digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at livescience.com —

Monsters, Ghosts and Gods: Why We Believe in Them

livescience.com — Monsters are everywhere these days, and belief in them is as strong as ever. What's harder to believe is why so many people buy into hazy evidence, shady schemes and downright false reports that perpetuate myths that often have just one ultimate truth: They put money on the pockets of their purveyors. People want to believe.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bbresee, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming...
  • SkinnerBox, on 08/18/2008, -1/+14Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. - Bertrand Russell
    • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -12/+1So, we're supposed to BELIEVE Bertrand Russell and have faith in HIS philosophical views?

      Russell's statement debunks his own ideas.

      That's one of the problems with atheism. If you don't believe in God, then you'll believe just about anything else...including the notion that you're smart enough to declare what is reality for everyone else.
      • TheCatsPants, on 08/19/2008, -3/+13"If you don't believe in God, then you'll believe just about anything else"
        Absolute nonsense. If you believe that there is some supernatural being out there that can't be tested for in any way, then you can believe in all the other things that have no proof either. The loch ness monster, chupacabra, bigfoot, ghosts, demons, devils, telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, omens, visions, tarot, faith-healing, chatting to the dead etc. Similarly, woo like crystal healing, feng shui and homeopathy and all their ilk. Once you let go of all this mythology and embrace critical thinking the world makes a lot more sense - *none* of it is actually real (unless there is proof).
      • dx74a19, on 08/19/2008, -2/+12No, for christ's sake, don't believe Russel, that's the whole point. Don't believe anyone, but check by yourself.

        "If you don't believe in God, then you'll believe just about anything else"... Now, that's just pulled out of the ass. No correlation, at best. Let's declare the best idea what is or isn't reality and then we'll see which point is defensible.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -2/+12If you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you'll believe in just about anything else... like those silly Christianity myths.
      • Equinox2012, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12Even in the Dover Trial, Micheal Behe (of the Discovery Institute and leading proponent for Inteligent Design), under cross examination agreed that ESP and other supernatural phenomenon could, by his definition be considered "science".

        So watch it Spaza... your own people are against you.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -9/+1@TheCatsPants

        "If you believe that there is some supernatural being out there that can't be tested for in any way, then you can believe in all the other things that have no proof either."

        No, you can test for these other beings. You just have to be open to use methods that may not jive with any scientific methodology.

        Don't be so quick to throw on scientific blinders.

        "Once you let go of all this mythology and embrace critical thinking the world makes a lot more sense - *none* of it is actually real (unless there is proof)."

        Dude, why do you think that I'm a Christian? It's because of the evidence. Screw what other people say. I've tested it for myself.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -9/+1@dx74a19

        "Don't believe anyone, but check by yourself."

        I have. THAT's the whole point.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -0/+9"Dude, why do you think that I'm a Christian? It's because of the evidence. Screw what other people say. I've tested it for myself."

        Have you tested for other beings or did you just stop at the one that jived with your current culture? Did you test for Allah? for Vishnu? for Buddha? for Mithra? for Odin? for Athena? for Amen-Ra? for the Earth-Mother? for the FSM? for Russel's Teapot? for the invisible technicolor pachyderm in William Shatner's sock drawer? for Kahless the Unforgettable? for the Fonz?

        Without standards of rigor, without being thorough, how can you be sure of your results? Did you do a statistical sampling? Did you convert to other religions whole-heartedly and test them using their prescribed methodologies?
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -8/+1@ApokalypseNow

        "Have you tested for other beings or did you just stop at the one that jived with your current culture?"

        Yes, I tested for other deities.

        "Did you test for Allah?"

        Yes. The possibility that Islam is legitimate came in second next to Christianity.

        "for Vishnu?"

        Yes.

        "for Buddha?"

        Buddhism is inherently atheistic. It is more of a philosophy of life, irrespective that some Buddhists worship the original Buddha as a god.

        "for Mithra?"

        There are no tests for Mithra as there is very little written about this deity.

        "for Odin? for Athena? for Amen-Ra?"

        All of these can be dismissed rather quickly after simply getting acquainted with the source religious texts due to inconsistencies, lack of cohesiveness, and historical issues that would not have occurred had they been accurate.

        "for the Earth-Mother?"

        It's adherents tend to get stoned too much and are unreliable for any interviews.

        "for the FSM?"

        Created by atheists as a joke.

        "for Russel's Teapot? for the invisible technicolor pachyderm in William Shatner's sock drawer? for Kahless the Unforgettable?"

        Now, you're being silly.

        "for the Fonz?"

        Television character, nothing more.

        "Without standards of rigor, without being thorough, how can you be sure of your results?"

        I cannot. But, there are tests. In fact, the Bible gives the reader tests that they can do to see for themselves.

        "Did you do a statistical sampling?"

        No. Nothing formal.

        "Did you convert to other religions whole-heartedly and test them using their prescribed methodologies?"

        Whole-heartedly? No. But, somewhat and to some extent, just enough to delve into them for some serious evaluation.

        All but Christianity were found lacking.

        ...how about you? Have you ever tried Christianity...I mean, whole-heartedly tried it? Have you ever taken the Bible verses that ask the reader to test things? What happened when you did?
      • dx74a19, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5Me: "Don't believe anyone, but check by yourself." Jimmy: "I have. THAT's the whole point."

        Then go check with your doctor too.
      • TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5"No, you can test for these other beings. You just have to be open to use methods that may not jive with any scientific methodology."
        "embrace critical thinking"
        I can't do both. I either use the scientific method or I don't.

        In 'testing' all these faiths you were looking for something to believe yes? I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with are your claims about science, which are just wrong.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2@JimmySpaza
        "All of these can be dismissed rather quickly after simply getting acquainted with the source religious texts due to inconsistencies, lack of cohesiveness, and historical issues that would not have occurred had they been accurate."
        ...just like with your bible?
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -14/+1I believe in God because I have tested the prophecies of the Bible and found them to be true.

    I believe in God because I have experienced supernatural events and encountered supernatural entities in my travels.

    I believe in God because science has shown that there is no possibility that natural processes could have generated this universe and life on this planet.

    I believe in God because the atheistic worldview is inherently contradictory and logically inconsistent, and thus cannot possibly be accurate.
    • BlackBob, on 08/19/2008, -1/+17"I believe in God because science has shown that there is no possibility that natural process could have generated this universe and life on this planet."

      *****. Is your position so weak that you have to lie to support it? Don't you think that lying is immoral? I don't look to the bible to tell me what is right and wrong, and even I know that lying is wrong.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -10/+1"Is your position so weak that you have to lie to support it?"

        Never once have you provided any evidence to back up your claims. Who's the liar now? (Hint - it's you honey).

        "Don't you think that lying is immoral?"

        Yes, that's why I don't do it. But, I don't need to FEEL that way to know it is wrong...like you.

        "I don't look to the bible to tell me what is right and wrong, and even I know that lying is wrong."

        Then why do you lie about other people? Please stop. It's not helpful.
      • BlackBob, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11"Never once have you provided any evidence to back up your claims. Who's the liar now? (Hint - it's you honey)."

        What claims are you referring to?

        "Yes, that's why I don't do it. But, I don't need to FEEL that way to know it is wrong...like you."

        Yes, you do lie. In your post above, you state that "science has shown that there is no possibility that natural process could have generated this universe and life on this planet."

        This is a lie. You know it is a lie, yet you keep repeating it.

        "Then why do you lie about other people? Please stop. It's not helpful."

        Wrong again. I speak only the truth.
      • Evilena, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9"Never once have you provided any evidence to back up your claims."
        You have been provided this evidence countless times on Digg alone. You choose to ignore it because you made up your mind before being presented with the evidence.

        "I believe in God because I have tested the prophecies of the Bible and found them to be true."
        How did you do this?


      • JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -8/+1@BlackBob

        "What claims are you referring to?"

        That I have lied.

        "Yes, you do lie. In your post above, you state that "science has shown that there is no possibility that natural process could have generated this universe and life on this planet."

        This is a lie. You know it is a lie, yet you keep repeating it."

        No, it is the truth. In the many debates on Digg, I have posted over and over, for example, the mathematics involved in the creation of the first DNA molecule randomly via natural processes. The odds on getting the stereochemistry just right itself is about 1 in 10^9000 if done randomly.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -8/+1@Evilena

        ""I believe in God because I have tested the prophecies of the Bible and found them to be true."
        How did you do this?"

        1) Learned Hebrew and Koine Greek.
        2) Studied the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments available.
        3) Retranslated various Old Testament (Hebrew & Aramaic) and New Testament (Koine Greek) passages dealing with prophecies...just to be sure that modern translations were accurate.
        4) Tried to see if such prophecies could have been faked or historically revised after the fact.

        One of the most powerful prophecies involved the reformation of Israel as a nation as foretold in the Old Testament. What a coincidence that it happened in 1948, a date well within the timeline as mathematically specified in the Old Testament.

        http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled ...

        * Look, you may not agree with any of this. But, do you honestly think that every Christian is clueless, illogical, and uncritical about his/her faith?

        Stuff like these prophecies are why I am indeed a Christian. It has little, if anything, to do with upbringing.
      • EddyFictitious, on 08/20/2008, -0/+4@JimmySpazza: Alevai eize kelev ya'anos et ima shelha ve otha gam
      • BlackBob, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9@JimmySpaza

        "No, it is the truth. In the many debates on Digg, I have posted over and over, for example, the mathematics involved in the creation of the first DNA molecule randomly via natural processes. The odds on getting the stereochemistry just right itself is about 1 in 10^9000 if done randomly."

        I have seen your argument and "calculations" many times. Here is an argument that I just made up that makes the same sense as yours:

        What are the odds that all of the particles that make up the planet Earth randomly bound together into a spherical shape? Much less than your DNA molecule odds, I would guess. But look, here we are!! Not only that, but the sun and moon are spherically shaped too. What are the chances? How do you explain the billions of spherical shaped objects floating around in the universe? There is no way the universe has been around long enough for this to all have happened randomly. God must have done it!!!
      • TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7"No, it is the truth. In the many debates on Digg, I have posted over and over, for example, the mathematics involved in the creation of the first DNA molecule randomly via natural processes. The odds on getting the stereochemistry just right itself is about 1 in 10^9000 if done randomly."
        And several people have posted refutations of your naive 'understanding' of physics and chemistry. But you ignore it and keep repeating yourself hoping that it suddenly becomes true.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -1/+15"I believe in God because the atheistic worldview is inherently contradictory and logically inconsistent, and thus cannot possibly be accurate."

      Talk of logical inconsistencies from someone who believes in magic and talking snakes... dammit he broke my hypocrisy meter.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -11/+1"Talk of logical inconsistencies from someone who believes in magic and talking snakes... dammit he broke my hypocrisy meter."

        Magic and talking snakes? What are you babbling about now? Methinks that you need some serious counseling.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -1/+13It's all in your bible dude - talking snakes, rib-women, and all the other magic from Genesis 1-2 alone. Do you need to re-read your source material?
      • StaticThunder, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11Don't forget zombie telepathic saviors, and Jews being allowed to bury crucified criminals in tombs instead of leaving them for the crows.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9@StaticThunder
        I'm guessing that a crucifix wouldn't be sufficient for that zombie... time to fall back to old reliable lead.
      • Mnementh2230, on 08/19/2008, -0/+9Just don't forget to destroy the brain - it's the only way to REALLY stop the zombies. And don't get any of its bodily fluids (Jeesus Juice?) on you, or you might catch the virus...
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -8/+1You critics of Christianity miss an awful lot, don't you?

        From YOUR standpoint, you refer to Jesus as a zombie, perhaps half-jokingly.

        But, if you has actually read the Biblical passages for yourself, you would have seen that Jesus was RESURRECTED, not just a reanimated corpse. Resurrection means a complete restoration of soul and body, usually resulting in an improved condition. It wasn't like God simply pumped some Monster or Amp energy drinks into the corpse and what was left of Jesus started moving around on its own.
      • EddyFictitious, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6http://people.freebsd.org/~wpaul/ZOMBIE_JESUS.JPG
      • StaticThunder, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9You can make up whatever stories you want Jimmy, you weren't there and you don't know anyone who was.
    • TheCatsPants, on 08/19/2008, -1/+14"I believe in God because I have experienced supernatural events and encountered supernatural entities in my travels."
      Do tell. What were they?

      "I believe in God because science has shown that there is no possibility that natural processes could have generated this universe and life on this planet."
      Just because *you* can't understand the science doesn't mean it's impossible.

      "I believe in God because the atheistic worldview is inherently contradictory and logically inconsistent, and thus cannot possibly be accurate"
      I'd really love it if you could explain that to me. The atheist worldview always tries to be rational, consistent and objective.
      Many christian teachings are inherently contradictory - and anything that is contradictory is treasured as a 'mystery'. eg. communion host (transubstantiation), the trinity, Jesus being fully god *and* fully human. 'God loves us but will punish us horribly for eternity'. It's like imagining the 'sound of one hand clapping' - a zen koan designed to empty the mind.
      • sphira, on 08/19/2008, -5/+3"The atheist world view always tries to be rational, consistent and objective.
        Many Christian teachings are inherently contradictory"

        This 20 min video might interest you

        http://digg.com/general_sciences/THE_SECRET_BEYOND ...
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -12/+1"Do tell. What were they?"

        Encounters with angels. Encounters with human beings demonically possessed.

        Look, if you don't first allow the possibility that God could exist, then you're not going to be able to handle the most advanced stuff.

        "Just because *you* can't understand the science doesn't mean it's impossible."

        It's not lack of understanding. It's that science itself has uncovered the odds involved, the complexity of the smallest lifeform, and the enormity of the cosmos. And science can run the numbers to see what it would take. Science did. It's not naturally possible.

        Do you KNOW what it takes for the smallest lifeform to exist much less reproduce?

        "I'd really love it if you could explain that to me. The atheist worldview always tries to be rational, consistent and objective."

        Yes, but it makes far too many assumptions and logical failures along the way.

        For example, atheism says that there is no God anywhere. For that to be said accurately, the one saying it must have God-like intelligence and power to know everything about the universe with nothing hidden. But, such God-like power is what the atheist is arguing against. Inherent contradiction from the moment the atheist opens his/her mouth.

        "Many christian teachings are inherently contradictory - and anything that is contradictory is treasured as a 'mystery'. eg. communion host (transubstantiation),"

        Now, it is apparent that your knowledge of Christianity is quite limited. That whole transubstantiation thing is a Roman Catholic and perhaps Orthodox belief. Most Christians are not Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

        "the trinity,"

        Easy. God is supernatural and exists outside of time and space. Thus, He can be two or three (or a million) different beings at the same time if He wanted to.

        Look, haven't you ever heard of scientists declaring that the Big Bang theory stipulates that the normal laws of physics and chemistry cannot be applied to the first few seconds of the Big Bang explosion? Why is it OK to have secular, logical inconsistencies and contradictions with this theory and quantum mechanics, for example, but nothing theological?

        "Jesus being fully god *and* fully human."

        Much the same way that you or any man might be fully a husband AND a father at the same time. But, the man is only human and is limited. God isn't.

        "'God loves us but will punish us horribly for eternity'."

        Who said that? Why couldn't it be that anyone's soul not made right with God before he/she dies simply doesn't go to Heaven and is on it's own?

        "It's like imagining the 'sound of one hand clapping' - a zen koan designed to empty the mind. "

        Strange that you dismiss the theology of Christianty but apply the metaphysics and supernaturality of a sect of Buddhism.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12@sphira

        Brain in a jar hypotheses are not useful for making predictions. It doesn't matter if we are a brain in a jar, it just means you can't draw conclusions about things you have no knowledge of which is PRECISELY what religions are trying to do.

        Faith is the worst possible way of getting at the truth.

        Furthermore, supernatural experiences would mean we AREN'T brains in a jar, and we do have access to some external reality. Unfortunately, supernatural experiences are not real. We have yet to verify a single supernatural event with any amount of rigor.
      • TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6"Look, if you don't first allow the possibility that God could exist, then you're not going to be able to handle the most advanced stuff."
        I could handle the possibility just fine. In fact I think it is possible, but not very likely at all.

        "For example, atheism says that there is no God anywhere. For that to be said accurately, the one saying it must have God-like intelligence and power to know everything about the universe with nothing hidden. But, such God-like power is what the atheist is arguing against. Inherent contradiction from the moment the atheist opens his/her mouth."
        Not many atheists are like that, most say there is no evidence of God, but (like me) would be quite happy to change their mind if they were shown some decent proof. It's not that atheists claim 'absolute' knowledge, they say it's not possible to prove the non-existance of *anything*, therefore the onus is on those making these claims to prove the the existance of an omnipetant supernatural 'creator' being.

        "It's not lack of understanding. It's that science itself has uncovered the odds involved, the complexity of the smallest lifeform, and the enormity of the cosmos. And science can run the numbers to see what it would take. Science did. It's not naturally possible."
        That's a lie.

        "Look, haven't you ever heard of scientists declaring that the Big Bang theory stipulates that the normal laws of physics and chemistry cannot be applied to the first few seconds of the Big Bang explosion?"
        No. They say that their current equations break down under those extreme conditions because we have incomplete knowledge about the nature of spacetime and quantum mechanics that the equations try to model. There is no contradiction, it's just a gap in our understanding.

        "Strange that you dismiss the theology of Christianty but apply the metaphysics and supernaturality of a sect of Buddhism."
        I wasn't saying anything other than it empties the mind. It has nothing to do with the supernatural.

      • somnambulator, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7Spaza
        "Easy. God is supernatural and exists outside of time and space."
        There's your problem.
        In that one one 'easy' statement you nullified and reduced your claims to the babblings of a madman.

        That is the most fantastic and ludicrous concept any theist has ever come up with.
        How do you know that?
        How could you possibly know that?
        You can't see outside time and space and space can you?
        Nobody else can either can they?

        Compare your fantastic "exists outside of time and space." assertion to any theory of science, and I think you will find yours loses hands down. Science makes no such unsupported wild guesses.

        Just because "exists outside of time and space." is a grammatically correct sentence the assumption is that it makes sense. Whereas in reality it makes as much sense as "hornet battery cupcake lava penguin"
        You see, crap is always crap, no matter how you dress it up.
    • dx74a19, on 08/19/2008, -1/+15Tell me one biblical prophecy, that you have found to be true. Maybe you have encountered supernatural entities, but not in your travels --- in your trips, more likely. Point me to the science that shows the impossibility of a natural beginning of the universe and life. And an atheistic worldview it's just the absence of "faith based knowledge" --- whatever faith-based-knowledge means. One still has to get some reason-based-knowledge.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -11/+1"Tell me one biblical prophecy, that you have found to be true."

        Israel becoming a nation again after so long, an quite unique feat that has NEVER occurred in all of recorded human history.

        http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy2.html

        http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled ...

        http://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/bible ...

        "Maybe you have encountered supernatural entities, but not in your travels --- in your trips, more likely."

        Never did drugs. Gave up alcohol and tobacco a long time ago. Nope, it was all real.

        "Point me to the science that shows the impossibility of a natural beginning of the universe and life."

        http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Inve ...

        "And an atheistic worldview it's just the absence of "faith based knowledge" --- whatever faith-based-knowledge means. One still has to get some reason-based-knowledge."

        Sure. It's not like Christians leave their rational minds at the church door...or shouldn't. They really don't need to.
      • Evilena, on 08/19/2008, -2/+11Israel becoming a nation was a direct result of the Bible saying it should be and politicians. That doesn't prove anything. A prophecy is not true because someone that believes it actively causes it to come true.

      • dx74a19, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12I was almost certain you would point out that one - the Israel becoming a nation. This doesn't count, as it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Israelites believed so much in the "prophecy" to actually make it happen. The genuine prophecy must be about some independent event.
      • dx74a19, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9Oops, I'm a slow writer... ;)
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/20/2008, -9/+1Then someone show me evidence that the politicians made it happen because of their reading of the Bible.
      • dx74a19, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9Look, there are certain criteria for a prophecy to be valid. So far, unsurprisingly, I haven't seen one credible prophecy yet. The prophecy of Israel can't be anything but a gimmick.

        Somewhere I had I list of requirements for a genuine prophecy, but I can't find it. Anyways, from the top of my head:

        (#) The prophecy must have been written before the event. (#) The event must be independent (not subject of will) and specific (not about something that's likely to happen anyway) (#) The prophecy must be the only prophecy from a collection of prophecies, that deals with a certain event (it's no good if one has one prophecy that predicts that the war will be won and another that the war will be lost, as one will inevitably be true).
    • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -1/+13@dx74a19
      Epistemology for the win.
    • Equinox2012, on 08/19/2008, -2/+13You believe in God because you were told God was real and you never had the balls to really find out otherwise... and you were dropped on your head is a child.

      Supernatural events simply means events that can not be explained away by general science. Super Relativity falls under "Supernatural" by is it definition.
      • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -11/+1"You believe in God because you were told God was real and you never had the balls to really find out otherwise... and you were dropped on your head is a child."

        No, I left what little religion I had when I was in my 20s. I came to faith because of my own study of science and theology, and because of my own personal experiences.

        "Supernatural events simply means events that can not be explained away by general science. Super Relativity falls under "Supernatural" by is it definition."

        No, supernatural events means those events that occur because of or in response to non-natural processes.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11@Spaza
        "I came to faith because of my own study of science..."
        Poor student.
      • Equinox2012, on 08/19/2008, -0/+10From Websters
        Entry Word:
        Supernatural
        Function:
        adjective
        Text: 1 of, relating to, or being part of a reality beyond the observable physical universe.
        2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

        ... again, Super Relativity falls under "Supernatural" by is it definition.
    • s0l0s0ul, on 08/19/2008, -0/+15One believes in God, because they choose to; not because he or she can prove it. If you could prove it, you would not have to have faith, which is one of the core components of Christianity (salvation by grace through FAITH) There is nothing wrong with making this personal choice, until you try imposing it on to others as factual information, when it is not, nor was it ever intended to be.

      I believe in God because I choose to. I believe in Science because it is fact. I believe you are arguing a point that does not have substantial evidence, and thus cant be won, which is good! Because Christianity was never meant to be "won" or "lost", and it was never meant to grant "superiority. It was, however, intended to be a personal choice for how to live.
    • SuperWinner, on 08/19/2008, -2/+11I almost wanna digg up his comment so people can see it in all its ignorant glory...
    • dx74a19, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12JimmySpaza is a rock. I almost admire his confidence... but I will choose doubt and reality every time.
  • SuperWinner, on 08/19/2008, -1/+5People are intelligent, they are generally not well educated... therein lies the problem. If we taught kids that things without proof are not real, we might have a different world on our hands. However when a child goes to an adult or teacher and asks "are there ghosts", we always answer, "well, maybe, no one knows." To a kid this is the same as saying yes.

    When I see talk of ghosts or other ***** on TV and if there are kids around, I make sure and tell them in no uncertain terms, "There is no such thing!" Then they always say, "How do you know?" And I say, "Because there is not one shred of evidence."
  • JimmySpaza, on 08/19/2008, -9/+1@Equinox2012

    "Even in the Dover Trial, Micheal Behe (of the Discovery Institute and leading proponent for Inteligent Design), under cross examination agreed that ESP and other supernatural phenomenon could, by his definition be considered "science".

    So watch it Spaza... your own people are against you."

    I have never read any of Behe's material. Please don't assume that every Christian is in perfect agreement with each other.
    • Evilena, on 08/19/2008, -1/+6If ESP or other supernatural phenomenon has any truth to it, that part of it could be considered science. Until someone comes up with actual evidence, its not worth thinking much about.
    • TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5"Please don't assume that every Christian is in perfect agreement with each other."
      We've noticed. There are as many different shades and flavours of christianity as there are christians. How do you know who is right?
      • DekarCorvus, on 08/20/2008, -0/+2exactly....

        religion in general is flawed for that reason. everyone has there own take on how ot conforms to them, and there personal beliefs/understanding/agenda.

        which explains why more people die/died in the "name of god" then any other reason.

        we will likely never see a peacefull world until people put faith aside, and realize we make our own destiny. religion is just a way the government keeps us fighting against each other.

        the true definition of "divide and conquer"
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.