I've seen it all, and I've seen the studies that have not shown that properly performed circumciscion carries any significant risk beyond the risk involved in any surgical procedure or lead to desensitized penis. I've also seen the studies that show that a circumsized penis leads to lower risk of infections (though that evens out with proper hygene).

Geez, I ddin't post to this thread thinking I'd have to defend my religion.

I don't see it as much defending as defining, at least to me reading it. It's very interesting.

I do belive.

There is so much we don't understand, that as science makes discoveries, I find that this universe could not have been just one big accident. And if God did create it, ponder this-

On the first day of creation, he created the first day. So he created time, and is outside of time. He lives forever, because there is no time where he is at. That is outside the realm of my thinking.

The big question everyone brings up. What came first, the Chicken or the egg? If you belive in what the Bible says, that God created the animals, then it is simple. He created the animals and told them to "Be fruitfull and multiply". Therefore, he made the first chicken (and hen) and then they laid eggs. So the chicken came first. At least in my mind.

I was very careful to not go into discussion of what I believe and am definitely trying to avoid discussion of what others say they believe.

But I want to respond to one little thing in Moonliner's post (with which I am much in agreement). Predetermination does not necessarily require pre-intent. If Newtonian mechanics had proven correct in their entirety (rather than just being correct as a subset of mechanics) they would produce an entirely pre-determined universe throughout all time without requiring a "plan" or "intent" for what happened.

I feel something that is bigger than me, bigger than what I can see, bigger than what I think any of us can understand. If god is god, and man is man, how is man to accurately define god? Our frame of reference is tiny, and if god encompasses all, how are we to set about describing god if we have no way of seeing all, ourselves?

I really, really dig what Jesus had to say about... just about everything... but I think sometimes it's misinterpreted in the interest of politics (public and personal.)

I love the strength and the support that one feels when one is part of an organized religion. I love admitting in a group that we are wee bits in an endless spectrum of being. I don't like it when churches abuse the power in numbers, though.

God is everywhere... praise chocolate cake!

I guess that it all depends on your definition of "God". If you accept the definition of God that Einstein, and Spinoza, put out there ... that is the sum total of the laws of the universe, then absolutely, there is a God. Some people, when asked to define God, say "you know - a force that's everywhere in the Universe", -- and gravity is everywhere in the universe, so it would be madness to deny gravity.

But I can't be an atheist - to me, an atheist is someone that has overwhelming evidence that God doesn't exist, and I can't say that I've seen that evidence. God as a concept can always be relegated to those areas that we haven't the means to explore yet, so I keep that option open.

I remember reading about Martin Gardner, the mathemetician, who said that he believed in God, as a vague, but comforting concept, even though he stated that atheists have the better arguments against a God. He called it "Fideistic Theism", and I can see that argument. So I'm "that", or an agnostic, depending on your definition.

As an interview on Salon.com said just a few days ago, there have been thousands of Gods - from Mithra to Gilgamesh, to Zeuss, etc., and yet most people are "agnostic", or even atheistic, as to those 9,999 Gods, but believe in the one God of "their" religion.

So, you could say that most people agree to be atheists as to 9,999 Gods, but there is disagreement as to just one of those Gods.

But if you're going to tie your belief to scientific discoveries, then your belief system is subject to being disproved. Big Bang theory shows how the laws of the universe were created, extrapolating backwards, to include time. As Stephen Hawkings says again and again, since time is linked inseparably with matter, if the Universe slows and begins reversing back to a singularity, time would actually run backwards. Thus, the theory of relativity, which predicts manipulation of time, doesn't require a creator, and even more significantly, if there is an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, there is an infinite universe, and thus nothing for a Creator to "create".

Science has an answer to the chicken and the egg question, and it can be proven - the egg came first. A dinosaur that was one mutation away from a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken -- the first chicken, if you will.

But as asserted in the null hypothesis, you cannot prove a negative. In theory you could prove God exists by having him pop in and say hi. However it is impossible to prove he (or she if you like) does not exist. You have to have faith. So in some respects the null hypothesis = faith. Interesting.

Carl Sagan had a dear friend who was a noted theologian and Reverend. (Her name escapes me). One time, he said to her "You're so smart- why do you still believe in God?" Her reply was "You're so smart- why do you not?"

I don't see atheists (or myself) as a person with overwhelming evidence of god's nonexistence but rather an overwhelming lack of evidence of god's existence.

Based on my observation of the universe there seems to be about as much point in supposing the existence of "god" as there is to suppose the existence of a bottomless tube of Pringles. Both may (personally I don't find the idea of a god to be at all comforting but I recognize that many do) make me happy to imagine but beyond that there is to reason to believe either is real.

The only evidence I have that god doesn't exist is that none has been found. All I can offer are ever more examples that god can't be found lurking in the shadows people have previously claimed for him or in the effects people have pronounced in his honor. But I'll certainly never claim to have proof he doesn't exist. For example, god may have created the universe this morning at 8:34 a.m. Pacific and simply created it as a work in progress and we all have memories of events that happened before then but never did.

If you claim that this is your belief in how god exists and has acted I could never provide evidence that would refute it.