Readers’ Responses to Our Question (1655)

ARBULUS,

I think you are wrong about the un-indoctrinated 20 yr old laughing. While there is nothing reasonable about religion and its dogma, a fact remains that it "feels" right. I assert that this would lead to a response that many have when they deny reason and accept "truth." The only thing that is true is that it feels right. The power of this feeling is much stronger and deeper rooted than our capability of reason. The fact is that only a small percentage of believers are capable of pulling away from their feelings and trust reason in leaving religion behind.

I assert that the fit of religious dogma, created by strong feelings, is genetically programmed. In our past, the structure of our brain and the resulting propensity to allow ourselves (or inability to avoid) the lure of supernatural explanations some how helped us to leave more copies of that type, and so on, until religion is the default and people of reason are persecuted.

If it is genetic, then I would not call it a fad. I would call it an evolutionary dead end if we all end up dead arguing gods and ghosts and neglect real issues.

People want to talk about the "vogue" of atheism, but I think the point is confused.

Atheism is the default position. We are not born believing in a god. If a person were sheltered from religion from birth, never taught about religion or ever heard of it, and then you talk to this person at age 20 and tell them of a god, they would laugh in your face because the idea would be absurd to them. If anything one could say that religion is the fad.

What's happening now isn't an overwhelming wave of people ridding themselves of belief, it's people who are more willing to be open about the fact that they are atheist. It is VERY difficult to tell people that you are an atheist. People seem to think that you're a violent, immoral, horrible person capable of terrible things. This couldn't be further from the truth. And, if you look at it from an historical perspective, more horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion through the ages than any other cause. Atheists aren't the historically horrible people that they're made out to be.

Our society desperately needs to get to the point where people can say: "I believe X, and you don't. I'm ok with that. We don't have to believe the same way to co-exist."

We will be much better off if we can get to that point.

Google is the best search engine Google

Jesus is the Revolution

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/05/jesus_christ_is_the_revolution.html

If you really want liberation, stop believing in things that do not exist. Gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, devils and demon, and life after death all share in that there is no physical evidence that they exist. Here are some other things that share this trait: the Aliens that were supposedly hiding behind the comet that “picked up” those people that killed themselves at just the right time to catch a ride, Santa clause, voodoo, rubbing coins on people as a cure for illness, and the list is endless. People will seemingly believe anything given the promise of a tasty carrot and the threat of a nasty stick.

These things are mental prisons in that they promise punishment and reward for belief and behavior. The “liberation” that Jesus offers is trading one prison cell for another (not exactly a revolution).

The real revolution is to stop believing in things that do not exist.

Giving up unreasoned beliefs is not a license to live without a moral code. Having a moral code is part of being human and is not an exclusive product of religion.

I can be a good, decent, loving human being without believing in, boxing myself into, or chaining myself to fairytales.

Freedom is free thought, where-after you choose to do what is best.

David,

Religions did not come about for the reason you cite in your former post. They came about mostly as an attempt to explain human existence and the miraculous phenomena of the really EXISTING and perceived nature (earth, sun, moon, stars – the whole works!), not primarily from fear of death. Religions also served the purpose of social organisation. You describe your religion as a death cult (the main part of life’s meaning is after death!), while I describe my "atheism" as an appreciation of this life, the only one I have!

Obviously, there are many non-believers, "atheists" like me who are not as much concerned as you as to the eventual loss of their individual consciousness (we all lose it every night). I, for instance, have lived a long full life approaching its end, and I never would be so immodest as to ask “Is that all?” There is such a lot of fulfillment that to me this question is rather ungrateful, egomaniacal. I know there is so infinitely much more than I could grasp in this life span without having to resort to a notion of god.

My personality has been able to develop only through the communication with and participation of OTHERS, through parents, education, language, school, thinking, feeling, loving, discussions, art, music, learning, teaching, nature etc. I am not such a “unique” entity of “sin and redemption”, which as such has to be perpetuated by all means, and I didn’t make myself either. I am a passing, thinking reality, accountable to myself and others, as a part of the wonderful nature, a reality which was generated by thousands and thousands of other people, ancestors, evolutionary steps and events during and prior to my existence, who played a part in my being ME. I am grateful for this immensely rich vision. The term “ME” implies much more the term “ALL OF US” than the term “I”!

The relativity, that is, the lack of “truth” of your personal religion is already documented by the fact which you cite that there are and at all times were hosts of other “true” religions of the "supernatural", all more or less futile attempts to explain the unexplainable at a given (historical, societal) state of available insight and knowledge. For me nature is already “super”, I think the “super-natural” would have to lead to the senseless “super-super….n”- natural and already therefore has no meaning!

Why don’t you stop accusing atheists in general (condescending to maybe a few funny exceptions!) of being more selfish than any fanatical believers, of maximizing their pleasure at the expense of others, of being unaccountable to “God”, therefore to anybody? Why do you repeat this discussion about atheism and morals we have had ad nauseam? I am completely accountable to the people I love (even to the ones I don’t love so much!), to my children, friends, students, society, country and to my CONSCIENCE! Conscience does not require a religious prerequisite. (Aside: I would not regard it as a virtue to be accountable to the present “faith-based” US government, an entity you mentioned.)

Repeating this unprovable accusation of “unaccountability” over and over doesn’t make it any more plausible. Such attacks are part of the reason I and other thinking "atheists" don’t want to share your or anybody else’s religion. This inference is at the bottom of so many totally superfluous religious strifes and wars through history up to this day: “If you believe in the wrong “truth” (or, worse, no “truth” at all, like us non-believers), you must be either converted or eliminated.”

This is not meant personally towards you as an individual unknown to me, David, but as an answer to the ideas you and so many others display from a usurped and illusionary pulpit of superiority, as if we “non-believers” were missing out on something crucial. We can think as profoundly, as sharply and as openly as any given religious person. If we could skip the semantics of “religion” (especially in its "scripture" version) for a moment we might even arrive at a similar spiritual STATE, which causes you to define atheism as a religion. Semantically, the stamp collector example still holds.

But we do feel insulted by these accusations, even if you bring them forth in the friendliest way. I strongly doubt that my life means less to me than yours means to you. I do not place its value and meaning into an unfounded hope of an afterlife: I place it HERE, where I can live it!

I'm off to lunch, so this is being composed on the fly; my apologies for any incoherence...It seems to me, David, that you are reading too much into the word "atheism". It really does mean nothing more or less than the absence of belief in the existence of god(s).

If you want to talk about philosophies or worldviews we can discuss the relative merits of Humanism, Epicurianism, Hedonism, Nihilism, Naturalism, Materialism, Marxism or any number of personal philosophies or worldviews of which atheism is one component.

You are raising some interesting questions, but supposing that there is some coherent philosophy called atheism beyond the simple absence of belief leaves you casting too broad a net.

This is why the stamp collecting analogy is so apt. You are right that everyone needs a hobby, but maybe not the same hobby. In the same way that I have hobbies which have nothing to do with stamp collecting I do have other beliefs, other philosophical points of view but gods are not part of them.

Here's another cliche for you; if (as I'm assuming) you are a monotheist you are also atheistic regarding all other gods. I am just atheistic about one more god than you are.

Regards

A (hasty) Hermit

I typically would not comment further but I do feel I made some mistakes in expressing myself that could lead to some misunderstanding. That is not to say that everyone reading this discussion will agree with my views but I do feel looking back at my post that my language was perhaps too strong and without explanation behind the words so that they could lend themselves to being offensive or meanspirited, which was not my intent. And so particularly for those who read but not post I want to clarify myself:

In terms of atheism as a religion, perhaps that is a mis-categorization. I would however argue that it is a philosophy or worldview. I suppose I act under the assumption that the questions of life are universal and inherent in our very existence. Some of those questions I would propose are: 'is this all there is?' 'how can I account for this experience I am living?' which could translate into such questions as 'how did this earth come to be' or even 'the universe?'. And atheism, while defining itself as not believing in the supernatural as a suitable explanation, must nonetheless answer those fundamental questions. And in my understanding the philosophy ultimately turns to reason and science.

I suppose in the strictest sense the word atheism can simply mean the absence of belief. And I think it can be true that there are those that can live life without thinking of those questions or perpetually putting off such questions, and/or choosing not to believe in any explanation they are presented with. But I think the core questions are built into our very nature and existence. Perhaps the only thing we know for sure is the reality of our own existence "i think, therefore I am" and we are left to our own to explain our existence. This is where the stamp analogy falls short because not everyone has to collect stamps but we are all faced with the reality of our own existence. It is almost as if we are forced to be collectors of something and even deciding not to collect is still a decision about collection.

In terms of meaning, again I think I was unclear and therefore misunderstood. I think an atheist can live a meaningful life in the terms prescribing and finding meaning to their life. They can naturally be good family members, good members of society, kind individuals. I suspect I would be similar in thought and action were it not for the breakthrough of experience. But when we consider the philosophy or worldview of atheism, which is left to reason and science, there is no inherent value or meaning in life or an individual beyond what they create themselves. The cosmic understanding of our individual-self is meaningless. Although seemingly harsh, the earth and all of us on it are but a statistical anomaly and this earth and sun will meet the same fate as other observed stars and galaxies, namely destruction and reorganization. In such a philosophy everything, from our personal lives, to the existence of the earth can be seen as a 'soap bubble'. You can rub your hands together, blow, create a glistening bubble, which floats for a brief moment then disappears in a blink of an eye to have no more individual reality. Again that is from a cosmic understanding of the individual and not seen from the individual self as they see their life. Again I would argue that there is something deep inside us that wants to deny that thought, that when we look into the eye of someone we love, or hold a newborn baby in our hand, or sit at the deathbed of a friend, we want that hope that there is inherent meaning and that death is not an absolute end.

Perhaps an atheist would say it is a false hope. If so, fine. That is congruent with their philosophy, and they lived a meaningful life as they saw it and they can choose that. Why then do many atheists seem to be troubled by those who do believe and do claim experience with the divine? Under their own philosophy meaning is created as we prescribe it. And to what end? Often I hear that we as a society and civilization would be more peaceful and better off without religion. And I can certainly understand that argument considering the atrocities committed in the name of religion throughout history. I would argue that such acts are the result of the imperfections of man and a result of free will and not something inherently wrong with all prospect of a true religion and/or explanation. And that can be disagreed or agreed with. But back to that question of 'to what end?', if the atheist argues that society and life would be better for all if religion were removed, again the question remains 'to what end?' Is it happiness and fulfillment? If someone therefore claims happiness and fulfillment with religion then what does it matter, we will all meet the same fate in the end. The atheist by his very philosophy should accept all choices of belief or non-belief as an individual choice to maximize personal happiness or fulfillment as an attempt to prescribe meaning to their life.

Which leads to clarifying my last misunderstood point about a complete openness to 'personal pleasure maximization'. I do not believe that this is what every atheist does or suggests, I am just saying that the philosophy or worldview itself has no built in reason for withholding an individual from doing so. The fact that most don't brings up a whole new discussion of natural law and or evolutionary benefits of positive social behavior but we can leave that for another time and place. But in terms of the argument that society would be better off if everyone were atheists and religion disappeared, I think the fact that religion in it's very essence does play a role in creating moral standards and positive social behavior, when practiced properly, give it a stronger case for making a more ideal society than a society created on a philosophy that fundamentally does not prescribe a behavioral code.

So the question at hand about an explanation for the current 'vogue'--and I agree that it can be argued whether that is actually the case. But if it the case I would suggest a couple explanations given my reasoning. I think anything that causes mankind to not think of those ultimate questions can be seen as a root explanation. Therefore I identified the removal of the constant interaction with death due to rising health status over the last century. I also think the trend of urbanization over the last century which disengages man from nature and from being able to look up at the starry heavens and ponder the vastness of space, can lead man to be so caught up in his own life and creations and dominion over the earth that those questions can be perpetually put off. I also think the trend of industrialization and capitalism has lead to an emphasis on productivity as a high ideal and therefore the lives of mankind have been continuously filled and occupied that they can go about their lives as good productive members of society and rarely be faced with those questions. I also think there is a feeling of burnout after centuries of atrocities done in the name of religion. And that feeling has increased in recent history, which could be the most accurate explanation for any recent trend in atheism, by increased media coverage of issues such as priests abusing children or even the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and religious war. Again, I think the whole issue can be called into question, but I think from a sociological perspective these can be a number of explanations.

Again I don't mean to be offensive. I think there are many wonderful atheists and in many ways are better members of society in terms of building happiness and fulfillment than a lot of the religious zealots we come across. But as a philosophy I wanted to bring up points that I think deserve consideration. I have pointed out where I have made some basic assumptions and people can disagree with those assumptions. But let's not get to the point where we have hatred or ill-spirit, Atheist to Believer or Believer to Atheist because it truly does go counter to both philosophies.

Hi everyone. Just stopped by to say hi to my old atheist friends. I saw another David on here. Please don't be confused with me (remember the orthopedist??) Where did vinny go? I know you all couldn't stand him. Anyway, I'll be over at the mormon thread bashing some mormons. It's one thing to not believe in God, and respect to you for that, but to take the Bible and pervert God's Word....I can't have that. So, just wanted to say hi and see if anyone has really figured out the orgin of life yet? Guess not. Ok. Good luck.

God bless

David,

Atheism is NOT a religion, even if "believers" repeat this unfounded statement like a prayer mill. ("Not collecting stamps", as A Hermit says, is not a hobby, we’ve had this so many times, let’s just cut out this argument!) And how on earth can you come to the baseless conclusion that life of an atheist is “meaningless” for him, fall into “nothingness”? I think you should try to expand your imagination and your faith-based selective perception. I think even you don’t bother a lot who and where you were in the “vast nothingness” BEFORE the two cells of your parents merged and evolved.

I completely disagree with the explanation of the “fad” of atheism as a result of avoiding any thoughts about the finality of our life. I think of it every day without fear, and it is the reason of the MEANING and of the VALUE I attribute to it! Can’t you understand that meaning is something you attribute to something? You pay money for the MEANING of what you purchase. The things you purchase in THEMSELVES do not have any meaning or value.

And atheism is not a “vogue” or "fad": I am happy about the growing number of modern, accountable, reason-based, meaning-inspired humans! (Meacham’s question is unconscionable!)

"The atheist is responsible to no one, not God, not their fellow man, not their government. The selfish atheist is entitled to pursue a path of complete maximization of pleasure to oneself" says David.

Well, that's news to this atheist. I left faith behind and became an atheist in part because I felt that the artificial constructs of religion put too many barriers between people, and I felt I could be a better person by making myself responsible to my fellow man instead of to some imaginary being. I'm responsible to all kinds of people; to my family, my friends, my neighbours even to people I've never met in countries I'll likely never visit, to the environment I live in and, yes, to myself.

Even being responsible to one's self does not imply a life of unrestrained hedonism. As Shakespeare put it "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou cans't not be false to any man"

Atheism is just the absence of a belief in the existence of god(s). To infer any more about someone's character from that is simply unwarranted.

As for atheism being a religion, as has been said here before, atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Regards

A Hermit

David,

I am a non-believer (in anything supernatural).

Atheist is a word pasted on non-believers (like a target) by believers.

It is not correct to say that we believe in atheism.

(forgot to run spell checker)

David,

I am a non-beliver (in anything supernatural).

Atheist is a word pasted on non-believers (like a target) by believers.

It is not correct to say that we believe in atheism.

I believe religions fundamentally came about and exist to answer one question-
"Is this all there is?"
They are all attempts to answer the reality of death. So is Atheism a religion? Surely. Their answer to the question is, yes. We, even things we call the spirit or personality, are ultimately a result of explainable chemical reactions. And so death is regrettably an ultimate cessation of existence for any one individual. There are grander cycle-of-life explanations, maximizing of the good for all, and such, that keeps some from falling into depression based on the meaninglessness of life. Likewise it keeps some from a full expression of complete personal pleasure maximization at the expense of others which could be a natural result of such beliefs.

So why the recent trend? It is probably not as simple as one explanation but I propose one theory. I believe it is mainly a phenomenom in the West and is a result of our lifestyles being primarily separated from the reality of death. Our life spans have increased dramatically over the last hundred years, childhood deaths are rare, death occurs quietly and separated from society in sanitized hospitals and nursing homes as opposed to in the arms of a loved one in a home. With the reality of death not constantly before us we are not faced with that question "is this all there is?" so frequently. The absence of the question gives us a false sense of security that we have control of the problem. In the meantime we can be occupied with a vast array of fascinating subjects and studies of the world around us that we do not have to think about the question and that vast nothingness that faces us at the end of our existence on the earth.

Is it a good or bad trend? It is hard to say. The religious world would obviously say bad. The atheists themselves see it as good, a heightened society of reason. Seen from the point of view of society it could be good or bad. The atheist is responsible to no one, not God, not their fellow man, not their government. The selfish atheist is entitled to pursue a path of complete maximization of pleasure to oneself. There are those atheists that still believe in the rule of law and ethics for the maximization of benefit for the society as a whole, and such a society could exist peaceably.

That such believers in atheism must function side by side with believers of a host of religions I would propose that all parties must be willing to respect the choices of others in the matter and learn to work together.

Greg, thanks for your answer.

The bible does not describe Jewish history, but it describes what people thought was Jewish and Jesus' history. The Old Testament is not a description (genesis, Josua stopping the sun, Noah, take any of its (necessarily) uninformed attempts of explaining the world, resulting in childish fairy tales). The New testament is not a description either but a description of many descriptions of descriptions. It therefore does not even have a historical value. It may have a limited social value, granted (your main point, "love thy neighbor" etc.), but unless you distort, "interpret" large uncomfortable parts of the bible, calling it "metaphorical" (the terrible genocide orders of god etc. etc., Jesus' exorcism of the demon who fled into the pig herd, the "miracles"), it is a gruesome collection of incredible superstitious demands of violence in the old testament and a religion of fear of hell.

And the proxy death of Jesus corresponds to archaic offering patterns prevailing in other cults at the time of Jesus. Why, then, should anybody believe "in" these baseless promises, threats, myths? The "sin" concept corresponds to the "redemption" concept - both are completely meaningless in the face of modern human responsible scientific thinking, but they have been and still are a formidable fear-based instruments of power, enslavement and brain washing of the masses.

Instead of craving a "redemption", we should take care of this planet and maintain it inhabitable for our children. Faith-based superstitions, e.g. in the shape of "Rapture" or "Armaggedon" to me are the most irresponsible idiocies ever generated. You have a president along this line, and even Reagan believed this. I believe neither "in" nor "that". I grant to you that Christianity has shaped our culture to a large degree, for better or worse, and my own profession would probably not exist without its history.

But I do think the world would be much better off without these mental hindrances, obstacles to development of reason. Instead we should keep our honest, innate wonderful human curiosity, mobilize our fantasy as to possible systems of social coherence, of reason, of proof, of awe and wonder, of love, of compassion, of genuine, non-religious introspection into our human nature, and throw the religious threats and promises out of the window once for all.

It is hardly atheism alone that is getting that vogue, but the whole array of spiritual question marks. Ideas such as deism, pantheism, pandeism, abstract breeds of panentheism, agnosticism, ignosticism (those who say we are too ignorant to know if there is a God), apatheism (those who say it makes no difference whether there is a God).

I think all of these are stoked by the fact that we are entering a generation of people who feel comfortable debating the possibility that there is no God, or that God is radically different from what we have been used to thinking about in modeling God.

A contributing factor is the rising ability of science to explain phenomena of the world, and at the same time to open grand new mysteries and connections. A hundred years ago, there was no Big Bang to factor into God's plan, no Theory of Relativity, no spectre of Jurassic Park tugging at our conscience. Now all of these things are firmly embedded in our conscience, and the old explanations just don't hold up to them.

Fred,

Thanks for your responses, this is very invigorating. These are things I have thought a lot about the last couple years.

You say you cannot possibly be a Christian and cite that a belief "in" the Bible is your obstacle. That is an interesting comment, and I really think the issue is with "in". Too many Christians profess beliefs "in" things like Bible, resurrection, virgin birth etc etc as if believing "in" something is paramount. That is Christianity of the head and really misses the whole point I think. Christianity should be about a change of heart which involves believing "that" we can change the way the world works. Even more when you study Christs life, there are great examples of HOW.

Regarding the Bible, I imagine you would say that you believe "that" the Bible is a story of Jewish history and describes a portion of Christs life. Even further, I imagine you would have no trouble saying "that" the Bible has some accurate stories about the Jewish peoples spiritual journey. If you can admit those things, then you must admit that those stories can be educational, they can give us information regarding our ancestors culture (and to a large extent our culture). The fact that people have killed each other because of abusing the meaning of these stories should not be an indictment of these stories. These stories are just information. Selfish,power seeking and sick humans have misused them. It is not necessary, I'm sure, to give examples of people misusing non religious text information for evil purposes (Social Darwinism??)

I honestly cannot say that the object of my awe is any different than yours. I look at that object from a different angle maybe and see another aspect but its the same object. Its like you appreciating Mozart because you are a musician and you love the composition or any other technical aspect while I just love the way it sounds and affects me. We appreciate different things about the same thing.

May I suggest that you look at some things that Rob Bell, Greg Boyd or Marcus Borg have to say about Christianity. I think you can only sharpen your teeth by listening to the "other" side. I must say that reading all Daniel Dennets books, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and visits to his website) and Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation have been very enlightening to me. I really think they are doing important work to change the religious landscape of this world. While I think, on a certain level, they hope to eliminate religion , I really think they will end up getting rid of what is bad about religion and enhancing that which is good.

peace

Greg,

I would describe myself as a "spiritual atheist", with a huge amount of awe and wonder towards nature, the universe, my own evolution, myself, my fellow humans. The "feeling" might be similar to the "feeling" of a believer, but the object certainly is different. I cannot possibly be a Christian, believing in something as the bible, which at best is a collection of more or less useful metaphors written by men in order to make people live somewhat reasonably with eachother, originally in a tribal sense. (Let's skip the kindergarten version of believers).

Unfortunately, the metaphoric character is lost, and people have killed and kill eachother about details of those metaphors, details which in reality don't mean anything. As you said so clearly, religions are the CAUSE of atheism (in the more vulgar sense of the word).

The human brain has not developed to find truth, but to stay above water, to survive. Therefore, anything resembling some experience in practical life, up to the old man with a beard, seems more plausible for most people who are not used to think in more abstract terms, asking for example "why do people believe".

Here I agree with you that spiritual "atheists" and "theists", philosophically, are not as far from eachother as it may seem: It depends on the description of the object of their belief. And if you put the token "god" into the gap where we don't know, the difference between religionists and non-believers shrinks to the fact that non-believers leave space for development while religionists don't, which for me is counterintuitive for the ideal of human dignity.

Scott, reading the link about the "Face-off" (which as a European I can't receive) I doubt there will be anything halfway intelligent coming from the pious side, which builds its belief on the "fear of hell". What a moral. Ridiculous.

This should be interesting....

THE NIGHTLINE FACE OFF
Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3130360

Fred wrote:

To me it is much more "miraculous", much more exhilarating to realize that I, as a human, am the - so far - end product of an immeasurably huge chain of evolutionary stages and hidden events over billions of years than the kindergarten idea that some undefined guy took some clay, molded my forefather and breathed a soul into him a couple of thousand years ago.

Fred,

Obviously , you must realize that not everyone sees "God" in the manner in which you describe. I agree with your assessment that this is a "kindergarten" understanding of God, however there are a great many theists who see God differently. Evolution is an amazing process and it should be regarded as miraculous but one need not reject a spiritual nature to reality (God if you will) to embrace scientific findings. The important thing that many people who call themselves theists do not realize is that affirming the existence or non existence of God is not the question, the real question is what does the God you "see" look like??

Most of the people who call themselves atheists are not even looking for a "God" so how could they possibly see. The thing that needs to be emphasized, IMO, is that by not looking or not seeing God these "atheists" are in no lesser or greater position (morally speaking) they are simply in a different position. A different perspective on the same reality.

Many people have vacillated between different degrees of atheism and theism and it is very interesting to hear the reasons people leave one way of thinking or the other. My personal conclusion is that religion is THE CAUSE of atheism. Most religions try to tell people what God looks like instead of genuinely helping them to "discover" for them selves. Most people reject a religion and throw God out with it. I have ordered a book that talks about one guys (Greg Boyd)rejection of atheism (after many years) and am interested to read his story. He is now a preacher and author and has a very active ministry. I've heard a few of his sermons and he is a VERY fresh voice.

For the record, as of now, I regard myself as an Atheistic Christian. Atheistic because the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon or any other religious text does not fiy my perception of the spiritual reality that I seek and see (at times I see it), but Christian because I find Jesus' teaching of a "Third Way", that tries to turn our centuries old ways of human interaction and conflict resolution (which is what most of our human interaction is) on its ear, a very compelling social model. Part of what I find so compelling about Jesus' teachings (as I understand them) is the counterintuitive nature of them. There is a "rightness" IMO about counterintuitiveness; quantum theory and evolution are both counterintuitive ( how can something be a wave and a particle or how can complexity just happen from simplicity) but certainly have been shown in principle to be valid models.

peace

To me it is much more "miraculous", much more exhilarating to realize that I, as a human, am the - so far - end product of an immeasurably huge chain of evolutionary stages and hidden events over billions of years than the kindergarten idea that some undefined guy took some clay, molded my forefather and breathed a soul into him a couple of thousand years ago.

Plus, everybody, even the craziest creationist, will admit that he exists through an evolution - evolving from two cells through an impressive sequence of metamorphoses. So where is the problem? We don't need the auxiliary concept of a god, any god. It DEMEANS my evaluation of the greatness of life instead of enhancing it.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

If one studies enough religions atheism is the logical deduction... atheism is the thinking person's 'religion'.

The basic precepts of religious dogmas are essentially sound but once you put people in those positions of authority religion becomes corrupt with more tragic consequences than other powerful organizations.

People have 'faith' for one of the same basic reasons they believe atheists have no moral compass... they are fearful... fearful their religion, consequently their lives, may have no meaning if they are wrong.

Here's why I'm not a beliver:

On the surface, the question of God is an enormous one.

“Does God exist?”

But in reality the answer is quite simple: No.

It’s a matter of probability. There is no scientific evidence – not one iota – that there exists in the universe an omnipotent, omniscient being that can read the thoughts and direct the actions of every living being.

Pascal’s Wager
One is tempted to fall back on Blaise Pascal’s wager in this situation. The mathematician said that the chances for God’s existence were slim, but the penalty for guessing wrong was significant. If you believe in God and are right, you are rewarded with everlasting bliss. Contrast that with not believing in God and being right. The reward is a dirt nap. Wrong, however, and one faces eternal damnation.

So, according to Pascal, it’s better to believe. But Pascal may have been being facetious because can you really fake belief in God?

“Pascal’s wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God,” Biologist Richard Dawkins writes in his book “The God Delusion.” “And the God you claim to believe in better not be the omniscient kind or he’d see through the deception.”

Coming to the realization that I’m an atheist was not an easy path. I’ve struggled with the idea of God and religion since I was a boy. I was raised Catholic – with all the trappings, ceremonies, and solemn mysteries of faith (as well as the not so subtle threats not to wander off the reservation or face dire consequences).

I’ve flirted with church attendance throughout my adult life – going to Catholic masses and even a period where I went to a Congregationalist church. But the bouts of faith never took. Organized religion always falls back on tired religious platitudes, the contradictions and downright silliness of the Bible (not to mention the outright cruelty), and the bizarre absolutism of church canon (is it really wrong to never to have an abortion?).

In the end, I fell back on wondering why the most powerful being in the universe would care if I ate a hamburger on Fridays during Lent.

Science vs. Faith
It also comes down to science. At one time, Christians insisted that God placed the Earth at the center of the universe and that the sun, the planets, and everything else revolved around it. Christians persecuted scientists who dared to suggest otherwise – calling it an attack on religion and God. We now know that the Earth is but a tiny satellite in the far corner of the universe – revolving around the sun. Christians had to reluctantly adjust. And despite, mounds of scientific evidence that man (and all life on earth) evolved through natural selection – fundamental Christians continue to fight the obvious.

Christians (and I don’t mean to pick on Christianity, but it’s the religion I’m most familiar with) continue to explain any gap in science with one answer: God. Until, that is, science finally fills the gap with a more logical explanation. Then they scurry back to another gap. Unfortunately for religion – the gaps are getting fewer and harder to find.

As human knowledge progresses (chemists are now trying to create life in the laboratory – and eventually they probably will) it begins to be clear that belief in an omnipotent, omniscient being who controls the universe like some enormous puppet master is rather archaic. Religion appears to be a leftover remnant of our primitive past when lightning and thunder were God’s wrath rather than a naturally occurring weather pattern.

Long Odds
Fundamental Christians argue for a “designer” theory; that the universe is too complicated to have randomly occurred. But everything is random. Take a look around you. What were the improbable odds that the coffee cup on your desk would have ended up there? A thousand years ago your own birth was an improbable equation. Think of all the events that had to line up to make it happen and how the odds improved each time the event before it occurred. Then, finally, your parents are born and all that had to happen was the long-shot of them meeting, falling in love, and reproducing (and the one sperm among the millions that was you had to win the race).

The fact that any of us are living – is an astronomical ridiculous mathematical improbability. But those long odds are true about everything in existence.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection will also remind us that moles, lily pads, elephants, and redwood trees didn’t just “occur.” It was a long, slow process of evolution where the hardiest, most beneficial traits survived. Moles and redwood trees didn’t just “occur” they were slowly and painstakingly created over millions of years.

Celebration of Death
There’s also another factor. Call it the gut check. If the average religious person (and 73 percent of Americans believe in God, according to Harris Poll taken in October, 2006) truly believed in God and an afterlife, wouldn’t that belief manifest itself in the way we view death? Americans view death as sorrowful and the prospect of it scares most people.

But why is this? If heaven exists – wouldn’t death be cause for celebration? Wouldn’t we look forward to our deaths? Wouldn’t we envy those who died before us because they are with God and in heaven with all of our ancestors? The answer, of course, is that most people – deep down – understand the contradictions and improbability of the existence of God – especially one who reads our thoughts and intervenes in our actions sporadically and without design.

The idea of no God, however, frightens most people. But it shouldn’t. Life is just as precious without a supreme being. You are still you. The people in your life still exist and our societies will continue to function and run and thrive. The control, however, belongs to us.

I would argue that meaning is something you ACTIVELY bestow on something or someone or some entity. It is your active contribution. Belief is never an original active contribution, in the religious sense: It always has been TOLD you by someone for whatever agenda this someone might pursue, even unwittingly. Nobody in the possession of his full senses would invent stories we find as historical oddities in the bible or the Quran or other religious "scriptures".

I, as a proud non-believer, have such a huge amount of meaning in my life, that believing in something which might contradict my honest perception, my honest thinking, would SUBTRACT from this meaning, not add anything. I would be ashamed of simultaneously pursuing two contradictory paths in my thinking by believing things which in my real life I would be forced to regard as nonsense. Btw, it has taken some time for me to arrive at his position.

People have such difficulty to accept that their lives are "knots" in the immense network of life, of ideas, of intelligence, of evolution, of the cosmos, of the miracle of the existing world, and that they have to return to the state they were in BEFORE being conceived and born, before developing and evolving from two cells into an individual personality. They are so proud of their "eternal" egos that its passing away, to give room to other parts of the universe, other "knots", is unbearable to them. That is the root of the stupid threat of hell and its eternal torture, as well as the equally stupid reward system (72 virgins!), only to cater to the hope of eternally perpetuating what this life span encompasses for some time. The whole "sin and salvation" system, therefore, is meaningless.

The very notion of being able to say "I" is a product of our incredibly complex brain: Patients with brain injuries may lose the ability of feeling and saying "I".

The fact that we will all die, as well as the fact that there was a world before our conception and birth, does not take away a grain of meaning which I feel towards my own existence.

Thus, the concept of "god" to me is nothing but a metaphor for this impossibility to explain the fact of my existence. A metaphor is an idea originated by ME.

When reading Vinny's and other "believers'" hostile aggressive nonsense, when I read and hear them talking about their (very "human") unctuous fantasies, it always strikes me that NOBODY ever dares to even start defining their "god". They talk of god as a reality, as a person (projecting their limited fantasy on an entity resembling themselves), but are unable to attribute the faintest real property or feature or quality to this entity, except maybe that god is "everything". But here we encounter a semantic problem: A concept which defines everything really defines nothing. Words must contain definitions and fix boundaries to other words. "God", therefore, is not a definition of anything, only a negative, a void into which we might place our immanent ignorance.

Scott,

First let’s agree on terms. (quotes are from Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/)
I have selected the definitions that apply to our discussion:

Belief
“1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing”

Fact
“4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality”

Faith
“2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust”

Rationalism
“2b: a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems”

Our conceptual structure is built in layers starting with naming experiences, such as apple, and then adds relationships between these things, I eat apples, apples are good, apples are found on apple trees. Some of these are facts and others are beliefs. “Apples are good” is a belief (no physical reality) and I eat apples is a fact. Everyone can watch me eat an apple. God is a belief because it has no physical reality. As humans we naturally perceive things and relationships.

The difference between “believers” and “non-believers” is not the existence or lack of beliefs, but how we come to them. “Believers” come to their beliefs through faith and “non-believers” come to their beliefs by reasoning. Most people are a mix of both. The specific beliefs that are at issue are that

god exists
we have a soul
god authored the bible, quran, … and that it is correct
god directly intervenes (answers prayers, gives rewards & punishment…)
there is an afterlife
god has our interests at heart (i.e. not raising us as we do cattle)

Believers believe them and nonbelievers do not. All of these things are not facts, as actual existence cannot be proven.

The believers have heartburn with ONLY the Facts and Beliefs (hypothesis, theories, deductions) that contradict the statements made in the holy books. They will do anything to discredit them. (--> anything <--)

We non-believers should argue back by highlighting the difference between a belief based on faith and one based one based on reason. We could set up demonstrations (a game show?) whereby a believer and a scientist work to solve a practical problem, say, “is this food poisonous?” and each uses their skills, faith, prayer, scientific method, logical deductions, and see who-is-correct more often.

Mack,

Intelligent design IS religion. Make no mistake about it. The problem with ID is that it has ZERO value. What do you do with it? It offers no chance to expand and enhance our body of knowledge. ID is just gonna sit back and be a "science heckler".

"No way, that can be true" ...... "Prove it" ...... "Yeah sure!!"

It will NEVER add anything to what we know. All it does is claim what we do not know. ID is pure rhetoric and NO SUBSTANCE

peace

Wow Scott,

What a great post!

I would only suggest that the currency of theists is "meaning" and not belief. Everyone has belief but what does the belief "mean". That is where the different beliefs diverge.

Using that as a context, maybe a proper view of some people is that they are autistic with respect to meaning. Studies on autistic people (there is a wide spectrum within autism) show that at a very basic level there is a "concreteness" to their consciousness. They cannot pick up on subtle non verbal cues and sarcasm has no meaning to them. Of course the other end of the spectrum from these autistics are the people who 'over subscribe" meaning to things and make up meaning where there is none, acting in an almost paranoid manner.

Maybe the people that view them selves as atheist are "autistic" in regards to seeking meaning. On the other hand, Vinny and David require meaning to such a high degree, they will even find a "dictionary" that has all the meanings in it.

So, I guess the next challenge would be to find ways to express what life means to you in a way which rings true with other humans. If you and I find common meaning we will work together.

I think there is common meaning for the vast majority of people however the "fringe" players can certainly negatively impact things for the rest of us.

peace

I liked vinny's arguments. He came off a little strong, but I thought many of his points were very good.

I don't think he was advocating religion as much as he was Intelligent Design.

Nice thread.

Acrapist wrote: "He has that la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la-la thing going. I call it ignorance. He ignores what does not fit into his belief system. To varying levels I think this is common of all believers. This is part of the mental structure that willingly calls the sun the moon. I think it is an integral part of the self delusion that allows imaginary things to be real and to then cause any number of events in peoples lives. "

I see the issue as twofold.

01. It appears that many theists have literally woven God into the very thread of their reality. They have become inseparable. Any time you claim that God does not exist, they see it as a claim that reality does not exist.

In other words, if I believe that God is responsible for morality in the world, and this belief is based on the Bible's claim that God created man, and I believe the Bible has authority because it claims it is the word of God, then anything that threatens the Bible's accuracy is a threat to our societies' morals.

However, when thesis claim that the Bible is true because it is the word of God, It's really a two edged sword. The very claim they use to prove the Bible's authority exposes the very foundation of their existence to annihilation. Death of one's reality is not something one takes lightly, so for theists to simply ignore things that contradict their beliefs is a very natural reaction. It could even be thought of as a natural survival mechanism that's part of the human condition.

However, you and I have mental models that view the concept of God and reality as separate. How did this come about? What events or experiences causes us to have such radically different views about the very same universe than those as Vinny?

Since I consider the BIble to simply be a compilation of stories and metaphors created by men thousands of years ago, I'm free to examine the Bible in an objective way. Any errors I might find in the Bible would would not invalidate it's entire contents and my concept of reality. Fundamentalists have no such luxury - It's either all or nothing. The Bible must be true or the entire concept unravels.

02. How do we, as rationalists, present this separate model in such a way that it does not come off as another belief system, yet speaks to theists?

Clearly, theists look at the world as a series of belief systems. If you do not believe in God, then you must believe in something else. In fact, some people have proposed that religion is a language that theists use to talk about their experiences and situations.

If you and I do not speak someone's language, it makes it difficult for us to understand each other. If belief is the currency of theists, and you and I do not believe in anything, then we are bankrupt in their eyes. They ignore us because, in their mind, we're not saying anything they can relate to.

There have been similar to studies made about communication preferences in specific geographic areas. Some cultures strongly prefer oral communication over written language. In fact, While I find the exact figure, approximately 75% percent of the world's population will choose oral communication over written language when they have a choice. Drama, exaggeration and entertainment are key to this type of communication. As such, information that is not presented in a story like fashion is much less likely to be absorbed by these cultures.

How can one present rationalism in either a religious or story like context when their very core of seems contradictory to each other?

Acrapist commented in regards to Vinnys inability to introspect

To be honest, I must assert that we all have some of that going on. I think that it is part of being human. Not a desirable part, but one that we are stuck with nonetheless.

Acrapist,

I couldn't agree more. I think it is called subjectivism. How many people want to knowingly do or think wrong things?? None, so by definition what we do or think is what WE think is right. Some go through more convolutions of rationalizations (or ir-rationalizations) but in the end we arrive where we think is right.

What do we do with that "rightness" is really the crucial question.
Do we fear the potential "wrongness" of our "rightness" so much that we go to extreme measures to inflict our rightness on others or do we accept our "rightness" as "rightness for now" and truly view it as a journey which could take us almost anywhere. Even to places we can't imagine and may not like.

Do you operate from a position of hope or fear( I am not referring to the "keep your fingers crossed" type of hope)? The Vinnys of the world operate from a position of fear but try to convince others of the "hopefulness" of their fears. "This world is evil but if you have my faith you will be saved. Faith like mine is your hope"

Truly hopeful people see through that message and know it is false.

There is plenty to fear in this world (most of it man made) but life itself is not to be feared.

Religion has made its mark scaring the hell out of people but I am hopeful (this time with my fingers slightly crossed) that religion will not eventually get to carry out its threats.

peace

Instead of talking to V, lets talk about him.

What if most Christians were at the same level of maturity as V? How would we, as people of reason, deal with such childishness? I think that all believers share something that V so proudly displays.

He has that la-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-la-la-la-la thing going. I call it ignorance. He ignores what does not fit into his belief system. To varying levels I think this is common of all believers. This is part of the mental structure that willingly calls the sun the moon. I think it is an integral part of the self delusion that allows imaginary things to be real and to then cause any number of events in peoples lives.

To be honest, I must assert that we all have some of that going on. I think that it is part of being human. Not a desirable part, but one that we are stuck with nonetheless. The way to disempower these things is the same as for superstitions. Acknowledge it for what it is. Bring it out into the light and ask others to help stamp it out like a cockroach.

In this thread we all call each other on it if we detect B.S. With V, we have someone who is unwilling to look at himself. I hear that one of the worst punishments is ostracism. Many of you have suggested this but do not know how. The way to do it is to talk about him and not to him.

Maybe someone can suggest a different approach? There may be something I am ignoring. Right now it is V's posts.

Vinnys last post was by FAR his best. If he would have had that tone all along maybe people would have enjoyed his input.

peace

End of the Road.

Anyway, I came here with some attitude, and a little humor for one simple reason; TO GET YOUR ATTENTION.

If nothing else I am sure many of you just looked at these things more carefully then. Looked DEEPER inside to examine what you really do believe. By doing that, some along the way may see the folly in believing that there is no chance of any kind of intelligence behind such purposeful and at times just amazing things. For others, then perhaps you are more convinced in what you formally believe.

Good enough then. I am actually a very nice guy. I have no issues with atheists accept for disagreeing with them. I respect that all people have the right to believe what they wish to believe, as long as they do not burt other people. But in the debating world, like here, it can seem like we are enemies. I do not feel that way deep down. The phony Vinny did cause some problems, but so did I.

We are all human beings, with feelings and thoughts that have value. I do know this.

This is why I asked for answers as well.

Nothing posted has persuaded me to believe anything differently than what I do believe now, which is that some intelligence is needed for life and for the other features to be here today.

But we are all different. I will always be open. I hope you are too.

I need to get back to my own business now. The trip through
this thread was a fun ride.

I wish you all the best.

A hui hou from the Hawaiian Islands!

My best to you all,

Vinny

Atheists have had a rough time on this thread in my view.

Like I have said many times, the more complex the feature, the more you need intelligence behind the cause.

A little baby can throw paint on a canvass. But look at a master's painting, and then you know without a doubt there was something special behind that work of art. Look at the more amazing earth with an array of wonderful things. Sunsets that make your jaw drop. Food that is wonderful to smell and taste. Beautiful turquoise waters and a white sandy beach with coconut trees are an exquisite sight for me. Mountains and valley and waterfalls and beautiful forests and flowers on and on... they reflect the hand of an amazing Supreme Artist. At least for me they do as well as 95 percent of the human population.

All the universe is in amazing order. The human body is simply incredible. Cut youself and it can heal itself. Just get the food and enjoy eating it, the body does the rest for you by breaking it down and using it for living. Want kids? You know what to do. But then amazing things happen to make that little one into a human being. We love other people. We have a conscience. We all have some built in desire to search for and worship something. We speculate and contemplate many things many times.

There are just too many things to ever believe that these just happened by some series of chances and lot's of luck making everything we see today. Just NO WAY that can happen.

Sorry but atheists really have not done very good at all here.

Is why Albert Einstein was not an atheist as well. Is why he said "God does not play dice with the universe".

True indeed.

Vinny has an agenda. Clearly, it's not having a rational discussion on the issues.

Again, please do not feed the Troll.

Look folks, Joey's a poet.

How bout that!

Can you frame those for me Joey?

You da man!

Proud Vinny keeps on a'trollin'
Huffin' and puffin' and crowin'

He says the same thing
Agane and agane

"'Tis Vinny, let's keep a'snorin'"

The vinny IMPOSTER rides again:

Well Greg,

"You sound like an atheist who can't admit he's an atheist.

It is sooo sad that you atheists cannot see the folly of your ways.
Science will NEVER give you the answers for the HOWS or WHYS.
They will just come up with theories or reasonable guesses, nothing provable.

I thank you for at least not continuing to be a coward and run from my questions but your answers are as pathetic as I would expect from a little atheist.

Well

Bwahahhahahhahahaha

******* This is the phony, loser Vinny. The original Vinny (me) will reply to your post soon Greg. Disregard the imitation guy.

He needs some help.

There once was a man named Vinny
Who insulted this thread aplenty

He thinks he is wise
But to his surprise

His words mean nuttin' to many

Vinny,

Shame on me for thinking I could actually have a reasonable discussion with you. You are a toxic personality.

peace

Well Greg,

You sound like an atheist who can't admit he's an atheist.

It is sooo sad that you atheists cannot see the folly of your ways.
Science will NEVER give you the answers for the HOWS or WHYS.
They will just come up with theories or reasonable guesses, nothing provable.

I thank you for at least not continuing to be a coward and run from my questions but your answers are as pathetic as I would expect from a little atheist.

Well

Bwahahhahahhahahaha

Actually Vinny, I am not an atheist but I absolutely trust science to answer the 'HOW' questions for me. I'll answer the 'WHY' questions for myself. I don't need a 3000 yr old book to tell me the whys.

You ask the "Little atheists" here to answer a question that NO ONE can answer. But I would rather trust the scientific method to discover "some" truths(nothing will discover all truths). You on the other hand would rather claim things to be impossible (as if you KNOW all the possibilities) that you do not understand.

Face it Vinny, we were not a unique creation. We evolved from a common ancestor with apes. Adam and Eve never existed and nothing intelligent designed us (I work in medicine and we are a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine)

No one can explain yet how the first replicators came to exist but they will one day. Once it is shown how RNA and DNA came to be the "life cannot come from nothin crowd" will get verrrry silent.

You obviously have a higher than average IQ. Start using it to actually answer questions meaningfully. Deferring everything to an intelligent designer has NO value. We can do nothing with that information. That way of thinking stops investigation, which ultimately is what most religious zealots want in the first place.

peace

Vinny,

You completely misrepresent atheists and agnostics. Atheists do not claim "nothing started this" they simply claim, a personal being (who had humans in mind as an end point when this whole universe thing got going) that was incarnated in the form of Jesus Christ and is described in detail in the Bible, did not get this started.

Agnostics simply say I do not know if there is a God or not. Actually, technically an agnostic is one who doubts the "God ness" of Jesus Christ. They do not say "there must be a God"

You are putting out Vinny definitions that do not exist and then attacking them. You are poking holes in "your" oppositions. not anyone elses.

I'll be back later Greg. But I look forward to your answers when I get back.

No more politics though. Okay?

No more running or hiding.

Just answer the questions.

Bye for now,

vinny

Folks, this is what we call a SMOKESCREEN.

DID YOU NOTICE GREG NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS?

Why not Greg? Too hard for you to answer?

So Are you atheist Greg?

If so, how did life and all features GET HERE from nothing at all? Science cannot even put life back where life once was, much less make even the simplest life from dead matter, much less get the human brain from dead soup, polymers etc.

Yet atheists say everything came from nothing, from luck and fat chances.

And if you are not atheist, then WHY NOT, Greg?

Poor Greg, he is hiding from the questions. And smokescreens. Like politicians.

Bwaaahahyahahahahahaha

Now Greg, no more running.

No more hiding.

Answer the questions.

Guys,

Vinny has been such an inspiration, I think I'm gonna start using Vinny logic to solve other problems.

Cancer:
There is no way those scientists can ever KNOW for certain how a cancer starts in the cells of a person. SO instead of wasting valuable dollars on unproven reaearch we just have to tell cancer patients that they were designed to have cancer. Obviously it is part of THE PLAN.

Mental illness:

Finding the root causes of depression or schizophrenia is something that will never be proven. Tell them all they were designed that way for a reason and get off those mind altering substances.

Child abuse:

No one can ever PROVE what makes a parent want to beat or sexually assault their own offspring so we need to just stop pretending to be able to know and simply tell the kids "Its all part of the plan". Your life was designed this way we just cannot know why YET. We're working on the why.

Gosh this is soooo easy. Vinny has shown me the "HOW" (Its just designed that way) and if I believe hard enough I will find out the WHY on my judgement day.

Thanks Vinny you have just simplified all our lives.

Sorry Greg, but vinny is nothing. It's simply a matter of being on the WRONG SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT that gets atheists buried.

All I do show why and provide the shovels. Atheists bury THEMSELVES.

You see atheists have no argument the minute they say no God, no way at all.

Agnostics say, must be some God, I just don't know WHO or WHAT.

That makes enough sense to me then.

But you see atheists say we got here some way, all from nothing at all, and i can't tell you how, nor can science show you how, but it does not matter, cause there was NO CHANCE it was by some kind of God at all. Just lot's of fat chances and luck.

This is where atheists get stuck in mud.

Are you atheist Greg?

If yes, then how did all things arrive from nothing? Please tell us how.

And if not atheist, then WHY NOT?

Vinny,

I think you ought to take your show on the road. You need to publish your arguments. I'm not sure why you waste your time with us, you really have it all figured out. I mean you have PROVEN the existence of an intelligent designer ( and I'll bet you could even name him/her if you wanted to.... stop holding out!!)

This is so important you owe it to mankind to get this info out. Your argument is bulletproof so I can not see how anyone could disagree with it.

YOU WIN VINNY!!!

VINNY IS THE GREATEST!!!

VINNY IS THE SMARTEST!!!

Poor Hermit says:... "http://www.le.ac.uk/bl/gat/virtualfc/Stats/introst.html

"None of this will come close to answering your questions"

******** Bwaaahahahahahahahahah

No answers as to just how life arose from NOTHING, by Hermit.

And then he uses "potholes and mudpuddles" to prove he is missing a few screws as well.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

Hermit, you male atheists looks worse than they actually are (which is stuck in mud with their beliefs). I hope you continue to post Hermit.

You help my side.

: )

Hey everybody, I just saw the most amazing thing! It was a pothole and in the pothole was a puddle and the puddle FIT INTO THE POTHOLE PERFECTLY!!!

God must have made that pothole just for that puddle...

A Hermit

Vinny: "And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the g