) and followed it blindly, without evaluating it rationally.

Yet it does matter what Jesus said and whether Christians followed it. Obviously Hitler never read Paul's warnings about persecuting Jews, or what Jesus said about his "brethren". And it is simple-minded IMO to just burn all the Christians at the stake, ignore the amazing social contributions of Protestants who hate to brag, and say it doesn't really matter what Jesus siad or who followed it. If Marx wasn't followed by one claiming to be a Communist, then I would say s/he was no true Communist, or an ignorant one. I don't believe everybody who tells me they are a true patriot. Do you?

I'm not denying that Christians have done good things. Probably the ones who do outweigh those who don't. It's just that blowing up an abortion clinic is more significant than running a church fete. And clearly the Nazis didn't follow Jesus' teachings. However, some of Jesus' actions were less than wonderful (Matthew 15:26; he refuses to help a non-Jewish woman). Plus, the OT is positively riddled with horrific examples of ethical guidance.

---

Way behind the Christians, eg in Paine's case, about 70 years behind the Quakers and 30 years behind the Methodists on slavery. Four Quaker men came out against slavery in 1680, with a Quaker woman objecting about 1670. And then we have Fox, accused of sounding like a walking NT, arguing for whomen's rights in court. BTW Voltaire was justifying slavery about the time Wesley called it "the scourge of the earth."

I wasn't talking about slavery, but the Enlightenment in general. Prominent figures in the Enlightenment were largely skeptics, either deists, agnostics, or sometimes atheists. If we're talking about things like women's rights, then we must consider the contributions of people like the utilitarian John Stuart-Mill. Of course, religious people did argue for women's and slaves' rights before non-believers, but that was likely given that were no, or hardly any, non-believers around for most of history. Until recently, religion's hold has been only negative in terms of liberties, which is understandable given Biblical teachings on such matters. Exodus 21:21 allows the beating of slaves, while Paul says that women must be silent in church. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing on such matters, when surely a little guidance would have helped.

As for Jefferson, any idea why he called three Christians "the greatest," leaders "in the moral sciences."?

Nope. Who cares? Jefferson doesn't speak for me.

Fine. But other theories of the universe, dark matter, particle theory don't work without 11 dimensions, which means you can understand less, not more, than you did before. No?

I'm not a scientist, but, as I understand it, dark matter isn't really an explanation, just a name for whatever makes up most of the universe. If by 'particle theory' you mean string theory, then this is far from universally accepted.

[RAD]

Omnussint one:

What seems subjective? What's special pleading? Undoubtedly, most people were theists in the past. Plus, Jefferson was most likely a deist, not a Christian, though he liked Jesus' teachings.

Jefferson was neither a Christian or a deist. He was his own man, although he wanted a library worse than he did freed slaves. And he more than liked Jesus' teachings I'm afraid. of Jesus he said, "he pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man" in ways no other philosophy could do.

When you arbtrarily claim non-Christians are smarter, it's special pleading or a similar fallacy

Clearly Stalin was a nutter. Whether he was worse than the Inquisitors or not, or worse than the persecution of Catholics and Protestants in Tudor England, or worse than the crusades, or the religiously motivated anti-semites throughout world history is, of course, an open question. My point was that more might have been killed in these circumstances had the religious fanatics had modern technology.

In the quantity of trial-free murders and intentional overwork and starvation, he was far worse, not to mention Mao. I'm afraid atheists have a history that appears to include a consistent end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Just a coincidence? Really? I really don't think "modern killing methods" explains the problem. Mao's troops used some pretty crude methods to kill millions, and it doesn't take much to intentionally cut off the food supply to a whole region either.

So? She was atheist, but also an anarchist. Stalin was atheist, but also a paranoid nutter. You can't equate atheism with such atrocities unless you demonstrate that such acts are inevitable, or much more likely, given atheism alone, taking other factors like political beliefs into account.

Well thankfully "Christian Civilization" and folks like Solenzenitzen brought an end to the madness.

So, are you denying that Christian Nazis were true Christians? Or have I misunderstood you? If that's what you mean, then I can just deny that the Communists were true atheists.

You could, if atheists had a leader with specific moral standards we could compare their behavior with. You don't, so you have a false analogy or premise. That's why i said if a Communist isn't doing what Marx said, then I agree that person is no a Communist. BTW Flew made up NTS out of thin air, so people could arbitrarily assert Hitler was a Chrisitian.

I'm not denying that Christians have done good things. Probably the ones who do outweigh those who don't. It's just that blowing up an abortion clinic is more significant than running a church fete.

40 million innocent dead vs a couple abortion doctors? That's not a very convincing argument to get rid of Jesus hoping the world will become more civilized. That would be a rather vain hope, no?

And clearly the Nazis didn't follow Jesus' teachings. However, some of Jesus' actions were less than wonderful (Matthew 15:26; he refuses to help a non-Jewish woman). Plus, the OT is positively riddled with horrific examples of ethical guidance.

Well I don't claim to explain the apparent contradictions in the old and new Testaments. I don't think any Christian can do that. i also have serious doubts about the flood and any assertion that Genesis disproves evolution. Adams said the Jews civilized the ancient world, for intelligent reasons.

I wasn't talking about slavery, but the Enlightenment in general. Prominent figures in the Enlightenment were largely skeptics, either deists, agnostics, or sometimes atheists.

Very few, and generally way behind the Christians.

If we're talking about things like women's rights, then we must consider the contributions of people like the utilitarian John Stuart-Mill.

And he argued for what that Fox, who spent more time in jail,had not already?

Of course, religious people did argue for women's and slaves' rights before non-believers, but that was likely given that were no, or hardly any, non-believers around for most of history.

So then if it was Christians, that's only because virtually everybody was a Christian. No, my argumet is that it only matters who did it first. The rest can be called copycats, regardless of who did it. Right? Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4? Also I don't see where you answered the question about who Jefferson called the most enlightened of all? Th enumber of coincidences you have faith in keep piling up here, don't you think?

Until recently, religion's hold has been only negative in terms of liberties, which is understandable given Biblical teachings on such matters. Exodus 21:21 allows the beating of slaves, while Paul says that women must be silent in church. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing on such matters, when surely a little guidance would have helped.

Which means you haven't read Luke 4. He's all about liberty and ending oppression, and that is his mission statement, no less. No if you want to argue he didn't give a hoot for political solutions, you can. His approach was that the carnal followed the spiritual change, and so it has. There is a fine book out on how George Whitefield and the Great Awakening produced the Democratic spirit because the lowly were given a voice for the first time in forever.

Nope. Who cares? Jefferson doesn't speak for me.

Fine, but you asked what about Jefferson, et al.

I'm not a scientist, but, as I understand it, dark matter isn't really an explanation, just a name for whatever makes up most of the universe. If by 'particle theory' you mean string theory, then this is far from universally accepted.

I am merely saying that without these "theories" like string theory and parallel universes, you can't really explain anything, and you can't make any scientific sense out of all the phemomena you do observe. Is that a fair statement?

---

The Nazi's were Pagans, clearly

---

BTW for those of you who want to get rid of religion by non-violent means, know that I will be of considerable help.

---

[The Omnissiunt One]

When you arbtrarily claim non-Christians are smarter, it's special pleading or a similar fallacy

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]

The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[6]Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.” This portion of the study uses the same data set as Lynn's work IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

I'm afraid atheists have a history that appears to include a consistent end-justifies-the-means philosophy.

The end does justify the means. No other ethical system makes sense. That's not to say that Stalin and Mao were justified in doing what they did, though. You have yet to show that they did what they did purely because they were atheists.

You could, if atheists had a leader with specific moral standards we could compare their behavior with. You don't, so you have a false analogy or premise.

I repeat: 'I'd argue that they weren't true secular humanists or rationalists, as they adhered to an irrational pseudo-scientific theory (Marxism) and followed it blindly, without evaluating it rationally.' So, they weren't true atheists in the sense of being humanists or rationalists. They did, of course, lack belief in a god, which made them atheists in the strictest sense, but Buddhists are atheist in this sense.

40 million innocent dead vs a couple abortion doctors? That's not a very convincing argument to get rid of Jesus hoping the world will become more civilized. That would be a rather vain hope, no?

I was never comparing the religious death toll to the atheist one. Now that you mention it, though, we have to factor in the deaths from the crusades, from every religious conflict, inquisition, witch burning, etc. throughout history. This would certainly change the scores dramatically.

Well I don't claim to explain the apparent contradictions in the old and new Testaments. I don't think any Christian can do that. i also have serious doubts about the flood and any assertion that Genesis disproves evolution. Adams said the Jews civilized the ancient world, for intelligent reasons.

It's not just contradictions. All of the Bible, even the NT, is morally dubious at best, morally reprehensible at worst. If we followed it literally, the world be a much worse place.

Very few, and generally way behind the Christians.

The most prominent ones were, as I've said.

And he argued for what that Fox, who spent more time in jail,had not already?

That Fox did so before Mill is irrelevant. Mill still did so, thus women's rights are not an exclusively religious idea (in fact, they have little scriptural basis). You can't deny, either, that women's rights, civil rights for other races, gay rights and animal rights are, by and large, products of a more secular post-Enlightenment world. Certainly that is the case here in Britain.

So then if it was Christians, that's only because virtually everybody was a Christian. No, my argumet is that it only matters who did it first. The rest can be called copycats, regardless of who did it. Right?

No, because Mill was influenced by utilitarian philosophy, not the Bible.

Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4?

Certainly, but it appears that rather fewer than you might think have done so.

Also I don't see where you answered the question about who Jefferson called the most enlightened of all? Th enumber of coincidences you have faith in keep piling up here, don't you think?

Jefferson admired Jesus greatly. Of this I have no doubt. But so what?

Which means you haven't read Luke 4. He's all about liberty and ending oppression, and that is his mission statement, no less. No if you want to argue he didn't give a hoot for political solutions, you can. His approach was that the carnal followed the spiritual change, and so it has. There is a fine book out on how George Whitefield and the Great Awakening produced the Democratic spirit because the lowly were given a voice for the first time in forever.

You put great emphasis on the good bits of the Bible, and ignore the negative bits. The Golden Rule existed years before Jesus was around. Confucius came up with it. So, by your logic, Jesus was a copycat.

I am merely saying that without these "theories" like string theory and parallel universes, you can't really explain anything, and you can't make any scientific sense out of all the phemomena you do observe. Is that a fair statement?

String theory is a theory of everything, to reconcile quantum and classical physics. Its failure doesn't render all science useless.

The Nazi's were Pagans, clearly

Leading Nazis endorsed paganism, but most weren't pagans, as members of the public made up most of the party's leadership.

BTW for those of you who want to get rid of religion by non-violent means, know that I will be of considerable help.

I don't want to get rid of religion. I merely wish to see it reduced to the equivalent of a knitting club: a social activity which gives comfort, but makes no moral and metaphysical claims that others are supposed to follow or believe in.

[Minimalist]

Rad, you believe in an invisible sky daddy. How high do you think that puts you on the scale?

[RAD]

[quote='Wikipedia']In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]

That's better. Not something Jesus was looking for in a follower, of course. One does not have to be intelligent to love wisdom, or even to gain it, as I'm sure you agree.

The end does justify the means. No other ethical system makes sense. That's not to say that Stalin and Mao were justified in doing what they did, though.

So the end is justified but it isn't if you don't think so? Perhaps you can explain in a more objective manner.

I repeat: 'I'd argue that they weren't true secular humanists or rationalists, as they adhered to an irrational pseudo-scientific theory (Marxism) and followed it blindly, without evaluating it rationally.' So, they weren't true atheists in the sense of being humanists or rationalists. They did, of course, lack belief in a god, which made them atheists in the strictest sense, but Buddhists are atheist in this sense.

OK then they weren't true atheists, as long as you can define "rational" I still win the argument, which was originally that Flew's "fallacy" came out of thin air. NTS is bogus. And of course many of them were quite rational and got sucked in anyway.

Also, as you know atheists don't have any discernable standard of "rational" One says Jesus was a historical figure and fairly wise, and another says he's all made up.

I was never comparing the religious death toll to the atheist one. Now that you mention it, though, we have to factor in the deaths from the crusades, from every religious conflict, inquisition, witch burning, etc. throughout history. This would certainly change the scores dramatically.

Well then you are completely ignoring my argument that medieval Christtans didn't know anything Jesus said, (eg how to handle heretics), and almost everything he said was contramanded by their activitiies. Why would you blame Jesus for anything his most ignorant followers did? That's neither fair nor rational. And you haven't explained why this activity mysteriously stops after Chrsitians get to read the New Testament for themselves. So if we are talking Communists who read Marx vs Chrsitians who read Jesus, what is the ratio then? 10,000 to one?

It's not just contradictions. All of the Bible, even the NT, is morally dubious at best, morally reprehensible at worst. If we followed it literally, the world be a much worse place.

I said you don't know that because, as Chesterton said, nobody has actually tried it if you use the Sermon on the Mount as the Standard. But why don't you give me a specific problem which the Sermon a Sermon on the Mount axiom would create. Maybe we can make progress on that point. You can also perhaps tell me which of the sins Paul listed, other than homosexuality, which claims no innocent victims.

That Fox did so before Mill is irrelevant. Mill still did so, thus women's rights are not an exclusively religious idea (in fact, they have little scriptural basis). You can't deny, either, that women's rights, civil rights for other races, gay rights and animal rights are, by and large, products of a more secular post-Enlightenment world. Certainly that is the case here in Britain.

Right to an extent, but most atheists both believe and peddle complete historical nonsense about who led the enlightenment. They deserve an earful of the truth they claim to care about more than I. And really, it does matter who went first. That's what "led" means. And actually during the enlightenment period, some of the gaps were huge. Do you think one atheist here has ever even heard that Voltaire was justifying slavery at the same time that Wesley and thousands of Methodists and Quakers were demanding an end to it? In that case, one of you poster-boys was way behind, no?

No, because Mill was influenced by utilitarian philosophy, not the Bible.

As if he never heard of Methodist or Quaker objections. You see if your poster boys had beat the Chrsitians, I would give them credit for it. BTW I began studying this stuff to see what the Chrsitians did do, because my secular profs never mentioned anything. Why is that do you think? Aren't they the keepers of the truth? They also forgot to tell me things like how Paine and his "Age of Reason" were dissed by 3 major founders.

Is it possible some Christians reading the New Testament for the first time decided to actually follow Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4?

Certainly, but it appears that rather fewer than you might think have done so.

Well enough to lead the way in the "moral sciences" as Jefferson himself put it.

Jefferson admired Jesus greatly. Of this I have no doubt. But so what?

I was referring to Newton, Bacon and Locke, his "three greatest men in the world" as I said in the beginning. Perhaps you missed it, or I said it in a post you didn't see.

You put great emphasis on the good bits of the Bible, and ignore the negative bits. The Golden Rule existed years before Jesus was around. Confucius came up with it. So, by your logic, Jesus was a copycat.

Well actually he raised the bar much higher, saying for example to keep your giving completely secret, and that calling your brother a fool is roughly equal to murder, probably because you can murder a persons spirit, etc etc. Which has nothing to do with the golden rule.

String theory is a theory of everything, to reconcile quantum and classical physics. Its failure doesn't render all science useless.

I didn't say it was useless. I said that without these working theories, you understand less about the cosmos than we thought we did, and it makes less and less sense.

I don't want to get rid of religion. I merely wish to see it reduced to the equivalent of a knitting club: a social activity which gives comfort, but makes no moral and metaphysical claims that others are supposed to follow or believe in.

That's fine, as long as we can still have massive revivals like the one which moved Franklin to say "it was wonderful to see," and which engendered a Democratic spirit in so many people. And like the one that began on Azusa Street of which Bartleman said, "the blood washed away the color line." Sorry, nobody was knitting in church during those.

---

Rad, you believe in an invisible sky daddy. How high do you think that puts you on the scale?

Well no, we believe in a God who came down here in human form, quite visibly. I'm a Christian, not a Muslim.

On what mental scale are those who believe in an invisible force causing enormous leaps in evolutionary species creation because they can't otherwise explain gaps.

And then what was the average IQ of those who thought Piltdownman and Nebraska Man were transitionals?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Then how can anyone not in the same religion as others, deny an existance of any other God or Gods from other religions? I'm not saying that any of them are real, but religious people claim that faith (or a form of faith) is truly what tells them that there is a sort of a God or Gods regardless of evidence. It's probably the matter of simply choosing which one to follow, but then how would you know that you've got the right choice? I don't think it'll matter because they all probably have the same reasons.

Because you're on team god and everyone else is on team devil or team evil. I can't imagine the answer is any less complicated than that.
Others tends to rationalize by saying that all paths lead to the same source (except for those religions. You know the ones.)

[ABierman1986]

I think one of the most remarkable things about religion, and Christianity in particular, is how much it has changed over the years. Looking at all of your research it is obvious that there are mountains of "evidence" or philosophies for numerous different religious sects. Even within Christianity blood has been shed for dogmatic differences. Saying that medieval Christians didn't know the word of Jesus or how to handle heretics seems awkward when trying to reconcile with the purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth and the bible being written. Also curious is the constant back and forth between natural discovery and the church's position, with the church mostly rejecting initial claims, only to backtrack them as a gift from God later when their benefits have been proven. Why does God's position flip-flop so much and why are his right hand men so reluctant to accept the way the world works, if God created this universe wouldn't his primary vassals be more open to the truth than not?

I make this point because there has been much back and forth on this topic and it has been very intelligent and quite obviously well thought out. It was very interesting to read. However one can make the argument that the amount of change and information available to point to religious progress invalidates your argument of the bible's worth as any kind of divine guide. And the church knew very well how to deal with heretics, and were quite capable of knowledge of Jesus' word; I highly recommend you read the Malleus Maleficarum to see what happened to people who questioned the church's authority.

The only way to know you've made the right choice is to put your answer through the toughest tests of logic and evidence you can find, if your answer stands up then you can reasonably assume you're at least on the right track, and then you keep testing it, forever and ever without a bias as to keeping it or leaving it if it turns out wrong.