Maybe now would be a good time to mention that while I've seen a good number of sci-fi movies, I've never watched more than a few episodes of any TV shows. So I'm afraid you reference goes over my head.

But to get myself out of this trivial hole I've gotten myself into, I should say I also total accept order as well. We need calculus and algebra as much as statistics, and all have their place in this infinitely complex universe of ours.

Perhaps, but to me it sounds like your worldview wasn't as flexible as you thought. Also I should probably point out like religion itself, you've taken a position that cannot be disproved. There is a chance that you're right and I'll change my mind (though most likely after this board is quite dead). But if I don't then you'll attribute it to me never having that "experience". For all we know I could have an "experience" equivalent to yours, but if my worldview was able to handle it where yours failed, neither of us would ever know.

With the millions of life forms on this planet, only mans ego makes god his.

Funny!  Christ's Church that He promised He would be with until the consummation of the world 'peer reviewed" by 2 guys who started their own religions in contrast to Christs. Exchange Christ for Luther or Mohammed? I don't think so.

Because from the beginning of the Christian era, Catholics the world over have believed, do believe and will always believe in the Divinity of Christ. Those who died/are dying/will die for Christ believe He is Almighty God. Jesus is God born in flesh. We believe that Christ is the Emmanuel--the "God with us." 

It's certain that the Jews knew their OT Scriptures (prophesies) foretold that God should come on earth. To Isaias 742-701 BC,  God made known clearer than ever before, that Christ is God Himself   "God Himself will come and save you." 35:4. Isaias is the one who called Him, Emmanuel, God  with us. 7:14. "God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." v.9. Isaias told in detail of the Christ being wounded for our iniquities, being led to slaughter, laying down His life for the sin of the world. V 53.  The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in the 4 Gospels.

Many times Christ said He was God.

Before the assembled Jewish court, Christ told the Jews He was God. A year before they tried to stone Him "Becasue that thou, being a man makest thyself God."

When Christ said He was "Lord even of the Sabbath" He affirmed that He was the First Cause and Instituter of the Lord's day. For no man has a better right to assume command than he who has instituted and created what he commands, no man could claim that he was "Lord even of the Sabbath" unless He had first instituted and promulgated the sabbath.

Christ declared that He had the power to forgive sins and He delegated that power to His Apostles. Sin, being a violation against Almighty God's law, only God is able to wield the power to forgive it, and only God can delegate that power to His human agents.

The supernatural works of Christ give testimony that He is God.

Here are a few:

He commanded the waves to be still and they obeyed Him. He walked upon the waters and they bore up St.Peter with Him. He raised Lazarus from the dead.The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear.

There are many well-authenticated miracles that have followed the martrydom of the Apostles and others in defense of the Divinity of Christ. One is in the year 484, under Hunneric, king of the Arian vandals, Christians were persecuted for expressing their belief in the DIvinity of Christ. In the city of Tipsa, the tongues of those who recited the NIcene Creed were torn out. This act was followed by miraculous speech. These tongueless men were heard distinctively proclaiming their belief that Christ is True God. Sixty of them escaped to COnstantinople, where day after day people marveled at hearing men who had been stripped of their tongues spreading the doctrine of the DIvinity of Christ.

The things that Christ did are beyond human power. He foretold His Passion, He rose from the dead, He appeared to His disciples 13 times after His Resurrection in Judea, in Galilee, in the supper room and His ascension into Heaven. The Resurrection is without doubt the miracle of miracles that proves His Divinity.

All of the Apostles preached His Resurrection at a time when they were being persecuted by the Jews (until 70AD) and the Romans for nearly 300 years.  St.Peter was crucified and St.Paul was beheaded in Rome. St. Matthew died by the sword in Ehiopia, St.Mark was dragged to his death through the streets of Alexandria. St.Luke was hanged on an olive tree, st. John was thrown in oil (but he did not die). St.James was beheaded in Jerusalem and St. James the Less was thrown off the Temple and beaten to death. St.Philip was hanged against a pillar in Phrygia. St.Bartholomew was flayed alive; St.Jude was beheaded while St.Matthias and St.Barnabas were stoned to death.

The first 58 popes died a martyrs death.

I watched a Bablyon-5 movie once, but I've never seen any part of the actual show. So basically I only know what the station and a White Star looks like.

Contemplate is very different from believe.

Gotta disagree. Look again at what I said. There is no empirical scientific proof of this timeline. And this is absolutley true, so we can't rightly claim that timeline as fact because we aren't positively sure. That's my beef...claiming this as fact especially to unwary school age children.

I can give a whole host of evidence that consistently points to a young age for the universe, around 10,000 years old.    The high amount of Hydrogen in the atmosphere gives problems to the billions of years for the universe idea. R.L.Wysong and Harold S. Slusher would argue that comets lead to the young universe conclusion. Others would argue the population of the earth suggests the earth is young. Consideraton must be given to the data concerning the power of the magnetic field of the earth. I've even read that the saltiness of the ocean suggests a young earth.

Can we ignore the possibility that the Creator of the universe rapidly transformed matter created on Day 1 into galaxies on Day 4 and stretched out starlight instantaneously throughout the universe? Instantaneous Creation is also mature Creation. It certainly was when Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding at Cana. Once He changed the water to wine, it was new, yet tasted like vintage.

Ya, you're describing early 19th century uniformitarianism; the theory that started it all. Uniformitarianism is the idea that inferred that various features of the Earth's strata, including the fossil record, only formed slowly over millions of years by the same processes that can now be observed at work upon the earth.

They studied strata in England, Scotland and France at a time when little was known about strata or fossils.  They divided the strata into 3 divisions, called "eras", dating one as the youngest, another as older and the third as very ancient. They based their theory on the number of still living species represented by fossils in each stratum. If a given stratum had few fossils represented by species alive today, they dated it more anciently.

They ASSUMED  that strata formed over vast ages of time and Darwinian evolution has been linked with it ever since including the path leading up to man can be traced as follows: Invertebrates evolved into fish, fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, some of the mammals into primates, primitive primates into apes, and a common progenitor of ape and man evolved into human beings. 

If this were a fact, after all these millions of years and this kind of change going on, we should find abundance evidence of one species changing into another. But there is none. Nada.

But today, it has been established that Lyell's theory does not agree with reality. The percentage of still living species is very very high throughout all strata and varies from place to place for each stratum in different localities. BUT,

that didn't stop the evolutionists from following his scheme. They held on to his mistake and elaborated on it. Scientists through today have been stuck with this relic of early 19th century error. But hey, it fits to promote evolution. Pseudo science---Geology and paleontology have been saddled with it ever since.

Seleuceia #170; you are wasting your time. It will not do any good to say things like we have ~ 300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy or that Andromeda has over a trillion stars in its. It will do no good to explain that the light alone would require 2.5 million years to reach earth for us to be able to observe it at all, at least since it was documented in 964 AD. As a matter of fact, it will not matter what scientific findings you are want to discuss … some will attempt to trump it with their mythology, again as usual. There will be no compromise here unless you make it. Hahaha ... our 200 year old relic huh ... they sure do have some balls, I will give them that much ... to try and preach about believed old (real old?) relics, hehehe. Science is auto updated as the information dictates ... theology is the dead horse in the way of progress. They are not only being intellectually dishonest, they are being childish in their refusal to accept the world around them and us. They may choose to believe elsewise ... but that has nothing to do with reality ... as usual. Just because someone refuse to accept anything real for an explanation doesn’t mean it is wrong … it means they are being ridiculously naive as usual

Knowledge is only knowledge ... when it can be amply demonstrated!

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL333ED00362C692D7&feature=plcp

Sinperium, notice the mention of “common experiences” … not individual ones.

Did not. Where did you get that loony idea?

An atheist is a person without a belief in God. It is not logical to assume that I hate or would even try to disprove god … I simply don’t believe in his existence. The atheist conflict is completely RCC (Christianity) related and self-inflicted as is almost always the case. It seems atheist wasn’t even a common word until the 18th century when the first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" lived anyway, a bit after the fact, go figure. So don’t take this nonsense back to the roots of Christianity because it wasn’t a thought then. There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting though that most disagreement comes from theists NOT atheists who themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. It could easily be argued that “Jewish’ should be defined by the Jews … and that atheism should be defined by the atheists … not so in the world of Christians where their ‘illogical beliefs’ are used to try and trump logic, common sense and proof from the sciences.

My dictionary: Atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or deities.

Wikipedia: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Dictionary.reference.com: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Origin: 1580–90

CatholicReference.net: ATHEISM; Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican Council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: "Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it" (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)    [Right up there with homosexuality surely, hahaha]

There should be no misconception where this problem comes from here … it is just the rejection of, our refusal to comply with RCCC? Therein lays the roots of most of the world’s religious and secular bigotries … the Bible/Koran/Whatever.

You're really going into the semantics here. Most atheists will conclude it might just be possible, if extremely unlikely, that there is a god. Now we may say certain religious ideas or stories are impossible, but I don't think we will ever learn enough about the universe to disprove the Deist god for example. But of course we don't believe in one, and won't until, like bigfoot, it can be proved.

My own experince with atheists is that whether stated as principle, done in practice or prettied with semantics, not believing in the possibility of a diety is an essential.

"I don't believe in this being even possible  because if I did it might compromise my position, ergo it doesn't exist" isn't a great argument.

I don't think "most" atheists conclude it's possible.

A lot of atheists I know would call you a fence sitter for that Goa and many would say you're just an uncommitted agnostic.

An agnostic is one who typically doesn't even take a belief. He chooses not to either take a belief in or disbelieve in god. I on the other hand do not believe in god, I am just not so arrogant to claim I can (or humanity ever will) prove so. So I do not say that it is impossible for their to be one.

That said, there are many different kinds of Atheist. You could classify me as a "weak atheist", which is basically what I said above. This is in contrast to the strong atheist, who is certain that there is no god, which appears to be the only form of atheism you've run into. A true agnostic believes that the claims "there is a god" and "there is not a god" are both impossible to prove and thus considers both to be equally impossible.