At this time, and with regard to what they're referring, "outside of time and space" is a meaningless term. Until this changes they haven't debunked anything that a reputable evolutionary biologist would put forward.

Evolution is only controversial to people without a real understanding of basic science. Their views on science have little reason to be listened to.

I'm not talking about dismissing your claim because it's controversial. But you were criticizing Jewbinson for the claim you thought he was making. And as proof he was wrong, you linked to a book that supposedly gave the most current psychological theory on the topic. That it's supposedly controversial makes me wonder how you can tell him he's wrong for not believing it.

This is true, but also we should that note that because creationists are fundamentally dishonest, they seize upon any disagreement, no matter how trivial, between two people (who both agree that evolution is a fact) and label it "controversy about evolution". This is not helped by vapid sensationalists maquerading as jounalists who are prepared to call anything "controversy about evolution" if they imagine it will sell copies.

So when a creationist talks of "controversy about evolution" we may care to check whether they are referring to a trivial spat that in no way calls into question the validity of evolution or something that might question it's validity were it not a mere lie promulgated by creationist websites.

The testing in this area has not confirmed atheists claims of religious people as being programmed.

That's all.

I'm not challenging you further. You do have a right to believe anything you want even if it's wrong and the testing doesn't support it.

No everyone should be listened to on this.

Scientists can get things out of order. What if evolution precedes spiritual formation in the way God orders things?
Paul in the New Testament says first the physical then the spiritual must occur.

But if you put evolution ahead of spiritual formation in your thinking you've upset God's natural order because now you think you can rely on man's solutions instead of God's.

Evolution could be true and God could have been deliberately silent about it because He's primarily concerned about human spiritual formation at this time in human history.

If you understand statistics and the scientific method on some level, you can read the methodology section of a study and try to determine for yourself to which extent the conclusions are supported by the data.

If you don't, and this applies to most people, wait for a scientific consensus to emerge..or say things you don't actually understand like "correlation isn't causation", "lol sample size" or "studies say everything and nothing" to dishonestly resist conclusions you don't like!

Thank you.

That is very helpful but I think it may be lost on me because I don't have a very scientific mind. I think God must have built me to serve some purpose other than science otherwise why are there so many intuitive types in the world?

Of course, some other people could be cross types to serve God's cross purposes.

You're misrepresenting my position. You realize that both programming and being born with a propensity for belief can coexist, right?

Splendour, there is no "evolution could be true". Evolution is a fact. The fact that things evolve is a fact, period. Now, the theory of evolution describes how this occurs, and may be later amended. This is true regardless of whatever effect 'spiritual formation' has.

No, you're conflating to try to sneak a win.

The expert on the religious mind is Barrett not Dawkins. Dawkins has no credentials or studies in this field.

Yeah, because I mentioned Dawkins...oh wait, I didn't. You're misrepresenting my position....again. Stop that.

Dawkins just most easily comes to mind as a layman parading around as an expert in an area he has no credentials in: the human mind.

If I were you instead of assuming theists are delusional you might want to regularly check the literature on atheism. Does atheism have a psychological cause?

So far I've turned up Vitz's theory, Barrett's male brainedness from testosterone idea, a guy in Australia with a clinic purporting to cure atheism who says on youtube it's from an Oedipal complex and just recently former atheist Budziszewski's claim that his atheism stemmed from self deception.

Atheism could be from even more causes than the ones various people have claimed that I listed above and why wouldn't atheism stem from multiple causes? Aren't people diverse in their personalities and experiences?

Yes, people are diverse in their personalities and experiences. And if a person is an atheist for the wrong reasons then I'll come down just as hard on them as I do theists. Fortunately for me, the vast majority of atheists are atheists for rational reasons, so this rarely comes up.

Yeah, well beliefs are based in part in human psychology.

Just be aware of the fact that everyone lies and a lot of people lie to look good and they can learn to parrot the more seemingly rational people.

Motivation is the unexplored area of the whole existence of God debate. It's a huge and mysterious area and people hardly ever enter it because it is so complicated.

I couldn't care less what someone's motivation was in coming to their beliefs, so long as their beliefs and reasoning are valid now.

Well that's a mistake.

Evil people can be intelligent. It doesn't mean they know themselves and their own motives.

Their motives can muddy the water of their own intelligence though.

The mind doesn't work independently of the heart though alot of people act like it does.

You start studying human psychology. People are formed in part in infancy and most people don't remember their infancy. It's possible you could have an episode that forms your personality toward unbelief and never know the cause. But people change belief positions all the time. I'd read Budziszewski if I were you.

It like you don't even know how logic and reasoning works. Budziszewski, it seems, bases his entire belief in God on wholly fallacious reasoning. He doesn't like what he perceives to be the repercussions of a world without God, so he chooses to believe in one.

You don't know what he bases it on.

You most likely read a bio link on him and jumped to a conclusion.

You'd have to read his essay "Why I Am Not an Atheist" to see his reasoning.

You know arguing all the time isn't a good spiritual sign. A lot of competitiveness is vainglory and striving.

You might want to ask yourself why you feel this need to win all the time.

What Does the Bible Say About Competition?
http://www.ehow.com/about_4840221_wh...mpetition.html

I don't need to 'win' all the time. I care whether my beliefs are valid or not, and I hope others would do the same.

Err, who cares? Would you consider it valid if I gave a link on Zeus' opinion of competition?

Then you care about yourself and validating your ego and the ego is never neutral.

Humble is the best you could ever shoot for when dealing with the ego.

Yeah, it's certainly egotistical to make sure I don't believe nonsense.

The greatest minds in the world have argued this for thousands of years.

I assure you it is not nonsense or else they wouldn't be haggling over it so long. Read my WLC quote on the anthropic principle. The evidence may be tipping in favor of theism in science right now. Science can't continue to make a case unless philosophy bails them out....

WLC might want to stay out of scientific discussions. He's already claimed nonsense like (1) evolution is not validated and (2) anytime science disagrees with the bible then science is automatically wrong. His opinion on scientific matters can be thrown out with the young earth creationists and the perpetual motion cranks.

Hmmm...I'm in the process of reading one of his essays...His math skills seem rather good.

He has a very encyclopedic mind if you ask me.

Should everyone be listened to regarding interpretation of the bible, including those who you claim are not familiar enough with it to make valid judgements?

If so, why? (obv not applicable, you repeatedly state atheists have no place "cherry-picking" scripture they don't fully understand)
If not, why not?