Kill for Your God? There is No God

From reading some of the above comments i would have to suggest that a lot of us came down from the trees a little to soon!

Instead of trying to defend your GODS against reasoned argument, why don't you let them speak from themselves.

If there is no God? Why do people keep asking why suffering happens? I thought, from my little logic I have, if you do not believe in God, there is no need to answer these "why" any more. It is but some unfortunate chemical reaction in the brain. Death is nothing but a recycling process.

Keep on blaming God. At least you believe God is there for you to blame on.

I agree that it is futile to die for a god that one envisions.

Jesus (as a person) has very deep insight. He believes that man loves God and, equally important, man loves one another.

If man only loves God, man may easily turn into terrorists or religious franatics. If man love God and love one another, the world should be more peaceful and the society would be much better off than what is now.

when I was young I had a great belief in God...
After that couple of years i was reading about this as this question about existence of God was irritating me....
then i realized that the concept of God is man made ..
In the evolutionary period when some unknown things used to happen,the man was having no idea about this so he thought that there is some power behind this and then he gave it a name --God thats it...
If u give all ur responsibilities and make a statement that for everything i do the responsible person is God then u make urself dependant...
and thats what makes u narrowminded and downgrade..

So true... it's almost frightening that we are/have been so alone out there through all those millions of years.

How can a God let a 2 year old girl die from a brutal beating at the hands of her parents. Why can a loving knowing God let this happen. There is no God that can let the innocent die. Tomorrow there will be another story in the news and another the next day. If there was a God then why would he let the innocent suffer?

Thanks boys
b210f4d257f8dcb5dbab23a12af7a35f

Previewing your Comment
SEVEN REASONS WHY A SCIENTIST BELIEVES IN GOD

The following article of Mr A.Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences first appeared in the Reader's Digest of January, 1948; then, on the recommendation of Professor C.A.Coulson. F.R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University (the same university where Pr Richard Dawkins teaches), was republished in the Reader's Digest of November, 1960. – It shows how science compels the scientists to admit the essential need of a Supreme Creator. But Pr Richard Dawkins chose not to admit this scientific reality.

“We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the ninety years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself, I count seven reasons for my faith:-

First:

By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence.
Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically, we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in hundred; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million.

By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this “eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half of its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had not been so tilted, vapours from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only fifty thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or, if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day, would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fire everywhere.

Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second:

The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading intelligence.
What life itself is, no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.

Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose, changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen so that animals may have the breath of life.

Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt-less sea could not meet the necessary requirements.

“Who, then, has put it there?”

Third:

Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures.
The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river, and travels up the very side of the river into which flows the tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary, he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere those from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little one, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water, nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parents came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing impulse originate?

A wasp overpowers a grasshopper, digs a hole in the earth, stings the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed; to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies away and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth:

Man has something more than animal instinct the power of reason.

No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of universal intelligence.

Fifth:

Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today which Darwin did not know such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra-microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However, the facts are beyond question. Well, then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small place? Here evolution really begins at the cell, the entity that holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth:

By the economy of nature, we are forced to realise that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry.

Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon begun a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defence, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect, which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So, animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects enough to hold the cactus in check forever.

Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But, when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence, there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check.

If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh:

The fact that man conceives the idea of God is in itself a unique proof.
The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality. He may discern in all the evidence of design and purpose, the great truth that heaven is everywhere and in everything, but nowhere so close as in our hearts.

It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true; in the words of the psalmist: “ The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.”

A. Cressy Morrison
Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences
--------------
Ghyslaine ROC
Tuesday 29th of January 6008
Posted by: Ghyslaine ROC | January 28, 2008 7:45 PM

SEVEN REASONS WHY A SCIENTIST BELIEVES IN GOD

The following article of Mr A.Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences first appeared in the Reader's Digest of January, 1948; then, on the recommendation of Professor C.A.Coulson. F.R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University (the same university where Pr Richard Dawkins teaches), was republished in the Reader's Digest of November, 1960. – It shows how science compels the scientists to admit the essential need of a Supreme Creator. But Pr Richard Dawkins chose not to admit this scientific reality.

“We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the ninety years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humility and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself, I count seven reasons for my faith:-

First:

By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence.

Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically, we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in hundred; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million.

By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze.

Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this “eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one-half of its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if it had not been so tilted, vapours from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only fifty thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist. Or, if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day, would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fire everywhere.

Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second:

The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading intelligence.

What life itself is, no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock. Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the elements, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations.

Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds. Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose, changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen so that animals may have the breath of life.

Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small. The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt-less sea could not meet the necessary requirements.

“Who, then, has put it there?”

Third:

Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures.

The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river, and travels up the very side of the river into which flows the tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely? If you transfer him to another tributary, he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere those from Europe across thousands of miles of ocean all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little one, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water, nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parents came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds so that each body of water is always populated with eels. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing impulse originate?

A wasp overpowers a grasshopper, digs a hole in the earth, stings the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed; to them dead meat would be fatal. The mother then flies away and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth:

Man has something more than animal instinct the power of reason.

No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of universal intelligence.

Fifth:

Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today which Darwin did not know such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful. Yet these ultra-microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However, the facts are beyond question. Well, then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small place? Here evolution really begins at the cell, the entity that holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth:

By the economy of nature, we are forced to realise that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry.

Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon begun a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms. Seeking a defence, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect, which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So, animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects enough to hold the cactus in check forever.

Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth? Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But, when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence, there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check.

If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh:

The fact that man conceives the idea of God is in itself a unique proof.

The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality. He may discern in all the evidence of design and purpose, the great truth that heaven is everywhere and in everything, but nowhere so close as in our hearts.

It is scientifically as well as imaginatively true; in the words of the psalmist: “ The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork.”

A. Cressy Morrison

Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences

--------------
Ghyslaine ROC
Tuesday 29th of January 6008

Dear you all

According to what I have read, Pr Richard Dawkins is paid by our tax money to preach his religion of Atheism and nogodism. But, at the same time, Pr Dawkins has espoused the policies of various western regimes and that of Apartheid Israel. He sanctions the massacre of millions of defenceless people in the mainly Muslim and Arab countries.
In one of his talks (monologues) in front of a sheepish university crowd, he said that the cleverest man that has ever existed was Aristotle and that he descended from the cleverest of apes and that the white Europeans are descended from Aristotle, or something like that. Is this not an absolutely racist statement?

Is it not sheer cowardice on his part not to name the Muslims in the above post? Pr Richard Dawkins is the Master of Lies! It is a lie to say that Muslims kill for their God.

1. The deluded Professor still does not know that there is no such thing as the God of Muslims!

2. When Pr Dawkins speak of “religious extremists”, again it is sheer cowardice on his part not to say Muslim “extremists”. Who told the deluded Professor that Muslim “extremists” kill for their God? Is he a scientist or a propagandist who believes every lie that is propagated by a racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Islamic controlled media?

3. Any Muslim who is seen using violence against anybody, is it because of his religion or because of “his God” as Pr Dawkins alleges?

4. Why does not Pr Dawkins not say that those Muslims and non Muslims who are fighting against the invading armies of the West, of Apartheid Israel, of Russia, or of Bharat (Anglo-India), are only DEFENDING their lives, their families, their country, and their Way of Life?

5. It suits Pr Dawkins to LIE about the Freedom Fighters because he has espoused the racist and genocidal policies of the West, of Russia and that of Apartheid Israel!

6. The people who are fighting and dying by the millions, it is not because of their faith or for their God, as Pr Dawkins falsely alleges, but, it is simply for survival because they are being bombed day and night and their resources plundered by the invading armies that are glorified by Pr Dawkins, and they are prevented from being independent of the International Bankers.

7. Pr Richard Dawkins talks like a paranoid fool by telling, for example, the Bosnian Freedom Fighters not to defend their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters from being raped by the Serbs! Sixty thousand were thus raped! Pr Richard Dawkins is of the opinion that “where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business.” So, he would also find no objection to the Israeli, British and US mercenaries who involved themselves in rape and sodomy on the prisoners of Abu Ghuraib!

8. By the way, fifteen per cent of those defending Sarajevo were Serbs! It is the racist controlled media that made the Bosnian “Ethnic Cleansing” a religious matter!

9. The mother of Rothschild once said: If my son does not want war, there will be no war! So, Pr Dawkins should read more serious stuff and not drown himself in fetid Western and Zionist propaganda.

10. Is it not strange, that out of all the countries, Muslim and non Muslim, that are fighting western invading armies, he does not find a single one having the RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE?

11. As Malcom X said once: It is a crime to teach a man not to defend himself when he is attacked!

12. When Pr Dawkins says: “There is no God”. He does not speak like a scientist, but like a blooming idiot! He is deluded himself, but he cannot see that.

13. Pr Richard Dawkins hates religion, especially Christianity and Islam (not Judaism!), and Christians and Muslims (not Jews!), and of course GOD! It is perfectly his right, but why should our tax money pay for his Atheist and Zionist preaching?

14. Pr Dawkins accused Muslims for 9/11 and for 7/7. Where is his evidence? He should watch Alex Jones’ TERRORSTORM or Eric Hufshmid PAINFUL QUESTIONS/DECEPTIONS or Dylan Avery’s LOOSE CHANGE or again listen to (or watch) David Ray Griffin about the Myth of 9/11!

15. Pr Richard Dawkins is taking us for fools. He has an agenda. He tells lies. He lies, lies and lies! And, this is a MOSSAD motto! “By deception we shall make war!”

16. Pr Richard Dawkins does not give a damn about the millions the US, his country Britain, and the West have slaughtered like cattle during the past centuries. The figure is staggering: 487 million killed! Between 75 and 150 million Muslims, and he dares say that Muslim “extremists kill for their God in order to get Paradise”!!!!!!!

17. And the Holocaust is ongoing! As a “Darwinist” or “Neo-Darwinist”, Pr Dawkins is in favour of the “survival of the fittest” by weapons of mass destruction that his protégés are the only ones to have, to manufacture, to sell, and to use!!!!!!!

Regards
Ghyslaine ROC
Tuesday 29th of January 6008

ok you dont see a great painting just appear from no where it has to have an artist.Yup you got it the painting is everything in the universe the artist is God!like anyone of us could create a whole universe!

ok you dont see a great painting just appear from no where it has to have an artist.Yup you got it the painting is everything in the universe the artist is God!like anyone of us could create a whole universe!

Hello people
37c4e4247e67b611f8e45ffbd447e8bf

Hello people
df3933c1d44939e2183ee167f0562a15

Yhanks you
be54890fb9f06c6e30233561f6624142

Great boys
bae4cf599cec7c53f2751b0c4ea305b1

Hi boys!
af5cb5a50ba25e698f53191f88ee4f25

Hi boys!
df9742fe7c547dbcafb14fd73d282ace

Agreed Wholeheartedly, Richard dawkins is a great man!

Yhanks you
13d3d5

I hasten to add that I am a great "believer" in the science of psychology and psychiatry. It is a young science compared to the rest of medicine, and hence it has a long way to go in spite of making great advances in the short time that it has been around. Freud no doubt made a breakthrough contribution. The book by Samuel Shem is a satire. It is a novel hence it is not to be taken literally and the advice should not be taken as medical advice.

Dear Gerry

Re classification of human beings: I thought you might be interested to read a novel by Samuel Shem titled, "Mount Misery." It is a hilarious insider's take on Freudian psychoanalysis. The story goes to show how inaccurate classification of human beings can be, even by health professionals, and how each one is biased by the school of thought one has been trained in (I'm referring in this case only to mental health issues - physical diseases have objective standards and hence are something else of course). Freud is considered the father of modern psychology and his views have shaped scientific views about the human mind in an incredible way, although his very student, C G Jung disagreed with him and went on to found a very powerful school of his own.

Science, wonderful as it is, is oh so imperfect. The book is a very good reminder.

No, I have not put you in any box or drawer. The more I know about human beings the more I am convinced that the only way to understand anybody is know their biography, to know the culture, the thoughts, the people, the values that influenced them; their dreams and hopes, how they interpreted the experiences of their lives, and what core values they actually practice (not believe in or preach about!). Even then, every human being is unpredicable in every choice they make all their lives - the direct consequence of possessing a free will. Since I know nothing about you, I can't even begin to build a box for you, even though I know you would jump unpredictably out of every box I should construct for you anyway!!!

Best wishes
Soja

I wish to add that religion bashing atheists like Professor Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, do not make a real contribution to reforming religions because they express their views as hysterical rants without providing facts and figures to substantiate their claims. The fact that they ignore all good done in the name of religions makes their claims far too biased to be given any serious consideration. Serious believers have only two choices: 1. Ignore the rants. 2. Be amused at the ignorance about religions inherent in the theatrical rants.

Example: Mr Hitchens represented the devil in the beatification ceremony of Mother Theresa of Calcutta. The Nobel Prize committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize (and they are not a religious organisation!), and yet Mr Hitchens had nothing good to say about her!

So much for where sometimes "clear" logic can lead a human being. So logic in itself is not guarantee that one will arrive at a truthful conclusion. Would a religion bashing atheist have the humility to admit that he might be logical and yet be dead wrong?

What would the religion bashing atheist have to say about religious evangelicals if they merely converted nominal believers into atheist-bashing fanatics - just bashing atheists, nothing else? Isn't it the essence of what Dawkins et al are doing - converting nominal atheists into religion bashers, and grouping together other religion bashers like themselves?

By all means write and talk about how religion is wrongly practised; do write about humanism in action from the perspective of an atheist. Believers like me would be all ears and take the writing seriously.

But until then, for every book published by Dawkins et al, a first year theology student/religious scholar, representing their respective religions should publish a book exposing the lies, half truths, and false, exaggerated claims made by the religion-bashing atheists.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

it would have been sufficient for richmond to say, as a person of faith, i can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement that there is no God. and then go on to explain his concept of God. that would be very interesting.

as for mr. mark. i see no point in his shooting down richmond. we can't prove God doesn't exist. so i'd rather what mr. mark believes exists. not everyone is as intelligent as he is; therefore, not everyone can be as self-satisified. he has to risk more of his beliefs in his postings.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

it would have been sufficient for richmond to say, as a person of faith, i can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement that there is no God. and then go on to explain his concept of God. that would be very interesting.

as for mr. mark. i see no point in his shooting down richmond. we can't prove God doesn't exist. so i'd rather what mr. mark believes exists. not everyone is as intelligent as he is; therefore, not everyone can be as self-satisified. he has to risk more of his beliefs in his postings.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

it would have been sufficient for richmond to say, as a person of faith, i can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement that there is no God. and then go on to explain his concept of God. that would be very interesting.

as for mr. mark. i see no point in his shooting down richmond. we can't prove God doesn't exist. so i'd rather what mr. mark believes exists. not everyone is as intelligent as he is; therefore, not everyone can be as self-satisified. he has to risk more of his beliefs in his postings.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

it would have been sufficient for richmond to say, as a person of faith, i can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement that there is no God. and then go on to explain his concept of God. that would be very interesting.

as for mr. mark. i see no point in his shooting down richmond. we can't prove God doesn't exist. so i'd rather what mr. mark believes exists. not everyone is as intelligent as he is; therefore, not everyone can be as self-satisified. he has to risk more of his beliefs in his postings.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

it would have been sufficient for richmond to say, as a person of faith, i can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement that there is no God. and then go on to explain his concept of God. that would be very interesting.

as for mr. mark. i see no point in his shooting down richmond. we can't prove God doesn't exist. so i'd rather what mr. mark believes exists. not everyone is as intelligent as he is; therefore, not everyone can be as self-satisified. he has to risk more of his beliefs in his postings.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

what a tediouus and ill-tempered conversation between richmond and mr. mark -- what is interesting is (a) the cycle of incivillity and (b) the explosions of contempt. they are just exploiting this venue and trivialize it. i'd like to thank both of them for that.

Dear Gerry

Thanks for the lengthy response.

I'm glad that your invitation to me to join the elite club of atheists (humanist atheists rather, in my capacity as a believer by conviction, still stands. I'm convinced that humanists of all stripes could get along well together and work together for the common good of man; the only prerequisite being mutual respect for the other person's free decision to believe in God or not.

Linear logic vs Circular reasoning: This is not the first time I have heard that one believes in God only by resorting to a process called 'circular reasoning.' The Big Bang, along with matter, space and time as entities with a definite beginning at a definite point in time, is a scientifically agreed on fact (or theory if you prefer). As a believer I believe that the uncreated Creator of the Big Bang is God. What exactly is unreasonable about such a conclusion? It is linear logic. What exactly makes such logical reasoning circular? I'm sure you agree that there can be no scientific invention without a scientist, no mathematics without a mathematician, no music without a musician, no pot without a potter... But a mind boggling universe without a creator???

A two year old could stand before a fifty year old banyan tree and claim that the banyan tree has always existed. Existed longer than he has? Of course! Would it be wrong for someone to claim that the banyan tree not only existed in the form of a seed, but that someone planted the seed in the ground, without which act the tree could not have grown?

Eternal principles of science: The "eternal" natural laws has an even more eternal Lawgiver, that is all the believer claims. As to the "eternal" law of gravity (which no scientist invented), it ceases to be eternal outside earth's orbit. So I'm sure you agree that many such scientific eternabilities is very much limited to particular circumstances. That is not to discredit science which explains the circumstances under which those eternabilities function.

My knowledge of mathematics is very limited indeed. I was a Maths elective student in class 9 and 10, however that was when I was 15-17 years old (and didn't study any mathematics after that). I was a seventeen year old ages ago, so that now even an Australian fifth grader would know more mathematics than me. It beats my imagination however when I'm provided with the "proof" how 2+2 = 4 is the absolute proof God DOESN'T exist. That must belong to the category of advanced mathematics I didn't learn as a 15-17 year old. God is not the joker in a pack of playing cards, He is the "x" is a very important mathematical equation about the origin of the universe. The "x" is perfectly reasonable mathematics, at least as far as my limited knowledge of mathematics go.

Nein, nein, nein! I wasn't giving the atheists any daisies at all. I see no reason to be patronising with the atheists (especially since they all claim to have more access to reason than believers do), even if I do not see any merit in atheism per se. Humanism is something else, and I'm of the opinion that believers need to cultivate humanism consciously (although humanism comes with the package of belief, sadly not all bother to cultivate it) as much as atheists do.

Atheists do do believers one important favour: They help us to identify and rectify false religion. And obviously believers have provided Dawkins et al with all the inspiration for their books. So the relationship may be at best of mutual benefit.

Many thanks for the implied compliment that I do reasonable somersaults within the belief system. I could return the compliment too - within the limit of a finite universe, your capacity to do somersaults is not unlike that of a believer. Believers who do not reject science however operate both within the finite and infinite systems you know.

Atheism is not phenomenal, but it is nevertheless a phenomenon. As a phenomenon it can be studied. All religions after all have their scholars and theologians who devote their whole lives to studying their particular religions (and some even study other religions). So I don't see why many atheists shouldn't devote their whole lives to studying atheism - it makes much more sense than spending time merely bashing religions.

How sure are you that only your teeth are classified? You are classified into many groups you know nothing about. The person who belongs to a particular "class" doesn't even have to agree that he belongs to that category invented by someone else. I personally take no offence at being a member of a thousand categories, if somebody has bothered to classify me at all.

Best wishes
Soja

Scott writes:

"I don't need to have seen God to point out the bizarre, deluded, self-important lunacy of atheism."

Why do the religionists continue to float such idiocies? Why must one feel that there is a supernatural god around who is "greater than" oneself?

As a human and an atheist, I know that my personal existence pales in comparison to that of some of my fellow humans - Einstein, Jefferson, hell, even Pavarotti! I'm hardly consumed with "self-importance" because I don't believe that there's some god out there who puts humankind in the shadows. Indeed, the petty, immature and loathsome god of the Bible is inferior to most humans I know.

What is self-important is to believe that the entire universe was created with oneself in mind, and that there is no one more important to god than oneself, and that this god "has a plan" for ME that he couldn't be bothered to extend to his creation for billions of years, to billions of people living today, and to the creatures that will follow mankind on this planet a few billion more years down the road.

Gerry hit it on the head when he pointed out the infantile tenor of religious beliefs where it's all about ME and no one else.

You know what, Scott? I am not even interested in your particular dogma. Nobody has seen god, as you clearly say. For your ilk of abolishers of reason, (which is the only basis for human dignity as compared to animals as far as I am concerned), the mere fact that nobody has ever seen or otherwise experienced a particular entity is unquestionable proof of its existence - that ends every discussion, no matter how many names your hatred against clear thinking you put forth: It is beyond stupid. Non-proof is proof! lmao.

Anything goes: 2x2=5, if "god" declares it to be. Thank you, not for me. I don't know any theologian of the slightest standing who claims there is a proof of god. That actually has already been abandoned centuries before your voyage back into the bronze age. The condition of faith is the non-existence of proof, can you process this little thought in your head?

You are a nice specimen of the infantile flock Jesus referred to when he said that only children's minds can come to his paradise.
children stamp their foot if they find out that black is not white.

Nice regurgitation of atheist pablum there, Gerry.

Yes, there is Atheist dogma. I specifically discussed the big one: That atheism is the "default position". No wonder this silly claim flies, since apparently adherents such as yourself can't even make the connection. Of course the reality is nobody is born an atheist or a believer, only ignorant(though children often show a surprising conviction in *something* greater than this world...while you'd be hard pressed to find the opposite position).

Meanwhile, I don't need to have seen God to point out the bizarre, deluded, self-important lunacy of atheism. I accept that I don't know and any belief I have (and you of course have not the slightest idea what that may be) is just that, belief. An opinion. Faith. Having never seen God, nor proof of his non-existence, I can have nothing more than that.

Any thinking individual without an agenda...or some money to make...understands that simple fact.

Dear Soja,

I didn't say the fact that we might have a "god" gene or any other ingrained neuron-based inclination is a proof in favor of atheism. It is, however, and therefore I maintain my welcome to the humanist crowd, a statement that there is no proof of a god beyond our own imagination about the existence of a god.

Therefore we encounter the circular arguments all the time, to which you fall prey: Because I belief in the existence of a god, there must be a god, and he told me through his scripture to believe that there is a god. Therefore I believe in god...etc. Circular all the time.

Eternal principle - you use this expression rather frivolously, based on your belief, which, of course, cannot be absolute (otherwise I, for instance, would believe in god). Mathematical (2x2=4), physical (gravity etc.) principles to me seem to be eternal principles, and I am very happy and satisfied with this eternity, which I admire, adore, if you wish. The rest are derivatives. We had some dimwit around who thought that god invented mathematics.

Your argumentation circles around the merits of religion as to its usefulness, which I don't contest in principle (I do contest it in its practical effect, but that is a completely different debate).

The simplicity of science can be debated. I don't know how advanced your mathematical knowledge is, but there may be a limit, even without referring to the supernatural, lol. You are confounding the wonderful, cozy simplicity (again, no proof for or against god) of your religion with the rather difficult research tasks scientists occupy their minds with.

Thanks for the daisies for us poor atheists. At least, we have some merit, even if it is only to provoke the increase of the faith of the faithful!

Religion does cut out reason as an a priori assumption. Within that system, of course, you can do the most beautiful logical, reasonable, sophisticated, intellectual somersaults - operative intelligence has no limits within that system. A compliment to you, since you are good at this part.

If you want to do justice to your fellow humans as to classification, you sure should look for a good carpenter to work out the millions of drawers.
The joke in your last paragraph misses the point: Classification in science is a means to understand phenomena and objects. I am not a phenomenon and not an object, or a robot, as I said in my last post. I am glad if my dentist can classify my tooth, ok, but not me.

Scott,

There is no such thing as an atheist dogma, just as there is no such thing as a non-rabbit-breeder dogma. The logical ignorance is really impressive. All who are not fellow believers in one of the thousands of brands of superstition must be insulted, eliminated, killed. All those who gladly walk under a ladder are idiots, immoral criminals, homosexuals, sociopaths.

Ladder walkers have an (cut and pasted:) "Opinion without knowledge, in the presence of ignorance (everybody knows that walking under a ladder brings misfortune, even sends the walker to hell!), IS by definition belief (they belong to the "Holy Church of Ladder Walkers, HCLW") Faith. Nothing more. Just another religious conviction whose "proof" waits in a zone none of us can report back on."

So you know and have met god? So you have have come back from that zone? Welcome back! What does god look like? Have you taken a picture of him, I hope? You would be the first, and could make a lot of money on it.

The very first dogma of the new Atheists is a fallacy and thus nothing else Dick Dawkins & Crew ramble on about really matters. When they can grow enough to accept that atheism is NOT the "default position" then maybe they'll be worth entertaining.

But that's not likely to happen. Atheism IS a belief system and they can't admit it. The real Default is ignorance. NOBODY KNOWS, thus we all believe something. Atheism, since it is NOT the default position and exists in the same ignorance of God as every other opinion on the subject, is NOT an "absence of belief".

Opinion without knowledge, in the presence of ignorance, IS by definition belief. Faith. Nothing more. Just another religious conviction whose "proof" waits in a zone none of us can report back on.

Sorry, Dawkins, but you and yours are more patently dishonest than any religious hypocrite you cry about.

Dear Gerry

Frankly I don’t see how the idea that God may be ingrained into human consciousness supports atheism. If anything, it scientifically supports St Augustine’s explanation of why we seek God and how all cultures and peoples since the beginning of time have sought God and have explained God in one way or another. The descriptions may have differed, but the fact is unmistakable that they came to the same conclusion of the existence of an entity in/beyond the universe that is bigger than the created universe.

Thank you for welcoming to the elite club of atheists! I don’t mind you putting me into a drawer of atheists at all, as long the drawer has the correct label: “Atheist who believes in God and is a Christian by conviction.”

To the applicability of social function of religion: I prefer to speak based on my conviction as a Christian. Jesus Christ taught eternal principles. It is up to us human beings to use the brain that God has given us to interpret those principles and apply them in ways that is relevant to each culture and time. The application of the principles will continue to be an ongoing process, although the principles themselves remain eternal. “Love yourself, love your neighbor, and love your enemies” is pretty straightforward and pretty hard to put into real practice. Only loving God first puts the love of self, neighbor and enemies in a universal and eternal context. Globalization makes the command of Jesus even more relevant and even more urgent... Luckily Jesus taught through the example of His own life. It can’t be said of Him that He meant: “Do as I said, not as I did.”

I don’t see how having a world view that is comfortable and simple (even emotionally beneficial) is wrong simply because of its simplicity. In science as you are fully aware, the ability to explain complex things in a simple way is considered the mark of genius. After all, the complex DNA was explained with a simple double helix model. How could the DNA model have been more right if some mind boggling model had been used instead? So why is the idea of a Creator to explain the origin of a mind boggling universe so wrong simply because it is so simple?

The old fashioned social function of religions may be obsolete, and yet there is a need to work a social structure that is more stable than is the case today. The contribution of religion to a more stable social structure is sure to be invaluable. It goes without saying that humanist atheists have their bit to contribute to it. The claim by atheists that religion shuts out reason is however completely wrong.

As to feeling offended at being classified: Pleeeease don’t break up with me! I will take you out of the “dyed-in-the-wool-atheist’ immediately. But seriously, don’t we classify everything we possibly can, especially in science? If we could understand the language of the animals, plants, bacteria, viruses etc, I’m sure we would notice that they have broken up with us for that reason. I don’t know how predictably human beings behave based on any classification. Psychology, psychiatry and medicine in general would be a simple science if that were the case.

Best wishes
Soja

DEAR E FAVORITE

You are right – there are several theories. It could be said that as long as a scientific claim is based only on a theory, then an equal and opposite theory could equally well be true. St Augustine has a good theory about the origin of religion which makes a lot of sense to believers: Our hearts are made for you O Lord, and it finds its rest only when it finds its rest in you. (Words to that effect.) Darwin’s theory could well be interpreted with God included in the picture - the universe as being contained as a seed in the Big Bang. And who knows Darwin’s theory may not be the last word on the topic yet.

The classification of atheists on my part was an on the spot thing, so the idea is still very crude and unedited. I could refine it of course and add subtypes etc. Unfortunately the topic of classifying atheists (or religionists for that matter) doesn’t fire my passion at all. Anyone is most welcome to expand on my classification and do any kind of research of course.

I do find your idea of trying to find out the etiology of atheism quite interesting. It would shed light on why people give up religions; and religions could undertake necessary reform based on the insights provided by atheists.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Anonymous of 17 Sept 2007 10:11 AM

I read your classification of religionists and rearranged a few words........NOT.

Since there are several Anonymii posting on this forum, it would be helpful to know when and where you posted your classification of religionists. It would ensure another Anonymous doesn’t turn up and claim to the real Anonymous who posted the classification. (Besides if I could read your classification for myself, then I could get around to rearranging a few words.)

Where are the evolutionary theorists who are attempting to integrate the findings of theoretical physics with biological genetics evolution? If quantum physics teaches us that conscious observation affects the manifestation of materiality within space-time, how do these findings affect the changes within biology? If there is a “god” gene or group of genes that express themselves in human behavior and thought, is this gene a hindrance to our future survivability or an aid to our realization of the Oneness of all things? Are traits of altruism and self sacrifice actually “higher” traits that when manifesting in humans create a greater chance of survivability? Did the great spiritual teachers experience an aspect of reality (a timeless transcendent absolute reality) due to having a “higher” genetic expression for an ability to comprehend the interconnectedness and interdependence of all that exists?

It amazes me that the essence of the teachings of the great mystics throughout the history of various spiritual (read consciousness) traditions were able to transcend the evolutionarily demanded selfishness of most humans and comprehend the illusory nature of selfness. Will this ability to transcend self allow for greater survivability of our species? Will those who practice a consciousness of oneness with all of the cosmos lead us to the great future of peace and understanding that will “save” humanity? Is the universe “creating” “god” through the expression of “higher” level consciousness within the explicate, subjective, relative order to exist within the implicate, objective, absolute order of reality where all space-time exists?

As theoretical physicist David Bohm stated:” “Ultimately, all moments are really one. Therefore now is eternity" Or as theoretical physicist Brian Greene says: "Just as we envision all of space as really being out there, as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing too."

Z-Bob

P.S.: Gaby, I am glad you enjoyed the website.

And another thing, Soja:

Nobody likes to be classified like this. I remember breaking up a relationship because she tried to put me into a particular drawer of her own making. It isn't very nice, since it pretends to make a person predictable like a robot. I am no robot.

Soja,

with your link to "Darwin's God" you actually admit that you are fundamentally inclined to be an atheist (welcome!), at least that the idea of god may be ingrained in our human existence, generating thoughts and ideas WE PRODUCE in favor of some social advantage (no matter from which evolutionary source they come), and not as something that is absolute independent of our thinking. I agree with this position, although personally I am more interested in the objective reality of things than in the picture people make for themselves of things in order to feel more comfortable. I therefore call myself an atheist, all while acknowledging that social function of religion.

The social value of religions has really never been negated, for better or (much) worse, depending on the historical existence (Luther believed fervently in witchcraft), surrounding (tribe) and education of a person.

Another question, of course, is if this formerly useful social function is still applicable today ("eternal truth"?) in a world of exponential growth of the number of people, the growing interdependence (globalization) and the amount of scientific and technological progress (think of Google Earth). Personally, I don't think the old social function of religion is still applicable.

I know the emotional benefit of religion as far as the wonderful feeling of security is concerned, having experienced it to its full extent in my youth.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia says:"I classify atheists into three types:"

That means a lot coming from you - NOT.

Sounds like my classification of religionists with a few words rearranged.

Soja - I reread Atran's NYT article last night, after you referenced him. While the article concentrates on Atran's theory of the evolution of religion, it mentions others - just as any responsible article about science would. I'm glad that so many respected scientists in varying fields and varying perspectives are studying this now - it means we'll likely have some good evidence soon.

I'd glad you made it clear that the classification of three types of atheists was yours and not that any of the scientists researching religion. I wonder if you would call this an hypothesis or a belief and wonder if you'd be open to scientific (biological and/or social) research being done on it.

I'd also be interested in your perception of a classification of types of religious people, using your atheist classification as a model.

MAURIE, REALIST and others, - I really enjoyed the Druyan article and see this (non-religious communities) as the next logical and needed step in addressing the growing numbers of atheists. While reading Dawkins, I kept waiting for the chapter on that and was disappointed when it didn’t appear, even though I knew it wasn’t his job or his mission in that particular book. I was delighted when Dennett took up the subject. Having recently been a member of a church, I think many people stay for the community, in spite of or irrespective of their lack of belief.

I think there are a lot of variations among atheists in their need for community (would love to see some research on this). Some I know are not “joiners” and can’t see what all the fuss is about. Others are activists (many of my new acquaintances) and naturally seek a community. Others just want to hang out with like-minded people. Also, people’s path to atheism differs quite a lot (e.g., born atheists, convinced by science, by history, by negative religious experience) and this affects their attitudes and perceptions. And because atheism was, until recently, something people didn’t talk about much, we don’t know how others think and may just assume most people think like we do! Certainly many of my insights expressed in this post derive from hearing different points of view right here on the “On Faith” forum. [Thanks again, Sally and Jon – for setting this up.]

Scott Atran:

http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/home

Darwin's God:

http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/darwin_s_god_nyt_mag.pdf

checking

Dear E Favourite

There was an interesting article in The New York Times (4 March 2007) titled "Darwin's God." It was discussed at length on another thread in this forum.

I classify atheists into three types:

1. Nominal atheists: Those who don't particularly care about whether God exists or not. They don't believe in a God because there is no place in their life for such thoughts. They are the equivalents of believers who say they believe in God when asked, but don't particularly care if God exists or not and don't let their belief play any role in their lives. This group probably constitutes the vast majority of atheists and are open to ideas in the books written by Dawkins et al.

2. Dyed in the wool atheists: Atheists who have seriously considered the question whether God exists and have come to a rational conclusion that He doesn't. They don't stuff their atheism down anyone's throats. They respect the freedom of other human beings to believe in God and are able to recognise good when they see it, no matter where. This group agrees in general with the ideas of Dawkins et al, but do not share the religion-bashing fervour.

3. Religion-bashing-atheists: They are a special brand of atheists who are convinced that nobody has the right to believe in God simply because they don't. They are fundamentalist and evangelistic like any religious group, making it a point to attack believers for their faith - not just the wrong practice of religion but ALL practice of religion, no matter what good fruits it produces. Professor Dawkins and Mr Harris belong to this minority and they have their disciples who feel a sense of mission to spread the bad news of religion-bashing-atheism.

Best wishes
Soja

Gaby - It could not be otherwise.

You sound like Dr. Pangloss in Candide, Voltaire's mocking portait of Gottfried Leibniz's optimism, especially as Pangloss constantly says, "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" (English: "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds"), even when the most miserable fate befalls him.

Dear Gerry and E Favorite,

Thanks for your response. My primary claim is that both have a biological basis. Love and feelings of love (not only romantic love, but love for friends and relatives) seem to be correlated with increased levels of oxytocin, a hormone and neurotransmitter. Though there is most probably not a “god” gene per se (the trait and strength of the trait is probably governed by many genes), a belief in the supernatural also probably has a biological basis as well, though there is still dispute as to whether it is an adaptation and not a byproduct of some other trait on which selection acts. Dawkins and Dennett have written extensively on the evolution of religion, as have many others, including David Sloan Wilson (see Dawins’s Cathedral).

Listed below are some evolutionary hypotheses, not all of them adaptive.

Evolutionary biologists (including Richard Dawkins) have a number of hypotheses on how religion originated and evolved. If you want to delve into this more fully, you might start with a chapter in Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, on the evolutionary theory behind religion. Some of the hypotheses include ...

1) Group-level adaptation (benefits groups, compared to other groups)
2) Individual-level adaptation (benefits individuals, compared to other individuals within the same group
3) Cultural parasite – religion benefits its own propagation without regard to the welfare of human hosts. Dawkins calls it a parasitic meme.
4) Adaptive in small groups of related individuals but not in modern social environments.
5) A byproduct of traits that are adaptive in nonreligious contexts.

In terms of the origin of religion, the large group of byproducts hypotheses have some support. For example, there is a strong survival value in human beings and other animals to recognize agency and intent, either from predators or other human beings. However, there are many natural phenomena that have only physical causes without any such agency, but where conscious intent was or is ascribed. It wasn't so long ago that storms or earthquakes were thought to represent god's displeasure.

In terms of the religion being adaptive after it originated, the within group and between group hypotheses have some support. In evolution, structures or behavior for an original function are often co-opted for new functions (e.g. the inner ear bones in mammals were previously bones in the jaw of an early reptilian ancestor). Assigning agency could have been co-opted for group level dynamics. Being part of a group, especially in our evolutionary past, would have been a necessity. Those without group membership would probably not have survived long.

One last thing; selection between groups has been heavily criticized on group selection grounds, primarily because within groups "cheaters" who hung back in battles would have received the benefit without the risk. However, I do believe there was and is competition (group selection) among groups (e.g. religious and ethnic strife), but it is an emergent property that arises only after stable groups exist. Most human groups not only have mechanisms, such as policing, to control cheaters, but valor and altruism are often rewarded as a signal of status and good genes.

As I mentioned above, for further information, check out Dawkins' book and use googlescholar.

Z-Bob,

Wow, I gave your recommended website at http://www.everythingforever.com
a cursory review and I am already hooked. This is some awsome stuff.

I can't wait to explore deeper. Alas , with work and 6 dogs, 2 cats, large yard, and housework, it'll probably have to wait until winter.

In either case, I bookmarked the site.

Thanks!

Pierre JC and Maurie Beck,

Actually I do believe that my very own supernatural being gave a soul to everything, including chiggers....hehehe!

I believe that we are all part of a universal conscienseness, and everthing, animate and inanimate, is part of it.

It could not be otherwise, all of *?creation?* is forever evolving. Thus is the nature of things

Soja – thanks for providing the name of anthropologist Scott Altran. Five minutes of googling “’Scott Altran’ survey,” “’Scott Altran’ study” and “’Scott Altran’ Richard Dawkins” turned up no indication of a study done to support your earlier claim that “[Dawkins’] passionate anti-religion crusade has very little to do with science. No wonder most "serious atheists" are embarrassed by it.”

I did find one Amazon customer review of his book “In Gods We Trust - The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion” who said that Altran faulted “…Dennett and Dawkins, above all, for the anti-religious and over-intellectual bias they bring to propositions about memes.” http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Trust-Evolutionary-Landscape-Evolution/dp/0195149300

But of course this says nothing about the views of “most serious atheists” – just the views of Altran.

I do appreciate that you seem to back off a bit in your recent post, when you say “The percentage of atheists who accept the views if Dawkins and Harris are SUPPOSEDLY[caps added] in the minority….” But I wish you wouldn’t make misleading claims in the first place.

REALIST - great post - good mix of Dawkins and Dennett (the community stuff) and original material as well - I'll comment further as time permits.

ARMINIUS - Hello -I can see how that "love" concept would appeal to you

In the most general sense, as Realist posits, religion and science might be similar. Both seek explanations for the universe and our existence. Beyond that they are completely different, in that religions normally use belief as the underlying basis for their worldview, with no need to verify the truth of a proposition. As such, belief often claims certainty with no verifiable justification. Science, on the other hand, not only acknowledges uncertainty, but uncertainty is a general tenet of the scientific process. For example, I don’t believe in evolution and neither should anyone reading this. My understanding of evolution has nothing to do with belief or with truth claims of any kind. I always say show me the meat. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that we can state that the evolution of life on this planet is a fact and that life continues to evolve, including humans (In fact most certainly humans, in that the world we live in today is not the one in which most of our tenure as a species occurred.). Of course, there is no certainty for anything, but theory and evidence suggests support for my proposition.

Dear Pierre JC,

F........K! I hate chiggers. Please tell me chiggers have no souls.

Dear E Favourite

Please read the views of Scott Atran, an atheist anthropologist. I had touched on his comments on a Sam Harris thread earlier - that Professor Dawkins and Harris belong to a unique category of atheists, according to most atheists themselves. The percentage of atheists who accept the views if Dawkins and Harris are supposedly in the minority, even if one gets the wrong impression based on the views of the majority of atheists responding to comments on Dawkins' and Harris' threads.

Dawkins and Harris seem to be no less fundamentalist and evangelistic than some of the worst fundamentalists among the believers (that the vast majority of believers have problems with). I consider them the founder of a new religion - fundamentalist, evangelical atheism. They should do better at formulating the tenets of their religion. If attacking religion is all they can offer, then IMHO it is unimaginative, especially the presumption that all believers are anti-science, all believers suspend their reason when it comes to dealing with faith in God etc.

Best wishes
Soja

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by my sarcasm, especially to E.F.
I came back having read a couple more posts, to say that some religious people (self included) have no trouble at all with science and its findings, and I agree many religions foster blind acceptance--but not all do. I can without squirming at all answer any question that pits science against religion--of course not in a way that would satisfy skeptics, but with reasonable logic nonetheless. I do agree, Realist, that humankind will do better to dialogue about these things in thoughtful, non-recriminatory ways, and that it seems some current developments have headed in that direction; hooray for that.

Now I'll go away and leave you folks in peace.

And then there's the deliberate ignorance in which so many believers proudly wallow:
David D said,
"Explain, by logic only, no faith, how laissez-faire could be creative, and continue to be creative, without error or failure, for five billion years."
Sigh.
David, Richard Dawkins has written not one, but several books on the very subject you inquire about. You ask for an explanation that is readily available to you, and then you can't be bothered to look into it yourself. (It costs nothing to check out Dawkins' books from your local public library.)
If you had read but one of a half-dozen books by Dawkins, you would find yourself faced with a dauntingly cogent and well-supported set of explanatory ideas, ideas that would challenge beliefs that are precious to you.
So you protect yourself from these ideas by not bothering to get to know them. Your posting implies that you really want to know why so many of us find evolutionary theory so stunningly convincing, but you betray the truth: You really don't, under any circumstances, want to know what really makes evolutionary theory work.
So if you aren't pretending, but are really, truly curious about why so many believe in evolution, then read Dawkins' books. Start with "The Blind Watchmaker". Then "Climbing Mount Improbable," etc.
And please don't enter a conversation on a comment board like this one pretending to want to learn about ideas that you are really trying to avoid.

This one is priceless:
David D said,
"Do you know the difference between a dead body and a living body? There is something present in the living body and something absent from the dead body. What is this? By our understanding of science, something cannot be produced out of nothing, neither can something be made to become nothing, so what becomes of the living spirit?"
By David's reasoning, every housefly, every spider, every flea, mite, tick and chigger posseses an eternal soul.
Do they all get to go to heaven, or just the good ones?

David D said:
"It is impossible, and always will be impossible, to have a natural explanation for everything. Natural explanations consist of the application of our knowledge about the universe and its phenomena. There can never be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe and its phenomena. We are surrounded by mystery and we must choose between two approaches to this great mystery of all of existence. We may say it does not require an explanation, but if it requires an explanation, there could be no other explanation but God."
David, your posting displays a disturbing tendency of thought that often accompanies belief in the supernatural: An infatuation with "mystery". Religious people often dislike science because of its remarkable power to take which appears to be magical and make it ordinary.
Light passes through droplets of rain to make a rainbow. The child in us looks at the rainbow and says, "Ooh, pretty! Magical!" Then along comes Isaac Newton, who explains that the rainbow is merely the result of the optical properties of raindrops that make the rainbow, and the child in us says, "You ruined the magic by explaining how it works, you meanie!"
Let's all grow up, shall we? Let's recognize that magical, invisible friends are for children, not grown-ups.
Love of mystery is just a euphemism for love of ignorance.

There have been numerous posts about why people are religious and how religion is natural and it is futile to try to get rid of religion. Thanks Amy, Gerry, Maurie and everyone else for your comments. I want to add some of my observations about this.

As many people have commented, the reason most people are religious or superstitious seems to be that our brains are designed to search for meaning - we want to understand the universe in which we live. It's pretty clear that this would give us a survival advantage. (I think there are other reasons as well, an important one being that we humans are dependent on our parents for a large proportion of their lives and so we are wired to accept guidance from our parents and our elders and we grow up accustomed to the idea that there is someone wiser and more capable than ourselves looking after us.)

There is also the idea that religion and science are in conflict. Some people agree and some people don't. I think there is some truth to both points of view. The problem is that religion means different things to different people.

What unifies religion and science is that scientists and religious believers are driven by the same urge to find meaning and understand our universe and our place in it. The difference is that scientists satisfy this urge by looking closely at the observable world and trying to make sense of what they observe, whereas religions supply false meaning to satisfy this urge in the form of ancient (and not so ancient) stories and ideas.

Religion like science, also proposes theories to explain the universe and our place in it. In fact, religion is the science of the past. Science and religion were not separate in the past. I don't really buy the idea of NOMA, that religions concern themselves with entirely different questions to science. The reason people say that religions provide answers that science doesn't is that science has provided better answers to every question than religions have, so religions have been forced to abandon those questions and are being reduced to considering meaningless questions that cannot be answered or providing made up answers to questions that science hasn't yet found answers for. This forms the "sophisticated theology" that people criticize Professor Dawkins of ignoring.

What differentiates science from religion is that science is self-critical, and religion is not, or at least much less so. Religions preserve themselves by making it taboo to ask questions, whereas science is all about questioning everything. This is why science has separated itself from religion and progressed beyond religion. Science changes as we learn more, whereas religion resists change and so it changes much more slowly, mainly from external pressure, and still offers the same answers as in the past, many of which are now known to conflict with reality.

Another important difference between science and religion is that religion provides comfort, and social functions in the form of fellowship and rituals. This is an important function of religion that science does not address.

So will science ever replace religion? Since the primary differences between science and religion lie in the level questioning and the level of understanding about how the world really is, religion must eventually be displaced or transformed by science, and by advances in social thinking and understanding (e.g. equality of women, abolition of racism etc). This is clearly happening and has been happening for centuries e.g. there are few people today who believe that there are gods living on high mountains or that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. The process is painful (for some) and not always monotonic. People who have a strong vested interest in religious beliefs (especially those who hold positions of power due to religious influence, for example) will resist the process and use their power to keep people ignorant.

But barring some major catastrophe like a nuclear war, the progress of knowledge cannot be easily reversed. Due to the easy availability of information today it's pretty hard to put the science genie back in the bottle, and religion will have to adapt.

I hope that religion will change so the rift between science and religion can be healed so that we can get the benefits of both without the enforced ignorance and taboos of the past. I very much like Ann Druyan's inspiring words on this subject: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html

... This post is way too long. I didn't intend to reproduce half of TGD in this post. :-)

Regards,
Realist

Richard,
No kills for God-no true and just God would command any one to kill for him-people kill for other reasons:for percieved grievances and when they have no legitimate channels to air such percieved grievances-and they conveniently employ or hide behind religion to legitimate their activities.

E Favorite,

Well met again! You said:

"Once you feel such a strong presence of God’s love and identify God (or Jesus) as the force that made an important change in your life, I can see how it would be hard to accept that this entity never existed."

Yes.

Please Amy, I understand your wrath, but I am an atheist (and "naturalist", whatever the definition may mean exactly) without in the least believing that nature forces me to believe in nonsense!

There seems to be a neuronal constellation, maybe based on genes, that is responsible for the quest of meaning. I think that is all. It may be a "neighbor" gene responsible for the necessity of orientation (where am I, how does cause and effect relate to each other etc.)

As I have pointed out before, these genes may even be responsible, lol, for the happy feeling of an atheist scientist who has just discovered a new wonderful proof against religious bigotry!

Extremists of all kinds are dangerous. They also want women to die in childbirth rather than have an abortion to preserve their lives. (Motherless children, after all, still have their fathers and men are better than women, n'est pas?)

We've come to a point where people now believe that having a belief is a good thing in and of itself, so it doesn't really matter if any of it is true. Just because we're wired by evolution to assign meaning to events doesn't mean that every random meaning is worth hanging onto. Believing in something stupid just because it's "natural" to have beliefs is even sillier than believing that weekly symbolic cannibalism is the route to salvation.

Dying for a fairy tale and killing for a fairy tale -- natural and very human. I wish all those naturalists who think we atheists should shut up on account of the instinct to believe would study up on nature in other ways as well. They might be surprised at what they find.

"you charged your sister (and myself and other "believers" by inference) with being intellectually weak."

Hi, Idealist, I said my sister and I had similar educations and IQ's. I said she was a lovely person. I'd like you to refrain from speaking negatively about my sister, and as you asked, I won't include you in my posts from now on.

E Favorite,
You might as well leave me out of your diatribes from now on, 'cause from my vantage point you keep digging a deeper hole. I used sarcasm because you charged your sister (and myself and other "believers" by inference) with being intellectually weak. I observe that one who must resort to name-calling is doing so because they don't know how to intellectually present their viewpoint. (And I suppose you'll say, "it takes one to know one.") Thus we proceed in childishness.

Getting back to Darwin, he observed that religion holds a place with humankind and that morality is intertwined. Re-read the quotes. I generally have found that I respect many atheists (and no, I don't think they're "going to hell"--don't think so at all), but when they differentiate themselves by saying they are the thinkers of the world I beg to differ. They might try realizing that religion will still be around whether they like it or not, so maybe they should try to understand it (not the fanatacism that masquerades as religion, but the decency that is the essence of it that Darwin was talking about) and live with tolerance instead of sending out their own "guilt trip" signals. I know they feel like a minority, and minorities generally react defensively. Sorry they feel that way. But there's got to be a better way to have constructive dialogue.

Realist, thanks for your comments. I did not include you in the sarcasm, though it probably came across that way. Sorry.

IDEALIST: “If nothing else, I hope you may come to realize that your sister (unless that was just an expression) may have just as valid a basis for her opinions as do you.”

My sister is a lovely person with many fine qualities. We know each other very well. I know she would agree that my BS meter is better than hers.

MAURIE BECK: "If a belief in God is as powerful as falling in love, how then can anyone entertain giving up either?"

I think you may be on to something. Though I don’t think belief in God is like falling in love for all people, I do think some people react that way – either by their basic nature (more susceptible to or in need of love) or by some life experience in which they perceive God protected them – e.g., serious illness, coping with a loss, etc.).

Once you feel such a strong presence of God’s love and identify God (or Jesus) as the force that made an important change in your life, I can see how it would be hard to accept that this entity never existed.

J. Swider,

math doesn't seem to be your strongest subject.

On each side of the "="- sign there must be some compatible element of the same category. What you are positing amounts to

x oranges = y apples.

Thanks Z-Bob for your thought-provoking posts.

Russell D,
I'm also a fan of Buddhism (particularly the Zen and Tibetan varieties). I used to be a Buddhist. For me, Buddhism was a step along the way from Christianity and supernaturalism to atheism. I got a lot out of Buddhism (and I still do - I'm practicing meditation again), but there's a lot of superstitious baggage associated with Buddhism. E.g. I don't believe in reincarnation, not do I really believe in karma (except in the sense of physical cause and effect). Other than that, I'm still a Buddhist. I see Buddhism as applied psychology: very healthy compared to the fear, self-loathing, guilt and the (I'm saved and you're going to hell) arrogance of Christianity.

The world would be a much better place if there were a lot more Buddhists.

Regards,
Realist

With regard to Idealist,
I also got the impression that his/her flattery seemed a bit sarcastic. I try to ignore the personal stuff on forums like this and just answer questions clearly and rationally (If I feel bothered) even if the question is obviously intended to try to trap you. Getting upset about it doesn't usually accomplish much. ... Of course that makes me come across like a robot sometimes, and my wife says I'm much too polite.

Sometimes I just can't help myself though. I couldn't resist giving Thomas a serve about his invisible buddy.

Regards,
Realist

Regarding Einstein, I think it's fair to say that he was an atheist with respect to the Abrahamic Gods (he explicitly said so), but agnostic towards some form of deism or pantheism (Spinoza's God). I think he made that fairly clear.

Regards,
Realist

Maurie Beck,

I think you stretched it a little: Love is obviously the core of all our existence; without it, we wouldn't exist.

The so far only speculative "god gene" would be in another category: Even if there was something like a "god gene", it would have to be a very general disposition, akin to curiosity, exploration, communication. It would be the same gene that brings me to passionately love music, feel awe and wonder at the "godless" nature. That would be my assumption of a "god gene".

That gene would generate the feeling of happiness of an atheist scientist after having found a new argument against religious superstition, lol!

So we shouldn't equate love and religion, even if the Christian religion usurped the concept of love for its purposes.

Recently there was an essay by Mark Lilla that was based on his soon to be released book "The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West".

In the essay he suggests that human beings are 'theotropic' creatures who naturally invest meaning and explanation where there might be none at all. If this is true (and it seems likely), the modern polemics of atheism espoused by such writers as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, Susan Jacoby, etc. is doomed. It would be akin to telling people that Love is nothing but a functional construct of biology that is not real, in and of itself, any more than God is a not real for the same reason.

Dawkins and those others suggest that giving up God, once one realizes that such a being probably does not exist, should be a logical outcome. However, if one were to ask Dawkins about giving up Love for the same reason, what would his answer be? From all accounts he is happily married and very much in love with his third wife, the beautiful actress Lalla Ward. I doubt he would even entertain such a suggestion. If a belief in God is as powerful as falling in love, how then can anyone entertain giving up either?

Before you think I might actually consider becoming religious; fear not. I'm a very happy non-believer, as always full of wonder.

Quoting Einstein (for or against), or anyone else for that matter, has no bearing on the existence of god or gods or spiritual monkey sex. Even if everyone believed that gravity is a figment of the imagination, I doubt many people would take their belief to the edge of a precipice in an attempt to fly (though that would be one way to get rid of delusional believers). Similarly, even the most religious people make most of their day to day decisions in the absence of god. How many actually pray about what clothes to wear based on the weather? Most go to the weather channel or even look outside to decide that all the praying in the world will have no effect on whether they should wear a bikini in the middle of a Minnesota winter's day.

E Favorite,
Sarcasm aside, I am very much aware that you are a sincere and loving person who has thought much about religious perspectives and non-theist perspectives. In reading your posts before I "came on", I felt there might be some room for you to think outside of the box--for even atheists think inside of one, from what I can see, whether they will acknowledge it or not. If nothing else, I hope you may come to realize that your sister (unless that was just an expression) may have just as valid a basis for her opinions as do you. All the best to you.

PS--I do respect Darwin's thoughts, especially as to the evolution of civilizations and cultures.

Idealist - you're in good company... Richard Dawkins himself has stated that Darwin, among the great thinkers of all time, made perhaps the greatest cognitive discovery ever with the theory of evolution and natural selection - considering the cumulative effects on scientific thinking over time (and all before genetics was tied to the evolutionary process).

I suppose others might rank Einstein's theories of special and general relativity at the pinnacle... but as Hillary says, it takes a village (of geniuses??). I'm not sure anyone achieves greatness in thinking all by their lonesome - but it takes good genes at the very least!! On the other hand, apparently many great mathematical savants were born doing complicated sums in their hyper-active brains.

Now where's that pocket calculator??

"I actually think Darwin was much smarter and more perceptive than any whose views I've read"

Oh, Idealist, Now my feelings are really hurt

Here are some essays on religion and science by old Albert himself:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm

Interesting stuff. He definitely did not believe in any personal God; he could be called a theist, I suppose, but even that is stretching it.

Mr Mark -- just noticed your earlier post. I'm beginning to think that "We'll just have to agree to disagree" means "You're right, but I'm not wrong."

I see I have been invited back by innuendo. You're right that I used sarcasm to heighten a difference in perspective as to whose window of the world entails "critical thinking". I didn't go away whimpering--I went away because I could tell the principal contributors couldn't handle such questions without resorting to "shooting the questioner", so why exacerbate the situation? I actually think Darwin was much smarter and more perceptive than any whose views I've read here. Again, sorry, but don't think I'm whimpering off. I just wanted you to be able to carry on without having been challenged in your thinking.

A very sincere thanks to Z-Bob. I enjoyed the websites, and your comments.

ENDDARWINEES2:
Mr Mark,
I would have liked Albert Einstein to have been a Christian, but he wasn’t, I’m not going to lie about him & try to fool people about it so why are you? "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist". Why didn’t he just say I don’t believe in God, I’m an Atheist?"

I think the more-obvious question is this: did Einstein ever affirm a belief in the Biblical god or any other supernatural god? The answer is a resounding no.

Look, it's simple: there are many, many Einstein quotes that prove quite clearly that he didn't believe in a god in the traditional sense of the word. He used the word god in his own way. What's puzzling is why you and others - absent ANY statement from Einstein that he believed in a supernatural god, and the god of the Bible is a supernatural being - want to split hairs over his statements and conjecture that maybe he did believe in a supernatural god after all.

Why is that?

e favorite wrote: "BTW - my filter screws up sometimes, but I don't think it did this time, given the outcome."

The outcome... you mean running away like a whiny little... ? Well... I sort of took that as confirmation that I had it pegged right.

Gaby - my bs flter is with duckphup on this one. I avoided Idealist's question. It seemed unanswerable and the flattery didn't ring true, somehow. BTW - my filter screws up sometimes, but I don't think it did this time, given the outcome.

DuckPhup:

OK, I have a tendency to give everyone a fair chance until they screw with me. Then I get very testy.

Maybe I didn't see things in his/her posts that gave me the signals it gave you. Sometimes I can be naive enough to be taken in, just to get bashed in the head later.

Happy posting! I like your sharp wit and your analyses.

Gaby wrote: "I think you were unnecessarily rude to Idealist. I don't know why you think (s)he is leading you on, but I like to ask questions of persons whose ideas I respect, many of whom are posting here. You would be one, so would E Fav, Russell D, A Hermit, Mr. Mark, etc. Please,try to be a little kinder next time."

Actually, I think I was unnecessarily NICE to Idealist.

The first time I responded with disarming wit and good-natured humor... but in a way that (should have) let him know that I was not going to be sucked-in by his dishonest question.

The second time, I responded straightforwardly... although not in the manner which he expected, and letting him know that I was not impressed. He should have taken the hint.

The third time, I called him on it, and told him where to get off.

Once... is an accident.

Twice... is a coincidence.

Third time... somebody is seriously trying to screw with me... and I do not tolerate that.

I welcome questions and I enjoy spirited argument... I detest weasely crap like Idealist was trying to pull.

Thanks for your advice, though. I know it is well-intended... but I think that your BS filter is not as sensitive and highly-tuned as mine.

Z-Bob:

"The better future we all desire will only occur through the evolution of consciousness of the human species."

I just love the way you think. I am neither a scientist nor do I consider myself a critical thinker, but I have the ability to innately feel real versus bogus. I would say I am right 90% of the time.

You and Pamela can explain what I feel is the truth.

Thanks and keep posting I will be looking forward to it.

Posted on September 14, 2007 15:03

DuckPhup:

I think you were unnecessarily rude to Idealist. I don't know why you think (s)he is leading you on, but I like to ask questions of persons whose ideas I respect, many of whom are posting here. You would be one, so would E Fav, Russell D, A Hermit, Mr. Mark, etc. Please,try to be a little kinder next time.

Mr Mark,
I would have liked Albert Einstein to have been a Christian, but he wasn’t, I’m not going to lie about him & try to fool people about it so why are you? "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist". Why didn’t he just say I don’t believe in God, I’m an Atheist?
Albert Einstein was a Theist, in his work he realized that everything did not “just happen” by nature.
He was not an Atheist believe everything can be explained by natural means even though they admit they can’t tell you what they all are (they have their own type of faith).
Atheist use to hide behind the theory that the universe is static (that is has always existed), now that hiding place is gone for them with the proof that the universe had a beginning, they had to finally concede this and came up with a great new word “the big bang” and hoped no one would remember.

DuckPhup:
In the Old Testament there were times when God commanded all to be killed but you are exaggerating.
Everyone should at least also read the previous & following verse of the ones you posted.
They are taken out of context.

Sciencetus, was my inspiration, you should try it.

Sorry to have offended anyone. I had thought some of the comments had merit. I had also thought there were deeper considerations. Forget it.'Bye.

Z-BOB:

If you want an insight into Buddhist thought, I would highly suggest looking up The Eightfold Path and The Four Noble Truths.

Works Wonders, and makes way more sense than current Christianity, Islam, or Judaism ever could.

Idealist... sorry... I'm just having a hard time taking your questions seriously. I don't think that you are genuinely interested in contributing anything to the dialog... or even in taking anything away from it. I think that you are just (in a ham-handed manner which apparently think is subtle) intent on trying to trip people up... although you can't seem to resist an occasional snarky and condescending jab or two.

So... here's the deal... if you've go a real question... ask it... otherwise... bugger off.

Gaby,

Thank you very much for the compliment and the excellent contribution that you re-posted from Pamela.

Terry,

You are correct that most materialist cannot (or will not) view consciousness beyond being an epiphenomena of the brain. I am also very interested in the Buddhist approach to consciousness and the theories that consciousness (unmanifested) may be the “ground” of existence that requires the material (manifested) as a conduit for “knowing” itself. It is the relative, subjective reality and the absolute, objective reality in a creative symbiotic relationship.

For an insightful view of the nature of consciousness within the enigmatic theories of quantum mechanics, I would highly recommend “The Self Aware Universe” by theoretical physicist Amit Goswami and for an excellent website concerning the theoretical physics of a timeless universe I recommend:
http://www.everythingforever.com
For another view of the intermingling of philosophical ideas with the most recent theoretical physics, I would suggest British astrophysicist David Darling’s website:
http://www.daviddarling.info/

Idealist,

It looks like most of us agree that humans have, for the most part, separated ourselves from the natural forces of the physical evolutionary changes that have occurred during biological history.(of course, unless we change environments) What then is the greatest challenge to the success of our species? Ourselves! What can humans do to “create” a more successful and peaceful future? Through us the intelligence of the universe is learning to be consciously aware of itself. We have not completely succeeded as a species because we have continued to view ourselves as separate entities driven by our selfish egocentric desires both on an individual level and on a collective level. For whatever reason, the universe has provided us with the insight to recreate the habitat we inhabit with the ability to discover the interconnected, interpenetrating oneness of all things and consciousnesses. No other species (to our knowledge) has been able to experience and verbally relate both our selfishness and our selflessness. The better future we all desire will only occur through the evolution of consciousness of the human species. We all must become cosmos-centric!

Duckphup,
I respect your thinking, but I think you have dodged my questions (which, of course, you certainly may do). As one smarter than Darwin, you ought to be able to put together all the variables you see at work and explain where this world is headed, and the people in it including their tenth-generation posterity. Real thoughts? (By the way, I don't know how Darwin defined "virtue" in his mind--perhaps you do. I don't get what was naive about re-stating his deduction as a question.)

Idealist wrote: "Will virtue be triumphant?"

Actually, that question is pretty naive. And, also, Darwin was pretty naive... and subject to 19th century morays and prejudices. He was a man of his times. We have (some of us, at least) come a long way in 150 years.

Virtue...

Flying jets full of passengers into buildings for the glory of Allah is 'virtuous'... in Islam.

Credulity and gullibility are 'virtuous'... in Christianity and Islam.

Denying aid money to countries where millions of people are infected with AIDS, if some of it might be used for condoms, is 'virtuous'... in Christianity.

Contributing to the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy in the USA, by denying sex education and birth-control to teenagers is 'virtuous'... in Christianity.

I would go on... but its too depressing.

Anyway... your question is naive. And if those are the kinds of things that you mean by 'virtue'... then my answer would have to be a resounding NO. I would much prefer that sanity prevail over that kind of 'virtue'.

Z-Bob - I think you said 'consciousness is evolving' and if so, I agree wholeheartedly that this is the heart of the matter, so to speak. The origins and nature of consciousness seem to be an 'unanswered' conundrum for science, although the pure materialist will attribute consciousness as secondary to brain function - many others are not so convinced, and see consciousness as primary.

Hard to prove, but lately I've been purusing the Dalai Lama's reflectons on the Dzogchen teachings concerning the gross body, subtle body and very subtle body. As the theory goes, consciousness must have a body, and a body must have consciousness - it so happens that there are three of each for all sentient beings. The very subtle body (or 'cave of the heart') is home to rigpa - pure awareness and the nature of ultimate reality. This would make each of us the center of all creation - working much like the phenomenon of fractal numbers and holograms, where each select, isolated point is seen to contain the whole enfolded within.

Ironically I have David Bohm's book on my desk here, and the implicate order and holofields seem to take us in the same direction - I've wondered why no physicist of note has taken up this line of thinking - seemingly an expansion of quantum theory taken to the next level.

Yes, I think consciousness is where it's at alright!!

Esteemed colleagues,
What about the following quotes from Darwin:

“We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)
“With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
“It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
“We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)

Will virtue be triumphant?

All I'll say is that my Bull** meter says Jay S' scenario sounds likely.

Z-BOB: Excellent Esay!

I would like to share one that was written by a blogger on OnFaith which pretty much sums up my own believe system. She did so much more eloquently than I ever could.

PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!

I like the idea of becoming a balloon-like, flatulence-driven, spindly-limbed human with a god-like self-image. I'm sure my wife already views me that way. Now I can tell her I'm the Man of Tomorrow!

Duckphup -

Do you realize that your description of evolved humans sounds like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Perhaps we may one day become gods!

E favorite wrote: "Ok - assuming your hypothesis is developing, consider that "it" (what you are calling critical thinking skills) could be a temperament thing, rather than a learning or IQ thing. Thus, I was born with a good bull** meter, for lack of a scientific term, and my sister wasn't."

Well... I would be inclined to guess 'genetic', rather than 'tempermental'. Re: BS meter (I call it an 'alarm')... yes.

Jay S,
Thanks for the perspective!

E Favorite and Duckphup and Z-Bob,
I assume you have thought about such a question as I raised above. I mean it in a strictly open-ended way--not looking for pat answers. I'd love to have your thoughts, to glean the inner workings of your minds. Thanks in advance.

Idealist wrote: "Critical thinking master-minds (those with recent thought-provoking posts): I'd love to hear your critical thinking about what evolutionary processes you observe in our species in the world today that are currently shaping future generations. Where is our species headed, you who know our past so well? I'm not trying to upend your thinking--just to understand it more thoroughly."

Well, I eschew the 'mastermind' label... but I CAN see the future, you know.

Typically, an environmental stressor of some sort is required to spur evolutionary change involving 'natural selection', and isolated sub-sets of the population. Barring such an occurrence, evolution that will take place in humanity-at-large would likely only entail genetic drift. In either case, though, are just too many variables involved to make any kind of valid predictions... especially considering that evolution has no 'intent' behind it.

However... going from agravity to a no-gravity environment would probably count as an environmental stressor... and there would be an isolated subset of the population. So, I predict... relying solely upon my powerful future-seeing deductive master-mind critical-thinking abilities... nope... scratch master-mind... my powerful future-seeing deductive regular-person critical-thinking abilities... that after populations of humans have existed and reproduced in orbital habitats for hundreds of years, in a weightless environment, they will end up with beachball shaped bodies, spindly arms and legs and a protruding, muscular, articulating, tube-like anus. They will subsist mainly on a diet of cabbage, peas, pork-and-beans and beer, and propel themselves about their environment via controlled flatulence. Oh... and their sense of smell will atrophy. Oh, yeah... and they won't get many visitors.

My last post should have been to the attention of Duckphup.

All responses welcomed, of course

Ok - assuming your hypothesis is developing, consider that "it" (what you are calling critical thinking skills) could be a temperament thing, rather than a learning or IQ thing. Thus, I was born with a good bull** meter, for lack of a scientific term, and my sister wasn't.

"Critical thinking master-minds (those with recent thought-provoking posts):
I'd love to hear your critical thinking about what evolutionary processes you observe in our species in the world today that are currently shaping future generations. Where is our species headed, you who know our past so well? I'm not trying to upend your thinking--just to understand it more thoroughly."

Well, I don't think I'm one of the "master-minds" you refer to, cause I'm certainly not.

There has been conjecture, now that humans seem to be able to control their environment so well and even most of the least "fit" among us can still reproduce, that natural selection no longer functions on humans. If that's the case, all of our future evolutionary changes will not be genetic but memetic (philosophical, technological). We will improve our ability to control our environment and ourselves, but the human species as an organism won't change much, especially given the high rate of current interbreeding among historically isolated populations. If we start tinkering with our own genome, it's possible we may artificially select for a new human, but that will be independent of the natural selection forces that brought us to this point.

If we destroy our civilizations in the coming years, then we could be thrown back into the natural selection pool, with small isolated populations, subject to the forces of our environment on reproductive success. In that case, we could see evolutionary change in the human animal, assuming we don't retain our technological ability to alter our environment.

Critical thinking master-minds (those with recent thought-provoking posts):
I'd love to hear your critical thinking about what evolutionary processes you observe in our species in the world today that are currently shaping future generations. Where is our species headed, you who know our past so well? I'm not trying to upend your thinking--just to understand it more thoroughly.

Clearly, humans have misperceived the universe around them for millennia and are continuing to do so. If Richard Dawkins had been born in ancient Greece he probably would have had great “faith” in the Ptolemaic view of a geocentric universe since Ptolemy’s calculations were so amazingly accurate scientifically. (If I am incorrect about this assertion, please blame my History of Astronomy physics professor from undergraduate college)

Of course, “god” is a concept that has been interpreted in many different manners by almost every different belief system and by different individuals within the belief systems. Could “god” be the collective consciousness of all space and time that exists in the transcendent order (see Einstein’s absolute space-time, David Bohm’s implicate order, Stephen Hawking’s time has no boundary proposal, etc.) which is actually “created” in the explicate order by conscious beings’ experiences. In other words do our impermanent conscious experiences in the historical dimension create the “god” of the transcendent ultimate dimension. While “god” may be irrelevant in Buddhist thought and practice, (especially as an interceding being) doesn’t the collective consciousness of the ultimate dimension (Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh’s terminology) lead to a similar transcendent, universal, absolute “being”? Does the seemingly illusory emotion of love that has become an aspect of human survival due to evolutionary change and adaptation actually “create” the love of “god” that exists in the implicate, transcendent, absolute order of reality?

Did the evolution of our species allow us to create vivid conceptual images of the past, present and future as a survival technique in a world with bigger, stronger competition? Is not the knowledge of good and evil a manner by which intelligent, self-aware beings conceptualize their apparent reality? Humans conceptualize their surroundings and phenomena in almost every moment of consciousness. Another necessary strategy for survival is the ability to distinguish one’s self from other selves. Other animals also seem to be able to distinguish their individual entities from other entities but to our knowledge, we may be the only animals to have evolved to the point of conceptual self reflection. (Genesis-they knew they were naked). But doesn’t our false, complex creation of an illusory “self” separate each “individual” from the true nature of the universe: Oneness!

If one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. In other words, we as physical beings are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with God. Is this not essentially what history’s great spiritual teachers were teaching?

In my opinion, the central question to the inquiry into an "afterlife" is the determination of the nature of eternity. It appears that most people who are discussing this topic are presuming a "Newtonian" view of absolute time and excluding from the discussion the theory of absolute space-time as espoused by Einstein and Minkowski. While I will not attempt to explain the intricacies of the theories of relativity, suffice it to say that Einstein thought that the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion. Every moment of spacetime is a timeless entity in and of itself.

Eternity may not be endless time but, instead, eternity may be the timelessness of each moment which never "passes away" from the overall existence within absolute spacetime. Therefore, if eternity is timelessness and our conscious experiences are eternal, then our actions and thoughts exist in this timeless eternity, not as an individualistic “afterlife” but as a part of the whole of existence.
We have evolved to psychologically misinterpret much of "true" physical reality as Einstein and his progeny have expressed in not only the theories of relativity but also in quantum mechanics.

Has the universe evolved to this point to create a self reflective being who can realize that the self is an illusion and that each entity is just a self protective strategy manifesting through evolutionary genetics.

One quote of Richard Dawkins:

“What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins

Has nature created merely self-reproducing robots or has nature evolved to the point where “creatures” can overcome their selfish biological instincts through a deep realization that we are not individual entities but, instead, ultimately the universe itself producing its own conscious experiences?

We are stars learning what stars are!

E favorite wrote: "Meanwhile - I had critical thinking skills (or so it seems) before I was taught them..."

Yep... I said they had to be LEARNED... not 'taught'. One way to learn them is by accident... by voracious reading of science, philosophical and technical subjects... by learning systematic troubleshooting skills. I learned critical thinking long before I ever heard of it.

E favorite wrote: "... and someone with a similar IQ (let's say, being siblings) who was eventually taught critical thinking (though neither of us as advanced science students) never did get it."

Well... my idea is that the POTENTIAL for critical thinking ability does not even begin to express it self (statistically) to any significant degree until you get up near IQ-125... but I don't think it HAS to express itself... so it's possible to have a relatively high IQ and STILL not be able to think critically... whether by lack of learning, or lack of the potential for learning it.

E favorite wrote: "I guess I'm saying that it seems quite complex and that there's more to it than critical thinking and IQ. I hope some institute somewhere has a very big budget to study this. And I don't mean the discovery institute."

I think that would be a very worthwhile endeavor.

Duckphup: "which kind of serves to illustrate my point (one of them, anyway)... that religious belief cannot withstand the glaring light of reason and critical thought."

Yep - thought about that after I sent it.

Meanwhile - I had critical thinking skills (or so it seems) before I was taught them and someone with a similar IQ (let's say, being siblings) who was eventually taught critical thinking (though neither of us as advanced science students) never did get it. I guess I'm saying that it seems quite complex and that there's more to it than critical thinking and IQ. I hope some institute somewhere has a very big budget to study this. And I don't mean the discovery institute.

Dawkins does an excellent job of explaining evolution in his books, as someone pointed out. "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a good one, and I like that analogy also.

Most people (those who are skeptical of evolution) are on the steep side of Mount Improbable (a tilted fault block mountain, for the geologists), looking up at the evolutionary successes that exist on the mountain top and they say "There's no way that could have gotten up there by natural means ... the cliff face is too high. It had to have been a miracle that lifted it up there."

The evolutionist is looking at the backside of the mountain, which slopes more gradually. There are relatively easy paths and benches by which an organism can gradually "ascend" the mountain. When you can see it from this perspective, the path does not look as imposing.

David D wrote: "Note that 90 percent of the potential would have resulted in failure. Ninety percent of the directions would have resulted in failure. Only 100 percent of the potential and 100 percent of the directions applied with the utmost discrimination could have created us! That's not just my opinion! It's not speculation! That's irrefutable!"

I think you are looking at this backwards. Evolution DOES have a high failure rate. Most species that existed in the past are now gone. Most individuals that are ever conceived, don't survive to reproduce.

The evolutionary process is merciless in culling out the failures, and keeping the successes. The simplest analogy I've heard for how complex organisms can arise via evolution is the ratchet. Useful changes in the genome (and the morphology and behavior) of individuals are saved because those individuals have an advantage in reproducing. Complexity is incrementally built(ratcheted) up. What the successes will look like is not pre-ordained. From our perspective, looking back, it may seem we are the perfect product and it is inconceivable that a mindless ratcheting process could have made us. But it could have made us different, or not at all, if the evolutionary environment had been different.

E favorite wrote: "As I’ve said elsewhere here, I didn’t think very much about religion, wasn’t challenged much on it and didn’t care much about it – still it was there, and stayed there, very loosely, until I did start focusing on it."

... which kind of serves to illustrate my point (one of them, anyway)... that religious belief cannot withstand the glaring light of reason and critical thought. You possessed critical thinking skills all along... but never had bothered to apply them to your 'beliefs'. When you DID apply them to your beliefs, your beliefs went 'poof'. (Of course, I recognize that 'poof' might take several years.)

David D: “Only 100 percent of the potential and 100 percent of the directions applied with the utmost discrimination could have created us! That's not just my opinion! It's not speculation! That's irrefutable!"

How does this assertion relate to belief in an invisible supernatural being? It sounds like you’re saying,that because you can’t think of any other explanation for this phenomenon besides God, therefore, it’s God.

SOJA: “Your passionate anti-religion crusade has very little to do with science. No wonder most "serious atheists" are embarrassed by it.”

Hi, Soja – Could you provide a link to the survey that indicates that most serious atheists are embarrassed by Dawkins attitude about religion? If not, please be very careful about making such claims. I know from previous posts that you are a committed Christian and that lying is a sin according to your religion. Also, lying and misleading is generally considered to be morally wrong, irrespective of religion.

DUCKPHUP – “Do atheists lack the self-delusion gene?” Interesting question and overall theory – but here is another consideration – some people, like me, are recent atheists. Still, I think I had critical thinking skills at an early age, I just didn’t apply them to religion. As a small child, I could understand things my older sister didn’t get – and still doesn’t, although she had a good education, similar to mine. She was “easily led” as my mother always said, and I was naturally skeptical. As I’ve said elsewhere here, I didn’t think very much about religion, wasn’t challenged much on it and didn’t care much about it – still it was there, and stayed there, very loosely, until I did start focusing on it.

David D wrote:
"Note that 90 percent of the potential would have resulted in failure. Ninety percent of the directions would have resulted in failure. Only 100 percent of the potential and 100 percent of the directions applied with the utmost discrimination could have created us!"

Your reasoning is almost but not quite correct.

Actually over 95% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct. They are the failed experiments that nature made in production of the species that exist today including us. Statistical anlysis shows that even a tiny probability of a successful genetic change will result in significant selection pressure, ie. it will result in observable changes in a population. The unsuccessfull changes will die out and the beneficial changes will be preserved. With a large enough population and enough time, large amounts of change are possible. It's simple probability theory.

It's actually a no-brainer. Natural selection just says that individuals with changes that make them more likely to survive and reproduce are more likely to survive and reproduce. That's all there is to it. If you do the math (which is not simple at all), in many cases you can put numbers on rates of change and such like. And guess what? The calculated rates of change actually match observed rates of change that can be corroborated in several different ways.

I don't think anyone has ever explained how evolution works better than Richard Dawkins. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" if you want to understand evolution. It is one of the best books I have ever read (better than the God Delusion - which is still excellent IMO by the way). Please read it if you want to learn, or don't if you prefer to remain ignorant. There is also plenty of great information about evolution on the net. See talkorigins.org for example.

Small genetic changes (which is most of them) are likely to have a little or no impact on survival on their own. The ones that have a beneficial effect on survival (even if only very slight) will be more likely to be kept, the ones that aren't beneficial will disappear because their owners will die. Over millions of years these small changes can accumulate to produce really large changes.

Do you know that all dogs including, for example Chihuauas, have been bred from wolves? That shows how much change is possible over a period of 100,000 years or so. Imagine what can happen over a million or a billion years.

Regards,
Realist

Jane Weaver - my good friend Chuck is firmly convinced that a large crowd of people (voters) with IQ's below 100 have kept Bush in power and the USA in Iraq for two election cycles - possibly assisted with a few critically placed folks that register slightly above 100. And we have it from the horse's mouth-in-charge himself that he takes his direction from God - I wonder?? does that mean that GWB and God are jointly responsible for the ongoing devastation in Iraq??? I mean, who's the real Decider here?
God is known to have a penchant for setting up major human catastrophes on a regular basis so I think it's a valid question.

Your point on IQ is well taken....critical thinking and unbiased perception may be in short supply with the 'unsmart'crowd that takes everything the Fox News spinmeisters claim as absolute fact. Many could simply care less.

Taken further beyond the shores of the USA - how to overcome a complete lack of real curiosity & interest in truth on the part of the general (global) population seems to me as critical as the threat of nuclear proliferation (and probably 2 sides of the same coin). Elimination of poverty & disease, and massive doses of education seem to be a place to start - instead, the USA as leader of the free world has spent upwards of 1 trillion $$ in Iraq and we're still staying the course.

Religion is not the answer and never has been the answer.

JANE WEAVER wrote (SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6:48 PM): "Brain studies are just beginning to inform us about the brain's involvement in belief. Scientific American Mind has featured a stream of articles describing various ongoing brain studies that are providing insight into what's happening inside our heads."

"One of the biggest roadblocks I see is that clever cultural manipulators built in safety measures, in the form of specific beliefs, into their belief systems, so believers would be less inclined to question. They may fear some magical intervention--an angry deity smiting them in some manner, or even the very real threat of people acting on the basis of some ancient writing, and harming or killing them outright."

"Isn't that what is really going on with Pat Robertson, the Taliban, and others who manipulate human belief for personal and political control? They use fear and intimidation as tools to prevent people from questioning, or from denouncing a belief system."

******************

There has been a bit of speculation in scientific literature lately, and in the press, about whether humans might have a 'god gene'... i.e., whether we are 'hard-wired' for religion.

The answer to this, I think, is a resounding NO. Instead, I think that we are hard-wired for 'self-delusion'.

Contemplating the dawn of human consciousness and abstract thought, it is intuitively obvious that 'cognitive dissonance' posed an existential threat. For example, if Moog was wandering about on the savanna, gazing up in the air and thinking "Gee... I wonder what holds the sky up?"... there would have existed a non-trivial probability that he would NOT have been afforded an opportunity to pass his genes along to the next generation. (SIDEBAR: The sky appears as a 'thing'... common sense tells us that things fall down, if there is not something to hold them up. Lacking present-day 'knowledge' that the sky is NOT a 'thing', the observation that the sky is 'up there', without any visible means of support, would produce 'cognitive dissonance'... the disconcerting confusion that comes with the realization that two conflicting propositions seem to be 'true', at the same time.)

The ideal (and 'natural') cure for cognitive dissonance is 'knowledge'... but an ALTERNATIVE cure for cognitive dissonance is 'belief'... the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., self-delusion. It just so happens that the ALTERNATIVE cure is much easier to come by... and a lot less work and trouble... than the ACTUAL cure. There would have been an awful lot in the world that needed 'explaining' to a bunch of newly self-aware, abstractly-thinking minds... and no technological means to access 'knowledge', no 'knowledge-base' upon which to build, no means to interpret the 'facts' that were presented by the senses... and the senses often LIE. In other words, 'cognitive dissonance' would have been a constant companion... and an overwhelming impediment to their continued existence.

Religion takes advantage of this... via pre-packaged delusion. Swallow the "God did it" pill, and cognitive dissonance disappears... poof. Moog is not gazing up in the sky, and wondering about things. Instead of being distracted (he 'knows' the answer... "god did it."), he is paying attention to his surroundings, watching out for cave bears and saber-toothed tigers... and increases the probability that he will have an opportunity to pass his genes along to the next generation.

As thinking and experience became more sophisticated, so did the delusions become more sophisticated. At first, "God did it" was sufficient... but then, someone asks "Well, yeah... but HOW did god do it?" So, the sky becomes a crystalline dome, with half of the waters of the world on the other side of it... and neatly accounting for why the sky is blue. OK... but HOW did it get there?... well... god put it there, of course. He can do ANYTHING. OK... but WHY did god put it there?... errr... well... for US, of course! Why ELSE would he put it there? Etc... etc... etc... ad infinitum... ad nauseum.

The god 'meme' (Dawkins... a 'viral idea' which is easily passed on from person-to-person, and is easily assimilated) is incredibly efficient; it short-circuits the necessity of each person having to fabricate his OWN delusions... and short-circuits the need for 'knowledge'.

What was true at the dawn of human awareness and abstract thought is still true today... the ILLUSION of knowledge (belief... self-delusion) is much easier to come by... and much less trouble and work to acquire... than is ACTUAL knowledge.

Today, we don't have to worry about being eaten by a cave bear or a saber-toothed tiger if we are distracted. But this trait that once afforded humans a 'survival advantage' has been opportunistically co-opted by 'religion', which subverts this human 'advantage-turned-into-a-weakness' for motives of profit and power.

This is all just my opinion, of course... I might be so bold as to call it a 'hypothesis', if I had any idea how it might be tested... which I don't. However, imagining for a moment that this might be 'true' (it certainly has a lot of 'explanatory power'), it then leads to the next question... do atheists LACK the 'self-delusion' gene?

Culture... of which 'religion' is undeniably a part... overcame a lot of the 'natural selection' pressures that exist in nature. One might say that the selection pressures that have arisen since the dawn of 'civilization' are not 'natural' at all... instead, they are artificial... contrived, even. Looking back in history, and the rise of christianity, 'thinking differently' was a 'feature' that was deliberately weeded out of society... pagans... heretics... apostates... atheists... the list goes on. Any threat to the prevailing set of delusions was systematically and ruthlessly eliminated. The only way that a 'thinker' was able to survive would have been by PRETENDING to be a 'believer'. With regard to the 'explanatory power' of my idea, this could account (in part) for why 'critical thinking' is so scarce in our society today... why there are so many 'believers' in comparison to 'thinkers'. Critical thinking ability was 'weeded out' of the gene pool by the societal 'norms' (self-delusion was and is 'normal')... the 'artificial selection' processes which had replaced 'natural' selection. It is useful to look up Giordanno Bruno for a typical example of this. For about 1,200 years, Christians dealt with the best minds that humanity produced by torturing them and chucking them into a vat of boiling oil, or burning them at the stake... or (like Galileo) locking them away.

While it took me decades to figure this out, religious leaders have been aware it for centuries. Thankfully, though... every now and then... some blabbermouth lets the cat out of the bag, and provides us with a key insight...

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but... more frequently than not... struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." ~ Martin Luther

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an a** (donkey) to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." ~ Martin Luther

Religious 'shepherds' KNOW that their 'flock' (sheeple) are scientifically ignorant and incapable of critical thinking... because they've been PROGRAMMED to be ignorant. They KNOW that they are suspicious of 'scientific' sources , and find them to be intimidating and incomprehensible... because they've been CONDITIONED to distrust them. These puppet-masters KNOW that their flock (victims) will seek their 'knowledge' from 'trusted' sources... these very-same puppet-masters. When the sheeple hear things like 'scientists claim that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, in the distant past', they experience 'cognitive dissonance'... this information is in conflict with the 'truth' that they have believed for their whole lives. So... where do they go to resolve this cognitive dissonance?... Scientists?... NO! They go to their 'trusted' sources... the sources who KNOW that they have been taught WHAT to think... they have not been taught HOW to think. Sources who KNOW that they can lie, obfuscate, misrepresent with impunity... with absolutely NO RISK that their minions will seek out independent, peer-reviewed corroborating information.

There is an INDUSTRY (Christianity) whose BUSINESS it is to create whole generations of adults who are, at once, gullibile, irrational, willfully ignorant, self-deluded, intellectually dishonest, droolingly stupid and hypocritical... and willing to tithe 10% for having their cognitive dissonance held in check through regular doses of holy and pious codswallop.

They do their jobs very well indeed... as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=

JANE WEAVER wrote (SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 6:48 PM): "Since half of people have intelligence quotients below 100, it also stands to reason that there may be a higher percentage of people in this group who simply lack the intellectual skills to critically ascertain the facts."

I think that there is a little bit more to it than that... and I think that the key to this lies in 'critical thinking'.

It's very simple, really... even though it's taken me a very long time (decades) to realize it. I have been guilty of 'projecting'... 'anthropmorphizing'. I used to think that 'critical thinking' was an innate human ability. I thought that since I did it, then everybody could do it... and DID do it. I seems that I was badly mistaken.

Critical thinking is NOT an innate human ability. It must be LEARNED... and in order to learn it, you must have the capacity... the potential... to learn it. From my experience, though, I feel comfortable in asserting that most of the adult population of the USA does not even know what critical thinking IS... much less know how to actually DO it. Part of the problem has to do with the US public education system... it is designed to create 'employees'... not 'thinkers'. It is even possible to get a college degree... even a degree in one of the 'fuzzy' sciences... and STILL have not even HEARD of 'critical thinking'. Unless you have an advanced degree in one of the 'hard' sciences, it is highly unlikely that you will have acquired any critical thinking skills through schooling. In other words, apart from the 'hard' sciences, anyone who manages to acquire critical thinking skills does so IN SPITE OF their schooling... not BECAUSE of it. (The fact that there are some exceptions to these assertions is duly acknowledged... but they ARE exceptions, and they ARE few.)

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain

As you suggest, a large part of this problem seems to relate to intelligence. There have been around 40 studies over the past 80 years which revel a statistically significant INVERSE correlation between intelligence and religiosity... in ofher words, the LESS intelligent a person is, the MORE likely that person is to harbor supernatural (religious) beliefs. Conversely, the MORE intelligent a person is, the LESS likely that person is to harbor religious beliefs. But here... again... I think that this points to critical thinking ability... or lack thereof.
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

From my (unscientific) observations, I would guess that the CAPACITY (potential) for learning critical thinking skills does not seem to reliably express itself until you get up around an IQ of 125 or so.

Here's are some key things to understand... truisms...

1) religious 'belief'... the internalized certainty that specified myths, superstitions and fairy-tales are congruent with 'reality' CANNOT WITHSTAND the glaring light of 'critical thinking'.

2) around 85% of adult Americans profess religious 'belief'.

3) THEREFORE, at least 85% of adult Americans HAVE NOT applied critical thinking to their religious 'beliefs'. Why?... mostly, because they CAN'T.

There are some obvious outliers, of course... scientists those work requires critical thinking skills... yet they seem be able to check their brains at the church door... Francis Collins, for example. I cannot explain this, other than to say that it is a good example of 'compartmentalization'... and it plainly shows that even brilliant people are not immune to self-deception and self-delusion. Fortunately, such people are so few in number that they can be regarded as an anomoly, rather than a cause for grave concern.

Finally... the upshoot of this is VERY serious, when you think about it. Around 85% of adult Americans are delusional... MADE that way INTENTIONALLY (see my next post). Something that account for 85% of ANYTHING can be said to define what is considered 'normal'. So, on that basis... in the USA... INSANITY is 'normal'... and thus, the inmates are running the asylum... and the inmate gang leaders have control over the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world. Now THAT is a cause for grave concern.

“Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one’s friends.” ~ Sam Harris

Dear Professor Dawkins

Your passionate anti-religion crusade has very little to do with science. No wonder most "serious atheists" are embarrassed by it. If you had chosen only to highlight the evil done by some who claim/ed to believe in God, then your comments would carry real weight. But to ignore the obvious fact that religions have shaped culture and civilizations from the beginning of human history and to focus entirely only on the limitations of human nature and the inevitable consequences of the free will, is not particularly scientific. After all there are scientific developments which can be misused too, and science in itself does not have the provision to prevent its misuse. There are enough nuclear weapons in the world today that could destroy all life on the planet a hundred times over. It is not the scientific process in itself that prevents the use of those weapons for such destructive purposes.

Okay, so you don't believe in God. So what? You have no case to make to those of us who are perfectly comfortable with believing in God and science.

I do believe that all the real good you do for yourself and others continues to be good and you will be rewarded for it no matter whether you believe in God or not. But all the stuff you write about the non-existence of the God who created you, will have been a waste of time, on the day you are confronted with the inevitable proof of His existence; just when you think the moment has arrived when you are about to be no more than food for worms.

If belief in God did not do more than allay fear of death, and religion was geared merely towards rewards in heaven and no benefit on earth for anyone, religions would not have exercised the power that it has from the beginning of time. Religions have made a difference in people's life on this side of eternity - for the better. If the focus of religions had not been about order, beauty, purpose, meaning, values, love for self and neighbour, happiness even for the weakest... how could religions have moved the hearts and minds of some of the best people that ever walked the face of this earth?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Killing other people in the name of religion isn't the only point. Religion plays a large part in the spread of AIDS in Africa, the rising growth of STDs in America, overpopulation, the depletion of natural resources, global warming, etc. Religion is used as an excuse for control and extortion, using ignorance as a key component.

people can use religion to reason that since we aren't going to be here long anyways, that judgement day is fast approaching, why does it matter that we use up all of our resources, cause mass extinction of other species, and poison the earth? More than half the people in this country think that the world is going to end in their lifetime. Why? that is the question. There is no proof of this whatsoever, it is only another belief.

You only need to look at the AIDS epidemic in africa and the religious teachings that using contraceptives will cause infertility to see how religion is going in the wrong direction. They are more worried about people having premarital sex and abortions than the deaths of millions that could easily be prevented with untainted knowledge about safe sex and conception. It could also lessen the amount of starving children and overpopulation, educated people tend to have less children.

In America STDs are increasing in frequency because programs where only abstinence is taught are failing. The students who do not learn about birth control and condom use are more likely to engage in unsafe sex. We have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy out of any first world country.

Some people claim that we were founded as a "Christian Nation," yet one of our core beliefs is the separation of church and state. This belief continues to be threatened and it leaves me speechless. All you have to do is look at the world news, places like Afghanistan and Iraq where religion is the state to see how awful a place like that would be to live in. How could any woman want that after seeing the horrible lives they live? To rationalize religion into politics would be a huge mistake and inevitably lead to the loss of freedom we so easily take for granted, one protected by the freethinking minds that would be destroyed by the implementation of religious teachings in our schools.

People of religion tend to think that without religion people would do whatever they want, totally immoral. Ask yourself the question that if you lost your faith, would you do anything you wanted? If you look at the scientific community, one that is over 90% atheist/agnostic, you will see that they have the same moral inclinations as you do, that they believe in the good of humanity and to the building of a better world. Why is it so bad to want to focus on the here and now, to make a better place for our children? Death and whatever happens after death should not be the main focus of the living, but rather to the preservation and upgrading of life on earth.

The argument over if God exists as major religions try to explain it or not is a waste of time. People that are taught religion from such a young age, having it pounded into their minds week by week, have such a death-grip on their belief that it's nearly impossible to persuade them to loosen their grip. I'm sure that if we taught our children to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy with such vehemence we would be having a debate as to whether they exist instead of God.

However, I do not claim there is or is not a God, just that the odds are so unlikely and there is no proof that right now it makes no sense to believe in one. Bring me proof and I will believe, as would any scientist. I definitely believe that all religions are wrong in their beliefs and teachings about god, and that he had any contact with us whatsoever 2000 years ago is absolutely false. If you waited to teach someone about religion at the age of 18, after having gone through school learning about science, math, and history, would anyone believe in it?

I've read it many times, that it is impossible to prove that God exists. When I was young, I believed in God without question. When I got to around 14 or 15 I had many questions. I began to doubt that God existed. I didn't want to believe because of wishful thinking, or because other people believed. I wanted proof. My doubts increased and by the time I was 16 I was a very firm atheist. I would say that there is no experience quite like the experience of standing by an open grave that is about to receive the remains of a dear friend, that could impress upon you that all of your knowledge and understanding amounts to nothing. With perfect clarity you know that there is another level of complexity and of order that is off the scale of human comprehension. I did not have a sudden epiphany like many people have. I deliberately maintained my skepticism, as I do this day, but over the years I found more and more reasons to conclude that only God could have done this.
I think of the footprint that Robinson Crusoe found on his private island one day. He had to ask, could something so simple as this footprint be absolute proof of the existence of something so complex as another human being. It was simply just some grains of sand that had been moved at the most no more than a cm. Wind can move sand, water can move sand, gravity can move sand. Why couldn't the natural forces create such a simple item? They have the potential to do so. But potential alone is not enough, something additional is required and that something is the directions. The potential that could create us is so complex that it is utterly beyond our understanding. The directions likewise are complex utterly beyond us, but we understand that these directions must be applied with the utmost discrimination. It's logical to say that if evolution could create us, then there would be no good logical reason to believe that God exists. But I ask, is there a good logical reason to believe that evolution could create us? I invite all you atheists to partake in a little experiment. I would ask you to be honest, skeptical and rational. Okay, would you agree that evolution has no intelligence, no more intelligence than a rock, no motivation, no consciousness or awareness? Now, how would you like a modification performed on one of your eyes, performed at the level of intelligence of a rock? No? Well how about the brain? The heart? Of course you wouldn't, you wouldn't even want a modification done at the highest level of human intelligence, if all of those organs are working perfectly. Now consider our mythological ancestor of one billion years ago. This must have been a very complex creature. Now, just imagine, this creature is going to be subjected to modifications to not just one body part but every organ, every joint, the skeleton, the reproductive system, everything modified without any knowledge or intelligence. Not just one modification to everything, but if we allow twenty years for a generation, then that creature and its descendents will be subjected to a series of 50 million modifications to absolutely everything, performed at the level of the intelligence of a rock. Do you REALLY find that plausible? Note that 90 percent of the potential would have resulted in failure. Ninety percent of the directions would have resulted in failure. Only 100 percent of the potential and 100 percent of the directions applied with the utmost discrimination could have created us! That's not just my opinion! It's not speculation! That's irrefutable!

Dear Jane Weaver -

You're preaching to the choir about Einstein when you speak to the tenor section, aka moi.

You may wish to chat with Mad Love.

Bod: "Mr. Dawkins, you poor little man. Don't you have anything better to do? Really, you need to find a real job where you have to work hard and don't have the time or money to spout your minuscule "I hate you GOD, so I'll believe you don't exist" froth. I feel sorry for you. There are so many things in life to do that actually help others, rather than your present philosophical masturbatory endeavors. I'll pray for you."

This is so unconvincing. It's so obvious,that by belittling Dawkins, misquoting him, misrepresenting him and pitying him, that actually you feel threatened by him

TO DUCKUPHUP: You wrote, "The murderous fascist and communist regimes of the last century were based on 'ideologies'... just like religion is an 'ideology'. One of the main things that defined them was the 'dogma' that the supreme arbiter (within their political context)was the 'state'... and that there WAS NO 'higher power' (within their political context) than the state". That doesn't sound so much different than saying reason and science and human intelligence is the highest power. There is more to reality than science will ever prove. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The "faithful" substitute the ignorance they share with all of us by inserting a sort of a token, a proxy, a joker, which they admit they don't know anything about. They might just as well leave it out.

Instead of honestly leaving this ignorance a blank spot, they dishonestly claim they know something which in reality they don't know. It is just a play of semantics: Why not admit the equation god = ignorance about the beginning? They don't know anything either!

To me it is amusing how people reiterate thousandfold the blabla "something can never come out of nothing", and one line farther down they posit their imagined joker, claiming the exact contrary, "something came out of nothing", with the qualification that "someone" gave it a little push.

So did something come out of nothing? Who knows?

"Paul c:

While there are undeniably examples of people who have in fact killed and hated in the name of their Gods, this does not prove that religion is harmful to society. I would say that the basic Tenets of Christianity are to love God and Neighbor and to "turn the other cheek." To twist that into a reason to kill or hate others is a distortion of the basic tenet so logically, it is hard to argue that a religion based on love drives hate. Emperically, I would also bet that no one can prove that the aggregate effect of religion on society is a negative. The good far outweights the bad."

Hmmm, let's see... you have religious dogma driving people to try to make laws restricting our individual rights and freedoms (abortion), faith-based presidents stacking the Supreme Court to that same end, and preventing medical advancement (stem cell research), indoctrinating small children to believe the absolutely unbelievable and unprovable, teaching children that dinosaurs lived alongside man, the stifling of individualism when someone who doesn't believe the dogma is shunned, the mental coersion and psychological terror tactics used to acheive obedience to said religious dogma,... shall I go on? The fact remains, one does not have to be religious to recognize and act in ways that are loving and helpful to mankind. But the things I have described are definitely a negative effect on society and they are caused bt religion. And if there was no religion, somehow I think charities would still get funded, children would still get adopted, communities would still come together to help a neighbor out in some unfortunate emergency, etc.

"As for their being no proof of the existance of God, I would debate that. You can't >measure wind directly either. What you measure or observe is its effect on other things, like how it moves a leaf. God is similar."

Uh, you CAN measure the wind. it's called an anemometer. While air is clear and transparent, I can't imagine you're actually trying to make a correlation between a god that there is absolutely no proof of, and an "immeasurable(??)" force like the wind, which will blow your house off of its foundation under the right circumstances. Do you think you'd need a cup measure or a ruler to measure the wind to prove that it actually exists as you watch your house get blown away?

In science, hypotheses are put forward and either proved or disproved. It is perfectly fair to say that until something is defined either way, that the answer is in fact unclear."

Yes, but I have as yet to see anything tangible that supports the faith-based position regarding our existence and the universe. Science may not have (all) the answers... yet... but they do have some, and there will certainly to be more information discovered in the future. These things take time. You've had 2000 years and still no proof of god. Give scientists another 1500 years and lets see where we stand then.

"Until it can be definitely proved that God doesn't exist or that Religion is a net negative in the world, I would suggest that unbelievers desist from such stridency."

I love the way folks like you continue to dance around the fact that believers in god are the ones charged with proving their position, NOT those who don't believe in something for which there is absolutely no proof to be demonstrated. I wonder why that is? Science has progressed mightily in the last 500 years and will continue to do so. Conversely, religious faith in god is still stuck in the fantasy of books written thousands of years ago by men - NOT scientists, who were fully indoctrinated and/or simply carrying out the agenda of mass mind control and consolidation of power. At least science has been able to establish SOME irrefutable FACTS. Religion is still searching for a single iota of presentable, demonstrable, verifiable fact. And we're still waiting...

Mr. Mark:

Einstein never came to believe in a "God" in the patriarchal major world religion sense. He saw the manifestation of energy, and the ability of humans to sense systems and feel emotion just as most everyone does, and he was open to discovery and metaphor.

None of these things have anything at all to do with a supernatural being or deity. And they are more easily explained without magic. There is no need to introduce a supernatural deity into the mix to explain any of it.

It is natural, called "Nature," "Creator," "The Nameless" and other terms that imply something beyond our own individual human power and understanding.

Mr. Dawkins, you poor little man. Don't you have anything better to do? Really, you need to find a real job where you have to work hard and don't have the time or money to spout your minuscule "I hate you GOD, so I'll believe you don't exist" froth. I feel sorry for you. There are so many things in life to do that actually help others, rather than your present philosophical masturbatory endeavors. I'll pray for you.

It is impossible, and always will be impossible, to have a natural explanation for everything. Natural explanations consist of the application of our knowledge about the universe and its phenomena. There can never be a natural explanation for the existence of the universe and its phenomena. We are surrounded by mystery and we must choose between two approaches to this great mystery of all of existence. We may say it does not require an explanation, but if it requires an explanation, there could be no other explanation but God.
PIERRE JC. Do you know the difference between a dead body and a living body? There is something present in the living body and something absent from the dead body. What is this? By our understanding of science, something cannot be produced out of nothing, neither can something be made to become nothing, so what becomes of the living spirit?
I know that atheism is supposed to be a rejection of all faith, and BTW that is also one of the most important principles of scientific methodology, but because we do not know what it took to create us (exactly what it took to create us) atheism is in fact a faith ! Something created us, we do not know what, somehow, we do not know how, and until we do we, all of us, have no other resort but faith. (That's what faith is, having confidence in something that you cannot define or comprehend.)
There are many who have embraced the evolution faith, but there is not a single person on this planet, including Prof. Dawkins, who can make it make sense! We who have faith in God, reason that we could only have been created by a coherent power, complex enough and organized enough to do so. Atheists and evolutionists have the faith to believe that such a coherent power was unnecessary, that by laissez-faire, the natural forces could have created all of life over a period of many billions of years. Every rational person should strongly reject statements of faith. Only logic should be acceptable. This is the great challenge that no atheist could take on. Explain, by logic only, no faith, how laissez-faire could be creative, and continue to be creative, without error or failure, for five billion years. The "rationale" behind this atheistic doctrine, is that by doing the work in small increments, spreading it over a vast period of time, the challenges of creation are made simpler, simple enough that laissez-faire could accomplish the task. But we know, that's right know, that laissez-faire is utterly incapable of actually simple creation, such as a clay bowl or a sandcastle. We also know that breaking the task down into many increments does not simplify the challenge at all. For instance, the challenge of creating a replacement eye is not simpler for laissez-faire than for our greatest medical scientists, no matter how many increments or how great the time allotted to the work. Life was created with knowledge, and that is an observable fact! So, I challenge all you atheists, convince me that you are right, but remember, no faith, logic only!

Although there is no evidence for a supernatural being or deity, there is apparently strong survival value in shared belief, and people crave agreement from others. There is something about culture that makes it possibly the most potent force exerting pressure on human behavior. Morality and ethics exist in all cultures, whether or not they possess a deity. So these also would seem to have survival value for humankind.

Instead of avoiding the "is there a deity?" question, I think the only way to ever move in the direction of reason is to have schools make it a part of the educational experience to examine belief itself--and culture.

Why do people generally believe what they were taught as they developed into adulthood? Do the "faithful" mostly really believe it, or do they consider it more of a cherished cultural tradition? Why is religion listed in the encyclopedia for a country as if it's geography-based, much like annual rainfall? What is different about those who came to question their childhood indoctrination?

Brain studies are just beginning to inform us about the brain's involvement in belief. Scientific American Mind has featured a stream of articles describing various ongoing brain studies that are providing insight into what's happening inside our heads.

One of the biggest roadblocks I see is that clever cultural manipulators built in safety measures, in the form of specific beliefs, into their belief systems, so believers would be less inclined to question. They may fear some magical intervention--an angry deity smiting them in some manner, or even the very real threat of people acting on the basis of some ancient writing, and harming or killing them outright.

Isn't that what is really going on with Pat Robertson, the Taliban, and others who manipulate human belief for personal and political control? They use fear and intimidation as tools to prevent people from questioning, or from denouncing a belief system.

Since half of people have intelligence quotients below 100, it also stands to reason that there may be a higher percentage of people in this group who simply lack the intellectual skills to critically ascertain the facts.

Thank you, Professor Dawkins, for having the courage to break the taboo and speak the truth. I'm sure the cultural backlash will be palpable, yet it may start a long overdue conversation!

Dear Mad Love -

You wrote that you, "had never read about Einstein's beliefs before this thread." I would encourage you to do some exploration on your own. There's an excellent new biography out by Walter Issacson in which Mr Issacson posits that over the course of his life, Einstein exhibited what he calls, "his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one."

Mr Issacson was a guest columnist on On Faith when his book was released, and his column supports your position more than mine.

The article and the 483 comments are the same are archived here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/04/einstein_and_the_mind_of_god.html

That's the end of the legwork I intend to do for you on this subject.

Happy reading.

"Actually, I had never read about Einstein's beliefs before this thread. However as they echo my own rather closely I guess I felt I had a dog in the fight."

Interesting, Mad Dog, thanks for the input.

"As if I were being called an atheist."

not such a bad thing, I don't think.

I don't blame Mr Mark for thinking you were a religionist -- that Green Jello God analogy was a bit much, IMO.

EndDarwinees... I'm curious. Which ancient Greek philosopher is it that provides you with your intellectual inspiration? Moronicus? Dumbassticus?

And still, they come.

Adam Bledsoe also wants us to prove a negative. Yikes!

A guy gets pulled over for speeding and fails a sobriety test. Upon his court appearance, he says to the judge, "Judge, I may well be innocent of these DUI charges. As the state is bringing the charges against me, I believe it's up to the state to present evidence that I WASN'T drunk at the time. If the state can't do that, then I think you should just take my word for it, drop the charges and let me go."

So it goes when the religionist asks one to prove a negative.

"mulopwepaul: God doesn't represent reality; God represents the necessary and sufficient principle by which reality, necessity and sufficiency exit."

What??

"mulopwepaul: We simply must disagree on this point; your notion of external measurement presumes a necessary correlation between observable behaviour and internal, intangible mental states. This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, since no one can quantify the underlying mental states."

Here are a couple of quantifications for you. A person rushes into the street and pushes their child out of the way of a speeding car and is instead struck and killed themself. Gunfire erupts on a public street and a man throws himself onto his wife and pushes her to the ground. He is struck by a stray bullet and dies but his wife survives - and yes, if he were not on top of her it is she who would have been killed.

These things do happen. Do you have any trouble quantifying the underlying mental state in these two situations? Perfectly quantifiable and obviously connected to love and the protection of someone you love.

Antony Flew was a bigger Atheists than Dawkins is & even he has seen more evidence for a creator than not.
Darwinism is a fairy tale, science supports a creator Einstein was a Theist like Flew, Darwinism is crumbling like a house of cards.

Excellent and concise comment. Too bad there aren't more highly intelligent, thinking people, in the world to counter the blather that we get from politicians, religious leaders, and terrorists. I hope we hear more from Richard Dawkins.

Richard is my hero. Everything he says he says for me and the millions who hide are knowledge that God is not real and will never help nor hinder you. I don't want to kill who don't believe the same as me, people are free to make it through life with whatever gets them through. I don't need to believe a superbeing created me and is watching and waiting to punish me for my misdoings. I know their is no spiritual punishment for doing wrong. I choose not to do wrong because I care for the living around me. I don't believe in Santa, the Easter bunny and I don't believe in GOD. We as humans are so advanced in technolgy and commerce but we live in the dark ages spiritually.

I am not a religious person, but I do remember that one of the Ten Commandments is: Thou Shall Not Kill
Therefore any evangelical christian or religous far right zealot who believes otherwise will in fact rot in hell for his need to kill for his god.

Mr Mark

You put the challenge out there (to someone else granted) based on the quotes in the thread and I responded. Sorry that you had to try to dredge up some more stuff to try to prove your point, but that's not my fault.

I'll argue this all year if you want. You've yet to make any headway at all in your argument. You have no argument. "Oh Einstein didn't mean what he said. Here let me interpret for you." is not an argument. It's delusion.

I'll check this thread later tonight. If you can put up anything that would pass muster in an eighth grade debate club please feel free to do so. Please don't delude your self into thinking that you have done so this far.

And where do you get off calling me a religionist? That's so far off that it's absurd. But you just see what you want to see right? It's not what I've said or not said, Because you've got the same insight into what I believe as you do into Einstein right? Insight? Or delusion?

for one - it is wrong to kill two? God is but doesnt condon killing - killing is wrong remember - dawkins has judged and is wrong. it is the spirit that knows all things not emotion.

EndDarwinees wrote: "If there is no God than one has no reason to respect any form of life and the pond scum is equal to human beings."

OK... I think I'm gonna puke now.

EndDarwinees... Please search this page for 'people like you scare the living crap out of me'... I don't think it would be proper for me to re-post that whole rant again.

It's so frustrating trying to argue this with theists. They often think that quotations from the Bible count as proof, which is of course nonsense. I can quote books till I'm blue in the face and it doesn't prove anything unless those books happen to be science books and their content is backed by peer-reviewed research. And even then, the truth is provisional, subject to change pending more evidence.

The only rational way to believe anything is in proportion to the evidence in its favor. But theists have it backward, indicating that perhaps they have never graced the freshman logic courses that I feel should be required for all students. They fabricate arguments in order to back into what they already believe (whether the static theism of their brainwashed childhood or some unnecessary personal revelation later in life).

Put another way, nobody on this thread, or on any thread or any other medium, has ever logically demonstrated the existence of god. Dawkins and his peers, not to mention some good philosophers, take down the arguments of Aquinas and Augustine adequately. And those are the most sophisticated arguments available.

Until evidence is found, no one has a logical right to believe. If you prefer to believe first and then formulate convoluted arguments to support that a priori belief, you don't understand logic and you should go back to school.

Richard is my hero. Everything he says he says for me and the millions who hide are knowledge that God is not real and will never help nor hinder you. I don't want to kill who don't believe the same as me, people are free to make it through life with whatever gets them through. I don't need to believe a superbeing created me and is watching and waiting to punish me for my misdoings. I know their is no spiritual punishment for doing wrong. I choose not to do wrong because I care for the living around me. I don't believe in Santa, the Easter bunny and I don't believe in GOD. We as humans are so advanced in technolgy and commerce but we live in the dark ages spiritually.

E favorite wrote:

Mad Love - my hypothesis is that you're a reasonable person who truly thought, based on what you'd heard, that Einstein believed in God. Believing that brought you some level of comfort.

Actually, I had never read about Einstein's beliefs before this thread. However as they echo my own rather closely I guess I felt I had a dog in the fight. As if I were being called an atheist.

Thanks for trying Richard but your argument is not very convincing.
If there is no God than one has no reason to respect any form of life and the pond scum is equal to human beings.
However if we are made in the image of God and God loves His children than to cause harm to one of them is a terrible (sinful) thing.
I love my fellow man because they are also made in the image of God & Christ commands it.
Doesn’t the Quran require that you give a person a chance to convert to Islam?
How do you do that with a bomb?

This a very shallow rant at religionists and people of faith. Firstly, religionists are not capable of using reason or science to examine the basis of their beliefs and people of faith cannot be the objects of this man's attacks because they live by a set of values rather than a dogma based on paper. There are many types of extremists outside the box of religion who justify human slaughter. The so-called Neocons who have destabilized Iraq resulting in the deaths of thousands have been driven by 2 of the world's greatest religions to invade and occupy a country pitting politics and faiths in an ever spreading conflict. No, attacking extremists is bad business because even this author is blind to his own brand of it.

Oh I'll stay here and argue all month, lol. I just don't see anyones mind changing here.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist"

Come on now, you can't be that obtuse! of course a Jesuit Priest is going to say that anyone that doesn't buy into the whole yada yada yada is going to hell. He will also say the Protestants Muslims and the Hindus are going to Hell as well. That doesn't make them Atheists!

The atheist argument here seems to be "Einstein's god isn't goddy enough to fit my definition of the god that I don't believe in therefore he must be an atheist like me."

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Wow. What is your proof that there is no God? The only real truth is that no one knows for sure. Yes, this life should be taken full advantage of and lived as if there is no after life, but who are you to say God, Gods, or Supreme Powers do not exist? Have you died and come back to tell us there is nothing after this life or do you know someone who's dead and you asked them? Your argument of no God is no different than someones argument that their is God. NO PROOF! What people should be taught is morals and then doing what is right for you, your neighbor, and future generations as a whole. If everyone takes care of those things and respect all of life and the land then we should no longer have to have this argument of God. People should know that no matter what their religion says violence solves nothing. What is the difference of someone starting a holy war and a "regular" war? In its simplest form people are still being murdered for gains. Their is no difference in the eyes of a non corrupted child, but to a brainwashed adult they see reason to kill. People are people and with or without God we will find a reason to kill each other. I challenge you to prove that something comes from nothing. When you can take absolutely nothing and form something from it I'd like to here about it. I went through a brief period where I laughed at the thought of God, but then I realized there is no reason not to have faith and hope. Why, you ask. When you're a child life is like waiting in line for a roller coaster and once you grow up you learn that no matter what you must get on the ride. Standing in line you watch as people board the coaster and never return. Some get on the ride with the belief that when they get off of it they will be able to ride again somewhere else. Others see no proof of another ride so they laugh at those who believe there is more after life. The point is everyone rides and everyone ends up in the same place. Who cares what happens, go ahead and be miserable because when the ride is coming to the end I will have a smile on my face. You will see nothing yet when you open your eyes you just may see me laughing at you saying, "thank God". Of course, you could be right, there may be nothing in the end, but at least I died with a smile on my face.

I agree with Mr.Dawkins in so much as there is no evidence of any supreme being, I also believe that Theology ought more accurately to be described as Theological Fiction or TheoFi since the whole concept of theology exists only in the Human Mind as a stratergy for over coming the fear of the unknown.

However just as I believe there is life on other planets I am prepared to believe that there maybe a supreme being, but we just do not know.

From this perspective Mr Dawkins flatly denying the possibility of a supreme being seems just as silly as those who profess to blindly accept, believe and kill in the name of a supreme being, whichever supreme being, but it can be seen that Mr Dawkins beliefs are marginally more humane in so much as he does not believe in killing anyone.

Hugz

Art Tidesco
Bristol, England

"JD: Mr Mark, don't YOU get tired of knocking your head against a wall? LOL. YOU argue against what YOU don't believe. LOL. And you can save no one. Not even yourself! All your learning to refute what YOU don't believe and you along with all who think as you will die WITHOUT wisdom. The Lord Jesus has gone on ahead of all born again Christians. I will trust in Him to lead me to the other side."

Saved?? Saved from what? An imaginary place called Hell? An eternity living outside the Pearly Gates forlornly looking in? Oh, woe is me!

Please... spare me the high-and-mighty posturing, the exalted, arrogant, looking-down-your-nose attitude of people who prefer to live their lives based in fact and reasonable theory, not some fantasy of immacualte conception and talking snakes, forbidden apples, one of each creature on earth herded onto a big boat, Red Sea parting, water turned to wine, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Just answer me this: Why is the contention that there IS no "other side" such an alarming proposition for you? Why must we have some so far undetermined greater purpose to our existence? I believe for people like you it is because you have been successfully indoctrinated by a philosphy of fear and control, a dogma that seeks to control the masses through mental and emotional terror and oppression. It's the ultimate in peer pressure. Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to this scam and are comfortable believing in themselves and an easily discernable concept of "right and wrong" that needs no religion to recognize moral values as it relates to how we each are and how we act individually in the world.

Dear E Fav -

I don't wish to think ill of bloggers like Mad Love, but this Einstein exchange smacks of the one-sided debates that rage every day on On Faith.

Some religionist (in this case, The Moderate) makes a bald-faced lie of a statement. A few atheists jump in to refute the statement. They take the time to do a 5-second Google search and then cut-n-paste some text that refutes the claims of the religionists. At this point, a couple of fellow religionists (Mad Love & buds) try a diversionary tactic by asking for more information or by asking sidebar questions. Then, an idiot like me does another 5-second Google search to provide them with the info that they themselves could have found on their own if they could have been bothered to do the 5-second Google search (heaven forfend they make an effort to discover on their own info that they seem so adamant to learn!).

Discussion over and atheists triumphant, the religionists play the "agree to disagree/militant atheists are mean/you'll face Jesus on judgement day" card and head off to lick their theological wounds on some more-friendly website.

If I didn't think better of the religionists, I'd swear they were just yanking our chains for the hell of it.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

What some of you forget is that there was morality and humanity long be for their was christianity. We do not need christianity to be moral, christianity borrowed those ideas from paganism.

Mad Love - my hypothesis is that you're a reasonable person who truly thought, based on what you'd heard, that Einstein believed in God. Believing that brought you some level of comfort.

Now, under the weight of the evidence Mr Mark presented, you are reluctantly backing down, but don't fully accept that you were completely mistaken.

Actually, that's how I felt about religion in the few months before I gave it up -- and I just thought of that while I was writing this post.

Paul C writes:

"It is a lot easier to understand how an omnipotent being can put order into the universe than it is to suppose that order is spontaneously created out of disorder."

What that sentence actually means is:

"It is a lot easier to imagine how an omnipotent being can put order into the universe than it is to understand how order is actually created out of disorder."

Sorry... Anonymous (September 13, 2007 4:48 PM)... above... was (is) me. I plead 'cerebral flatulence'.

Dear Mad Love -

Einstein said "I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

Where's the wiggle room in that statement to question whether or not he was an atheist? And, rather than softening the statement, the qualifier before the statement (ie: "To a Jesuit priest...") actually REINFORCES Einstein's total rejection of the religious definition of god while laying bare the religionists' lack of imagination.

Really, there's nothing to "agree to disagree" with on this one. Why not just admit that Einstein flat out said he was an atheist and leave it at that? I'm sure you'll best me in some future battle, but this one is called. Game, set & match.

Paul C wrote: "What you measure or observe is its effect on other things, like how it moves a leaf. God is similar. You can't measure infinite power but you can see its effects. You can see the order in the universe and he laws of nature and the movement of the planets understand that something had to put them in place. It is a lot easier to understand how an omnipotent being can put order into the universe than it is to suppose that order is spontaneously created out of disorder."

Oh, twaddle. Search this page for 'Argument from Incredulity'... it might put things into perspective for you.

Here's an experiment that you (anyone) can perform right in your own kitchen. Get a container of Morton Salt. Slowly and carefully begin pouring it out on your table, until there is a little inverted cone of salt... and when you add more it just runs down the sides, and the pile does not get any higher. Then move on and start a new pile. Repeat until your container of salt is ALL gone. Now... depending on how much salt you started out with, you may have lots of little piles of salt, or maybe just a few... but it doesn't matter HOW many piles you have... you will note that ALL the little piles of salt are the same height, and the angle of the sides of each pile is the same.

Now... tell me... does that happen because God has sent down an angel, with a ruler and a protractor and a trowel, to shape the little piles of salt? Or, perhaps god intervenes directly, 'speaking' the salt piles into uniform height and 'angle of repose'?

The formation of stars and their accompanying solar systems is well understood... and it's just about as mystical and supernatural as the little piles of salt. Look up 'solar nebula'.

When Napoleon asked him why there was no mention of God in his new book which mathematically described the motion of the planets, LaPlace replied: "Sire... I have no need of that hypothesis." Well, guess what?... nobody else does, either.

But then... some people are not the least bit interested in such 'human' wisdom.... they are completely satisfied with "God did it"... without any curiosity whatsoever, or any willingness to doubt their own presumptions and consider alternative possibilities. But you're not like that... are you?

Thanks for the clarification Mr Mark. I guess we'll have agree to disagree on this one.

Mr Mark

I see why that quote was so long in coming. Do I really have to explain why this doesn't prove your point? It's beautiful sentiment, btw.

Put all the quotes together and it's a pretty clear picture of a man who was skeptical of religion, semi agnostic but leaning towards gnostic based on an extraordinary view of the order and beauty of the universe.

Hardly a fundie but not an atheist either.

Dear Mad Love -

Point of clarity - the quote I provided is actually two quotes which I inadvertently ran together and joined with an ellipse. Both quotes were written to Guy H Raner, Jr, but they were separated by 4 years. The first quote is this:

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. [Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism.]

And, the second quote:

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. [Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949]

I should have just gone ahead and posted the two quotes separately in the first place. Mea culpa.

E favorite wrote:

If Einstein’s God were Green Jello, do you think he’d go to heaven when he died, if he’d been a devout Green Jelloist, or do you think he’d go to Hell because he had not accepted Christ?

To be honest I'm not really up on my green Green Jelloist theology. But I don't see how you could go to Hell if you didn't believe in it.

Mad Love -

Here ya go:

""From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." - Albert Einstein

Dr. Swider,

your ingenious excursion to math for the old worn-out watchmaker fable proves nothing whatsoever, even in the disguise of a "scientific" argument. If in a storm a brick falls on you head, you may have a wound. If someone crushes a beer bottle on your head, you may have the same wound. Of course you can now say that the storm is "someone", but your equations would crumble sadly, because your bulge doesn't prove "someone" struck you.

DuckPhup:

You wrote "Einstein was an atheist. He SAID he was an atheist."

Really? Could you find the quote? Because that would sure save us a lot of time.

Yes I know he didn't by into the idea of a 'personal god' I'm not claiming that he did, although apparently someone did, and he didn't like it.

You seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that you have some kind of insight into what he really meant, and not surprisingly it fits your agenda. On the other hand I take him at his word and you accuse me of having an agenda. You warn me that "By trying to read any more than that into it, you are just confounding yourself." An yet you confound yourself into believing that what he really meant was the opposite of what he said. Who is reading what into what, here?

Mr Mark:

Thanks for the additional info. I still don't see anything here that would point to atheism. A healthy disdain for religion, sure, but the two aren't synonymous. It seems like a lot of conflation is needed to make your case. So unless DuckPhup can back up his claim with a quote, I'm going to have to take Einstein at his word.

Duckphup - I'm disappointed in you. You're usually so smart, but there you go quoting a bunch of old testament stuff as if you didn't know that God settled down and cleaned up a lot of his old ideas when he took on parental responsibilities.

"Pastor Jim Lake: Mr.Dawkins,.... If the Bible is right you will be accountable to a God you have rejected. That my friend is certain."

Dear Pastor -

"Certainty" is to religious beliefs as "irrefutable evidence of WMDs" is to Colin Powell's UN presentation.

That said, thanks for giving us a shining example of what it means to be "a fool for Christ."

BTW - the Bible isn't right. Is the Bible right that unicorns and fire-breathing dragons existed? Is the Bible right in saying that the Earth is flat?

Why would religion be afraid of its own death if we are not to be afraid of ours? Martyrs don't die for their god, just for their religion. Allah or Jehovah will/would continue without us but the religion might falter. And religion is a man-made construct anyway..
Your god doesn't need you (please kill yourself) so obviously, he/she won't evaporate without the others who denounce him/her/it, or never believed in it either. If god is all powerful, he doesn't need you to do his job for him anyway. And isn't it enough that infidels will never know heaven, but that you must shorten our time on earth as well?

We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ!

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not!

“Slogans like ‘Religion stops a thinking mind’ and ‘The greatest enemy of reason is faith’"

These slogans accurately describe me when I was Christian. Oh, I could think and reason just fine, but not when it came to religion. I’d try sometimes, but it got dificult, so I just would stop. I didn’t try very often because religion wasn’t very important in my life and I was rarely challenged on it.

MAD LOVE – If Einstein’s God were Green Jello, do you think he’d go to heaven when he died, if he’d been a devout Green Jelloist, or do you think he’d go to Hell because he had not accepted Christ?

Mr MARK – Happy birthday, if I believed in astrology, I’d say we have a lot in common.

Mr Mark wrote: "Don't be too hard on James Adams. He may be using this blog as part of the audition process for the role of Matthew Brady in his local production of "Inherit the Wind."

Oops... too late. Good catch, though. I hadn't thought of that.

James Adams wrote: "He Himself is no murderer, and does not condone murder in any name."

Ahem...

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
* to show that he is Lord;
* to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
* to show his great power;
* to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
* to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
* to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.

LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command.

NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.

NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.

NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."

NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.

NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had known men? One can only speculate.)

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.

DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

JS 11:20 "For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses."

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

2KI 15:16 Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.

2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.

PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones.

IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

EZ 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak ...."

EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."

MT 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."

MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.

Gee whiz, James... I guess they forgot to tell you about those parts, when you were being brainwashed. When's the last time you heard any of that in a Sunday sermon?

Dear Duckphup -

Don't be too hard on James Adams. He may be using this blog as part of the audition process for the role of Matthew Brady in his local production of "Inherit the Wind."

James Adams wrote: (lots of foolish, delusional stuff)

James... I don't know whether you have noticed it or not... but there does not seem to be ONE THING that you said that might actually be construed as an original thought... i.e., something that was cooked up and hatched right there in your own brain, in some kind of creative process. It ALL consists of tedious religious slogans, bon mots and scriptural tidbits that we've all heard thousands of times before.

Does this, perhaps, suggest something to you?... anything?

To me, it suggests that you are a victim. Please...do a page search on 'DuckPhup', and read what you find. Perhaps it will help you come to grips with what has happened to you... and what has been DONE to you.

Good luck with that.

You, friend, are wrong. The essential existence of God is proven every day. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with god and the Word was God. He in the beginning was with God." Sir, God the Word proves the Essential existence of God Himself. He Himself is no murderer, and does not condone murder in any name, His, nor that of His Son Jesus or some charlatan false prophet. Repent and stop blaspheming...He is not as angry at you or anyone else who is worth their salt as you think, if at all. Jesus died for us and was raised from the dead that whosoever shall believe on Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. That includes Peace to you. you.

What message would I send to religious zealots? The following.

You are passionately sincere. You really really believe that living for your God is the right and moral thing to do, and that you will receive the supreme reward in Paradise. Your passionate conviction is called 'faith' and you have been taught, from infancy on, that to have faith is the supreme virtue. Not just you, most people in the world, the vast majority of whom would never dream of doing the great things you are prepared to do, have been brought up to respect faith unquestioningly. You could claim that you are true to your faith, in a way that those mean violent people are not. But what if your faith itself is wrong?

It is wrong. Utterly, catastrophically, dreadfully wrong. There is no God. If you live your life for your God, you will have lived for nothing. If you help people for your God, you will have helped for nothing. Your life will have been wasted, and so will the lives of those you helped. You will not go to Paradise. You will rot, along with your victims, and the world will be well rid of you, though not of them.

If there's no God, don't you have to have to play both sides of the coin? Or is it ok to do good things in the name of God, and not ok to do bad things in the name of God? (just as long as the judge of what's wrong and what's right is someone who doesn't believe in God)

You believe that blasphemy in a public forum is the way to deal with life's pain? True enough, you are in America, and blasphemy cannot be policed. There is a God, and he is essentially proven in His glory and existence every day. His essential existence is proven by this: "G-O-D." It is written, " In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He, in the beginning, was with God." God the Word proves the essential existence of God Himself. If there is absolutely no God, as you purport, How is it you can read of Him, speak of Him and write of Him? You will be forgotten, for the most part after you've rotted in the earth, as you so eloquently and encouragingly put it, to paraphrase you, But Three thousand ears from now, God will still be forever praised. Repent!

Religious extremist do not understand religion. To kill for anything is wrong. We are all part of God, Dawkins does not say anything about killing and consuming animals. Is he a vegetarian?

MAD LOVE writes:
"I mean, you yourself used the term "Einstein's god" and then deny he had one."

Did you ever stop to think that Einstein used the term "god" simply to give idiots (at least when compared to Einstein) like me (and you?) a point of reference that we could understand and relate to through our experience?

If I say that "music is a seductive mistress" it doesn't mean that I believe one has sex with music. I'm simply providing a point of reference.

I could say that "music is my god," but that wouldn't square with the world's concept of what GOD is.

I really don't understand what you're arguing here. Einstein said he had a god, but his god had nothing to do with the gods of any religion. In fact, Einstein quite specifically rejects religion's definition of god.

Einstein had a god the way the religious have brothers and sisters.

"Pastor Jim Lake: Mr.Dawkins,.... If the Bible is right you will be accountable to a God you have rejected. That my friend is certain."

Another perfect example of the psychological terrorism employed by the religious in an attempt to control the masses. Despicable, and one good reason why people with the independent capacity to think and reason, reject religion and its preposterous, unprovable dogma. This type of brianwashing and terror tactics worked well, say, in the 14th century. Thankfully many of us have progressed as a species. I'm sorry you have apparently been left behind...

Sir,

Faith, essentially, biblically speaking, springs from that which we believe, and that comes from what we hear repeatedly. You cannot prove something you have neither seen or have seen without a witness to that which you have seen.

Faith is evidential based upon some hoped for and substantial based upon things unseen. Just because an idiot kills in the name of God or Christ, doesn't mean that that idiot, that fool, has God's authorization.You believe tomorrow is coming, but cannot prove it. If you do not repent, most assuredly, you will perish in your unbelief. It is written, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Repent and believe. You'll be a happier, less argumentative person, and tomorrow will gain you more than anger. If you hate me, do it it because of our Lord Jesus Christ. Tell me what you think of me for His sake. I know Him. He is the Son of God, and He is raised from the dead. If you don't repent, you will most assuredly perish in your sin.

Sir,

Faith, essentially, biblically speaking, springs from that which we believe, and that comes from what we hear repeatedly. You cannot prove something you have neither seen or have seen without a witness to that which you have seen.

Faith is evidential based upon some hoped for and substantial based upon things unseen. Just because an idiot kills in the name of God or Christ, doesn't mean that that idiot, that fool, has God's authorization.You believe tomorrow is coming, but cannot prove it. If you do not repent, most assuredly, you will perish in your unbelief. It is written, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Repent and believe. You'll be a happier, less argumentative person, and tomorrow will gain you more than anger. If you hate me, do it it because of our Lord Jesus Christ. Tell me what you think of me for His sake. I know Him. He is the Son of God, and He is raised from the dead. If you don't repent, you will most assuredly perish in your sin.

Sir,

In my humble opinion, you are an insufferable dolt and a blind fool. Faith, essential, biblically speaking, springs from that which we believe, and that comes from what we hear repeatedly. You cannot prove something you have neither seen or have seen without a witness to that which you have seen.

Faith is evidential based upon some hoped for and substantial based upon things unseen. Just because an idiot kills in the name of God or Christ, doesn't mean that that idiot, that fool, has God's authorization.You believe tomorrow is coming, but cannot prove it. If you do not repent, most assuredly, you will perish in your unbelief. It is written, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Repent and believe. You'll be a happier, less argumentative person, and tomorrow will gain you more than anger.

Dear Mad Love -

Thanks for your comments.

I offer more clarity on the subject, again from Einstein himself:

"Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

"Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history.

"For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labours they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they well surely recognise with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

"If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements.

"By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." - (Albert Einstein, 1941)

Mad Love wrote (to Mr. Mark): "He described the god that he believed in. What more do you need?"

"To use a 'religionist' concept to negate his belief is yet another straw man argument. A cheap debate tactic, no better than an ad hominem attack or an outright lie. No offense, but what is it with the atheists around here an straw men arguments."

Wow... you sure would like for Einstein to have believed in god, huh? It must be very important for you.

Einstein was an atheist. He SAID he was an atheist. He described his deep awe and appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the universe and nature as a 'religious' feeling in order to convey the nature of his feelings to ordinary people who were (and still are) religious. In other words, Einstein used 'god' as a metaphor, so that his expressions could resonate with the feelings of the people he was trying to communicate with. By trying to read any more than that into it, you are just confounding yourself. Take for example this quote, which is often cited as 'proof' that Einstein believed in god: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Translation into regular-people-speak (my words):

*** "If you coldly work to uncover the secrets of the universe without harboring an inner sense of wonder, awe and appreciation for the beauty, majesty, and symmetry of nature, you are depriving yourself of the most personally enriching part of the experience in what you do.

If you focus entirely upon what you think 'is', or what you have been told 'is', you are depriving yourself of the knowledge of the true basis for the awe and reverence that you feel." ***

Einstein's language was colorful, concise, poetic... and ambiguous, all at the same time; i.e., 'believers' could understand it on their own terms... and people who were smart enough to penetrate his metaphors could appreciate it on an entirely different level. Such was his genius.

The following quote clearly, emphatically and unequivocally asserts Einstein's 'religious' views:

"It was, of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions... a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world (universe) so far as our science can reveal it." ~ Albert Einstein

I mean, you yourself used the term "Einstein's god" and then deny he had one. I can't follow your logic. Math, mystery, whatever. I don't care if Einstein's god was green jello. He had a god. He said so himself. Was he lying? Did he not know what he was talking about? You don't have to believe in Einstein's god, but to deny he had one is just absurd. You have no argument.

Mr Mark:

It seems as if Einstein went to some lengths to describe his concept of the god that he believed in. Kind of a funny way of saying 'I don't believe in god' you would have to admit. How many atheists do you know that go around describing the god they believe in? Do you have some kind of inside track on Einstein's thinking that would prevent us from taking his words at face value? I mean, He described the god that he believed in. What more do you need?

To use a 'religionist' concept to negate his belief is yet another straw man argument. A cheap debate tactic, no better than an ad hominem attack or an outright lie. No offense, but what is it with the atheists around here an straw men arguments?

RUSSELL BRUNO (OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA) writes
"No one should say with absolute certainty that "There is no God", even those who, like myself, will require solid empirical proof of God's existence before "believing" in God."

Why not? Why does the concept of god hold any more weight than any other unprovable concept? Do you agree with these statements?:

• No one should say with absolute certainty that "There are no fairies."

• No one should say with absolute certainty that "There is no Zeus."

• No one should say with absolute certainty that "There are no succubi."

• No one should say with absolute certainty that "There are no unicorns."

I would think that if one could aver that any one of these four statements is *inaccurate*, that one could just as accurately say that there is no god.

No one should say with absolute certainty that "There is no God", even those who, like myself, will require solid empirical proof of God's existence before "believing" in God. So meanwhile, in my ignorant state, I feel that I must count myself as an agnostic although with a very decided tilt toward atheism.

At the same time, I am in complete agreement with Professor Dawkins that it is pointless, indeed ridiculous, for ANYONE to act (or not) based on a belief, however "sincere," that is wholly devoid of any credible evidence to support it. The death and destruction resulting from religious/faith-based conflict has, since the advent of our so-called "civilized" society, been incalculable. To what end? Sadly, none except the prospect of more of the same. And now quite possibly with nuclear weapons.

Dear Richmond T Stallgiss -

On Tuesday, you promised to provide us with a more in depth critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion. Moreover, you promised it "tomorrow," which was yesterday.

Well, today is tomorrow-plus-one. I'd like to read your critique. As I am celebrating my 53rd today, I would consider your critique a b'day present.

If I missed it, please provide a link.

Thanks.

"you kill me: atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist any more than christians can prove that he does. both subscribe to a belief. all dawkins and his ilk "prove" is that atheists can be every bit as intolerant as believers."

Excuse me, but God does not exist and the proof is around us every day by the sheer lack of verification. There is absolutely no evidence that God exists, nor has there ever been, so aetheists don't really have to prove anything. It's the believers who have the burden of proof and they haven't managed to do that yet... what are they waiting for? Oh, I forgot - you're supposed to just believe... :-/

No one should say with absolute certainty that "There is no God", even those who, like myself, will require solid empirical proof of God's existence before "believing" in God. So meanwhile, in my ignorant state, I feel that I must count myself as an agnostic although with a very decided tilt toward atheism.

At the same time, I am in complete agreement with Professor Dawkins that it is pointless, indeed ridiculous, for ANYONE to act (or not) based on a belief, however "sincere," that is wholly devoid of any credible evidence to support it. The death and destruction resulting from religious/faith-based conflict has, since the advent of our so-called "civilized" society, been incalculable. To what end? Sadly, none except the prospect of more of the same. And now quite possibly with nuclear weapons.

Why would religion be afraid of its own death if we are not to be afraid of ours? Martyrs don't die for their god, just for their religion. Allah or Jehovah will/would continue without us but the religion might falter. And religion is a man-made construct anyway..
Your god doesn't need you (please kill yourself) so obviously, he/she won't evaporate without the others who denounce him/her/it, or never believed in it either. If god is all powerful, he doesn't need you to do his job for him anyway. And isn't it enough that infidels will never know heaven, but that you must shorten our time on earth as well?

"Salaam: Slogans like "Religion stops a thinking mind" and "The greatest enemy of reason is faith"
are not only inaccurate, they do not contribute to the discussion."

Quite the contrary, Salaam, statements like those are very accurate. Simply look back over the history of man as it relates to religion for confirmation. It's an open-and-shut case. Sorry to bring reality home so hard on you.

I believe there is a Supreme Architech of the Universe. Having said that, I also believe that each of the major religions on this planet espouse a PATH to individual peace and fullfilment of a life well lived. If you study these religions you will find they have a lot in common. There is no "one true way", only individual choices. I refuse to lend credence to a "religion" that rants and raves about killing people because "they are different from us". At what point in humanity's control of this planet will we finally learn that it really DOES NOT MATTER what color we are, what religion we espouse, what creed we might recite? The only thing that matters is whether or not we are a good person, treat others well, offer assistance when needed, educate our children to make a difference in everyone's life and respect all people's choices that do not negatively impact our world. A good person is a good person. A jackass is a jackass and will never be welcome in my home anr/or around the people I love.

DuckPhup, your post hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. That has got to be the best post in this thread. It should be published worldwide! Thank you for your cogent statement!

I agree with Dawkins completely.......

It's really, really frustrating to watch as yet another religionist - in this case, Omar - asks us to prove a negative. I learned that you can't prove a negative back in Jr High, yet there must be at least 10 religionists a day asking us to "prove god doesn't exist."

While one can't prove a negative, one can reach conclusions based on one's knowledge. As I learned that one can't prove a negative when I was in Jr High, then I can assume to some degree of certainty that posters like Omar have yet to reach Jr High, or missed Jr High, or weren't listening in Jr High, or learned it in Jr High but now chose to be willfully ignorant of that which they learned in Jr High.

BTW, Omar - do you still beat your wife? Perhaps you can prove that you don't.

Nin Privitera: "Dear Richard Dawkins- If there is no God, then you are an accidental product of unplanned forces in an accidental universe. Therefore, the chances that, you being an accident, can ever utter anything that is an absolute truth such as, "there is no God," and being correct, are so remote that your utterances are not worth considering."

That's the trouble with "you people", Nin. Wherever did you get the high arrogance to opine that if Richard Dawkins was "an accidental product of unplanned forces in an accidental universe" that this precludes him from being able to speak something that happens to be an absolute truth? What hubris!!

This is a great example of why religious people are such (dangerous) fanatics. You have absolutely no basis in fact for your claims, yet you have a deep visceral reaction to legitimate challenges to your unfounded beliefs. It would be funny if so many of you weren't trying so hard to force all of us to live by your religious rules. I know morality, and secular humanism works for me - I don't need religion to know right from wrong. I'm not about to succumb to mental terrorism (If you don't believe in God you will burn in hell). If you care to be so shackled, that's your business. Just don't rant on others who prefer to live in reality.

Dear Mad Love -

It's very clear from Einstein's own words that he was an atheist in the most-basic sense of the word.

Ask any religionist if their god is a non-supernatural being who has no personal relationships with any human being past, present or future, who offers no plan for salvation and inhabits no heaven, who had nothing at all to do with the universe coming into existence and who creates and created nothing, and I think most of them will say, "that's not the god I believe in."

However, that was the god Einstein "believed" in.

In a very real sense, Einstein's god was more mathematics than mystery.

Omar:

How do you know there is a GOD? Give me proof.........

I understand what Mr. Dawkins is trying to say about killing in the name of Religion is a bad idea. I agree but his ideology without regards to a higher Moral law isn't the answer either. It's a fact that Skilling read his book "The selfish gene" and apparently believed the ideas in it which lead to great harm to a lot of people (he would argue ...all the stockholders had the "selfish gene")and death of an Enron Executive (who apparently also had the "selfish gene" also), maybe but had he not "shared" his idea which motivated all this then people would still have money and their life. So how is he so different from the zealous fundimentalist who preach their retoric?

Omar asks us, "How do you know there is no God?"
I ask Omar:
How do you know there is no Tooth Fairy?
If you cannot provide evidence that there is no Tooth Fairy, then we can all assume that you believe in the Tooth Fairy.

"The Moderate" said:
"Dear Dawkins,
You are a self absorbed simpleton."
He then denies that this statement is a deliberate insult, calling it "just a statement of fact".
Please read the following carefully, "Moderate":
Calling someone a simpleton is an insult. You apparently are unaware that it is, in fact, an insult, which indicates shocking ignorance of basic cultural norms on your part. Or you know it is an insult, but choose to lie and mischaracterize what you said.
So, which are you: ignorant or a liar?

How do you know there is no God? Give me proof.

"The Modererate" claims that Dawkins is "fanning the flames of extremism" by describing the religious indoctrination of children as "child abuse".
If "the Moderate" really believes this, then he/she must also believe that parents who teach their children that God wants them to kill members of other faiths are NOT abusing their children.
But more importantly, teaching children to believe that magical, invisible friends are real subverts their intellect and critical thinking, and these are important tools for making one's way through the world. Such teachings inflict something akin to brain damage -- intellect damage. Surely this constitutes child abuse.
Obviously, passing such irrational ideas to children can easily result in their complete moral corruption. Remember what lifelong religious believers did on September 11, 2001 to impress their magical, invisible friend?
Perhaps Dawkins might not object so strenuously to the religious indoctrination of children if the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims weren't such a bloodthirsty sadist. You make think there's nothing wrong with teaching children to worship a mass murderer, but there is nothing extremist about strongly denouncing this indefensible practice.

Does anyone know why Prof Dawkins is identified as a "British" evolutionary biologist and author? I don't see any of the other On Faith columnists being identified by their nationality, so why do it with Dawkins?

Any thoughts?

BTW - I see that many of the theists here refer to Dr Dawkins as Mr Dawkins. It's a small point, but as Dawkins holds doctorates in both science and philosophy, I'd think that the correct salutation is Dr.

It would help if Dawkins' bio above identified him as Dr Dawkins. I wonder whose oversight that was?

Just as we need interfaith meetings and get-together, we also need interbeliefs meetings and get-together to discuss the ethical nature and social consequences of such beliefs......

If I would sum up the atheistic arguments here, it would be:
> You can't prove that God exists, so he doesn't
> The belief in God is not fact based but based on faith
> If you believe in God you are delusional, ignorant and/or superstitious
> The belief in God is harmful to society, wasting energy and causing others to hate and kill each other in the service of God.

I would like to at least explain why I think these statements are invalid, starting at the bottom of the list.

While there are undeniably examples of people who have in fact killed and hated in the name of their Gods, this does not prove that religion is harmful to society. I would say that the basic Tenets of Christianity are to love God and Neighbor and to "turn the other cheek." To twist that into a reason to kill or hate others is a distortion of the basic tenet so logically, it is hard to argue that a religion based on love drives hate. Emperically, I would also bet that no one can prove that the aggregate effect of religion on society is a negative. The good far outweights the bad.

As for their being no proof of the existance of God, I would debate that. True, you can't measure God like you would a lump of gold, measuring it and weighing it. However, there are lots of things like that in the world. You can't measure wind directly either. What you measure or observe is its effect on other things, like how it moves a leaf. God is similar. You can't measure infinite power but you can see its effects. You can see the order in the universe and he laws of nature and the movement of the planets understand that something had to put them in place. It is a lot easier to understand how an omnipotent being can put order into the universe than it is to suppose that order is spontaneously created out of disorder.

In science, hypotheses are put forward and either proved or disproved. It is perfectly fair to say that until something is defined either way, that the answer is in fact unclear. It is also fair to have an opinion, in the absence of fact and to act on that opinion in your daily life. However it is the height of arrogance to assume that your everyone that doesn't hold your opinion is delusional or ignorant.

Until it can be definitely proved that God doesn't exist or that Religion is a net negative in the world, I would suggest that unbelievers desist from such stridency.

Re : Einstein

This wasn't directed at me but I'll take a shot at it anyway.

Einstein, like Spinoza seems to have equated God with Nature and been offended by anthropomorphization. What part of that makes him an atheist? It seems like you would really have to be splitting hairs to make that claim.

In spite of my atheist tendencies, Islamic extremists make me wish there was a special hell for them. Eternal damnation is barely sufficient punishment for their crimes against humanity.

...and not calling me delusional for having asked it.

Mr Mark:

Thanks for answering my question.

Dear The Moderate -

Now that I've been so kind as provide you with Dawkins' definition of God, perhaps you would be so kind as tell me whether you believe the Einstein quotes I posted support your assertion that Einstein was "a believer."

Thanks.

Mr. Mark:

"The Moderate's comment above is vapid, especially to those of us who may not know what OxyClean is."

...

It's the same strain of thinking that any atheist who dares to speak up is declared "militant."

Mr Mark -- regarding "Moderate" the Dawkins site and Oxyclean.

I know what oxyclean is, but have never seen a commercial, but so what.

I visit the Dawkins site regularly too and find it to be a great source of pro-religion articles, as well as atheist info. Sure beats spending time on religious sites.

It also has an forum area that is remarkably free of conservative Christian views. I know there are no restrictions on posting, so I have wondered why that is. Any thoughts?

I also noticed, to my surprise, that this "on faith" essay was not announced on his site. Just checked again and it's still not there. I think this would be getting even more attention if the regulars there knew about it.

MAD LOVE writes:
"I would still like to know how Mr. Dawkins defines 'god'."

"I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." - Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 31

"The simple definition of the God Hypothesis with which I began has to be considerably fleshed out if it is to accommodate the Abrahamic God. He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded." - Dawkins, TGD, pg 38

"The God Hypothesis suggests that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the universe and - at least in many versions of the hypothesis - maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles, which are temporary violations of his own grandly immutable laws." - Dawkins, TGD, pg 58

Thank God for someone with the sanity and understanding of Dawkins. There is no God, never was, never will be. This is a fabrication of power hungry people throughout history to subjugate and control others with the standard fear based mantra of heaven/hell etc.

When will people wake up to this deciet foisted upon them, and free themselves of the shakles of religious imprisonment. We see throughout history how destructive, belief in one form of god, or another has been with the millions of lives lost. Once again, we're seeing it in the U.S. with our fearful leader, George Bush. When will these fools learn? God help us all

Thank God for someone with the sanity and understanding of Dawkins. There is no God, never was, never will be. This is a fabrication of power hungry people throughout history to subjugate and control others with the standard fear based mantra of heaven/hell etc.

When will people wake up to this deciet foisted upon them, and free themselves of the shakles of religious imprisonment. We see throughout history how destructive, belief in one form of god, or another has been with the millions of lives lost. Once again, we're seeing it in the U.S. with our fearful leader, George Bush. When will these fools learn? God help us all

Dawkins is attacking the idea of faith by attacking fundamentalist Islam. The problem with his argument is that he showing his belief towards a standard of living completely absent of faith. Is there really no such thing at the absence of faith? Dawkins what is the standard? I challenge you Dr. Dawkins to right down the general guidelines for living.

THE MODERATE writes:
"Has anyone looked at Dawkins' web site?

It looks like an "OxyClean" commercial sounds.

Can a Televangelism show be far behind?"

I visit Dawkins' site every day. It looks just fine. Nice graphics and easy to navigate. At least it functions better than On Faith.

For those who haven't visited, I find it refreshing that Dawkins elects to post as many contra-Dawkins articles on his website as he does supportive-of-Dawkins articles. Visitors to the site have the ability to comment on these articles. Sure, most of the visitors are fellow atheists, but so what?

How many religious blogs - outside of On Faith - allow non-believers to post articles or comment on the message billowing from their sites?

The Moderate's comment above is vapid, especially to those of us who may not know what OxyClean is.

MULOPWEPAUL wrote:

"God doesn't represent reality; God represents the necessary and sufficient principle by which reality, necessity and sufficiency exit."

Huh? What on Earth (or not) are you talking about. Your statement seems to be completely meaningless (even if you replace "exit" with "exist"). You are at least right in saying "God doesn't represent reality".

I thought God was this character who kills babys when he's in a bad mood and likes to have a joke with people when he's in a good mood, like telling them to kill their son and then stopping them at the last minute saying "Just kidding; I was only testing you. Man, I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to take me seriously."

But seriously, there seem to be so many of these Gods to choose from. I don't know which one to believe in, so I just take the simple option of not believing in any of them.

I wrote:
"Love *can* be measured by observing people's actions and listening to their words, since love is a property of people's minds."

mulopwepaul wrote:
"We simply must disagree on this point; your notion of external measurement presumes a necessary correlation between observable behaviour and internal, intangible mental states. This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, since no one can quantify the underlying mental states."

Are you saying that psychology is not a science? You wouldn't be alone, but, I think there are a heck of a lot of ways to study human minds, although I agree that you can't actually *prove* that anybody has a mind. Science rarely actually proves something, it just constructs theories that describe the world. If these theories can be used to reliably predict things, they become useful. That's really what science is all about: understanding and predicting things about the world in which we live (including ourselves).

I don't think there is anything wrong with the theory that people have minds and feel emotions. There is certainly a lot of evidence for it - ask any of the Earth's billions of human inhabitants. The theory fits the facts and it is confirmed by many billions of observations. It would be hard to find any other theory that has so much evidence.

Of course that doesn't really *prove* anything and it leads to the more interesting question: What is a mind?

Having said all that, I think minds are what brains do (or some particular part of what brains do) and consciousness is a kind of illusion, so the theory of mind is a convenient approximation (like Newtonian physics) but the reality is probably much more complicated and interesting, but that's getting way off topic.

God is also a convenient theory for many people to represent the things they are ignorant of, or things that they hope for. But it's hard to find evidence for a theory based on ignorance. It seems the more we learn about the world, the less we know about God.

People used to be sure that gods were responsible for thunder. We now know they were wrong. Gods used to live on high mountains, but when we actually went and looked, we found no gods. We have now chased the gods right out of the universe. They can't be found anywhere in this universe as far as we can tell, so people have invented new places for them to live. Heaven used to be up in the sky, e.g Jesus and Mohammed "ascended" to heaven. But now with a better understanding of the universe, heaven has been redefined to be somewhere outside the universe. Hell used to be underground, but it too has been redefined to be somewhere else.

I'm starting to ramble on, but trying to discuss God with religious people is very frustrating for a rational person. It's like someone who tells you that he keeps a large pet dragon in his garage. You tell him you looked and you couldn't see the dragon. He says "Well of course not, the dragon is invisible". You say "But you have two cars parked in there, there's no room for a dragon.", and he says "Well the dragon has magical powers and it can change size, so when the cars are parked there it makes itself very small". You can't argue with someone who just makes stuff up without requiring evidence. I'm not referring to you MULOPWEPAUL, but it's like that with many religious people.

Cheers,
Realist

Bryson Hughes:

"Oh BTW. God does exist.
Prophet Bryson Hughes"

That statement is wrong in soooooo many ways.

The Moderate wrote (September 13, 2007 8:20 AM): "The only thing more dangerous than mankind with religion is mankind without religion."

Now... that is what I would call a 'banal canard'.

The murderous fascist and communist regimes of the last century were based on 'ideologies'... just like religion is an 'ideology'. One of the main things that defined them was the 'dogma' that the supreme arbiter (within their political context)was the 'state'... and that there WAS NO 'higher power' (within their political context) than the state. This idea is in obvious conflict with the idea that the supreme arbiter was a supernatural being... irrespective of whether such a supernatural being existed, or not.

Persistent attempts to brand these regimes as 'atheist', and then attempt to claim that their murderous excesses were as a RESULT of their 'absense of belief in God' is a vile and contemptable lie of the worst sort... and here's why... because it is EXACTLY the same thing as saying that Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et al, murdered hundreds of millions of human beings in the name of 'rational skepticism'...

... and that is simply not true. They murdered hundreds of millions of people for political reasons that can be traced to differences in ideological dogma relating directly to their source of supreme political power... and whether it was secular or divine.

Well said!

"There is no God"? Is that the best assertion you can confront religious psychopaths with? Do you think you make him wonder if he's wrong and going to end up being the cosmic fool? A man of faith will simply look at you as ignorant of reality and give your assertion that there is no God, the credence of a child. Thus the cosmic fool outcome you outline for him will have no bearing at all on him.

I once read a story how the French hired a magician to work better signs and wonders than some Mullahs, in order to pacify some revolts among the populace. It worked. At least that was a crafty idea that offered some persuasion to the men of that faith.

But saying God isn't real to them? Not a chance.
Oh BTW. God does exist.
Prophet Bryson Hughes

Has anyone looked at Dawkins' web site?

It looks like an "OxyClean" commercial sounds.

Can a Televangelism show be far behind?

Dear DuckPhup,

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg

Thank you. Someone needed to say that.

The only thing more dangerous than mankind with religion is mankind without religion.

You need only look at the twentieth century to see that painted in broad bloody strokes.

"If there is no God, the only logical thing to do is for each of us to kill off as much competition as possible, and make his own genetic contribution to the future of mankind as large as possible."

This is absolutely incorrect. Humanity is a social species and needs complex societies to effectively raise its young and insure they continue the advancement of one's genetic material. Cooperation is as much human nature as competition, if not more.

That you consider man to be little more than a brute who is only kept from killing others by a few myths speaks more about your opinion of humanity than the truth.

DuckPhup:

Wow, that was odd...

I asked a simple question and I'm delusional?

What did I say that was delusional?

And then you go off on a rant about Christianity?

Are you familiar with the term 'straw man'?

You are bashing away at windmills, my friend.

Bryan Runnels wrote (September 13, 2007 6:39 AM): "If there is no God, the only logical thing to do is for each of us to kill off as much competition as possible, and make his own genetic contribution to the future of mankind as large as possible. Otherwise, the strongest and most unscrupulous among us will have us as slaves. And life is crappy enough without having to carry all of the other guys crap, too."

Man... people like you scare the living crap out of me. Whenever I see a nonsense like this, I am appalled to be reminded that there are people out there who are so out of touch with their basic humanity, and reality, that they would not have any idea how to conduct themselves in society, absent the code of an imaginary supernatural being, based on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering, militant, marauding, genocidal goat herders.

Paraphrasing Dawkins... cooperation, altruism and love are innate properties of human existence... a more sophisticated version of the social organization that you can see among pods of dolphins or orcas, packs of wolves, lion prides and troops of chimpanzees. Moral consensus, moral conscience and mutual empathy are evolved survival traits. These are social constructs... the social lubrication that allows people to exist together. People come away with the misconception that these impulses don't exist, absent religion. The religious puppet masters try to perpetuate that idea, in order to protect their conduits to wealth and power... but that is a canard. This has to do, entirely, with human nature.

Think about this... when clerics tell that without god, the 'evil impulses' of evolution would prevail... that rape, theft, murder... the strong taking from the weak... 'survival of the fittest'... this is all a vile lie. Evolution HAS NO impulses. But here's the thing... because of these lies, people BELIEVE that they would behave this way if they suddenly ceased to believe in god... or if it was one day proven that god does not exist... and the scary thing is that they probably WOULD behave that way... because their Pastor has GIVEN THEM PERMISSION to behave that way.

***********************
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
***********************

Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil Part 2.1 (moral behavior)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGLPViVW5ms

Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil Part 2.6 (evolution basis for morality)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGLPViVW5ms&mode=related&search=

Mad Love wrote (September 13, 2007 2:09 AM): "So Dawkins rails on in book after book about something he can't even be bothered to define? I had assumed that for all his snideness he was at least thorough in his thinking."

Again... I am constantly amazed that people can (allegedly) 'think' like this without having their heads explode.

You are suffering from a delusion... the ILLUSION of knowledge... the idea that everything is explained by resort to an invisible, magical sky-fairy (god)... this delusion supported by no credible evidence. OK... now comes the good part... you attack Dawkins because he is not able to define YOUR delusion.

It has long been my contention that Christianity is ENTIRELY a fraud and a hoax, born in murder and betrayal. It is essentially a criminal business enterprise... the world's longest running and most successful Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) scam. The product they are selling is the ILLUSION of 'salvation', and the PROMISE of eternal life... and the 'pay plan' doesn't kick in until after you're dead, and there's nobody there with whom you can register your complaint about having been scammed... which doesn't really matter, anyway... because you're DEAD... and you CAN'T complain... because you don't even KNOW you're dead... you're just DEAD.

Meanwhile the VICTIMS (having been deceived into believing that it is their God-given duty) are out there busily recruiting MORE victims. What a racket! Proselytizing (spreading the 'good news')... the 'Divine Commission'... is a key element of the Christian MLM MARKETING PLAN, which was instituted after Christianity LOST the political power that had previously allowed them to simply torture and kill anybody who did not submit. If you stop to think about it, you will realize that Christians are very much like the Borg, on Star Trek Next Generation: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." I would not be surprised to learn that thoughts of Christianity provided the 'creative spark' for the Borg concept. It is most certainly the source of George Orwell's inspiration for 'doublethink'.

This is a good news/bad news sort of thing. The GOOD news is that these Christian mind-control tecniques... perfected and refined over the past 1,700 years... only work on people who do not have the critical-thinking skills and reasoning power to penetrate the logical fallacies, lies, misrepresentations and deceit upon which this fraud is constructed. The BAD news (and it's REALLY bad news) is that this accounts for 85%+ of the adult population of the USA.

Oh, crap... we're doomed.

If there is no God, the only logical thing to do is for each of us to kill off as much competition as possible, and make his own genetic contribution to the future of mankind as large as possible.
Otherwise, the strongest and most unscrupulous among us will have us as slaves. And life is crappy enough without having to carry all of the other guys crap, too.

I think you're right there, it's really the most stupid thing in the world to kill someone and then come up with the excuse that you did it for you're god or that the devil commanded you or something stupider, most religions always say how bad war is and that violence, murder and the rest are unforgivable crimes and they are completely right there, that is true, so I really don't see how God would be happy that you kill someone in His name, I don't know if God exists or not but I know one thing for sure, it sure is a double moral to say that God is nice, forgiving, that you shouldn't kill and then to do all the things you said are bad to do yourself and then say you did it in the name of God, now that really doesn't actually put God in a good light either.The ones tha say that they killed in the name of God should really think a bit of what they did.

More evidence of how Moral the culture of suicide bombing acts.

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-muslim-outrage.html

D. Krabbenhoft:

I see where you are going but I think that ‘creator’ is still going to sound a little too anthropomorphic for a lot of us. Maybe it’s just semantics, but a lot of terms like ‘god’ and ‘creator’ carry too much baggage with them to be useful in a discussion like this. It’s too easy to set up a strawman to knock down as we seem to see happing over and over again, particularly with those that can’t be bothered to define their terms.

Krabbenhoft,
What a refreshing thought! Thank you for such an insightful comment. I wanted to point out that Dawkins does not deny the possibility of there existing a "God" somewhere in the multi-verses that are likely to exist and that science is figuring out. He just thinks that such a being would have to have developed through some "evolutionary" process--so he states in "Delusion".

I think Dawkins should come more to grips with Darwin, who spoke of the need for morality in order for civilizations to flourish and grow and improve, with men seeking the well-being of society. (See Descent of Man, Ch. 4 & 5) Implicity, he taught against repeating the pattern of ancient Greece.

As Dawkins raises his hue and cry about religion and God, he ought to propose and "prove" through showing that mankind is adapting to a new behavior paradigm (of their own choosing), that replacing religion with a new belief system will result absolutely in the improvement of humankind. But in the absence of a guided morality, can that happen? I don't think Darwin would have postulated that it could. Nor do I think there is broad evidence that it is. Quite the contrary has happened, if one looks honestly around the world.

So Dawkins rails on in book after book about something he can't even be bothered to define? I had assumed that for all his snideness he was at least thorough in his thinking.

Richard Dawkins insists that there is no God, whether in the singular or plural. How about a creator of the universe then? Can we and Richard Dawkins tolerate the existence of a creator? Many scientists in all the scientific disciplines think that the universe looks as though a mind is behind it all, looks as though a creator has brought all that exists into being through a process of evolution, maybe even guided evolution. Philosophers through the ages have theorized about what attributes a creator of the universe might be thought to have. Be those attributes as they may, it does seem to me that the existence of a creator is a very rational position to take. Whether one should worship that creator, or whether that creator would even want us to worship him, her, or it, is another question altogether, a question about religion. The two questions should never be confused with each other. I think Richard Dawkins confuses them.

Mad Love

Dawkins cannot define what doesn't exist.
It's your delusion,not his.

If the word 'gullible' doesn't apply to people who believe in gods and devils and angels,then who does it apply to?
Our whole culture,and particularly TV and Hollywood,seems to endorse and encourage belief in the supernatural,and magic,and satanism,
and extra-sensory perception,and an after-life from which dead people look down at the living,and UFO's and Aliens,and zombies,and mummies,and never ending range of unrealistic characters,which might be fun to watch,but seem to make it OK to believe some of it is in some way real.The supernatural exists in Hollywood movies,and to many people this suggests its real.People are that gullible.
Many confuse actors with the characters they play,
and believe anything you tell them.
So religion is no sweat.Life after death? No problem.Heaven? Of course its up there in the sky somewhere.It was on TV.
We should aim at making our children more skeptical about the supernatural,and anything else that makes no sense.
We should debate the value of faith schools,and
religious indoctrination.
It was ok in the dark ages,but now we see it for what it is,primitive superstition,with no connection to the real world.

"I think the reality is that both love and God are in people's heads. They are probably both evolutionarily useful delusions, but I think love is still useful to us, whereas God serves no purpose anymore. Love has value in itself, whereas God is only a useful concept if it actually represents reality."

God doesn't represent reality; God represents the necessary and sufficient principle by which reality, necessity and sufficiency exit.

"Love *can* be measured by observing people's actions and listening to their words, since love is a property of people's minds."

We simply must disagree on this point; your notion of external measurement presumes a necessary correlation between observable behaviour and internal, intangible mental states. This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, since no one can quantify the underlying mental states.

J. Swider:

That existence exists is not proof that it was created. Vehement assertions are also not proof.

Beginning and end, cause and effect, existence and nonexistence, are concepts that exist within the universe and apply to existents in the universe. You can't take them outside the universe. There is no outside. If you're there, you're part of existence. You can't say that something outside existence caused existence. You're in a blatant contradiction.

I would still like to know how Mr. Dawkins defines 'god'. Preferably without spending time and money on his books. Anyone care to paraphrase for me?

Dawkins is no extremist.He just knows there is no god. Whats extreme about that? After all,as far as we know,there is no god and Dawkins is correct.
I'm struck by how touchy the religious are,when their beliefs are questioned,or disagreed with.
Its as if their faith is so fragile that any prodding will destroy it;and then they'll have nothing.But trust me,there is life after belief,
even in there is no life after death.
You can't have everything. Settle for what you got.

To Dr. J Swider:

Everything you say is so. You probably never thought about the possibility that all this is simply imagination, a dream. Things are as real in dreams as they are in life itself. You may be the only living thing and all this you see about you is only your imagination.

I think therefore I know I am and that's all I know for sure. With all else there is a degree of uncertainty. Simply put, I can't prove you or anything else exist absolutely and you can't prove that I or anything else exist absolutely either. All that anyone, Einstein being on exception can do is show how it appears to be.

Sad but true people like Einstein have been proved wrong in their observations of the universe many times in the past. Perhaps the universe changes? Einstein's equations were not so a few thousand years ago and will eventually fall apart even though they are so now?

We know as an absolute, undeniable truth that once upon a time the earth was almost all there was and it was flat. Stars were tiny little fireflies a few hundred feet up in the sky. The sun lived on a sacred mountain. Others but that is enough. I'm sure you get the idea.

Then the earth became round. The stars became very large masses. Many changes took place until things became as they are now. Over time the universe as we think we now know it developed. But will it stay this way?

If you don't believe me then read the Bible. The Bible is the word of God you know. The good news is that the universe must return to it's earlier state, earth at the center of the universe, the heavenly seat of the divinity above the glass dome of the sky, etc before the world can come to an end.

God has chosen the foolish of the world that believe the silly storys of the Bible. I believe the stories and the truths and what it says is going to happen in the future AND I THANK HIM THAT HE SAVED ME and that I had nothing to do with it. I only agreed with Him.
Now that I am saved and have His Holy Spirit living in me its plain to see that its hard to NOT believe in God than to believe.

Thanks Mr Mark
I hadn't seen those quotes before.Thanks.
Yeah I know its a waste of time speaking logos to mythos,(Karen Armstrong has some interesting thoughts on that in "The Battle for God")but since 9/11 I feel the least I can do is say my piece and hope to weaken the groupthink in some small way.
I think its important they know we're here.
I enjoy your posts Mr Mark.Hope you keep up the good work.

"Such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls".

Note to believers,the above is Einstein's opinion of those who think God talks to them,
or who think of God as a real being.

If he existed,wouldn't he have enough to do maintaining the cosmos
and watching out for Satan and other celestial baddies.I mean it's a big big
universe,stretching from here to eternity,and then some.
What kind of egotistic twit actually thinks God would take time out to actually talk or listen to them,and their petty concerns.
Religion makes idiots of us.

Dear YoYo -

Thanks for trying to set Moderate straight on Einstein, but your speaking to a deaf person stuck in a hurricane.

A few more Einstein quotes on god:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

The Moderate

Wrong again

Einstein was not one of the believers,
listen up

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate,of the manifestations of the profoundest
reason and the most radiant beauty,which are only accessible to our reason in their their most elementary
forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude;in this sense,and in this alone,I am a deeply religious man.
I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures,or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves.
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension,nor do I wish it otherwise;
such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls".
Albert Einstein
"The World as I see it"
page 5

In other words,he uses the word God as a metaphor,not a reality.
Do you think that bending the truth about Einstein and others makes your fantasy any more real?
Why not simply accept reality.Its all we've got,except for our imaginations,which is where gods live,

First, I am not religious. I don't believe in a god. But, unlike Richard Dawkins, I also do not NOT believe in a god. I'll wait and see. In the meantime, people like Dawkins, a true believer himself, are simply blowing off steam. He won't change anyone's mind just as they won't change his. Why do people rant and rave about their beliefs? Are they so self-centered to believe that arguing their position will convince a true believer? Would studying at a madrassa change Dawkins mind? Hardly. Once the killers blow themselves up they will discover the truth. In the meantime, all we can do is kill them first. Dawkins would do society a favor by arguing for a first strike against Iran - an opinion we can seriously consider.

Dear Salaam:

You missed Albert Einstein in your list of believers.

Generally, what do you think of the fundamentalist Atheists that around here? I think that every flaw they see in their fundamentalist religionist opponents is writ large in their own discourse.

Their lack of ability to reason seems be at the root of a lot of their problems. I think the guy who mentioned Aquinas and Anslem for contrast to fundamentalist Dawkins had a good point.

Oh, and in reference to the above poster Gerry, who was thinking rather concretely when he said x can equal -2, I would say this. Read what I said again. Even zero is a number. The goal is not to reach zero. I was making the point that you can't have a creation, ie. a variable on one of the equal sign, with out a variable on the other side. x=y v=g Get me? You can't have v= or x= understand the concept? Creation=a creative force.

To Julie:
Religion is man-made. Notice our human god looks, lo and behold, like a human! Not a frog, or donkey, etc. Religion is an imperfect, man-made attempt to know the unknowable. As a species, we like to have nice, neat explanations for things, even if we have to make them up....

PIERRE JC:

"To "The Moderate":
How does discouraging acts of mass murder and encouraging the use of reason constitute "fanning the flames of extremism"?"


Make no mistake, Dawkins calls teaching religion to the young “child abuse”, and floats the idea that such teaching should be forbidden. That means he doesn't care for the US Constitution. Now he is not an American, but I am, and I do.

The man is a fundamentalist and like all such is immune to reason. Go to his web site and read what he says. He is a brittle extremist, and his approach is to proscribe the freedom of others because HE has a corner on the truth. That is “fanning the flames of extremism.”

“(And if you're a moderate, then why do you resort to insults? Are you not aware of their impoliteness and impropriety? Would Jesus approve of your use of insults?)”

While it may be blunt, stating the facts is not an insult. Moreover, bluntness is a cultural norm on this site. People throw rocks at me all the time. Like you just did. ;-))

To Godfrey,

You have to ask if there is a creation? Let me answer with a question. What are you made of? What are you typing on? What are you breathing? My point is that everything around you, including yourself, represents "creation". Every particle which exists in our universe (with the exception of nutrinos), has mass. Einstein proved in his famous equation that E=mc2. In other words, he proved that mass is made out of energy. Period. The next logical question is, "Where did all of that initial energy come from?" The energy which now resides in the form of mass? A creative force must have input the initial energy which caused what we call the big bang. This big bang energy then coalesced and cooled into the fundamental building blocks of matter, electrons, protons, etc. You asked me to prove that there is a creation. If the above reply is not to your liking, let me posit this: If there is no creation, there would be no such question to ponder...

JD:

In BGoners mind the devil is god and god is the devil. Bgoner what you smokin boy and what you tryn to sell? Sounds like snake oil to me and excuse the pun.

JD, you need to rebut the argument that the supernatural being in the ball of fire that Moses made his deal with WAS NOT DEVIL. You are the one worshiping Devil calling HIM God. What you been smoking. Only idiots worship Devil.

Note that I am not saying there is no God. I am saying that all religion, Jews, Christians and Muslims and all derivatives thereof go back to a single point in history that I do not dispute either, the supernatural being in the burning bush and Moses.

Sober up, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for those who worship Devil HAVE already sold their souls. Official pictures of Moses at the burning is there for the illiterates, the way it's sold to children.

I have an open mind. Some evidence that was God and not Devil in the burning bush and I will change my mind. Please don't tell me that thing said it was God. I know Devil lies?

Notice that calling Devil God does not make Devil God but surely makes Devil happy. Religion makes the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer one happy Devil no doubt. Now, "go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" to the Devil you call God but don't be surprised when you land in hell.

The terrorists 9-11 and all others including ministers threatening children with hell fire are all in the employment of Devil. The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. Some evidence they're not if ya got it.

Correct and to the point a very refreshing voice!

Correct and to the point a very refreshing voice!

Correct and to the point a very refreshing voice!

Correct and to the point a very refreshing voice!

You can replace "kill" with almost anything... for anything done in the name of an imaginary friend is scary.

Analyze your actions... Realize that all people are in this (i.e. - life!) together. Once you do that, you will be motivated to good works.

Good works done out of 1- fear, or 2- desire to please some imaginary friend are not "moral" or "good"... The moral person acts from personal conviction and the knowledge I mention above.

Those who would actually kill for a god are lost to humanity.

Mr. Dawkins,
You are right, much better to kill for the benefit of spreading your DNA forth and ensuring it stays around.

J. Swider:

(The installation of "Dr." at the head of your name strikes me as an appeal to authority--and not a good one--Dr. of what?--so I ignore it.)

As someone has pointed out, x + 2 can certainly equal nothing if x = -2.

Your "equation" that "creation = creative force" is worse, however. It smuggles in a great big assumption: that there is a creation... that something has been created. This is petitio principii, also known as begging the question, which means that you're using the question to be proved as an established fact and then acting as if you've proved it.

Before you can use creation to prove a creative force, you have to prove that it is a creation.

That's a tall order.

Guys, is Salaam really a Muslim as you think? Muslims don't shy from spelling God with an "o". Islamic belief on G-d is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. Both don't accept the christian Trinity of God belief. Christian beliefs on G-d is the odd one among the Abrahamic faiths.

You claim to be a rational mind, but your statement is utterly irrational claiming to know something that is by definition unknowable. Whether or not God exists. You claim to be a scientist, but I sincerely doubt your credentials. You make statements based not on your own research into the word of God (as a good scientist would), but on popularly published misinterpretations of the word. You claim that the Bible states that the earth is 6000 years old, and this is a popular misconception. The word used, is translated as 'world' the same word is used when describing the flood. Obviously the planet was not destroyed by a flood, only the surface. Interestingly, a fact that evolutionsts have yet to explain, civilization sprang up complete with written language and walled cities, about 6000 years ago, overnight by evolutionary terms. Placing the story of the universes creation given in Genesis, over the theory now called the 'big bang' shows the (2) versions are virtually indistinguishable. First, there is nothing. Null. Then an explosion of energy (let there be light), sometime later the energy coaleces into matter (the firmamant) and planets begin to form. Evidently a 'day' isnt the same thing for God, as the Sun and the moon do not appear until the fourth 'day'. Again supporting the idea that genesis is accurate, as we know that our Sun, is a 2nd or 3rd generation star. If a published hypothesis accurately predicted global warming, decades before any sign of it, we would take it seriously. This is a statistically improbable, once in a life time event. Not an earthquake or a flood, but singular. The word of god predicted it in terms that are all but irrefutable. "I saw an Angel pour his vial out upon the Sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with heat". Thats pretty specific. (By the way, do not place any faith in the recently published paper refuting mans impact on the environment. I read it. I could use the same mathematics and logic to prove conclusively that a microwave could not possibly cook a chicken.) Now according to the timeline that is described, this has to happen after 1947.If this had been published anywhere else, there would be a noble prize awarded, but the Bible?

"There is no God"

Thats a definitive statement with no qualifier, Ptolemaic in its pomposity. I watched "A flock of Dodos", and a similar statement made me cringe. "We dont care if they attack our theory, we just know it's true". This is not science.

Science makes definitive statements after a proof has been created, tested and duplicated.

How do you know?

G

P.S. I agree with you that there are those that use faith, and twist God's word for political purposes. Of course I can not make the leap that you do, that this is a reflection on God, or the voracity of his word. Seems more likely to me, that this is a confirmation of the word in that as there is a God, there is also an enemy.
For those who study, Gods word specifically prohibits the behavour you speak of.

(3) things to note.

"My wisdom is not your wisdom"
"I will make Jerusalem a place of conflict"
"Pray for peace in Jerusalem" (slightly abbreviated for clarity)

Maybe God is trying to tell you something, but you speak without wisdom and so cannot hear?

The religious have not seriously considered the arguments against religion or they would not believe anymore. All religions posit ridiculous beliefs that no reasonable person who was not raised in that faith could possibly accept. Here’s the Aztec creation myth (below). Does any reader find this story credible? if you looked at Christianity or Islam, etc. from an unbiased perspective, they would seem just as ludicrous as the Aztec stories.

The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated).

Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.

In BGoners mind the devil is god and god is the devil. Bgoner what you smokin boy and what you tryn to sell? Sounds like snake oil to me and excuse the pun.

Mr Mark, don't YOU get tired of knocking your head against a wall? LOL. YOU argue against what YOU don't believe. LOL. And you can save no one. Not even yourself! All your learning to refute what YOU don't believe and you along with all who think as you will die WITHOUT wisdom. The Lord Jesus has gone on ahead of all born again Christians. I will trust in Him to lead me to the other side.

The Bible is kaput. You religion freaks need a new book. Pat Robertson talks to Devil routinely so maybe he can supply you with one. Send your money to the 700 club for Devil needs the money to pay for the souls of those leading the multitudes to hell, you know, Moses imitators.

Richard, you are right but when these "religious" zealots get these kids when they are young!

Too late, as logic and reason are lost to a view of paradise that only exists in the virtual world of these zealots minds.

Dear Thomas Baum -

Thanks for trying to address my questions, but you just couldn't do it. Yet another non-answer answer from a religionist.

And yes, you are a religionist. If I had a nickel for every time a Xian asserted that "Xianity isn't a religion," I'd retire.

Here's the dictionary definition of religion:

"the service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

In what way, shape or form does your belief in Jesus not conform to the dictionary definition of religion as the dictionary definition includes "a personalized set of religious attitudes" in its definition?

BTW - no one is "meeting god," in this life (which is real) or in some imaginary afterlife. You may believe that, but you don't know it, and to fling your never-can-be-proven-or-known belief around as some kind of infantile scold is pathetic.

I think I'm done with this guy.

Dawkins is a yapping chimp as compared to Anselm and Aquinas. If its logic he needs he only has to pick up the writings of the masters and read. Of course, he dare not because he would fully realize the impotence and folly of his intellectual positions.

Dear Salaam -

Even if you had an original manuscript of any book of the Bible - which doesn't exist - it wouldn't prove that the book was written by or inspired by god, anymore than the stories of the fictional characters in a novel set in New York City are to be consider "facts" because NYC exists. Just because the Bible says so-an-so went to Jerusalem doesn't mean so-and-so was a real person just because Jerusalem exists. Same with Sodom. BTW- I wasn't aware that archaeologists had definitively found the city of Sodom. I know that there's SPECULATION that this site or that site MIGHT be Sodom, but there's no PROOF.

The evidence for the passages that mention Jesus in the writings of Josephus being inauthentic are well-documented and compelling. They are:

• The passage contains overtly Christian content
• The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed
• The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing
• Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents
• There are stylistic variations from Josephus' style
• The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century
• The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus' earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference
• Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus
• The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other "false prophets"
• Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alterations

As to Pliny - there is nothing in his writing that indicates that he believed Christ was a real person. Indeed, his references to Christ are made in the context of Christians who easily renounced their faith in the GOD Christ to be spared torture and death. Pliny calls the Christian religion, a "depraved, excessive superstition."

The "other non-Biblical sources" that the Xian apologists roll out to present as third-party historical confirmations of the Biblical fictions are Tacitus, Suetonius and Philo (who wrote about Pilate but never mentioned Jesus). I can debunk them as reliable historical sources on Jesus just easily as I can Josephus, if you wish.

But tell me this, Salaam: why is Jesus never mentioned by the historians who lived while he was alive, including the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberius, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus? Was Jesus too minor a character for them to bother with? If so, why would he become worth talking about 50 years after his death?

Back at ya.

TO DUKE: You wrote, "It reads in John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time"
Yet you claimed to have seen him. So what you said to REALIST is a lie and you are a liar. Caught you red handed". If you actually read what I wrote, I said I met God, I did not say that I saw Him, You also wrote, "Maybe BAUM should add a chapter to the Bible since he had a revelation from God. He should call it the Book of Baum", I take seriously what it says about do not add or subtract, I happen to be mentioned in the book of revelations, I am just trying to be the messenger that God chose me to be. There are also other ways to add or subtract and I have mentioned some on other posts. TO MR MARK: You wrote, "How is it that a religionist like yourself can spend their time on Earth living in a democracy and yet longs for an eternity spent in a dictatorship?", well first off I am not a religionist, christianity might be to a lot of people a religion but not to me, it is a relationship, I have mentioned before that I walked away from the church when I was in my late teens because of that very reason, it was becoming a religion. When I was told in a dream that only I could say it, I had no idea what it was that I was to say, so I dove into bible studies of any or no denomination including Jewish bible studies, messianic and Reform. One of the things that I have said in many of them is that I have seen christianity in action more in bars sometimes than in churches. I said that for two reasons, one it is true and another to maybe get some people to actually think. Christianity is not magic as in, say the right words and you are in like Flint and if you don't, well then tough, that is a crock. When you meet God, you will know why Jesus did not describe it as a democracy. TO PASTOR JIM LAKE: Actually Pastor we are all accountable for what we do, knowing God's Name does not get you off the hook, so to speak. Someone saying that they are christian and someone being a christian are not necessarily the same thing, even the demons know who Jesus is. There are many people that are christian in their hearts and don't even know it but God does, and there are also many people that sling His Name around and don't have a clue what they are talking about, if you think about some of the things that Jesus said, you will hear what I am saying. Like I said, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY, we should stop underestimating God. Being a christian is carrying on the work Jesus begun as in when He said, "Come follow Me". Jesus also said, "It is finished", which means "paid in full", as in Total Victory and also that there is work to do, "Take My yoke upon you". I have said many times people would be better off throwing away the whole bible than to slice and dice it to make it say what they want it to say. TO E FAVORITE: Hell is not some kind of monolithic place where either God or satan sends you to, it is built by the person going to it and they will know they have no one to blame but themselves, but Jesus won the keys to hell and death and He will use them in due time. We are responsible for what we do and why we do it and also for what we know. Take care. See all of you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Salaam

You are the result of religious indoctrination.
Had you been born somewhere else
you would believe something else.

I do not like Islam,but I would have to say that If I had been born of Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia,
I would almost certainly be a devout Muslim now.
For the most part our religion is an accident of birth.If I had been born in Ireland of catholic parents I would probably be a believing catholic today. These truths would seem to be inescapable,and should at least give us pause,to ask oneself whether what we believe is the truth,or only what we've been told is the truth.
How can one not be curious about this?
I think many agnostics and atheists started off being religious,but began questioning it,and saw the silliness of it all,and simply gave it up;
some people are more curious than others.

The religious have not seriously considered the arguments against religion or they would not believe anymore. All religions posit ridiculous beliefs that no reasonable person who was not raised in that faith could possibly accept. Here’s the Aztec creation myth (below). Does any reader find this story credible? if you looked at Christianity or Islam, etc. from an unbiased perspective, they would seem just as ludicrous as the Aztec stories.

The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated).

Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.

Salaam says: "Our Savior is a risen savior. Who elese teaches this?"

Yeah, so what?

The Koran is a verbatim transcription of the word of God as spoken by the angel Gabriel directly to Mohamed. What other religion teaches this?

dave:

"A fool says in his heart there is no God"
Psalm 14:1

Wasn't the main job of the bible to say whatever it took to promote its own religion?
It follows logically that it would call those who would question,or disagree with it,fools.
Like the koran,the bible is its own propaganda manual,
because that's what it is all about,selling and justifying a religion,and ridiculing opposition with gems like 'A fool in his heart says there is no god'.
It has all the poetry and wisdom of the political arena,where all opposition is defamed,maligned,ridiculed or otherwise silenced,
and at the same time implying that believers are not fools,when Thomas Baum demonstrates the opposite here on a daily basis.

Mulopwepaul wrote:
"Love is a good thing, but it's all in your head. That does not diminish its meaning or value."

"Since it cannot be measured, isn't the scientific thing to do really to dismiss the concept of love, like God, merely as an evolutionarily useful delusion which we are only at liberty to indulge in private?"

Good point, but the difference between love and God is that love is an emotion, but when people talk about "God", they are usually talking about something that supposedly exists outside of people's minds. I havn't seen any evidence that God exists anywhere except in people's heads and there seem to be many different Gods telling people different things.

I think the reality is that both love and God are in people's heads. They are probably both evolutionarily useful delusions, but I think love is still useful to us, whereas God serves no purpose anymore. Love has value in itself, whereas God is only a useful concept if it actually represents reality.

Love *can* be measured by observing people's actions and listening to their words, since love is a property of people's minds.

Religious people will tell you that the love and kindness of the faithful are evidence of the power of God. Unfortunately, observing the acts of believers can only tell you something about the minds of believers. Observing acts such as religiously inspired terrorism also tells us things about the minds of believers. If the actions and words of believers are evidence of the existence of God, then God must be one crazy mixed up SOB with multiple personality disorder.

BTW Thomas, next time you talk to God, would you please put in a good word for me. I'm a really nice guy (since you don't know me that's something you'll have to take on faith), but I'm having a lot of trouble with the "believing in all sorts of stuff without any evidence" thing.

Sorry Thomas, I couldn't help myself there. I didn't get much sleep last night. I get sarcastic when I'm tired.
Love: good!
God: I'll see it when I believe it (or should that be the other way around)

Love,
Realist

To Pierre JC and Duke

TO Duke

1. "Those who believed in Zeus found [satisfying] answers"

Not true. Everyones (Christians and non-Christians) agrees that Zeus, Thor, etc are myths.

2. "Those who believed in Mohamed [and Jim Jones] found answers"

True. But what's your point. My point is that Christ isn't a myth,
and that there is plenty reasonable data that makes my faith in Christ an objective faith. Christianity is different from all other religions in a least two ways:

a. Our Savior is a risen savior. Who elese teaches this?
b. We obtain our righteousness based on the finised work Christ, in spite of our sinful behavior (words, deeds and thoughts). We don't expect to win G-d's favor, but we gladly accept his gift of grace, his righteous for our own.

TO Pieer JC
3. "your parents taught you accept these stories unquestioningly"

No. I became a Christain at age 29.

4."you have tacitly admitted that reason has absolutely nothing to do with why you believe"

If you would read carefully, you would know that my faith, indeed the faith of all Christians, is based upon objective data.

5. 'criticize religion"

Religion should be criticize, and so should all other areas of thinking. No one and no area of philosophy is exempt. But you have to take into account the full picture, that is, both sides of the story. Then you can make a more informed judgement.

Dawkins makes an informed judgement. He rejects the notion of G-d.

I make one as well. I accept G-d and Christ.

But the truth is that most other people do not because they are not in tuned with all of the arguments for and against the existence of G-d. If they were, then everyone could see just a bit more clearly.

God help you Pierre. Sincerely, Salaam.

religion will destroy the world, it is dangerous, and with the weapons we have today, thoes that seek the death of many for thier imaginary friend in the sky have better means then ever before to kill other people

"I do not know ONE born again believer who says, "the fear of hell" keeps me a believer. Does the newborn child fear its mother?"

JD, how many mothers do you know who threaten to throw their children into a burning hell if they don't return her love?

To those who have left thoughtful postings in this ongoing discussion:
Thanks for adding to the dialogue. However, I think we should all refrain from replying to Salaam's postings, as he has exhausted all possible credibility. To wit:
"Dawkins asks us to blindly buy his line of reasoning.... But when he is challenged, he screams with a loud microphone (that is, via the media), that anyone who doesn’t agree with him (including other scientists), is [sic]ignorant, fearful, hateful, anti-science or all of the above."
Dawkins screams? What on earth does Salaam mean? Anyone familiar with Dawkins' debate and media appearances knows that he is a soft-spoken, eloquent person; he does not scream at his opponents. Yet Salaam describes Dawkins as screaming. Evidently, Salaam perceives any atheist who confidently states his point of view as "screaming" at his opponents. That, of course, is not what screaming is.
Screaming is what people do when religious believers fly airplanes into buildings. Screaming is what a spoiled child does when you takes away his favorite toy.
Also: Religions expects people to blindly buy their line of reasoning; scientists, conversely, welcome the testing of their ideas.

But God is real, and it brings me great joy to serve Him and my fellow man. And God does not ask me to kill for him, He asks me to live for Him.

In a way, you are actually a martyr to your beliefs (or absense thereof).

"A fool says in his heart there is no God"
Psalm 14:1

Salaam

Cut to the chase...as far as we know there are no gods,and no supernatural world.
That's it.
Basically thats the opinion of most atheists.
The opinion of the religious is that there is a god.
They are opinions;one carrying no more weight than the other.
All the rest of it seems to be irrelevant.
I am an atheist because I am not persuaded that gods exist. You are persuaded.
I am not persuaded because it seems more likely that gods are cultural groupthink products of our imaginations,rather than actual supernatural beings,
(a contradiction in terms if there ever was one)
especially as where is this supernatural world,if it isn't in the imagination,and only in the imagination?
And inventing gods and goblins and fairies and leprachauns and gnomes and a trillion other fictional beings is what we do.Our imaginations run riot. Our minds are worlds of fantasy where anything can happen,and its where we spend most of our time.
To posit the existence of a God and a supernatural world,which nobody has ever seen or experienced,
would seem just plain wishful thinking,and not justified by anything in the real world but hope.

JD: "I do not know ONE born again believer who says, "the fear of hell" keeps me a believer."

No kidding? Then why do they so often make that case to non-believers? It's like they're trying to scare people into believing in Jesus by telling them they'll be "sorry later" if they don't believe in jesus now.

So once people do believe, what doe keep them a believer, in your experience? and why do they try to scare others into believing?

Amen, Prof. Dawkins!

I do not know ONE born again believer who says, "the fear of hell" keeps me a believer. Does the newborn child fear its mother? The Love of the Living God and the Hope of His Son keeps us. Some day with our eyes we will see Him. Glory.

To Mr Mark:

1. “Christianity is "based on historical sources" in the same way that "Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail" is "based on historical sources"

Mr Mark I really do not know what to say to you here except for the following: please read up on the art and science of manuscript reliability.

2. If the forgeries in Josephus and Pliny …
This is spurious. If Josephus and Pliny were forged, then certainly a better job could have been done. But there are other extra-Biblical references still.

3. “archaeology .. more-often disproves the Bible's fictions”
What are you saying? Are you saying archaeology is sometimes in agreement with the scriptures? Here three for starters

Sodom
Jericho
Nimrod

Look them up from reputable sources. And make sure to check multiple sources.

4. “Provide the scientific evidence to support the Bible”
I’m not trying to provide scientific evidence to support the Bible. The question, as far as I understand it, doesn’t make sense. What I am saying is that science can be used to strengthen my faith in Christ and G-d.

5. “[you should have said] science cannot yet explain”
Okay. But if this holds for me, then it should hold for you and Mr. Dawkins. If you cannot yet explain how to get “life” from “non-life”, then don’t say that you have proof of macro-evolution (one kind changing into another kind, e.g., amoeba to man).

But that line of thinking doesn’t hold for you and doesn’t work for me. Why? Because we have to evaluate the world now. A belief or unbelief G-d affects how we live and interact today.

Am I a better person because of Christ. I hope so. But the truth is I'm not that much different now than I was at the age of 29 before becoming a Christian.

But I have learned the importance of "forgiveness" and the importance of giving others the "benefit of the doubt".

Finally, I must add, don’t hold out much hope for “scientific answers” to all questions. Scientists still haven’t solve a hold multitude of problems that are significantly simpler than resolving the answer to the origin of life.
Examples in biology including all of the diseases we currently wrestle.

Pastor Lake, this sounds like a threat: "If the Bible is right you will be accountable to a God you have rejected."

This loving God, sends people to hell who don't believe in him. I know it says that in the Bible. It's so hard to believe, though, that the creator of the universe would so mean and would require so much praise - and would have given us instructions such a long time ago in a book that, frankly, often reads like a fairy tale or a horror story.

As Duckphup says, it doesn't pass my BS test. Too bad, I think, that fear of Hell, as threatened in an ancient book, keeps you a believer.

Salaam said:
"Who created the creator? I say: According to the scriptures, God has always existed. No one created God. He is self-existing."

In other words, you absolutely accept the authority of a book. How do you know which books to accept uncritically as true and which to reject? Do you accept the inerrancy of "Mother Goose's Fairy Tales" or John Grisham novels? Why does this one particular book (the Bible) deserve such special consideration?
Let me guess:
One or both of your parents taught you accept these stories unquestioningly from before you knew how to speak, much less how to reason critically. And now, as an adult, you continue to treat religious ideas in which you believe to be "off-limits" from reasoned, critical discussion.
In treating the assertions of the Bible and its promoters as beyond all doubt, you have tacitly admitted that reason has absolutely nothing to do with why you believe.
That's exactly what many of us who criticize religion are pointing out. Here we are at agreement. You recognize that you are refusing to apply critical thinking to the idea that God exists, and so do many of us critics of religion.
We critics of religion recognize that reason is more reliable than hearsay.

"How did the amniotic egg evolve, and who evolved it? The earliest reptiles probably laid amphibian-style eggs, and the amniotic egg was probably evolved at some later time. Only someone uneasy about the process of evolution would have any problem with this argument." Richard Cowen

(that the amniotic egg came after the evolved amphibian-style egg.)

How funny.

Syed K. Mirza wrote:

"You are asking Richard dawkins to prove absence of God? How about your proof? Could you give us some proofs that God exists? Please prove that God does exists!!! This is a challenge to you."

Sorry, I can't meet that challenge. I'm not asking Professor Dawkins for anything.
I think you didn't notice that I was quoting Thomas Baum.

I spent more than 10 years of my life searching for God. I found a lot of people with bizarre beliefs, but I couldn't find any sign of God. He aint there as far as I can tell, but if he shows up please let me know.

Regards,
Realist

SALAAM, goodbye gotta go. Pleasure mixing thoughts. Read my last two comments before this one though.

"And believers have always had (or found) answers for those willing to listen."

Salaam, you are certainly correct. Those who believed in Zeus found answers, those who believed in Apollo found answers, those who believed in Mohamed found answers, those who believed in Jim Jones found answers.....

SALAAM

I agree with you that Dawkins is a hypoctrite when it comes to tolerance. As you said he ridicules anyone that does not pertain to his beliefs and I am against that.

To Pieers JC:

1. “You could have employed reasoned argument to state why God exists”
I’m not trying to prove to you G-d exists, I’m merely trying to get you to see that Dawkins is a philosopher. He cannot scientifically provide reasons for why G-d does not exist. Yet he makes the claim!

He has a faith just as I do. I call his faith, philosophical naturalism: the belief that there is no G-d. He defends his faith (by calling it science). I defend my faith with logic and reasoning.

2. "[Salaam] you resorted to sarcasm”
I was supposed to. If I had asked you to blindly accept my belief system, you’d laugh me out of the building.

Dawkins asks us to blindly buy his line of reasoning. Except, he appeals to science for support, so now you are supposed to bow down.

But when he is challenged, he screams with a loud microphone (that is, via the media), that anyone who doesn’t agree with him (including other scientists), is ignorant, fearful, hateful, anti-science or all of the above. Some professor!

I pity the man, if he thinks he can challenge Christians with this line of thinking. As you know Christianity has been attacked by philosophers and non-believers since the death and resurrection of Christ.

And believers have always had (or found) answers for those willing to listen.

3. “Why do you not rely on your own senses”
My senses and instincts are not enough. That’s why we have science. That’s why Christians (and non-Christians) study science. (See the list of Christian scientists above.)

Real scientists (you know, the ones who are not arrogant) will tell you that the more we learn, the more we know that we don't much at all.

SALAAM, you are indeed a worthy adversary but I think you avoided what I said about the burden of proof. It is upon you, do you remember? This is all based on the idea that a God exists. If you cannot prove that he does your entire argument collapses.

Remember, again, that I cannot disprove a negative. Do not expect me to prove to you that something that does not exist does not exist. It is as I said earlier, an impossibility.

So as I said before, the proof?.... It is not there.

I Agree with Christine Luane Mega Miranda by the way.

Dear Duckphup -

Well spoke. Thanks for the engaging and well-presented rant.

After reading this blog for many months, I've come to the conclusion that the religionists get really irked when non-believers won't give their fairy tales the stamp of reason. As an American, I have something of an obligation to respect my fellow Americans' rights to believe whatever they wish, but that doesn't mean that I need to extend even an iota of respect towards those beliefs having a foundation in reality.

It's tough for them to argue against beliefs based on scientific evidence because there is a reason to respect the scientific facts, ie: the evidence. Not finding the evidence to their suiting, they imagine science to be a capricious fabrication that can't be trusted, even as they are fully dependent on science to get them through their day.

Soldier on, Duckphup. You're doing excellent work, even if it falls on deaf ears most of the time.

GALAD

My apologies Galad. I was totally innapropriate. I got a bit over myself.

It isn't arrogant to call BS on something that can't possibly be proven to be true, for which there is zero evidence, and which is responsible for so much grief in the world.

Try this on: Religion = arrogance

We outht to accept the way people live, their heritage, culture and religion

Sometimes I wonder: Is arrogance the other name for atheism?

To Duke:

1. “150 years ago... there was absolutely NOTHING in the realm of human knowledge or speculation that even HINTED that there might be 'natural' processes at work in nature that could account for the universe”

That’s not true at all. In fact, Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, had this theory in mind in the 1700s. Charles Darwin effectively took information from his grandfather (and others I might add), and ran with it.

2. “Darwin's impact extended into ALL scientific disciplines”
That’s spurious. Please tell me how Darwin’s work impacted electronics, or physics, or chemistry. I would venture that not even biology is really affected.

If Darwin’s work is ignored, it would have no real effect on any scientific work that I can think: cell therapy, fighting diseases, gene splicing, plant breeding, … you name it.

3. “God is self-existing”.

I’m not making a scientific argument. I’m making a logical argument.

4. “Christians believe life had a beginning”

Almost everyone in the Western world believes life had a beginning, but in one of your prior posts you asked “Who created the Creator?”. If I progress through your line of thinking, I would have to conclude an infinite number of creators. Thankfully, the scriptures provide a more satisfying conclusion: God, the Author of life, has always existed; G-d has no creator.

5. “Everything that can be explained has been attributed to natural causes.”

Then please explain the natural cause of the force of gravity. If you are able to do so, then you can do what no other scientist has been able to do.

Also please explain the natural cause of the cell’s ability to replicate itself. We know it happens, we see it happens. Some scientists say that all of the trillion of trillions of our cells are replace completely every 5 years or so. Yet we don’t have a clue as to how the cell was built and how it was powered-on. But if you have a natural explanation, please tell us.

Explaining how something works does not explain how it got to be there in the first place.

Finally,

As I said earlier, for some people, no amount of evidence is sufficient, even if Christ were raised from the dead, even if Moses spoke to G-d in front of millions of his fellow Hebrews.

G-d bless you Duke, and G-dspeed.

The 9/11 suicide bombers let the love of Allah into their hearts.
They loved him with a passion greater than their love of life.
They gave their lives to be with him in the Big Harem in the sky,
where they are presently dwelling, and learning it's not easy
keeping seventy two virgins happy,
especially when there's a big game on the telly.
You don't have to be crazy to believe this rubbish.
Just seriously religious.
I agree with the blogger who said that to be seriously religious is to be hypnotised.
Yes,of course it is...to be slowly hypnotised throughout ones childhood,into believing
that something that's not there,is there,is in effect, being hypnotized.
And there should be a law against it.

No, you did not hurt my feelings Duke. But what would an atheist like you care about someone else's feelings. All you care abouot is yourself!

And while Im at it GALAD, if anyone is to shut up its you who just got his A** handed to him. NUFF SAID. PIECE OUT Y'ALLS!

DID I HURT YOUR FEELINGS? IM SORRY. The one you should be asking for an apology is DUCKPHUP who just pulled your a** straight out your mouth!

It is hard to imagine that the form of government of a country is wrong. If all of us accepted the way people live their culture then the United States of America would not be brought to the kind of violence that it is today. Ok, the Middle Easteners are killers, but this is got to end now, and if we don´t control our anger toward those people...

Hey Duke:

Duckphup's wisdom or arrogance?

And no one is asking you to believe "our" story! You stick to your story, just don't try "proselytizing"! And while you are at it, try to get rid of the "holier than thou" attitude if your arrogant brain so permits.

Wisdom thus floweth out of the mouth of DUCKPHUP. It floweth out in such great quantities that it amazeth all. All must harken to his wisdom if thou ever hopeth to avoid stupidity.

Duckphup, I could not have said it better myself!

Galad wrote: "And atheists, no! DO NOT start the argument that "not believing" something is not a "belief". Of course, it is a belief because you can, no more than believers, prove your views to be correct.!"

It amazes me that people are able to (allegedly) 'think' like that, and not have their heads explode.

In general, atheists do not 'believe' simply because the reasons or evidence purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or support a mental state of 'belief'. The idea that there is a 'choice' involved seems silly to me.

Let me try to explain this in another way. You guys come around here telling fantastic stories about this wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous... loving... did I already say loving?... supernatural entity who poofed the universe into existence, fabricated humans from a dust bunny and a rib... while just outside of the Garden where he was doing all this, the Mesopotamians were making beer.... and you have no evidence... none... at all... zilch... nada.

OK... here's the thing... we DON'T BELIEVE YOUR STORY. That's it... that's what an atheist is. Somebody who DOESN'T BELIEVE your story. Simple, huh?

The reasons and evidence that you present, for WHY I should believe your story is either 'good', or 'NOT good'. If it's NOT good, then my 'BS alarm' goes off. One does not CHOOSE to have one's BS alarm go off... it just goes off.

So... your story makes my BS alarm go off... and that means that I think your story is BS. I do not have to PROVE it is BS... I don't have to BELIEVE that it's BS... I just have to THINK that it is BS. In other words, I am simply NOT impressed.

Now... here's where it gets REALLY tricky. You've heard of the 'burden of proof'... right? Well, here's what that means. If YOU want ME to believe YOUR story, then it is UP TO YOU to present your story to me in such a way that my BS alarm does NOT go off... and THAT means that you must accompany your story with credible, compelling evidence... WHICH, by the way, nobody has been able to do for nearly 2,000 years... so I'm not gonna be holding my breath, waiting for that to happen.

So... now I've got to ask you... how does the fact that I think your story is BS and your reasons for believing it are 'worthless' constitute a 'belief'... the internalized certainty that the mind-picture in my brain is congruent with some cosmic 'truths' relating to important matters of existance and reality?

LOL. Nonsense... I just don't believe your story. I thing it is a droolingly stupid and ridiculous story... just like if you came around telling me that there was a herd of invisible pink unicorns that pranced around in yout back yard under the light of a full moon... with no evidence... I just had to have 'faith'... I just had to 'believe'. Well... I wouldn't believe THAT story, either. My BS alarm would go off, and I would think THAT story was droolingly stupid and ridiculous, too... just like your god story.

So... would that make me a "no invisible pink unicorns in Galad's back yard-believer?" I don't think so.

"Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief', or a 'religion', only in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'." ~ Unknown

To Canyon Shearer:

What's with the name calling, i.e., Dinky?

Let me ask you one question: What would Jesus do? Would he call his enemy names and speak disparagingly of him? Or would he show him love, as he preached?

Your little nickname habid portrays you as more of a dittohead than a christian.

I heard someone knocking on the doors of my heart,
turned out to be the tooth fairy trying to get her hand under my pillow to remove an old tooth my kids had put there,as a joke.
My first thought...there really IS a tooth fairy after all.
All I had to do was open my heart and mind to Her and pooof! There she was in my room.Amazing!
I say to others,open your heart to The TF and you too shall be see the truth.Have faith.It worked for me.

Only atheists go to heaven for they do not worship strange Gods.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

As a person of faith, I can agree with everything Dawkins says except for his statement, "There is no God."

------

Absolutely correct there definitely is a God. There's a Devil too you know.

I refer you to http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul The Bible says that all three great Abrahamic faiths are actually faiths in Devil. Moses sold his soul to Devil to become the most important person in history. Those who faith his God, the fallen angel Lucifer have sold their souls to Devil too.

The supernatural being in the ball of fire Moses made his deal with is the angel that would be God, Lucifer. Of course Muhammad made his deal with the angel Gaberial to become a super important person, more important than Moses perhaps. And then there's that other super stat of faith, Joseph Smith that dealt with the angel Mormoni. Looks like Lucifer has competition as the angel that would be God.

The first commandment forbids you to faith Devil. Devils are "strange Gods."

God says ((((No Strange Gods))))!!!!!

If you're baptized or born again you're definitely going to hell for violating the first commandment of God.

9-11 is the product of worshiping strange God, a Devil called Allah.

PIERRE JC

Nicely said!

SALAAM

The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is such thing as the supernatural. As Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Since you made the claim you must provide the evidence. And if you fail to provide evidence then I can not take your hypothesis as sound.

SALAAM

HA HA! God is self existing! That is not a valid scientific argument since it can not be tested.

And yes Christians do believe that life had a begining. EVER READ GENESIS?

As for Number 3. I have all of science behind me. Everything that can be explained has been attributed to natural causes. I have proof that that exists but you do not have proof that the supernatural exists.

I do not pretend to try to disprove a negative. I the supernatural is something that does not exist how can I prove that it does not exist? I cannot. It is impossible to disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it does. THATS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Until you do it will never even be considered to be reality.

Let's face it! If Jesus knocks at the door of your heart then you will have an understanding of all of this. If he doesn't, or if he knocks are you don't let him in, then you still will not understand. So, if you hear that knock on your heart's door, please do not refuse to let him in! I have found more joy in life with Christ than without him. He is God's son and that explains the "still small voice" that speaks to me and the fact that my life was sustained during the night and I awoke this morning. It is how I can love you against all the odds!

Salaam said:
"Oh, yeah!
Let's all pay attention to Richard Dawkins.
He has tr