God’s Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >recovery after breast capsulisation surgery

http://index1.biolop.com >crystals of chattanooga
http://index1.rfrltk.com >maestro clarinet

http://index1.biolop.com >crystals of chattanooga
http://index1.rfrltk.com >maestro clarinet

http://index1.biolop.com >crystals of chattanooga
http://index1.rfrltk.com >maestro clarinet

http://index1.ntdphb.com >finland apple pie
http://index1.vitiup.com >tongkat ali

http://index1.ntdphb.com >finland apple pie
http://index1.vitiup.com >tongkat ali

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.napoir.com >calnan
http://index1.diopst.com >catholic charities jobs long island

http://index1.napoir.com >calnan
http://index1.diopst.com >catholic charities jobs long island

http://index1.weewra.com >actenol
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >actenol
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.weewra.com >actenol
http://index1.erojin.com >care for primrose

http://index1.ariopr.com >tracy sue orkin md 159 margaret street plattsburgh ny
http://index1.quikop.com >lin and wwho and hub and master control

http://index1.8shtuk.com >kama sutra book
http://index1.eroint.com >philly daily news paper for 12 31 05

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index1.9poilo.com >schubas
http://index1.stityg.com >loss prevention manager seattle

http://index1.smytiw.com >16 mini helmet dispaly case
http://index1.dfitbv.com >nevada brothel porn star

lnhgci rxbvigmn onsefdti eomzfc pmsb hjdf rofclpejh http://www.svdtl.klznyhtpm.com

lfncuiv pdegwmjn dqwxn eucoijb ymrhokf ianlhjf afeitjg

http://index2.vogasl.com >lady liberty boat tours http://index3.vogasl.com >lingerie model calendars http://index1.vogasl.com >every arcade machine ever made and everything else as far as video games go that were ever made ever.

http://index2.xoyits.com >freevideo converter download http://index3.xoyits.com >postal offices to obtain passport http://index1.xoyits.com >lake zurich baseball softball association

http://index1.erotom.com >jackass hardcore racing http://index3.erotom.com >commission for social justice massachusetts http://index2.erotom.com >sexy large size bras

http://index3.aritiv.com >kimberton classic car show http://index1.aritiv.com >u.k. solicitors association free legal help http://index2.aritiv.com >big fat butts

http://index2.wotini.com >dibbles reading assessment http://index3.wotini.com >gymnast association auction http://index1.wotini.com >sawgrass landings

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.uramim.com >effects of katrina on mississippi

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.trum4u.com >aol greating cards

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

with all due respect, I think you fail to properly understand the positive effect Christianity has had on the ascendancy of western civilization. Thus far the track record of atheist regimes has been terrrible(Mao,POl POt,Stalin, Khmer Rouge,North Korea, Cuba,Eastern Bloc,ect). I suppose someday we may eventually have an atheist/secular humanist regime in power long enough to use as a basis for comparative study. But as for now, based on the evidence we have, the betting man's/woman's best bet is to saty with the Christianity we know rather than the atheism of genocdie and the killiong fields.

http://index1.xxx-er.com >yahoo mullins center pictures [url=http://index1.xxx-er.com]yahoo mullins center pictures[/url]

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development http://wupiwy.com >fresh news

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.nufude.com >new life ministry nyc

http://index1.nufude.com >new life ministry nyc

http://index1.nufude.com >new life ministry nyc

http://index1.nufude.com >new life ministry nyc

thrutch sesquiquintile waysliding maccoboy lucumony toponymics unthroning kneeling
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/16/south.africa.village/video.html >CNNs Mike Hanna visits with the people of Machavistad
http://www.econometricsociety.org/meetings/es98/index.html

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >car insurance tesco uk Well heeled

http://allinfo.iifree.net >application consolidation loan student Suspension of disbelief

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >unemployment insurance program Chock-a-block

sexual side effects of zoloft
http://umjira.umn.edu/secure/attachment/10212/memory.html

If you want do delete your site from our spam bases - just email us with domain of your site:

abuse-here@inbox.ru

thank you!

If you want do delete your site from our spam bases - just email us with domain of your site:

abuse-here@inbox.ru

thank you!

Ilike your new religion.

Well…I spent yesterday late am to early pm cutting and pasting a thread of conversation started by the second entry here, posted by Jason Bradfield. The last entry was dated Feb 2007, so this entry is well after the fur stopped flying between combatants. The debated raged for 302 pages of Word text.

Back and forth, uh, I mean around and around and around the debate swirled within the 'holy circle' of the Christian Reconstructionist apologetic called 'Presuppostionalism. Eventually every one got dizzy and fell down, as happens when you stay on a merry go-round long enough.

A little background about this apologetic is useful. This ‘apologetic’ originated within the ultra conservative sects of Reformed/Presbyterian theologies. Within those sects/cults, the Bible (their accepted version) is deemed to be without error, and entirely TRUE in it’s every phrase. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary, then the official think tank of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wrote a book that can be considered as the most accepted starting primer on ‘Presuppostionalism.’ That book is titled, ‘Defense of The Faith.”

It is good to have an understanding of the most pernicious enemy to our form of government, and understanding the ‘logic’, which supports it, is a necessary evil.

The views of Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy, etc. categorically reject democracy as it is not found in the Bible, their only source of fact, their only source of ‘truth’, their only accepted description of life as handed down from their God. As sources for this point of view, I’d point you to the writings of Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law” and Gary North’s, “Political Polytheism.” Go find a copy of ‘Political Polytheism” read a few pages, and it will not take you long to see what the ultimate goals of this movement are. The goal does not end in a pluralistic democracy, but one arranged around the commands and laws of the Old Testament, which includes the death penalty for a wide an stupid variety of offenses or crimes against this ‘God.’

Now if you ask any garden variety Evangelical about these Theonomists/Reconstructionists, you may well receive a blank stare in response. However, a cursory exploration of current Evangelical media, one is immediately confronted with a high charged talking points of Christian Reconstructionist rhetoric. The Recon talking points are now what near every Evangelical seems to believe, and it inspires this roughly 6% of our population to have the arrogance to take over the Republican Party, and in near every state, and in our national legislature to pass laws which impose their morality upon the populations of our states and upon our nation.

The primary denominations where this thinking is very strong among the leadership is within the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The thinking has jumped across into various, otherwise unbridgeable doctrinal chasms into Pentecostal and Charismatic theological orientations. The key word here is ‘dominion.’ Under this so-called Christian paradigm, it is ONLY the Christian who has the god given right to rule. All others must become subservient to its ghastly impulses, if they eventually live to tell the tale. Since blasphemy is a crime that brings a death penalty, then you can project this result of Biblical Law.

Let me offer to those who will no doubt continue to be confronted with the strange, upside down ‘logic’ of Presuppostionalism, that you explore some debates between some of these ‘religious’ logicians, and professional philosophers, and others on Infidels.org. I’d point you toward those involving Dr. Michael Martin as a good starting point.

The Christian Reconstructionist movement is behind the Discovery Institute, and the ID movement. As the ID folks like to find a question in biology, posit the fact of a ‘gap in knowledge” and then posit God, or an ‘intelligence’ in this gap as the only conceivable answer, so the Presuppositionalist finds a problem in philosophy, the problem of induction, for example, and was much discussed here, and promptly posits God, or more specifically, one of the Protestant version of the Bible as the only conceivable solution. There is no intrinsic difference in the tactics of ID folks, and their sectarian brothers and sisters.

You think I jest? Nope. Do some reading.

Well, adios from Southern Baptist heaven on earth in North West Texas, where a fella can kick a bush and seven or eight different kinds of Christian fundamentalist will jump out, and according to them, at least five or so demons. Down here, those diabolical beings lie in wait behind every ‘bush’…no pun intended.

Well…I spent yesterday late am to early pm cutting and pasting a thread of conversation started by the second entry here, posted by Jason Bradfield. The last entry was dated Feb 2007, so this entry is well after the fur stopped flying between combatants. The debated raged for 302 pages of Word text.

Back and forth, uh, I mean around and around and around the debate swirled within the 'holy circle' of the Christian Reconstructionist apologetic called 'Presuppostionalism. Eventually every one got dizzy and fell down, as happens when you stay on a merry go-round long enough.

A little background about this apologetic is useful. This ‘apologetic’ originated within the ultra conservative sects of Reformed/Presbyterian theologies. Within those sects/cults, the Bible (their accepted version) is deemed to be without error, and entirely TRUE in it’s every phrase. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary, then the official think tank of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wrote a book that can be considered as the most accepted starting primer on ‘Presuppostionalism.’ That book is titled, ‘Defense of The Faith.”

It is good to have an understanding of the most pernicious enemy to our form of government, and understanding the ‘logic’, which supports it, is a necessary evil.

The views of Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy, etc. categorically reject democracy as it is not found in the Bible, their only source of fact, their only source of ‘truth’, their only accepted description of life as handed down from their God. As sources for this point of view, I’d point you to the writings of Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law” and Gary North’s, “Political Polytheism.” Go find a copy of ‘Political Polytheism” read a few pages, and it will not take you long to see what the ultimate goals of this movement are. The goal does not end in a pluralistic democracy, but one arranged around the commands and laws of the Old Testament, which includes the death penalty for a wide an stupid variety of offenses or crimes against this ‘God.’

Now if you ask any garden variety Evangelical about these Theonomists/Reconstructionists, you may well receive a blank stare in response. However, a cursory exploration of current Evangelical media, one is immediately confronted with a high charged talking points of Christian Reconstructionist rhetoric. The Recon talking points are now what near every Evangelical seems to believe, and it inspires this roughly 6% of our population to have the arrogance to take over the Republican Party, and in near every state, and in our national legislature to pass laws which impose their morality upon the populations of our states and upon our nation.

The primary denominations where this thinking is very strong among the leadership is within the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The thinking has jumped across into various, otherwise unbridgeable doctrinal chasms into Pentecostal and Charismatic theological orientations. The key word here is ‘dominion.’ Under this so-called Christian paradigm, it is ONLY the Christian who has the god given right to rule. All others must become subservient to its ghastly impulses, if they eventually live to tell the tale. Since blasphemy is a crime that brings a death penalty, then you can project this result of Biblical Law.

Let me offer to those who will no doubt continue to be confronted with the strange, upside down ‘logic’ of Presuppostionalism, that you explore some debates between some of these ‘religious’ logicians, and professional philosophers, and others on Infidels.org. I’d point you toward those involving Dr. Michael Martin as a good starting point.

The Christian Reconstructionist movement is behind the Discovery Institute, and the ID movement. As the ID folks like to find a question in biology, posit the fact of a ‘gap in knowledge” and then posit God, or an ‘intelligence’ in this gap as the only conceivable answer, so the Presuppositionalist finds a problem in philosophy, the problem of induction, for example, and was much discussed here, and promptly posits God, or more specifically, one of the Protestant version of the Bible as the only conceivable solution. There is no intrinsic difference in the tactics of ID folks, and their sectarian brothers and sisters.

You think I jest? Nope. Do some reading.

Well, adios from Southern Baptist heaven on earth in North West Texas, where a fella can kick a bush and seven or eight different kinds of Christian fundamentalist will jump out, and according to them, at least five or so demons. Down here, those diabolical beings lie in wait behind every ‘bush’…no pun intended.

Well…I spent yesterday late am to early pm cutting and pasting a thread of conversation started by the second entry here, posted by Jason Bradfield. The last entry was dated Feb 2007, so this entry is well after the fur stopped flying between combatants. The debated raged for 302 pages of Word text.

Back and forth, uh, I mean around and around and around the debate swirled within the 'holy circle' of the Christian Reconstructionist apologetic called 'Presuppostionalism. Eventually every one got dizzy and fell down, as happens when you stay on a merry go-round long enough.

A little background about this apologetic is useful. This ‘apologetic’ originated within the ultra conservative sects of Reformed/Presbyterian theologies. Within those sects/cults, the Bible (their accepted version) is deemed to be without error, and entirely TRUE in it’s every phrase. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary, then the official think tank of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wrote a book that can be considered as the most accepted starting primer on ‘Presuppostionalism.’ That book is titled, ‘Defense of The Faith.”

It is good to have an understanding of the most pernicious enemy to our form of government, and understanding the ‘logic’, which supports it, is a necessary evil.

The views of Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy, etc. categorically reject democracy as it is not found in the Bible, their only source of fact, their only source of ‘truth’, their only accepted description of life as handed down from their God. As sources for this point of view, I’d point you to the writings of Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law” and Gary North’s, “Political Polytheism.” Go find a copy of ‘Political Polytheism” read a few pages, and it will not take you long to see what the ultimate goals of this movement are. The goal does not end in a pluralistic democracy, but one arranged around the commands and laws of the Old Testament, which includes the death penalty for a wide an stupid variety of offenses or crimes against this ‘God.’

Now if you ask any garden variety Evangelical about these Theonomists/Reconstructionists, you may well receive a blank stare in response. However, a cursory exploration of current Evangelical media, one is immediately confronted with a high charged talking points of Christian Reconstructionist rhetoric. The Recon talking points are now what near every Evangelical seems to believe, and it inspires this roughly 6% of our population to have the arrogance to take over the Republican Party, and in near every state, and in our national legislature to pass laws which impose their morality upon the populations of our states and upon our nation.

The primary denominations where this thinking is very strong among the leadership is within the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The thinking has jumped across into various, otherwise unbridgeable doctrinal chasms into Pentecostal and Charismatic theological orientations. The key word here is ‘dominion.’ Under this so-called Christian paradigm, it is ONLY the Christian who has the god given right to rule. All others must become subservient to its ghastly impulses, if they eventually live to tell the tale. Since blasphemy is a crime that brings a death penalty, then you can project this result of Biblical Law.

Let me offer to those who will no doubt continue to be confronted with the strange, upside down ‘logic’ of Presuppostionalism, that you explore some debates between some of these ‘religious’ logicians, and professional philosophers, and others on Infidels.org. I’d point you toward those involving Dr. Michael Martin as a good starting point.

The Christian Reconstructionist movement is behind the Discovery Institute, and the ID movement. As the ID folks like to find a question in biology, posit the fact of a ‘gap in knowledge” and then posit God, or an ‘intelligence’ in this gap as the only conceivable answer, so the Presuppositionalist finds a problem in philosophy, the problem of induction, for example, and was much discussed here, and promptly posits God, or more specifically, one of the Protestant version of the Bible as the only conceivable solution. There is no intrinsic difference in the tactics of ID folks, and their sectarian brothers and sisters.

You think I jest? Nope. Do some reading.

Well, adios from Southern Baptist heaven on earth in North West Texas, where a fella can kick a bush and seven or eight different kinds of Christian fundamentalist will jump out, and according to them, at least five or so demons. Down here, those diabolical beings lie in wait behind every ‘bush’…no pun intended.

Howdy all. Well...I was dumb enough to spend most of the late morning to evening reviewing, cutting and pasting a thread of conversation on this board which was generated by the second post, by a Jason Bradfield.

Looks to me that folks ran around and around and around in the most 'holy circle' of the so-called 'presuppositionalist apologetic.

This particular 'apologetic' is that which undergirds the Christian Reconstructionist movement. You know, that same movement which is large behind the take over of the Republican Party, the Discovery Institute, provides the backbone of the largely evangelical, home school movement.

For those of you interested in comprehending just what the heck happened here over the months of entries, I'd suggest you lay your hands on a copy of Cornelius Van Til's "Defense of the Faith" which outlines how this 'thinking' is arranged.

Just as the older Creationist, now the so-called ID movement seeks a 'unanswered question' or questions withing biology, then posits the all-good god of their understanding (more importantly, the Bible) so these modern day Reformed/Presbyterian apologists find some question withing philosophy, the problem of induction as a good example here, and there INSERTS the Bible as the beginning, middle and end all of ALL knowledge.

A person can run around within this most holy circle until he or she just has to fall down.

Though this 'presuppositionalism' developed from Presbyterian/Reformed theologies, it does have few detractors from within. R.C.Sproul and Gerstner's book, "Classical Apologetics" roundly critiques the 'presup' approach.

Let me also suggest Infidels.org as a good place to see several debates between presuppositionalists and other philosophers, and analysis of this foundation of Christian Reconstructionism.

For what it is worth...

From North West Texas, where one can kick a bush and flush out seven or eight different sorts of Christian fundamentalist, and according to them, four or five demons.

dqnwraxfz gfsbhum zhwurg vpwda qmcre bqysujdn kctuxj

dqnwraxfz gfsbhum zhwurg vpwda qmcre bqysujdn kctuxj

I quit believing scripture when I read in the Bible that a donkey had a conversation with it's
rider. ( Numbers 22:26 )

Anybody who believes a donkey talked needs to be on some strong medication.

If you are a Christian fundamentalist and you believe animals can talk, please seek help now. You are a danger to yourself and the people around you.

Why don't you stop being so disrespectful? That's not even funny.

Re: Bruce's strange request that in order to figure out that the Resurrection is true or not, that we start with the assumption it is true... WHA!!!???

I wonder, does he do this, with the same open mind and heart, and with an open "Spirit" with all other religious texts?

Bruce, have you read the Bhagavad gita with the same openess you ask us to? Do you read it with the assumption that it is real?

If you say, "Well, people don't have Elephant Heads", I would say "how do you know?"

After all, people don't come back from the dead after 3 days. The decomposition process starts hours after you die. By the 3rd day you are a bloated corpse.

Stop worshipping a zombie, especially one you pretend to eat. Sheeesh!

czxpj nqct pwntqibfc fhnykdbt nwajqbp zlxvpbft gykdi http://www.boyxr.afilvrs.com

svtequoi jzlwg nzcqvfyu xmwtgohcd imjxst thfa dokrscle

Surely we all believe in God for he is Mankind's greatest invention, his greatest creation. Our ancesters gave us God and gave him a family, and a script which is the Bible for Christians. At the time this script was written it was to someone's advantage to write it and to proclaim it as supernatural and holy, a measure to live by and to live up to as God commanded. Holy men would explain all this to us. And so it has been. Man's fears and superstitions and gullibility have made it work.

bill

Anyone know this one by George Bernard Shaw?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

Gerry,

I doubt that many of those making arguments defending their "faith" are going to wake up any time soon. It is because such "logic" closes off any possibility to think and question one's own premises or the arguments that follow from it.

Jim Skinner says that scientists are threatened by the "truth in faith". I think he has it backwards. Religion is threatened by science because science tells us that the bible is factually incorrect. Instead of attempting to understand the true message that is wrapped up in a Bronze Age context, people like Creationists deny science, or worse, seek to subvert science and the scientific method.

I sympathize with Phil (although my jaw did not hit the ground yet). Scientists are not interested in proving religious people wrong unless religious people use pseudo-science to keep bronze age myths alive. Why believers want to attack science is really puzzling.

Jim Skinner: Your post on February 3rd was quite interesting. In one paragraph you eloquently displayed why people, who think like you, will never be able to see the light and stop believing in fairy tales.

You stated that evolution is not based on scientific evidence. In that case, please clear up the record and tell me what science is based on?

You also stated that faith transcends the knowledge of Science today. I guess you are correct on that assertion because faith is not about knowledge. It is about believing in things that are unseen and untestable.

You refer to scientists as "high minded". Do you suppose that you could expose your bias a little more for us?

You said God gives faith to the lame, sick, blind etc. I guess that God must also have given faith to the Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems. They have faith and it is every bit as strong as yours. Did a false God give them faith or did your God somehow blow it with them?

I also have a very strong faith. My faith is that God is non-existent and your belief in fairy tales is a monstrous waste of time, energy, money and countless lives over the centuries.

You assert that scientist's toiling in their chosen profession have their pride hurt. By what pray tell?

I think you are trying to assert that scientists toil simply to disprove that God's hand is responsible for all of creation.

The next sound is my jaw dropping and hitting the floor below. You might want to speak to Jason. The two of you are in a league of your own.

Correction:
It should read 92001,.... grams!

Another proof against science in favor of religion, you see? All false!

Gerry

I think Jason is a very young man who recently has discovered that one can juggle with words and propositions. The juggling itself is fun, and much more important than the substance he juggles with, hence his funny circular reasoning. I think within a few years, when he grows up, he will change the game.

It is hilarious how - upsy-daisy - he produces the rabbit of faith jumping out of his sleeve, after "having debunked science" by his preposterous "logic": My weight is 92 kg. Of course, this statement is false, since if I were weighed exactly, it might be 9201,56789123 grams before cleaning my fingernails. Therefore science is fallacious.

The reasoning has the quality of this:

Cinderella preferred Pepsi to Coca Cola. Since Pepsi is real, Cinderella is real. And since Cinderella is real, there must be a god. And anybody who does not believe this is a moron, by the force of logic.

Gerry

Science cannot measure faith. it is not based on scientific evidence. but neither is evolution. Faith transends the knowledge of science today. that is why faith is attacked and ridiculed by science. faith is based on the "supernatural", and not the natural, because God is supernatural. the thing that really pisses off the evolutionist and high minded scienctist is the fact that God gives out faith to even the uneducated, the lame, the sick, the blind. For the scientist, it injures their pride. their pride of knowledge, long hours of study, many hours spent in labs, experimenting.and often they attack what they are afraid of.

JWR:

I agree that Jason will probably twist words and post his "essay" like a hack (no peer-review), making arguments that few if any legitimate theologians and/or philosophers would consider valid (for instance, assertions like "God is logic" is incorrect textual interpretation).

That is why I say that he should try to publish in peer-reviewed journals if he has such absolute certainty, but he cannot, having neither the discipline to pursue legitimate scholarship nor the intellectual honesty to engage in real debate.

It's sad. People like Jason, in their religious zeal to find validation for faith, they set up idols to worship so that they can ease their anxiety about the uncertainties in life.

I would give excellent odds that everything I write will find a place on his website, JWR. It's probably too much to expect to be referenced correctly?

Jason,

You said in your first post: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing."

Substitute bread = bible, stone = word of god and nourishing = salvation.

"If the bible is the word of god and the word of god is a source of salvation, then this bible will be salvation for me; now this bible gives me salvation; therefore it is the word of god, and the word of god is a source of salvation."

Both statements have the identical logical (formal) structure. So either, both statements are logically (formally) valid or both statements are logically (formally) invalid.

Good luck with the article. But if you want to really establish some scholarship, why not peer-reviewed journals instead of "preaching to the choir"?

Jason,

Your last post states (notice how I don't take your words out of context):

*************** begin Jason post ***************
JWR: The words “"How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth?" was a direct cut and paste from YOUR POST. Good grief man, you can’t be that dumb. Do yourself a favor – take those words and cut and paste them into your “find in this page” feature of your browser (usually ctrl+f) and look where it takes you…YOUR post on January 26, 2007 12:56 AM.

YOU are the liar.
************* end Jason post ********************

Now, here is the actual post from 26 Jan 2007 at 0056 (12:56 am) by me:

*************** begin my post *******************
*** And then (pause for effect) I quote your last post:
--
Jason: "Show me one time where I have said that science, in and of itself, is not useful. I NEVER SAID THAT!! If you were more honest, you would stop putting words in my mouth..."
---
Well gee, Jason, silly old me (and the rest of us) took you at your word when you said (see above) "science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth" and that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth". Do you deny that you made those statements, Jason? How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth? And when you say that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth" I assume you can provide evidence of the Noah story...and that you can defend the odious sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy discussed earlier and that you therefore support stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals simply for being homosexual etc....

***************** end my post *******************

Jason...not only are you a coward, you are also a liar. You are afraid to answer direct questions, and then you twist other people's posts around and take snippets completely out of context...most egregiously in this case, when I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION TO YOU -- REPEAT, TO YOU. AGAIN -- I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION TO YOU based on your original post where you made your spectacularly asinine statements about science and how Scripture is the only way to learn truth etc...

I'll say it again. You, Jason, are a coward and a liar. You engage in arguments about subject with which you are woefully ill-informed -- i.e. the scientific method and science in general. You ask others for a debate. Then, when your arguments are exposed for the utter tripe which they are, you either (a) claim not to have said the things you said; (b) refuse to extend the courtesy of answering questions to you when others have extended the courtesy to you; (c) deliberately distort the words of others to completely misrepresent their positions, and/or (d) call them a 'moron'. The one thing you NEVER do is to answer a question directly. And you call yourself a Christian? Christ had the courage to answer critics honestly and openly. You are no more different than the fundamentalist Islamic imams and mullahs. I truly pity your wife and children for having to live with someone so immune to reason.

Grow a backbone and come back when you want to debate with adults.

JWR

P.S. Timmy, Puzzled, Andy -- what are the odds Jason takes the quotes from this post out of context on his 'reignofchrist' website -- can I get even money? Or is it more like a 1-100 sure bet?

This will be my last post here. After reading JWRs latest rampage in calling me a “liar”, I seriously had to question what benefit there is in sticking around. Conclusion: There are no benefits hanging around morons, especially morons that don’t even know their own subject matter.

RB: The speed of light is not an absolute. Furthermore, it is the perfect example of number (5) is my original post. Do your homework.

Andy: Who knows what the heck your latest was about – I still see though that you can not produce a meaningful post without using language and the law of contradiction, though you claim these are mere tools we can take or leave. A “certified” moron is all you are.

JWR: The words “"How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth?" was a direct cut and paste from YOUR POST. Good grief man, you can’t be that dumb. Do yourself a favor – take those words and cut and paste them into your “find in this page” feature of your browser (usually ctrl+f) and look where it takes you…YOUR post on January 26, 2007 12:56 AM.

YOU are the liar.

Puzzled: I know you’re trying but you still lack some very fundamental knowledge in logic.

You said, “Apparently, circular reasoning is considered a logical fallacy, but not so in the strictest sense, so I stand corrected in that regard. However, I would still point out that it is a fallacy nonetheless. The structure of the argument, no matter how absurd can be made out to be VALID in the strictest logical sense: x = y, because y = x. But if so, you can put in anything as x and y, and it would be a "valid" argument.”

That one little paragraph demonstrates that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. Please, take a break from the internet and buy yourself a formal logic book. I recommend Gordon Clark’s book, “Logic”. It will only take 30 minutes into that book to realize the mistake you made in your last two sentences there.

Lastly, you said, “you yourself should….acknowledge that a logically valid statement provides absolutely no reason to believe its conclusions.”

Puzzled, I asked you demonstrate to me the logical fallacy with my axiom and the deductions made from it, not whether or not you find them “convincing”. I have already said a hundred times here that I’m not trying to “convince” you – that is not my job. God may not want you to believe these things – again, not my job. And not only have you not demonstrated any, but you continually assert that my reasoning is circular which you finally admit is logically valid in “in the strictest sense.”

Case closed – you have no reasonable “excuse” - you simply don’t like the Bible. Oh well…looks as though God doesn’t particularly like you either at this moment.

Tim: You’re a moron. And you’re a moron because you berate people for believing things they can’t “prove”, yet you yourself stand dogmatically on the assertion that paper will ALWAYS burn though in your own words, “I CAN'T PROVE IT". January 3, 2007 3:54 PM You’re a moron and a hypocrite.

I do want to thank everyone though for providing some great material to use in an upcoming article that I will be posting on my site. Stay tuned… www.thereignofchrist.com

One of the most interesting things to come out of this post for me was to see this question put forth to atheists, (I think by Jason once) as well as by other delusionals:
"What is your reason for not killing yourself right now?"
And of course: "Use reasoning and logic to show this"

This was the most hilarious thing to me. The purpose of this question is to try and prove that, belief in God is every bit as rational as us not killing ourselves right now. They actually believe this.

Another telling question put forth by a "Jason like" (if not him), was "If you don't believe in God, why not just rape and murder who ever you want?"

This is what we're dealing with.

Anyway, I think that'll be it for me on this thread.
Jason is so burnt toast. It's really been over for a while now.
He's been kicked 6 ways from Sunday.
It won't be over for him of course.
I have discovered that there is at least one absolute.
Jason will never admit defeat.
That way, he never loses.
So long as he types one more post and ends it with the words:
"Try again moron!"
And the cycle continues.

I never thought that I would meet someone so pitiful, who acted so malicious that I would not not be able to have pity for him.
So pitiful I can not even pity.

I'm signing off for now.
I'll only come back if I ever come across a piece of paper that just won't burn. Then I might have to come back and ask Jason to tell me a little more about this God dude.
But don't hold your breath dupe.
Because,
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.
The paper will always burn.

I dare you God.
Just once.
Make it not burn.
You lamo

JWR:

FYI, the reason Jason evades questions is because that is how he was trained (or trained himself). The tactics of the so-called presuppositionalist apologetics is not to try to convince you that their argument is correct. Quite to the contrary, it is their tactic to use word games to try to trip you up and convince you that your argument is wrong. Hence, he goads you to "try again" while saying as little as possible (at least little of any real substance). It's a strange logic because what it really amounts to is "you're wrong, therefore I must be right."

Jason asks others here to explain how is it possible NOT to believe that the bible is the word of god (and not contradict oneself or something like that)? But at the same time, he refuses to answer how it is possible to believe (and not contradict oneself, etc.). Jason's answer: because god caused him to believe thusly.

Since I cannot see into his head (not that I particularly want to), it seems we cannot really know, but for the sake of argument, I will take him at face value that at least HE believes god caused him to believe (although it was he who said human senses are not reliable...). But he props up such a belief ("bible is the word of god") as an "axiom" beyond proof. The selection of such an axiom (upon which to guide one's understanding of "truth" or "morals" or whatever) seems terribly arbitrary to me, at least no less arbitrary than my "axiom" that the bible is a book written by people who probably (as far as we can tell by reading the text) believed in some notion of god. But I don't know why god has to exist for me to be "moral" or "good"; do Christians claim that all atheists always behave "badly" and all Christians always behave "well"? I doubt it. It seems to me that regardless of faith, sometimes people act selfishly and sometimes altruistically.

In explaining how Jason (and other Christians) came to hold such an axiom, I cannot ask him to prove whether that axiom is true or not. But it seems reasonable to ask why is it that a Christian world-view (and only a Christian world-view) is consistent? He has yet to demonstrate that (1) there are no inconsistencies in the Christian view (beginning with what exactly is meant by "consistency" or "coherence"), and even if I were to concede this point (which I don't, but can let pass for argument's sake for now) that (2) he has examined all other world-views (e.g., Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Hindu, etc.) and found them ALL to be inconsistent.

Jason: "You say, "How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth?""

Umm....no Jason, I didn't. I was quoting you - Jason "Slick Willie" Bradfield, in your original post from Dec 29th.

So now you're a liar as well Jason. Do you enjoy distorting another person's words in yet another attempt to avoid answering straightforward questions that make you uncomfortable? Why can't you simply answer the questions, Jason?

And then...the piece de resistance:

Jason: uuhhh....JWR, when my bladder gets full and starts to hurt, my jimmie is a useful tool to relieve that pressure, but i've never learned any truth from jimmie.
*** What???? What does that have to do with anything?

Jason: "You do see what the problem is here, right? The only reason you see a conflict with what i wrote is because you apparently have a different definition for "truth" than i do.

**** no, Jason, I have a problem when you say (and I quote your original posts again -- those pesky webmasters won't let you wriggle out now will they??

Jason: From our study of these five logical difficulties, it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth.

*** but wait, there's MORE:

Jason: Science is successful when one understands its purpose, and when one understands that false theories sometimes work. Newtonian science, for example, worked for years. It has been replaced by Einstein’s theory. But even though he believed his theory to be a better approximation of the truth than Newton’s, Einstein declared that his own theory was false.

*** I love how you pretend to understand the differences between Newtownian physics and quantum physics....really, Jason, thanks. You should go on the circuit. (Timmy -- how would he do?)

***

And, of course, the coup de grace:

Jason: Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that."

So after the collective 'we' demolish your "5 logical difficulties" (again, your quote, not mine) about science and try to get you to understand our POV....you perform every contortionist trick -- obfuscation, word semantics, avoiding the question -- in the book to avoid answering any questions.

As for abortion...science can help. Do you really think a 3-day old blastocyst has feelings? Has a nervous system? Knows what 'suffering' is? So what's wrong with a morning-after pill? Also, why is it ok for your more militant pals to assassinate doctors (who do have nervous systems, and families, etc.) but not for a woman to abort a 3-day old collection of cells? And why is it ok to try 14-year olds for first-degree murder but not teach them about condoms and birth control pills?

Yet more questions you won't answer...I don't know how you're able to walk around without a backbone.

JWR

I hereby revelate the following truths.

God is truth.
The truth is one.
The truth is the whole.
All is one in the absolute.
God is absolute and unchanging.
God is eternal.

By induction I deduce:
God is one and all and ever more shall be so.
Let God = X

Who am I, what am I?
I am the still center of the passing show.
Things change but I remain the same.
I am one.
I am all that I survey.
I am the whole.
I am absolute and unchanging.
I am eternal.
Let I = Y

By the identity of indiscernibles I deduce:
X = Y

By the grace of good manners I deduce:
I had better shut up about God.

Do so too, blasphemers!

Jason calls people morons and justifies it on the basis of his reading of the bible. People who do not believe are considered sinners. I see this as more of a reflection of his intolerance than necessarily what "god might have meant." So it's his opinion. But then, what is the difference between demeaning people based on the bible and stoning people based on the bible? It is a matter of degree, but the consequences of carrying through with such "logic" is troubling.

Since no one can prove nor disprove any of his assumptions (axioms he calls them), I suggested we look at the consequences of a worldview based on such assumptions. Jason is reluctant and throws up a bunch of technicalities and refuses to engage. The certitude and the flat refusal to see anything wrong with circular reasoning (since it is not formally fallacious, only informally fallacious) is his way to avoid debate. That is fine. I can concede points for the sake of argument, but it's his choice if he will not.

*** Jason, you need not read further as you do not see the distinction between validity of the structure of an argument and validity of the content of an argument. It will be meaningless to you. Most people would find your assertions of "x = y because y = x" meaningless, but if you find it gives meaning to your life, who is to say otherwise? But I am grateful for my conversations with you for introducing me to apologetics and their use of "formal logic". Next time I meet a zealot, I will know where he/she is coming from. ***

While I would not go so far as to say religion is the source of war and many other troubles we have seen historically (continuing to today), I think it is fair to say religion has provided justification in some instances. Crusades in the middle ages were probably spurred on by greed more than anything else, but religion gave it cover (provided "moral" justification). How much did the church care what people like Luther or other reformists really believed, or what what Galileo or Copernicus said? It had consequences for consolidating and/or maintaining political power, and the church throughout history used religion as justification to persecute and kill. It allows people to abdicate responsibility and any sense of decency. And worst of all, argument is suppressed.

One might retort that "responsibility" and "decency" need to be defined first as we might have a different understanding of what it means to be responsible or what it means to be decent. It is a fair point, but only to a certain extent. With regard to what one would "like it to be" (e.g., Christians would interpret it as being based on the bible), yes, there can be debates with more or less plausible arguments from many different quarters (supported by different world-views) as to how we'd define it. However, we cannot ignore the social contract (and what it means to most people in our society today) simply because it is the reality we live in. Just as we have to concede established terminology and move on, if we want to discuss religion and how we as a society deal with religion in public discourse, then we have to accept widely-held societal norms and commonsense ideas like responsibility and decency as a socially constructed reality. How to change such realities is also important, but I will leave it for another day (maybe).

Basically, being responsible is to give full attention to one's various roles at appropriate times. As a parent, as a son/daughter, as a [insert your job here], as a friend,... you have to bring at least as much to the table as you want to take from it. It seems to me reasonable to say that a decent society where people have an incentive to cooperate and create rather than steal and cheat is going to be more prosperous and therefore more "desirable" or "good". Is the society better off (as a result of that world-view), is the question we should ask. (More formally, would society as a whole be better off, AND without any individual being worse off than before?)

My conjecture is that the consequence of world-views that take on unyielding positions and is not open to self-examination is unlikely to achieve the above objective for any society, least of all a pluralistic society (most societies are becoming more so with globalization). So, let's study that by studying the real consequences (e.g., studying political economy of societies now existing and from the past) instead of asserting "monopoly on truth" which gets us nowhere. Religions may fear this because it can draw out uncomfortable conclusions and point toward even more criticism. And rather than confronting these fears head on, some retreat back into "logically valid" tautologies with no content ("believing in god MUST be true because the bible told me so").

Correction: 186,000 miles per second. Which kinda illustrates the point. It's an incomprehensively large number, not within the realm of understanding 5,000 years ago (hell, even today), without a substantial amount of consciousness-raising.

Wouldn't the holy books be more convincing if they actually accurately contained something beyond the understanding of the primitives of the day?

For example, if John 3:12 had stated: "And God made the atom, and 1,738,976,544 vibrations of the cesium atom shall make a second."

But alas, it does not, Jason, just gibberish intended to control you.

" What’s funny though is that most atheist will concur, “yes, we never said science was about absolutes.”

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per hours (300,000 km/hr).

This is an absolute. Every time it has been measured. So I don't know who claimed there are no absolutes, but there absolutely are absolutes.

The problem for our human brains (and it's a much bigger problem for some people, Jason) is that they evolved in a world of relatively slow-moving objects ranging in size from a grain of sand to an elephant, so raising our consciousness to comprehend a photon that can arrive from the moon in a second and a half is tough.

Wrapping our brains around the fact that the light we see from the Andromeda galaxy (and we thought it was merely another star for most of our existence) is 2.3 million years old is a struggle.

But struggle we must. Then something interesting happens. It is not really a struggle, Jason, at some point. Once you get going, it becomes a fun journey, a liberating one, unlearning all of the rigid hooey loaded into your data-processing unit by selfish old fools (priests). But first you have to cut those apron strings. And only you can do that.

Keep trying. Your brain is obviously struggling to break free from its bonds. We've all been watching the struggle over these many posts. It's been both sad and fascinating, but we're hopeful, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and as they say in the garbage business, waste is a terrible thing to mind.

We're rooting for you, buddy.

Jason,

Apparently, circular reasoning is considered a logical fallacy, but not so in the strictest sense, so I stand corrected in that regard. However, I would still point out that it is a fallacy nonetheless. The structure of the argument, no matter how absurd can be made out to be VALID in the strictest logical sense: x = y, because y = x. But if so, you can put in anything as x and y, and it would be a "valid" argument.

Also, I would argue that x = y is not knowledge. You seem to assert that you "know" (or "believe" to be correct) that "the word of god is truth." However, that is not knowledge; it is just a definition you made for yourself. "Truth" is a word (x) and the "word of god" are words, or a phrase (y). x = y is just as logically valid as x = ~y. They cannot both be "true" (and you cannot show either way) but they can both be "false." Knowledge requires the following formulation: "if A then B." But since you reject notions of relationships (e.g., between A and B), and you reject knowledge as being false and fallacious for not being "universal" or logically valid, I will leave you with "valid" but arbitrary statements. After all, since you tell me to become educated on formal logic, you yourself should heed that advice and acknowledge that a logically valid statement provides absolutely no reason to believe its conclusions.

So I thank you for finally acknowledging that your faith is based on circular reasoning. I suppose you can now be "man enough" (chest hair and all) to also acknowledge your assertions of "word of god is truth"-type statements are just your opinions.

I know, I know, you'll say the word of god (= logic) is internally consistent... First of all, logical validity is validity of the structure of the argument, not its content. But you reject content in any meaningful sense (by asserting your tautology to have meaning), so I won't belabor this point. Secondly, I don't really think it's really consistent. Even for someone who no longer reads it, I still remember that in the OT, adulterers are to be stoned to death. But in the NT, Jesus steps in and says in effect, "cool it."

So, this can be one of two things:
1. Jesus has "suspended" god's (his own?) law.
2. Jesus made an exception in one case (maybe she deserved pity, he was being compassionate, or maybe she was "hot").

Either way, if god is logic (i.e., Jesus is logic), god cannot suspend or make exceptions about his own laws?

I know, I know. It is not really suspending his own logic because anything god does is logical by definition. And I suppose "miracles" are not really miracles either, since "physical laws" are meaningless (to you). If it's consistent with god's laws, then miracles are not that wondrous after all. Parted the Red Sea: Ho-hum. Rose from the dead. Ho-hum.

I know, I know: Define "miracle," right?

Around and around and around... one big circle. x = y, y = z, z = a, ...., w = x. Increasingly more vicious circle with each new spin.

Oh so you were stupid enough to have another go at the "good" thing.

Sweeeet!

You are still wrong.

The car analogy does not work because "car" is a noun
We are talking about an adjective "good"

You have only demonstrated that the adjective "good" has a different meaning than the adjective phrase "not good".
Of course it does.
But good means good.

If you would like to demonstrate that the word "good" has a different meaning to you, you need to give the definition of the word good that you have, that differs from the definition that everyone else has. You know. One of those other definitions in your superior dictionary that better describes your definition of the word.

You can not define a word with an analogy. When you look up a word in the dictionary, it does not give you an analogy. It gives you a definition. or several. Is your vocabulary too weak to offer a definition without using an analogy?

I think that when you let go of misleading analogies, (games) and try to give an actual definition of the word "good" that differs from everybody else's definition, you will realize that you actually don't have a different definition.

No analogies Jason. They are your cheap little distraction.
What is your different definition of "good" that differs from the three most common definitions that I gave.

You don't have one.

Try again Moron.

Oh so you were stupid enough to have another go at the "good" thing.

Sweeeet!

You are still wrong.

The car analogy does not work because "car" is a noun
We are talking about an adjective "good"

You have only demonstrated that the adjective "good" has a different meaning than the adjective phrase "not good".
Of course it does.
But good means good.

If you would like to demonstrate that the word "good" has a different meaning to you, you need to give the definition of the word good that you have, that differs from the definition that everyone else has. You know. One of those other definitions in your superior dictionary that better describes your definition of the word.

You can not define a word with an analogy. When you look up a word in the dictionary, it does not give you an analogy. It gives you a definition. or several. Is your vocabulary too weak to offer a definition without using an analogy?

I think that when you let go of misleading analogies, (games) and try to give an actual definition of the word "good" that differs from everybody else's definition, you will realize that you actually don't have a different definition.

No analogies Jason. They are your cheap little distraction.
What is your different definition of "good" that differs from the three most common definitions that I gave.

You don't have one.

Try again Moron.

Jason how many times do I have to crush your argument in one sentence.

Everything that you have said, and everything that Bertrand Russell has said, was arrived at by induction based on observations, that you point our in your first ever post, are unreliable.

If you won't listen to me on this, I will make this point again using the words of Jason Bradfield:
"It is amazing to me that you still don’t get it. No matter how you put it or word it, you are still arguing inductively"

Done.
Your argument is destroyed by your own argument.
Ergo: You and your argument are a paradox.
Done

Now
I noticed that you finally let go your stupid moronic argument that the word "good" is ambiguous. Smart move. Your attempt to show that it was, and the examples that you used to illustrate, show what a weak grip you have on logic. But I know that you were just playing dumb. You really aren't that stupid and we both know it. It is childish that you are not stupid. That is why you play dumb and pretend that the word "good" means different things, to dodge a question. And hope no one will notice. lol.
What a maroon.

There. Two arguments I have you crushed on, because you are a moron and easily swatted like a mosquito.

Now to your big big lie that you keep telling, not just to us, but to yourself.
Jason spews regularly:
"my entire original post was a critical analysis of science as a means to truth"

Really? That was your ENTIRE original post?
A delusional statement from a delusional dupe.

"What’s funny though is that most atheist will concur, “yes, we never said science was about absolutes.” Well, that was my whole point to start with"

Well thank you for being so verbose with a moot point.
But
Really? That was your WHOLE point?
Delusional.
I'm sure that you wish that was your whole point. The moot point.
I'm sure that you wish that was all you said.
I'm sure that you wish that you had not opened up the debate that you opened up with the last paragraph of your original post.

But you just couldn't help yourself.

The insane street rapping evangelist could not resist.
After crushing empiricism with empirical evidence (lol), you had to make the weakest, absolute, empirical statement imaginable.

Rappin yappin Jason Bradfield the ultimate empiricist said:

"Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that."

Poor poor pathetic Jason the dupe.

First duped by Christian leaders preying on the weak minded.

Then duped by Guys like Robbins into believing that if he studied the books and papers that they told him to study, and memorized the arguments in them, then he would never again have to lose an argument to god damn empiricist atheists who are so smug because the overwhelming majority of intellectuals are atheists.

Poor poor pathetic Jason the dupe.

Actually Jason, you do never have to lose an argument with anyone.
But you didn't have to go through all of that trouble of reading those books and papers. That was a waste of your time.
You already knew how to never lose an argument.
It's something you've done your whole adult.

Simply, never never, and I mean never, admit that you are wrong. It's that simple. Never admit that you are wrong, and you will never lose an argument.

This is the only thing that you have done successfully, and ever so childishly over and over again on this thread.

God is truth = Jason Bradfield is a delusional duped dupe.

Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.
Try again Moron.

These were all cut and pasted from your previous moronic posts.

Try again Moron.

JWR,

My gosh man...you make this too easy.

You say, "How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth?"

lol...i've got to somehow figure out how to incorporate moron into your name now.

uuuhhh....JWR, when my bladder gets full and starts to hurt, my jimmie is a useful tool to relieve that pressure, but i've never learned any truth from jimmie.

You do see what the problem is here, right? The only reason you see a conflict with what i wrote is because you apparently have a different definition for "truth" than i do.

Burning newspapers to keep warm can be useful but it doesn't explain to me how i should respond to abortion.

I would ask you to define "truth" but heaven forbid we do anything irrational as that.

this is really getting boring.

Timmy the Moron…he bores on with no good….

In my analogy Timmy the Moron, you don’t agree that my Buick is a car. Hence, the need for definition. The point of the analogy was not to address two people agreeing, but two people disagreeing and getting to the root of the disagreement. You are the one creating a straw man because you rewrote the analogy. Furthermore, I could even take it a step further and point out that it is certainly possible that a person may agree that my Buick is a “car”, but for the wrong reason. Suppose you grew up being told that anything with four doors is a “car”. This is a false definition, yet, when I point to my Buick Sedan and asked, “is that a car?”, you would say, “yes” based on it having four doors.

Again, the only reason I’m creating these analogies is to emphasize the need for people to define their terms. If I don’t know what you mean, than how can I interact with you?

Secondly, your little attempt at defining “good” actually proves my point.

You are defining “good” as:

"To be desired or approved of"
"Pleasing, or welcome"
"Expressing approval"

Yet, I find these definitions pitiful and lacking and therefore I would not be in agreement with you if this is how you define “good”.

If this is what “good” means then Hitler was a “good” person. You may not have “approved” of him, but a whole host of people certainly did and were very “pleased” with him.

It’s interesting too that you only pick three out the many options that even a crappy dictionary like Websters give.

One is “true”. Another is “conforming to a standard”. In fact, my 1828 Noah Webster dictionary actually gives 40 different definitions!

And you say, “The word good is not ambiguous one tiny scrap.”

Ha!

Gee, makes me wonder if you know what “ambiguous” means. The 1828 says, “having two or more meanings.”

You say, “But who am I to make a law against what a woman can do with her body? I have my own morals. But I have no moral authority. Do you have moral authority?”

1. uhhh. Timmy, I don’t know if you have stepped outside lately but we do have people over us (government) creating/enforcing laws. Somebody has to do it. Furthermore, who says a woman can do whatever the heck she pleases with the other person in her womb? Oh, that’s right, thanks to “science” we don’t call that a “person” anymore, but a “fetus”. My bad.

2. You have no moral authority?!? HA! The heck you don’t. He’s called “Timmy”. And sadly, he’s a “moron”.

Jason,

** Here's the verbatim (repeat, verbatim) quote from your original post:
-------
Jason: "Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that."
---
*** And then (pause for effect) I quote your last post:
--
Jason: "Show me one time where I have said that science, in and of itself, is not useful. I NEVER SAID THAT!! If you were more honest, you would stop putting words in my mouth..."
---

Well gee, Jason, silly old me (and the rest of us) took you at your word when you said (see above) "science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth" and that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth". Do you deny that you made those statements, Jason? How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth? And when you say that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth" I assume you can provide evidence of the Noah story...and that you can defend the odious sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy discussed earlier and that you therefore support stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals simply for being homosexual etc.... And then you spend the next 5000 words trying to prove to the rest of us how 'Clarkian Presuppositions" and the "law of induction" prove all science false, and the Bible true...and yet you have not a shred of scientific training to back you up. Then, when we collectively DESTROY your arguments and expose your utter ignorance of all things scientific, you claim not to have said the things you said? And you refuse to extend the courtesy of answering our questions when we have taken the time to answer yours?

I think I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt my willingness to engage in an honest debate...and you, Jason, you have proven to everyone that tries to engage you in honest debate that you will go to any length, twist any word, haggle over semantics, go off on any tangent, or use any excuse (like the one above that I "don't know what this debate is about -- pretty inventive, Jason -- Slick Willie would be proud of you for that one) to avoid giving an honest and straightforward answer to simple questions. And you think I'm going to fall for your con game of asking for a written debate -- what do you think we're doing here, knitting?

JWR

Jason,

** Here's the verbatim (repeat, verbatim) quote from your original post:
-------
Jason: "Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that."
---
*** And then (pause for effect) I quote your last post:
--
Jason: "Show me one time where I have said that science, in and of itself, is not useful. I NEVER SAID THAT!! If you were more honest, you would stop putting words in my mouth..."
---

Well gee, Jason, silly old me (and the rest of us) took you at your word when you said (see above) "science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth" and that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth". Do you deny that you made those statements, Jason? How can science be useful if it is never to be seen as a means of learning truth? And when you say that "the Bible has a monopoly on truth" I assume you can provide evidence of the Noah story...and that you can defend the odious sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy discussed earlier and that you therefore support stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals simply for being homosexual etc.... And then you spend the next 5000 words trying to prove to the rest of us how 'Clarkian Presuppositions" and the "law of induction" prove all science false, and the Bible true...and yet you have not a shred of scientific training to back you up. Then, when we collectively DESTROY your arguments and expose your utter ignorance of all things scientific, you claim not to have said the things you said? And you refuse to extend the courtesy of answering our questions when we have taken the time to answer yours?

I think I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt my willingness to engage in an honest debate...and you, Jason, you have proven to everyone that tries to engage you in honest debate that you will go to any length, twist any word, haggle over semantics, go off on any tangent, or use any excuse (like the one above that I "don't know what this debate is about -- pretty inventive, Jason -- Slick Willie would be proud of you for that one) to avoid giving an honest and straightforward answer to simple questions. And you think I'm going to fall for your con game of asking for a written debate -- what do you think we're doing here, knitting?

JWR

Puzzled says, “If you can demonstrate that "the word of god is truth" and "it is the truth because the word of god says so" is not an instance of circular reasoning, and therefore show that this is not logical fallacy, then we can talk about "good".”

1. Neither one of those statements are the axiom I begin with.

2. Even if that was my argument, as I have already pointed out, circular reasoning is NOT a formal fallacy. Puzzled, keep saying that long enough and maybe it will become true and all the deductive logic books will re-write themselves. ::rollseyes:: AGAIN Puzzled, petitio principii is a VALID argument, because the conclusion follows from the premises by strict logic. Read any decent formal logic book and they will tell you this.

keep trying.

Jwr,

Funny that you criticize me for quoting someone as you search for your college physics book. And it is funny that you criticize me for not critically evaluating things though my entire original post was a critical analysis of science as a means to truth. The problem that you really have with me is not that I don’t think or that I don’t question things…the problem you have with me is that I question the very things you are dogmatic on…like when I questioned Timmy the Moron’s assertion that paper will always burn. He was the one dogmatic about that, not me. And I’m not dogmatic about issues like that for a very simple, logical reason: the problem of induction. It is amazing to me that you still don’t get it. No matter how you put it or word it, you are still arguing inductively. You can word the scientific method any way you want, it is still inductive reasoning. And you cannot arrive at absolutes inductively. What’s funny though is that most atheist will concur, “yes, we never said science was about absolutes.” Well, that was my whole point to start with so I don’t know why atheists then have a problem with the remarks about inductive reasoning and absolutes. It’s like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

You say, “So where are the fallacious arguments that, with your galactic insight as to the mind and thoughts of the Creator, you have to disprove the laws of gravitation?.....”

You still don’t get it. I don’t have to disprove it because scientists have never proven it to begin with. Prove the law of gravitation without committing inductive reasoning and then you’ve done something.

You ignorantly say, “More importantly, why did our Creator endow us with intelligence and brains if we should not use them to explore the world around us and to engage in scientific inquiry? Surely, you're not afraid to answer the question, right? Jason? “

JWR, I have ignored questions like these because they imply things that I have never said and don’t believe. I don’t know how many times I have to point this out. It was in my original post:
“Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more.”

See, this is where the rub really is. Show me one time where I have said that science, in and of itself, is not useful. I NEVER SAID THAT!! If you were more honest, you would stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge that the part you don’t like is the “nothing more” part. Perhaps you need to skip looking for the physics book and find Hook on Phonics or something.

I’m not answering your questions because you still don’t understand what the debate is about. This is the reason I want to do a formal written debate where things are laid out nice and neat from the beginning and we can follow trains of thought.
But oh well, you’re too busy…though you seem to find time to type a 100 questions.

I don't have any Jesus quotes handy to me righht now, but I know that Jason has quoted Jesus himself to have made many an intolerant statement. Jason gave us these quotes to justify his own intolerant statements, like calling us all morons from the very start of this thread.
So it's all fair when debating someone who would quote Jesus in such a way. But Jason takes the Bible literally and admits it.
You Anon, take the Bible like a Nancy Drew mystery so you and Jason are not the same at all. And yet..... lol

And I stand by it.
Any individual who claims moral authority is neither open or tolerant.
They are abhorrent to me.

Do you claim moral authority for yourself or the church or the Bible Anon?

self-described loving moral open tolerant tim says:

"It makes you abhorent to me."

I agree with you Jason. It is simple. So why don't you get it?

If you pointed at you car and said, "it is a car", I would agree with you. because it is a car. We have the same definition of this noun.
So we'll have to toss out this straw man portion of your argument, and stick with the good, not good abortion thing.

If we work from the first three dictionary definitions of "good", which are:
"To be desired or approved of"
"Pleasing, or welcome"
"Expressing approval"

If Jane Doe looks at her abortion and says that is a good thing.
She means that her abortion is desired, and approved of, by her.
She means that her abortion is pleasing, or welcome, to her.
She is expressing her approval of her abortion.

If you say it is NOT a good thing.
You mean that her abortion is NOT desired and approved of.
You mean that her abortion is NOT not pleasing or welcome.
You are expressing DISapproval of her abortion.

Your definition for the word "good" is identical to hers.
You just disagree on wether or not abortion is a "good" thing.

The word good is not ambiguous one tiny scrap.

I know you're not that stupid Jason.
Why are you playing stupid?

By the way, I agree with you. I think that abortion is not a good thing. I think that botox injections are not a good thing. I think that lypo-suction is not a good thing. I think that clitoris piercing is not a good thing.
But who am I to make a law against what a woman can do with her body? I have my own morals. But I have no moral authority.

Do you have moral authority?

I know your answer. It makes you abhorent to me.
It is not a good thing to me.

Please don't tell me that you need a definition of "good" from me.
We've been through that haven't we?

Jason, you're strangely silent...so unlike you. I answered your final 2 issues....but you still can't answer even a single question put to you straightforwardly. And you want a debate?

Game, set, and match to the infidels...

JWR

Jason, for someone who keeps going on about logical fallacy, you cannot even answer the question of whether you are not engaging in logical fallacy yourself. Your "logic" goes around in circles. If you can demonstrate that "the word of god is truth" and "it is the truth because the word of god says so" is not an instance of circular reasoning, and therefore show that this is not logical fallacy, then we can talk about "good".

Once you stop your circular reasoning, perhaps it will be possible to talk about morality or social justice or whatever "good" means as far as describing how we live our lives. But if you cannot tell me how you're not spinning your wheels, what use is it to define any word? You'll just say the word will mean whatever you want it to mean (because you say so).

Please address the above issue first, then sure, we can even talk about such issues like abortions or whatever. After you answer the above question, maybe you can tell me what biblical justification is there for saying abortion is murder? And, are ALL abortions bad? Even some pro-lifers disagree on some points, so it is not as clear-cut as you'd like.

dang, took a break, logged in tonight hoping to see some definitions....nothing.

yawnnnn....booorrriiinnnnggg.

Timmy,

If i pointed to my 1997 Buick LeSabre Sedan and asked you, "Like my car?" and you replied, "That's not a car", guess what my next question to you will be?

"Timmy, what then do you think a "car" is?"

See what just happened? I said it IS a car...you said it is NOT a car. This contradiction between you and I occurred because we are apparently operating with different definitions of what a "car" is.

If Jane Doe looks at her abortion and says, "that was a good thing" and I look at it and say, "that was not a good thing", then apparently Jane and I don't agree on what "good" means.

If you're going to ask me a question about whether or not something is "good", I'd like to know (especially since you deny any form of dogmatism), what you mean by "good" before i answer the question. It's just that simple.

I'm not going to assume anything.

Puzzled, if you don't want to have a MEANINGful conversation, then i'm not interested in playing your games.

Call it scared. Call it whatever the heck you want. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

My apologies to JB and others: my "fun proof" that the Bible is not the Word of God omitted five instances of the word "necessarily": four before the respective appearances of "false" in the last four sentences of the Preliminaries and one before "false" in the statement of Corollary 1. To clarify, a statement is necessary false when it is false under all admissible interpretations, and an interpretation is admissible when it assigns the correct entities from the relevant ontology to the denoting terms in the statement. As you see, all rather "anal" for an online forum. But if this blog is to be googled for eternity, I should tidy up my logic.

Actually there was an interesting documentary on the Discovery Channel sometime back about that. There actually was a flood, but of course not of the magnitude as in the bible but a local flooding just like we see these days every once in a while. A merchant (or was it a farmer or shepherd, I cannot recall) tied his boats/rafts together and saved his family and livestock but ended up far away from his original home and settled there. It was pieced together from historical documents and archaeological evidence.

Many of the stories in the bible have some basis on facts but was probably interpreted (and "glorified," i.e., somebody took a lot of literary license) in a favorable way to a particular set of beliefs, consistent with the view that the bible is just a long confession of faith by a series of authors.

Or another example is "Elohim" (Hebrew signifying god or divinity) which is related to "El" the leader of a pantheon of gods in ancient Mesopotamia. It may have been that integration (by warfare, marriage, etc.) of nomadic peoples in ancient Middle East led to (or more likely, was needed for) such combinations of gods and concepts of divinity coming about, just like many local pagan (shaman) traditions (harvest festivals, winter festivals, etc.) have been co-opted by Christianity throughout history as it slowly gained dominance.

JRW:

I often skip over long posts, but yours was a gem and I read it all.

"So...was there a flood that covered the surface of
the earth including Mount Everest? Did an ancient mariner build a ship large enough to hold an example of every animal on earth, strong enough to survive a storm that was of such intensity as to cover the earth with water?"

Ah, the Noah myth. And consider the other side of the coin. Most think this is a charming story -- all those children's books with elephants marching up the plank, followed by bears, et al. -- without considering what actually happened.

God -- Jason's God -- destroyed all of humanity, except Noah and his kin -- in one fell swoop. All of them, men, women, children, died the particularly nasty death of drowning. So, too, all of the animals who didn't get Noah's limited seating on his ark.

Jason, who can take this particular god and shove him up your...

Not true Anony,

One does not need to be a fundamentalist to receive criticism from us.
One just needs to believe that God is the creator of the universe and a deity.

"...religious people are reduced to falling back on simply repeating their mantras."

Odd, my observation is the exact opposite. Atheists are primed to attack fundamentalism, and when you point out that in fact most Christians aren't fundamentalists, they charge right ahead anyway, making no sense.

Thank you, atheist JB, for that very reasonable post. Your alter ego should read some more formal logic, including truth theory.

Mantra: Truth and love will always prevail.

"It is no coincidence, some social scientists believe, that youngsters begin learning about faith around the time they begin to give up on wishing. “The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer,” said Jacqueline Woolley, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas. “The mechanism is already there, kids have already spent time believing that wishing can make things come true, and they’re just losing faith in the efficacy of that.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/psychology/23magic.html?em&ex=1169701200&en=776327ed8ba33d26&ei=5087%0A

I was just googling my name and was pretty surprised to see it pop up all over here, especially considering I am an atheist. Apparently, I share my name with another Jason Bradfield who is most definitely not an atheist.

I actually posted in the comments of an "On Faith" article before, but thought I did it anonymously - thus my surprise when I see all of these Jason Bradfield posts making tendentious arguments against atheism.

At first I thought I may have posted these pro-Christian arguments in a drunken or drug-induced stupor, but alas, I haven't been drunk in years and I have never done drugs (except, of course, at all those atheist conventions where we get together and engage in drug-induced orgies while sacrificing babies to Satan). Also, even if I were drunk or high I would hope that my mind would not be so blinded from reality as to make some of the arguments my fellow Jason Bradfield has made. Statements that were quite nicely beaten down by the more active atheist commenters.

Then I figured this must be the Jason Bradfield who is into Preterism. For the last few years, people have googled my name and asked me what the Hell Preterism is and I would always have to tell them that's some other Jason Bradfield, and that I would never be into something like Preterism, which just sounds bad, even though I have no idea what it is.

Now, I suppose I will have to warn anyone who googles my name that I am most definitely NOT the religious fellow who posts on "On Faith."

On a final note, I'd like to say that whenever I read one of these articles in the On Faith series I am almost always inclined to comment. However, as I read the comments I see that a fellow atheist has beat me to the punch and ripped the theist argument to shreds. It's almost comical how quickly flaws in theistic arguments are highlighted here and eventually the religious people are reduced to falling back on simply repeating their mantras.

Jason...

Just so you know, I included the dinosaurs in the ark along with the other creatures of the world (goodness, how did I forget about mastadons and saber-tooth tigers?) since, by your reasoning, the world is only 6000 or so years old...never mind all those scientists who can prove through radioactive dating that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old or that a meteor hit the earth nearly 65 million years ago to wipe out the dinosaurs.

Can't wait to see what excuse you're going to invent this time to avoid answering my questions now that I've finished answering the original "Jason 5" priceless posts...of course, this is after several others have attempted to invite you into an honest debate, only to have you either twist the meaning of words, go off on tangents about the meaning of the word 'good'; ramble on about yet another 'presuppositionalism' text....you're pretty inventive when it comes to dodging hard questions, Jason. Have you been taking lessons from the Clintons? I don't think Slick Willie has too much on you, brother...

Care to take a stab at that Noah story?

JWR

JWR

Jason,

Reading over some of your comments again, lest I put word in your mouth, I thought it strange that you'd say that I did not answer the address the question of logical fallacy.

I think I demonstrated, using your own words (see my last two posts) that your belief was indeed circular reasoning. But just to be clear, here is a short version:

If you assert that "the bible is the word of god," and the reason that you believe it is the word of god is "because the word of god caused you to believe it," well, how is this not an example of circular reasoning? Circular reasoning is one instance of a logical fallacy. You base your world view on circular reasoning. Therefore you are committing a logical fallacy.

I look forward to the absurdities that you will assert (based on the bible again) to bend your own "logic" to fit your initial assertion.

Ok, Jason....time to demolish your other two
posts...but remember -- you asked for it. (To be
fair, Dr. Allen on the 30th of December refuted
your post already and rather eloquently I might
add, but still, here we are....) It also
interesting to note that you somehow have
swallowed this 'Clarkian presuppositionalism"
hook, line, and sinker...but you are still
strangely opposed to science. I notice you never
did answer my question about whether or not you
took any science classes...even in junior high.
Why are you afraid to answer the questions Jason?
Don't you have any independent thoughts?

Let's start with the..."All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent." where you state the following:

*** begin Jason Bradfield argument ***
In the laboratory scientists work with a
hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: "If
bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then
this bread will nourish me." The scientist then
attempts to deduce the predicted results that
should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as
"this bread nourishes me." He then performs an
experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the
predicted results occur. So he sits down at the
table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders,
the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he
concludes, is confirmed: "This bread is a stone
and stones are nourishing." Silly you say? Yes!
Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not
"fundamentally different from the argument upon
which all scientific laws are based." That is to
say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious
arguments.
********end Jason Bradfield argument ******

Jason, it is crystal clear to me that you haven't
the slightest idea how scientists or engineers go
about their business. An actual scientist would
test the hypothesis that stones are nourishing by
performing experiments. When the experiments
showed that stones weren't nourishing, the
hypothesis is declared to be invalid. One could
also perform chemical analyses by nutritional
experts and/or certified chemists to advance the
hypothesis that stones weren't nourishing....and
then once it was confirmed...ad infinitum.
Actually, Jason, science works exactly the
opposite of what you describe. People actively
look for ways to disprove hypotheses; it's only
when it's clear that a hypothesis has held up
against experimental data and peer-review that it
is advanced to the general realm of accepted
proof. Over time, as more and more evidence for a hypothesis is built up, it becomes an accepted
theory -- again, in the scientific sense of the
word -- and finally a scientific law. During all
this time, all it would take would be one genuine
example of experimental proof to disprove the
hypothesis and send everyone back to the drawing
board. For instance, the law of gravitation is a
quantitative statement that the gravitational
force between any two bodies is directly
proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely proportional to the distance between
them. This law was conceived of, the equations
derived (I don't have my college physics book
handy, alas) and centuries of experimentation have confirmed this. (By the way....why wasn't this mentioned in the Bible...along with a cure for cancer? Why are you afraid to answer the questions Jason?) However, if an experiment could be performed that would conclusively prove that the Law of Gravity does not hold, then it would no longer be an accepted scientific law; the same
with the Laws of Motion. Do you apply the same
standards to the Bible, Jason? Of course not;
here's the quote from you (and I notice you used
someone else's thoughts -- by the way, who is
Robbins? Surely not Tony Robbins?) Don't you have
any independent thoughts?

"But science is never to be seen as a means of
learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures
alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is
God’s Word that must be believed, not the
experiments of men. As Robbins has said: "Science
is false, and must always be false. Scripture is
true and must always be true. The issue is as
clear, and as simple, as that."

Wait a minute, Jason, are we not to believe in the Law of Gravity or the Laws of Motion or
Thermodynamics? You say (and I quote) "...all
scientific laws are based on fallacious
arguments." Oh really? So where are the
fallacious arguments that, with your galactic
insight as to the mind and thoughts of the
Creator, you have to disprove the laws of
gravitation? The laws of motion? The laws of
electromagnetics? By the way -- where does the
Bible discuss thermodynamics or advanced calculus
or differential equations?

More importantly, why did our Creator endow us
with intelligence and brains if we should not use
them to explore the world around us and to engage
in scientific inquiry? Surely, you're not afraid
to answer the question, right? Jason?
************************************************

Now let's turn our attention to gem #3:
*** begin Jason argument ***
(3) Science commits the fallacy of induction.
Induction is the attempt to derive a general law
from particular instances. Science is necessarily
inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements.

*** end Jason Bradfield argument ***

Jason...science uses EXPERIMENTS (easily
repeatable, peer-reviewed experiments that can be
independently confirmed) and insights derived from years of study to BEGIN with a hypothesis. Then you advance to a theory, and finally to a 'Law'. (All these using their scientific definitions, not their usage in layman's terms.)

As an example, I give you the brief phenomenon of
'cold fusion'. Of course, fusion is the process
which powers the stars (and thermonuclear weapons) in which two Hydrogen atoms are fused together to form a Helium atom, releasing energy in the form of heat, radiaton, and light. Easy to do when you have the conditions present at the core of the sun; not so easy here on earth. Well, a couple scientists a few years back CLAIMED to have perfected cold fusion in the laboratory.
Multitudes of huzzahs followed -- at last, the
energy crisis resolved. Alas, it all fell apart
after reputable scientists weighed in and were
UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE REPORTED RESULTS. See also perpetual-motion machines and other
'too-good-to-be-true' inventions -- if they are
real, then they should be able to be duplicated
under similar conditions elsewhere.

To use your example above, a biologist might
observe 999 crows, all black, and state the
hypothesis that all crows are black. However,
when another biologist came along with proof of a
non-black crow, then the hypothesis would be
destroyed -- or revised to say most crows are
black. See how the scientific method works?
------------------------------------------------

Now, care to explain your reasoning in quoting
Robbins (?) statement that "Science is false, and
must always be false. Scripture is true and must
always be true."

So...was there a flood that covered the surface of
the earth including Mount Everest? Did an ancient mariner build a ship large enough to hold an example of every animal on earth, strong enough to survive a storm that was of such intensity as to cover the earth with water? It would be impossible to do this with a modern aircraft carrier...(By the way...where did the water drain off to? If the earth was covered with water, there would be no way for the water to drain, right? Water flows downhill...but there would be no downhill with no land, right? So did the sun become super-intense to evaporate the water?) How did Noah keep the T-Rex's from the Brontosauruses? How did he keep the T-Rex's fed? How did Noah keep the velociraptors away from the sheep? What did he do with all the manure? How did he keep the polar bears cold and the toucans warm? How did he keep the crocodiles and alligators in an aquatic environment? How did he keep the King Cobras apart from the black mambas away from the eastern diamondbacks away from the king snakes? How did he keep the anacondas fed? How did he get the animals to line up two by two to come up the gangplank? Did he have to keep the carnivores away from the herbivores? Did he and his sons (I presume the daughters and wives were knitting and baking and doing other subservient tasks) just let the grizzly bears walk aboard while trusting them not to attack? How about the T-rex's and velociraptors -- would you trust a T-rex? How did he keep the bald eagles caged? Did he have to reinforce the elephant and rhino cages? How about the dinosaur cages? How did the plants survive after the water magically evaporated away after being suffocated (no carbon
dioxide) for 40 days. If Noah and his sons and
their wives were all that were on the ship, and
everyone else died....what happened after they got off the ship? What did they eat, since all the plants had died? What did the herbivores eat,
since all the plants had died? How did all the
carnivores survive once all their prey died off?
Did the grandsons and granddaughters of Noah have
to 'intermingle' to keep the earth populated? If
not, where did the other people come from?
(Similarly...how did Cain marry outside of the
family?)

Shall I continue?

Again, we fall back on the fundamental question,
Jason -- why did our Creator endow us with
intelligence and brains if we should not use them
to explore the world around us and to engage in
scientific inquiry? Why wouldn't He want us to
explore the universe He designed? And, as
mentioned in an earlier post (another question you ignored, Jason -- notice a common theme emerging?) why is simple 'belief' all that is required? If 'belief' is enough, and the consequences of non-belief (i.e. eternal damnation) are so terrible, then why not reappear now, in the 21st century, with modern and instantanous communications, and remove all doubt? Why not go direct to the masses? Why do we need interpreters of His word? I'm an educated adult -- why do I need a priest or bishop or the Pope or an imam to interpret the Word for me? Isn't it a better use of the gift He has given us to use it for honest inquiries into how the natural universe works...and also into the nature of our being? If He designed us to be inquisitive, then aren't we fulfilling His divine desires by acting as thinking, rational beings? Why would he give me the gift to be able to supervise the operations of a modern nuclear power plant and to be able to run a modern naval warship...but then I'm supposed to unquestionably accept the exhortations of the Falwells and Robertsons and Dobsons and Mullah Omars and the Catholic child molestors and their ilk on what the Intentions of the Creator are? To quote Ron White -- I don't think so, Scooter. Didn't those boys at Iwo Jima and Normandy die fighting for the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution....and aren't those extremists arguing for America to turn into a "Christian" nation dishonoring their sacrifices by trying to turn our country into a theocracy? Seems to me you'd rather everyone stay as sheep, and not question -- life is safer for you that way, right? Hate to be the one to break it to you, Jason, but it doesn't work that way. However, if you want to live in a fundamentalist state, feel free to move to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia...

Don't you enjoy freedom of speech and engaging
with people that think for themselves? (and aren't you enjoying modern central heating, electricity, automobiles, mobile phones, and other products of scientific inquiry?) I await your reasoned, erudite responses with renewed enthusiasm.

JWR

P.S. "I knew a man once that said 'Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.'"

P.P.S. "Get busy living, or get busy dying. That's goddamn right."

I would like to start a collection, to pay for the best psychotherapist money can buy, for Jason's kids. We have some time. It won't be of any use anyway until they leave the nest.

And by the way, I hope nobody is buying into this idea that you have to prove Jason's induction theory wrong before you can criticize religion. His question is not valid because it is a paradox. I can't solve it. Nobody can. But watch this.

God doesn't exist.
Religion is a wicked scourge on our world that Jason's children's great grand children will read about in the history books.
Jason is a duped dupe.
Paper burns in fire. Every bloody time.

See?
I didn't even give Jason's paradox the time of day, and yet I criticize away at my liesure. I am both right, and righteous, to say what I say. I can and will continue to say these things. And Jason will still be here, trying to get people to answer his paradox. You know, the one where he bases his entire argument on the empirical observations of an atheist moron.

Religion sucks, and it is a completely irrational world view for the gullible.

The fastest growing demographic in the world used to be muslims. It just recently became "non religious"
It will remain, "non religious" for ever more.
It's true.
I am certain of it.
It is absolute truth.

See?
No need answer induction questions. Especially if they are from a walking talking paradox.

If you answer the first part of the question I've put to you, then I will answer your question of what I mean by "good".

You conveniently ignored the first part of my post and set your sight on the "definitions word game" you are so fond of. In my previous post, I just substituted a few words for bread, stone, and nourishment in the statement you made up or copied from somewhere to show an absurd set of statements. It's funny as it comes out like something you might say but I wanted confirmation. Is that consistent with what you believe? And is it logically fallacious or not?

I find it interesting how you call others absurd and then do the same thing. You interpret Andy's post as saying that "the bible is not the word of god because Andy says so," yet hold to your position saying the bible is the word of god because you say so (God "caused" you to believe so... same thing, just projecting your thoughts to someone or something else).

Anyway, if you continue to avoid the question I will just assume it's too uncomfortable for you and will not press you on it anymore.

Jason if one person thinks that abortion is good, and another thinks that abortion is not good, they still both have the same definition of the word good.
It is the act of abortion that they disagree on, not the definition of the word. The definition of the word "good" is the same for both people.

I know you're not dumb.
So I know that you are acting dumb to avoid a question.

Andy, Andy, Andy…my certified moron. Hereafter, referred to as Andy Moross. I almost did not catch your latest because apparently you and I were typing at the same time and you hit send before I did. However, I’m glad I caught it. Posts like yours make my point better than I do half the time. They have also been an encouragement to my wife. Today she expressed some anxiety over whether or not our homeschooled children are at the same stage of development as public schooled kids their ages. Of course, I’m not worried a bit. In twelve years of public school, I was never offered Latin, Greek, German, etc. as alternatives nor was I ever offered a course in formal logic. In public school, I was taught evolution but rarely from sources other then our ridiculous “science” books. Our tract however will require our children to actually read “The Origin of Species”. So much for all this baloney that Christians don’t expose their children to different works and analyze them. At any rate, your post was an encouragement to her because if that is what passes as “knowledge” now-a-days, then my seven year old is already in great shape.

Sidenote: Let it be known that Andy Moross has failed in meeting my first challenge to him. In light of the “certified logician” stating that we can take or leave the law of contradiction, I asked Andy to write a meaningful post without using the law of contradiction. He has not. He has not come even close.

However, lest I be charge with ignoring his “fun proof”, I will now address it despite Andy Moross’ failure to meet the challenge.

As a little review, I want to remind our readers what I asked Puzzled to demonstrate. Given the axiom, “the Bible is the Word of God”, I asked Puzzled to demonstrate how this axiom would lead to fallacious thinking. And of course, Puzzled makes no attempt. Instead, he steers the conversation away wanting to talk about whether or not I truly follow Jesus’ commands. But Andy Moross gives it a shot! Not only does Andy Moross fail to demonstrate the “logical fallacy”, but with a simple “substitution of values” and using his own argument, his post defeats itself and once again reveals the complete nonsense of trying to construct of worldview from empiricism – which has been my point all along.

First, a word needs to be said about Andy Moross’ preliminaries.

Andy says, “An axiom is an assertion from which truths may be derived by valid reasoning” and “Reasoning is valid when it never leads from true premises to false conclusions.”

Although these statements seem to be legit, I’m hesitant in accepting them because I’m not sure what Andy means by “true”. So, let me offer a more precise and less ambiguous definition for “valid” reasoning.

Deductive logic is not so much interested in the truth or falsity of propositions as much as it is interested in the truth or falsity of the FORM of arguments. For example, if I said, “All men whose first name are Andy are black. Andy Ross, therefore, is black.” In this case, the conclusion is a valid, logical argument. Andy Ross is included in the all. And if all Andy’s are black, then Andy Ross is black. However, “All men whose first name are Andy are black” is a false statement. So here we have a valid, logically sound deduction using a false premise.

It is therefore more precise and accurate to say that an inference is valid if the FORM of the conclusion is true every time the forms of the premises are. Whether Andy uses the word “true” as referring to the FORM of the propositions or the actual content of propositions themselves is not clear, especially when he says this:

“By substitution of values for P, a contradiction is true if and only if it is false.”

How can something be true and not-true at the same time and in the same sense? It can’t. So what does Andy mean here? Who knows? Now, I could assume the “obvious” in thinking that surely Andy is not so flagrant in stating a clear contradiction; however, considering the fact that Andy has said before concerning the law of contradiction that we can “take it or leave it”…I’m not giving him the benefit of doubt. He needs to clearly define some terms here.

Furthermore, he says, “From a false assertion any statement at all may be derived, including a contradiction.”

This doesn’t make any sense. How can “any statement at all” be deduced from the assertion that “Andy Ross is black”? This false statement, for example, tells me nothing about Jason Bradfield or Timmy the Moron or Puzzled; therefore, how could I derive “any statement at all” from this one? Also, how can a contradiction be deduced from this statement? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It is simply not possible to get “Andy Ross is not black” from the statement “Andy Ross is black.”

These observations would be enough to not take Andy’s post seriously, but I’m bored so I’ll continue.

Another problem that I have with his post is that Andy defines the “Bible” as pages with black markings on them, bound together and carried in your hand. This is not, however, what I am referring to in my axiom; therefore the whole thrust of his argument is useless. Instead of analyzing my actual definitions, he forces his own on me and argues against that. He does also with his fact #3.

“3. The meaning of a word or statement is determined by its usage in a community.*”

My worldview has nothing to do with Wittgenstein. Again, instead of actually critiquing my worldview from within and demonstrating the inconsistencies (which was what I asked of Puzzled in the first place), Andy forces philosophical ideas I do not adhere to into the argument and argues from there. And not only does this argument fail because of that, if fact #3 is true, it actually defeats Andy’s own words.

Instead of the “Bible” for X, let’s substitute it for the “words of Andy” - referring to his so-called argument against my axiom- and plug this into his own argument.

If “the meaning of a word or statement is determined by its usage in a community”, then “by fact 3, the meaning of the words in X is determined by usage in a community. So X is not absolute.”

The argument from Andy is not absolute…so much for refutation.

And of course, this points out again the complaint I have already expressed with Andy and Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein, if consistently followed, leads to complete skepticism. Andy’s point 3 is just another way of saying: There are no absolutes.

But of course, neither he nor Puzzled or any other empiricists here really have the balls to follow this out consistently. Instead, they parade around as “certified logicians” and work up a “fun proof”, supposedly to show off their intellect, when in actuality they are complete morons and gutless.

Lastly, if that was not enough, Andy’s corollary 1 is another joke.

He says, “By the definitions and the theorem, axiom A is false.”

What does he mean by “the definitions”, “theorem” and “axiom A”?

“Definitions
Let axiom A be the statement "The Bible is the word of God"
Let object X be the Bible, and let object Y be the word of God.
By these definitions, A says that X is Y.”

So, in summary, “The Bible is the word of God" says that "The Bible is the word of God".

His theorem: “X is not Y” or to put it another way, “the Bible is not the Word of God.”

So, in essence, all that his corollary 1 is stating is:

“By the definitions (the Bible is the Word of God) and the theorem (the Bible is not the word of God), axiom A (the Bible is the Word of God) is false.”

In other words, the reason the Bible is not the word of God is simply because Andy says it’s not – or – perhaps this is just another way of saying, “From a false assertion any statement at all may be derived, including a contradiction”, whatever the heck that means.

Thanks again certified moron. And my wife thanks you as well.

Puzzled,

You're a joke. It is perfectly reasonable to ask people for definitions considering the fact that "good" has been used differently from people.

Some people, for example, think that abortion is a "good" thing. Some consider it "not a good" thing. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask how "good" is being defined. Abortion cannot be both a "good" thing and not a "good" thing at the same time and in the same sense.

Leave it up to a moron though to leave things ambiguous. Your worldview thrives in it - perhaps that is why you're Puzzled.

I'm not avoiding the question. I'm refusing to answer the question until i understand what you mean. And if you can't tell me what you mean, then go somewhere else and quit wasting my time...moron.

Once again Jason avoids the question and obfuscates by going off on a "define X..." tangent. It's a tired act. Go buy a dictionary. In the mean time, if you cannot or are unwilling to engage, then be brave enough to say so instead of avoiding.

Puzzled says, "Therefore, it is not necessarily the assumptions (since it is hard to prove or disprove) but the end-results of such assumptions. We have some extreme examples of bad (Nazis, 9/11) that does not require me to go to bible study to know is bad. Did your assumptions lead you to a good worldview for you and for others around you? That should be the test that we as a society apply and try to live by."

Puzzled, define "good". Unless you define your words, i don't have a clue what you're saying. So please, define the word "good" and don't give me no Timmy bullcrap like, "good is not bad".

Jason,

From your own original posting, second point where you say "If p then q, q then p" is a logical fallacy (what I have been calling circular reasoning or tautology), if "the word of god is the bible " (p), then "the bible is truth/logic/etc." (q). If q then p must hold as well? A bunch of assumptions and statements that go around in circles.

Let's extend it more to your liking. You say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing."

Substitute bread = bible, stone = word of god and nourishing = salvation.

I say (tongue-in-cheek): "If the bible is the word of god and the word of god is a source of salvation, then this bible will be salvation for me; now this bible gives me salvation; therefore it is the word of god, and the word of god is a source of salvation."

That sounds like something that you might say. But I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please disavow this statement if you think this is a misrepresentation of your beliefs.

To address another point you made in a more recent reply to me, I don't think that an assumption is necessarily arbitrary. But even if it is "arbitrary," sometimes we need to make an "arbitrary" (arbitrariness being a matter of degree) assumption in order to have a starting point. Otherwise we could not even start. However, as I have said in previous postings, the real question is whether that worldview based on certain assumptions (whether it is "arbitrary" or not) actually has a positive impact on how one lives one's life. Or, to say this more plainly, if one confesses faith in Jesus and commits to follow Jesus' teachings, does this person live a better life (and make the lives of those around him/her better)? Therefore, it is not necessarily the assumptions (since it is hard to prove or disprove) but the end-results of such assumptions. We have some extreme examples of bad (Nazis, 9/11) that does not require me to go to bible study to know is bad. Did your assumptions lead you to a good worldview for you and for others around you? That should be the test that we as a society apply and try to live by.

Of course, one defense might be to say that belief in Jesus is by definition a "better" life (i.e., "I have been saved"). But I find it hard to believe that a just god truly worth our devotion would say "as long as you confess your faith in me, you can do whatever else you want to do." If so, why bother with commandments #2-10? Shouldn't Commandment #1 suffice?

JWR, I answered the post of December 29, 12:04 am in my post of January 2, 2:10 pm. The fact that my post was evidently not understood is because it requires an elementary awareness of the philosophy of science of the last half-century, plus a modicum of common sense.

ahhhhh...no better way to start off a new week than reading posts from morons. I'm going to respond to the latest after work tonight, however, i do want to point out this most hilarious comment from JWR.

"Induction is an electrical engineering term used to describe the magnetic field that is generated when you pass an electrical current thru a coil or similar generating of current or magnetic force in other conductors, Jason -- but surely with your extensive training in science and engineering you knew that, right? When used in context to describe logic -- there are no 'laws of logic' that I'm aware of Jason -- in the sense of the laws of physics -- like gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics..."

and then...(pausing because my stomach hurts)..."you want one either with someone you can intimidate, or someone with less education than you that you can confuse with fancy terminology. Not playing that game."

Actually JWR the Moron, I'm looking for someone to address the original post I pasted here back in December. You say you've addressed some of it but it should be obvious that you have not addressed all of it...I don't see how you can in light of the fact that you don't understand induction and logic.

Sooooooo....adios moronos.

ps. I am asking for a formal written debate with you so that your red herrings will be seen more readily within a structured conversation where affirmative/denials have been laid out.

So let me know when you are ready.

Just answer the questions Jason. Stop hiding behind 'induction'. Induction is an electrical engineering term used to describe the magnetic field that is generated when you pass an electrical current thru a coil or similar generating of current or magnetic force in other conductors, Jason -- but surely with your extensive training in science and engineering you knew that, right? When used in context to describe logic -- there are no 'laws of logic' that I'm aware of Jason -- in the sense of the laws of physics -- like gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics...

The real question is (and continues to be..) Jason, why won't you answer the questions? What are you afraid of? I attempt to answer most of the questions you pose for me -- in fact, many people attempt to answer your questions. Then, when we ask the same courtesy of you -- so you can appreciate our way of thinking -- you resort instantaneously to insults, declare the entire line of reasoning null and void, then go off on another topic. Why don't you simply answer the questions instead of trying to change the subject? You claim to be an expert on God and his reasoning...and you are using your 'expert' knowledge to try and defend the inerrancy of the Bible (the words "scripture is true and must always be true" ring a bell?)....so why can't you answer simple questions such as:

If God created us all (or caused us to be created) -- why the unreasonable hatred of homosexuals? Aren't they children of God also?

Why did God reveal himself 2000 years ago regularly...but not now, in the era of instant communication?

Also...according to the Christian faith...a deathbed conversion to Christianity (by, let's say, Stalin) would wipe out a lifetime of causing agony for millions of others, whereas someone that might have led a conventionally 'moral' life (helping the poor, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, feeding the homeless) but that was a Buddhist or Hindu would be condemned for an eternity in Hell. What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen? Why wouldn't He at least come forth and remove all doubt of His existence?

Also (as Sam Harris states) why would an omniscient, omnipowerful God allow a child to be abducted and raped?

As I stated last time...and which, clearly, still holds true -- you wanted a debate. You're getting a debate. You're hiding from the questions. Thus, the logical conclusion is that you really don't want a debate with equals...you want one either with someone you can intimidate, or someone with less education than you that you can confuse with fancy terminology. Not playing that game. You've had your chance. If you really want to continue this conversation, answer the questions.

JWR

Jason:

The difference between you and I is that I would abandon any theory of science overnight if new evidence arose to dissprove it.

No real fundamentalist would every say anything like that. Like you. You are unable to abandon -- despite reams of convincing evidence -- that god did not deliver the truth about anything about the real world.

You are lost.

Jason,

I think you're confused. If you say that you take as a starting point that the "Bible is the word of God" doesn't that also require God to exist to make any sense? I don't know what you really think, but I am trying to infer from what you post. And given that statement, I am inferring that you think God exists and you're taking that as a starting point (or it is the direct consequence of your earlier statement that "Bible is the word of God").

Also, when I say it is meaningless, I mean that "I believe in god" are just words, as you yourself seem to say. Therefore, saying those sequence of words does not mean you get salvation. I never said that that your belief is meaningless because it is unprovable. I did say your "logic" is meaningless because it's tautological.

But the real point is this: What I do think is meaningless is that people (like you apparently, as far as we can see in this forum) who proclaim with their own words their belief in god, but fail to follow god's/Jesus' teachings. Some even go so far as to say (in effect) "I already have salvation." Proclamations of such "faith" are meaningless, and by extension the question of god's existence is moot. Sure, you'll find quotes from the bible that says it's okay to demean "sinners" but what you're pointing out is a real inconsistency therein: Jesus himself did not do that, and seemed to enjoy spending time with the shunned and ostracized people of his time rather than demean them. Yet when I see "religious" people engage in bigotry and intolerance, and worse (9/11 being an extreme example), then I wonder what kind of "meaning" does faith like that have? That is what Sam Harris is pointing out, and that line of thinking is what you seem intent on avoiding at all costs and engage in wordplay rather than deal with an uncomfortable problem. So if you cannot look at the problem head on and continue to spin your wheels within the tautology you've set up for yourself, then please do so but without bothering with the real world for everyone's sakes.

The above post with the challenge is from me.

Okay Jason, my simple minded christian friend,
I see I have to break it down for you.
Here is a very simple challenge:

Jason told us:
Psalm 14:1 The FOOL says in his heart, "There is no God."

But today I opened my bible and read:
Psalm 14:1 Right is he to question, for he is going to better the human condition.

Is Jason able to proof to me that I'm lying? (Which of course I do.)
Without an argument of induction of course. Opening his bible will not do, because he hasn't seen all the bibles around.
If not, gods word becomes arbitrary.

Oh, another thing Jason:
Your last post is completly useles: All your arguments were arguments from inductions. You are not allowed to use them, if you are not an empiricist. We are not using a double standard, are we?

Try again.

Jason said:
"I’m not alone. Maybe on this thread, but not elsewhere."

When I asked you what it's like to be alone, I was asking on this thread. You seem to spend an awful lot of time here. There have been no less than 8 Christians posting on this thread. None of them are with you. I ask again.

Jason. What's it like to be so alone?

What I've been trying to get at is what I think the real point of the debate that is set up by Sam Harris' column: that is, whether religion is a "good" thing or not. Despite the confrontational tone in books by Sam Harris and others, that seems to me what this debate is all about.

If religion is not "good" for us (for society), then there are two possible remedies that come to mind immediately: (1) do a better job following the teachings, or (2) find a different world view. I think this is a challenge for both theists and atheists alike.

Let's start from the following premise: No one can conclusively prove the existence of god, one way or the other (and if we were to insist on a specific version of god, this would become even more difficult). Even if one is an ardent "true believer" this premise should be reasonable since believers do not have "proof" per se, just a conviction from personal experience and personal revelation which should not be confused with proof.

I think that is what Sam Harris and others like him are driving toward: what are the various ramifications of the different models of the world or worldviews?

One model, a religious view of the world (whether "true" or not), has led to many good things such as the charitable organizations that work to help the poor not only in this country but around the world, and churches do have the manpower and other resources to do such things. But on the other hand, religion usually requires belief without questioning (although I don't think it has to be the case, necessarily), and dogmatic beliefs can be easily subverted, and fanatical belief that killing someone is the way to salvation may very well offset any good that religious organizations might have done. It's not a Muslim problem although the economic and social conditions in many Muslim countries no doubt contribute to this. There are Christians who go and blow up abortion clinics, killing not only doctors and nurses but also patients and unborn babies.

The other model (a secular model) depends on the power of the state to maintain law and order and economic freedoms, but the political debates on helping the poor, the elderly, promoting human rights around the world, protecting the environment, etc. are tinged with political calculations and a lack of impetus. Look at New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for instance. Many of these things must be done by the government or by voluntary organizations (e.g., religious organizations or groups like the Sierra Clubs; i.e., special interest groups). No one wants to pay more taxes to pay for these things, perhaps rightly so, since no one wants the government making choices about what kind of programs to support (and what kind to not support). The political process is messy and imperfect and often the people who need the most help don't get it.

As we can all see (hopefully) there are no easy "answers". But there is some hope. For instance, I just read in msnbc.com that a group of scientists and evangelical Christians are getting together to work on protecting the environment.

That is why I was pushing for the premise I stated above: we can neither prove nor disprove god's existence, and it is probably not a fruitful debate to have for that reason. However we can look at the real-world consequences of these seemingly conflicting worldviews and debate about the merits of each. At the very least, Sam Harris' "attack" on religion should force the faithful to re-examine their own beliefs, not to have doubts about whether their faith is right or wrong (not realistic, obviously), but to see if people of faith really are living their lives according to the teachings of their faith or if they're (perhaps even with the best of intentions) "perverting" those teachings to push ulterior agenda. Of course non-religious people do that too, but the point is that at least in politics and in business, we can debate it in the open, much more openly than in religion, which is often wrapped in dogamtic teachings that are inviolate.

We live in the real world, and armchair logic of apologetics and philosophers can be good reading for some, but in effect, those ideas seem to only obfuscate real world problems that require our immediate attention.

Puzzled,

First, "god exists" is not my axiom. Again, putting words into my mouth.

Secondly, a “proof”, in the context of deductive reasoning, is a conclusion reached from previous premises. If I can “prove” that “the Bible is the Word of God”, this implies then that “the Bible is the Word of God” is a conclusion reached from previous premises and I would never attempt to argue that. I do not believe that you can arrive at that as a conclusion based on previous premises. And never, in the past two weeks or so on this site, have I claimed I could.

However, to say that “the Bible is the Word of God” is “unprovable” is not the same thing as saying that it is arbitrary and cannot be rationally defended.

For whatever ridiculous reason, you’ve got it stuck in your head that “unprovable” equals “meaningless” and irrational. You can keep telling yourself that all day long, but that doesn’t make the Bible meaningless. Nor, does “unprovable” equal “unknowable”, as you keep asserting.

Logic, or the law of contradiction to be exact, is a perfect example. The law of contradiction is a self-verifying, self-justifying axiom. It is logically undeniable. And it is “knowable” and it is “meaningful”. In fact, things would become “meaningless” without it. If the word dog can also mean cat, fart, ship, cow, and every other word in the dictionary, then it has lost meaning. But a dog is not a cat. A dog is not a cow. This is logic at work.

Again, I’ll keep repeating this until the cows (or dogs) come home. The atheist Daniel Dennett said that if we forsake the law of contradiction, we become “vegetables”. He absolutely right!

The law of contradiction is a “knowable” first principle with meaning.

This one example suffices to demonstrate your absurdities.

Jason,

What you refer to as axioms are just assumptions that you've made, as a starting point of sorts. You are assuming that god exists and you build your worldview around that assumption. However, my main point was that just as Sam Harris cannot prove god does not exist, you cannot prove that god does exist. And I proposed that we leave it at that as no good can come from any "debate" arguing something that is not knowable.

Being obtuse about something so simple will not get you anywhere.

Andy Ross, a fun proof! But even without utilizing formal (but tongue-in-cheek, I believe?), we should know that the bible was not written in 16th century English. Theologians who've studied the bible (by reading the ancient texts in the original middle east languages) know that what we call the bible is a really really eclectic collection of texts brought together. Therefore attestations of "truth" or "truthiness" must eventually go up against the question of whether one is living according to Jesus' teachings (the essence of the teachings), not just according to the letter of the teachings. "Strategic" confessions of faith (a way to "buy" salvation) are meaningless due to a lack of sincerety (god will see through that person).

Puzzled said, “Why don't you admit the obvious and move on.”

Well, one reason is because you put words into my mouth. I never said axioms are “true by definition.”
Keep trying.
______________________________

Falke said, “Hello sunny, we are not arguing in my worldview, we are arguing in yours.”

You need to do some homework first and find out exactly what my worldview is before criticizing it. I’m convinced you don’t have a clue.

Here it is again: “The Bible is a book, a material thing. You can't proof to us, that the words, that have been in it yesterday will be in it tomorrow. So everything you take from the bible is, by your own reasoning, not proofen to be unchangeable and therefor not the Truth”

The assumption underneath these statements is that the Word of God is a material thing. I, however, never said that. You’re setting up a straw man.
Keep trying.
______________________________

Anonymous says, "Jason" (on the off chance you're legit), please don't claim to represent the "Christian" side of an argument.
Uhhh…thanks ANONYMOUS. Sheeesshhh.
______________________________

Falk says, “To Anonymous: Don't worry, I doubt that any non-believer is thinking that Jason represents the standard christian. We might be fools, but we are not dishonest.”

No, I don’t represent the “standard” Christian, if what you mean by that is the “typical” Christian we run into in this country. So what’s your point? And secondly, glad to see you admit that you’re fools.
______________________________

Timmy the Grand Wizard Moron says, “What's if feel like to be so alone Jason?”

I’m not alone. Maybe on this thread, but not elsewhere. Try again moron.

Said God's dupe:
Show me the LOGICAL fallacy with me starting with the axiom, "The Bible is the word of God" and then proceeding from their [sic] to deduce and build a worldview in which to make sense of life. ...
REVEAL THE LOGICAL FALLACY TO ME.
(January 19, 2007 12:55 AM)

Lo and behold:

Preliminaries
An axiom is an assertion from which truths may be derived by valid reasoning.
Reasoning is valid when it never leads from true premises to false conclusions.
From a false assertion any statement at all may be derived, including a contradiction.
A contradiction is a statement of the form P and not P, for some statement P.
By substitution of values for P, a contradiction is true if and only if it is false.
Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, a contradiction is false.
Therefore, an axiom from which a contradiction may be derived is false.
If an axiom is false, any deductions made from it are fallacious.
Therefore an axiom must be such that it cannot be false.

Definitions
Let axiom A be the statement "The Bible is the word of God"
Let object X be the Bible, and let object Y be the word of God.
By these definitions, A says that X is Y.

Facts
1. The King James Bible contains 783,137 words.
2. The exact number of words in the Bible depends on the language and the translation.
3. The meaning of a word or statement is determined by its usage in a community.*
4. The exact meaning of the words in the Bible is determined by a long history of usage.
5. The word of God is authoritatively stated to be unique and absolute and unchanging.
* For details of fact 3, see the later philosophy of Wittgenstein (inter alia).

Theorem
X is not Y

Proof
By fact 1, some instantiations of object X contain 783,137 words.
By fact 2, other instantiations of X contain a different number of words.
So X is not unique.
By fact 3, the meaning of the words in X is determined by usage in a community.
So X is not absolute.
By fact 4, the meaning of the words in X is determined by a long history.
So X is changing.
By fact 5, object Y is unique and absolute and unchanging.
Therefore X is not Y.

Corollary 1
By the definitions and the theorem, axiom A is false.

Corollary 2
Deductions proceeding from axiom A are fallacious.
QED

God's dupe, you may kiss my butt.

Timmy:
Sorry, but composing this mail has delayed my reading of your screenplay.

What's if feel like to be so alone Jason?

To Anonymous:
Don't worry,
I doubt that any non-believer is thinking that Jason represents the standard christian.
We might be fools, but we are not dishonest.

"Jason" (on the off chance you're legit), please don't claim to represent the "Christian" side of an argument.

Well, well,
if that isn't Jason in denial.

Hello sunny, we are not arguing in my worldview, we are arguing in yours.
Proof to me that the bible tomorrow is going to say the same as it says today. (including in your memory).
And please, don't use an argument from induction.
If you can't, your axiom is useless.

Try again.

Once again, Jason avoids the issue.

If you cannot "prove" axioms, then your axiom is just an assumption and therefore "true by definition" which just means that it is a starting point for your model of the world.

The argument cuts both ways: just as Sam Harris cannot conclusively "prove" god does not exist, neither can you "prove" god does exist.

Why don't you admit the obvious and move on (and please stop spinning your wheels)?

Falke says,

"your arguments against empiricism are all well and good, but leave you in a fix."

hmmm...so they are all "well and good" eh? interesting...me wonders what you do with it then...

anywho...

"The Bible is a book, a material thing."

What the falke?

Falke, you can burn every Bible in the world to ashes and the Bible will still be around, unless you have found some way to burn thoughts.

hello? i'm not an empiricist....try again.

Timmy the Grand Wizard Moron says,

"You claim your God is all powerful. I mock your invented God and break his most sacred commandments to show you his non existence.
Nothing will happen to me for it Jason.
Not now. Not when I die."

hmmm...let's see here. Timmy the inductive moron could not even "prove" to me that a newspaper will burn in the fire.

Timmy said, [quote] "I CAN'T PROVE IT"

Now here is Timmy the moron insisting with "certainty" that God will do nothing to him when he dies.

hmmmm....

actually Timmy, your stupidity in constantly contradicting yourself by asserting certainties at the same time the impossibility of certainties appears to me that He has already started judging you:

Romans 1:21-22 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

Furthermore, "cause" and "reason" do not mean the same thing.

Look it up moron.

Hi Jason,
your arguments against empiricism are all well and good, but leave you in a fix.

The Bible is a book, a material thing.
You can't proof to us, that the words, that have been in it yesterday will be in it tomorrow.
So everything you take from the bible is, by your own reasoning, not proofen to be unchangeable and therefor not the Truth.

Try again.

Needless to say, "Jason" is a pretty transparent atheist plant. You overplayed your hand, guys!

Jason,

I would never speak like that to anyone who exists.
That is my point.
Those words I said were to demonstrate to you just how much conviction I have that your Bible God does not exist.
You claim your God is all powerful. I mock your invented God and break his most sacred commandments to show you his non existence.
Nothing will happen to me for it Jason.
Not now. Not when I die.
And deep down, you know it. You know that I and others will get away with mocking your God because he is a figment of your imagination.
Actually, he is a figment of Paul's and Timothy's imagination.
You're just the duped dupe who believes them.

Care to deal with your paradox?
Care to deal with my conclusion that there is no reason to believe in God if he doesn't cause you believe? Which he hasn't.
Is it possible to believe in God if he doesn't "cause you to believe?"
These are based on your statements. And they are correct assertions. You can't deal with it. You are beat.

You would have been better of trying to convince us of other reasons to believe. This "God causes you to believe" thing lets us all off the hook.
Thanks!

No Puzzled, it is you who can not read.

You say for example:

"Yes. Axioms are true by definition."

No they're not. I never said that.

Try again.

I see that you cannot read (or understand what you read). It is you who says god is truth or something of the sort (with rants about god's wrath). God's wrath is your projection of what you think god is like or what you'd like god to be. I am pointing out that we cannot prove nor disprove god's existence. That is the point.

Yes. Axioms are true by definition, and therefore the same logic applies. You cannot prove the validity of god's existence. I am not Sam Harris, so if you want to say something about me, don't project his ideas onto me. You, on the other hand, assume something to be true and then assert all that follows from that assumption to be true. As I described, it is circular reasoning; good to argue against people with, but without substance and meaning for how you actually go about living your life.

I am not making abstract arguments now. I am asking you if believing in Jesus made you a better person (has it changed you) and do you seek to truly emulate Jesus? Maybe you do, but from your postings we'd never know it. If you resort to some statements about how your belief has given you "salvation" based on your assumption, then once again you are using armchair musings to escape the real world implications of what it means to believe and seek salvation. That is where the inconsistency of your position lies.

and there it is folks, right on schedule:

"Oh well. I'm going to go surfing on his waves again. Such a leech. If God doesn't like it he can blow me hard. You know, all deep throat like. That's right, I'm telling God that I am going to leech off his waves, and if he doesn't like it, he can take my big long fatty deep into his throat and suck hard on it. Up yours God you fake impostor no good piece of pooh."

"Your God is weak, useless, powerless, and pathetic. I spit in his face and nothing happens to me."

Timmy the Grand Wizard moron has no excuse, so he resorts to mocking Him.

And what is even more pathetic now is that Timmy the Grand Wizard moron is taunting someone he doesn't even believe exists. Timmy, how do you spit on something that doesn't exist?

the hour hand is almost there ...kuko-for-cocoa-puffs ...

Jason your problem isn''t with what Sam Harris says.
You problem is with how many intelligent people agree with him. That is why you scream out your paradoxical meaningless argument. It's the only weapon you have. And you are discovering what a useless weapon it is. It has swayed no one. Not one tiny scrap. NO ONE. EVER. This is your frustration. It will continue to be your frustration.

Your God is weak, useless, powerless, and pathetic. I spit in his face and nothing happens to me. You keep holding on to hope that I will be punished after I'm dead. I'm going surfing.
Happy as a clam.

Jason,

Jason, if you cannot trust Russell, how can you make your argument completely based on his empirical findings?
You can't.
I can, because I am an empiricist. The minute you do it, you become an empiricist, and a paradox. And a moron.
Without Bertrand Russell, you have no argument.
With Bertrand Russell, you are a paradox and a moron.

Said Jason:
"If God does not cause you to believe it is because He wants you to remain a moron."

You said it yourself Jason. There is nothing we can do. God has chosen for us to not believe and remain moron. There's no point in even trying. I'm just going to enjoy my life now worry free. I have nothing to lose. Apparently I have already lost it all. Through no fault of my own. What can I do if God chooses to not cause me to believe? My only option would be to fake believe based on the words of strangers. That would make me a moron to be sure. You said it yourself Jason. God doesn't want me even if I want him.

Oh well. I'm going to go surfing on his waves again. Such a leech. If God doesn't like it he can blow me hard. You know, all deep throat like. That's right, I'm telling God that I am going to leech off his waves, and if he doesn't like it, he can take my big long fatty deep into his throat and suck hard on it. Up yours God you fake impostor no good piece of pooh.

Wow. No lightening bolt or anything. Ha ha ha ha.
What a weak pathetic God you pray to Jason. I spit in his face and tell him to shove it, and he can do nothing.

What a loser God.
What a loser who prays to this God.
Eat my shorts God.
Still no lightening bolt.
lol
Oh look, I just started another fire with paper. Boy if ever there was a time for God to not make the paper burn, this would be it.
lol

Uhhhhh…Puzzled, I’m not sure where you’ve been for the past two weeks or so but this has been my position since day one.

Every worldview operates from axioms. Every person alive can be questioned and reduced down to “assumptions”. Axioms, by definition, are “unprovable”. That is, they cannot be reduced any further for if they could be reduced any further than they can no longer be considered axioms. But eventually, if you keep pushing for a person to “prove” their assertions, you’ll eventually get to a point where they have to stop and can go no further. If it has no starting point, then it can have no "present" point.

The atheist/Christian debate boils down to a conflict in axioms, a conflict in presuppositions. That’s what I’m addressing, which is why questions to me about the possibilities of resurrection, how I got saved, whether or not Moses really existed, or if evolution is true or not are completely irrelevant at this point.

I’m talking axioms here.

My axiom, my starting point, is “the Bible is the Word of God”. And for an atheist to turn around and ask me to prove my axiom is a ridiculous request. You can’t PROVE axioms. That’s why they are called axioms.

So when a moron like Sam Harris comes along and says, “you’re wrong – that axiom is false”, it then becomes HIS obligation to prove it false, not mine.

HE is the one running around in public claiming that my presupposition is false and so HE is the one that should be able to demonstrate to me how it is false.

Neither he, Dawkins, Dennet or anyone else have come anywhere close to backing their claim.

Instead what they do is take conclusions reached from their axiom and pit them against conclusions reached from my axiom and try to argue from there. And this method merely begs the question and never addresses the real issue.

“Like, Duh”… it’s a no brainer that his conclusion that people can’t walk on water collides with my conclusion that they can. No schit Sherlock. We can go all day long and argue conclusions from each worldview and show they can’t be reconciled. My five year can figure that out. What Harris needs to do is stick with logically refuting the axiom and he has not done so. Yet he parades around as some genius with something important to say against Christianity. HA!

On the other hand, the empiricist axiom (which feeds atheism) has been demolished time and time again. Greg Bahnsen has done it. Gordon Clark has done it. And I have yet to see a serious atheist respond to it successfully.

In fact, the atheists at the Univ. of California in Irvine were absolutely embarrassed when Bahnsen man-handled Gordon Stein.

It has been demonstrated time and time again that given the axiom of empiricism, not only can you not have some knowledge, but you can have NO knowledge at all.

Without even mentioning a word from the Bible, empiricism can be demonstrated as leading to complete non-sense, as has been demonstrated here in little pieces, ie. saying that we cannot be certain of the law of contradiction.

Puzzled, that’s fine if you want to surrender your life to Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but let’s see how far you can go in constructing a logically coherent worldview. Furthermore, merely mocking Christianity with a pasta God does not prove Christianity wrong. As I said before, mocking is what happens when immature brats have no answer.

Lastly, even if I granted that my argument is circular (which I don’t), circular reasoning IS in fact formally VALID because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Read any book on deductive logic and they will point this out. Does that then make the Bible “meaningless”? NO! How so?

How is telling us our origins, our purpose in life, our future, etc. “meaningless”? It’s not. Instead, what you mean to say is, “it has meaning, but I don’t like it.”

That’s the bottom line here Puzzled. You can’t argue against God. You have no “proof” that He doesn’t exist. You have not demonstrated any fallacious thinking behind a Scriptural worldview.

You just don’t like it. And you are under His wrath/judgment because you can offer no “reason” to not like it.

Instead, you’ll join the rest of the Pastafarians who can find no legitmate excuse either and resort to mocking Him, which does nothing more than reveal the hatred you have had of Him all along.

I await your excuse.

Timmy the Grand Wizard Moron says, "Bertrand Russell is an empiricist. His conclusion on inductive reasoning is based on empirical evidence observed by an empiricist. It can't be trusted."

that is what i have been saying this whole time. You cannot trust the empirical system that Russell or any other atheist lays out for us.

It is unreliable, contradictory and utterly bankrupt in constructing a worldview.

And he's Sam Harris' hero....hmmmm...

Timmy the Grand Wizard Moron says, "You say you believe in God because God causes you to believe.
Well since he doesn't cause us to believe, we can not be morons for not believing."

try again Timmy. If God does not cause you to believe it is because He wants you to remain a moron.

A nutcase can deny his own existence, deny logic, deny that others exist, deny the existence of the straight-jacket that has him locked up - his denial of these things and WHY he denies them still doesn't change the fact that he's a nutcase and needs help.

The response it should invoke is that you are completely at the mercy of God and therefore should deny your self-righteous and call upon Him for mercy.

instead, you choose to remain a moron.

Thanks for finally admitting that you stated an axiom ("The Bible is the word of God") as the basis for your worldview. So your "belief" is just an assumption you made. But your assumption is based on the bible saying that this axiom is correct (Apostle Paul and others). It made sense to you intuitively (gut feeling, revelation, whatever). I get it, and if you would have said that is the case I would not have wasted my time explaining to you (patiently, I might add) that your position has nothing to do with "logic" (unless you call circular reasoning logic). Well,... I guess circular reasoning is "logical". If X = Y, then Y = X (and while we're at it, X = X and Y = Y, too). What can be more certain than that? Quite "true" and quite meaningless.

Let's say I told you I believe that Zeus is real because it is written in a "holy book". The obvious question would be how you can give any credence to that "holy book". Of course if I told you it is because on the first page (and in other selected pages therein) it says that "this book is the true word of Zeus, lord of this world" you'd believe me? Even one of the key scribes of this holy book, St. Zaul, eloquently wrote about how Zeus' thunderbolts have brought salvation to all humanity, if we only believe and surrender ourselves to his lightning charge.

The thing that you believe and the thing that "causes" you to have reason to believe are one and the same (i.e., cause and effect are same). That's called circular reasoning, and it tells us nothing.

Of course you'll say it's blasphemy since Zeus is not real, while YHWH is. What gives your bible such a hallowed place? If you cannot say without once again referring to the very source that claims to be holy, then you cannot escape circular reasoning. It follows that you must show some reason indepedent of the bible to say "this is why I believe" to be able to demonstrate to others the "logic" of your conviction. If you cannot and as a result lash out by name-calling and demeaning people only reveals your self-contradiction (i.e., "I truly 'believe' in God's love, but refuse to live my own life according to that love").

Jason,

Bertrand Russell is an empiricist. His conclusion on inductive reasoning is based on empirical evidence observed by an empiricist. It can't be trusted. You have no logic Jason. Your argument is a paradox.

"Timmy, i would like for you to scroll up this page and find one quote where i said that atheists can not understand truth?"

Okay. How about your very first post:
"Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is God’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men."

How exactly does this not state clearly that an atheist can never know the truth. How does this not state that Bertrand Russell, as an atheist can not be believed. He doesn't know God. He doesn't quote the scriptures. You buy what this moron is saying?

And then base your whole argument on it?
You are a paradox Jason.
The very definition.

Can anyone prove that Jason is not a put-on — or better yet a product of Harris' imagination?

Jason (in the unlikely event you're for real): The irony is that literalists (for whom I gather you claim to speak) really have no respect for scripture. The truth of scripture is not revealed by reading it literally. Revealing the secrets of evolution is God's way of warning modern readers against literal interpretation.

I don't want you to go anywhere Jason.
You are one of my favorite sources of entertainment. And free no less. You base your whole argument on the words of a moron.

Plus, you have set us all free. We don't have to worry about a thing thanks to you.

You say you believe in God because God causes you to believe.
Well since he doesn't cause us to believe, we can not be morons for not believing.
Unless you think that there is another reason to believe, like, just because you and Paul say so.
We are off the hook.
Not morons at all. In fact we would be impostors and morons if we had faith without God causing us to.
So until God causes us to believe, we aren't missing out on anything. If God does exist, he has predetermined that we are not worthy of Heaven for some reason. That is why he has not bothered to cause us to believe. We're doomed anyway. We can just live our happy atheist empirical lives and not worry a bit.

You said it yourself Jason. The only reason to believe in God is because God causes you to. So if he doesn't, you should definitely not believe.

Timmy the Grand Wizard Moron, congrats - you've graduated.

Timmy, i would like for you to scroll up this page and find one quote where i said that atheists can not understand truth?

Find it for me. I'll save you some time. You won't.

You are a moron not because the Bible is hard for you to understand but because you simply don't like it.

When atheists point out that the law of contradiction is necessary to function, then they are right on the money. When the atheist Daniel Dennet, for example, says that rejecting the law of contradiction makes one a "vegetable", he was right. When Bertrand Russell recognized the problem of induction arriving at certainty, he was right on the money.

But what makes [made] both these men morons/fools is that they would rather embrace the logical inconsistencies empiricism leads to rather than embraced the "general principles" of God.

Timmy, when a person calls a ball a ball and a non-ball at the same time, you've given up sanity. That's what it means to be insane.

You've heard the saying though: even a dead clock is right twice during the day.

I never said atheists can't get things right. But again, what makes them morons is the absurdities they will embrace in order to avoid being wrong, i.e. deny the law of the contradiction (as our certified moron Andy Ross has done and/or call inductive reasoning valid.

You call that "reasonable" because you have redefined what it means to be "reasonable". The dictionaries call that "insanity".

Timmy the Moron,

I don't know who made you king of the thread here, but this is not an "atheist thread". The thread started, you remember, from an article from Sam Harris. You know, the guy that wants to stamp out Christianity altogether, says we are idiots and the like, and thinks empiricism can account for ethics, logic, and so on. The guy that says we're idiots for not accepting the certainty of evolution.

So, i presented just five of a few problems i have with empiricism. That's why i came here.

And no, you have not admitted to being a moron. You have not admitted to the complete insanity your presuppositions logically lead to.

And so i will keep pointing them out. I'm not going anywhere.

(:

Said Jason,

" In the meantime, go read some Bertrand Russell (he's an atheist by the way) and brush up on some logic and inductive reasoning."

You really are funny Jason. Now I know that you are not even serious. Who could take such a character seriously.

Jason has based his whole argument on Bertrand Russell, who is an atheist. (By Jason's definition, A moron!)
Bertrand Russell doesn't know God, therefore he knows nothing of the truth.
Jason, your whole argument is based on the words of a man you call a moron.

Guess what that make you?

Puzzled says, "Your belief in god's existence is based on hearsay (accounts by others) that says god exists and there is really no way around it. And then you build a sand castle on top of this foundation of hearsay and even go on to say that this sand castle is the ONLY truth.

If you admit that you just believe because it's a "gut feeling" then that is the end of it and I can respect that for what it is (your opinion). However if you insist on some logical basis for god's existence, then I have no choice but to point out that it is one heck of a logical fallacy you commit (all the while telling everyone else they are wrong). "

No "conundrum" here buddy. I've been as plain as I can be. The words that were penned by the Apostle Paul (one example) were the very words of God. I believe them to be the word of God because God causes me to believe that.

Show me the fallacy. (which is kinda laughable to begin with considering that you don't believe in any certainties)

Show me the LOGICAL fallacy with me starting with the axiom, "The Bible is the word of God" and then proceeding from their to deduce and build a worldview in which to make sense of life.

Remember, you said it was a LOGICAL FALLACY, so demonstrate it to me. No more stupid questions and ridiculous assertions about "gut feeling"

REVEAL THE LOGICAL FALLACY TO ME.

Well JWR, i must say - you've now entered the moron category with your latest:

"I answered most of your questions (blew them out of the water, I must say..."

and then you say:

"I can't say I understand your "law of induction""

hahaha...you have got to be kidding me? right? seriously Mr. Higher Education...the problem of empiricism and induction has been the meat of my posts since day one and now your telling me that you're not familiar with the problem?

And you wonder why i don't entertain your fifty questions about atoms and speed of light or whatever the heck else you pulled out of your butt.

lol. Dude, I'm done with you. Bookmark my site and email me when you are ready for a debate. In the meantime, go read some Bertrand Russell (he's an atheist by the way) and brush up on some logic and inductive reasoning.

sheeeeshhh.

ps. asking me 50 questions is not a "debate". I do understand now why you resorted to that - you had no idea why induction is a problem and so you attempted to steer us down a rabbit trail.

nice try. "C" for effort.

Whenever you find questions that perhaps make you uncomfortable, you avoid them by changing the subject. If you have objections to the term "natural laws" I can even concede (for argument's sake) to call them "empirical (observed) regularities" but that still does not allow you to side-step the conundrum:

Your belief in god's existence is based on hearsay (accounts by others) that says god exists and there is really no way around it. And then you build a sand castle on top of this foundation of hearsay and even go on to say that this sand castle is the ONLY truth.

If you admit that you just believe because it's a "gut feeling" then that is the end of it and I can respect that for what it is (your opinion). However if you insist on some logical basis for god's existence, then I have no choice but to point out that it is one heck of a logical fallacy you commit (all the while telling everyone else they are wrong).

Jason,

I'll be glad to accept your challenge when I return home from deployment. Until then, I simply don't have the time or the bandwidth.

Until then, it is amusing seeing you continue to refuse to answer the questions I pose to you. I answered most of your questions (blew them out of the water, I must say -- especially your insipid arguments about science and repeatability and observation -- you're being strangely silent about them now, I see. We see right thru you....)

I can't say I understand your "law of induction" or 'law of contradiction". (Funny, these "laws" weren't mentioned in Physics 202 -- perhaps it's in the Creationist book of Physics? Taught at Bob Jones U?) Did you learn about the Laws of Electromagnetism there also? Law of Gravity? Laws of Thermodynamics? Please, Jason, spare us your attempts at science or engineering until you spend some time at a reputable institution of higher learning. First rule when finding oneself in a hole, Jason -- quit digging.

Why don't you simply answer the questions instead of trying to change the subject? You wouldn't be afraid to answer the questions would you Jason? You wouldn't be afraid of being exposed as a 'moron' would you? (By the way -- there are other words you could use -- cretin, imbecile, idiot, feebleminded person -- besides 'moron'. Recommend investing in a thesaurus.)

You wanted a debate. You're getting a debate. You're hiding from the questions. Thus, the logical conclusion is that you really don't want a debate with equals...you want one either with someone you can intimidate, or someone with less education than you that you can confuse with fancy terminology. Not playing that game. You've had your chance. If you really want to continue this conversation, answer the questions.

JWR

What do you want us to admit Jason?
I'm pretty sure we've already done it.
Haven't we?
You just don't like the fact that after we admit what you want us to admit, we then say"
Well so what?

We've heard your statement that God is truth.
We don't believe you.
You don't care to try and convince us of that and I understand why.

What more do you want?
This is an atheist thread Jason.
We're not buying what you're selling.
Not even the other believers are buying what you're selling.
Not one single person on this thread has ever come even close to buying what you are selling
You are the loneliest Christian I have ever witnessed.
There isn't anyone who has ever posted here who has had less to offer this discussion than you.

What do you want us to admit Jason?

Empiricism can provide no certainty?
Done
God it truth?
Not Done. Never will be done.

Anything else?
Seriously. Anything?

Puzzled says, "This escapes his imagination as it is so far outside the natural laws as we know it."

STOP RIGHT THERE.

You have not proven that there are any NATURAL LAWS to begin with! That's the whole point.

You sling the idea around as if it were some given but you can prove none of it.

More dribble from Timmy the Moron. Timmy, this has got to be one of the most absurd from you yet.

I AM pushing Jesus on the world. However, that is not the same thing as trying to convince you that He exists. My task as an apologist for Christianity is to simply proclaim the truth of what is and what is is what God declares it to be - that Christ Jesus has been established as King over all nations. That is a truth that I proclaim to all, unashamedly. However, whether you or any one else accept that truth or not is non of my biz. God may or may not have decreed that you embrace the truth. I can’t control that. No amount of begging is going to change what God has decreed, but that does not stop me from proclaiming to the world what is in fact true.

You say, “We are not saying that "the Bible is wrong". We are saying that there is no reason to believe that it is right.” Which is just another one of your ambiguous statements to avoid any real accountability. Timmy, if you’re not saying the Bible is wrong and there is no reason to believe it is right, then leave the freaking board because you have absolutely ZILCH to contribute to this discussion.

You say, “You don't have to prove that God exists. But if you want us to believe you when you tell us that he does, you need to give us good reason to believe you, just like you'd need to give us good reason to believe in a flying spaghetti monster.” I’ve already told you the reason for my belief. God caused me to believe. I can’t be any plainer. And as far as the FSM is concerned, I’m actually glad that is being used as a comeback because it reveals that you have NO answer to Christianity other than to mock it. You know what “mock” means, right? You imitate Christianity and then deride it. That’s all you poor saps have going for you.

It’s like when I challenge a guy to prove his continual assertion that 2+2 really equals five. I say, “Prove it!” After a few seconds of silence, he responds talking out of his nose in a nerdy, high pitched voice, “Prove it”. I respond, “Stop acting childish and prove your assertion.” He comes back talking thru the nose again, “Stop acting childish and prove your assertion.”

That’s what losers do who have no answers do: mock. It’s not a comeback Timmy, it is a sign of defeat.

You say, “We are all well aware that empiricism is flawed. But it gets us all though life just fine.”

Hmmm…I have a totally different idea of “fine” then, I guess. When a grown man with a number of PhDs tells me that logic is optionable, I don’t consider that “fine”. It’s called “insanity”. When people who claim no certainties insist on the certainty that we evolved from monkeys and those who doubt it are “retards” and “idiots”, I don’t call that “fine”.

Timmy, it just reveals the low standards you have for the world. What a shame.

Jason,

I don't think you are trying to convince me of anything. But I did comment that there seems to be a "big leap" in your sequence of reasoning, a kind of "hand-wavig." that you don't want to acknowledge.

You say empiricism self-destructs. I have seen no evidence of that from you. Your postings on the fallacy of observations and measurements are inherently flawed because you set up a standard that empiricism does not need to achieve for it to "work". There are statistical "certainties" that are utilized. It is not (and never has been) meant to disprove god or anything of the sort. However, making an assertion (like Dawkins) that it is not likely (i.e., the probabilities are remote) is making the point that given all we know, for a god to exist, god would have to have certain characteristics that does not seem to make sense. This escapes his imagination as it is so far outside the natural laws as we know it. And if completely outside these laws, then is god's "existence" really existence at all? Therefore, any assertions of "absolute certainty" in the existence of such a being must either (1) have not been thought through very well, or (2) have made a confession of faith and then no longer entertained any uncomforable questions.

As for religion, Christianity specifically, you set up an axiom that HAS to be true by definition and then proceed from it as if all conclusions that flow from it are true. If one cannot be certain that the bible is not true (as you asert), then neither can one be certain it is true. If you believe the bible is true because the bible tells you it is true, then how can that not be a logical fallacy?

Jason,

"What i am attempting to demonstrate is the absurdity of telling me the Bible is wrong when you can't even do something as simple as measurements without error."

We're not telling you that the Bible is wrong. Christianity is telling us that the Bible is the word of God, and we don't believe you.
We are not making an assertion, we are not believing yours. We are not saying that "the Bible is wrong". We are saying that there is no reason to believe that it is right.
You don't have to prove that God exists.
But if you want us to believe you when you tell us that he does, you need to give us good reason to believe you, just like you'd need to give us good reason to believe in a flying spaghetti monster.

If you are not pushing Jesus on us, we have no quarrel with you. By reading Dawkins, and Harris, you are listening in on the conversation between them and the many many Christians who are trying to push their view of the world on others. You should take no offense if you are not one of those.

We are all well aware that empiricism is flawed. But it gets us all though life just fine. If you want us to believe otherwise, we will require good reason to do so. If you want me to believe that the paper might not burn one day, you need to give me good reason to believe that. You have no interest in attempting to give us good reason to believe otherwise, and I understand why.

So I'm really not sure what battle it is that you are looking for?
I haven't heard anyone deny that empiricism is flawed.
You got something better?

Puzzled says, "I think we agree that there are errors in measurement. What I cannot understand is how do you go from this (errors in measurement) to "therefore only the bible is right"?

I'm not trying to convince you the bible is right. i never said i could prove it to you. that's not my job.

What i am attempting to demonstrate is the absurdity of telling me the Bible is wrong when you can't even do something as simple as measurements without error.

What i am attempting to demonstrate is the absurdity of calling someone like me "irrational" when that same person will redefine logic and make the "law of contradiction" a tool we "can take or leave" in order to justify their own presuppositions.

What i am attempting to demonstrate is the absurdity of telling me there are no certainties, yet that same person is "certain" the Bible can't be true.

What i am attempting to demonstrate is that at some point even atheists can only "prove" things so far and they eventually can be reduced to, what Russell called, "general principles" of which they must assume (or take a "leap of faith") whatever you want to call it; thereby making the atheist a hypocrite in insisting that i have to "prove" my "general principle".

What i am attempting to demonstrate is that the battle is fruitless when arguing over conclusions reached by one worldview against conclusions reached by another. (like whether a man can walk on water or not) the battle is not over conclusions but over "general principles" or what Clark called, "axioms". And what i am attempting to demonstrate is that the axiom of "empiricism" self-destructs. Forget Christianity, for the moment...empiricism gets us nowhere.

This is where i want to battle and none have joined me.

Jason,
My apologies. I misread (and I thought there might be hope for you after all...).

But the other question, I think, is still valid? Are there passages where Jesus demeans "sinners" or passages where Jesus condemns, for instance, homosexuals as sinners?

As for question #1, I thought you asked that we talk about that question first. You have a very black and white view of the world, don't you? But accuracy in measurement is relative. By way of analogy, it is a matter of how many decimal points to look at (or, at point do we round up?). The level of accuracy that is required is different for what we want to achieve.

There are inevitably errors in measurement. The proper response is to improve our measurement instruments, not to give up the attempt. If you can shoot a high percentage in basketball, do you practice to get better or do you say "I cannot be 100%, so I'll stop playing"?

I think we agree that there are errors in measurement. What I cannot understand is how do you go from this (errors in measurement) to "therefore only the bible is right"? There are measurement errors when we shoot rockets into space, but there are no errors in reading an ancient text and trying to apply it to 21st century life?

Timmy the Moron says, "The message of Jesus was so powerful because he led by example."

really Timmy? and who exactly is this "Jesus" you are talking about? I know it is not the one in the Gospels, so who is He? What book are you reading from? Or is this some imaginary friend you've made up?

Said Anonymous,

"Yet without the Church, no one ever would have heard of Jesus' teachings or even imagined following His example."

The church? Which church? You mean the church in general?

Actually Christianity was a religion long before the "church" and it may very well have spread and lived as a group of people dedicated to following the example of Jesus. Then along came the church. (AKA the Romans and the counciil of Nicea) This is the day that Christianity died and the marriage of church and state arose. Christianity ceased to be an homage to the lord and became a device for wealth gathering and human mind control.

Said Anonymous:
"Does separating oneself from the communion and companionship of those who share that desire make one any more likely to succeed?"
No.
But separating oneself from the church will.
Keep the companionship. Keep the love and charity. But tell the emperor (oops, I mean the Pope. Same thing) to go to Hell.

Bill Mahr had the best line about this. He said they should change their name from "Christians" to "Christ Likes".
This would remind Christians what they're really supposed to be about. Don't command others to follow the doctrine of Christianity. Be Christ Like, and lead by example.

The message of Jesus was so powerful because he led by example. Christianity would take over the world in one generation if all 2 billion Christians started leading by example.

But don't hold your breath. Too many churches preaching that your new second home that you just acquired in the Hamptons is a blessing from Jesus. Thanks Jesus, for our new swimming pool.

Okay I have to go throw up now.

Attention all 2 billion Christians.
If you lead by example?
You win.
the world will convert.
Christ wins.
We all win.

Too bad that will never happen.
The church began to tear true Christianity appart 1700 years ago. They are only a couple of generations away from destroying it completely. Keep it up. You're doing a better job than the atheists.

Puzzled says, "And Jason, I am glad that you "believe in" evolution"

What Jason actually said, "No, i don't believe in evolution."

Must be that denial of the law of contradiction at work. ::rollseyes::

here, let's make it easier:

See Dick run.
See Jane jump.
See Spot sit.

JWR,

You say, "Let's see -- you threw down the gauntlet by asking me about your questions. I answered them, quite articulately I think'

Actually, you didn't. You entirely skipped over the problem of induction and whether or not asserting the consequent is a fallacy and moved on to asking me 100 questions. plurium interrogationum.

Furthermore, your so-called attempt at (1) fails miserably.

And what is so sad in all of this is that atheists like Bertrand Russell will point this stuff out to you all day long.

Have you read "Problems with Philosophy" by Russell?

Have you read where he questions whether or not we can even truly know what a table is? Have you read his chapter on the problem with induction?

JWR, go read some more and then come back and challenge me.

Furthermore, questions are not objections and anyone can ask questions.

taking your lead, here's my response to you, "well...well...what about armpits? huh? Why does armpit hair smell? Do you know...huh...huh...do ya?"

That's not a challenge. In fact, I'm convinced that you don't even know what the challenge is, which is why you and others have to go down these rabbit trails and ask questions about things that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my original post.

Tell ya what JWR. Let's do this:

Let's have a written debate. Let's agree on a topic, a few rules, and let's do a debate.

I'll post it on my site, email it out, advertise it like crazy. My site averages around 10,000 hits a day. Not a monster, but not bad for a nobody in Florida either.

so let's do it. in fact, unless it's just complete irrelevant to anything, I'll even let you pick the topic.

what say you?

"Yet it seems so many who profess they want to follow Jesus' teachings are so intolerant. That is my biggest objection to some religions..."

Yes, as they say, the problem with Christianity is that it's never been tried. Churches are full of hypocrites, myself included. Yet without the Church, no one ever would have heard of Jesus's teachings or even imagined following His example. Does separating oneself from the communion and companionship of those who share that desire make one any more likely to succeed?

As for your other question, Jesus "treats" everyone exactly the same: He calls us to conversion, repentance and holiness. As for sexual morality specifically, He spoke quite clearly of the intrinsic dignity of husband and wife becoming one flesh according to God`s plan for creation.

Maybe I can answer that question: the bible was written by a bunch of people who believed in god and through this belief (i.e., inspired by faith) wrote what was in their hearts. So for someone more than 2000 years ago to believe that god created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and then rested may be consistent with the state of knowledge at the time. All it's saying is "I believe god created everything." It is a statement of belief not fact. Without conceding this point, religious fanatics are forced to take on science with no real knowledge of science in the mistaken belief that parts of Genesis was really an ancient version of a science textbook. That really has to stop since it's not helping anyone.

And Jason, I am glad that you "believe in" evolution, even if you have not seen any evidence of transitory fossils. But the more important question for someone like you may be this: how would Jesus treat homosexuals? What do the gospels say?

A quote, from Jason Bradfield:

"Seriously, i think it may be time for me to leave and find some more "Bright" people who have better reading comprehension and affirm the use of logic to spar with. You guys are a joke."
----
Let's see -- you threw down the gauntlet by asking me about your questions. I answered them, quite articulately I think. I challenge you with questions of my own. You belittle my questions...which leads me to believe the real issue is, you are either afraid to answer them (to expose your gross ignorance of even junior-high level science -- wait a minute, you've already accomplished that, with your 'treatise' on water (not boiling at the same temperature) in your very first post) AND/OR you realize you can't respond.
---
Let's revisit, shall we?

Here's the actual question I asked: Why does the Bible contain no advanced mathematical concepts or fundamentals of physics? Why did we have to wait for Sir Isaac Newton to come along to invent calculus? Why aren't designs for a fusion reactor included in Deuteronomy along with the exhortations to stone to death all infidels, fornicators, and homosexuals? Why wasn't there a discussion on the germ theory of disease included that would have spared so many people in the past (including many children) the agony of dying from diseases such as the Black Plague -- not to mentioned the lifelong heartsickness of their parents. Surely discussions of germ theory and disease prevention would have been more in line with the teachings of a loving God...right?
---
And here's your response:

"Furthermore, NOT ONE TIME did i ever insist that the Bible has answers concerning calculus, germ theories, and the like...NOT ONE TIME. I will mail you a $100 check if you can find the quote where i did.

Not one time did i ever insist that science is NOT USEFUL. Again, find me the quote."
----
Jason, I never said that you said the Bible has answers regarding calculus, physics, etc. (Stop trying to change the subject -- we see right through you.) I was simply asking, as Sam Harris did, as to why a book that was the product of an omniscient being doesn't have material like this inside. Or even better, to quote Mr. Harris directly:

"Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, or DNA...what about a cure for cancer?...Why aren't these pages, or even anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? Good, pious people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, and many of them are children. The Bible is a very big book. God had room to instruct us in great detail about how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals."
=======
Care to answer that, Jason? Or is it yet another question from yet another "moron"?

The point is....you do not and you cannot understand the Intentions ('Mind' - for lack of a better word) of the Creator when He/It created the universe -- and yet you (and the fundamentalists like you -- Christian, Muslim, and Jewish) claim to have special insight that none of the rest of us 'poor, misguided heathens' have as to God's Intentions and to what his Word actually is...even in the face of mountains of scientific evidence. Worse, many Muslims believe that their supposedly divinely inspired instruction book exhorts them to kill everyone who does not believe...or stops believing....

You're not fooling anyone, Jason, except maybe yourself. You are afraid to answer the questions because of their implications. Why don't you just admit it? And you have the nerve to call Puzzled a 'cowardly lion'?

You see, Jason, there are still a few of us out there that, rather than ignoring bullies and people that attempt to browbeat or intimidate others who 'dare' to question them, actually are not afraid of the bullies and will engage them and will challenge them. Thus, I'm not surprised by your behavior.

Is this 'lovey-dovey' enough for you?

JWR

Ted,

Here's the source:

www.trinityfoundation.org

Never claimed it was my own.

Furthermore, do me a favor and spend a few days over there and come back, so that you'll at least have somewhat of an idea of what the heck we're talking about.

progressive decline? yes, that happens when you start hanging with morons.

Teddy says, "(1) I imagine that Mr Bradfield would agree that Science's important role in religion would be in PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of religion's truth--until then, evidence will not be considered evidence."

uuhhh...nope....try again.

Apologies for my late entrance to the dialogue:

From 12/26/06 (or there abouts) from Mr Bradfield:

"Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth....As Robbins has said: "Science is false, and MUST always be false. Scripture is true and MUST always be true."

(1) I imagine that Mr Bradfield would agree that Science's important role in religion would be in PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of religion's truth--until then, evidence will not be considered evidence.

(2) I capitalized the words 'must', in lieu of italics, to emphasize what I imagine would be the plaintive tone of Mr Bradfield's voice were he speaking these words. Science probably MUST be false to him, lest the house of cards, and by cards I mean his fragile psyche, begin to tumble...

(3) Judging from the progressive decline in Mr Bradfield's posts in both syntax and content, I suspect that the initial post was plagarised, in part or in whole, from some unwitting, dimwitted, source. I doubt that anyone who truly understands Bertrand Russell would then subsequently remark "[a]nyone can respond the way you did. I retard can sign in and ask a million questions," or, worse yet, "[i]’m fed up with queers running around telling me that sticking their you know what up each other’s b-hole is a 'natural.'"

(4) In addition to a "monopoly on truth," religion also apparently holds a monopoly on irony, as well as one on the crystal methamphetamine/male prostitute market in the Greater Salt Lake City region.

Jason,

Do you believe that homo erectus existed?
Or is this a fraud?

Jason,

I do not doubt that you find the scientific method useful since you live in the modern world and to deny the benefits would simply be an untenable position. The reason that I (and I suspect many others) ask questions of you is this: you say that teh scientific method has its flaws, but then turn around and say that THEREFORE we must accept the bible as the only way to the TRUTH, however that is defined. It is on the one hand baffling that someone who seems to have thought about such things quite a bit suddenly makes a leap of faith that cannot be explained by logic, except by saying "God is Logic" and I wonder if there is also some fascination there too... I've never spoken to real fanatics before coming to this forum.

You also seem to be trying really hard to compensate for something. Having doubts and saying so is an honest thing, and I would even go so far as to say it is a brave thing to do, as it opens oneself up to attack from both sides. Just because someone goes "all in" does not necessarily indicate bravery but rather recklessness (and an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable facts or ideas).

I could go on and tell you in what way the five points you made are merely cynical (and incomplete) caricatures of what you think is the scientific method, and perhaps reflect a poor grasp of the subject matter you question. I also posted something about the nonsensical notion of "absolute" certainty that you seem so enamored of. I will not repeat myself (and let the previous postings speak for themselves), but I will just ask you to consider this one last point:

Just as background information, I have gone to church all my life and I have had doubts since a teenager, but only recently have I started to seriously question this. I did not take time to think as I was busy with more practical matters in front of me, such as my own schoolwork and starting my career. So at the moment I see my self as being in a kind of transition mode.

But, as a one-time believer who still wants to believe in the goodness of people (or at least that most people want to do good), I ask this: If you have truly confessed your sins and have accepted Jesus as your savior, then is this all that is needed for you to have salvation (as you confidently asserted)? Growing up as a Presbyterian, I was taught as a child by my pastor (and my parents) that if you believe, then it has to change you, ie, make you a "better person." Did faith make you better (and more importantly) does it drive you to seek to become better, that is, emulate Jesus' teachings better, such as caring for the poor and downtrodden? I see passages where some bible authors seem to condemn "sinners" but Jesus seemed to be quite the opposite: he seemed to make it a point to associate with those that others would keep at a distance.

An example: If a bigot accepts Jesus as his savior, then shouldn't he no longer be a bigot (having overcome this problem by striving to emulate Jesus)? Yet it seems so many who profess they want to follow Jesus' teachings are so intolerant. That is my biggest objection to some religions (or more accurately, some sects of religions). Perhaps I am holding believer to too high a standard? If you think this is unfair, answer my question (2) to anonymous above.

I am not asking you to answer this question to me on this forum as it is a matter of personal faith. But perhaps you should ask this question of yourself. At any rate, what I am doing is to challenge your assertion that you "know" what the truth is when it seems you do not talk the talk (nor, it seems from what you tell me, walk the walk). I find your "logic" to be a curious thing. It has this magical quality of being whatever you say it is, but hardly consistent with what you claim is TRUTH (ie, Jesus' teachings).

NavynukeCDR,

How old are you? 15? 17? I have already stated here that I am not going to play this game of answering 100 questions.

Anyone can respond the way you did. I retard can sign in and ask a million questions.

Furthermore, NOT ONE TIME did i ever insist that the Bible has answers concerning calculus, germ theories, and the like...NOT ONE TIME. I will mail you a $100 check if you can find the quote where i did.

Not one time did i ever insist that science is NOT USEFUL. Again, find me the quote.

No, instead, here was the quote from the original post: "Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more."

You don't even understand what the freakin issues are....and you wonder why i don't answer your questions.

Scroll back up and read some more.

And i see our cowardly lion, Puzzled, is back. No, i don't believe in evolution.

But here's the thing. If ya'll knew how to read, you would understand that the reason i brought that up was concerning Dawkins use of the words "idiots" and "wicked" for those who disagree with him and the fact that no one here jumps his case for being "rude", "mean", and "breaking the social contract".

How do the morons anony and Puzzled respond? they ignore the point altogether about name calling and ask me questions about evolution.

amateurs. Seriously, i think it may be time for me to leave and find some more "Bright" people who have better reading comprehension and affirm the use of logic to spar with. You guys are a joke.

Mr. Bradfield -- you wouldn't be avoiding the questions, now would you?

I find it interesting that you claim to know so much about the intentions, thoughts, and designs of the Creator; I thought that since you were such an expert you could enlighten the rest of us "morons" on some of the fundamental (no pun intended) questions I raised above.

BTW -- Sam Harris makes a good point in his book: why does the Bible contain no advanced mathematical concepts or fundamentals of physics? Why did we have to wait for Sir Isaac Newton to come along to invent calculus? Why aren't designs for a fusion reactor included in Deuteronomy along with the exhortations to stone to death all infidels, fornicators, and homosexuals? Why wasn't there a discussion on the germ theory of disease included that would have spared so many people in the past (including many children) the agony of dying from diseases such as the Black Plague -- not to mentioned the lifelong heartsickness of their parents. Surely discussions of germ theory and disease prevention would have been more in line with the teachings of a loving God...right?

Is this 'lovey-dovey' enough for you?

How does one "believe in" evolution? It is not a religion (despite what many creationists think), just a well-established scientific theory backed by evidence.

Anonymous, I am curious to know (since you sound like a believer):

(1) How do you reconcile scientific evidence on things like the age of the universe and evolution with Genesis?

(2) How would Jesus treat homosexuals? (Does the NT specifically say that homosexuality is a sin?)

Jason,

Do you not believe in evolution?
If so,

How old is the earth?
When did God create Adam and Eve? (roughly)
Was it right after all of the homos (erectus not those stinkin blasphemers) went extinct?

If you do believe in evolution, then Dawkins wasn't talking to you so you shouldn't be offended.

anonymous,

I'm not playing this whole, lovey dovey game of yours.

It's amazing to me that you would have a problem with me calling atheists morons, but rarely do atheists (at least the ones i have been going back and forth with here) jump on Harris and Dawkins for doing such things.

Dawkins has said that people who don't believe in evolution are "idiots" and "wicked" and I don't hear peep from any of you people.

i call Dawkins a "moron" and "oh...stop it Jason...that's mean...you're violating the social contract..." blah, blah, blah.

What hypocrites! Anony, if you can't take the heat, then...you know the rest.

_________

Richard Dawkins:

"Well, evolution is different about this, because there are a large number of evolutionists who are also religious. You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. Now there are plenty of sane, educated, religious people: there are professors of theology, and there are bishops ... and so obviously they all believe in evolution or they wouldn't have gotten where they have because they would be too stupid or too ignorant."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins0.htm

Jason, you should be getting the help you obviously need. Not spitting anger at everyone who is, and it appears greatly, different than you. Feel the love, man. Start there, no one here wishes you harm.

Well, well, if it isn't Mr. Bradfield...

Before we start, you should know that I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. Slight difference, easily misconstrued by the untutored layman. I suppose I should be grateful you didn't question my patriotism as well...
--------------------------------------------------Part 1 -- where I attempt to answer your questions

As to whether observation is unreliable, it depends...on the frame of reference (are we talking Newtonian or at the subatomic/quantum level) and who or what is doing the observing. Fallible human beings are notoriously unreliable and 'unrepeatable'....however, a calibrated instrument (such as an ammeter, voltmeter, electron microscope, etc) are reliable when used as designed and can give repeatable measurements.

Now..."equations are always selected, they are never discovered." Let's take a simple example: Ohm's Law. V = IR... or voltage equals current times resistance. That law was deduced via scientific experiment and deductive reasoning....it wasn't just plucked out of thin air. And it can be repeated and confirmed independently. Take a constant voltage, apply it across varying resistors, and measure the currents. Plot the results to verify. More complex examples would be the laws governing electromagnetism and gravitation.

And no, scientific laws do not just apply only in 'ideal' situations. For example -- the law of gravity. You're not suspended in mid-air, right? There are, however, issues to account for when not in a laboratory -- frictional losses, internal resistance of a cable, inertia required to get a prime mover going, and the like.
--------------------------------------------------
Part 2 -- where I address the issues you raise

I thought I made it quite clear that I don't buy completely into the argument that there is no Creator, and that I still have some other questions -- where did all this matter come from? Who/What designed the atom? (We know how...but why?) What caused the Big Bang (i.e. why did the singularity explode to create the Universe?) I freely admit I don't have the answer, and I wonder if we will ever have the answers. Nevertheless, I thought the overarching point of my post was my agreement with Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins on the need to remove religion from the public, tax-financed sphere and move it back to the realm of private matters. I recognize that the Founding Fathers were (at least publicly) "God-fearing" men; yet (to me at least) the meaning of the Constitution is clear -- separation of church and state. Would you prefer we live in a theocracy? If so, who would be the supreme arbiter of truth?

And, au contraire, my life is extremely open to criticism. Professionally, that's why we have peer-reviewed publications, open scientific forums for other subject-matter experts to look for flaws, etc. As for the private sphere -- there are legitimate laws that exist to protect others from the consequences of irresponsible behavior -- I can't, for example, take my Glock out to my front yard and fire it in the air or at my tree. And, of course, the example from Missouri (of the abducted boys) make it clear that there is behavior that even in the privacy of homes is intolerable and the will of the people and power of the state as carried out by the police will intervene. However, it is the private behavior of consenting adults that is the issue I raised. Just as it is not my business how you choose to worship or who you choose to marry or what books you choose to read (or not read) in your home I don't see how it's your business to tell this grown man what I should or should not do in my home. I can't see how what the actions of two consenting adult men in Peoria or two consenting adult women in Phoenix have to do with my marriage to my wife. And, no, I don't want to see two men or two women making out in public -- I'd tell them to 'get a room', just like I would a heterosexual couple.

Do you understand the term "theory" when it applies to science and engineering? You are confusing it with its more colloquial usage by the general public to mean "an untested idea or opinion". In the scientific realm, however, "theory" refers to a well-established and verifiable explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. Big difference. "Christian rationalism" is not a 'theory' in this sense. If you believe that Christ was resurrected and that He walked on water because the Bible says so....ok, that's your prerogative, but don't try to pass it off as scientific proof. Same thing with creationism. That's why us "secularists" don't want these items discussed in public school science classes using tax dollars -- they aren't even remotely 'science'. If you want to pull your children out of school and home-school them or put them in a Christian school -- again, that's your prerogative. My stepdaughter was pulled out of the public school and put in a Catholic one, in fact -- not because of religion, mind you, but because the public school lacked discipline and accountablity...but that's another topic for another day.

And, finally, I didn't ".. tell God how to run His biz with your ignorant rhetorical questions..". Unlike some, I don't claim to understand the mind of the Creator of the universe. I was simply asking the question as to why an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God (as Christians claim) would allow this to happen?
--------------------------------------------------
Part 3 -- where I ask (and re-ask) questions of my own..

Care to enlighten the rest of us on why God chose the model of the atom that he did? Why do electrons only occupy quantized energy states, for instance?

Why did God design elements to fit the periodic table like He did?

Why is the speed of light only 186,000 miles per second? Why not 500 million miles per second? 700 billion miles per second?

If God created us all (or caused us to be created) -- why the unreasonable hatred of homosexuals? Aren't they children of God also?

Why did God reveal himself 2000 years ago regularly...but not now, in the era of instant communication?

Also...according to the Christian faith...a deathbed conversion to Christianity (by, let's say, Stalin) would wipe out a lifetime of causing agony for millions of others, whereas someone that might have led a conventionally 'moral' life (helping the poor, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, feeding the homeless) but that was a Buddhist or Hindu would be condemned for an eternity in Hell. What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen? Why wouldn't He at least come forth and remove all doubt of His existence?

and some new ones:

Do you believe that military members should swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...or should we be swearing an oath to something else?

Do you believe that Muslims, Jews, etc should be able to practice the religion of their choice as they see fit in the privacy of their homes or places of worship in the US?

If all things come from God -- then why the opposition (if not from you, from so many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and members of all religions) to opium plants, coca plants, and marijuana plants. Don't they serve a purpose (morphine for pain, marijuana for cancer victims)?
(And, no, never done them -- very incompatable with military service -- my biggest vice is Sam Adams...and a little blackjack on the side.)

Have you ever taken a math class at the level of college trigonometry or above? College-level physics? Any engineering classes at all? I can say I've read the Bible (some of it -- like Psalm 23 -- is incredibly beautiful); have you ever dipped a toe into the realm of the scientist or engineer and explore the majesty of science.

Time to go, duty calls....looking forward to your erudite response...

JWR

oh, and one last thing...i find these comments hilarious:

"I am a grown man, I can decide on my own what to watch, what to worship (if anything), what to drink, what to eat, what books I should read, what movies I should watch...I don't need anyone else to make that decision for me."

then:

"why would an omniscient, omnipowerful God allow a child to be abducted and raped? What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen?"

hmmmm...so that's how it works...Your life is not open for criticism yet you're going to proceed to tell me i am an idiot for believing the Bible and force evolution down my throat and then tell God how to run His biz with your ignorant rhetorical questions...

oootttaayyyy.

Navynukecdr,
I’m not sure what the “debate” is here because you haven’t really said anything of value other than whine about stuff you don’t like. I can play that game too.

I’m fed up with queers running around telling me that sticking their you know what up each other’s b-hole is a “natural” given and parading that around downtowns and insisting I honor it. I’m fed up with ignoramuses who argue that homosexuality is just some “private” issue that hasn’t had any effect on others. (See “Power in the Blood” by David Chilton to forever dispel that myth) I’m fed up with scientists who on the one hand argue that science produces no “certainties” yet tell us that anyone who denies the certainty of evolution is an idiot. (Dawkins) I’m fed up with the fact a great number of kids go through 12 years of public high school and are taught empiricism from every corner and never offered an alternative theory of knowledge such as Christian rationalism. Your tax dollars were NOT used to teach me creationism as an alternative but evolution and the big bust theory, so what the heck are you whining about? I’m fed up with atheists who complain Christians not being “rational”, “logical” people but then turn right around and tell me that the law of contradiction is a law we can take or leave. I’m fed up with people who bring up crimes that Christians have committed to use as some proof against the truth of the Bible. (again, arguments by those who say they are “rational”) I’m fed up with morons who tell me that no one with any sense would believe the Bible and then turn right around and say, “but I have no idea how we got here.” I’m fed up with people who INSIST on the certainty of evolution yet can not produce ONE transitory fossil. I’m fed up with morons who think that asking a ton of questions somehow constitutes a valid argument against a position. I’m fed up with morons who instead of asking Christians like me what I think about the legalization of marijuana ASSume to think that I oppose it like other Christians they have met and then proceed from there to argue some ridiculous point with another stupid question.

See Navynukecdr, two can play this game. I have a better idea.

How about scrolling up to the top of the page and addressing the five points I raised.

1. Observation is unreliable

2. All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

3. Science commits the fallacy of induction

4. Equations are always selected, they are never discovered.

5. All scientific laws describe ideal situations.

In fact, I’ll make it even easier on you; let’s just start with point 1.

1. Observation is unreliable

Do you believe that observation is reliable?

oops

Hear hear

is what I meant

me dumb

Here here

Rather than trying to convert theists our efforts, at least in the U.S., are better spent in working to maintain and strengthen the seperation of church and state.

This will be my last post on this thread.

I read the post by Navynukecdr.
Everyone is right. These are all excellent points well put.

Will any of these arguments or points help turn believers away from their faith?
Or are they just more reassuring thoughts for atheists that make us feel good.
Make us feel.... right.

We are right. We know that.
So what do we do now with this knowledge?

I know. Let's just keep on reassuring ourselves that we are right. Cause we are. And it feels good to hear other smart people say it.

Please Navunukecdr, do not take offense. You put in one post most of the very best arguments against religion and the contradictions of God that others have put in many posts over the last three weeks.
But none of these arguments have done anything but reassure ourselves of our position.
They have not swayed the believers one tiny scrap.
No progress has been made what so ever towards solving any of the problems that religion causes in our world.

I thought that others, after three weeks, would have noticed this.

Turns out none of the people on these two threads are looking for a solution. They just really enjoy this argument.
Because they are right.
And it's fun to be right.

Turning to the thought of, "what we are to do about the problem?", isn't nearly as fun as reiterating how right we are over and over again.

So many brilliant things are going to be said on these threads over the next couple of weeks.
And yet here is the sum total of what will be said.

God exists.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Yes he does.
No He doesn't.

Notice how I ended with "No he doesn't"

And that's final.

No it isn't.

LOL

Navynukecdr
Let me endorse what Philip Tripp said - great stuff, just post it on the other thread where you can still hope for good responses.

Addendum to Navynukecdr,

Even more importantly, you should take your comments and post them on about a dozen Christian sites. I would love to see the responses from that. Man, you would ignite a firestorm of dogmatic babble over there.

In fact, if you do, let me know via this site, where you put your words. I would love to read the responses.

Pardon me for my religious exuberence in the first sentence of my last post. "Praise the Lord" was said in jest but addressed my reaction to your comments.

To Navynukecdr,

Praise the lord! Finally someone has broken this thread wide open. The title for your piece should be "Better Late Than Never". You blew me away with your intelligent questions, comments and insight into these very important subjects. Where the heck have you been all this time? On a nuclear submarine and underwater for six months? Probably. I'm glad that you finally decided to surface. Pun intended!

Your comments are excellent. I had to read your post twice to really take it all in. So many good thoughts and questions. I really wish that you would copy them and paste them over at the thread that is still active. It is also one of Sam's posts on the Washington Post like this one. It is called "Consciousness Without Faith". Please get yourself over there and drop the exact post over there.

This thread is in its death throws. The other one still has lots of readers. Unfortunately, that thread is starting to digress as well. Your comments do a wonderful job of highlighting the really big issues and gets away from all the philosophical babble that is going on over there. Its gotten to the point where I can hardly stand to read what's being written, it has become so inane.

Please, Please, before you disappear for another six months running the nuclear reactor, post your words over there. I think it will be very well received.

On this thread, your comments are going nowhere, over there, perhaps you can get every one back on track. All the best, Philip Tripp

Thanks Jason,

I'm all teary eyed. That was beautiful.

I know why you like rap. It's so.... Babbley

Anyway. I'm going surfing in the morning. It's most certainly not going to be a meaningless experience. I will be filled with the joy of life. Riding a wave is a transcendant experience.

Imagine. Me. Having a meaningfull experience on God's waves.
Such a leech.
A leech!

merry late Christmas Timmy the Moron,

http://thereignofchrist.com/mp3s/rap/atheistsrmorons.mp3

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the debate, but I must say I find it interesting...and long overdue.

Background -- I grew up Southern Baptist. Never really felt a connection to the church, though. Earned a civil engineering undergrad degree and a Master's in industrial engineering. Currently a deployed active-duty US Navy officer, with a specialty in running carrier nuclear power plants.

After the debates in TIME, I recently purchased both of Sam Harris' books, as well as "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and the book on Thestic Evolution (BioLogos) by Francis Collins (forget the name right now). All thought-provoking books.

Politically -- these books and the arguments they are making are long overdue. I am fed up with the fundamentalists attempting to make decisions for other adults -- especially in a country that was founded on the separation of church and state as one of its guiding principles. I am a grown man, I can decide on my own what to watch, what to worship (if anything), what to drink, what to eat, what books I should read, what movies I should watch...I don't need anyone else to make that decision for me. I am fed up with the fundamentalists who completely ignore scientific discoveries and proof (Fortunately, Francis Collins does not do this.) in an attempt to convince others (using our tax dollars) that the earth is 6000 years old, that the universe was created in less than a week, that Adam was created from dust (by the way...did Cain marry his sister?). I have had it with politicians who think that somehow my marriage (to a beautiful woman) is threatened by what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I am fed up with the Catholic hierarchy that feels it is more important to protect the priests rather than the children they molested. I am amazed that we (in the Western world) continue to cave in (worldwide) to the Muslim fundamentalists whom are very clear on their aims to create an Islamic caliphate via the sword, gun, etc. I am tired of the apologists for the tremendous atrocities of fundamentalist Muslims -- especially the Taliban. I could go on for hours..fortunately, however, Sam Harris addresses much of these issues in his books. I was pleased to see that he did not (as I expected) take the 'wacko Left' POV so prevalent (i.e. the current Administration is responsible for every evil in the world..) and instead looked at the issues from a neutral point of view and criticized idiotic behavior at all ends of the political spectrum. What a refreshing change -- instead of agreeing (no matter what) with one political party or the other, he applies a uniform standard. Bravo!

In terms of the existence (or non-existance) of God/The Creator...I have to say that...I guess for me the answer (or Answer) is that I don't know for sure. I certainly don't agree with the literal reading of the Bible -- I don't see how anyone reasonable could. I can't believe I live in a country where people actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I can't believe I live in a country where people actually allow children to die while 'praying' for them to get better rather than get medical treatment. I agree that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as is the scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, etc. However....it seems to me to strain credulity to consider that every ounce of matter in the universe was at one time (at the instant of the Big Bang) confined to an infinitely dense singularity less than the size of the head of a pin. Perhaps it's my feeble mind, but I just can't see how the mass of the earth could be compressed to such a degree....and the earth is a grain of sand compared to the Sun...which itself is a grain of sand in the Milky Way...which is one of millions of galaxies. Furthermore...dark matter? Dark energy? I know that once we get down to the atomic level and quantum mechanics the Newtonian world is left behind...and in the realm of sub-atomic particles (quarks, muons, mesons, etc) all common sense departs....but I just can't buy into this invisible 'dark matter'. Also, how can science explain Beethoven....or AC/DC...or U2...or Guns N' Roses (the 1987 version)...or Shakespeare...or the Sistine Chapel...or the sculpture of David? Also...Something had to have created the universe...right? Who or What created the atoms that make us up? Who designed the atoms to work like they do and to form molecules? For instance...what a fabulous invention water is. Combine the two gases Hydrogen and Oxygen to get....a liquid (at room temperature and pressure. By the way, Jason, pure water always boils at 212F/100C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Raise the pressure -- raise the boiling point -- such as in a pressurized-water reactor plant. Lower the pressure, lower the boiling point -- as in a typical shipboard distilling unit. You really should acquire some knowledge of science before speaking of scientific or engineering issues....else you run the risk of coming across as a buggering fool. While we're at it, Jason -- since you seem to know so much about why God designed the natural universe to work the way He did - care to enlighten the rest of us on why God chose the model of the atom that he did? Why do electrons only occupy quantized energy states, for instance? Why did God design elements to fit the periodic table like He did? Why is the speed of light only 186,000 miles per second? Why not 500 million miles per second? 700 billion miles per second? Also...if God designed and allowed marijuana and opium plants to bloom, He must have had a reason for doing so, right? So why the opposition to them? If God created us all (or caused us to be created) -- why the unreasonable hatred of homosexuals? Aren't they children of God also? I didn't 'choose' to be attracted to women -- I simply AM attracted to women. Do you think that homosexual men honestly 'choose' to be attracted to other men? I don't understand why they do it (not with women like Kate Beckinsale, Ashley Judd, Linda Stouffer (of CNN), Scarlett Johannson, and practically every Italian woman around), but it doesn't affect my life or marriage in the slightest. Also (as Sam Harris states) why would an omniscient, omnipowerful God allow a child to be abducted and raped? If you know so much about God, Jason, then please enlighten the rest of us poor mortals...

At the same time, ...why did God reveal himself 2000 years ago regularly...but not now, in the era of instant communication? Surely, if God appeared in the noon sky of NYC...or at a Presidential news conference for all of us to see and be in awe of, then there would be no doubt. So why doesn't He appear that way? Also...according to the Christian faith...a deathbed conversion to Christianity (by, let's say, Stalin) would wipe out a lifetime of causing agony for millions ofothers, whereas someone that might have led a conventionally 'moral' life (helping the poor, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, feeding the homeless) but that was a Buddhist or Hindu would be condemned for an eternity in Hell. (Eternity is a long time....think of a trillion years to the trillionth power. Still not a drop in the bucket compared to Eternity.) What kind of a God would allow something like that to happen? Why wouldn't He at least come forth and remove all doubt of His existence?

I don't mind saying that it is difficult for me to resolve the issues above in a neat, coherent package. I don't know that we can ever know this side of death. Is the soul a product merely of brain synapse firing...or is it Divinely granted. I can't say. What I can say is that I agree most strongly with Sam Harris -- it is long overdue for religion to once again be a private matter and be kept out of public policy. Religous fundamentalism and intolerence is by far the biggest threat to world peace -- most notably by those that practice Islam. Until our politicians (worldwide) have the courage to state this and take the lead on this, then we will continue to careen ever closer to the abyss.

thanks for everyone's time. Look forward to the debate.

Jason likes setting up strawmen to stomp on, it seems. Just to make a counter-argument to all this non-sense about absolute certainty and all that, I will make the following point:

I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian and do not know if "absolute certainty" is a term that often used (with a definition that is specific to a particular discipline). However, the way I understood and have implicitly defined "absolute certainty" in my postings is this: if I can say "if A then B" or "A is B" or some such statement without adding qualifiers, and if this holds for all possible conditions (anticipated conditions as well as those beyond our current ability to know) then that would be what knowing something with absolute certainty means to me. From this definition, I cannot say I know anything with this level of certainty. Mathematical laws, physical laws, etc. are known with a great deal of certainty: "within thess boundaries, stated relationship will always hold." So I accept those. But as stated earlier, even something like "the sum of the three angles of a triangle is alway 180 degrees" needs qualifiers.

So, this brings us to what we mean when we say we "know." Even as Jason admits that comparisons between "dog" and "cat" are meaningless, he still sticks to the "Truth" (with a capital T) of the law that the dog cannot be a dog and a cat at once. This "law" is by definition true because you have already said that a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat (i.e., they are different). We call that a tautology, like saying x = x or y = y. And at any rate the comparison is meaningless, which is another issue altogether. Such a "law" is not "knowing" something because it is completely devoid of content. It is just making an assumption, and therefore can be a starting point for "knowing" or learning.

If I were to show you a whale, and ask you whether it is a land animal, then what would the answer be? Yes and no. Of course this does not violate the law of contradiction since the question cannot be appropriately answered due to a lack of specificity. Whales once were land animals but have since evolved. The full knowledge of an object must not only describe what it is now in every respect, but also how it has come to be, etc.

Jason continues with more silly rants about any child would say a care bear is a care bear and therefore cannot be a non-care bear. Well, if I were to ask my child what 1+1 is then he'd say 2 (and then say "that's too easy"). Yes, he's right since that is what a 7-year old should say. But if I were to tell him the answer could also be "10" then he'd laugh because he thinks I am joking. Jason, is the answer to "what is 1+1?" "2"? Can you say that is the only possible answer, "absolutely"? Humility would serve you well (just as Jesus teaches). Let's not jump the gun.

I don't like quoting the bible, but I will do so just once to demonstrate that anyone can quote a verse to make whatever point one wants to:

"...the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you." (Ps. 139: 12)

From this, can we infer that to god, day is night and night is day? How is that for God=logic? (And what does that mean, anyway?)

Of course, Psalms are songs/poems, and it is poetic language whereby the author means that god can bring the suffering (those who are in the dark) out to the light (or bring light to the suffering). But it also implies that darkness and light are meaningless distinctions to god, thus bending "his own logic"? No. This is not really god's logic, but "logic" devoid of context and an empty definition.

Dear Jason,
come off it.

With what little meaning I can make from your piece, I suspect that you equate me with the anonymous person. Else I see little relevance in most of your words to anonys rather short appeal. Your assumption is however incorrect. While I'd actually encourage you to seek some counseling, I don't state my opinions anonymous. I as well desist from demeaning remarks of believes held dear to the person, especially in cases I hope he or she is going to listen to me.
Given your poor conduct, I can not blame anony to choose to remain unidentified. I'm shure the person acted out of concern for you and not to hurt you.
From your hotheaded reply I take that you indeed feel heartstricken. I suggest you try and understand that your attitude had pretty much of the same effect to some participants.
As I already said, you should treat other people with the same respect you expect. Do you begin to grasp the usefulness of this concept?
Anony unfortunatly failed to keep to this standard, and I admit that you are right to take offence. And now look how you feel.
Grow some chesthair yourselve and take responsibility for your actions instead to ask us to lay it to your god. Though I'm aware that you don't believe in free will, you have to accept the rules of the game:
Actions - consequences. No cop outs. If your god chooses to make you do it, accept that people put it to you, where it belongs, since you are the agent.
After all, since everything is preordained, this is preordained as well. Strangley, in these instances you ask people to strive from the preordained path.

As to name-calling is not a fallacy per se: No, it's a discourtesy.
If you were putting it in the context of my argument against the accuracy of your worldview I fail to see the relevance. If it isn't entended for me, I fail to see what anony should make out of it.
I likewise fail to understand what your elaborate speculation what god could or would or would not do is meant to be.
For someone who claims to know the absolute Truth you seem all to often confused by the world.

As to 'You contradict yourself with every word typed.' I deem it unlikely. I suspect you simply didn't like what I said.
It is hard to decide, since you did not care to elaborate. But maybe you pertain this bit to anony.

Anyway, make out of it what you want. I see no need for further discours, you probably neither. If you want to make me see the errors of my way, do so. I'll listen.
If you rant, I'll skip it.

I did for you what I could. Now you're on your own.

P.S.: Asking your god for mercy is futile, if you think everything is preordained.

Tom,

Wickedly poignant.
I thought is was 72 virgins.
maybe bush could promise 75 virgins.

Yikes.

Jason,

You said,
"I guarantee you that if you walked into a college math class and refused to accept that 2 is not 3 and 2+3 is really 80, you would be laughed out of the building."

How about you walk into a college math class and tell them about how paper burns only if God makes it burn.

Wear earplugs. The laughter will be deafening.

anonymous,

great comeback. instead of dealing with the self-contradictions of skepticism, the fallacies of inductive reasoning and asserting the consequent, all you can do is name-call...and of course, you do all this as "anonymous".

by the way (since I am anticipating this), name-calling is not a fallacy per se. I have valid reasons for calling you and others morons.

I guarantee you that if you walked into a college math class and refused to accept that 2 is not 3 and 2+3 is really 80, you would be laughed out of the building.

Yet, this is exactly what Timmy and others have proposed. We can not be certain about anything, including the law of contradiction.

You contradict yourself with every word typed. And the ONLY reason you are able to coexist with people is because God has kept you from the full blown consequences of rejecting Reason.

God, if so desired, could "hand you over" to embrace a more consistent consequence of rejecting reason and have you enrolled at the nut house, but for whatever 'reason' He has not.

Keep mocking Him anony...you'll find out sooner or later and you will be without an excuse, just as you are here with addressing the self-contradictions of skepticism, the fallacies of inductive reasoning and asserting the consequent.

May our Sovereign have mercy on your soul.

God is not without value, especially to our President.

When all else fails, our President should shift the blame for the mess in Iraq to the door of the U.S. Military Chaplains.

Specifically, the Christian military clergy have failed this President. The God of the Islamic martyrs has 22 reconstituting virgins, a fine palace and much more good stuff awaiting His boys in paradise, no questions asked. This is very significant among young men who are not known for their looks, intelligence or social skills. The stingy-God Christian Chaplains have offered our troops nothing but vague promises and holy-book words spoken with great authority. Our troops have to prowl around Iraq looking for their own virgins.

Furthermore, the religious right should give our President the immediate authorization to deem Iraq a "Just War" by virtue of conversations with his Higher Father and the federal faith-based grants.

President Bush's Higher Father includes big money interests, especially big oil. It was to secure money-gushing oil contracts and to protect the oil assets in Iraq that the U.S. became an invading and occupying power. No further secular justification is necessary for this conflict. Our troops will leave when the actual “mission” is accomplished. The next two generations of working Americans will pick up the tab. None of that free healthcare nonsense for them.

As with all wars, complimentary justification for the conflict must be provided by the various religious organizations. Having let our troops down with a no-virgin policy, the President should consider any religious designation other than "Just War" an act of treason, or at least the support of terrorists.

God Bless George Bush our President. Let’s keep religion working for a better America. And, let’s end the separation of Church and State as the post-Saadam free and democratic government of Iraq has done so well.

anonymous,

great comeback. instead of dealing with the self-contradictions of skepticism, the fallacies of inductive reasoning and asserting the consequent, all you can do is name-call...and of course, you do all this as "anonymous".

by the way (since I am anticipating this), name-calling is not a fallacy per se. I have valid reasons for calling you and others morons.

I guarantee you that if you walked into a college math class and refused to accept that 2 is not 3 and 2+3 is really 80, you would be laughed out of the building.

Yet, this is exactly what Timmy and others have proposed. We can not be certain about anything, including the law of contradiction.

You contradict yourself with every word typed. And the ONLY reason you are able to coexist with people is because God has kept you from the full blown consequences of rejecting Reason.

God, if so desired, could "hand you over" to embrace a more consistent consequence of rejecting reason and have you enrolled at the nut house, but for whatever 'reason' He has not.

Keep mocking Him anony...you'll find out sooner or later and you will be without an excuse, just as you are here with addressing the self-contradictions of skepticism, the fallacies of inductive reasoning and asserting the consequent.

May our Sovereign have mercy on your soul.

Jason Bradfield,

You need a lot more than an imaginary friend to take care of you. I am convinced that you, seriously, need mental therapy to coexist with people in a healthy, productive way. Please, get help. I'm not kidding or being flippant. Get help.

I shouldn't have ended that with,
Are you with me?

I meant on the thought, not in this new cult.
I'm not trying to start anything or spread anything.

I just invented a word to illustrate that thing in people that religion has hijacked.

And for those of you who are creeped out by the words Faith, Worship and Believe.
Would you be concerned if your friend said something like this?
"I worship the Dallas Cowboys. I believe in them this year. I have faith that they will win the superbowl.

Is this person creepy? Delusional? Dangerous?

I use these words in everyday speak not Bible speak.

For any who think that my statement to Jason, that "I have found God", was facetious for argument sake. It wasn't.
Here is my explanation.

An atheists guide to understanding faith in God.

I have already shown time and time again how muddled this debate is due to the ambiguity of the word God.
Here's why.

I am and atheist.
I have faith in God.
What?
Let me put a bunch of words between those two statements and see if I can make it make sense.

I am an atheist.
I am fascinated by all that science has taught us.
We now know that the big bang was the start of our universe as we know it. We do not know what was before the big bang, if there was anything at all.
Why the big bang?
Why are we all here?
What is the purpose of life?
Is it, to just wonder about itself?
We all search for the answers to this mystery, with the knowledge that an answer is not likely to come in our lifetime.
There is no answer for "what is the meaning of life?"

We, each of us, must give our own life meaning if we want meaning.
So here is me, in my attempt to make life meaningful.

I would love to have a sense of purpose, even if I have to make one up. Kind of like giving yourself goals.
But do I have to make one up? Or has one presented itself to me already.
I feel a drive inside me to make a contribution to society. It's a weird feeling. It overrides all of my selfish instincts on the surface. It fascinates me this drive, because it comes from a different place than my surface thoughts.
Now science has an answer for this. Kind of thing.
They have a theory, and it makes sense. The theory is that there are evolutionary "survival of the species" type of biological reasons for human altruism. It makes perfect sense.
And yet I still feel a certain personal relationship with this drive. It feels like an inner morality, like a voice that points me to the right moral choice for every decision I make in my life. I always know the correct moral choice even though I have the free will to ignore it and do the selfish thing.
What else does this inner morality do?
Well it sends shivers up my spine and fills me with joy every time I hear ernest expressions of love, compassion and brotherhood of man. We all cry at the same scenes in the movies. I weep for strangers who don't even exist. This is weird. But thinking that it's weird, doesn't stop me from crying at that phone commercial.

I love this thing in me. Even if the science explanation is true and this thing we all feel is just an evolutionary biological function.
What is the purpose of evolution then?
We don't know. It could be meaningless.
But one thing I do know is that I love this thing that is in me.
I love it, and I have decided to have faith in it.

In my on going attempt to give meaning to my life, I'm going worship my inner moral voice. Because it is so deep inside me and I can not control it, in fact I know the opposite to be true, most of the time, it controls me. But I have never been sorry that I let it lead me down the right path when my surface thoughts would have led me to the wrong decision.
This voice inside me is always right, even when I am wrong. It is truth. It is ultimate morality.
Science also tells us that matter is energy is matter is energy is matter. The entire universe is made of one thing. Energy.
Wow. What a cool metaphysical-like thought that is. I'm going to let my imagination run wild with that one. Cool. Maybe when my body dies, my presence remains in the form of energy. Cool. What a cool thought.
I will decide to personify this inner morality thing and give it a name so that I can worship it, for it is worthy of my worship.
I will call it Shmorf.
I will worship Shmorf.
I will have faith in Shmorf.
It will give my life special meaning if I always strive to please Shmorf. I will tell other people about Shmorf and how I have decided to worship Shmorf.
I think the world would be a better place if we all worshiped Shmorf. Not that I would push Shmorf on anyone else but imagine. I wouldn''t need to push Shmorf on anyone else. Shmorf is already with them and speaks to them in their own way.

Here is the problem. 3 or 4 thousand years ago, somebody realized the power of Shmorf and wrote a book about it. But they added in a whole lot of their own personal feelings about life and attributed them to Shmorf. Then they, instead of suggesting that other people live life for, and worship Shmorf, they demanded it.
They claimed that Shmorf spoke to them in a vision and dictated to them personally a codified dogma that all people must now follow.
Well regular people were pretty dumb back then and didn't have a lot of choice but to believe people who were in positions of power, after all, how would they have gotten into a position of power if they weren't smart. And It makes sense that if Shmorf was going to actually talk to someone in words, he/she would choose the leader of my tribe or the smartest person around. I guess this book is really the word of Shmorf.

Since then many others have written books, supposedly dictated by Shmorf, in an attempt to have their own view of the world attached to Shmorf.

Only these people who wrote these books didn't use the word Shmorf. They used the word God.

I don't believe that any of these people talked to Shmorf. I believe that they made it up, or only think that they talked to Shmorf.
I believe the only way to know Shmorf is through your own internal relationship with Shmorf.

I certainly don't want to make people stop believing in Shmorf.
I just want them to trust Shmorf, and not listen to other people who try and tell them who Shmorf is.
Shmorf is in all of us and speaks to all of us. Not in words. But Shmorf speaks to us.

I am an atheist.
I have faith in God.

For ambiguity reasons, replace God with Shmorf.

We will never, nor should we ever, make people lose their faith in God. We may however, get them to start seeing him as Shmorf.

Anyone with me?

So let's see if I can wrap it up for me. I doubt that interested parties are still available.
Yet I feel obliged to finish my thoughts.

Let's examin Jasons last - ehem - answer.
J> Here's a hint Falk...there are big marble friezes all over the Supreme Court building of some guy holding two tablets.
Correct. Actualy there are big marble friezes all over the Supreme Court building of many guys holding tablets, 18 in fact.
Muhamed is there too. And Napoleon Bonaparte.
So what does it tell me?
A manyfold of things.
Firstly someone placed them there, for a reason.
While I appriciate Jasons effort to bridge the gap by using some empiricism I have to caution him that not everything is one-dimensional. The reason this pictures are there is, that these individuals were importend law givers, not because they refer to religion.
Likewise this is an example of a christian who likes to credit everything to his religion without sufficient evidence.
Furthermore a building commissioned in the 1930s is hardly a primary source on the intend of the founding fathers.
But I digress.
On a last note: Any social contract can as well incorporate religious morality, provided enough reasons are given. However, it has to be demonstrated why the religious morality should be applied to the people as a whole, why this is a universal interest instead of a special interest.
If the interested denomination is not able to it shouldn't be general law. The group in question can adher to the principals on their own.
Jews follow very special dietary rules. Thankfully, they don't ask anybody else to adher to them.

There is still the rather good question, if a social contract might lead to National Socialism or any other form of despotism.
Quite to the contrary: The main tenet of said ideologie is the 'Führerprinzip', the Principal of Leadership. Everything is organised top to bottom and orders are going top to bottom likewise with no room for negotiations. In fact, despotism is the break down of the social contract and visa versa.
The social contract is the saveguard - the only real saveguard against despotism.

As to the relativistic moralism:
This is one of these wonderful terms everybody has heard about but which are not well defined.
If relativistic moralism means arbitrary usage of morals pertaining to any given situation, it doesn't apply.
If you want to adress two given situations differently you have to cite reasons. If you can't provide them, you normaly don't get this privilge.
There is a necessary prerequesite however: Intelectual integrity. Without it you'll always find a cop out. This however is likewise the case with religious morals.

Timmy raised a good reminder of
"the time of the founding fathers, when even men with brilliant minds allowed themselves to engage in slavery and misogyny"
It certainly was intelectual dishonest to engage in these activities despite the principals of the constitution, albeit we are oversimpliefying their situation.
It also demonstrates fairly well the dangers of intellectual dishonesty for society as a whole as well as on the personal level if you remember the bitter cultural clashes that followed, leading up to the civil war.

If anyone wants to stop immorality we better place more emphasis on strengthening intelectual integrity.

If relativistic moralism is meant defining morals to special circumstances Jason has a point. Therefor you opperate under the backdrop of higher principals like dignity of men, freedom, justice etc. and predict the consequences of your action pertaining to said qualities.
Hence my reference to the constitution. You could likewise use the declaration of human rights.

As to proposing the moral system of the bible: Essentialy we see no more and no less as another social contract. It is the social contract of a civilization which existed 3000 - 2000 years ago. Now, is anyone surprised, as we see the social contract over the course of 1000 years change, that we encounter contradictions? Of course not. Does anyone think we can use it unalterd today? Dangerous thinking indeed!
Society changes as living conditions change. The social contract does likewise. Adapt and move on. If you don't, society will unreval and eventualy breakdown.

As to Jason's Worldview, I'll make it quick:

Jason, I'll restate what I said earlier:
God doesn't denie you insulting non-believers. Your action is not at fault with his moral system.
A short lived social contract, a code of conduct was layed out that forbade this conduct. A valid moral system, on which you were called on. Your actions were at fault with the moral system of this group, of which you were a member.
Would the moral system of your god be absolute, it is cogent that it had also to incorporate the code of conduct here agreed on.
Which it didn't.
Hence - not an absolute moral system.

Maybe your god doesn't relate to this group. I suspect as much. I suspect it's Jasons god alone.

You seem to be honest, Jason. You have strugled with the bible far to long and far to hard.
What you didn't do was ignoring the contradictions. But the problems with your solution are actually bigger than your original problem.

No no Jason, you haven't been keeping up.

I have found God now.
There are no more uncertainties for me.
I have certainty about everything now.
God is certainty.

He has told me that the paper will burn, not because he will make the paper burn. God says "that's a silly notion." "Who told you that?" He asked.
Don't worry, I didn't snitch.

God told me that paper burns because that's what paper does silly. He said scientists are on the right track there.

I have certainty now Jason.
My certainty lies in God's word.
Not the Bible words. Those were written by people who did not understand God.
I'm talking about God's word. Direct.
He doesn't speak in specific words. If that's what you're looking for you don't understand God.

God reveals himself to you as you go through life.
You read words about love and compassion and God lets you know that these things please him.

You read words about war, and rape, and slavery and non believers burning in Hell fire, and God reveals himself by making you feel repulsed.

You are the one who taught me this Jason.
And I should have seen it all along.
God has revealed himself to me.

And he has sent me to help you see that he speaks through each of us in our own special relationship with him.
He does not want us to listen to mortal men and their theories and dogmas.
He has blessed us with skepticism so that we might spot these impostors.

Faith in God is internal.
To externalize faith, makes no sense at all.

God is all powerful, and has no problem communicating with us any time he wants.
He does not need Peter, Paul, Timothy, Mohammed, David Karesh or Pat Robertson to communicate with us.

To listen to these false profits is just silly and disrespectful of God's ultimate power.

Listen to God Jason. Not Timothy or Peter, or Charles Manson.

Where's my Rap?

I know it's tough.
I can't think of a good ryme for "moron" either.

But I have faith in you Jason.

Timmy the Moron says, "God has told me that both books are impostors of his word. He reveals this to me when I read those words. God sends feelings of repulsion up my spine. Good old God. Always there to keep me on the right path."

this is also the same 'god' that has apparently revealed to Timmy that:

We cannot be certain about anything; therefore, the law of contradiction is not 100% certain.

So, Timmy's god is certain that the Bible is wrong, even though Timmy's god tells him there are no certainties...hmmmm...

Timmy, that's fine if you want to follow this god...it does however explain why you're a moron because your god sounds like a moron as well.

Faithful Timmy!

No onus of proof here.
I'm just inquiring.
If you don't have an answer.
It's okay.

I just though you might, since you've based your entire life meaning on it.
The person who wrote The Koran also says that these are words breathed out by God.
I'm just trying to figure out which PERSON to believe.

God has told me that both books are impostors of his word.
He reveals this to me when I read those words.
God sends feelings of repulsion up my spine.
Good old God.
Always there to keep me on the right path.

Timmy the Moron says, "My honest inquiry into his faith has shown a crack in his armor though. His latest frustration is that he can not answer my honest question of how believing in the Bible God isn't faith in the words of strangers as opposed to faith in God."

Timmy the Moron demonstrates once again that he's dishonest and not really interested in a conversation. And I'd keep that illogical bunch of baloney "private" too.

See, Timmy has the task of proving that the words written by the Apostle Paul, for example, in the letter to the Romans was not directly mediated to his mind by God.

And the only "prove" that he has to offer is simply that he doesn't like all that Paul wrote, therefore it can't be the words of God.

Then of course, there is that whole problem of "certainty". Timmy tells us in one breath that he's certain the Bible is not "God-breathed" but in the next tells us that we can not know anything with certainty.

Hence, moron.

Hi Pam,

I hope you will notice that I have had plenty of mature conversation on the subject with those who are also mature about it.
You will notice in my dealings with Bruce for example, that he and I have made incredible progress in building a bridge between the two sides. In our private discussion group, which I understand you will be joining soon, you will see that all of my posts are forward looking and solution suggesting.

Most of us are continuing the conversation of solutions over there and have left this thread as the Jason bashing thread.
Like Jason has left us any choice.
Jason is a jerk, and nobody likes a jerk.
So I feel obliged, as one who has a natural talent for getting under the skin of Jerks, to dish out to Jason a little of what he dishes.
And yes, It's fun. I do admit to getting some kind of sick joy out of frustrating a malicious jerk.

But I only recently gave up on Jason.
I am the only one who tried one last time to reach out to him with brotherly love. I was sincere and honest with this outreach.
I made the same outreach with Bruce and LT and we are now friends who treat each other with respect in spite of our differences. We understand each other.
Having succeeded there, I really thought I might reach Jason.
But Jason has shown himself to be a "Believe me just cuz or burn in Hell" Christian, as opposed to a "brotherly love" Christian.

My honest inquiry into his faith has shown a crack in his armor though. His latest frustration is that he can not answer my honest question of how believing in the Bible God isn't faith in the words of strangers as opposed to faith in God.

Anyway, if you would like to discuss or have a friendly respectful debate on any of the issues on these threads, I am here for you. Or we can do it on the other message board so you don't have to risk being labeled a moron by Jason.

I only bother with Jason now when I am bored and everyone else has gone to bed.

Plus he's writing a rap song for me so I have to stick around to see that.

All the best Pam

TIMMY, I must ask why it is you have wasted time and energy in the bantering back and forth with Jason Bradfield? Is it too much to ask for you to explain what it is you personally get out of such behavior? I have read many of your posts and you seem to be informed and articulate about your beliefs. Many of us who post on the other Sam Harris threads could benefit from your views. People like Jason are a lost cause. I feel you could be more helpful debating your views with the rest of us who appreciate what you have to say.

"when even men with brilliant minds allowed themselves to engage in slavery and misogyny"

more dribble from the man who says we can't know anything with certainty and refuses to define "true".

Timmy, grat gunt yint barn house car fall under test you and or give computer yin?

Yes Jason would surely love to go back to the time of the founding fathers, when even men with brilliant minds allowed themselves to engage in slavery and misogyny because the Bible told them that these were moral things to do.

Oh the heaps of ignorant Bible morals we have turfed since then.

Thank God.

Can't wait for the rap.

He he he he he

Believe or go to Hell

Freedom

ahhh, the Constitution...our founding fathers..hmmmm...and what "law", Falk, formed the basis for our nation?

Here's a hint Falk...there are big marble friezes all over the Supreme Court building of some guy holding two tablets...

sound familiar?

Falk, thanks for reminding us of our country's founding "social contract" and demonstrating my point of how you "atheists" are leeches.

The only reason you have the freedom you do is because of Christianity.

get a clue moron.

Puzzled says, "Can you emulate Jesus and not emulate Jesus at the same time?"

Yes Puzzled. I'm following your lead here. Since we can not be certain about anything, including the law of contradiction, then, "yes, you can." My emulation can be and not be at the same time.

And thank you for making my case. Good job!

Timmy the Moron says, "How about you reply with a rap, called, "Timmy Is A Moron""

Finally, Timmy says something worthwhile. You've given me an idea.

Thanks.

Coward? That is funny. You hide behind your bluster (chest hair, man berries, etc.) because you fear doubt. Some might call it overcompensating.

As for church, I enjoy the company of fellows, even if we don't share beliefs, although that is being sorely shaken recently. If that goes, and if I feel like I won't be returning "home" to that faith, I will let go. But for now, I am fence-sitting. Call it what you want, but I believe in looking before leaping. Until now, most Christians I have met throughout my life have been very decent people, quite tolerant and compassionate for the most part.

Such are thoughts that would never occur to you, at least as far as you have shown here, so I actually have a hard time with you thinking you have "salvation" (even if God exists). As you said, it is god who says so, not what you (or your pastor, or whoever) think god will say. I think I have an idea of what Jesus would have wanted from true Christians. I've around that block a few times. That is why I raised that question about morals and faith. You claim to have faith, yet you're certainly not acting like someone who is listening to Jesus. How could that be? Can you emulate Jesus and not emulate Jesus at the same time? Perhaps you say you are one with God, but that liberates you to do as you like. What conclusions can we draw from that?

I am likely to get another earful, but just as Falk says, I would say that you are probably disturbing other Christian participants in this forum more than our atheist partcipants. In effect, you are making the case for the Sam Harris's of the world. Good job!

Hi Jason,
you do rise some challinging questions. Let´s see if I`m up to the task to provide reasonable answers. However, I`m afraid you will at times have to step out of the box and review them with the eyes of an empiricist. As I have stated in my first entry, this model doesn`t work with your philosophy.

So I will from the start concede to you, that the whole idea doesn`t pertain to a nonempiricist.
A position which I blantendly declared as unatainable in my privious post.
Last note of caution: I will at times quote you, to clarify to which section I`m answering. I will do my best not to contort your meaning. If I fail, call me up on it.

> Jason: SAYS WHO, FALK?
The People, Jason. I`d like to quote a document, that all of us are familiar with. Or at least should be ;)
From the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I`ll top it off with the first words of a second rather important document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,...
Start of the praeambel of the US Constitution

Powerful words, indeed. But they are not simply words on some dusty paper. They are alive, an acting agend for the society.
That is - when congress is actualy doing it's job, sigh.

Here you see a social contract at work. The very guidelines of your society, a predominant part for any other social contract that might be agreed on in the US, be it privat or public (especially public), now or in futur.

>Jason
>Falk merely lacks the man-berries to stand up for >what’s right despite the majority. No “free” >thinking about it – just another godless puppet.

Your raising an excellent point here. Rising up for what is right despite the majority is a pivotal point in the whole thing.
There is a constant haggling over what is right and what is wrong, whom we will grant rights and whom we will deny them.
And your also right - you have to win the majority over for your case - troublesome as that might be sometimes.
But you must not confuse it with beeing in the majority. Unfortunatly nowadays we seem to think, rights will be granted and only be granted if you are the majority. Which is utter nonsense. You have to have the consent of the majority.
The United States have a remarkably long and successful tradition of balancing interessts. I say successful, not perfect, mind you. Alas, at present day Washington seems bereft of its senses of it's former glory. But I digress.

In our matter at hand, will I grant you the right to call an atheist a moron?
I most definitly will not.
However, you raised the point that the majority will become a dictatorship, enslaving the minority and your right to caution us. Therefor within the realm of a social contract I`m not simply allowed to utter a no.
I have to cite reasons, which is what I`m going to do now.

Firstly, I demand the same respect that you want to be treated with and which I have given you.
You might take offense at my extremly harsh treatment of your ideas, but nowhere did I demean you as a person.

Secondly, we are in the process of discussing central issues and values of our lifes, which we all hold dear and don`t like to be attacked. That is demanding enough, we don`t have to hurt each other more than necessary. Calm reasoning might not be as rewarding as a rant, however it will serve our mutual interest better - our continued emotional wellbeing.

Thirdly your doing yourselve a disservice - while you do raise valid points of concern you convulute them with inflamatory remarks, which makes it much harder for me to answer them in a civil and reasonable way. I'm rather fond of sarcasm, incise me enough and you might get a sample of it.

And finaly, to provide an ample example how we could indeed defend the rights of others by simply living for values instead of ensuring each other incesantly that we are going to die for [insert constitutional right of choice here] of [insert party of different opinion here] my last appeal to you (I think, in biblical terms this could be called: To be my brothers keeper.):

Forthly you are weakening the stand of Bruce Burleson and LT, who identify themselve as christians and might be asked, why they think that the christian faith is indeed a message of love, since one of theire esteemed brethren at times invokes a curious message of loathe. You should spare them the embarresment of invoking the tired true/false christian op out clause.
Though you maybe do not percive them as real christians, it still is unpolite to mock somebodies best effort to find sense in the bible. You can correct the errors of their way as well in a friendly way. Their chance for enlightment and rightous biblereading would rise considerably.

Why this reason bit? Easy - you look at the reasons and try to make out if some of the reasons might not pertain to you. Than you point that out and we might revise the matter. You might also make some concessions - like a disclaimer at the end of each of your posts that your atheist insultism brand of christianity is in no way affiliated with Bruce and LTs flavour of christanity.
(The aswer is still no).
Wè're calling that compromising.

Oh, there is a fith reason of course: You have aeons of Schadenfreude befor you while I'm going to burn in Hell.
Shouldn't that suffice?

Darn this thing is much to long as it is already. I`d like to elaborate on the jucy bits of preventing Nazi mob rule, relativistic moronis... pardon me, relativistic moralism and arguing for the indefensibleness of Jasons worldview where I will be even more long-farted... pardon me again, long-winded than here in a follow up piece.

No no no Jason.

Not "God breathed"

Timothy said "God Breathed"

You believe people
You just can't face it.
You believe empiricist statements from morons like Timothy, that God breathed the Bible.

Silly me for taking newspaper with me on my camping trips to start my fires.
I should trust Timothy who says God will do it.

Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo

Duped dude. Duped.

Listen to God Jason. Not the church, who you will probably find something else to disagree with shortly, and have to move churches again.

Or go back to rapping in the streets.

How about you reply with a rap, called, "Timmy Is A Moron"

Timmy the moron says, "The question Jason Bradfield refuses to answer is:
Isn't faith in God through the Bible, faith in people?"

No, i did answer this; but again, you don't like the answer. "God breathed"

Once again we have a moron who doesn't understand something that is quite simple to grasp (or, maybe he does understand it, he just doesn't like it) and instead of admitting his inability to grasp it and/or his dislike of it, he insists his understanding is right, and then wants to force his stupidity into other people's lives.

And all of this coming from a guy who says we can't be certain about anything.

This coming from a guy who insisted on the certainty that newspapers will always burn based on previous experience even though he can't prove it, and those who doubt him are "retards".

Then there's Puzzled. The coward who still goes to church, for whatever reason, yet has no problem mocking God. Now, he will tell us he is not mocking God because God is...blah, blah, blah..but then he turns right around and says we can't know God.

These are the same morons who tell us that we can not be certain that 2+2=4, yet they feel we should drop everything and really pay attention to what they have to say about truth, ethics, and the like.

in the latest, Puzzled here acts like i've said something new...uhhhh....Puzzled, did you just wake up or something?

The Bible is true regardless of what you or i think about it. That has always been my position. Glad you could finally join us.

But then again, why do you even give a rats butt? You claim you are seeking for truth even though you cannot even define it and even though you believe no one can know it.

Talk about a moron.

Amazing!

Just as one's belief does not make the bible false, neither does one's disbelief make the bible true.

Thanks for the illuminating conversation.

You are angry Jason.

You are angry because you use caps.

You are angry because you have been duped.

I would be angry too if I found out that I got duped into defining my whole life on a myth.

I would be angry at the messenger.

I would be angry at Sam Harris.

The "faith in people" question Jason.

That is the question you refuse to answer.

Your answer for "where do I look for God"? Leads to that question,
Isn't that faith in people? The words of people?
Your answer?
No, because "Timothy" says that the words in the Bible were breathed out by God.
Oh, I see, so you don't have faith in people.
You have faith in Timothy. (I'm tempted but I won't)

The question Jason Bradfield refuses to answer is:
Isn't faith in God through the Bible, faith in people?
Sorry, I mean faith in Timothy?
_______________________________________________________

Hell is not a place where the devil resides.
It's what he preaches.
_______________________________________________________

Have faith in God.
Do not listen to impostors.
God has blessed us with the knowledge that he speaks directly through us,
and the skepticism to spot impostors.

Jason still refuses to answer the question that arises from his answer to the question. "Where do I look for God"
His answer: The Bible.
Faith in people.

God has revealed himself to me through about 4% of the Bible.
Just the love and compassion stuff.
The other 96% repulses me. God is telling me something when I feel that repulsion. He is revealing something to me.
If God has revealed himself to Jason through the other 96% of the Bible.

Yikes!

By the way, who says I'm angry? i don't loose a second of sleep over the fact that Timmy and others are morons.

Furthermore, there's nothing sick about it - it's reasonable.

People who call evil good and good evil are morons. they don't know their left hand from their right.

i dare any of you cowards to sign up for a college and course and consistently apply your denial of the law of contradiction.

Heck, we get upset when a cashier short-changes us. I'll try that sometime. I'll go work at a store and instead of giving the "correct" change of $25, I'll give them $5 and then explain to them that in college i was taught by a professional moron like Andy Ross that the law of contradiction is optionable.

$5 is $25.

............morons.

Puzzled says, "If you're waiting for a definitive definition of what it is to be "good" or "moral" as we live our lives, then you might have to wait some more."

ummm...no, i don't. I have the revelation of God. You on the other can continue to mock it and "wait" for something better - which you'll never get from people who don't even affirm the use of logic.

No, it's not a gut feeling. I know. Puzzled, please don't continue to read your failures and bankrupt life into mine. You have fallen in the pit and now you want everyone else to go down with you.

That's all your posts are - "i don't know so Jason can't know"...blah, blah, blah.

And yes, i have discarded stuff. how many times do i have to point that out? BUT:

1. That does not then imply that EVERYTHING i know is up for grabs - which is what you advocate

and

2. Regardless of whether i believe the Bible or not, my belief/unbelief does not prove that the Bible is false.

I believed in "free-will" prior to becoming a Christian. And once i believed the Gospel, i held on to "free-will", only because of my ignorance of what Scripture teaches on it.

Once the Scriptural teaching was made known to me, thru hours of studying cover to cover and analyzing, etc., I saw that the "free-will" doctrine could not mesh WITH SCRIPTURE. THEREFORE, i chunked it.

That "doubt" and "critical" thinking operated WITHIN the parameters of God's revealed Word. That is NOT the same thing you are arguing for.

To stick with our math problem, you're like a mentally challenged kid who continues to deny that 2+3 is 5 and you start whining that others are so "sure of themselves" that the answer is 5, and now you want not only this simply math problem, but all of math, history, science, lunch, you name it, to be questioned.

blah, blah, blah, we can't know anything with certainty. maybe it's 7, maybe it's not, blah, blah, blah.

Puzzled, if you don't like being a moron, then stop being one - otherwise, quit your whining to me.

Double-minded? I have no idea what that means. If it means I am able to weigh both sides without throwing fit, then I would hope to be at least triple-minded or quadruple-minded, if not more.

Evangelizing? No, that might lead to dogma. If someone like you were to believe in my dogma and then go out say things like what you're saying here, I'd have to excommunicate you.

For the last time: I never said there is an absolute to be known. What I said was that we as human beings all seem to have some longing to be connected to some sense of absolute, and we search for it. Whether it is a mirage, we cannot know, can we? Until you actually get into heaven (or hell), you only think it's there, no matter how much you've convinced yourself.

I say we cannot know, but many people seem to have this longing to know (even if it may turn out that there is no absolute). Your answer is to grow chest hair and say you know. My answer is to not worry about things like that but try to engage in conversation.

Jason,

If you're waiting for a definitive definition of what it is to be "good" or "moral" as we live our lives, then you might have to wait some more. Maybe when you move to another church, or the one after that as you "change" your positions, a new absolute truth will come to you, and maybe that will be THE TRUTH, at least until the next one.

Face it, all you have is a "gut feeling" that god is truth. Everything that comes after that are just rantings to justify this feeling. Angry retorts will not make you any more right or any more wrong. Conviction can be a good thing, but reflect back on your own life (since you should know best about that). Haven't you ever had to discard (or at least modify) your closely held convictions before? Even if you never did, isn't there a possibility that you will get a better understanding of god as you go about studying the bible, going to church, etc.?

Examples like how you learned addition ("2+3 is not 7 but 5") is another strawman. Is god (the creator of all there is) a simple addition problem to be learned once and not given a second thought?

Jason you are sick. You have posted message after message of rambling. Calling people morons and putting them down. You are just sick. GET A LIFE!!! I guess they should rename this board to Jason venting room. Why are you so angry?

Puzzled says, “I never said there is no absolute to know; just that if we can just "know" that absolute, that seems too easy, chest hair or no. To think that you know what that absolute is (after all the famous philosophers, Christians included have struggled through the ages) and absolutely (!!) cannot be wrong about this seems jumping the gun to say the least. You say you changed your positions and moved to a new church twice. Was your conviction less strong before? Will you say that the next time you find some new position (with even more conviction), will you then say that the previous one must have been "wrong"? Or is your conviction maxed out at this point in your life?”

First, since when did you make the rules? What if it is in fact easy?

Puzzled, you keep recycling the same ole’ crap and my answer will be the same every time. YOU said that we can not be certain about ANYTHING. Therefore, I concluded based on your statement, that we can not be certain of the absolute, nor if there even is an absolute.

What is so hard about this? See, my problem with you is that you continue to act as though there is some absolute to be known, yet your own presuppositions rule it out. On the one hand you want to reject absolutes, but on the other hand to keep talking as though one exists from which you then criticize me for “jumping the gun” or missing the boat or making it too “easy”.

No wonder you’re “puzzled”.

If you’re not certain about anything puzzled, then STOP trying to tell me how to live, think, eat, and drink. You don’t know anything.

You’re a double-minded man that’s evangelizing, wanting to convert more people into morons. I’m not falling for it.

Anony, the other evolved genius who has surpassed the minds of those 2,000 years and beyond, says:

“The Logic we see is human logic not the omnipotent logic that is beyond human capabilities. We cannot answer the question of what other logic God thinks because He is God. God is a being that is far more intelligent then man. After all, the Christians claim they were created in the image of God. Everyone knows that a copy is never as good as the original. Give it a rest, man.”

More mindless chatter from someone who claims we can’t know God, but can certainly tells us what God is or is not.

Thanks for the insight moron. That’s like someone saying, “I have never seen Jason and have no idea what he looks like, but I know he’s not tall.”

No, you take a break. How about catching the perfect movie that demonstrates what an atheist dominated world would look like: "Idiocracy".

I’m not going anywhere.

Falk Steinl, another god-wannabe, says “However you have also to answer to the social contract that this small band of people, this nucleus of society has tacitly agreed on.
Using insults is, while not completley ruled out, asked to be limited and used with caution. The purpose obviously is to let this mini-society thrive and survive. If you want to be a productive - and therefor beneficial - member you have to accept this elaborated moral code, even if god does not call you to it. Society does and has a right to do so.”

Which is just another way to say that morality is defined by taking a vote and the majority decide and anyone who disagrees must answer to the majority because they have the ‘right to do so’.

SAYS WHO, FALK?

And here we have again, yet another wonderful example of “free” thinking. [s] No, Falk merely lacks the man-berries to stand up for what’s right despite the majority. No “free” thinking about it – just another godless puppet.

And furthermore, thanks for basically legitimizing Nazi Germany, with your relativistic moralism.

Falk goes on to say, “That is possible, yet it means that you have departed from your fellow men and your reasoning is no longer meaningful to the functioning of any society and therefor to mankind.”

Actually, you may be on to something here Falk. It has been difficult for me, one who affirms the certainty and use of the law of contradiction, to chat with the morons present.

And as far as this now being some “proof” against my worldview – you’ve got to be kidding.

Let’s see the proof Falk – lay it out for me. I want a sound, logical proof laid out for me. Until you can, you’re just farting in the wind.

Puzzled says, “That is, can morality stand independent of religion or are these things (as many believers will no doubt tell us) intertwined?”

Puzzled, you can’t even DEFINE morality, much less talk about its relationship with religion.

Go ahead, give me a definition. Let’s see how far it goes.

Timmy says, ““I am trying to find God. Where should I look? Inside my heart? In my thoughts? The Bible?”

I answered: “God has revealed Himself through the Bible” and “If and when He chooses to reveal Himself to you, He does so directly to your mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word.”

Now Timmy says, “And even though Jason refused to answer my questions,”

Actually, I answered the question as straight as I could. God directly reveals Himself to the person’s mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word. I don’t know how much darn plainer I can get.

No, I’ve answered the question; it’s just that Timmy doesn’t like the answer. Furthermore, Timmy, the so-called “humble” seeker, goes on to say that the Bible is “a brilliant tool some diabolical genious invented for subjugating the gullible.”

Wow – not only does Timmy lie about me not answering the question, but now he adds that the Bible was invented by some devilish genius used to deceive us naïve ones. Yet, no one gets on to Timmy for these insults and I think I know why – it’s because you people believe the same thing.

What liars! What hypocrites! What morons! There is nothing sincere about you Timmy. You are only here to keep asking the same questions until someone answers them the way you want them answered. You’re not looking for peace/unity, you’re looking for a bunch of mindless saps to follow your dogma of stupidity right down into the pit with you. You’re not looking for God either. You’re looking for some cheap, pathetic substitute to stroke your ego and allow you to embrace ambiguity in all things so that you can never be held accountable for anything.

Timmy, if you do not repent of such foolishness and throw yourself down at the mercy of Christ, He will grind you into fine dust and scatter you abroad. Do not tempt the Lord.

Timmy says, ““I am trying to find God. Where should I look? Inside my heart? In my thoughts? The Bible?”

I answered: “God has revealed Himself through the Bible” and “If and when He chooses to reveal Himself to you, He does so directly to your mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word.”

Now Timmy says, “And even though Jason refused to answer my questions,”

Actually, I answered the question as straight as I could. God directly reveals Himself to the person’s mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word. I don’t know how much darn plainer I can get.

No, I’ve answered the question; it’s just that Timmy doesn’t like the answer. Furthermore, Timmy, the so-called “humble” seeker, goes on to say that the Bible is “a brilliant tool some diabolical genious invented for subjugating the gullible.”

Wow – not only does Timmy lie about me not answering the question, but now he adds that the Bible was invented by some devilish genius used to deceive us naïve ones. Yet, no one gets on to Timmy for these insults and I think I know why – it’s because you people believe the same thing.

What liars! What hypocrites! What morons! There is nothing sincere about you Timmy. You are only here to keep asking the same questions until someone answers them the way you want them answered. You’re not looking for peace/unity, you’re looking for a bunch of mindless saps to follow your dogma of stupidity right down into the pit with you. You’re not looking for God either. You’re looking for some cheap, pathetic substitute to stroke your ego and allow you to embrace ambiguity in all things so that you can never be held accountable for anything.

Timmy, if you do not repent of such foolishness and throw yourself down at the mercy of Christ, He will grind you into fine dust and scatter you abroad. Do not tempt the Lord. You blind fool…YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Psalm 7:9-17 Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous- you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! 10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. 11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. 14 Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. 15 He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. 16 His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends. 17 I will give to the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High.

Timmy says, ““I am trying to find God. Where should I look? Inside my heart? In my thoughts? The Bible?”

I answered: “God has revealed Himself through the Bible” and “If and when He chooses to reveal Himself to you, He does so directly to your mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word.”

Now Timmy says, “And even though Jason refused to answer my questions,”

Actually, I answered the question as straight as I could. God directly reveals Himself to the person’s mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word. I don’t know how much darn plainer I can get.

No, I’ve answered the question; it’s just that Timmy doesn’t like the answer. Furthermore, Timmy, the so-called “humble” seeker, goes on to say that the Bible is “a brilliant tool some diabolical genious invented for subjugating the gullible.”

Wow – not only does Timmy lie about me not answering the question, but now he adds that the Bible was invented by some devilish genius used to deceive us naïve ones. Yet, no one gets on to Timmy for these insults and I think I know why – it’s because you people believe the same thing.

What liars! What hypocrites! What morons! There is nothing sincere about you Timmy. You are only here to keep asking the same questions until someone answers them the way you want them answered. You’re not looking for peace/unity, you’re looking for a bunch of mindless saps to follow your dogma of stupidity right down into the pit with you. You’re not looking for God either. You’re looking for some cheap, pathetic substitute to stroke your ego and allow you to embrace ambiguity in all things so that you can never be held accountable for anything.

Timmy, if you repent of such foolishness and throw yourself down at the mercy of Christ, He will grind you into fine dust and scatter you abroad. Do not tempt the Lord.

Timmy says, ““I am trying to find God. Where should I look? Inside my heart? In my thoughts? The Bible?”

I answered: “God has revealed Himself through the Bible” and “If and when He chooses to reveal Himself to you, He does so directly to your mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word.”

Now Timmy says, “And even though Jason refused to answer my questions,”

Actually, I answered the question as straight as I could. God directly reveals Himself to the person’s mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word. I don’t know how much darn plainer I can get.

No, I’ve answered the question; it’s just that Timmy doesn’t like the answer. Furthermore, Timmy, the so-called “humble” seeker, goes on to say that the Bible is “a brilliant tool some diabolical genious invented for subjugating the gullible.”

Wow – not only does Timmy lie about me not answering the question, but now he adds that the Bible was invented by some devilish genius used to deceive us naïve ones. Yet, no one gets on to Timmy for these insults and I think I know why – it’s because you people believe the same thing.

What liars! What hypocrites! What morons! There is nothing sincere about you Timmy. You are only here to keep asking the same questions until someone answers them the way you want them answered. You’re not looking for peace/unity, you’re looking for a bunch of mindless saps to follow your dogma of stupidity right down into the pit with you. You’re not looking for God either. You’re looking for some cheap, pathetic substitute to stroke your ego and allow you to embrace ambiguity in all things so that you can never be held accountable for anything.

Timmy, if you do not repent of such foolishness and throw yourself down at the mercy of Christ, He will grind you into fine dust and scatter you abroad. Do not tempt the Lord. You blind fool…YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Psalm 7:9-17 Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous- you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! 10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. 11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. 14 Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. 15 He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. 16 His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends. 17 I will give to the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High.

Jason has lost faith in God long ago.
He has taken up faith in the words of people.

Faith in God would allow Jason to let the words of People like Sam a Harris flow like water off a duck's back. He might even feel sorry for Sam.
Jason would let God take care of Sam Harris, and concentrate his efforts on bringing more love into the world.

But this is not Jason.
God will make the oven turn on for Jason, but when it comes to Sam Harris, God needs Jason to step in and help?
What a walking contradiction, he who would tout complete reliance in the all powerful God, and then come running to the defense of the all powerful, like the big bad Sam Harris would destroy God if not for Jason.

So why go after Harris?
Because Harris does not attack God. He attacks the PEOPLE who have diabolically hijacked the idea of God and mean to use it to subjugate the world through the commandments of dogma.
And for those who are not in on the whole scam? For the flock?(Sheep) For those who's frail self esteem has been taken advantage of, Sam and others offer hope.
Liberation. Not from their faith in God, but from their faith in people.
I have faith in God.
Jason has faith in people.
Empiricist people.

People who say things like:
"Look, just believe, because I have told you that it is so. And if you doubt me, you're going to Hell.
Just believe and stop asking questions. You offend God when you ask questions of me.
God will be very angry with you if you don't believe me.
Look, it says so right here in this book, and these words were breathed out by God. The book says that as well.
Look at the book. It says right here that I am right.
What? You still don't believe me?
Oh you are so going to Hell.
Don't say I didn't warn you.

What's that now? You believe me now?
That's right, you don't want to go to Hell do you.
Good for you.

Now. Please vote Republican. Because Democrats are baby killers. God says so.
And if that's not good enough for you let me appeal to your greed. Republicans believe that Jesus wants you to be rich. It's true, he wants you to have two hummers. And if you get two Hummers? Drop to your knees and thank Jesus, for he has blessed you with the two Humers.

Buuaah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Yikes.

I think Jason's statements brings to the forefront an important issue to consider for both believers and non-believers alike. Do we really need religion to make people do "good" things? That is, can morality stand independent of religion or are these things (as many believers will no doubt tell us) intertwined? I ask because many people talk about the benefits of religion by pointing toward all the good that religious organizations have done (and many have, as non-religious organizations have done as well). Implicit in this is that Christians live their lives well, and Christ transforms them so that they have no choice but to be productive and contributing members of society through such faith.

For Christians, perhaps the above question can be restated like this: do you gain "salvation" by confession of faith (of course, this has to be sincere as God sees it, not "strategic" as God would see through that) or by doing "good"? Or both? Is confession of faith a sufficient condition, or merely a necessary condition?

If we say it is sufficient (i.e., nothing else is needed but a confession of faith), then as long as someone has absolute faith in god and confesses such a faith, can't that person just go out and be mean to others (throwing insults at them would be one instance), violate the "social contract," or even break the law?

Christians will say that Christians would never do that. That is right, but that goes for most other religions as well. But if we've learned anything from history, faith can be perverted for other means.

If faith does not transform you and make you a better person (or make you strive to be better), then is that truly the kind of faith that god would be pleased with? If so, wouldn't religion serve a very selfish purpose ("the rest of the world can go to hell, I am not")?

Most parents don't hold grudges against their children even if they does occasionally not listen and go against their parents. If a god who is so far beyond our comprehension actually does exist, I find it hard to believe that such a god would be so very parochial and petty.

Jason:

You have found god and are saved. I understand this.
God likewise takes no offence if you hurle insults at non-believers. You are not sinning by it and god therefor is not going to hold you accountable. You stay rightous.
I understand this likewise.

However you have also to answer to the social contract that this small band of people, this nucleus of society has tacitly agreed on.
Using insults is, while not completley ruled out, asked to be limited and used with caution.
The purpose obviously is to let this mini-society thrive and survive.
If you want to be a productive - and therefor beneficial - member you have to accept this elaborated moral code, even if god does not call you to it.
Society does and has a right to do so.

I would argue that this example is a cogent argument against your worldview. Before you role your eyes and remind me that you are not an empiricist I want to point out that I don`t have to proof that the above reasoning has to be valid in all time and space. It suffices that this simply is true in this instance to refute your claim that your reasoning is founded on an absolute principal or that you have found a universal truth.
You can, however, argue that your principal has only to be valid pertaining to god. That is possible, yet it means that you have departed from your fellow men and your reasoning is no longer meaningful to the functioning of any society and therefor to mankind.
In short: You`d encounter difficulties in maintaining an amiable association with others.
In fact I`d argue that exactly this has already happend as a result of your philosophy.

Jason, I want to thank you for providing an example that religion alone is not sufficient for our moral needs and that further negotiations are at times necessary.

I want to thank the rest of the people here, of which thoughts I have benifited so greatly, for providing an example that
this is possible and productive.

regards, Falk

We function by the grace of our fallible mind.
What is God?
The answer to our falible mind.
Religion is perverse.

I tried.
You all saw me try.
It was not a ruse.
I tried honestly when I was a kid and again as a teenager. And I just tried honestly again.
And even though Jason refused to answer my questions,
I have my answer. Loud and clear

Jason said:
If you’re not going to trust what people say about God, why then are you asking me about Him?"

I'm not asking you about Him.
I'm asking you why YOU believe what people say about God?
I asked you if you could describe your revelation, or , where you found your faith in God.
You don't seem to have had a spiritual revelation, or, you've not spoken of one when asked.
You tell us that you found your faith only in the bible.

Jason said:
"God has revealed Himself through the Bible. Yes, the words of Moses, Paul, Peter, etc. were words of people, but as the Scripture explains, they were words “breathed out by God”. 2 Timothy 3."

As the scripture explains?

Okay, so,
We are to believe the words of these people: Moses, Paul, Peter etc.
Because these people: (The people who wrote the scriptures)
Say that the other peoples words were breathed out by god.

These are the words of God, because the book says they are the word of God, and the reason to believe the book is because it's the word of God.

This is faith in people Jason.
But only some people.
But they are to be believed over the people who believe very different things, because they have written in their books, that these words were breathed out by God Himself.

I have read the Bible several times including recently. I'm not normally a big horror fan. especially the ones with so much blood and guts and killing and slavery and rape.
But I like the psychological stuff. You know, faith or hell thing. What a brilliant tool some diabolical genious invented for subjugating the gullible.
And then, mixed in with all of that horror, are the proverbs and the gospels. The words that speak of Love, compassion, brotherhood. Morals that all non believers and society in general hold most dear....... and then in the NT some more women being subservient, and slavery stuff.
But most important, in the end, (More important than the love and brotherhood stuff according to Jason, and the Bible)
is believe what you have been told by the words in this book, that were written by people. Because the people have told you that these are the words in God.
Who is God?
The people have told you fool, don't you listen?

Faith in people dude.

Faith in God can only come from God, not people.

When did you hear from God that all of those terrible things in the Bible were his words?
Not the good stuff. If God exists, and he speaks to people, then I have heard from God. He tells me that love and compassion for my fellow human being is a beautiful thing. But this is something that people of all faiths and non faiths feel.
If God exists, and he speaks to people, then it must be God who makes us all feel this way.

But what about all of the horror, and the specific rules and regulations and dogma and the "believe or go to hell" stuff.
God has never revealed any of that me.
Should I believe someone else when they tell me that God has revealed all of those terrible things to them?
No
I should be afraid of that person.
Especially if they bring up the idea of flying a jet into my house.

When one practices religion, one has lost faith in God.

.

The "God is logic" view is so OT. The NT view is that God is love. Love melts down those hard edges, lets us live in the loop. The Word is love.

Jason says:
"As far as being a better person, I don’t doubt I have much room to grow, practically speaking. But in the ultimate sense, I am as “good” as I’ll ever be because my salvation does not rest in my performance but on the work of Christ my God in my stead."

I never said there is no absolute to know; just that if we can just "know" that absolute, that seems too easy, chest hair or no. To think that you know what that absolute is (after all the famous philosophers, Christians included have struggled through the ages) and absolutely (!!) cannot be wrong about this seems jumping the gun to say the least. You say you changed your positions and moved to a new church twice. Was your conviction less strong before? Will you say that the next time you find some new position (with even more conviction), will you then say that the previous one must have been "wrong"? Or is your conviction maxed out at this point in your life?

If you think you are already there, then you will never get there. Didn't even Jesus have his doubts? I would not expect you to take my word for it, but I am confident that many, if not most, sincere Christians will tell you so. But of course, you will call anybody who tells you different that he/she is a moron, so it seems hopeless. Don't feel obligated to reply; I don't expect you to, not that it matters.

But thanks for replying to my questions, all the same. It has been a revelation.

Jason...you need to take a permanent break from this site. Now you are not making sense.

“Bruce, that doesn't make any sense. The revelation of God came in "human language" and "logic". What other "logic" does God think?”

The revelation of God came in “Human Language” because we are humans….duh. If he wanted to communicate to the birds, he would have used their language and their logic. The Logic we see is human logic not the omnipotent logic that is beyond human capabilities. We cannot answer the question of what other logic God thinks because He is God. God is a being that is far more intelligent then man. After all, the Christians claim they were created in the image of God. Everyone knows that a copy is never as good as the original. Give it a rest, man.

In my opinion, you are a poor representation of the Christian community. I thought Christians were to act in love and Jesus did…you are bashing a man who says he is looking for your God. Why would anyone want to follow a belief that produces such anger and malice? Bruce on the other hand is trying to find neutral ground, a peaceful environment where everyone can search without the fear of being put through hell on earth, just because they are looking for the truth. Bruce seems to be representing the Jesus I have studied. Why are you so angry?

Here we have Jason on one side of the Christian platform and Bruce on the other. Both with one thing in common, they say they are both Christian. The two are as different as black and white, yet they still proclaim they are Christians??????? Who is right…who is wrong? Poor Timmy, I feel for you, man.

Jason, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not trying to solve the problem; you are part of the problem. Set back and take a breather…come back with a calmer approach. People will accept you better if you approach them with a caring attitude, and then maybe you will actually convince people of your beliefs. I am sure you have heard the saying…people don’t care what you know until they know that you care. Show some “Jesus” compassion, guy.

Good grief…I had not finished my post and you are still bashing the, guy.

I am out of here…

Jason, you have ruined a good discussion with your anger. You have dominated the board with your ramping and rage. This is sooo immature.

I wonder what your Jesus thinks of this.

“I am trying to find God.
Where should I look?
Inside my heart?
In my thoughts?
The Bible?
I have read the Bible OT and NT.
These are the words of people who are telling me about, what they know to be God. To believe based only on these words, and what ministers say about these words, is to have faith in these people, not in God. (respectfully as I see it)

(Please correct me with gentle love if I am wrong about this conclusion)

I am just being honest about the thoughts in my head.”

Timmy,

This doesn’t make any sense. If you’re not going to trust what people say about God, why then are you asking me about Him?

Seriously, is this sincerity or are you just attempting to cool things off a bit in hopes that I won’t hijack a small leer and fly it into your house?

If you’re looking for laser beams and voices, you’re not going to get it. God has revealed Himself through the Bible. Yes, the words of Moses, Paul, Peter, etc. were words of people, but as the Scripture explains, they were words “breathed out by God”. 2 Timothy 3.

Jesus said, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"”

God doesn’t “prove” Himself to you by bowing down to your empirical tests and putting on a show for you. If and when He chooses to reveal Himself to you, He does so directly to your mind thru the occasion of reading/hearing His word.

If you’re truly seeking, you’ll pick your Bible back up and start reading.

Bruce says, "The only thing we can say about him is what he himself reveals about himself, and that is always subject to the limitations of human language and logic."

Bruce, that doesn't make any sense. The revelation of God came in "human language" and "logic". What other "logic" does God think?

Bruce, does God think 2+2=5?

oh, and one last thing Puzzled.

You say, "Admitting doubt and striving to learn can be a good thing since no one already knows the answer."

If no one knows the answer, than how do you even know there is an answer?

As a little child, i was pretty sure 2+3 was 7 until a couple of people came along and said, "5". Then i doubted, and in this case, the doubt was good because i had the wrong answer. But if no one knows the answer, what reason would i have to doubt?

Eventually, you have to stop doubting that 2+3=5 and move on to bigger numbers, multiplication, and so on, else you stay stuck on that, sucking your thumb the rest of your life.

Perpetual doubting is not a good thing. It is utter foolishness. It gets you nowhere.

And that is where empiricism gets you in the end. If empiricism can produce no absolutes, then you can never be certain about anything and you can never progress.

Puzzled, if you don't know what the end goal is, how do you know you're progressing towards it?

Puzzled says, “You think you know with absolute certainty, which contradicts what you (I presume) believe God to be: something beyond our ability to comprehend. That is your logic? Apply your "law" to that.”

Puzzled, I never said that we cannot know some things about God. Where did I say this? I’m assuming you’re getting that out of the critique of Hegel, but Puzzled…hello?... I’m not an EMPIRICIST! I don’t suffer the problems Hegel does because I’m not arguing for some naturalistic theory of knowledge.

Puzzled says, “language is a social construct devoid of meaning outside the world we live in.”

Really? How do you know this? Are you certain of this? Sounds like you are. Also, I’m assuming that you have left the world and observed that language is not used there!?

Once again, you’re taking your empiricism and its problems and trying to rub that off on me. And once again, I’ll repeat – I am not an empiricist.

It’s like the so-called “problem of evil.” It’s only a “problem” with people who reject the sovereignty of God over ALL matters of life. It never was a problem for me because the Scriptures teach quite plainly that God created evil. Don’t make your created problems mine because you don’t like what the Bible says.

Puzzled says, “Even if you say that god gave it to us, how many people agree on the meaning (even if they all agree that it is god-given)? That gets into dangerous territory: "only MY god is right, and your god is wrong."

And? So what that people don’t agree on the meaning, does that necessarily mean then that the Bible is false? No.

Furthermore, your rejection of God’s Word is nothing more than an attempt to create your own god – yourself. Unless now you’re going to tell me that you deny yourself. It’s simply one dogma being replaced by another –whether you go with Jesus, Buddha, or yourself. And what is really interesting is that I am actually the one who admits that my fallible thinking could never pretend to determine right and wrong for an entire society…I would never ask people to trust in my own wisdom and so on. Only in that which I merely duplicate God’s Word/Wisdom should my thoughts be taken seriously. Yet, it is you who mocks God’s wisdom and pretends to be more knowledgeable and wise concerning how things ought to be, and all this based the fallacious arguments of empiricism. What folly and pride!

Puzzled says, “Lastly, if "god is logic," then shouldn't god be consistent with logic? You can't be something (e.g., "god is logic") then not be consistent with it, right? But at the same time, can't god suspend his own laws in some instances (i.e., whenever he wants to)? Then, is he consistent or not? Or both?”

Again, God thinks logically. There is never a time when He does not. If I were to ask God what 2+2 equals, He would say 4 every time. Very simple.

What do you mean by “suspend his own laws”? Are you talking about God breaking laws? If so, give an example.

Lastly, you say, “Admitting doubt and striving to learn can be a good thing since no one already knows the answer (I hope you are not saying that you cannot be a better person and a better "christian" because you are already there).”

Again, more of this ignorance is bliss dribble. First of all Puzzled, I never claimed to know everything. In fact, I clearly admitted on this very forum that I would never argue the certainty of newspapers burning based on previous experience. I have doubted before. I’ve doubted the free-will myth and the futurism that is so prevalent among Christians. I doubted them because these doctrines will not consistently jive with what Scripture teaches. And I “strived” to find rational answers WITHIN the boundaries of God’s revelation. And twice I got the boot from churches when changing my position. The last boot coupled with a severe knee injury playing basketball and loosing almost every friend I had (because I was seen as a heretic) led to me filing bankruptcy and almost losing my marriage.

Don’t tell me I’m not critical of my thinking and do not read other Christian works with criticism. However, admitting doubt and striving to learn does not logically infer that there is no absolute to know and that NO ONE knows anything certain. I know the law of contradiction is absolute and I am 100% certain of this and I dare you to prove it wrong.

As far as being a better person, I don’t doubt I have much room to grow, practically speaking. But in the ultimate sense, I am as “good” as I’ll ever be because my salvation does not rest in my performance but on the work of Christ my God in my stead.

In that sense, I am already there.

Jason: The people that Jesus castigated in Matthew 23 and other places were religionists - scribes, Pharisees, Torah experts, priests. The people you are encountering on this site do not fit this category. They are not religionists at all. Please reconsider.

I would like to ask everyone to not jump on Jason for reacting the way that he did to my post.
While I have not found Jason's faith yet, I understand it much better now. Mostly through Bruce, and more recently LT, but also through Jason. Not through his argument but through his unwavering dedication to it. I respect it.

Please give me time to try and reach Jason before you attack him.
Actually it's the other way around. I want him to reach me. To show me the light. I am open.

Don't get in the way.

Bruce, you can help if you like. I know you will not attack him.

So maybe Jesus would call those who deny God fools.
I do not deny God.
I have told you that.
I am a lost lamb who is honestly seeking your revelation.
Would Jesus call me a fool?
If I came to him and asked him to help me see the light?

I am not being facetious. I am honestly searching for God.
I have expressed my true feelings to you about what I have found so far.

You are with a ministry. Can you not help guide me through the honest explorations of God that I am expressing to you?

I forgive you for still being angry with me.
I am humble and open.
And I reach out to you once again.
I am sincere.

Furthermore Bruce, my "self-assurance" is not in myself, but in the Word of God. I am only right because He is right. I am only reasonable because He is reasonable. My confidence is not in myself but in His Word.

The fact that you would quote those Scriptures in such a way so as to pit them against the righteous name-calling found throughout the Bible reveals either your ignorance or your unreasonableness.

To all concerned:

Concerning my frequent use of the word “moron” for non-Christians, I will not apologize. Your problem is not with me, but with God Himself. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. Again, it amazes me that people who despise God’s Word and do not invest the hours in studying the word as myself and others do, would attempt to take that same word and pretend to know what it says and try to preach to me.

For example, Timmy says, “I know that Jesus would never resort to name calling and display the kind of anger that you have displayed.”

Hmmm…actually He did. In Matthew 23, Jesus called the non-believing scribes and Pharisees: (direct quotes from the ESV)

- hypocrites
- child of hell
- blind guides
- blind men
- whitewashed tombs
- full of hypocrisy and lawlessness
- serpents
- brood of vipers

Now, since Jesus was “without sin” (He 4.15), we may deduce that name-calling, in and of itself, is not a sin.

In I Cor 1.20, Paul asks, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

The Greek word that is translated as “foolish” here originates from “moros”, from which we get the English “moron”.

The Psalmist tells us in 14.1 that “the fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

There are many more examples with even worse names used, but these will suffice. We see then that there is a place for rightful judgment and rightful name-calling. Calling an atheist a “moron” is not unreasonable because it rightfully describes who they are. There is a legitimate “reason” for it.

If you don’t like being a “moron”, then leave your atheism.

Furthermore, these same morons have no problem exalting books written by men like Harris and Dawkins, men who have called Christians “idiots”, “ignoramuses” and the like. What hypocrites! In fact, they have set up the whole debate as one of “Religion” versus “Reason”, implying that religious folks are unreasonable – which is of course one of the points of their books. Now, I happen to agree that many religious people are unreasonable. For example, I believe the “left behind” teachings are absolute foolishness; however, Harris does not make these distinctions. Instead, the moron lumps us all into one ball of wax, quotes a few verses from Deuteronomy and then proceeds to tell us theologians what it really means and what a “true” follower should look like.

And then to top that off, these same “reason”able folks tell me on this board that the law of contradiction is “not certain”, despite Daniel Dennett’s warning of becoming a “vegetable”.

You hypocritical and blind morons…rightly does the Scripture speak of you.

No Bruce, I ask that you call evil evil and good good and grow some chest hair.

WM: Thank you for your comment. I have enjoyed reading your posts as well as the others. While we have a different experience and a different viewpoint, I have learned alot about both myself and non-believers on this blog. I am actually encouraged about the potential for dialogue between the two groups. If we can keep it half-way civil, we can find some common ground on some issues. I don't mind a touch critique of my positions - if I can't stand up that that, I don't have any business expressing my opinion, anyway. I've enjoyed reading your views.

Bruce, I'd like to thank you for the comments you have made on this blog. Your comments have been made with grace along with reason. Of all the believers that I have been listening to here, you are the person who has given me the most reason to think that one does not have to be totally irrational to be a believer. Who knows, maybe some day I'll find the evidence that makes you a believer in your God! If not, or until then, at least your comments have helped me to have more respect for people who have found evidence that makes sense to them. Thank you!

Andy: Interesting last post. I agree that logic is just a tool, and that "our feeble logic is simply not up to the task of representing God." His own definition of Himself is "I am what I am", so any attempt to define the God of the Bible is always going to be insufficient. The only thing we can say about him is what he himself reveals about himself, and that is always subject to the limitations of human language and logic. At the very most, we can conceive of a "stick-figured" image of a being with more dimensions that we can even comprehend (assuming he exists, of course). So ultimately, the use of logic to either prove, disprove or explain God is going to be futile, except that as a tool it assists us in rudimentary discussion about the concept of God. Thanks for the comment.

Jason: As one believer to another - Colossians 4:6 - "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." (NKJV)

I Peter 3:15-16 "and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

In all honesty, I have seen very little grace, meekness and fear (humility before God) in your responses to non-believers. I have seen wrath, arrogance and self-assurance, instead.

"Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all." I Timothy 5:20 You are an elder in the faith, so this verse applied to you.

In the name of Jesus, I call upon you right now to repent and cease from this wicked manner of speech. You will do more for the cause of Christ and His church if you just say, right now, "I am sorry for the things I have said." Then, just answer Timmy's last question, and let him know about the love of Jesus. Please, for everyone's sake.

Jason, I wish you would take some council from the lord Jesus in your dealings with us.
No matter how much we are unable to see your point, not matter how frustrating it is to you, I know that Jesus would never resort to name calling and display the kind of anger that you have displayed. Even if we have deserved it.

Can you love us in our ignorance of your obvious?
I will apologize to you now Jason for anything I have said previously that has caused you to resort to calling us all morons.
I am sincere in this apology and I'd like to find a new, respectful way of communicating with you.

You don't have deal differently with anyone who does not apologize to you and pledge to change the tone of the conversation, but I do apologize. Sincerely.
I admit that it was fun to cross swords with your intellect, but it is getting ugly now. We had our fun. Can we try something new?
You and I?

I would like to honestly, and with an open mind, find out what it is that you are trying to tell us. I want to understand, not fight.
If I appear to have been looking for a fight earlier, I was. So was LT. We trusted each other enough to confess our flaws and forgive each other. So that we might engage again in honest conversation.

I have said mean things to you Jason as you have said mean things to me. I sincerely apologize.
I love people who live on the other side off the world who I have never met as I love all humanity. And I love you Jason, because you are my brother as all humans are my brother. This is why I am passionate about this subject. I care so deeply for humanity. My passion made me forget to be civil to you Jason, and to try and understand your frustration with us.

I am truly trying now.
I want to understand faith in God, and I an open to finding faith in God.

The following questions are for you Jason. They are not meant to challenge your faith. They are not meant to be accusing. They are an honest attempt for me to find God =logic = love.
I am asking for your help in understanding.

I am trying to find God.
Where should I look?
Inside my heart?
In my thoughts?
The Bible?

I have read the Bible OT and NT.
These are the words of people who are telling me about, what they know to be God. To believe based only on these words, and what ministers say about these words, is to have faith in these people, not in God. (respectfully as I see it)
(Please correct me with gentle love if I am wrong about this conclusion)
I am just being honest about the thoughts in my head.

I want to have faith in God, not in the people who tell me about God. Can anyone have faith in God without a personal experience with Jesus or God? (Jesus and God are essentially the same thing right?) (please gently correct me with love in you heart if I am wrong)
I am honestly searching for what you have found.

Can you tell me more about your personal experience with the holy spirit that has given you the faith that you have?
I ask this so I might recognize it when I feel it.

What about that moral voice that we all have in our heads? Everyone hears that voice. It tells me what is the righteous moral path to take is for every situation I encounter. And yet it leaves me the free will to choose the wrong path if I desire.
This presence , or sense of self, also sends shivers down my spine when I hear beautiful words of compassion and hope and love. Even when I just think about the idea of that voice in my head being God, I get shivers.

Is this God that I am feeling, Jason?
Is your communication with God something more than that?

This feeling I get, gives me no specifics. It neither orders me nor inspires me to follow the dogma from any of the earthly religions that I have encountered.

I want to have faith in God, Jason, not in people.

Again, this is not a question to challenge your faith. I will not ever attack your faith again.
I want to understand with an open mind so that I might experience the joy of God.

I have faith in that moral voice in my head. Eternal faith.
So I hope that feeling is God. Because then I could honestly answer that I have faith in God. But this faith would have nothing to do with the Bible.
That moral voice in my head, (and I'm just being completely honest here) makes me feel all creepy like, when I listen to a guy like Pat Robertson.

I am honestly trying to understand God, Jason.
I hope you do not doubt my sincerity.
I hope you will notice that I am a changed man.
I hope that you will reach out to me with love.
I promise I will never again try to trip you up on your own words or defeat you in an argument with science based logic.
This will do me no good in my attempt to understand you, or your faith, and God.

I'm not looking for a fight anymore Jason.
I am looking for understanding, and with any luck.... God.

Feel free to respond privately if you do not want others on this thread to jump all over you when you let your guard down for me.

Re: "God is logic" (John 1:1)

If the word "God" as used in the Christian sense is to have any denotation at all, it must denote the highest and most universal concept in our whole ontology. That concept must also conform to the rules of logic.

Any ontology can be mapped into the universe of sets, because sets are the most abstract and logically pure entities there are. The efforts of Frege and Russell were precisely to map all the entities of mathematics into sets. For any other domain of discourse, the task is logically easier (albeit empirically much more difficult, given the fuzzy semantics of empirical domains).

Frege created a theory with a universal set, which he defined as the set that contains all other entities as members. (The membership relation is not at issue here, since it is abstract enough to have almost any empirical instantiation, just like the predication relation in a subject--predicate sentence, which asserts that the object denoted by the subject of the sentence falls under the concept denoted by the predicate.) Frege's universal set contained any set defined by a clear and unambiguous membership criterion.

Russell pounced on the following contradiction. In Frege's universe, there is a set S of all sets that are not members of themselves. Russell asked, is the set S a member of itself or not? If it is a member of itself, it does not satisfy the qualifying condition for the set, so it is not. If it is not a member of itself, it does satisfy the qualifying condition, so it is. We have obtained a contradiction. From this reduction ad absurdum, we conclude there is no such set S.

Consequence: if the universal set exists at all, it must be a member of itself. But the membership relation is normally understood as an asymmetric relation. If A is a member of B, then B is not at the same time and in the same sense a member of A. For consider what this would mean. The members of a set A are "inside" A. If A is a member of B, B is "outside" A. So set A were a member of A, it would be both inside and outside itself. This paradox is normally regarded as showing that a set cannot be a member of itself.

The natural conclusion is that there is no universal set. Since all concepts can be modeled as sets, there is no concept that if modeled as a set could only be modeled as the universal set. The Christian God seems to be a logically inadmissible concept.

However, there is a way out. I discovered that in any set theory in which sets are not members of themselves and all sets are ultimately based on the empty set, there is nothing to stop you regardng the universal set as the "inside" of the null set and the null set as the "outside" of the universal set. This paradoxical looping of the universe is invisible from wthin the universe, and forms a strange loop in the sense of Douglas Hofstadter.

Applied to God, the strange loop suggests that God looks like everything from within but like nothing at all from outside. The other conclusion is that our feeble logic is simply not up to the task of representing God. In this case, there is nothing we can say with logical certainty about God and we may as well save our breath. This is what Buddhists have said all along.

The King James translation of John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the the word was with God and the word was God." If we translate this as, "In the beginning was the null set, and the null set was in the universe and the null set was the universe," you may see how Hegel's being--nothing--becoming dialectic gets started. The universe grows by budding out of its own momentary contradictions!

Maybe now you see why we say logic is just another tool.

I am honest enough to admit I do not know. If that makes me a fence-sitter, then that is fine. You think you know with absolute certainty, which contradicts what you (I presume) believe God to be: something beyond our ability to comprehend. That is your logic? Apply your "law" to that.

As for universal, I make no claims that words like "decent" are universal. Those words are what we make it to be. After all, language is a social construct devoid of meaning outside the world we live in. Language may represent things that are universal but from our perspective (with a lot of baggage; social, historical, etc.), but as you stated yourself, it cannot capture the fullness of its existence (e.g., cats, dogs, etc.). From my perspective (and from yours, too) Nazi ideology was not "decent." Stop setting up strawmen.

We would like to be a decent society that survives and prospers. However, there is a constant struggle amongst groups who have their own ideas of decency. If indeed those elements who have it "wrong" take control, then perhaps our society will cease to exist as we know it. Definition of decency is therefore not exogenous (i.e., some universal definition that dropped from the sky), but endogenous (i.e., something that we make as we experiment). Even if you say that god gave it to us, how many people agree on the meaning (even if they all agree that it is god-given)? That gets into dangerous territory: "only MY god is right, and your god is wrong."

Lastly, if "god is logic," then shouldn't god be consistent with logic? You can't be something (e.g., "god is logic") then not be consistent with it, right? But at the same time, can't god suspend his own laws in some instances (i.e., whenever he wants to)? Then, is he consistent or not? Or both?

I am probably wasting my breath, but for the last time: I am trying to be honest and admit that I am in the process of searching. And therefore I am trying to be earnest in engaging in conversation, even with a stubborn person like you. Yet I am "puzzled" by the animosity and your flat-out refusal (as well as that of many other believers I've encountered) to admit doubt and confront these difficult questions. Admitting doubt and striving to learn can be a good thing since no one already knows the answer (I hope you are not saying that you cannot be a better person and a better "christian" because you are already there).

Phillip-why-you-Tripping says, "Jason-One more comment about your earlier tirade. You stated that you don't know why the sovereign lets me and all the atheist bloodsucking leeches live another minute."

Actually Phillip, i didn't say that. I said, "You should be grateful the Sovereign Lord even allows you to live another second."

There are two possibilities for why He lets you live. You're either one of the elect, at which some point in the future, you will be called out of darkness - or - you are one of the reprobates that God keeps alive to continue storing up wrath for yourself, making your condemnation sure.

Furthermore, i find your preaching to me quite comical. First, it's comical because as we've seen, you have a hard time reading. But secondly, you are attempting to portray me as some evil guy because I'm not obeying the Bible. haha...this is great...lmao.

Again, like the leech you are, you'll appeal to the Bible when it is convenient for you to try to argue some point...another coward.

Lastly, in 30 years on this planet, (13 of those at a height of 6'6" and playing more basketball than most do in a lifetime) I have not been in even ONE fist fight. Because the same Lord who warns me of 'enemies' also tells me to turn the other cheek. Now, to be honest i've had my moments of anger, of which i don't doubt a single person on this thread hasn't had, but by His grace, He has kept me from sinning.

So try again moron.

Puzzled says, "(And btw, why don't you answer my question? If god is logic, then is your god subject to his own logic or not?)"

Because "subject" can imply a number of things, but "atheist-forbid" that i ask you for a definition.

God is not "subject" to logic in the sense that logic is some outside entity that He submits to. The law of contradiction, for example, is not to be understood as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

Puzzled: "The fact that human beings as a species is still around and have built a functioning society is indication that the experiments in building a decent society (like the American Revolution or the democratic movements in Europe before that) have been successful thus far."

There you go again...ummm...Puzzled, what does "decent" mean?

You keep throwing around these words as though they have some universal meaning...as though millions of people all agree on what decency is.

You basically say that a society is successful and decent due to the fact that we're still around. Decency is whatever the heck we want it to be. What a bunch of baloney. I can come up with thousands of scenarios of a society that's "still around" yet commit horrendous crimes.

Puzzled says, "Who knows? We may yet wipe ourselves out."

Talk about bankrupt. There it is in a nutshell, i.e. "This appears to be a decent society because we're still around, but if we end up wiping ourselves out, then that would prove we were not a decent society."

Which is just another way to say: I don't know squat about anything.

And i guess the Third Reich was "decent" at least for 12 years.

Lastly, Puzzled (great name by the way) says,

"However, it would also be a travesty to follow the example of closed-minded ideologues who cannot be critical of their own ideas even if it is not consistent with the world around us."

Puzzle, you don't even know what "consistent" means. For someone who is "almost" certain about the law of contradiction to be preaching to me about consistency is the most ridiculous bunch of nonsense I've ever read.

Quite being a wuss Puzzled. Your fence riding is only going to last for so long.

Puzzled:You raised in interesting subject by discussing the penalties for crime while here on earth. You brought up a lot of good points which are the subject of great debate in many countries of the world.

Unfortunately, I was not focusing my diatribe against Christianity for anything to do with punishment here on earth. I was focusing on my problem with a religion that potentially forgives anyone for their earthly crimes no matter how heinous and allows them to mingle in heaven with the very people they committed their earthly crimes against.

I have a real problem with that concept. If Christians want to believe that nonsense, that is their choice.

I agree Mother,

Just like a faith can be hijacked by dogma of all kinds, we have discovered that "non faith" is also subject to such things.
Who'd a thunk.

We need to keep an eye out for atheistic dogma.
But we must also be careful not to mistake conversation for dogma.
It may only seem harsh and dogmatic because it was conversation that was not too long ago, taboo.

The important thing is to attack all dogma that aims to impose itself on people of other faiths, and non faiths.
This is the only problem.
Dogmatic imposition.

We must go after only dogmatic interference in our lives.
Attacking faith is more than futile.
It is counter productive.
It is a waste of time.

Time that could be spent working on the problem of dogmatic interference. And if we are not attacking the faithful and putting them on defense, we stand a better chance of getting somewhere on the real problem.

One need only read down to the part of Sam Harris's article where he writes "we do not have a name for people who do not believe in astrology, nor do we need one."

First off, I think we do have a name for people who do not believe in astrology, atheists. Astrology and religion are linked together.

However based on todays standards and education
where we imagine astrology boils down to reading our horoscopes (mini prophecies) found printed in a paper by the media gods, perhaps it seems way to frivolous and unimportant to connect it to religion.

But religion is a practice of belief in invisible universal powers that direct and control our lives. Astrology fits that description in a tight little package. Sam,
just like the religious powers that be, have narrowed religion down to some very finite and unrealistic catagories. They are Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and the easter religions which he has a tendency to support as "valid" religions.

The problem as I see it facing philosophers is that yesterdays philosophy can be as much of an antiquated expression of myth as the four main religions listed above.

Sam was trained at a university in his knowledge, based on this past information. Like the ancient religions, philosophy is it's own narrow little belief system based on many, many philosophical "myths" So you could say I am an Aphilosophist, when focusing on philosophy like the kind Sam has faith in and preaches about.

Sam's first mistake is his assumption that just because he has attained the position of seeing why there is no truth or logic to the religious practices he abhors, he forgot that his truth and logic may not make sense to someone who has spent time questioning all modern assumptions that have evolved directly from our "religious" past. The worst fault in any religion is the belief that their religion is the right one, and alternate perspectives and critical discrimination of self is not part of their practice.

Here are just a few of my thoughts on this subject.

The Mother

I guess I'm back again.

LT and I worked some things out in private and had a breakthrough. I'm pretty sure we are friends now. So I have new hope. And a new purpose for posting.

Basically, LT and I decided to stop the intellectual vibrato that is a game we both admit to enjoying too much. We admitted to each other that we were both just looking for a fight. We apologized to each other for any hurtful insensitive things we said, and agreed to proceed as friends who will try very hard to understand one another, even when we can't understand one another. We will proceed by expressing our honest feelings to each other and not jumping on each other's words with semantical ad hominem attack.

Feels good.

What I learned on this thread, that opened my eyes, is that there is a big difference between using reason and logic to try and talk someone out of believing, who didn't really believe in the first place, and trying to do the same thing with people who really do have faith.
I can see now that the very definition of faith,
requires a leap so grand that there is no going back.
That is faith.
If it is not eternal, it is not faith.
And faith is therefore logic. To the faithful.
With this understanding can move on from the thought that I might be able to make my faithful friend see my different version of logic.
In fact I can understand exactly why my faithful friend knows (not thinks) that my logic makes no sense because logic is faith.

I understand my faithful friend enough now not to be offended by that. It makes sense to me. We can move on. This is terrific.

And then in return, I ask my faithful friend to understand me when I tell them them of my search for faith. It doesn't come up empty, just different.

I went looking honestly for faith in God.
I discovered that I can only have faith in the Bible God, if the Bible God makes his presence known to me in a way that confirms to me that he is the Bible God.

No I am not telling God that the onus is on him to find me.
But how else can I know that, what humans from the church are telling me, is true. Or rather, is God?

To believe what humans tell me about God is faith in humans.
And people have something material to gain by turning god into a business and a political force.
There will always be evil people who will try to use God to subjugate people for reasons of power and influence.
Faith in God can only come from God.
Otherwise, which humans are we to listen to when looking for God? And how do we know that the version of those particular humans is God, unless God confirms it for you?

So try as I did, I have never experience God, as God has been described to me by the Bible, or by people who interpret the Bible.
So the only way that I can have faith in that God, is to believe people without God's confirmation.

But which people? How do I know? If I believe the wrong person, I might kill a doctor, or fly a plane into a building, or Become Pat Robertson.

To believe people, I will have to ignore that voice of morality in my head. And that might be God. In so many ways, that voice of morality is god to me. It's the only voice that talks to me. It's the one that sends shivers and a rush of emotion through my entire body when I hear or read the words.
"Imagine all the people, sharing all the world"
But the only way I could possibly relate that voice, to the God from the Bible, would be to have complete faith in Gerry Falwell.

No? Not him? Who then? Which human do I have faith in.
The Bible? Written by humans.

The following words don't send shivers down my spine.

"The people will share all the world"

It was the "imagine" thing that got me.
God is telling me that with the shivers.
Which is funny because the god who is telling me that, is the god I imagine.

Jason,

I did not take you to be the sort. I thought at least you were trying to make some sense of why you believe (besides Logic = God, which is just another way of saying "Hallelujah!" but with the word logic thrown in; ie, a "true" statement, but only by your definition).

Yes. It would be a travesty to follow the lead of morally bankrupt people (by which I mean people who do not have a sense of right or wrong, whether that sense is god-given or not). Once again, true by definition, and merely a rhetorical sleight-of-hand in setting up a straw-man. And don't get into the silly rantings about why murder is necessarily bad if not for god. As a society and as the human race, there are some notions of right and wrong that we've agreed on (social contract and all that), which we've arrived at through learning-by-doing (evolution). The English common law system is a case in point, it's constantly changing as society changes. The fact that human beings as a species is still around and have built a functioning society is indication that the experiments in building a decent society (like the American Revolution or the democratic movements in Europe before that) have been successful thus far. Who knows? We may yet wipe ourselves out.

However, it would also be a travesty to follow the example of closed-minded ideologues who cannot be critical of their own ideas even if it is not consistent with the world around us. You say we have to repent and believe. Let's say that's right for a moment. But believe in what? I don't want to believe in idols that you or others assert and set above me to worship. If anything, I want to believe in what is best in us and what we can aspire to. Jesus may have been such an exemplar, so religion should have a place in this search. But if you think you already know the answer, I can say this with virtual certainty (not quite absolute, but close): you don't. Clearly, your tirade is an indication that there is room for some small improvements in your goal of aspiring to Jesus' teachings.

Once again, your assertion that "God is the only way" is merely what YOU believe (I am sorry but I have very little confidence in your absolute certainty), not necessarily the truth.

(And btw, why don't you answer my question? If god is logic, then is your god subject to his own logic or not?)

I am assuming ptripp is Philip. Let's think rationally for a second. What your hypothetical question raises is what "earthly" punishment is intended for. Why do we lock criminals away? I can think of two obvious reasons: (a) to make sure they don't do it again, and (b) to make examples of criminals who are caught so that others would be less inclined to follow suit. Although I am all for strict enforcement of the law as far as crimes (felonies in particular) are concerned, we have to realized such crimes cannot be undone by sending them to prison. We are addressing only the symptoms of society's ills, and are not attempting a more basic cure. Victims of a crime would normally want to see those criminals suffer; I know I probably would. But in an ideal world, we want those kind of punishment for those who deserve it, but we also want them to really repent and regret what they did as well.

I agree that as a dad myself, child rapists deserve the most severe punishment we can apply. However, as a society, we want to be able to rehabilitate criminals as well. It's really tough. I would venture a guess and say most criminals do not repent. But there may be some who do, given the right conditions. So, as a society, and as members of the human race, we have to make a decision: how much allowance do we make for the small possibility that those who've committed crimes in past will truly repent and contribute to society once again? We cannot allow criminals to run rampant, but neither can we become a police state with draconian justice. This is not a decision for one person or one religous group to make. Rather it has to be debated across the entire cross-section of our society.

If atheism is based (at least in part) on rationality, then let's see more of it. If religion is based (at least in part) on compassion for the less fortunate, then let's see more of it too.

Andy: I agree with you. Unfortunately, in this era of possible worldwide nuclear destruction, the meek, you refer to, are insects, bacteria and viruses.

If you mean, that meek humans will survive, I can only hope that you are correct. I see them as part of the collateral damage along with most of the animal and plant species on this planet.

The late British pol Enoch Powell was pilloried for saying "I seem to see the Tiber flowing with much blood" but now I seem to see it too.

World War II was Hitler versus Stalin, and Americans reaped the profits. World War III is Christians versus Islamists, and China reaps the profits.

Those who take an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind. Let us remember that the meek will inherit the Earth.

Sam says stop the madness before it is too late.

Jason-One more comment about your earlier tirade. You stated that you don't know why the sovereign lets me and all the atheist bloodsucking leeches live another minute.

Clearly, you have raised this discourse to a new and disturbing level. You are indeed a troubled individual.

In case you weren't aware, the proper Christian way to handle my diatribe, this morning, would be to say, Philip, I am sorry that you feel that way. I will pray for you and hope that you see the error in your ways. Your militant response is typical of most religions.

Perhaps if you were a better Christian, you would have know the correct Christian response. Sorry pal. Your response was not one of forgiveness. You may think that you are a good Christian, but you are not talking the talk.

Jason-I see that I have now graduated from being a moron to a blood sucking leech. Do I get a pay raise for the promotion?

To answer your question and to use your phrase and those of all believers in God, the reason why the Sovereign allows me to live is that "God works in strange and mysterious ways".

I am terrified of people like you. Not because I fear recrimination from God but because amongst your type, there are undoubtedly those that would take my life and say that he was acting on God's behalf or performing God's will.

You tell me that is not anything that I have to fear. That is what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins must fear every day. Your anger towards me and them is identical to the anger that the men that flew their airplanes into the world trade center felt about Chritians and anything American.

If you cannot see the similarities between your anger and theirs, and I doubt that you or any of your brethren will, then our planet is indeed doomed.

Timmy, I surrender. You have many aspects of me pinned down. So many of the things (although not everything) you said about me are right. I'm not even going to respond to RB anymore. There are certain assumptions we each have, and if we are not willing to let them go, fruitful discussion is extremely limited.

What follows in this posting, my last on this page, and my last in which I debate (from now on I will comment only on the original comments and not try to defend them afterward) is largely an affirmation of what Timmy says about me. Though I cannot be sure, I suspect evangelical Christians will find much they agree with and that most atheists will find my claims mind-boggling, unreasonable or worse. But that's my point...

"I can see that you and I are not the same at all....I did this to try and show you that we are more alike than not alike." Yes, I thought we are much more different than you thought we are even before your last posting. As a Christian by choice, I believe it is greater than a life and death matter whether one knows God through the Bible.

"You are so very arrogant to tell me that I need to define words like love, peace and compassion for you if I am going to talk about them. You mock my usage of those universal words as though no one who does not know god as you do could understand them." I confess, while people are capable of these three things apart from God, as a Christian I believe that these three things originate from God that if one doesn't acknowledge Him, then one cannot truly understand what true love (or peace or compassion) is. The Bible that I believe in says God is love, and so from the Bible it follows that if one does not know God, one does not know love. I believe that people who try to practice love as you sincerely try, but without God, are practicing a form of love that is a mere shadow of the love God intended.

"You are only a distraction to the people who are actually concerned about the problems of the world and looking for answers." Well, you're not exactly correct, but definitely our priorities are different. You are concerned about the problems of the world. I don't know which problems you think are most serious, but I'm guessing the fact that everyone dies eventually is not one of them. (My recollection of your posts suggests you think religious extremism and/or religion itself is a bigger problem.) I think the Bible is pretty clear that the key problem is death and that God has provided a solution through eternal life with Him after death. As an (evangelical) Christian, I think the key problem is that there are people who haven't accepted God's forgiveness through Christ.

"You are not looking for a solution." Yes, I am probably not looking for a solution to the problems you perceive as hard as you are. We've defined our problems differently, and while I could be working on your problem of choice, I think God has convicted me that there are other problems I have to deal with for now, like my personal relationships with the people I know most. I think I'm a terrible person in need of Jesus' spiritual healing. Even if lift other people out of poverty, disease, or religious extremism, I would still be lacking in love if I didn't know how better to relate to other people.

"You still want to fight." Well, you're partically right, that attitude is definitely present in me. I used to like to intellectually argue before I was a Christian, and I've carried that baggage since becoming one. It's one of the sins I still struggle to overcome. I don't usually approach people who I hope will find God with such an adversarial stance. Usually I know them personally and see in them in person so that I can show God's love and compassion in other ways. Unfortunately, I don't live in LA and don't have anything to do with the entertainment industry, so the only thing left is this kind of debate.

more assertions. Philip, what is "crime"?

Seriously, truth is relative right? Who said murder was a crime?....

do you not see how utterly insane your remarks are...people who deny absolutes and dogma want to tell the rest of us how to think and want to tell us there are "Some crimes that you do not forgive."

SAYS WHO?!

Forgiveness implies that someone did something wrong...well, what is wrong? Timmy says wrong is something "not true". Well, what is "true"?

I've been trying to get you morons (this is a compliment - remember, logic is optionable, therefore moron really means cool, likable, smart) to answer that question now for days and not one taker...

YET,

You continually assert right and wrong with every post. You continually make use of absolutes and certainties...what absurdity.

Blood-sucking leeches...that's all you people are. You breathe out words of mockery and contempt for the very one who gives you breath. You should be grateful the Sovereign Lord even allows you to live another second.

Psalm 10

Why, O LORD, do you stand afar off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? 2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor; let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised. 3 For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the LORD. 4 In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God." 5 His ways prosper at all times; your judgments are on high, out of his sight; as for all his foes, he puffs at them. 6 He says in his heart, "I shall not be moved; throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity." 7 His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression; under his tongue are mischief and iniquity. 8 He sits in ambush in the villages; in hiding places he murders the innocent. His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless; 9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket; he lurks that he may seize the poor; he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net. 10 The helpless are crushed, sink down, and fall by his might. 11 He says in his heart, "God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it." 12 Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up your hand; forget not the afflicted. 13 Why does the wicked renounce God and say in his heart, "You will not call to account"? 14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation, that you may take it into your hands; to you the helpless commits himself; you have been the helper of the fatherless. 15 Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his wickedness to account till you find none. 16 The LORD is king forever and ever; the nations perish from his land. 17 O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear 18 to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

LT-You say that even murderers are allowed full repentance in the eyes of the lord.

How about a hypothetical case of your own daughter raped and murdered by someone who is never caught. Before dying he accepts the Lord Jesus as his saviour.

Under the strict interpretation of your gospel, Jesus gives him a place with everyone else in eternity including the little girl he raped and murdered. Before long you and your wife and your dead little girl and her murderer will all be one happy family up there in heaven.

Further, the fact that he was never caught meant that he also never did his time in prison on earth which we call justice.

Are you trying to tell me that afer you are dead, everyone loses all sense of what happened before and there is no thoughts of our behavior while on earth? No justice ever for your little girl?

Your little girl loves that man in heaven? She has no animosity for the life that he took away from her? He deprived her of the 4 children and 9 grandchildren that she would have had if she had lived? She forgets all of that in Heaven?

I am sorry but that is the most ridiculous and childish concept of a herafter that I could possible think of. Get real man!

There are some crimes for which there are no get out of jail free cards for. Some crimes that you do not forgive. Your religions concept of the hereafter is totally unacceptable to me and I have disdain for anyone that could possibly accept that nonsense.

In your religion, even Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Timothy McVeigh, the men that flew airplanes into the twin towers and even Jeffery Dahmer are welcome in heaven if they accept the lord Jesus Christ as their savior.

Sorry, but Christianity is absolutely the last religion that I could possibly accept for that reason. And don't tell me that my little scenerio above is not possible. Perhaps not with you, but I guarantee that sometime in the last 2,000 years, that exact scenerio has occured somewhere in the world.

"You mock my usage of those universal words"

I thought there were no universals? I thought there were no certainties?

if we can't know anything for certain, then you're darn skippy we have a right to ask you how you are defining words...

It is absolutely [s] imperative that we define our terms, because it's obvious that what you mean by "truth" and what I mean by "Truth" are different.

it's funny that you would argue for universal meanings and then whine and complain about the definition for "atheism".

Timmy, your attempt at "peace", etc., is a sham. Your solution to the problems completely conflict with the Scripture's solutions...in fact, you and I don't even agree on what exactly the "problem" is.

Timmy, the world's problem is the same one you have - you despise the Lord of Glory. You mock His name. You reject Reason Himself.

You and I were never on any common ground to begin with.

Furthermore, there are Christians like me who seek to end terrorism, religious fanatics, end time theories, and the like; so your portrayal of me is downright deceptive...

You're not looking for 'peace' - you're looking for people to drop whatever dogmas they have that you don't like, so that YOU can supposedly lead us to a more intelligent, peaceful, blah, blah, lifestyle.

Only insane people would follow the lead of people who are certain about nothing.

"You mock my usage of those universal words"

I thought there were no universals? I thought there were no certainties?

if we can't know anything for certain, then you're darn skippy we have a right to ask you how you are defining words...

It is absolutely [s] imperative that we define our terms, because it's obvious that what you mean by "truth" and what I mean by "Truth" are different.

it's funny that you would argue for universal meanings and then whine and complain about the definition for "atheism".

Timmy, your attempt at "peace", etc., is a sham. Your solution to the problems completely conflict with the Scripture's solutions...in fact, you and I don't even agree on what exactly the "problem" is.

Timmy, the world's problem is the same one you have - you despise the Lord of Glory. You mock His name. You reject Reason Himself.

You and I were never on any common ground to begin with.

Furthermore, there are Christians like me who seek to end terrorism, religious fanatics, end time theories, and the like; so your portrayal of me is downright deceptive...

You're not looking for 'peace' - you're looking for people to drop whatever dogmas they have that you don't like, so that YOU can supposedly lead us to a more intelligent, peaceful, blah, blah, lifestyle.

Only insane people would follow the lead of people who are certain about nothing.

I am a fairly intelligent man. I understand most of what I read, and if I do not, I re-read until I do. However, I am not always good at re-articulating another's philosophy on the spot, and this is frustrating.

That said, I would like to say that I have read both of Sam's books (as well as Dawkins's). And while I am an atheist anyway, I can say I find no better support for my stance than the writings of these two men. And I wish to thank them for the accessibility of their writing style. Especially Sam.

In every refute/detraction/insult/rebuttal/defense against Sam, not once have I heard anything that comes close to making logical sense. It always comes back to blind faith. Perhaps the counterargument is couched in erudite philosophical/psychological/ontological detritus, but it's always ultimately empty of substance.

It's strange to be in a position of lesser learning in the areas of understanding that embody this discourse, yet still be able to pinpoint the nonsense of those who argue for faith. I suppose it must be very extreme nonsense, then, and that I may be more intelligent than I originally thought.

Sam, keep up the important and "righteous" work. I don't think you're only preaching to the choir anymore.

LT,

I'm moving on. I spoke to you from my heart. I spoke of peace, love, and compassion and what those things meant to me.
I never indicated for one second that I was remotely certain about any of my spiritual feelings. In fact I made the opposite very clear.
I am humble an internal about my spiritual thoughts. They are mine and I would never expect anyone to go along with them or believe that they are "the way."
They are not beliefs. They are imaginations that make me feel good.

If all of your beliefs are internal and you would never try to impose them on anyone else then you and I are the same.

But I can see that you and I are not the same at all.

I tried to show you honestly how close I can get to relating to the emotionally uplifting experience that you must feel as you read the words of Christ. I did this to try and show you that we are more alike than not alike.
I reached out to you and you rejected my honest words.
You chose instead to pick them apart with meaningless semantics.
You play word games like Jason.
You are not looking to bridge the divide.
You are not looking for a solution.
You are looking for an argument.

You just can't stand it that people don't believe in the lord as you do and now you're all scrappy.

You are so very arrogant to tell me that I need to define words like love, peace and compassion for you if I am going to talk about them.
You mock my usage of those universal words as though no one who does not know god as you do could understand them.

I reached out across the divide. You still want to fight.

You are Jason.
You are only a distraction to the people who are actually concerned about the problems of the world and looking for answers.
I am one of those.
And you have rejected me.

You asked me for honesty, I gave it to you, and you mocked me.
This is my last post here.
Some of us who actually want to work on some common ground have started a group elsewhere.
This includes Bruce Burleson. He is an open minded Christian with a wonderful, compassionate mind.
He and I and others are working together.
He is a Christian, I am an atheist.
He is my brother.
We are working together for the common good, as brothers

You stay here and play your word games with Jason.

Peace be with you.

You can respond if you like.
I won't see it.
I won't be back.

response to Timmy, cont'd:

"My only sin to your Jesus is to not believe." Not according to the Bible it isn't. Even if that sin were not counted, God could attribute plenty of other sins to you that are sufficient for eternal separation from Him (i.e., Hell).

Your standard of morality seems very much to be based on exterior actions: killing, stealing, child pornography. The Bible says God looks further than that into one's heart. By that standard, no person (other than Jesus) deserves damnation. No one's heart is pure enough. To be pure enough, we would, for example, have to never harbor jealous thoughts against other people (surely you don't think jealousy is a good thing).

Are you telling me that other than not believing in all of Jesus' words, you are holy enough to deserve to go to heaven? Maybe not. Maybe you meant that the only unforgivebale sin is to reject Jesus and that you object to it.

"To deny that Jesus is God.
Straight to hell with me. Me, the one who believes in love, compassion, forgiveness and brotherhood."

Comments on this statement:
(1) Most people believe in the four things you mentioned. No person (except Jesus) practiced it consistently enough to meet God's standard.

(2) You seem to be offended at the idea that God would forgive killers, robbers, and even child pornographers if they repented of their sin. (There is a shallow asking for forgiveness that doesn't actually count as repentance, but true repentance is possible even for criminals.) If so, you do not have a heart for people who have committed such crimes. This is respect for love? Jesus, however, does have this heart. (And what about your posts to Jason and your subsequent decision to ignore him? Do they reflect your believe in love, compassion, forgiveness and brotherhood? This is respect for love?)

A few several Bible passages that are relevant to this post (NIV) are below. (I wonder if they're among the "words" you so closely relate to your inner morality.)

2 Timothy 4.3: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

From 1 Samual 16.7: "The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Luke 18.9-14
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Sorry this is belligerent. I'll admit, I was shocked at your statements and didn't react exactly the way I should have. However, at least I admit I do not have enough respect for love and confess I'm a sinner in need of God's grace.

My response to RB will have to wait until tomorrow.

completing response to Timmy:

I guessed from my personal experience and you don't agree with it. That's fine. Also, thanks for clarifying what you mean by the deity you conceive of. It actually provides me a better argument against the arrogance of Christian belief than any that I could have come up with on my own. Actually, it looks a lot like you condemn yourself with your own standard.

You claim it is arrogant and unreasonable for anyone to claim to have "the big answer" with certainty.

"If I live my life as best I can based on my inner morality which I relate so closely to the words of all who preach love, compassion and brotherhood." This is a "big answer" statement at least for your own life, even though it does not use any religious concepts. It could be interpreted in a number of ways, but arrogance/unreasonableness ("a/u" from here on) is implicit in all of them.

The statement could mean you have as your standard "the words of all who preach love, compassion, and brotherhood." Who decides which people preach these things? Who decides which words of this people constitute love, compassion and brotherhood? And who decides what constitutes love, compassion and brotherhood?

You decided that Jesus, Gandhi and Lennon are such people. Are you certain that these are such people? If you are, that looks like a/u by your own standard. If you're not, why am I a/u for choosing Jesus alone as my standard?

You chose the words of Jesus that made sense to you and rejected the ones that didn't. And you chose certain words of Lennon. Are you certain that those are the words to live by? If you are, it looks like a/u by our own standard. If you're not, am I a/u for striving to live by all the words of Jesus rather than just the ones that seem natural to me?

You speak of love, brotherhood and compassion. How do you know what these things are? Do you know it when you see it with certainty? If so, that looks like a/u to me. If not, you chose the words and people beforehand so that you could define these three qualities, but then you run into the problem of the one or both of the two preceiding paragraphs.

You claim you relate your inner morality "so closely" to these "words" the origin, choice, and content of which I have asked you to justify. Why do your inner morality and these words relate so closely? One is that you hold these "words" as your standard and try to live by them. The problems are like those in the three paragraphs preceding.

Alternatively, your inner morality and the "words" relate "so closely" because you have found "words" that fit your inner morality and filtered out everything that doesn't. That's clearly a/u. Or are you certain that your inner morality is correct? If so, that's a/u. If not, why is it a/u for me to claim that my inner morality is fallible but the Bible will challenge me where I'm wrong and I will try to change according to it?

A third possibility is that your inner morality and the "words" are so closely related because they're so naturally equivalent. According to this interpretation, your inner morality, the words of Jesus you've chosen, Gandhi and Lennon are all saying basically the same thing. That's still a formulation of the "big answer." Do you hold this with certainty? If so, then it's a/u. If not, why is it a/u for me to believe that not everyone who supposedly preaches love, brotherhood and compassion is saying the same thing and that one of them (Jesus including the words you don't like) is saying the corect things?

Furthermore, you say you try to live "as best I can." Who or what defines "as best I can"? If it's the "words" (never mind how the words are chosen), then how can you be sure you are living as best you can by the standard they set? If there were a heaven with entry conditional on "as best I can," how could you be sure that you would make it to that heaven? Why would you ever fail if your inner morality were so closely related to the words? Because you're too busy with something else? Because you needed to get something else first? Alternatively, are you defining "as best I can"? If so, are you certain of your standard for "as best I can?" If so, that's a/u. If not, why am I so a/u to believe that absent God's grace I would need to be perfect to get into heaven?

Another post is coming...

Jason, thank you for your reply. It has been a revelation.

I'm currently active on the Ann Coulter site discussing my 10 Guidelines for Modern Living. Those of you who are registered for that site might want to check it out.

I may be needing backup soon.

RB - I've enjoyed your comments, and have never responded to you directly. I'll probably visit this site every couple of days, so if you respond, I may not see it for awhile.

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, but your main argument against faith seems to be that you think believers have never progressed out of a childhood state of gullibility. I'm sure you have other arguments, but this thought has appeared in several of your posts. Please allow me to make a few brief responses to this argument.

1. This is almost a psychological diagnosis. To be fair, you would have to subject each believer to some sort of psychological examination to determine if, in fact, this was their condition. You certainly have not done that to me, and I doubt you have done it to anyone. Mr. Dawkins, to my knowledge, is not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I doubt that he has done this either. Therefore, it appears that you have no evidence to support your claim (at least as to my individual situation, for sure), and have simply reached a convenient conclusion that allows you to dismiss everything that believers say.

2. To say that all believers are stuck in some infantile stage of thinking with respect to faith, is akin to an ad hominem attack. It is really no different than Jason's calling everyone a moron, except that it sounds more intellectual. It would normally be thought an offense to educated, thinking people to have someone level this charge against them. I personally am not offended, mind you, I'm only arguing that to say that people like C. S. Lewis and Isaac Newton are victims of childhood gullibility seems far-fetched.

3. Finally, to say that believers believe just because "momma told them so" does not account for the many cases of atheist conversions, or Muslim conversions. Muslims who convert come to believe exactly the opposite of what momma told them - and some of them pay with their lives. People from atheistic backgrounds who convert in adulthood are clearly not stuck in an infantile way of thinking, as they were not told to believe in God as children. Your theory just doesn't seem to fit these cases.

It has taken me a long time to write this as my computer is bogging down. I may not respond, but I'll check back in a couple of days to see if you read this and responded. Peace

Puzzled, why do you feed the Troll? The Troll has infested dozens of these threads, and stays as long as it is fed. This would be an interesting conversation to contribute to, except for all the nauseating stuff between the Troll and those who feed it. If you feed the Troll long enough, you become one. I guess it may be entertaining for you, but are you learning anything other than how to feed a Troll? I'm remaining anonymous because my name would be more food for the Troll. Once the Troll leaves, I'll enjoy some constructive conversation with you and the others. Please don't feed the Troll.

LT:

Thanks for the explanation. My father (I think) is a devout believer in every sense of the words, from all indications. He once told me that he thought Bertrand Russell's famous essay (Why I am not a Christian; is that title accurate?) completely missed the point. Maybe we'll revisit that conversation when he visits again, probably in the summer. I do not hold such beliefs. No offense taken, either way.

I agree that there has to be some factual basis for the Bible, in particular the events during Jesus' time. But there is also a lot of noise in there too. It is a matter of degree (between you and I). I am closer to thinking that it is mostly inspirational writings of true believers (ie, their interpretations of what it is to believe in Jesus). Everlasting life and salvation seems great, but I don't know (and I doubt anyone really does know) what it means. In Buddhism, for instance, there is talk about enlightenment. Perhaps there is something to all the different ideals in different religions. And it has little to do with heaven and hell, but more to do with what to make of this world we live in. In this regard, I think that faith does contain certain wisdoms that are worthwhile holding onto.

I just have problems with the dogmatic aspects (which seems to me to be getting bigger and bigger in church life these days) of organized religion and the "absoluteness" of belief that is logically contrived, and effectively cuts off all dialogue.

From Jason's answer, I see that he has arrived at "belief" by definition (but of course, stated as "I got it from God."). I cannot prove a definition false, since it is an assumption that you set above proof, no more than you can prove that such an assumption is true for the very same reason.

1. God is "truth,"
2. I believe in "truth,"
3. Therefore, I believe in God.

Your belief is grounded in an assumption you made to escape the very circular reasoning you are criticizing. I can see how you feel confident in the internal consistency of your logic. But that still does not get you beyond how you were able to get the logical process started, except to say "God said so." I don't have problems with that, except to say that conversation between those who "heard god" and those who have not is made impossible. After all, in the real world, we also would like to have some external validity for our assertions as well as internal consistency.

Once again, God = logic? By that I am asking whether God would be consistent with logic (i.e., be subject to logic)? Simple question: can you say yes or no? Or, "it depends"? (in which case, depends on what?)

As for your response to Andy, I can see your point about knowing something (with absolute certainty) requires a kind of fullness of knowledge that encompasses all time and space. It is an ideal, and true by definition. However, in a more practical sense, so what? Should people not study veterninary medicine since we can never know that how cat and dogs are related? I did read your first post again, and you are saying empiricism is "false" yet you yourself concede that Newtonian physics "worked" until a guy named Einstein came along. I say word play because it really is semantics. Newtonian physics was not proved "false" but we understood that it needed qualifiers. This, too, is semantics, but rejecting the incrementalism of science because it is always incomplete (by definition) also rejects your ability to learn.

You say you heard from God and became Christian. However, can you not become a better Christian (ie, closer to emulating Jesus)? Jesus came to provide a human model and teach us that we can all be God's sons (and daughters). This must be an incremental process. As a wise man once said to me: If you do not become a better person by believing (and strive to be even better), then what good is belief?

As a side-note, I'd be fascinated to know what made you think that Jesus already came back in the year 70? I did not take you to be a creationist type, and perhaps you are not, but I'd be curious to know all the same.

Puzzled, I've already answered the question. God caused me to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and God caused me to reject all others.

Now, care to "prove" to me how that is non-sense?

Andy says,

1. "but which logic?"
2. "One can choose not to use it"..."it" being the law of contradiction
3. and Andy rambles on about Hegelianism, which is all but extinct.

Response:

1 and 2 - Andy, i don't believe in polylogism. And there is a very simple reason for this. In order to think and to say that there are many different sorts of logic, one must use the rules of logic there is.

Again, i pose the challenge to you: Please write a 50 word post explaining a different logic without using the law of contradiction.

3 - And once again, I applaud you for introducing into this thread yet another empiricist whose work demonstrated that empiricism, if worked out consistently, leads to complete ignorance and nonsense! thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hegel taught that the truth is the whole and that an object's relationships are logically internal to its meaning.

For example, "a cat is not a dog; it is part of the essence of a cat to be not-a-dog. But to be not-a-dog is to be related to dog, and this relation is internal to the meaning of cat. Thus cat and dog, sense object and self, are included in a larger whole. The All-Inclusive is the Absolute.

"That relations are internal, and especially that the truth is the whole, are themes hard to deny. Yet their implications are devastating. So long as you or I do not know the relationships which constitute the meaning of cat or self, we do not know the object in question. If we say that we know SOME of the relationship, it follows that we cannot know how this unknown relationship might alter our view of the relationship we now say we know. The alteration could be considerable. Therefore we cannot know even one relationship without knowing all. Obviously we do not know all. Therefore we know nothing.

"The same principle can apply to the Absolute itself. The truth is the whole and the whole is the Absolute. But obviously we do not know the whole; we do not know the Absolute. In fact, not knowing the Absolute, we cannot know even that there is an Absolute. But how can absolute idealism be based on absolute ignorance? And ours is absolute ignorance, for we cannot know one thing without knowing all." - Clark; Religion, Reason, and Revelation

Another great example of how abandoning revelation leads to complete nonsense and a rejection of reason.

But since "certified idiots" like Andy would rather not spend their days in the looney bin, he instead steals from God whatever and whenever he pleases in order to have, at least, some normal function in the world; ie. he knows he has to be "reasonable" at some point in his life, yet he rejects Reason.

Andy, you're a blood-sucking leech. A thieve. And unless you repent of this foolishness, you will one day face Reason Himself and find the reason for your judgment.

Puzzled, I've already answered the question. God caused me to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and God caused me to reject all others.

Now, care to "prove" to me how that is non-sense?

Andy says,

1. "but which logic?"
2. "One can choose not to use it"..."it" being the law of contradiction
3. and Andy rambles on about Hegelianism, which is all but extinct.

Response:

1 and 2 - Andy, i don't believe in polylogism. And there is a very simple reason for this. In order to think and to say that there are many different sorts of logic, one must use the rules of logic there is.

Again, i pose the challenge to you: Please write a 50 word post explaining a different logic without using the law of contradiction.

3 - And once again, I applaud you for introducing into this thread yet another empiricist whose work demonstrated that empiricism, if worked out consistently, leads to complete ignorance and nonsense! thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hegel taught that the truth is the whole and that an object's relationships are logically internal to its meaning.

For example, "a cat is not a dog; it is part of the essence of a cat to be not-a-dog. But to be not-a-dog is to be related to dog, and this relation is internal to the meaning of cat. Thus cat and dog, sense object and self, are included in a larger whole. The All-Inclusive is the Absolute.

"That relations are internal, and especially that the truth is the whole, are themes hard to deny. Yet their implications are devastating. So long as you or I do not know the relationships which constitute the meaning of cat or self, we do not know the object in question. If we say that we know SOME of the relationship, it follows that we cannot know how this unknown relationship might alter our view of the relationship we now say we know. The alteration could be considerable. Therefore we cannot know even one relationship without knowing all. Obviously we do not know all. Therefore we know nothing.

"The same principle can apply to the Absolute itself. The truth is the whole and the whole is the Absolute. But obviously we do not know the whole; we do not know the Absolute. In fact, not knowing the Absolute, we cannot know even that there is an Absolute. But how can absolute idealism be based on absolute ignorance? And ours is absolute ignorance, for we cannot know one thing without knowing all." - Clark; Religion, Reason, and Revelation

Another great example of how abandoning revelation leads to complete nonsense and a rejection of reason.

But since "certified idiots" like Andy would rather not spend their days in the looney bin, he instead steals from God whatever and whenever he pleases in order to have, at least, some normal function in the world; ie. he knows he has to be "reasonable" at some point in his life, yet he rejects Reason.

Andy, you're a blood-sucking leech. A theft. And unless you repent of some foolishness, you'll will one day face Reason Himself and find the reason for your judgment.

LT

Oops, forgot to address one of your points.

You said:
"I used to generally think I was a morally decent person. I also had career aspirations that I treasured very deeply, and I didn't want to believe in God since I thought it meant I had to sacrifice those aspirations. I'm guessing that you, a successful stand-up comic, might be in a similar situation."

This is telling of believers.
You think the rest of us need to work hard to reject god.
You think the idea of god iss in our head naturally, and we need to find some kind of selfish reason to reject God.
My career aspirations can not cause me to reject an idea that was never there in the first place.
The idea of god has never been in my head.
People like you have tried to put it there but it never made it past my skepticism.
The same skepticism I have for the flying spaghetti monster.
And I'm glad I have it

I need a reason TO believe.
Not need a reason to not believe.
Not believing comes naturally.

Philip Tripp wrote: "Perhaps I will see Timmy, Andy, Doug, RB, Jason, Kaatie, Robin, WM, Puzzled, Stan, Burton Wolfe, Duckphup,Bruce et,al on the other side.

I don't think so... at least, not DuckPhup. I happened to look at AlterNet's 'Privacy Policy', and pulled myself up short. I ended up sending them an e-mail...

Your 'Privacy Policy' states, in part:

"AlterNet employs cookies -- small text files placed on your computer's hard drive -- to track the type of content and sites to which our users link, the length of time they spend at any particular site and the AlterNet services they use. Cookies also help us diagnose problems with our server."

That statement implies that you not only use ‘cookies’, but that you also employ ‘spyware’... how else would you be able to “... track the type of content and sites to which our users link...”?

Whether you “... track the type of content and sites to which our users link”, or NOT, you need to promptly change your ‘Privacy Policy’ (http://alternet.org/about/privacy.html):

If you DO “... track the type of content and sites to which our users link”, then you need to CLEARLY state that you are employing SPYWARE in addition to ‘cookies’.

OR

If you DO NOT “... track the type of content and sites to which our users link”, then you need to change your ‘Privacy Policy’, and quit saying that you do.

My last post here
LT I will check back for your response and final post.

It was a pleasure to speak with you all.
I have learned a million times more here that reading 100 Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins books.

See you all on the other boards.

Peace be with all of us.

LT

I am an equal opportunity arrogance accuser .
Most certainly not just Christians, but all who claim with certainty that they know who God is, and assert that all other versions of God are wrong, or, not correct.
All of these people, muslims, Jews and Christians alike are arrogant and unreasonable.

And no, I don't believe that an all knowing god is speaking to us through an arrogant Jesus who claimed to be the son of god and condemns people to hell for not believing in him.

Pay close and careful attention to my wording.

I SOMETIMES like to IMAGINE, an all knowing all loving god as an abstract personification of my inner morality.
It is an uplifting and spiritual THOUGHT for me to IMAGINE this god, not your GOD, but that my personification of my inner morality is communicating with me and all of us through the inspirational words of people like John Lennon, Gahndi, and Jesus.

But again this is not your god I am talking about, it's mine.
And this is not your Jesus I am talking about, it's mine.
Who is my Jesus?
My Jesus is a fictional character who may have been based on a real person, or an amalgamation of several people.
He is a hero character.
Since there is no proof (good enough for me) that Jesus existed, all I can do is read about his message.
Seeing Jesus this way, I can reject all of the stuff that makes no sense to me.
e.g. "I am the son of god" "believe in me or go to Hell" "Women should take a back seat and be submissive to their men"

And I can imagine my personal idea of god, speaking to me through, what I feel was the true message of the hero character, Jesus.
Love, compassion, a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you will join us
and the world will live as one

You can not inject your idea of God or Jesus into my definition any more than I can inject mine into yours.

But I hope you can see how close we are in our agreement on the basic idea of god as a moral guide.
Our gap is so small as I see it.
I hope you do not see it as a casm.

If I live my life as best I can based on my inner morality which I relate so closely to the words of all who preach love, compassion and brotherhood.

And this illustrates my biggest aversion to believing one step further and thinking of Jesus as the son of "the one true" God.

My only sin to your Jesus is to not believe.
I can kill (though I shouldn't) steal (though I shouldn't) engage in internet child porn (though I shouldn't)
I can do all of these things and get into heaven so long as I confess my sins and ask forgiveness from the lord.
But the only unforgivable sin, the only thing that will send me to Hell, is to not believe. To deny that Jesus is the son of God. To deny that Jesus is God.
Straight to hell with me. Me, the one who believes in love, compassion, forgiveness and brotherhood.
Straight to Hell with me for doubting that Jesus is the one true God.

If that is what your Jesus cares most about (and according to the church, it is), then smell you later dude.
I have to much respect for love to believe in that horse$%#%it idea of god.

I like my version better.

Timmy,

I will take a guess at why I think you don't believe, based on my own experience of why I wasn't willing to believe before. If you want to say I'm wrong about my guess, go right ahead.

I used to generally think I was a morally decent person. I also had career aspirations that I treasured very deeply, and I didn't want to believe in God since I thought it meant I had to sacrifice those aspirations. I'm guessing that you, a successful stand-up comic, might be in a similar situation.

As for why it isn't arrogant and unreasonable to suppose that the truth I believe in is the exclusive one? Let me start with your view: "an all knowing and loving creator of the universe" and that "this deity speaks to us metaphysically through messengers like Jesus or John Lennon or Gahndi." You're not sure if this is true but think it's reasonable.

If you say I'm arrogant and unreasonable because I claim to know the true God with certainty, then this should be a consistent principle across all people. You should claim that Mohammad is also arrogant because he claimed to know the true God with certainty. (Could he have claimed to be God's last prophet only with high probability?) Most other religious figures of the past claimed to know the divine with certainty. In fact, the person you should find most arrogant and unreasonable of all is Jesus. He claimed to know God with certainty and to be God with certainty.

Are you going to tell me that an all-loving creator of the universe spoke to us metaphorically to an arrogant person like Jesus? I see the revilement of most major religious figures as the logical implication of your opinion that to claim any certain truth about God is arrogant and unreasonable, not a comfortable but untenable synthesis of what God should be like and the claims people have made about Him.

I have other things to attend to this afternoon but will complete this post and my other responses later today.

For those of you not on Sam Harris's e-mail list, he has a new article posted January 6th at 5:34pm. The article is also on the washingtonpost.com web site just like this one.

Because the quantity of comments is still fairly small, my computer is currently able to scroll at normal speed.

On this site I have the same problem as Bruce Burleson. My computer scrolls at a snails pace. I did find the key to go top to bottom quickly but, even once there, it takes minutes just to scroll up 10 pages.

Perhaps it is time to move on. There are some wonderful posts over there already. I have read Bruce's comments, Victoria and several others from this site.

Perhaps I will see Timmy, Andy, Doug, RB, Jason, Kaatie, Robin, WM, Puzzled, Stan, Burton Wolfe, Duckphup,Bruce et,al on the other side.

Doug: Excellent post 1-6-07 8:36 p.m.

Bruce and Phillip: "There may in fact be a hardwire for some of us to believe in God. They are calling it something like a God gene in Time and Newsweek articles."

The scientist who was quoted about the "god gene" has said he regrets using the term.

Dawkins and others have noted that religion is likely a by-product of something else. That something else is the survival value of childhood guilibility. Popular media have kinda mis-labeled this, and it has been eagerly seized upon by religionists and mis-interpreted, which they always do.

My final posts will answer responses to my previous post, and then I am done. Feel free to comment, but I won't be responding to posts since 1.7.07 at 7:16 A.M.

Puzzled,
Yes, I agree that the Bible has to be read in its context and that the writers were not writing for AP or UPI. However, if this means that nothing is factual as we commonly understand it (the limiting extreme), then Christianity becomes devoid of meaning. If for example, the resurrection is not literally true but only spiritually true, then Christians have no empirical basis for eternal life. Theologians who conclude from this non-literal reading that there is nothing after this life (e.g. Crossan) are at least following the logical implications. What doesn't make sense to me is for a theologian to claim life after death despite a resurrection that only spiritually occurred because then there's no logical basis for believing in an afterlife.

I would submit that the Gospels claim that Jesus' resurrection was nothing less than literal and bodily. The clearest example is Luke 24.36-43, according to which the disciples didn't believe Jesus had bodily risen (they thought he was a ghost) until He tells them to touch Him and eats a piece of fish.

You are right to be confused by the notion of a spiritual truth when it's defined as wholly separate from factual truth (which I define differently as true, possibly exceptional occurrences rather than what scientific law would dictate). Since I'm not a theologian, I cannot answer the details of how to know something is to be taken literally as we would normally think and when something should be taken metaphorically. I recommend that you speak to theologians who believe in a literal, bodily resurrection if you're truly puzzled and want to know more.

Finally, I wish to make clear that I am not implying in any way that you or your father do or do not believe in a literal resurrection and intend no offense regardless.

For all who were puzzled by my florid outburst of Hegelian logic in comment #819, here is a subdued clarification.

On Contradiction

The philosopher Hegel wrote thousands of pages to build up a position called dialectical idealism. Reading and understanding these pages is difficult, but a picture emerges of reality developing and growing through a process of inner necessity, powered by the emergence and resolution of successive contradictions. When I tried over a period of years to make sense of these writings, I came up with a text that boiled down to the triads 1.1 -- 3.3 cited in comment #819. If my summary makes no sense, my apologies, but I believe it makes as much sense as the original.

Hegel's core idea was that all that happens must happen as it does. Reality unfolds as a tree grows, out of an inner drive that powers it through a succession of momentary forms. Starting from sheer being, which is so blank it is indistinguishable from mere nothing, we discern becoming, and so on until we arrive at the absolute truth, which is a particular state of reality in which the Prussian constitutional monarchy and so on represents the highest and most evolved state. For Hegel, the truth is the whole.

Like many other Germans, Karl Marx started out as a young Hegelian, but then rebelled and inverted the whole lot to create dialectical materialism. Then the young revolutionary Lenin studied both Hegel and Marx closely and proceeded to put the revolutionary ideas into practice in Russia. When Lenin died, Stalin took over in Russia. A few years later, the young Chinese communist Mao Zedong studied under Stalin and took the lessons back to China.

Most of the writings in this tradition are difficult and unpleasant to read. In my own selective sampling, I found a translation of an essay by Mao Zedong written in 1937 to contain the clearest expression of the core doctrine:

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end ... In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other ... But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other ... If, through study, we achieve a real understanding of the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas which are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism."

What does all this have to do with us? Well, it shows that one can write a lot of nonsense about contradiction, for one. But also it shows that the classical law of contradiction (not both P and not P) is really just a useful tool, and using it is a choice we make. One can choose not to use it, and write Maoist stuff and build a state on it. That state can survive and prosper, make a lot of money, and buy up U.S. Treasury bonds to bankroll the spending habits of George W. Bush. In other words, this is still an ongoing world-historical contradiction that could one day lead to global war.

Jason,
When I thanked you for being an "idiot" in comment #543 and for savng my soul in #819, I was not merely being facetious, I meant it. Behaving like an idiot can be liberating, as I found when posting my rational reconstruction of the apparent mindset of Jesus or my parody of Hegelian logic as a creative misuse of contradictions. Getting that sort of thing out of one's head and into the world is the first step in dealing with it.

Thank you everyone, for triggering me to write all this stuff. I shall treasure it as raw input for my next book.

God is logic? Then it follows that God has to follow his own laws (like that "golden rule"... no no, not that one, I mean like the law of contradiction). Because God's law cannot be absolute and not absolute at the same time? But god also is omnipotent, meaning he can be whatever the hell (or whatever the heaven) he wants to be. So do you believe in a god that is absolute certainty, or a god who is absolute certainty and not at the same time?

Also, Jason, I guess you don't want to answer my earlier question. Did you study all religions and decide to go to church because you knew (with absolute certainty) that God is logic (= truth)? Or did you decide as a matter of convenience? (My guess is the latter. Because since you love logic so much, Buddhism would have blown your mind.) If this is too private for you, then I guess we'll just let it pass.

But a less personal question: is it law of contradiction or law of non-contradiction? Can both be "true"? Can law of X and law of non-X be "true" as well?

Philip,
Occam -- Ockham -- both are dense in the literature, due to the vagaries of Latinization. For the innocents, Ockham's razor is a logical instrument for cutting off useless danglers, such as a "god" that is immortal, invisible to the vulgar senses, omnipotent, and utterly inaccessible to the faithless because "he" chooses to remain incognito.

Bruce,
Your rose metaphor is wonderful. Shakespeare: "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." One of the names of the rose is "God" and the rose still smells sweet. But calling a rose "God" does not make the rose divine, and inferring that the rose is immortal, omnipotent and so on, because you call it "God" is a petitio principii. For the innocents, a petitio principii is the fallacy of "requesting an opponent to grant what the opponent seeks a proof of" (to quote my first logic teacher).

Jason,
You say "God is logic" (John 1:1) but which logic?

For example, the new discipline of quantum logic has recently emerged based on "qubits," which are realized as quantum dots that are both 0 and 1 at the same time. These quantum dots exploit the amazing facts about the empirical world revealed by the success of quantum mechanics. David Deutsch, the first prophet of quantum logic, says the only way to make sense of qubits is to say we live in not just one universe but a multiverse. The different universes in the multiverse interact to generate the quantum effects that make qubits possible. The interaction was nicely visualized in the Spielberg science-fiction movies "Back to the Future."

To set up a logic, we first have to define an alphabet and a set of rules for making well-formed expressions, then we need to assign a semantics. We need to define a model containing objects and then a mapping between the objects and the names in the language. To do so, we use the formal truth definition I cited in comment #502. All this presupposes a lot of facts about languages and so on, empirical facts that have a haze of uncertainty.

Think of computers again. Before your box suffers any risk at all from contradictions, you have to define an operating system, specify a programming language, specify assignments for your variables, make sure the box is turned on and booted up, and so on. All this is goes beyond logic, and is subject to empirical constraints and probabilities.

Back to quantum logic. It looks like reality buds a new universe whenever a contradiction threatens. That is, as soon as a thing can happen two ways (say if the dot can be 0 or 1), the universe sprouts two branches, one for 0 and one for 1. Because we are big creatures on the quantum scale, we have to go one way or the other. Only the tiniest things can be in two or more universes at once. You can see this as God leading us along one path, but the science suggests that all the other paths are there too. In other parallel universes (not this one, I should add), you exist as a hopeless wuss! All this makes it hard for us to assign a consistent semantics to the word "God."

By your fruits may ye know them. Your life sounds OK. Work on the logic, dude.

I harp yet further on the definition thing.
I think it is so important.
All of our conversation is muddled. There is so much ambiguity.
Here's why.

God: The one true God of the Abrahamic religions
God: Everything everywhere. (from Hinduism)
God: The creator of the universe.
god: The general idea of an omnipotent over lord
god: A supernatural being. e.g. Thor, Zeus
god: An all knowing all loving deity
god: You know.... God
god: Tom likes to see god as, all of the positive energy in the universe, which we are all a part of.
god: Jane likes to think of god as an abstract personification of her moral goodness.
god: Eric Clapton
god: George Burns

Atheist: One who BELIEVES that GOD does not exist.
Agnostic: A person who claims neither faith nor a disbelief in GOD
I capitalized the extremely ambiguous words.

20 people were asked the question "Do you believe in God?"
15 answered. "depends on what you mean by god."

Most who identify themselves as agnostics will tell you that they are agnostic because,
"I don't deny the possibility of the idea of god, but I certainly do not believe in any of the versions put forth by organized religion."

If the word GOD in the dictionary definition refers only to "the one true God", then that person who just claimed to be an agnostic is actually an atheist.
If this is the case, by the dictionary definition, I have never met an agnostic.
One who has neither a belief nor a disbelief in "the one true God."?
I have never met anyone who didn't have a very solid opinion on the one true God.
Are there any true agnostics? Or are they just polite Atheists.

And what about the person who likes to think of god as an abstract personification of her moral goodness.
Not religious
Not an agnostic - because does not believe in the one true God.
So, Atheist right?
But so many people with these kind of abstract ideas of god do not feel that they are atheists even though they deny the one true god. They mistakenly call themselves agnostic because they think that atheists are people who do not have such open minded spiritual thoughts.
Why?
Because the word GOD, in the definition of atheist, is ambiguous, wrong, confusing, and most troublesome.... misleading.

We are all atheists.
So many spiritual minded free thinkers don't know that they are atheists.
We need the definition to be something that includes these free thinking spirituals as well as the nihilists under one big happy, "one true God" denying umbrella.

Come on under the umbrella.
The more, the merrier.

Spiritual free thinkers should not be arguing with nihilists.

What can we do?
Let's lobby a petition to change the current definition, in the dictionary, and in Wikipedia, etc.

oh, and by the way Philip-why-you-Tripping.

1. Family - i get along with my family quite well. My mother-in-law was actually one of the most vocal anti-Christs i had ever met. The first time i tried to talk to her about something in the Bible, she got right in my face and told me to never try it again. It did get to a point where she hated me so bad, she tried to drive a wedge between my wife and I. It almost worked until Amanda and I decided to cut her off completely. That lasted for three years and then she finally emailed me with an apology and we've worked things out since then. I think seeing how serious her daughter was about her faith made her rethink her hostility.

2. Friends - you're right, i don't have too many. One major reason for that is because i adhere to a view of "end-times" that the vast majority of Christians view as heretical - Christ already returned in 70ad. That's one of the reasons i ended up in Florida. I was booted out of my church in Birmingham. Wasn't because i'm a jerk though. I've never had a friend, christian or not, leave me because of that. In fact, i've lost Christian friends who thought i was too loose, ie. i'll hang out with you, drink a few buds and enjoy a nice cigar. Scripture forbids drunkenness, not alcohol.

3. Work - couldn't be better. Our appraisal firm is one of the most respected firms in the Tampa Bay area. We have high standards with our service because we believe God delights in nothing less. God commands that we don't steal, so we don't steal from our customers - in service or time. God commands that we do not lie, so we don't lie to our customers.

Furthermore, because we're not waiting for Jesus to show up at any moment and sink the ship, we take the time to polish the brass and invest in education, etc. for our field to be as professional as we can.

so no, "my life is goooooddd".

Libre can not be Libre and Nacho Libre at the same time and in the same respect.

Andy says, “Just go enjoy life ...”

Hmmm…great answer Andy. Just go walk on the beach everyday and act like everything is fine, meanwhile anti-Christ ideologies make it into our laws and millions of babies are sliced and vacuumed out of their mother’s womb. (just to name an example)

I do enjoy life, but I do so responsibly.

Puzzled, God is not above or below logic, He is logic. (John 1.1) God thinks logically. Scripture says that we are made in His image; therefore, we are to think logically. I don’t think that it is any coincidence that people who have made God an option have made logic an option as well.

Timmy says, “And they tell us that their God is omnipotent and the laws of nature don't apply to him.”… “We all know that Jason trusts in the laws of nature, not completely, but you can not function if you do not take the laws of nature as being "almost certain" or certain until shown to be not certain.”

Wrong again Timmy. I don’t believe that the so-called “laws of nature” even exist, for the very reason stated in number 3 of my original post. You can not argue for a universal law based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is always fallacious.

Hume and others have argued against miracles because that would have God violating the “laws of nature”…ummm, not so fast…that argument assumes that such laws even exist and Hume nor anyone else can prove any of them. There are even atheists who have written on the problem of induction and the “laws of nature”.

I believe ovens light because God causes them to light.

God also causes people to accept or reject Him, which is why you have not and will not ever see me say, “I can prove to you God exists.” This is one of the reasons I think the entire intelligent design fad is a complete waste. These men are nothing more than empiricists who have thrown the Bible in the mix and empiricists are NEVER going to get the evidence they require because God is non-empirical. But guess what? That’s neither my problem nor God’s. I’m not the one that limits myself to empirical evidence, like Philip-why-you-Tripping does.

“I need to be shown proof of he/she or its existence that satisfies my personal empirical requirements.”

You’re never going to get it.

Philip-why-you-Tripping says, “How do I know it's not a complement? I live and work in the real world Jason, and I don't use the word moron to complement anyone.”

You’re missing the point. Philip, do you believe that the law of contradiction is optionable? Is it something we can doubt or it is absolutely certain at all times and in all places?

“Since he/she/it doesn't have every one on the planet on the same team after many thousands of years of debate, I have concluded that either he/she/it either doesn't really care one way or the other or simply doesn't exist.”

The Scripture answers that question. God shows mercy upon whomever He pleases. If you end up remaining a moron for the next 40 years and die a moron, it’s because He planned it that way.

Yes, i deny the "free-will" myth as well. ( ;

Bruce, your first two sentences cracked me up. My response of "Neee" certainly was a shot across the bow and you have answered the call. Bravo!

Nice to have you back by the way. Your heartfelt answers are always welcome around here in my opinion (even if your are a moron). Just kidding and you know it. I couldn't help but think of how Jason would have handled it.

There may in fact be a hardwire for some of us to believe in God. They are calling it something like a God gene in Time and Newsweek articles.

It could also be that your need for proof is far different than mine. You accept the new testament and you have had a communion with God. I believe that I am accurately describing what you have communicated to us in previous posts.

I would never attempt to tell you that those are not valid reasons for believing for you. They are not valid for me, however.

What I said earlier, is that God must understand that the proof required is different for all of us. Since you would agree that he undoubtedly has the ability to bring me around if he wanted to, what am I to make of the fact that he hasn't done it yet with me, or about 4 billion other souls.

He either, is not quite as powerful as you think, really doesn't care if I believe or not, or he simply is not there.

I'll go with the "not there" because that idea follows Occam's razor as several have alluded to before. Sorry Occam if I spelled your name wrong.

Dirk- Nice to see you back. Yes, Andy and Kaatie both went over to the dark side and visited Ann Coulter. Their posts describing how much fun it was appeared earlier. Perhaps they will jump in again and tell us how to go there so we can have as much fun as they did. Just kidding about the fun part. They really didn't like the experience.

Puzzled-Thanks for your very informative answer to the Church question. I really clicked in on your reference to the bible as talisman and the dark side. Good stuff man.

A new phenomenom has recently sprung up. I often see a group of people sitting around a table at lunch at fast food places. They all hold hands and someone says a prayer thanking God for the wonderful bounty that God has provided them and praising the Lord. You know, that works at a huge family meal at thanksgiving but not at Burger King. Puhlease...take it somewhere else.

A double whopper with cheese and large fries is not my idea of something that God really wants to take credit for having put on your plate. Get a life people!

Anyway, it's early Saturday night here on the left coast and my family is headed for Greek food tonight. Kali Spera. Philip Tripp

Hi, Bruce - Welcome back!

I'm beginning to see that my views are more moderate than I thought. Although I think my stand on political issues are pretty liberal (note my last post) I don't find myself wanting to go to the extreme edges of intolerance for religion in all forms.

Perusing the Ann Coulter site leaves me shaking my head and feeling positively Christ like. Still, I perceive that rigid, literal, fundamentalist religion is a problem that needs to be addressed.

You have steadfastly put forth your religious views in a way I respect. I do not know your stand on the afore-mentioned issues, but I expect they are far more "christian" than fundamentalist.

wm posted on Posted January 5, 2007 8:27 PM:

"I personally don't think that believers have much of a burden of proof with respect to their beliefs as long as their beliefs aren't resulting in harm to others. Of course, per the butterfly effect, sometimes seemingly innocuous irrational beliefs could result in unpredictable catastrophies, but one can hardly live one's live based on the butterfly effect.

If a believer thinks that there are fairies in his backyard, I don't see that he has much of a burden of proof. I don't see how that belief could hurt me or anyone else in any significant way.

If a believer is going to come to my doorstep and spend my time and goodwill on his beliefs, then he has a burden of proof.

If a believer is going to try to prevent over-the-counter access to emergency contraception due to his belief that a couple cells have a soul, he has a heavy burden of proof.

If a believer is going to advise a disease-ridden people to not use condoms due to his beliefs on the immorality of contraception in general, he has a very heavy burden of proof.

If a believer is going to try to instill his beliefs in a child and potentially cause that child anxiety and fear in the future, he has a very heavy burden of proof."

Wm - I think you have made a very important point here. When personal beliefs impact public policy those beliefs lose the protected status of personal belief.

These are some of the specific public issues that appear to me to be dangerously impacted by conservative literalist believers:

1. Birth control
2. Right to die
3. Creationism in the schools
4. Prayer in the schools
5. The word "God" on money, in speeches, in the Pledge, etc.
6. Stem cell research
7. Crusade-like wars in the middle east
8. Discrimination against homosexuals

As a threatened minority I would like to see the political power of religion reduced dramatically.

I understand your final point completely, and I have wanted to respond to your previous post on that subject. Our society allows the parent a very free hand in what and how they teach their children. So long as the destructive influence of literal religion holds sway over the parent, their children will pay the price. We who understand the damage potential can only do our best to take every opportunity to point out how damaging to personality development the rigid shame, blame and guilt environment of a fundamentialist religious upbringing is.

That Ann Coulter crowd is rough. Kaatie rocks :-)

For Timmy:

No one much haa commented directly on Timmy's interesting little experiment. I find it very revealing that 15 out of 20 people would not answer his question without first being given a definition of God.

I regard myself as a radical pantheistic agnostic. How's that for a mouthful for you! If someone were to ask me:

Are you an atheist? I would most definitely say:
Depends on what you mean by God. In other words it depends on how you define a theist.

I am agnostic because I don't claim to know all the answers. I am radical because I totally reject the kind of meaningless/nonsensical answers provided by the worlds major religions -- whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. And I am pantheistic since I do not rule out a completely different concept of a Divinity entangled with the universe in a manner difficult to comprehend. As Andy rightly points out numerous philosophers in many different ways have put paid to the notion of a creator God. There quite literally cannot be a God (as Christians and Muslims conceive of him/her/it) separate from the universe who brought it into being.

Anyway I liked Tim's statistically invalid little
experiment since -- given that so many people want to know the meaning of the word God before answering a leading question -- does at least give some hope that mankind is not totally lost.

When Philip Tripp pronounced "Neee" upon us, I realized that I had to get back in the game. When passing ruffians can say "neee" to little ole' Christians, we know that these are perilous times. Seriously, I am convinced that Christians just need to get back to what our Lord called us to do - believe in and love Him, love each other as He loved us, and share our faith with others, in a gentle and loving manner. As a group, we are not scientists, we are not logicians, we are not politicians. We begin to look silly when we try to impose our will upon these realms of human activity. We do not look silly when we act like Jesus.

As Christians, we believe, therefore we are. I doubt that there is an "organ" of faith, like the organ of sight, but I am beginning to think that some of us are wired for faith, while others are not. Perhaps this is simply part of God's election in working things out for his purposes. If I blindfold you and pass a rose under your nose (no rhyme intended), you will know that there is some "entity" there and you will say "it's a rose" or "it smells like a rose." If you have never smelled a rose before, you will try to describe what you have smelled, but it is extremely difficult to describe an odor. You might say "it smells sweet" or "it smells like a flower", but you, like Shakespeare, will not be able to precisely describe what you have experienced. If your olfactory nerves have been destroyed from snorting cocaine, or if your brain has been damaged so that you cannot smell, you won't sense anything at all. You won't even know that rose has passed under your nose.

A rose has been passed under all our noses. Some of us smell it and THINK we know what it is, but we can't describe it in a way that will make sense to others who haven't smelled it or who can't smell. We do not all have the same experience, so we can't just say "it smells like a rose." Of course, some of you will think that Christians are passing something else under your noses, and you are glad that you CAN't smell it.

I look at this forum as people sniffing each other and each other's ideas, and trying to understand each other. I think Christians generally, including myself, do a fairly poor job of presenting our experience and our case to the world. If nothing else, I think we are learning to describe the rose we believe we have smelled.

As an atheist/non/believer/free thinker and moron, I would be willing to accept that there is a God or creator.....

I would also be willing to accept, however, that there is a Santa Claus, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster and that spagetti monster thing that keeps being bantered about.

I need to be shown proof of he/she or its existence that satisfies my personal empirical requirements. Those requirements would be entirely different for each moron listed above.

I sure hope that Jason is appreciating my fine use of the word moron. Or perhaps, Jason is composing a huge apology to everyone, and won't be heard from for awhile.

I won't hold my breath on the latter. I wouldn't mind the "won't be heard from" part. That sounds rather nice.

Anyway, many have said it before me, but even atheists would be believers, in just about anything, in the face of proper evidence. Therein lies the problem.

The evidence needed to prove the existence of anything can be different for every human being. I can say "that" is an absolute certainty. Sorry Jason.

Only a truly omniscient God would be able to convince each and every human being, with exactly the evidence that each human being needed, to believe in he/she/it.

Since he/she/it doesn't have every one on the planet on the same team after many thousands of years of debate, I have concluded that either he/she/it either doesn't really care one way or the other or simply doesn't exist.

I would expect that action by God if he wanted me to believe in him. As I said before, in a much earlier post, God knows where I live. If he wants me in his club, he knows where to find me and how to prove his existence to me and only me. Now that would be a powerful God and one that I would readily accept.

Only I would ask him for a revised text with which to run my life by. I would tell him that those old guys, that he used to rely on for his message, are old dead guys and their world is a dead world. I need a modern version of his word. Perhaps he would refer me to Doug's 10 list.

For those of you who say "it is not up to God to come to me, it is up to me to have faith in God", I say to you.. Neee..!

Puzzled -

It seems to me that belonging to a group or "community" is an intrinsic human need - we are social animals.

Church groups fill that need very well - that is one of the appeals. What are the alternatives for someone who no longer finds the commonality of the group to be comfortable? What other groups can one join that are going to be more comfortable and supportive to an agnostic or aethiest? There may be such groups, but I'm not aware of them.

My Brother (who is agnostic) has found the Unitarian Church to be a valued support group. It works for him, but I found the (few) services I attended to be very unsatisifying.

All of the fraternal organizations that I am aware of (masons, shriners, etc.) seem to have religious cores.

In my own small town, people are usually either a member of one of the many small churches, or a regular fellow at one of the many small bars. The bars don't work for me.

Maybe an on-line forum group could fill some of the social needs of non-believers. Maybe that's one of the reasons some of us are on this forum.

How many of us would want to join an on-going forum to discuss issues like these?

I am sure many of the things the pastor says sounds okay since I've heard that kind of stuff so many times. I also hear things that make me grimace sometimes. Then why do I go?

To be honest, I don't know sometimes. I used to think fellowship, but I am becoming more pessimistic, perhaps signaling that it is about time to stop. Fellowship can get you only so far since too many people I see these days are really going over to the dark side. For instance, I've seen people carry their bibles around in their cars like a talisman (to ward off evil and bring prosperity?), a kind of idolatry if there ever was one. Don't they realize they're violating their own rule #1?

Perhaps it is because my dad is a theologian (prof. of OT, retired). As a result, I have a built-in immune system (from long years of exposure) and I am able to maintain my healthy skepticism. My dad is open-minded and his theology is pretty "liberal" (his PhD is from Union in NYC) and I used to proof-read his manuscripts and do some chores for him (eg, typing things on the Word Processor before he learned) when younger (extra allowance) and from that, I have a healthy respect for theology as a scholarly endeavor.

It is a conflict, I admit. My wife is the same way, except she is more accepting of faith than I. So we go. But avoid doing anything beyond Sunday service as much as possible. My wife is worried that if they force me to come to bible study, then I will say something shocking, so we agreed that I would never (oops, sorry, never say never; "probably not") go to such meetings.

Andy, have you been on the Ann Coulter site? I thought you'd sworn off that for your New Year's Resolution. Perhaps you were gauging the reaction to Doug's 10 Commandments. Hi everybody, nice to see that everything's pretty much the same as I left it three days ago.

Dirk

Puzzled- Thanks for responding. However, I was only really focused on why you still go to church. You somehow confused my question about attending church with the celebration of Christmas. They are completely different events.

I have been an atheist for 40 years and since childhood, have been and still do celebrate Christmas. My 5 year old daughter just received way too many gifts from Santa Claus. Very Pagan. Our "Christmas" tree is still fighting to live while standing in our living room, my 17 year old son spent his first 7 years of education in Christian schools and I wish everyone either a merry Christmas or happy holiday. I certainly fall into the category of at least trying to get into the "Christmas" spirit every year. I was only asking you about church.

Your first paragraph alluded to grimacing at times while in church. I would guess that grimacing only occurs a little and you are getting something from being there. That is the what that I am asking about. I find the whole idea fascinating, as I said earlier.

Sorry that I chose the word atheist if that is not how you define yourself. My bad.

If the questions that I posed specifically about going to church, are just too much, than I apologize and please ignore them.

I do wonder how many people, sitting in the pews with you, share your feelings? Now that is an interesting thought!

Timmy,
Relax, it was a joke. I'd just come back from the Ann Coulter site, where a feistier mood prevails. However, the point was serious. You have to define "God" in such a way as to distinguish the resulting entity from the blank state of being that kicks off Hegel's logic and serves as the basis for Heidegger's philosophy. Being is not a god or anything like one, but it is all you get for free. All the rest, as Wittgenstein pointed out, depends on a lot of anthropological facts about you and your language community, and there the uncertainty of everything empirical becomes an issue.

Timmy,
You dilettante! Go read the scriptures! I mean the philosophers, who for 2500 years have accumulated a case against "God" that even rock-solid stick-in-the-mud absolutists cannot refute, because even the so-called law of contradiction (not both P and not P) is denied them! I've been pussy-footing about here trying not to offend people but the time is ripe to get out the razor -- I mean Occam's razor! Get real, man! Since when can you make any statement at all about "God" or anything else without permission from the philosophers, who allow you to say "om" and no more until you put some kind of sense in the rules of your language game?

Philip:

It is difficult for me to sit in church sometimes without grimacing. Another columnist here has a posting by the title of "Atheist in the Pews." Let's just say I was comforted by the title.

And I think of myself as agnostic, not atheist. I find it difficult to believe in the existence of a God as described in the Bible, but I am willing to concede that there may be a Creator. So perhaps I am atheist with regard to established religions, but agnostic toward a more deistic notion of or a Creator.

Just because I am agnostic does not mean that I cannot say Merry X-Mas to friends and family and share in the "Holiday Spirit"? Ever since I was a child, Christmas was my favorite time (for many reasons), and perhaps I am nostalgic. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Now, to what is the debate.

I have been doing an experiment the last couple of days.
I have asked 20 people the question.
Do you believe in God?

The results were very interesting.

2 people said yes.
3 people said no.

Wait, that's only 5 people. What about the other 15?
What did they say?
Agnostic?
Nope.

They said, "It depends on what you mean by "god".

This is my point about this muddled debate.
It is so very muddled and will always be muddled so long as the definition of an atheist is "One who believes that god does not exist."
It is a one sentence definition.
In that short sentence, two of the words are extremely ambiguous.
"God" as my experiment supports, is ambiguous in this definition.
And the inclusion of the word "believe" suggests that atheists all believe the same thing.
I don't believe that we are here just cuz.
But that is the belief of some atheists.

a short one sentence definition in which the two most important words are clearly ambiguous.

This definition needs revision.

Agreed?

Anyone?

Doug, your "Ten Guidelines for Modern Living" are excellent. Religious people often incite their religion as the best source of morality. They also wonder where atheists can possibly find morality without religion.

One answer would be in your guidelines. Your guidelines are purely non-denominational and do not promote any race or creed. I would guess that most people who read those words would say, yes that represents the tenants of my world view towards morality. Many would want to take claim to those words and associate it with their faith.

It indicates how universal the concepts of morality and ethics are and that even atheists can find morality without organized religion.

As for Jason and his post a few minutes ago at 3:43pm: Sorry buddy, but calling me a moron doesn't surprise me and doesn't bother me. In fact, I predicted your response and you didn't let me down big guy.

What bothers me, is that you delivered the asinine question of, "How do you know that I am not complementing you"?

Are you fricking kidding me Jason? Is that really your response? I would expect that answer out of an 8 year old. I assume that you are older than 8?

How do I know it's not a complement? I live and work in the real world Jason, and I don't use the word moron to complement anyone. The people I work with, friends, family and any humans that I contact don't use that word when complementing someone.

So your question simply magnifies and puts a spot light, for all to see, on just what a looney toon you are.

There is a complement in the first sentence of this post. See if you can find it Cowboy.

No, I'm way beyond being insulted by you. I do however feel pity for you. My life experience has shown me that, generally, people are usually accepted and liked about the same in all areas of life that they travel through.

Based on what I have seen here, I would surmise that you have few friends, you are not well liked in either your personal or professional life, including your church, and you are probably a deeply troubled individual.

Some guys just have all the luck!

Jason you agree with me!
While still calling me a moron, I love it. I guess we're in this moron business together.
Because we agree here, on this one, for sure.

I agree with Jason. Holy %$#@.
We're getting somewhere.
Science is not an alternative to religion so science should butt out, and stop trying to discredit God!
Because science can do no such thing.

People however, still have a problem to deal with.
Literal jihadists and dogmatic interference with politics.
Science can not help people with this problem.
Science is useless with this problem.

Does everyone agree?

Let's put it this way,

If this debate were actually about: which is correct?
Science or Religion?

Then the most intelligent and insightful comments posted on this thread would be those of Jason Bradfield.
Because he's got science nailed for all it's hubris.

I mean that. I'm not being facetious.
Anything science tells us about the laws of nature, or the vastness of the universe, is useless as evidence against god.

I actually agree fully with the point made by Jason and other believers that science can do nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to rebuke religion or God.
Nothing.

When it appears as though it is science, or the science community, that is attempting to prove that god does not exist, Jason has the most valid point.

Even if you believe that the laws of nature are an absolute truth.
This does not discount God, because the definition of God we have to go on, is the Believer's definition. And they tell us that their God is omnipotent and the laws of nature don't apply to him.
Done.
End of any science based argument. It's moot. It tells us nothing that rebukes what they say. And it's their definition, God. We don't have one. So they are right. Your science is no good here.

The same principle applies to science pointing out contradictions in the Bible.
It is all God's interpretation.
Done.
End of any science based argument.
God doesn't work that way.
Done.

And even if those definitions of God were not as such, and the laws of nature did apply to him. Then Jason's argument kicks in. Science has no absolute certainty so God is still possible.
And Jason is right about that.

My point?
So long as we do nothing to steer the the debate sharply away from a debate between science and religion, Jason is right.

If we take science out of the equation, Jason ceases to have a point. Or rather, he still has one, it's just not valid in this debate if science is removed as a volume of evidence for atheism.

We all know that Jason trusts in the laws of nature, not completely, but you can not function if you do not take the laws of nature as being "almost certain" or certain until shown to be not certain.

e.g..
Jason has invited some friends and family over for Thanks Giving dinner. His wife is preparing the turkey and the guests are on their way.
Jason knows full well that the laws of nature can not guarantee that when his wife turns on the oven, the spark will ignite the gas and the oven will heat up.
Jason knows that this is certainly not a guarantee.
And this is a very important dinner. It will be a bit of a disaster if this law of nature that science has put forth does not hold up this time.
But is Jason so uncertain of the laws of nature that he cancels his Thanks Giving dinner to avoid a potential let down and ruined dinner?
I won't speak for Jason, but I would guess not.
I'll bet that just like us, Jason will take with "almost certainty" that the oven will light and things will turn out just fine.

But is Jason relying on the laws of nature here or is he relying on God?
Only Jason can tell us. But for those of us who do not believe in God.
In this situation, we really don't give it a second thought.
If we have gas, and the sparker works, we will have turkey.
Does this mean that we are confident that the laws of nature are an absolute certainty?
No. We are relying on the laws of nature here as we do with so many other things in life, Because we really have no choice.

Now, in spite of the fact that I have agreed completely with Jason's point here, I still expect a hostile response.
Something like,

"Gas?.... I have an electric oven you MORON!

Maybe not. Maybe he will see that we actually have a whole lot more in common than he thinks and that we can have a fruitful discussion here, if he chooses to.

We'll see. It's going to be interesting that's for sure.

Jason does not answer my question and instead obfuscates by fixating on the word "monopoly." However, the crux of the question was: Did you study all religions and conclude God is the one and only truth? Or did you just "settle" on Christianity because there were no Buddhist temples in the neighborhood?

As for the law of contradiction, it is a definition that is necessary for logical arguments to go forward. I just say "absolute" is too strong a word. I used examples such as Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics as what we can consider absolutes, but they actually need to be qualified. The way I understand "absolute" is that there need to be no qualifiers attached to statements that are correct with absolute certainty. If we take the law of contradiction with absolute certainty, then you can even brush up against the conundrum or whether "God" would be subject to the law of contradiction as well.

Lastly, is it the law of contradiction or the law of non-contradiction? Can this axiom be both the law of X and the law of non-X at the same time?

Jason, leave it off. I checked your site again -- you're a decent looking guy (don't worry, I'm not gay), you have four apparently wonderful kids, you live in sunny Florida, be grateful! Leave science to the scientists, faith to the desperate, and morons to the compassionate. Just go enjoy life ...

Phillip,

Yes, you are a moron. But i'm not certain [s] why that bothers you considering that no one can no anything with certainty. How do you know that i am not complementing you?

Timmy the moron says,

"Science is not the alternative to religion."

I would say it is when science starts meddling in bigger things, like trying to explain our existence.

"Science is for all of us."

I never said it wasn't.

Doug, good work. For the here and now, better than Moses. I'd work on trying to make them one-liners, so people can set them in big type in a frame on the wall. Maybe Timmy the screenwriter can help. And you need a snappier title -- Top Ten Tips -- to freshen it up. Sorry to sound facetious, but people need cheering up too.

Doug.

Contrast that with Jesus' commandment:

"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

--John 15:6

Timmy:

Yep. It is absurd to speak about Polish physics or Christian biology or European algebra.

Why ask Jason anything? Haven't you learned? I guess hope springs eternal, despite the evidence.

Ten Guidelines for Modern Living

1. Look within yourself for the loving spiritual guidance that will help you treat others the in the way that you would like them to treat you. If you fail to meet your expectations, do not wallow in shame and guilt but resolve to do better in the future.

2. Seek out new knowledge and truth wherever it may be found, but take only your own counsel in what is right or wrong for you. Do not let any other dictate to you through law, order, command or religious creed what is the right way to live your own life.

3. In your communication with others be mindful of the impact of your words. Do not carelessly use words that incite anger, fear, guilt or shame.

4. Do not become so obsessed with the acquiring of material wealth and the exercise of power that you forget that the relationships between people are more important. Take time for yourself, your family and friends. Contribute as much to your society as you receive from it.

5. Respect other people, be they old or young, rich or poor, genius or moron, beautiful or plain, like you or unlike you. Treat them well and care for them when they need care.

6. Respect the life of other people and living things. Do not take a life lightly. Do not suffer others to take lives lightly. Recognize that life has a beginning and ending and let the old and injured die with dignity.

7. Know that the World’s population is too large already. Recognize the rights of others to choose to give birth or abort a fetus. Do not engage in sex without the proper precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Do not force sex on someone who is not willing. Do not discriminate against others based on their sexual preferences. If you have promised monogamy to your partner, do not break your promise.

8. Respect the property of others and do not take or destroy that which is not yours.

9. The truth will always serve you well. Do not lie or pretend to know what you do not know. Honesty is the best policy.

10. Be proud and satisfied with your self. Do not compare yourself unfavorably with others you may see or hear about, but congratulate yourself on what is yours and what you have done.

Science is not the alternative to religion.

Science is for all of us.

Concurrence?

Anyone?

Jason?

LT:

"The most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas concluded that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics apostates, Jews and witches. You are free, of course, to interpret the Bible differently--though isn't it amazing that you have succeeded in discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the history of your faith failed?"

Sam Harris, Letter to A Christian Nation, page 12

And James Dobson, a latter-day biblical scholar and advisor to president bush and leader of a mega-church agrees with Calvin.

Now, tell me again about how Christianity is a benign and loving religion at its core.

Ah,

Religion or Science

That is the question.

Um..... No it isn't.

Jason -

Thinking back to when I was 18, I can't imagine a more persuasive way for God to bring a boy to a meeting than the invitation of a gorgious girl. Of course the point was to hear the message, but I'm sure the company was pleasant.

I don't know anything about the organization you work in that was mentioned in passing some time ago. What does it do?

I take back what I said about Jason after reading his most recent posts at 12:46 and 12:52pm. He is still a jerk.

Where does all of his hate and animosity come from? Jason is an equal opportunity hate monger. He even jumped all over Bruce Burleson. Bruce was the only guy that, for days, espoused his deepely Christian views and at one point pleaded with Jason to be nice. Jason's response was to call him a moron.

Jason's carefully worded and intelligent response to me will be, let me guess, "Philip is a moron".

Does anyone remember Chevy Chase's famous response to Jane Curtain's political commentary during the 1st season of Saturday Night Live?

I rest my case.

more dribble from RBoob, you know, the one who says we can't know anything for certain:

"We all agree today that slavery is immoral."

Rboob, care to prove this universal assertion?

New definition for a-theist: Moron.

Doug,

Yes, I took steps, but God caused each step as well. I’m just simply answering your question of “cause”.

Now, as to those “steps”: God decreed that a gorgeous girl ask me to go to “Friend Day” with her on Sunday. I wasn’t about to turn down an afternoon with her. The pastor basically preached a summary of the Gospel, it made sense to me, and I assented to it. God decreed that I believe it and I haven’t stopped believing it since.

Now, I was somewhat familiar with the story beforehand and even understood it (that is, it made sense WITHIN its own framework) but I had never trusted it. Now I do.

Concerning your two points:

The first is a red herring. I never said I don’t believe in uncertainties. In fact, I expressed an uncertainty on this very forum when doubting Timmy’s unprovable assertion that newspapers will always burn. And guess what – I got called a “retard” for doing so. Furthermore, I’m a little uncertain as to how a university could award Andy the moron with anything. I guess that just shows you how far down the pot our schools have gotten. I’m not certain that I’ll be alive in the next ten minutes, but I don’t worry about things like that. I’m in the hands of a Sovereign Creator who works all things to my good. Maybe you’re anxious Puzzled, but I’m not you – try again.

Concerning your point 2, I’ll give you a quote from Daniel Dennett:

“The “monopoly on truth” isn’t the problem. The problem is when someone retreats to “faith” and “mystery” whenever you point out contradictions in the truth they espouse. Aristotle had it right more than 2000 years ago: when a person abandons the law of non-contradiction, he asked, "what difference will there be between him and a vegetable?"

Now Puzzled, back then to the original task I set before us in my first post – empiricism is self-contradictory. That is the charge I have laid on this thread and no one has come to the rescue. Instead, ya’ll babble on about resurrection, whether I poop or not, government, and all the rest of the red herrings.

And to top all that off: We even have folks on here who tell us the law of contradiction is not a certainty. Now, this is commendable in that I believe that is the logical end to empiricism; however, you turn into a “vegetable” at that point.

Try again.

Puzzled says, “What Jason seems to be missing is that scientific methodology does not make any claims to "absolute certainty."

Ummm…no, that very thing was said in my original post…you know, the one everyone is getting all hot and bothered over.

“Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements.”

What you seem to be missing is that you cannot function in a world with no absolutes – prime example: law of contradiction. What you seem to be missing is that morons like Timmy, who readily admit that absolutes don’t exist, continually assert absolutes. What you seem to be missing is that in the very second you type a sentence, you contradict your presupposition that there are no absolutes.

Go ahead Puzzled, take the challenge: write a response to me without utilizing the law of contradiction. Looks like Andy tried, but Andy has just demonstrated again just how stupid people get when they take their empiricism serious. What’s sad is that many people here have admitted their difficulty with what Andy has written and just pawn it off as: “wow, Andy must be real smart…take it down a notch Andy and speak to us non-geniuses.” I prefer to just call Andy for what he is – a moron. Besides that, notice he utterly failed the challenge. He couldn’t communicate to me his theory with conventions other than language and logic.

Puzzled, the law of contradiction “requires that a given word must not only mean something, but it must also not mean something else. The term dog must mean dog, but also it must not mean mountain; and mountain must not mean metaphor. Each term must refer to something definite and at the same time there must be other objects to which it does not refer. Suppose the word mountain meant metaphor, and dog, and Bible, and the United States. Clearly, if a word meant everything, it would mean nothing.” – Clark

Yet, you tell me that logic is optionable, we can’t be certain about the law of contradiction… hmmmm…well, I guess all I have to say now in response is:

“mountain mountain mountain mountain mountain mountain mountain mountain.”

Did you get that?

Puzzled asked several days ago, why creationists fuse science with the bible. That is an excellent question. My answer would be that if they fully accept science as their reality, they would have to trash everything written in the bible. The two belief systems are mutually exclusive. They would have to overturn their entire belief system. The proverbial house of cards would come tumbling down.

"That aint working" so, faced with that looming problem, the only solution is to mold the two beliefs together. That is where everything gets wierd and wacky. The stuff that evolves from those attempts seems often laughable to an outsider like myself. Apparently, they don't recognize their own evolution and are impervious to criticism.

Robin asked earlier, "What is the point"? Asking why everyone on this thread spends so many hours re-hashing all of the same thoughts over and over. Initially I agreed. Then I realized that everyone is at different stages of their spiritual evolution and reading these posts and adding their own rhetoric is part of the process of their own spiritual evolution. Me included!

Andy-I absolutely agreed with your extremely well written letter to Jason's superior. I was not aware that his presence here was under the auspices of a higher authority. It took some time, but I think Jason got the message and his tone has radically changed. Perhaps his superiors read some of his diatribe and had a little talk with him. He is starting to seem a little more lovable now.

Puzzled also said that they still attend church regularly. I found that fascinating.

Puzzled- I must ask for your thoughts on that subject. Is it the fellowship that you seek? You mentioned habit. Explain that a little. Do you partake in the rituals, songs etc? Do others know that you are a non-believer? I find it so interesting that you would still go to church. I used to attend meetings of Atheists United but I would feel like a stranger in a strange land if I went to any church on a regular basis. I would love to hear your thoughts.

One large event in my spiritual evolution occured when a scholar, that I knew in my teens, made the statement that Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah and the like, are all the same guy. I choked on that thought but his evidence was absolutely correct and further distanced me from organized religion. Is that concept generally recognized by Christians and Moslems alike? If so, how do they deal with the consequences of that revelation?

Do Christians, Moslems and the like believe that animals have souls or are we the only lucky/unlucky one to have the pleasure/pain of worrying about such things?

To believe that we are the only ones that have souls, you must make a distinction between us and the animals. I would guess that many non-believers don't make that distinction.

I don't even make the distinction that we are the highest or most evolved form on this planet. The answer to that question is entirely rooted in what guidelines you choose.

For example, if you ask what organisms are best suited to survive a complete worldwide nuclear weapons exchange, it would have to be bacteria and viruses. So, under that scenerio, they are the most advanced life form on this planet. Man likes to think that he is at the top of the evolutionary tree, but a true rationalist knows better.

All the best, Philip Tripp

LT: I enjoyed your thoughtful response.

1. Cherry-picking. You claim the NT placed a new context for viewing the harsh OT. Please explain Ephesians 6:5...

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ..."

And 1 Timothy 6:1-4...

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed..."

No where in the NT does jesus denounce slavery. He endorses its continued practice. We all agree today that slavery is immoral.

Thus, modernity forces one to reconcile past teachings with an evolving sense of what is moral. Morality evolves. These old texts don't.

Finally, where in the NT was it explicitly stated that the death penalty for breaking the 10 commandments was suspended? Answer: no where.

2. On the evolution of knowledge. You say: "This reflects the same bias toward scientism..."

Look. Ancient people used to scratch away at the earth with a stick, drop a seed into the dirt and pray something would grow. Today modern ag machines plow 1,000 acres a day and employ many other technologies to grow 10,000 times the yield, no prayer needed. Pointing that out may be "a bias toward agricultural engineeringism" but so what? I don't get the point, I guess. This seems like an attempt to artificially force dualism where it's not appropriate.

The new context is science and technology. That's not a bias, it's a recognition of what is known.

3. On circular arguments. "Your argument is circular and only appears to be helped by the fact that people in the past knew less about science than today. However, people did not need "physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine" or even "basic math" to know that once a person is killed, s/he is supposed to stay killed. Yet a large number of people claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection."

LT, because they were ignorant of the irreversibility involved with the decay of tissue (medicine and the 2nd Law of thermo), they could be told someone arose from the dead. Today we have advanced thermo and have established that it's impossible because dS/dt>0. We understand a property of matter (entropy) they had no clue about.

Actually only a minority of people today have studied these sciences...a majority still considers the understanding they yield as arbitrary. Thus they are susceptible to equating knowledge with mythology. Over time, this group will shrink in size.

You claim this is a circular argument, but how so? I'll provide another example:

We know now that the surface tension of water is caused by the polar nature of H2O. We can measure the strength of this force, and calculate very precisely that it will NOT support the weight of a person.

So, yes, a priori (important to note: today with knowledge gained over the past 2,000 years) I can reject the alleged miracle of walking on water.

But they couldn't. They did not have the tools.

Time ... my night is your day ... so I have to take a lot of posts at once and distill from them the spirit for another big response. So sorry that I cannot address posters by name. I shall do so by topic.

A. Creativity with contradiction (Hegel in a nutshell)

Triad 1.1
It is -- It is not -- It becomes

Triad 1.2
It becomes objects -- It becomes properties -- Objects have properties

Triad 1.3
Objects are essence -- Properties are essence -- Essence is appearance

Triad 2.1
Reality is essence and appearance -- Both are essential -- We see both

Triad 2.2
Essence is manifest -- Appearance is hidden -- Reality is deceptive

Triad 2.3
We sort out reality -- We don't sort it out -- We are people

Triad 3.1
We use our senses -- Our senses trick us -- Art shows us how

Triad 3.2
We lack knowledge -- We have faith -- Religion offers hope

Triad 3.3
Art is surface -- Religion is beyond -- All is one in the Absolute

Hegel used an argument like this to "prove" that the Prussian state, united under God, was perfect.
Karl Marx took this dialectical idealism and turned it upside-down it to create dialectical materialism.
Vladimir Lenin concluded that "dialectics is the doctrine of the unity of opposites" (Collected Works, Vol. 38).

The resulting clash (Prussian militarism versus Soviet communism) dominated the 20th century.
What can we conclude? Philosophical absolutism, of left or right, is dangerous.
What should we do? Relax and let logic become a technology.

B. Bits (1 + 1 = ?)

In bit logic, otherwise known as Boolean algebra, 1 + 1 = 0 as long as you ignore the carry bit. If you remember the carry bit, 1 + 1 = 10. In arithmetic modulo 2, 1 + 1 is zero, and in binary arithmetic, two is 10.

In program code you can write contradictions. There's no law that says you can't. But if you do, your box will crash. Avoiding contradiction is a practical maxim for success in life. Things go smoother if you go with the flow of modus ponendo ponens: if p then q; p; so q -- Wittgenstein (re)invented truth tables to show why this was valid.

C. God (who, where, how to explain)

Sam Harris is now a researcher in neuroscience and consciousness. So he will understand the following idea, whose exact source I have forgotten but for which my prayer to Google was in vain.

One way to describe the sense of awe in face of the Absolute is to say that we find a fixed point. We touch base with eternity and feel our unity with the universe. All the rest is flux and change, including our silly little personal lives with all their jealousies and frustrations. This Absolute, experienced in its true magnitude, is peaceful and self-sufficient. It bears comparison with the inner peace found by experienced meditators in the Eastern traditions such as Buddhism. There is no yearning for a beyond because there is no beyond -- I melt into eternity.

Now for the idea. The psychology behind this state is that each of us has two heads, metaphorically speaking. We have a big head and a little head (this is where Google failed me -- too many vulgar hits). The little head is our everyday head, the one that drives to work and sorts out the kids. The big head is the "Sunday head" that tries to achieve union with the Absolute. How can I know God? By becoming God, or rather by becoming my own representation of God, my big head. Done right, this gives me my fixed point.

Natually, my big head fails to achieve more than fleeting union with God. I would have to overcome all the contradictions in Hegel's philosophy to become God, and life is too short. But I can have faith. The monotheistic traditions help me hold on to the idea that one day my little head will catch up with my big head and I will go down in eternity as a fulfilled soul, a strange loop in the sense of Douglas Hofstadter, with no time left unaccounted for.

Why do we have two heads? This is where the neuroscience comes in. What we really have is two cerebral hemispheres, left and right. As one acts, the other observes. We have "mirror neurons" (Google it) to reflect both our own thoughts and the observed actions of others. We understand things by holding up the mirror and analyzing their image. This is how we manage socially. We mirror each other, as best we can. This is what we are doing here in this blog, trying to understand each other's thoughts.

Our big head is a social adaptation. It's our altruistic head. Our little head is our selfish head. We need a big head to get along with each other. Now, monotheistic religion has gotten hold of this big head and inflated it enormously. Each and every believer is supposed to get his or her head around the entire universe. No way, no can do. So we need faith. The church sells us faith to stop our heads exploding. The church takes over, and then attacks nonbelievers as pusillanimous, which in effect means insufficiently big-headed.

Cut to now. Meditate and be calm. Abraham had a vision of God that brought the world together. It was a great thing he did, or rather we all did on his behalf. Now we have one world, with just a few little political problems to clear up. Sometimes it looks like we have a massive unsolvable problem to clear up here. But we can do it if we remember that a network of medium-sized heads can understand each other well enough to be, in effect, one big head.

The acid guru Timothy Leary (fogged up by LSD but still lucid) saw the Web as a worldwide brain in which we, the online masses, were the neurons. Just as the neurons in our brain communicate imperfectly with each other and sometimes foul up, we in the Web still have some collective "thinking" to do.

This blog is a perfect example of what we need to keep doing. When we can claim together to have become not just a lot of talking heads but a brain as big as a planet (thanks, Marvin the paranoid android), we will have become Gaia, we will have fulfilled the vision of Saint Augustine and have become the Body of Christ.

Hallelujah and amen!

PS: Thanks, Jason, for savin' ma soul!

Hold on LT You get your own personal response since you want me to engage you more directly and specifically.

1)
I apologize if I accused you of insinuating that, I called all Christians dangerous, if that is not what you meant. I sometimes read these things so fast because there is so much to read. So long as you know those are not my feelings.

2)
If I asked you: Why do you think that I don't believe?
Well I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so I need you to answer that question for me.
What is your best guess as to why I don't believe?
Am I missing the obvious?
Is the evidence, in your eyes, as clear as the nose on my face?
Am I incapable of having the same kind of revelation that you had? Or unworthy?
Do I misinterpret my emotional feelings?

Obviously the reason I ask is that I'm having trouble with this idea that you believe in something so completely that it is clear to you, but you find it perfectly reasonable for me to not believe.
I can not reconcile that, I just can't.
So maybe you can elaborate on why it is that you think, that I do not believe.

As my recent posts have shown, not only do I think that it is reasonable to postulate and imagine an all knowing and loving creator of the universe, I have done it myself.
To imagine that this deity speaks to us metaphysically through messengers like Jesus or John Lennon or Gahndi is also reasonable.
And I'm sorry for this LT, but this is where reasonable ends and what you believe starts. (For me)
I definitely believe that it is unreasonable to profess with absolute certainty that you know who the creator of the universe is, and he is the one true god, and his teachings and good word are in this book, and others who don't believe this are wrong to not believe it. Unreasonable.

When there are so many other religions and philosophies and Ideas about the universe; for you to even think that you and your group have found the one true answer, is unreasonable to me.
Not only unreasonable, but very very very arrogant.
You have found the one true answer? Really?
I'm wrong? I'm going to Hell?
All of those other religions and ways of looking at the universe, but you and your group have found the one true answer?
33 percent of the worlds population are right and the rest are wrong?
If you truly find "not believing" to be reasonable, as you have claimed, then how could you not see the arrogance of telling people that you have found the one true answer. Christ.

Again, a belief in the idea of a god is not unreasonable or arrogant.
If you believe that you and your group know who the one true God is, is very unreasonable to me, and very arrogant.

I am happy to listen with an open mind, to your explanation of how you feel that it is not unreasonable to make such an assertion, and it is not arrogant.

As someone who believes that no one knows the big answer. That we are all still searching for it. I really have no choice but to call the religious position, arrogance.

If I did not address any of your points that you want me to address, let me know.

And I don't consider literalism violence and dogmatic political interference as your responsibility.
But is it not, as much your problem, as it is mine?
Do you not share equal responsibility with me and all of the peaceful democratic people of the world to try whatever they can to solve these problems?
Do you not possess special qualifications that I do not have, to talk to those who take religion too far, and reason with them to back off with the interference into other peoples lives?
Or do you not mind at all that these people have their moral noses in our business.

You turn.

Well I got some interesting responses.

My use of the word "club" got some people all riled up.
just a metaphor. And I was making a point not agreeing with the sentiment.

Doug, When you said
"Timmy - Speaking for myself I don't want to replace one set of dogmatic beliefs with another. Atheists aren't supposed to be a "club" with dogma that must be believed (or not believed) to be a member.
This is my point exactly and it seems like you were responding as though I was advocating some kind of atheist dogma.
I used the word club to illustrate what people are doing to atheism.

It was me who has been most adamant that atheism is not a thing and therefore can have no dogma.
This is where the confusion of the dictionary definition comes in.
"One who believes that god does not exist"
This is a belief. It is a dogma. The dogma that god does not exist. At least, according to the current dictionary definition.
That is why I have a problem with this definition.
It is wrong. It is confusing.
What god? Gods of any kind? The idea of a god? The one true god? All of the above?
If it is a "belief that god does not exist":
We need to have a very clearly defined statement of what "god" means.
Because people are unsure.
Maybe not any of you, but regular people, are unsure.

People who have spiritual dreams and imaginations such as I have described might think that they are not atheists because atheists aren't people who have such thoughts.

But they are not agnostics either, because they absolutely do not believe in the one true god. They are not ambiguous about this in the slightest.
So this excludes them from the definition of agnostics who are "not sure if god exists".
Again do you see how important and yet not clear the definition of "god" is in that statement.

So I am not agnostic because I definitely do not believe in the one true god of the Abrahamic religions.
And I'm certainly not a Christian or a Muslim or Jew.
I like the term "free thinker" but then I understand why believers would take offense to that.
"So what, I'm not a free thinker because I believe?"
I think that it is perfectly reasonable that believers can believe by choice with free will. So I get their objection to "free thinker" being synonymous with non believer.

So, I'm not agnostic
I'm not religious
Free thinker, can include believers in God, so that's too confusing.

So that just leaves atheist.
And the current definition of "One who believes that god does not exist" Does not describe me.
It describes only one kind of atheist.
I don't know why "atheist" needs a definition.
It is a definition.
One who is not a "theist".
That describes all of us for our only common trait.
Under this subgroup, there are people who believe all of these different things:
We are here just cuz. It's all meaningless.
We have always been here, time has no beginning,
Who knows how we got here it's just so interesting to think about the question. I like to imagine different things.
We are all just energy, which is matter, which is energy.
One day we will learn to use more of our brains and travel across space-time as energy balls.
We are possibly a colony of humans from a distant star that died.
Reincarnation is the continuation of our life energy.
Live in the here and now, because it's all over when it's over, baby.

All of these people refuse to believe in the one true god and for this reason they are none of them, agnostic.
They are a-theist.
"One who believes that god does not exist" is a terrible definition to try and cover this group of people. It makes them all sound like they believe the same thing. Clearly they do not.
This is why they can not ever form an organized group with dogma. And must not.
So let's drop the pigeon hole dictionary definition and just leave it at:
a-theist
In the dictionary, it should just be a sub set under "theism"

Oops. Forgot to post name.

LT:

I agree that since the bible was written in a time and place completely different from most us know, to judge the bible with 21st century attitudes may not be the way to go. That is why theologians who translate the bible into modern languages like English must also study, in addition to many of the languages of ancient Mesopotamia, sociology, history, ... I know because my dad is such a person. He is a theology professor of OT, now retired. He's now working on a retirement project: Psalms Commentary, and I've seen the process from afar, so I have some sense. Theologians do this because what is said in those texts is wrapped in the context of the time and place. To me, this is the prima facie case for why taking the bible literally (i.e., that every letter, word and sentence was just so and cannot be wrong) can only lead to a poor understanding of the authors' true intentions.

However, to say that just because we now know more about the world around us then the ancients did, the ancient texts are "wrong" doesn't make much sense either. Bible was not written to with the intent of being factually correct. Bible authors were not working for AP or UPI. They were spiritual men and women who wanted to profess their faith that god is our creator. Honestly, I have a hard time getting this spiritual part, but I suspect (guessing with "low level of confidence") that the kind of spiritual "truths" may be different in its essence than "factual" or "scientific" truths (i.e., empirical regularities and laws).

My humble suggestion: let science be science since the scientific method (at least now) can only very poorly account for this spiritual side. Psychologists may try. But after all is said and done, all they're really doing is making (statistical) inferences from stimulus-response. Philosophers may employ logic and mathematics, but as far as I understand, we can observe behavior, and speech, attitudes, etc. but that is about it. And atheists should also concede that the spiritual experience is outside their understanding: that is why atheists are atheists, after all. As long as either party keeps to their space and not presume to tell the others what they're doing, then perhaps honest discourse can follow. So, creationists have to really stop railing about their "science," and atheists have to allow for the "leap of faith" that is the domain of spirituality.

Ted - I can think of two possible conclusions from the preponderance of religious affilitions in Congress. First, as you say, non-believers may be very poorly represented in Congress, because a politician needs the religious voting block to get elected.

The cynic in me suggests that an astute politician might join a congregation, attend services, shake hands and keep his mouth shut about just how much he does or doesn't believe. Even in this case he knows where his votes come from at the very least.

If I was a politician who wanted to get elected I would join a church with a large, rich influential congregation - and be very visible. But I have too many athiest moral scruples to do that.

If you go to the main page of the On Faith discussion you will find an interesting tabulation of the religious affiliations of the representatives in Congress.

Those with no religious affiliation number 6 in the house and none in the senate. This represents 1.1% of congress as opposed to 14.1% in the population as a whole.

So it would seem that atheists, agnostics and pantheists are very poorly represented in Congress.

Kattie said:

"Hey, we atheist say, "Anything's POSSIBLE", being good scientists and logicians and all, but forget about "metaphysical other" concepts. Just the same old same old - give us some Proof, some Evidence, just an itty-bitty bit, No Evidence, no Other. Otherwise, we're just watered down, pap-slinging, pandering a-gnostics, pathetic pastors wandering in the pasture."

I disagree. Agnostics simply say it is all unknowable, might be, might not be. Athiests take a stand that they don't believe in gods. Still doesn't mean that they insist that something new couldn't hit them with a bolt of lightening or something. Anyway, My SMO's better than your SMO. My SMO's better than yours. My SMO's better cause...

Tomorrow, me Kaatie me dear. I shall give you proof in the form of a replacement for the Ten Commandments dictated personally to me by my own personal SMO. They shall be known as Ten Guidelines for Modern Living and shall be inscribed in virtual binary space. Stay tuned for the World's newest religion.

Philosophically, empiricism or any other kind of scientific methodology "suffers" from this issue of "absolute certainty." What Jason seems to be missing is that scientific methodology does not make any claims to "absolute certainty." In his zeal to uphold and defend the absoluteness of "absolute certainty," he speaks of unattainable ideal forms and rejects knowledge that cannot make claims to absolute certainty, and hence his claim that the christian bible (only the bible) holds all the truth. And that must follow from the assertion that only christianity is internally consistent or some variation of the sort (i.e., does not contradict itself) and is complete. Whether that is the case is for another debate, but I will just talk about the issues that may be raised about such reasoning:

1. All that might be fine for armchair theorizing, but if you get hungry, you still have to get up out of that armchair to eat and once you eat, you have to (eventually) go to the bathroom, etc., etc. Even armed with such principles that Jason loves so much, there comes a time that we have to stop and make assumptions about the model we are trying to devise in order to make sense of the world around us. Trying to hit a grand slam with no one on base is futile. Sensible manager will tell you to take one for the team and get on by hook or crook, even if it is not too pretty and guarantees nothing. Bible may provide guidance in some things, but it sure won't help you build a house, nor pump oil for energy, etc.

2. In order to make a claim that the bible is the one and only source of truth (implied by the word "monopoly," not the game, but the economic term denoting a firm that is the only firm supplying a particular good or service), Jason would have had to either
(a) study all pilosophical, moral, religious ideas and then decide that the for all the parts that the non-bible ideas contradicted the bible, the bible is superior, and that the bible includes absolutely all other meaningful "truths" so that studying the non-bible ideas is redundant, or
(b) settle on the bible as a matter of convenience. There is no shame in that, since we are not immortal, such heuristics may be a more efficient search algorithm than a global search (as suggested in (a), above) in that there is a constraint on the time, mental capacity, etc. that are available to us.

Indeed, to be uncompromising and to demand only absolute certainty may be aesthetically pleasing, but overly idealistic, and simply infeasible. More pragmatically, when we search for knowledge of our surroundings in order to manipulate it for our purpose, as incomplete and inadequate as it may seem next to the ideal (call it god or whatever), it is ultimately self-defeating if one were to attempt to apply such criterion to everything. If eternal salvation or enlightenment is the purpose, then knock yourself out. But don't forget to also eat and sleep and spend time with your familty as well.

Well, sure Jason. God did cause you to go, but there must be more to the story than that. God probably also caused to you do other things, including take some steps on your own.

I would like to hear what those steps were; What you were thinking and feeling; What your experience was.

I was raised in the church from birth. My parents were very active in starting a new branch church in our community and I was a charter member of the Church Nursery (in our kitchen) while the meetings were in my Grandparent's living room next door. My parents and Grandparents literally built the church (building) and I grew up with it. 55 years later and I still live within a mile of that church.

I was completely immersed in religion my entire young life. When I was about 12 I felt God calling me to make a public acceptance of him, which I did. I communed with God. Later I drifted away as I've posted earlier.

Anyway, I never went from an aethiest home to choose God on my own as you did. So I am really interested.

LT:

Personally, i would rather not go into great detail in expositing certain Scriptures with "morons" (that really means genius) because i think we are letting them off the hook too easy.

As i have mentioned before, empiricism cannot get very far at all with all sorts of problems/contradictions and i will continue to hold their feet to the fire.

I'm not even about to explain theological details to people who can't even tell me if the law of contradiction is a certainty or not.

However, i will say in short: yes. I agree with you in principle that there are very reasonable answers "within" the framework to solve these so-called discrepancies.

But again, atheists are not honest with their own...well, at least most are not. Some have been honest and they are the ones locked up in mental hospitals.

Why do people think i am being disrespectful in calling them a "moron"?

We don't know anything for certain, right? At least that's what I'm told...so maybe "moron" actually means "genius".

In this case, some atheists here have actually protested me in calling them a "genius" - what morons.

----------

Don't you love that? Two can play this game. ( ;

Doug,

God caused me to go.

RB claims "the practice of not reading the scriptures literally is an accession to modernity." RB's only evidence for that assertion in that post is the Old Testament commands for death. What RB lacks is context. The commands are given in context of a covenant with the people who leave Egypt in Exodus. Since they were to be a holy, sinless nation-state under the covenant, the seemingly harsh commands are reasonable for them because it would limit sin. Also, this was not a forced covenant but an accepted one.
Christians believe the New Covenant through Jesus has the same heart of God but has different implications for how we act in society. Christians are not a holy nation-state in the way Israel was.

In society, this means that many Christian mistakenly support policies based on a covenant that no longer applies. I for one object to theocracy in America as much as any non-Christian. However, to read with context in mind does not constitute "failure" or compromise with what the Bible says. For your example, at least, I have a "within Christianity" reason of not reading that part of the Bible the way.

It is not obvious from the Bible what kinds of public policies are appopriate for Christians to support. If you think that the Bush administration's policies must follow logically from the Bible (I'm not saying that you do, only "if"), then that reflects a narrow-mindedness about the Bible similar to that of Christians who support Bush administration policies because they think Bible provides such a definitive answer.

I have to admit, though, the example you gave was a challenge to why I think the way I do, and I learned (or relearned) something in the process.

[To Jason: Hello. I'm not an expert, but what do you think of my interpretation?]

However, RB, I don't feel the same way about your other post.

"It is a historical fact that the people who wrote the bible were ignorant on a scale that, by today's standards, would be breath-taking. No physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine and only basic math."

This reflects the same bias toward scientism that I argued against three nights ago (and still seen no direct rebuttal for). I repeat:

"If one says that for something to have happened, it must be supported by scientific evidence, then God is effectively eliminated. For example, if a miraculous event in the Bible is not supported by science, then it can't have happened. However, if it supportable, then the argument for God is weakened anyway because we don't need to appeal to Him for that event."

RB, you admitted that "thinking scientifically a priori rejects all miracle-performing, personal gods" and then acted like there was nothing intellectually lacking in that. To propose to figure out the God question this way is to answer the question before one asks it. My arguments aren't for people who assume a priori there is no God and are no miracles, but for people who think based on "the evidence" that they don't exist.

Your argument is circular and only appears to be helped by the fact that people in the past knew less about science than today. However, people did not need "physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine" or even "basic math" to know that once a person is killed, s/he is supposed to stay killed. Yet a large number of people claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection. There are many alternative explanations to explain these claims, and I am not a historian, but I suspect a lot of them follow a methodology that rejects miracles without having adequately established that they can't occur.

As for burden of proof, you gave a decent answer to the first part of the question (why believers should have some burden of proof), but you still haven't answered what would constitute a proof for you.

If you ask me to prove Christianity, we might agree that a miracle must have occurred for Christianity to be true. If I allude to (multiple, independent instances of) human testimony as evidence of the resurrection, do you dismiss it out-of-hand saying they can't have seen what they claim because resurrection is impossible according to the scientism that declares either resurrection is impossible or it is not a miracle? Or do you dismiss it for non-tautological reasons? My issue is not that you see evidence but don't find it conclusive, but that you refuse to accept any evidence I provide on tautological grounds.

Timmy:

I perceive a pattern in which you've stopped addressing my actual arguments and blanket them with ad hominem comments (not disrespectful attacks, just comments) with what I must think as a believer. (If this is wrong, please tell me why.) Let's see if we can at least agree on what our positions are. My position is that (1) Christianity is correct and reasonable and that (2) atheism, however defined, is incorrect and reasonable. Having been an atheist most of my life (I wasn't churched), I cannot deny that atheism is still reasonable.

However--correct me if I'm wrong--you seem to think that (1) atheism is correct and reasonable and (2) Christianity (along with other religious beliefs) is incorrect and unreasonable. My goal is not to prove Christianity is correct, but to show using reason that Christianity is not unreasonable. I'm okay with your "missing it," to use your term, but I'd much rather have you miss it because you think that Christianity, while plausible, isn't true rather than because you think Christianity is not only untrue, but ridiculous.

Would you agree that one should base one's opinion that Christianity is unreasonable on reason? At least when RB finds one (or all) of my arguments ridiculous, he takes what I said and says why he thinks it's wrong. I do the same to arguments I think are wrong. Even Jason does this (although Jason, you could be more respectful).

That's part of what this forum is about, isn't it? If there's some part of your argument that you think I avoided and didn't address directly and would like me to do so, I'd be glad to give it my best shot. However, I think on balance that since I brought up the issue of scientism, you've done much direct responding to Jason and not very much to me and in some sense treated me with less respect than him (before you started ignored him). (As a Christian, though I can bear not being respected.)

FYI: You said, "I think I have stated clearly that I do not think that all christians are dangerous. Please do not place these words into my mouth again." I said two posts ago: "As far as I can tell, Timmy, your tacit opinion...stem [sic] primarily from a valid but irrelevant argument about the dangerousness of *some* who call themselves Christians" (emphasis added). I said last post: "Timmy doesn't believe Christians are a monolithic group..." For the record, it is you placed words into my mouth.

Doug said:

"I make a point of this specifically to keep the distinction clear. If I get sloppy in my use of language and use the word "god" to mean something other than "GOD", things get very confusing very fast.

Maybe someone will coin a nice punchy short word we could use for the concept of a Significant Metaphysical Other. SMO doesn't quite have the right ring to it though.

Then we could say things like: Athiests don't believe in God, but they allow the possibility of the existance of a SMO."

Hey, we atheist say, "Anything's POSSIBLE", being good scientists and logicians and all, but forget about "metaphysical other" concepts. Just the same old same old - give us some Proof, some Evidence, just an itty-bitty bit, No Evidence, no Other. Otherwise, we're just watered down, pap-slinging, pandering a-gnostics, pathetic pastors wandering in the pasture.

Timmy, I have had what I consider spiritual experiences - they have brought me joy and a sense of completeness. I am still an atheist (or an a-theist, if you will). I don't believe in a God (or Gods) (or Goddesses) (or Divine beings of uncertain gender). Jesus did not speak to me during these experiences. Neither did any other deity. But for me, they were profound experiences.

I can identify with your comments around "If this does not exclude me from the atheist club, the atheist club should make that more apparent." I have known atheists with whom I would feel a total fool for admitting that I have had what seem to me to be spiritual experiences, despite my not claiming to know the basis of the experiences and my not feeling a need to attach an anthropomorphic figure to the other end of them. There are certainly "anti-spiritual feeling" atheists. But atheists really aren't a united team with an anti-spiritual dogma to spread around the world. To use an over-used metaphor, if anything, they are a herd of cats. Some are more friendly toward spiritual experiences than others. I was comforted in a way when reading "The End of Faith" to find in Sam Harris a "non-believer" whose reasoning I found sound in many areas who is not dismissive of spiritual experiences. I am glad that he addressed spiritual experiences in the way that he did, despite criticism that I'm sure he has received from some atheists.

I agree with you that it would be helpful for more non-believers who do have spiritual experiences to make this known. I think that people would be less fearful of letting go of their idea of God if they knew before-hand that a feeling of emptiness and disconnection is not the inevitible result. It seems that a lot of believers fear that. I never had spiritual experiences before recognizing the unlikeliness of God and did after. So in a spiritual sense, for me becoming a non-believer or a-theist was a net positive.

Jason - Sorry, I made the assumption that you had been a church goer at a younger age. I hadn't picked up that your home environment was athiest.

I just meant that the community that the people in a church provide is something that most people would find a positive thing. And I thought that a kid, moving around as you did, might have really appreciated that sense of community and belonging.

Why did you start going to church?

Doug,

Was it a "positive value" to be apart of a church? Sure. It certainly (oops), I mean it most likely was not a negative (dang it), i mean closely resemble a negative.

But no, that's not the reason i started going to church at the age of 18, raised in an atheist home.

Sorry, Timmy - I hadn't read your previous posts of today where you where talking about a definition for the word Athiest and asking if an Athiest could also believe in god.

Symantics is a tricky business, but it seems to me that a-thiest means what you said in one of your posts: NOT a believer in god(s). That's the simple definition that I'm operating with. Now GOD is a pretty well defined concept, as is ALLAH, and JEHOVAH, and ZEUS, etc. These are the gods I say that I don't believe in. That is not the same as saying that there isn't some sort of metaphysical something-or-other that might exist. I don't say that there couldn't be something like that. (I don't BELIEVE that there is either.) What I do say is that GOD is a term that is pretty well defined by the Bible, a huge body of religious literature and masses of believers. I don't believe in GOD as defined by all of these trappings and dogma. I do not eliminate the possibility of something completely different from GOD that might have some god-like aspects.

I make a point of this specifically to keep the distinction clear. If I get sloppy in my use of language and use the word "god" to mean something other than "GOD", things get very confusing very fast.

Maybe someone will coin a nice punchy short word we could use for the concept of a Significant Metaphysical Other. SMO doesn't quite have the right ring to it though.

Then we could say things like: Athiests don't believe in God, but they allow the possibility of the existance of a SMO.

Maybe someone knows how Unitarians deal with this concept symantically. My impression is that they believe in something, but are very careful to not be very specific about exactly what.

Timmy,

Your statement about being left out of the atheists club didn't offend me, it confused me. Because I stated in my first post that I am an atheist. I did say that I went to catholic schools and attended protestant churches while growing up. But I have been an atheist since I was 16 and now am 50.

I guess that was missed somehow.

If you are asking me as an atheist if your imagination, dreams, thoughts that you describe would exclude you from *some* atheist club? I personally would not know why it would. Not any that I would consider belonging to.

(Oh and by the way, I loved Pay It Forward)

Personally, for myself, I can say and do with certainty (Jason) that no god exists for me in my life. I don't even consider thinking it a possibility.

I think the message of Jesus, is one that would benefit all of mankind. I try to follow much of what that message holds. But that does not mean I subscribe to the idea that he was the son of god as I repeat myself, I do not hold to the idea that any god exists.

I think you have a beautiful outlook on what life might be like if we all could imagine and try and put that imagination into reality. Not to mention just plain old common decency and respect towards our fellow man.

And no to *any of you out there* that may be thinking I am an atheist because I have had a hard life and am angry and bitter, so I turned against god. I have had a life like most with good times and bad times. Beautiful things have happened in my life as well as terrible. I have questioned the religious teachings at a very young age. As much of it did not make sense to me. Too many contradictions in the bible that I have read many many times. It just never made sense to me. I mean how much sense does it make to say in one breath that God loves a person and is then in the second breath spout all the retributions you will receive if his will is not followed.

To me that is the same as trying to teach your very young child not to run out in the street by pushing them in front of a moving car and pulling them back just in the nick of time. I don't know about anyone else but when my kids were to little to understand I kept a very good vigil on their whereabouts and or held their hands when we neared a street, so they could not dart out into traffic and when they were old enough to understand I told them what could happen if they did run out into the street before looking both ways.

Ok I am getting way off topic for the initial reason of posting to you.

I hope we are no longer confused.

Robin=atheist

Timmy=atheist or agnostic or free thinker?

RB: "He is right on target with the hypothesis that childhood gullibility is a survival mechanism that allows for the by-product we call religion."

Yes, the survival mechanism is the denial of death. Isn't that what all the world's religions promise, immortality? Anybody on this site read Ernest Becker, "The Denial of Death" and the (far-better) companion, "Escape From Evil"? He argues very persuasively that all of humankind's psychopathology, including religion (although at points he appears to be advocating religion as the balm of this universal fear), derives from the human consciousness of death and its attendant need to banish the reality of the fact of our own mortality. What use is the world, living, if we all end up as s-it (shades of Freud, too) in the end?

Death is the specter that drives all the drivel. We are still in its throes, witness the obscene futility of keeping 95 year-olds alive in the intensive care unit on ventilators.

What about death? That's the ultimate unknown, a journey to be savored and explored, a la Socrates.

Timmy - Speaking for myself I don't want to replace one set of dogmatic beliefs with another. Athiests aren't supposed to be a "club" with dogma that must be believed (or not believed) to be a member. Well, technically you need to not believe in God(s) to apply the term. Otherwise, agnostic might be a better term, but I'm not that particular.

If it makes you feel good to imagine a spiritual being that has good energy - I don't have a problem with it. If your imagination started to give you absolute commandments I would suggest that it would be time to stop.

I think about alternative ideas for some sort of spiritual force that might have something to do with all life. It is never anything like the Gods in the religious books. I never start believing in any of my ideas, because they are not real, but it doesn't bother me to explore my imagination.

Kaatie:

"We atheists are indifferent to the so-called "Bible", "Torah", "Koran", whatever papyrus-writings you choose to name, we just want it out of our lives and out of our national policies. "

Amen.

Dawkins appears to be onto something: He observes that religion is manifest around the world, in all cultures and asks, from the pov of evolution: why?

He is right on target with the hypothesis that childhood gullibility is a survival mechanism that allows for the by-product we call religion.

Follow the money: religion is, ultimately, about money and power. Remember your history. The Catholic church divided the "new" world between Spanish and Porteguese along a line of longitude. Thus the birth of modern-day Brazil: the arbitrary division of the Americas.

Religion HAS BEEN powerful stuff. Let's deflate this idiot balloon.

Still here, reading the incredible diatribe...

Some updates:
1. I burned some paper in my woodstove today, the fire was blazing hot, but to my amazement, not all of it burned! Some of it MELTED. Because there were some non-paper elements mixed in, of which I was not aware...(get it, Jason?)
2. I braved the lions at the Ann Coulter website (cf Bruce, saying he was "braving the lions' den" on THIS site, HAH!) with a very innocuous post and - surprise! got amazing invective, ad hominem, vicious, really toxic, responses. You guys are tame pussy cats compared to the (utter f-ing fascist) folks who are Ann Coulter afficianados. Came away feeling totally slimed; deleted ALL references from my hard drive, for "cleansing".
3. I read Timmy's screenplay - what fun! Go, Timmy!!!
4. I have to aver a central point we should all be addressing in response to Sam's post, which started this thread - we need to come out of the closet and be heard. Just goading those (jerks) Ann Coulter-types has got to bear fruit. Go forth and multiply, and let our voices be heard!!!
5. Argument, polemic, diatribe...all a good intellectual exercise, but consider just sticking to the central point. We atheists are indifferent to the so-called "Bible", "Torah", "Koran", whatever papyrus-writings you choose to name, we just want it out of our lives and out of our national policies.
6. Let the red states proclaim what they will. Let the freedom-fighters (us) remember the words of our forefathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson (see Dawkins, The God Delusion). Let Freedom Ring, freedom to be left alone with our own bodies and our own private beliefs.

Robin,

I'm not sure why you took offense to my last line.
I was talking to atheists and asking them a question.
If I hear the words of John Lennon's "Imagine", or read them, and I get shivers when I think about the meaning of those words and how they appeal to my soul and sense of goodness. And how closely they relate to the message of Jesus, all except that one line (.. and no religion too).
And if I like to let those shivers take me to a spiritual place where I feel good, at least for the moment, to imagine these words being channeled through John Lennon and Jesus and Gahndi etc. by a loving, caring, caretaker of the universe.
I love to imagine that sometimes when I get those shivers. It makes me feel good. It's a feel good thing to imagine. Like going to a movie.

I was asking the atheists Robin, if this excludes me from their club. I know that it excludes me from your club because I believe that these feelings that I have are just pleasant postulations, I put no dogma to these thoughts and I am not ever going to relate those shivers to your book who's god is no one I would ever imagine.
I relate to the concept of god in the way that I have just expressed. But the story of your god, is not one that appeals to me. I am just postulating a feel good deity for the same reason that I would go and see a movie like "Pay it Forward"

If this does not exclude me from the atheist club, the atheist club should make that more apparent. It might be a nice welcome mat for people who might find that they relate more to that way of believing in god than the church's way.

?

Jason - all those moves when you were a kid - sounds like you were never at one school more than a couple of years. I haven't had that experience, but I would think it would be hard, leaving your friends behind, over and over.

Did you find that being a member of a church helped? It seems like it would be almost like a club, where you could fit in and be accepted, even if you were the new kid on the block. That seems like something of real positive value that a church could provide.

The volume in this thread is too much for me to keep up with. I saw several good things posted that I would like to respond to, but may not have the time.

This is one thing that can't wait - I have a suggestion for everyone. Please stop fanning Jason's flames. Sure there have been some funny lines - but at who's expense? At this point, Jason could (and I believe he HAS) say something that showed some progress towards reasonable discussion, and nobody would notice, they would just keep on with the same old silly responses and name calling.

STOP! EVERYBODY! Try this: From now on only reward Jason with a response - IF you can find something positive to say. Model the kind of communication you wish he did more of. Encourage him whenever he starts to make sense - and not in a back-hand slap way.

How did I miss this one?! In my insistence that the law of contradiction not be seen as an option, Janine the Genius responds:

“Okay jason, I'll bite (in the metaphorical sense): A homeless person does not have a home/house to live in, but the street, car or cardboard box is his/her home. It's not a home per se in the sense that it has walls and a roof etc. however, where ever he/she sleeps is his/her home. So there you go, a home that is not a home. “

You know, it is sad enough that Janine would bite at the logic challenge and then commit atrocious reasoning in doing so. But what really takes the cake is that in “rationally analyzing” arguments, sometimes it can be difficult to spot the fallacy, but Janine her sticks a big red dot on it.

From Wiki:

“Also known as ambiguity, Equivocation is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.”

The quote from Jeninus: “It's not a home per se”

No…really? Oh my gosh, my stomach is hurting. This is funnier than Timmy the Moron’s stand-up crap. Please…more…

"Methinks the psalm doth protest too loudly"

WM, protesting implies you have some other opinion as to the state of foo...i mean non-believers. However, you admitted that you are not certainty about anything.

So, this statement here in Ps 53 by your own admission is probable and your opinion is probable...however, i would be inclined to argue that your protested opinion and the bible both can't be right at the same time (logic at work), but then that would assert some kind of certainity, to which you then reply that certainty is not possible.

So, you basically end up sounding like a moron, indicating to me that Ps 53 has a pretty darn handle on your condition. ( :

Robin, re "I also would like it if believers could/would understand that we atheists are not heathens. We are exactly like them ie: moral, lawful, compassionate, giving, forgiving etc as they are."

I recall a verse from Psalms 53 that we used to sing at church when I was growing up:
"Fools have said there is no God
They in their heart conclude;
They are corrupt, their works are vile
Not one of them doeth good."

Methinks the psalm doth protest too loudly ...

But if someone believes that the bible contains the literal word of God and has read his bible, then he would believe that non-believers in God are scum.

Heck, I'll even lower the word count to 50.

Andy,

Bravo! for the excellent post on Wittgenstein. Once again demonstrating where consistent empiricism leads us to – complete nonsense. Thus, I refer to Wittgenstein in one of my rap songs found on RCM Radio:

Wittgenstein, sought
Hideous crime, by assigning God talk
To ambiguous signs

Andy, here’s my challenge to you:

If logical principles are arbitrary and language is just a game, please state your own epistemological theory without making use of the law of contradiction.

Again, my challenge to Andy:

If the law of contradiction is an arbitrary convention, and if our linguistic theorists choose some other convention, I challenge you to write a 5oo word post in conformity with your principles.

I'll await your post.

WM,

If i was a betting man, i'd say odds are that your empiricist epistemology is taught or at least assumed and operated in every public high school in this country.

A burden of proof IS on you. Not ONCE in twelve years of public education in 6 different states (army brat) was i EVER offered the possibility of Christian rationalism and presuppositionalism as a theory of knowledge.

Free-thinkers my ass. ( :

However, how do you prove or disprove skepticism?

It's very convenient for you to assert that there are no absolutes - it supposedly keeps you from getting cornered and subject to "rational analysis", but there are those of us who claim the the law of contradiction as an absolute and (to borrow a term from Dennet) prefer not be "vegetables".

Trish:

"Believers claim that post-bodily punishment or rewards will make up for the injustices that regularly occur in this world, which is only a brief blip compared to eternity. Why even attempt to seek justice in this world, if that's impossible? Why have civil, or ecclesiastical, courts, laws or sanctions? Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more indicative of belief to wait for the Big Guy to straighten it all out later?"

Actually, there is a bumper sticker out there, I believe they are NRA members, that goes like this: "Shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out."

So, there are some out there who actually agree with this sentiment.

LT, Re "Is it so that believers have a burden of proof? If so, we should address that question directly and understand the meaning and scope of this this burden of proof."

I personally don't think that believers have much of a burden of proof with respect to their beliefs as long as their beliefs aren't resulting in harm to others. Of course, per the butterfly effect, sometimes seemingly innocuous irrational beliefs could result in unpredictable catastrophies, but one can hardly live one's live based on the butterfly effect.

If a believer thinks that there are fairies in his backyard, I don't see that he has much of a burden of proof. I don't see how that belief could hurt me or anyone else in any significant way.

If a believer is going to come to my doorstep and spend my time and goodwill on his beliefs, then he has a burden of proof.

If a believer is going to try to prevent over-the-counter access to emergency contraception due to his belief that a couple cells have a soul, he has a heavy burden of proof.

If a believer is going to advise a disease-ridden people to not use condoms due to his beliefs on the immorality of contraception in general, he has a very heavy burden of proof.

If a believer is going to try to instill his beliefs in a child and potentially cause that child anxiety and fear in the future, he has a very heavy burden of proof.

Just my opinion.

Timmy,

I hope you didn't mean that last line...

If you won't let me and people like me into your club of atheism...

I honestly was not critizing I was just asking questions.

This website at times fatigues me with the bickering. Although, I can see a purpose for it. I just have problems with name calling. And that is because, trust me, I can be reduced to doing it more than not. I just don't see it as being constructive and that is when I have to gracefully bow out. You guys' name calling is mild to what I feel like saying some days...lol

Thank you for answering my post. I do like your thinking very much so. And as I say anything that makes me think is a good thing.

One poster on this thread has scared me into doubling my donation to Americans United for Separation of Church and State (www.au.org). "be afraid, be very afraid"

RB

Actually I threw that out to anyone. And thank you for giving me your opinion.

Of course I agree with what you said. I didn't exactly mean on that big of a scale. I understand that atheists have to become more vocal as part of this society for the reasons you stated.

Although, I do realize Bush is backed by the Christian right, which is what got him elected.
I think the United States involvement in Iraq has less to do with Bushs' fundamentalist beliefs and more to do with Oil and Chenys' war profiteering ie: Haliburton.

I meant here on this thread. And again I do understand the significance of debate even small scale here. What i just meant was that if it gets down to whos right and whos wrong and then name calling. Just seems to go nowhere fast.

As an atheist I do want to stand up and be
counted and if the opportunity arose I would fight at the steps of the capitol, for religious reform.

Again, enjoying the thread.

Robin you are right,

It does always come down to the believer trying to convince the non believer to come over to the other side.
So what can we do?
Well, what is the problem?
violence based on religion.
religion forced down our throats.
This is what we have in common.

We do not have to convince the believer to not believe to discuss these things with them. It makes it easier to do so when we move on from the "your thing is whack" argument.

We can talk to believers who are not violent or dogmatic or pushy about their beliefs and try to convince them that they can be a valuable tool in solving these issues, by talking to the more problematic believers about the problems of violence and dogmatic politics.
I made such progress a couple of nights ago with Bruce.

And most importantly, as I have most recently pointed out, we can spread a definition of this "new atheism" that is not misleading. i.e.
"One who believes that god does not exist."
This is too cold and not entirely true.
Atheists are just people.
And outside of their aversion to having someone else's religion forced into their lives, they can dream of spiritual things, and make themselves feel happy about the universe by thinking of nice spiritual things.
If they want.
Or they can think that the universe suddenly appeared out of nothingness if that's what they imagine.
Or they can think that it was always here and time has no beginning.
Or they can think that a surfer dude named God who lives in a universe where they have discovered a way to make a micro version of their own universe to study has created our universe.
Oops. That's my movie again.

Atheism is so much more inviting when it is just a-theism.

A "theist" to me is not the same as someone who dreams up an abstract idea of god for their own philosophical enjoyment or comfort.
So if I do that on some days when I feeling particularly deep in my thoughts about the universe. I do not become a "theist"
I am still an atheist.

That is me.
If you will not allow me and others like me into the club of atheism? God help you.
Because I am as sane as they come.

I have so enjoyed the opportunity to see the interesting thoughts of so many skeptics & atheists in this thread.

Reflecting on the idea that getting rid of religion would leave a vacuum in society that must be filled to prevent dangerous social forms from developing: how about replacing the "larger than me" aspect of life with civilization itself? The accumulation of accomplishments by people working together over space & time is impressive and meaningful. Changing relationships, jobs & interests would be less traumatic if one doesn't believe I was put here for *a* reason.

While catching up on the past couple of days' worth of postings, I have started brewing another question about faith. Believers claim that post-bodily punishment or rewards will make up for the injustices that regularly occur in this world, which is only a brief blip compared to eternity. Why even attempt to seek justice in this world, if that's impossible? Why have civil, or ecclesiastical, courts, laws or sanctions? Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier, and more indicative of belief to wait for the Big Guy to straighten it all out later?

It is also regularly claimed that belief in eternal life is comforting to believers. But I have to wonder, because of behavior of believers in situations where they actually face death, whether of themselves or of loved ones. If you really really expect to spend a blissful eternity with the Big Bearded Guy in the Sky, and that this life is just a brief "veil of tears", why accept any life-prolonging medical care? Why cry if one of your loved ones is "in a better place"? Why would anyone intervene to prevent the death of someone they care about? Wouldn't that be tantamount to bumping them from a flight to bliss? The only way that such things would fit in with belief in eternal post-bodily life would be if you know/suspect that the loved one is headed to one destination, and you will probably be sent to the other. How comforting is that?

Also, people who expect rapture, the end of everything we've ever known and the end of the lives of everyone they care - think that those of use who think that, with no god/s, the only way to be in a better world is to create it for ourselves are the pessimists.

Oh, and to the question of late night postings: I have been out of college for - gulp - decades, though I hope laser skin rejuvenation makes it harder to tell. Having some health problems, I am fortunate to have a husband with a steady job & dcent health benefits. I have been able to concentrate on selling my watercolor paintings, and have been dabling a bit with writing & making humorous videos. [check out Mythbusters stunt on You Tube].

It's been fun! If this group goes to another thread, please post it here so I can find you guys again!

WM says, "I'm afraid I'm going to finally have to concur with the other posters that you are really have absolutely no interest in attaining knowledge"

WM, what is "knowledge" and how do you know when you have it? And if you claim to have it, how can you be "certain" it's knowledge?

Furthermore, are you certain that i have no "absolute" interest in knowledge?

Wait a second, I thought there were no such things as "absolutes", yet here you are saying that I have "absolutely no interest".

You people are morons.

Puzzled asks, "Did you read any book?"

Puzzled, I'm not certain whether I have read any books or not.

Jason, I'm afraid I'm going to finally have to concur with the other posters that you are really have absolutely no interest in attaining knowledge, and let you continue chasing your tail in peace. Merry chasing!

Other posters, sorry to have entertained said tail-chasing for so long!

Robin, you did not address this to me, so feel free to ignore my observation:

"Am I missing the point of wanting the believer to understand they are wasting their time? I am not sure that is my place to infringe upon their right to spend their time as they choose fit."

This is really the point. If fundamentalists were not bent on converting or killing infidels, why waste any time on them.

But they are. The war in Iraq is being led by a fundie here (Bush) against fundies there (Sunnis and Shi'ias) at a cost of $2 billion a week (MSNBC report tonight). What they believe and act upon does impact us.

The current group of atheist thinkers believe that confronting the taboo against criticizing these irrational belief systems could make a difference by isolating the extremists. So you're not wasting your time.

RBoob says, "This cherry-picking of the scriptures means you're not a fundamentalism, but rather, a moderate, which is to say, a failed fundamentalist."

Don't you just love it when people who don't study the Bible try to tell you what it means?

Hey RBoob, "literal" means according to the literature. And literature, in case you haven't noticed, can contain many types of genres.

Satire, parable, prophecy, biography, narrative...

That's probably one of the reasons you dislike the Bible so much...you're illiterate.

Timmy,

I also concur with everything you wrote in your last post. Which I must say you wrote very well. And I have to agree with 9/10. The only thing I can't claim to be for me is that I *have not* written a movie script, yet! *smile*

I also would like it if believers could/would understand that we atheists are not heathens. We are exactly like them ie: moral, lawful, compassionate, giving, forgiving etc as they are.

Thank you for allowing me to add my 2 cents that is about equal to 1/2 cent.

The reading has been very informative.

Jason,

I am quite certain that you do not know what you are saying. What do you know about philopsophy? Did you read any books and did you really understand it? Do you have an advanced degree? It looks like you just picked up a few terms here and there and you wield them without understanding.

What is "absolute"? Or more precisely, what do you mean when you say "absolute"? I'm fairly certain that you do not know anything with absolute certainty either.

Answer 2 questions for me (and for the others, too):
1. What is absolute certainty? (and how is that different from other types of certainty, such as mathematical certainty?)
2. Do you know anything with absolute certainty?

If you can demonstrate to me that you do, then perhaps I will accept your definition of "absolute" or that you are saying something worth listening to. Otherwise, I can only conclude (with a high level of confidence, probabilistically speaking) that you don't have the foggiest idea and are hiding behind non-sensical utterings to hide your lack of understanding. Please tell me it ain't so.

I have been reading this thread for a few days now.

I find all of this threads dialogue interesting until it lowered itself to name calling which gets everyone nowhere real fast.

I am not educated and refrain from debating, but do like to educate myself through reading. I am an atheist that knows squat about science. I have been an atheist since I was 16 and I am now 50. I came to that decision as I found it the only one that was rationale.

I as a protestant attended Catholic High School and protestant church, (although not regualar in attendance) when growing up. I do believe I have a decent knowledge of the Christian religion. Enough to know I have no desire to hold those beliefs. Yes I have read the bible fully a couple of times in my lifetime.

Timmy,

I liked your post to LT with the bottom line being..*We have to work under the unfortunate knowledge that we both think the other is missing it*

With that in mind, however, does anyone really think believers and non-believers can truly have a constructive dialogue? Won't the conversation always end up on whos right and whos not? I only ask this as this is basically what I have seen throughout this entire website.

It has also been my personal experience with real life dialogue between myself and a believer, that although I don't go far enough into a debate of whos right and whos not for two reasons.

1) it usually steers into the believer wanting to save my soul.

2) we just have to agree to disagree.

I guess what I am trying to say or ask..what really is the point? What am I missing?

Am I missing the point of wanting the believer to understand they are wasting their time? I am not sure that is my place to infringe upon their right to spend their time as they choose fit.

The only conclusion I can think to come to or hope is that with this debate that somewhere along the line one or the other may something that will resonate with the other or someone else reading it that will click at least enough to spark a question in someones mind.

Ok, please forgive me I guess I am just thinking out loud.

Timmy:

Thank you for elaborating. Gotcha. That's just me talking to you, two dreamers, not atheists. I concur.

As you say, when someone else jumps in, I may have to become an atheist again, for the moment.

And again I am announcing the formation of the "Jason non responderers" club.

We simply don't respond.
This will save much space.
I've seen us agree to disagree, and move on much more quickly with far more meaningful points.

The Jason Non Responderers Club meets here daily for meaningful chat. All are welcome to join.

My name is Timmy.
I am a person with free thoughts.
At this moment I am not an atheist because no one is currently trying to convince me that their god it the God.
If someone started trying to convince me of that, I become an atheist.
I also become an atheist when people are trying to insert their god into public policy and governmental affairs. Or when they organize and try to convert large numbers of people, especially children.
When I am involved with, or speaking of any of these things, I am an atheist.
At all other times, I am just me.
Atheist is my reaction, to someone else's idea of god, being forced on me or others.
I do not oppose other people believing what they want.
If they open up the conversation and start asking me why I don't believe, I become an atheist again.

At other times, I am just me.
And at those times, I sometimes sit and wonder about the vastness of the universe, and the big question, what started it all and what does it all mean?
Fascinating. I let my imagination run wild.
Are we a science experiment?
Recently, cosmologists have been talking quite seriously about the theoretical possibility of creating a miniature black hole and then a miniature universe.
I love to think about the implications of that.
I even wrote a movie about it called "God's Universe"
Fascinating. Our universe as somebody's science experiment.
And his name is God.
I am free as an atheist to think of something like that.
A creator?

Sometimes I listen to me talking to myself in my head and wonder if this moral inner me is god.
(here I am borrowing the word god and giving it my own meaning of the thing that I am imagining right now)

I do not believe that to have such imaginations makes be a believer. Just a dreamer.

People are dreamers. They become atheists when, and only when confronted with the pushing of someone else's beliefs.
Through direct contact, or government.

Ergo

An atheist can dream of god. And even choose to believe in that god if they like.
They just agree that these are all postulations of imaginations.

This definition of atheist ends a lot of unnecessary argument.
Clarity.
There is nothing cold about non religion.
The most important point we can get across.
Concurrence?

LT: " I'll just say there are some things that don't have to be taken literally to be Christian..."

This cherry-picking of the scriptures means you're not a fundamentalism, but rather, a moderate, which is to say, a failed fundamentalist.

The reason you do not accept the part of the bible that are literal, i.e. slaying children when they mock god's priests, or killing people for uttering god's name in vain (remember the penalty of breaking any of the 10 commandments is death), does not come from within Christianity, but from without.

The practice of not reading the scriptures literally is an accession to modernity. Some religions have acceded more to modernity than others.

WM says, "Of course, there are obvious conflicts between the scripture and many of our observations of reality."

stop right there WM - do you not see how incredibly ridiculous your posts are?

What is an 'obvious conflict'? Is that the same thing as a 'certain contradiction'? Because if you're not sure that the so-called conflict you're seeing is certain, why is it 'obvious'? if it's not certain, than what is it?

See, you can't even go ten seconds without stumbling all over yourself.

How does a man (or woman) who claims he can't know anything with certainty recognize an "obvious conflict"?

LT:

I see I mis-read a quote:

You wrote: "This is why I think not to believe in God and to believe in no god are equivalent.""

I mis-read this as to believe in God and to not believe in God are equivalent. My bad. But others have made that assertion, and I answered that thought.

I am born again.
I don't even read his posts anymore, it feels great.

LT,

I do not mean to offend, really.
Perhaps this will help.
You believe in God and Jesus fully and the evidence is quite obvious to you. So obvious that you believe fully.
So when I tell you that I don't believe, in what you see to be obvious, you can not help but to think that I am not looking at the evidence rationally, or that I am missing the point.
You can not help but think that about me because I cannot see what you see so clearly.
You must think that I am irrational and or missing what is obvious and apparent.
And you probably feel sorry for me even because you are a person with a kind heart and you want me to be saved.
I could take great offense to this, and I do when it is thrown in my face, but I certainly understand how you have no choice but to find me wrong about my observations of the obvious, because you believe that I am missing it.

So please don't be offended that, in my eyes, you are basing your belief on evidence that I do not see as evidence and or a feeling inside you that I have never had.
I have no choice to think that you are missing it just as you have no choice to think that I am missing it.

We have to work under the unfortunate knowledge that we both think the other is missing it.
We have to start all of our conversations with the given that, we will not make each other see each others obvious.
So how can we relate with these differences in mind.

Any thoughts on that?

I think I have stated clearly that I do not think that all christians are dangerous. Please do not place these words into my mouth again.

I have found a new way of engaging on this thread.
I hope you will notice and appreciate it.

Puzzled:

"Do Christians have to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? Or can Christians understand the Bible as an historical document written by many different authors, often in a literary way (poems, parables, metaphors, etc.) to confess one's faith?"

This is an excellent question. It depends on what standard is used to decide which parts are to be taken literally. If one uses science as the standard, and then one thereby denies the resurrection, then I would say one cannot be a Christian. Clearly, it is possible to take the Bible too symbolically.

Beyond the resurrection, I believe that when specific acts of people are described, they are meant to be taken literally. My Christian understanding is that each of us is individually resposible for our actions and is worthy of eternal separation from God because we have disobeyed Him and failed to meet His standard. It doesn't make sense to me that God would try to teach us that we are responsible for our actions (our sins) by showing us parables of people sinning. So I believe that Adam and Eve were actual people and not just the symbolic representation of the first people.

Alas, I have more to say, but dinner's ready at my house. I know I've left many loose ends, but hopefully food for thought as well. I'll just say there are some things that don't have to be taken literally to be Christian, and yes, Christians using science to prove creationism isn't sensible. And no, I don't take offense. I'm glad the tone of most of the posts is being elevated.

LT:

"why some of them think that one has to be ignorant or unreasonable to believe in Christ."

It is a historical fact that the people who wrote the bible were ignorant on a scale that, by today's standards, would be breath-taking. No physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, medicine and only basic math. Again, the bible has the number pi wrong, at 3.1 when it was known for 1,000 earlier to five decimal places.

Could ignorant people propagate mythology that would not stand the test of time as knowledge increased? Of course. Could subsequent generations choose to be ignorant of the new knowledge, or ignore it, or ignore the contradictions? Of course. Do athests think this is unreasonable? Yes.

"The part about one true God: I don't think as a Christian it makes sense for me to say I'm an atheist with respect to [Z = other monotheistic religion]. I feel instead that people in Z can be very sincerely trying to reach the one true God but are approaching Him the wrong way."

Sure, lots of people believe this. Christians about Muslims (and everyone else), Muslims about everyone else. Each teaches fundamentally incompatible things. Two possibilities here: Either one is right and the rest wrong, or they're all wrong.

Oh, and someone who believes the other is "approaoching Him the wrong way," is also arrogant, by definition.

"This is why I think not to believe in God and to believe in no god are equivalent."

No, they're not. It is a matter of survival to be a dualist when a child. Once that phase passes, some people drop this childish gullibility and become monists. Clearly, you are still a dualist. Some never outgrow this.

On burden of proof: B. Russell dealt with this 100 years ago. He proposed a teapot in orbit around the sun, so far away no telescope could see it. He claimed belief in this teapot. He challenged others to prove the teapot did not exist.

Of course he was illustrating both that crazy propositions require the crazy person to provide the proof, not turn the question around and require everyone else to disprove it. Otherwise, everyone can believe anything, and demand respect (and tax breaks).

So it is with your water-walking lord. Prove it to me, otherwise I can conclude you are simply weighed down by your own regional fairy tale.

I'm wasting my breath again:

Jason, I am fairly certain (I am sorry I cannot put a probability to it, but pretty high) that we cannot (incl. you) know anything with "absolute" certainty.

Tell me: is God a liar or not(w/ abs. certainty)?

I did not say anything about trivial, and I did not resort to "blah, blah,..." Do you allow your children to do that? Did your parents raise you that way? Please stop the ranting and grow up.

As for me being a moron, I am certain with a high probability that that is not true since I know what my IQ is. It is not between 50-70. It's way above that range. How do I know? Because I took a test that measures it. Although there may have been measurement error involved, it would have to be pretty awful test to be that wrong.

In the mean time, I hope there aren't any significant measurement errors involved in the construction of your home, car, etc. I don't know how you sleep with all that anxiety? Is the car going to crash? Will the roof fall down on my head? Do you know with absolute certainty those things will not happen?

Let's be practical and not engage in circular reasoning: It gets no one anywhere.

Also, Jason, Re your complaint: "Why do you folks insist on bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with my posts?"

Perhaps you don't see the connections to your posts, but they are there. In the case in which I expanded on my beliefs it was due to your statement: "People like WM feel as those the claims of Scripture do not jive with what we observe, there's a conflict," I thought it would be helpful to inform you that "people like me (whoever they are, anyone other than me?)" could care less whether or not Scripture conflicts with my observations while there is no substantial evidence that the imagined author existed in the first place. Without the evidence, any real or imagined conflict becomes irrelevant. Of course, there are obvious conflicts between the scripture and many of our observations of reality, but this takes a back seat to the question of whether or not there is substantial evidence that the purported author actually exists. I would think that if you actually want to change anybody's mind about whether or not it is ridiculous to believe in Christianity, that you would find providing evidence that your favorite God is the "one, true God," more fruitful than chasing your tail ad nauseum. And if you don't want to influence anyone's opinion, why post?

I agree with Andy; I don't think we can concur that quickly either. I'd rather keep definitions negotiable and try to learn what I can about why nonbelievers think the way they do and why some of them think that one has to be ignorant or unreasonable to believe in Christ.

Also, I might suggest that, as long as we're on this page, that we try to keep Sam Harris' post in mind. I'm trying to show that it is not a rut to argue that one set of beliefs of God is true, contrary to Harris' assertion.

That said, Timmy's post is entire apropos since it questions the definition of atheist, as does Harris. I do have some problems with it--

The part about one true God: I don't think as a Christian it makes sense for me to say I'm an atheist with respect to [Z = other monotheistic religion]. I feel instead that people in Z can be very sincerely trying to reach the one true God but are approaching Him the wrong way.

The part about an atheist can believe in a god: We would still need a word for someone who doesn't believe in any kind of god. Also, to use the stamp collecting analogy, does it make sense to call a non-philatelist to collect stamps, but not "true" stamps?

On "believe" versus "not believe": Here I'm willing to be convinced with a more cogent argument. Here's my problem: a young boy is a male even before he has encountered the idea of male vs. female. If one thinks that beliefs are different from this biological state, I suggest that Timmy's non-belief definition of atheist may not even be sustainable when atheism means everything is fundamentally physical. Then not believing in God reduces to one chemical state in the brain and believing in God reduces to a different state. We have equivalence again since these chemical states exist prior to encountering a person's particular definition of God. This is why I think not to believe in God and to believe in no god are equivalent.

What's the significance of belief vs. non-belief, anyway? Is it so that atheists don't have to be called dogmatic or something else pejorative? Fair enough: Timmy doesn't believe Christians are a monolithic group, and I admit that atheists are not a monolithic group. However, unlike Timmy, I do believe it is possible for atheists to be dogmatic.

Is it so that believers have a burden of proof? If so, we should address that question directly and understand the meaning and scope of this this burden of proof. (Still waiting, RB, if you would be so kind.)

and Timmy the Moron:

I see you didn't answer my question about the referent. Of course you won't. Because answering that question would expose the complete nonsense you tried to argue about CareBears on TV.

Something "certified logicians" call equivocation.

ummmm...duh....

Puzzled,

it's a simple question:

Did you or did you not say that we can know NOTHING for certain? I believe you did.

So, i am asking you: Are you certain that we can not know anything with certainty?

Puzzled, you can call it whatever you want - words games, trivial...blah, blah, blah.

The reason you refuse to answer is because you're trapped - it's just that simple.

Skepticism is self-contradictory.

Hence, you're a moron. (or fool - whatever word i feel like using because "fool" also means "cool", "smart", "elephant", and "poop" because the law of contradiction is not certain)

Jason - re the law of contradiction, if Andy and others have failed to get their points across, I don't see that I will. I suggest responding to Andy's post on this of January 5, 2007 3:07 AM, which makes a great deal of sense. No point debating an amateur on this when you can go to an expert! But I'll put a few thoughts here - hopefully more knowledgeable folks will correct my mistakes.

What Andy said was "One formulation of the law of contradiction is that a speech act is vitiated in the case that one and the same statement is both asserted and denied without further explanation or justification." The key part of this is "without further explanation or justification."

There are many examples of the problems of trying to apply truth evaluations to statements that contain any ambiguity or that are subjective. I could say that Danny Devito is short, and from my frame of reference, this would be a true statement. But from someone else's frame of reference, Danny Devito may be tall, and my statement would be untrue. Same statement, but can be true and untrue depending on who is making it. (Let me know if you'd like more examples along this line)

Examples like this lead me to think it is not reasonable to subject all statements to "true/false" analysis because many statements contain ambiguity. If I said that "compared to most of the males of my family, Danny Devito is short," most people would also believe that this is a true statement, based on a common meaning of the word “family” (a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head). But then someone may come along who is using another definition of family (perhaps a group of persons of common ancestry) and show the statement to be false when using family in the other context. Same statement, but it can appear true and untrue (both definitions of family are in the Merrian Webster dictionary)

I could then take another shot at elaborating this statement to make it true and say, “compared to my parents and siblings, Danny Devito is short.” This would on the surface seem to be completely verifiable, would it not? But then, what if my relatives are not who I think they are. Maybe I am adopted from a family of very short people, to whom Danny Devito would seem of quite average height. (Of course this has nothing to do with the truth of the statement, just with my ability to know the truth).

Do you see a few of the problems? I’m not omniscient, so it is very difficult to be 100% certain that some statements are true or false. This decreases the usefulness of the law of contradictions in many situations. And if I were omniscient, I would still need to make a statement with no possible ambiguity in order to say that the statement must be either true or false, so not all statements would be subject to a simple law of contradiction that requires that a statement can only be true or false (I think this is your simplified version of the law of contradiction, though I think that most definitions are more along the lines of the one Andy provided).

Given some of the difficulties with your definition of the law of contradiction, I don't see its usefulness in the context of the overall discussion. But perhaps you could explain (I'm not holding my breath!)

LT:

I agree that atheists have to tone it down a little too. I considered myself an agnostic until I read Dawkins, and I suppose by his definition, I am an atheist too. It has to do with his notion of probabilities and which I thought was more likely. It doesn't really matter: it's a label. On the flip side, just because people call themselves Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist), it does not automatically follow that they're living their lives accordign to the teachings of Christ, Mohammed (and Allah), and the Buddha.

Having said that, the question becomes this: do Christians have to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? Or can Christians understand the Bible as an historical document written by many different authors, often in a literary way (poems, parables, metaphors, etc.) to confess one's faith?

Atheists seem to be calling only the former type ignorant since most empirical evidence shows no support for a literal reading of the Bible.

Actually, I find very puzzling the Creationists and those who seek to use "science" to show that the Bible is factually true. After all aren't miracles and God's work, by definition, not something that we can show or describe scientifically? (That is why they're called miracles?) Why go to so much trouble, but the end result seems to be actually making a fool of themselves, and worse a mockery of their own faith by extension?

Once during grad school, a creationist came to my church (yes, I actually go to church, by habit). When I asked others (people with advanced degrees in the natural sciences and engineering) who went to that meeting, they told me that they needed some independent verification that the Bible is true. I don't know if that is the usual way the folks who take to Creationism think, but I thought that explanation to be terribly self-defeating for the above reason: miracles are supposed to defy explanation and independent corroboration, o/w they would not be miracles!

I hope you take no offense, and I hope you take my questions as earnestly asked. I am just trying to understand different perspectives, and once again draw the discussion back to the stated topic: can atheists and believers converse?

Hi Timmy,

I suspect we can't concur quite so quickly. An atheist is not a theist, true, and a theist is a principled believer, so maybe an atheist can be an unprincipled believer ... but what's that?

If standing in awe of God is a state of mind that appears to refer an external being, the atheist is just one who admits you can have the state of mind, and even that it can be a very convincing one, but simply denies that that state of mind actually refers to an external being.

But that's not really believng in God, or even in a little god ... do you see the problem?

Do we defer to concur or concur to defer?

Ok, Tim.

In fact, with his last statement :

"i can't respond to anything else you've said because the law of contradiction is up for grabs and i can't know anything for certain anyhow, so i have no idea what your post means."

Being so embarassing and childlisly tautological, he's certainly not worth speaking to.

Now, I take Sam's approach: "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."

Atheism is the word we use for someone who demands credible evidence when a god believer makes untenable assertions about his or her fairy tale.

Skeptic is the word we apply to someone who objects when an astrologer claims the stars are in alignment for you to win the lottery.

But the attitude and approach is the same.

But "an atheist can believe in god?" Please expound...I'm skeptical about this.

I will reply to you shortly LT,
I have to go walk my dogs ritght now. They are driving me nuts.
In the mean time.
What do you think of my new thoughts on the thread?

Now others throw out basic ideas that they feel are fundemental to helping the issue and ask: "concurrence?"

Can we try this?

Hi Timmy,

It's me again. I did read the post you referred me to, and I am impressed by the notion that as a Christian, I have more responsibility and ability to dissuade Christian political extremists than an atheist (although in my case, my standing in this world does not suggest such a task would be most appropriate for me).

And I admit, there's nothing you can do to dissuade a Christian believer. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I still sense you think we Christians are all ignorant in face of "the evidence" (my phrase). Which evidence are we ignoring? The scientific evidence? Puzzled's recent post of 3:39, combined with my argument about universal scientific laws from three nights ago, suggests that believers are correct not to be swayed by scientific evidence.

Then there's historical evidence, but many historical studies are predicated on the premise that no miracles occur. I am not a historian, but I suspect that most histories of Jesus that deny His divinity assume implicitly that miracles are impossible.

As far as I can tell, Timmy, your tacit opinion that Christian beliefs are unreasonable or ignorant stem primarily from a valid but irrelevant argument about the dangerousness of some who call themselves Christians. It's irrelevant because Christianity is first and foremost about Christ, not Christians.

Then there's the issue that you didn't hear or see Jesus talking to you when you prayed to Him, which I recall reading from another of your prior posts. I submit that even such an ephiphany wouldn't have been definitive because you could still have questioned whether it was really from God, from someone else, or just an illusion. (On the other hand, if Christ claimed He was going die and rise and He did, then we can trust the rest of what He said and can discern waht comes from God.)

I apologize if I sound belligerent, but I really want to know why you think all religious beliefs are irrational--for my edification and maybe for yours so that you can see why we believe.

Nice story, Andy Ross!

As for Jason, how did you know with "absolute certainty" that those people you called "moron" all had IQ of 50-70 (not below or above)? The closest analogy I can think of when I read your posts is that you are like a child who just learned sarcasm and thinks that being sarcastic will make you look intelligent. Let's get past word games and actually talk, then perhaps all this will have been worth the time.

It's too bad we got carried away trying to convince Jason to stop all this non-sensical talk and got away from the real topic, which had something to do with whether atheists can converse with believers. Maybe the last few days' worth of postings show that we cannot, although some of the religious scholars in other discussion boards seem to be fairly open-minded (like Bishop Spong, whom I actually like quite a bit).

I have a dream,

My humble attempt to save this thread.

I have a dream,

That this thread evolve into a constructive and meaningful search for a concurrence of basic ideas that are helpful insights into defining the conversation started by Sam, Richard, Dan... Andy, RB, Bruce, Victoria, Timmy, Duckphup (or something like that) Anony', Skeptic.... Jason (sigh) (the woes of being a democrat), and many many more wonderful conversation starters.

A concurrence of basic ideas by the wonderful minds on this thread, that will help the situation as we each see it.
For Example:
I will put forth one or two basic ideas for concurrence.
I will keep it short for now. We can expand into a conversation that may lead to a concurrence of the wonderful minds here.

I wonder if we might try this we could give this thread the meaning it deserves.

The first idea that I unfortunately must throw out for concurrence, so that we can save this thread is that we not respond any further to Jason.
Yes this is exclusion, but our democracy will continue to let him post, (no choice, but that's a good thing).
But I humbly suggest that we not engage any further with him, for the reason that there isn't anyone who has ever posted on this thread who is not of the mindset that Jason's comments are a spiteful distraction by means of malicious and pointless wordplay.
Concurrence?

The first real and helpful Idea I will throw out for concurrence is the definition of the word atheist. (Pay special attention to the non capitalization)

The current dictionary definition:
(noun) One who believes that there is no deity. (Some dictionaries use god in place of deity)

I believe that this definition is wrong. And it is the accepted one. This, I believe causes the debate to become excruciatingly muddled.
Do atheists, not believe in god?
Do atheists, believe that god does not exist?
And is it the general idea of god or just the one true God.
Do they disbelieve in both?

Somebody made up the definition of atheist and didn't think too much about it. And none of us have noticed that it is wrong.
Here's why,
atheist does not need a definition.
It is a definition.
If you need it clarified to, "non theist". You shouldn't.
There are these people called theists.
atheists are not them.
a-theist.

Atheism is only a thing, in the sense that "non stamp collecting" is a thing.
By this, non definition, I think that it is completely possible for an atheist to believe in god.
The only thing that would make them an atheist, is that they do not believe in "The one true God"

Concurrence?
Wouldn't a clarification of an a-theist as what I have shown help un-muddle the debate.
Wouldn't it be offering church members something other than the church. An atheist can believe in god.

concurrence?

RB, i have a "reason" for calling you a moron. But other than that, i can't respond to anything else you've said because the law of contradiction is up for grabs and i can't know anything for certain anyhow, so i have no idea what your post means.

I thought i had some idea of what the word "bully" means, but since it is possible for bully to also not mean bully, then i'm not certain what you mean by it. And why should i expect to be certain when there are no certainties?

:putting the jacket back on and going back into my pod:

WM,

You're still ignoring my point about the law of contradiction.

Why do you folks insist on bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with my posts? i don't care about flying monsters, islam, or any other baloney you have brought up.

I want to talk about what YOU actually said.

Please explain to me how one goes about questioning the law of contradiction? Why is this law not a 100% certainty? You said it, not me.

YOU said we can have no certainty of anything, so please explain to me why the law of contradiction is not 100% certain.

Let me tell you a true story.

The young student Ludwig Wittgenstein was very brilliant. He discovered the logical work of Gottlob Frege and was totally awed by it. Frege had just made the greatest advance in logic since Aristotle and had used it to write a monumental book on the logical foundations of mathematics. But Frege did not want Wittgenstein (who was a Jew) as a student and advised him instead to go work under Bertrand Russell in England.

So Wittgenstein went and studied under Russell. Russell had found a fundamental and irreparable contradiction in Frege's big book and driven Frege to consternation, so now Russell and his collaborator Whitehead were completing a massive three-volume work called Principia Mathematica that attempted to do right what Frege had done wrong. Just when they completed it, the First World War broke out and the young Wittgenstein went off to fight for the Austrians. In the trenches, he thought a lot and wrote (in pencil) a slim book.

Back in England after the war, Wittgenstein gave his slim book to Russell to read. Russell was blown away. This was a work of total genius! It was a polished reconstruction in pure logic of the entire universe! It had such crystaline perfection it allowed Wittgenstein to be a solipsist! (A solipsist is someone who thinks he is the only person in the universe and that everyone else is a figment of his imagination.)

A whole movement in philosophy grew up around the work. But Wittgenstein couldn't stand it. He retreated into a hut in the mountains and had an "epistemological break." When he finally returned, he repudiated his earlier philosophy completely and said it was a load of error. His new philosophy was that logic was just a language game. Other language games could have different rules and be just as valid in their own, different ways. The main thing was that people agreed on hw they used and understood their words. Those shiny hard logical rules were just fetishes for people who couldn't stand to play the usual language games.

As other philosophers gradually realized the older and wiser Wittgenstein was right, they built up a movement around his new work, which was not a book but just scraps of paper with remarks on them, and celebrated it to the heavens. That led us all to modern philosophy, where logic is just a formal machine, in effect the stuff of software, with no particular metaphysical value. The old idea (as one distinguished mathematician put it) that God was "the supreme fascist" in the sky who laid down the laws of logic was gone, dead, obsolete.

Phew! Free, free at last!

PS: A moron is someone with an IQ of 50 to 70.

When I observe your repeated insults and bullying, that is not, by definition, an ad hominem attack. It is mere observation.

Speculating about the effect of that type of personality on vulnerable children, is just that speculation. And it gives me the creeps.

Do you believe, Jason, that a soul inhabits your body?

Puzzled,

Are you absolutely certain that you know nothing with absolute certainty?

The great rational one, RB, with more ad hominens.

The great rational one, RB, with more ad hominens.

Jason, I have no concern about your beliefs being irrational per se. I do have concerns about your potentially damaging your children in the name of these irrational beliefs.

You have proven that you really are not interested in inspecting your belief armor. If you are, I suggest responding to Andy Ross's post of January 5, 2007 3:07 AM in a thoughtful, reasoned way. Insults do not compose an argument.

But it's so much easier and less painful to call anyone who asks you to think a fool, isn't it, on the authority of your favorite holy book?

It's probably pointless to tell you what I actually believe, since you have constructed a virtual wm that speaks for me. But re. "People like WM feel as those the claims of Scripture do not jive with what we observe, there's a conflict" : That is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole story. Even if the claims in the Scripture did not appear to contradict my observations and reasoning, these claims would not necessarily be correct. For example, I could claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and some of his noodly friends kicked the big bang into gear and are currently hovering over the earth, waiting to determine who to whisk away into culinary heaven based on which infidels have the audacity to shun pasta and which believers slurp it up with gusto. They don't make themselves known to us because they don't want to unduly influence our behavior. I don't see anything in this story that contradicts my observations of reality. But I am still not going to be slurping down pasta 3 times a day unless someone provides some GOOD evidence that this deity exists, regardless of any unverifiable mythology that springs up around the FMS. And I'm sure not going to be forcing pasta on any child of mine that is revolted by the stuff.

To me, it's all about evidence. Evidence. Not Proof. I don't need absolute certainty to rationally think that basing my live on the FSM would be a fool's errand. I think the same way about belief in the Christianity, Islam, and the Indian pantheons. There is no evidence that I have encountered to give me good reason to give Christianity any more deference than any other religion.

I forgot to attach my name to my last post.

What is "moron"? If I called you or someone you loved a "moron" is that an insult? If a good friend called me that, I would assume he is joking and call him something worse. That is (most likely) not an insult, although it is also possible that I may step over the line inadvertantly. If someone whom I do not know like you calls me that, I assume it is an insult (derogatory remark). You might be joking, or saying it with reverence, as you call people "moron," but common sense tells me that you're probably using it in a demeaning sense. If not, then I accept your undying devotion and apologize for suspecting your motives.

Sophistry means pejoratively used (illogical) rhetoric to confuse, obfuscate argument. I guess what lawyers are today, sophists were in ancient Greece in some degree. Originally, sophism comes from the word meaning wisdom or wise (philo-sophy means 'love of wisdom'), but it now means word play for the sake of clouding the argument. I think most people would agree that offering up unresponsive answers, asking questions without being specific ("what is truth?") would fall under this category.

How do you know anything with "absolute" certainty? (first of all, what do you even mean by "absolute" any way?) A care bear is a care bear because people have said so (defined it thus). Ask them again in 30 years without the little tag that says "care bear." We can also say that it is also a little toy that looks something like a bear (but not an anatomically correct representation of a bear). If we define something as X, then it is X. That is an instance of mathematical certainty, not absolute. If you say ridiculous, then you've never seen lawyers argue over some pretty commonplace words in contracts. In a practical sense, your child is right, a care bear is a care bear, but in another sense, we can talk about other properties that it has (even though no one will argue that it is NOT a care bear)... unless of course the manufaturer decided to rename it a "not-a-care-bear".

By absolute, I think we mean without qualifiers. Then even physical laws are not absolute, as astronauts will attest to. Or take geometry. Is Euclidean geometry absolute (e.g., the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees)? But, just like Newtonian physics, we need to apply qualifiers.

One form of knowledge (i.e., scientific knowledge) is being able to hypothesize correlational or causal relationships. Something like "if A then B." However, there are qualifiers or boundary conditions, as no scientist would make the claim (no matter how exhaustive the experimental data to support it) that if A then always B without spelling out the boundary conditins for this relationship. Our knowledge, at least in practical terms as we live our lives and understand and utilize our environment, therefore comprises of less than absolute certainty.

Jason, one wonders when we'll read about you in the newspaper, a la Ted Haggard.

Ever wonder why all these gays are found hiding in church's? Because they can sneak around in the presumed aura of "morality" the church claims.

You exhibit a profound cruel streak, a bully mentality, and as others have expressed here, it is not a calming thought that you are the parent of four.

More stupidity from the comedian:

"Science can not oppose anything, nor does it."

Timmy, are evolution and the Bible compatible?

"Is a stuffed care bear, a "care bear"?
I thought a care bear was the animated cartoon I see on tv. At least that's what they tell me when the show starts. I can not touch these care bears. So how could a care bear be both an animation that I cannot touch, and also be the stuffed animal that Jason's little girl held in her hands"

here's the certified moron at work for you:

uhhh...Timmy...when i used the word "Care Bear" in the car, what was the referent?

Yeah, Tim, been there.

A Baptist preacher got to me about 7th grade, saved me, planted the paranoid thought-pattern that god is watching every second, can't pick your nose w/o apologizing, etc. Walk around looking over your shoulder.

We moved, half way around the world, and the feelings began to diminish, partly from being away from him and because I'd start to study science and the subsequent contradictions between fact, and well, what passes for explanation in the bible....and then...

He tracked me down, started calling me, wanted to make sure I was "ok", still faithful, wanted to see me. Finally i told my dad, who intervened on a phone call and told the stalker to NEVER contact me again.

I realized how sick these puppies were. Lost any notion of faith as anything but what it is: a power grab. i mean, maybe he was also a stalker, a perv, who knows?

But never looked back, and wouldn't have any problem physically pissing on a bible, no guilt, no fear ... I wouldn't though because I don't want to offend anyone unnecessarily. Metaphorically, no problem at all. These people need to wake up from their childhood stupors.

It isn't their fault when they're young. We're wired, as a by-product, to believe what elders tell us. But at some point their intellect either develops, or not, and grows up.

If they gain power over young people, they should be challenged. This is why "prayer in the schools" has to be stopped...it is an extension of religion through the state.

Timmy, Yikes is right!!! You have reinforced my determination to keep my kids out of churches period until they are old enough to think. Thank you!

Doug, I'm going to have to read "The God Delusion" and learn more about Dawkins's hypothesis (I assume that's where he describes it?) It sounds interesting. I shake my head when I look back today on how as a child I could have been so rational in some areas and so totally irrational in others.

Daddy you told me that a care bear is a stuffed animal.
But here I am Daddy, watching a care bear cartoon while holding a care bear stuffie.
Are you a liar Daddy?
Or do you also hate it when people argue with the meaning of the words that they put in your mouth, instead of what they know you meant.

WM, concerned over my four children, says:

"For the love of your kids, please subject your beliefs to some rational analysis!"

"Rational" - hmmmm...there's an interesting word. What WM's concern appears to be is that my "beliefs" are irrational. People like WM feel as those the claims of Scripture do not jive with what we observe, there's a conflict...there appears to be...oh no, here it comes..."contradictory" information.

Yet, WM is the same person who says that the law of contradiction is not an absolute certainty. It may very well be possible for something to "be" and "not be" at the same time.

Yet, I am the one that needs to "rationally" analyze my beliefs?

hmmm...WM, i believe the atheist Daniel C. Dennet would refer to you as a "vegetable".

God's word for you is a "fool".

What about the care bear Jason?
Stuffed animal, or animated cartoon or both?

RB,

Some more insight for your working theory from a personal anecdote.
I was an atheist true and solid by the time I moved out of my parents house. I had no religious upbringing other than the one summer my mother sent us to Sunday school because it was the cheapest babysitter in town.
Ironically this is the summer I became an atheist.
But here's an interesting after effect.
Whe I was 19 years old, now an atheist for close to ten years, I moved out of my mother's house. When packing my things I came across the bible I had since that summer of Sunday school.
I went to throw it the garbage, but stopped at the last minute.
I couldn't.
I didn't believe anymore so why couldn't I throw out my Bible.
Fear. Even the non believer takes the fear of God out of his childhood and needs to reconcile further before throwing out his Bible.
I finally did it after I had moved three or four more times and not been able to each time.
I finally did it when I was about 25 years old.
It was hard even then.
I was scared. A non believer who was still scared.
To this day I wonder if I will go to Hell for that.
This, the result of one summer of Sunday school attendence by a kid who didn't believe going in, and didn't believe coming out.
But one summer of an athorative adult telling me that God will watch a movie of my life with me when I die and see all that I have done.
Please tell me I'm not going to Hell for throwing away that Bible.
I know I should have recycled it instead.
I'm sorry.
Shame.
Needless shame.
One summer of Sunday school.
Do Jason's kids have any chance at all of ever forming their own thoughts about anything?
Yikes.

Timmy now says,

"A simple inability to distinguish between two kinds of statements.

1) I am as certain as I need to be that paper burns in fire.
2) it is an absolute indisputable certainty that paper burns in fire."

____

HENCE TIMMY i ask for DEFINITIONS.

You are so pathetic. You whine about me asking you for definitions...so in order to attempt some sort of conversation i go along with your little game of ambiguity and assume that what you mean by "certainty" is what i mean by the word...i then demonstrate your foolishness...and now your way out of it is..."uh, well, there are two kinds of certainty and I...I meant 1 and not 2."

That's why you purposefully stay away from defining things. Keeping things ambiguous creates holes for you to escape.

But there is a further problem. You cannot even epistemologically justify definitions for any word because definitions imply certainty (in the absolute sense), which you deny.

Hence, we are trapped in the vicious circle of empiricist insanity.

Thank you certified moron.

Is a stuffed care bear, a "care bear"?
I thought a care bear was the animated cartoon I see on tv. At least that's what they tell me when the show starts. I can not touch these care bears. So how could a care bear be both an animation that I cannot touch, and also be the stuffed animal that Jason's little girl held in her hands.

Boy oh boy, it seems that we can not have a rational conversation WITH Jason's law of contradiction rather than WITHOUT it.

I'm afraid your little girl is still not clear as to the definition of "What is a care bear?"
It almost seems as though a care bear it two or three things at once.

Perhaps you could explain further how you arrive at your certainty that a stuffed care bear is a care bear.

Jason, I realize that you don't want a dialogue with me; you just want to flash your shiny armor. But I must say: I actually cringed when I read that you have 4 children. I'm sure you don't realize what kind of damage your clinging to dogma might be doing to those precious children of yours. I have a pretty good idea (though not knowing you, I can't know the extent of the damage), having grown up with a dogmatic father and having many friends and acquaintances who grew up under the influence of dogmatic religious beliefs. I can assure you that nothing good came of it, and a large percentage of these people have had mental health issues, have totally rejected religion, and/or are very unhappy people compared to others raised in less dogmatic environments.

The insidious thing is that the damage is probably not apparent to you. You probably truly believe that you are saving your children's eternal souls, despite the irrationality of that belief. If you are a strict disciplinarian, the damage is probably even less apparent - your fearful children will probably get so good at hiding what is really going on in their heads that they will fool you into believing that they are happy, well-adjusted kids. Until some day, all of a sudden, they aren't. I have 3 siblings - all of us have had problems with anxiety and lack of confidence due to our upbringing - one of my sisters to a life-threatening degree. None of us were peaceful, joyful, happy-go-lucky children. But in a conversation I recently had with my mother, I discovered that she really thought that we were - she had no idea of how anxious or fearful we were as children. Having had independent confirmation from several of us that we WERE anxious and fearful as children, she still just wouldn't - or couldn't - believe it.

For the love of your kids, please subject your beliefs to some rational analysis!

WM:

Your story is quite interesting, and congruent with Dawkin's hypothesis:

"On one side, there was a great deal of pressure TO believe, which I think stemmed from a need for parental love and physical sustenance. If I hadn’t felt from a very young age that my parents would not love me and indeed, may not have cared for my physical needs properly..."

This describes the evolutionary "force" "urge" "instinct" -- take your pick -- consistent with a survivor. We all listened when told: "Don't touch that hot stove. Don't jump off the roof."

Or, we'd have scars, broken legs or worse.

Once we leave childhood, however, we can also leave behind this unquestioning obedience. Religion is a by-product, and we can leave it behind, too.

Science can make no claims any more than knitting can make claims.
Science is not a person or even a community. It is a system of knowledge gathering to the best of our fallible human abilities.

Science can not oppose anything, nor does it.
Science neither believes nor disbelieves.
People decide to oppose incredible beliefs.
In doing so, science is but one small element of the multitude of factors they employ. Others include, personal experience, observation, reason, historical evidence, common sense and intellectual discussion with others.
In the end, science has very little to do with a persons reason to disbelieve.
It only seems that way because an astoundingly large number of scientists are atheists.

Even if Jason succeeds in crushing the integrity of science completely, (which of course he has not) he has done little to shake the confidence of non believers in their non belief.

For some reason he thinks that if he removes science from the equation, the only thing left to believe in is the Bible.

Science is not the reason why people don't believe.
It is not our alternative to the hypothesis you put forth.
We don't need an alternate view of the origin of the universe to disbelieve yours.
That would make atheists believers in something.
We are not.
None of us have, so far, found something to believe in.
And that suits us fine.
Mystery is awe inspiring. Especially when one looks to the heavens.

“Aristotle had it right more than 2000 years ago: when a person abandons the law of non-contradiction, he asked, "what difference will there be between him and a vegetable?" - Daniel C. Dennett

Anonymous says, “Reading that mission statement, it seems contrary to what Jason has been posting. Nowhere does it say: (1) insult people (e.g., calling people "moron"), and (2) engage in sophistry, "what is...?"

But anony also says, “I know nothing with absolute certainty.”

Anonymous, your posts are self-refuting. And because you can’t see that, you call it “insulting” and “sophistry”.

But again, I’ll ask: What does “insult” mean? What is “sophistry”? And why do I keep asking for definitions? It’s quite simple to understand.

I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that if we can not even be certain of logic, (which your statement implies) then your words have NO MEANING.

In order for “insult” to mean something, it has to not mean something. “Insult” does not mean “loving”, but why? LAW OF CONTRADICTION. Here’s my point: the law of contradiction is at work every time you use a word.

My five year old even understands this. I tried this very thing on her last night as we cruised over to Blockbuster. I grabbed my three year old’s “CareBear” and ask my five year old if this ‘is’ a ‘CareBear’. She said, “yes”. I then asked her if it was also, “not a CareBear?” and she gave me a blank stare. My seven year old son (I have four by the way) jumped in and said, “That doesn’t make any sense.”

See there?! He just exercised the law of contradiction. My five and seven year old – the logicians. ( : That stuffed animal can not be both a CareBear and not a CareBear at the same time and in the same sense.

That is a certainty…yet, you say it’s not. “I know nothing with absolute certainty”. Well, if that is the case then, then that CareBear was a CareBear and not a CareBear and “insult” can also mean “loving”, “attractive”, “genius”, etc. all at the same time and the sentence “I know nothing with absolute certainty” ALSO means “Jason is the most intelligent guy I know.”

One rhetorical question refutes your entire scheme: Anony, are you certain that you know nothing with absolute certainty?

Anony, deny the certainty of the law of contradiction and you have just justified insanity. And frankly, I don’t care to waste time on insane people.

Timmy, though Jason's comments here look like game play to us, I don't think that to him they are. I think that, to him, he is actually showing us "A/A"s the reasons that we are wrong. I've met way too many people like him in real life (at one point, myself) who truly believe that their arguments are convincing, despite the brutal reality that the only people who are convinced are those who are trembling behind the same armor and everyone else is either trying not to laugh (in your case, not trying too hard!) or closely inspecting his clothes for signs of concealed weaponry.

In tryng to figure out why Jason needs to force all empirists to account for what I said. I can only come up with this.

A simple inability to distinguish between two kinds of statements.

1) I am as certain as I need to be that paper burns in fire.
2) it is an absolute indisputable certainty that paper burns in fire.

All I know is, next time I go camping, I will take a stack of newsprint with me to help me get my fires going.... And it will.
I am as certain as I need to be that, this will happen.

I have no doubt that Jason also uses paper to help him start his campfires. And no doubt that each time he does, he is never nervous that this time, it might not work.

This is how we all know that his purpose here is game play, not a search for truth.

I know, I know. What is truth?
You got me.

Andy, thanks for expanding on the law of contradiction! I was sitting up nursing my fussy, teething baby last night and thinking of reasons that that either my “non-omniscient, non-certain” position may make sense or the “true/false” positions could also make sense and came up with reasons supporting each position that I or others could subject to further analysis. I won’t bore anyone with the actual reasoning, because …

At a certain point, I realized that the actual answer to this question doesn’t matter to Jason (yes, I must be a little slow!) As others have said in other ways, someone has given him this simple, slick-sounding plate to use to reinforce his armor. In order for him to make use of it, he cannot question or doubt or pry around at the armor itself – he has to place it confidently between himself and any “unrighteous” like a good, Christian soldier and no matter the reasons, answers, or questions he receives, thoughtlessly display the “answer” written in the armor. If he actually responded to another person’s reasoning about the question and started really thinking about the question himself, there is the danger that he would realize that there is a flaw in the armor and it would cease to be of its imagined use – he would be vulnerable. Thus his refusal to answer any questions himself or to truly engage in dialogue anyone who is willing to discuss the issue. That would require thought, which would be dangerous.

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of the “belief armor” that I just wish I weren’t so familiar with!

Andy,

Here's a quote from my original post here:

:From our study of these five logical difficulties, it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies, why should Christians seek to argue from science to the truth? Simply stated, they should not. Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more.:

I've never said that i shut my eyes off from science. I never said science is not useful in making computers, internet, cars, and the like.

There is nothing in the Bible that says making computers is a bad thing or an impossible thing.

My point is: That is ALL it can do. Nothing more. When scientists start babbling on about origins, ethics, and the like, you've crossed the line.

At that point, you are no longer basking in the "glory of God". I enjoy His glory every waking second of my like knowing that I, as well as my computer exists "in and thru Him".

Andy, what you and others are doing is akin to Timmy here going to my bank, stealing every dime I have, using all that cash for his own little pleasure cruise and really living it up, and then turning right around and denying I don't exist.

We have a word for people who think that way: Insane

RB,

No, I was thanking you for your defense of me in light of Skeptic's comments. It is Skeptic who lumped me into the same category as Jason. And I took great offense to this unwarranted shot across my bow.
I have offered many new, thoughtful, and constructive courses of action that non believers can take forward in the battle for sanity.
Skeptic made no comments on these new and productive thoughts that I posed. Instead he spent most of his efforts trying to de-convert Bruce with unnecessarily verbose logical breakdowns of the inconsistencies in the Bible.
Absolutely futile. And nothing new in this debate.
I challenge Skeptic, if he pops in again, to show new constructive thoughts that he brought to the table, and compare them to mine.
I only engaged Jason when nothing else was going on and I was bored.
Whenever new thoughts were introduced, I soaked them up like a dry sponge and immediately and added my own constructive thoughts on the topic.
I will continue to do so.
I hope skeptic finds a more mature and intelligent discussion on this topic elsewhere. I have not ever come across such a thing.
If you do find a more civil intellectual discourse on this subject Skeptic, please share the link.

Reading that mission statement, it seems contrary to what Jason has been posting. Nowhere does it say: (1) insult people (e.g., calling people "moron"), and (2) engage in sophistry, "what is...?"

And as for being inerrant, most fair-minded theologians would readily accept that the Bible does have some inconsistencies. How could it not given the fact that there are so many different authors who are (at least in their own mind) confessing their faith. Look at this discussion board: everyone has their own definition of faith (or non-belief). Being inerrant does not necessarily mean that the Bible is factually accurate since the Bible authors intended to profess their faith and write about their inspired (again, in their mind, at least) experiences, and these authors were not trained to be scientists nor were they trying to make scientific accurate statements. And given the empirical evidence (yes Jason, although our senses are imperfect, that is all we have, deny it and you cannot even drive to buy groceries), we know that the Bible has factual inaccuracies. For the believer, that shouldn't invalidate the teachings of the Bible since Bible was written as a book of faith, not like a newspaper magazine or a technical, scientific textbook. Earnest people of faith deal with it (perhaps you should read folks like Bishop Spong) and move and focus on the important issues (like those described in that mission statement). It is those who are insecure in their faith who feel the need to lash out against those who speak with common sense and reason (although those people may not know what "truth" means; do you?), whether they are non-believers or believers who have reconciled the literal inconsistencies between the modern state of knowledge with some Bible passages.

I echo the sentiments of Skeptic above. Slinging insults at each other probably does not help, and I must admit I posted some cynical (even churlish) remarks, and I think it was regrettable on my part.

However, I did attempt to earnestly answer Jason's question, knowing full well that the question is most likely another attempt to engage in sophistry and word play. To summarize: I know nothing with absolute certainty. If there is a god, perhaps god knows with absolute certainty. But the problem is that **we** still would not know that such a god itself knew with absolute certainty. Any assertions that "my god" knows with absolute certainty are just that -- mere assertions that have no objective grounds -- since it is an assertion coming from "my" incomplete (i.e., less than absolute) knowledge. Therefore, god as the "someone" who knows with absolute certainty is an assumption to build (or not build) one's worldviews around (if he or she so chooses). I do, however, have confidence in mathematical and proabilistic certainties.

I am still waiting.

And if you want my "reason" for calling these people morons, i'll simply invoke Timmy's superior rational skills:

Andy is a moron is my answer.
And I can not prove it.
I have given you an answer that I can not prove.

Jason

Thank you for your clarification. I understand that your practical work arises from your beliefs, and for this reason I do not wish to mock your beliefs. Nor do I wish to mislead anyone with the word "salvation," which is a public word with a fairly wide dictionary meaning.

However, you should try to understand that many people in good conscience have thought carefully through the issues that concern us all, your ministry included, very deeply. Some of those people are conversing here, on this site, and are attempting to deal with the issues with due respect and moderation. If I were to visit one of your church services and shout out childish words during the sermons and prayers, you would be right to throw me out. If I were to continue my harassment with a loudhailer from the street outside, you would be right to call the police.

As it happens, I have not seen the Narnia movie. I did read Narnia author C.S. Lewis' apologetic book "Mere Christianity" and discussed it at length with a priest here in Gemany. I explained my dissatisfaction with the argument and we let the matter drop after reaching a good mutual understanding.

Believe me, I have meditated at length on the Christian view of God and how it has developed over the centuries. I find much in the tradition to respect. It is indeed the fertile ground in which the new faith of empirical science took root. Many believers worked as experimental scientists and saw no contradiction with their faith. Even Charles Darwin began life as a trainee priest and troubled himself for many years over the religious impact of his work.

To renounce experimental science would be like shutting our eyes to the glory of God's work, in your terms. If you open your eyes, you will see how wonderfully harmonious that work can be.

Respect, Andy

Complaints Atheists/Agnostics have of Christians:

:Christians are stupid, irrational, and lack humility:

Quotes from Atheists/Agnostics:

HUMBLE?

1. I felt I was one of many who repeatedly put him in his place with superior reasoning, rationality

2. Jason is stuck in childhood, as are so many billions like him around the world. Raising his consciousness may be impossible

3. immature religious fanatics

4. Jesus loves you...But everyone else thinks you are long winded and a complete idiot.

5. Thank you Jason, for being prima facia evidence of the childish gullibility model.

6. The one named "Jason Bradfield" is an idiot....You religious nutjobs are pathetic and will be dealt with in time.

7. your argument is shot.
because you are an idiot.

8. Jason is an idiot. Some Christians are idiots, therefore Jason is a Christian. I think this is an inductive conclusion everyone here agrees is true.

9. Jason is...logically, rationally and emotionally retarded. Hence, Idiot.

10. I would like to thank Jason for being idiot enough to make me feel less foolish posting this,

This last one was by our "humble" friend Andy, by the way.

RATIONAL?

Timmy: Will you answer one question for me? It's a very simple question. What happens to a piece of newspaper when it is thrown into a fire? Based on everything that you have said so far in this thread, it seems to me that you would have to reply "I can not conclusively answer that question"

(which is correct, i cannot argue a logical certainty inductively, as Bertrand Russell has said - my answer would be that the paper may or may not burn - jason)

Now, Timmy's answer to his own question:

I can answer the question.
It burns, silly.
Combustion happens.
A solid turns into light, gas and ash.
Andy could probably write two pages about what happens to that newspaper.
Even Victoria could answer that question. (notice the humility here)....

Yes Jason, it burns.
Yes I am certain of this.
Everyone on this post other than you is certain of this.
You are the only one who questions this.
because you are an idiot.

I can claim for certain that a newspaper burns in the fire based on what I have seen in my life.

____

Jason's response: Timmy, on what basis can you say it is "certain"? Have you tested this...have you thrown all newspapers into fires to conclude then that it is a certainty that the next time i do it, it will burn?

Since you boast in logic, please demonstrate for me in logical form that your past observations logically necessitate that the next paper thrown in to the fire will burn. Until you logically demonstrate this, you are merely asserting and i have no "reason" to take you serious.

Timmy's response:

Paper burns is my answer.
And I can not prove it.
I have given you an answer that I can not prove.
It's just the answer that suits me and most people just fine, unprovable as it may be.
_______

Yes, folks, you read it correctly. Timmy tried to assert a universal from inductive reason, of which i questioned and then was called an "idiot" and retarded for doing so...when asked to prove his assertion, ie. give a rational explanation for it, Timmy concludes that he can't - thus proving my point from the beginning of this thread about inductive reasoning and certainties.

but make no mistake about it folks...I'm the arrogant, retarded, irrational idiot.

And the latest: Andy here, the "certified logician", pulls one paragraph off my site about our mission with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, calls it a noble task, but says i should trash the rest of the stuff. And then emails my friend Sam and says my behavior here is shameful and may hurt my cause in making new converts.

Here's my conclusion in all of this: Once you understand what Andy and Timmy and RB mean by "logician", Andy is simply a "certified moron".

Doug, Re: “So, WM, is the following generalized summary accurate?
1. You were removed from your previous immersion in a belief system.
2. You were exposed to alternative belief systems.
3. You felt a need to reduce the conflict between systems.
4. Relatively suddenly the old system didn't make sense anymore and you abandoned it.”

I think your summary is somewhat accurate.
1) true
2) true (though I had been exposed to alternative belief systems before, the sheer quantity of belief systems and their utter incompatibility was made more apparent)
3) I didn’t really perceive a need to reduce a conflict between systems, though. I think the need was more a need to shed a belief system that was becoming less and less workable and making my life miserable. I didn’t feel any need to adopt a new belief system; does that make sense?
4) true. As soon as I started honestly asking questions, the whole belief system fell down around my feet.

I think that what is missing from the summary is an indication of the strength of the clash of two opposing mental forces. On one side, there was a great deal of pressure TO believe, which I think stemmed from a need for parental love and physical sustenance. If I hadn’t felt from a very young age that my parents would not love me and indeed, may not have cared for my physical needs properly, if I had not believed, I don’t think that my self-protective mind would ever have assembled this armor. I think that frequent corporal punishment played a big role in this (maybe this is why Dobson and his ilk are so slap happy?). On the other side, there was what became an overwhelming stress and anxiety due to attempting to live these beliefs (in conjunction with other things). I think that the strength of these two opposing forces is what finally crushed the armor.

It sounds to me like the weakening of your faith may have been a more gentle experience than the shattering of mine. Do you think that maybe the needs that your belief was based on weren’t quite so forceful? To what needs do you attribute your initial faith?

I didn’t ever go through a rebellious period as you did (although perhaps my post-enlightenment behavior may have seemed rebellious to my parents, rebellion was not my intention). I just stopped acting in accordance with the previous belief framework when I realized how ridiculous it was and how little it truly explained.
For me, knowledge of science wasn’t much of a factor, though I agree that learning about evolutionary theory (something I have only been learning about recently) would make it impossible to take the Christian Bible seriously in a literal manner. I don’t think that one needs an understanding of science to reject faith. It’s not necessary to know with certainty how something works to be able to reject ridiculous explanations with a fair amount of confidence. Even if I didn’t completely understand the principles of flight, I could confidently assert that an airplane doesn’t have thousands of tiny, purple fairies in the wings escorting it through the air.

I don’t think that seeing hypocrisy was much of a factor for me either. For the most part, the people in my father’s church seemed to me to be sincere believers that were honestly attempting to live their extremely rigid, dogmatic belief system. There are many people in that church that I have respect for, though I do think that their beliefs are wrong and harmful and do much to contribute to what I perceive to be their general unhappiness and lack of peace with the universe.

While I didn’t have explicit support from friends going through the same thing, I think that the fact that my friends didn’t particularly care about my religious beliefs could only have helped.

Re: “And then there was sex - how could something that felt so good and didn't hurt anyone possibly be a major sin?” Some of the questions in my cascade of them did fall along these lines – how could such trivial, unimportant-seeming rules as those espoused by the church really be so critical to an omnipotent being or to anyone else.

Guilt was a major force leading to my enlightenment as well. For my father’s church, with its extremely strict rules, behaving in a human fashion at all or breaking the most trivial rules was reason for guilt. Eventually the weight of all that guilt and worry (over really dumb, doctrine-related stuff, not over anything that was harming another being) became just too much to bear and I was forced to examine the actual beliefs.

Doug, I couldn’t agree with you more that “Faith of this nature sets up some really un-healthy mental processes in the individual that do spill over into other areas of life.” I really appreciate Sam Harris’s book “The End of Faith” for helping me to realize the danger of even less extreme forms of religion than the one I was indoctrinated into as a child.

Andy,

Our "practical work" ARISES out of our "doctrinal work".

You've taken the word "salvation" off of our page and have applied a meaning to it that we don't use.

This is very deceptive.

When we talk about "healing the nations" for example, what does the Bible mean by that? Well, if you have read the rest of the Bible and compared your notes, one thing Christ heals us from is the irrationality and complete foolishness of atheist/agnostic empiricism.

Now Andy, you may disagree that this is the problem from which people need to be healed of...fine...but don't take my mission statement and read your own baloney into it. That's dishonesty.

Do you do that with any other story/narrative? Do you read/watch "Chronicles of Narnia" and insist that the Lion represents Hitler?

No! Now, Lions can be used as a symbol of many things, but once you are in the Narnia story, the Lion means what the author intends on it to mean. Don't read your baloney into Narnia and make Lewis say something he never intended.

You may think Narnia is a stupid story - fine. Write your own, but don't read Stalin into Narnia and insist that is what Lewis meant.

Tim:

Of course you're not in the same category as Jason...I certainly hope you didn't think I implied that.

Jason is stuck in childhood, as are so many billions like him around the world. Raising his consciousness may be impossible, but it's worth a try.

Have you read God Delusion?

Thanks for the defense RB,

I did not feel as though I was in the same category as Jason.
I felt I was one of many who repeatedly put him in his place with superior reasoning, rationality and yes, the kind of insensitive humor that a malicious degenerate like him deserves.

Good for you Andy. Great idea.
I hope all in Jason's ministry will read his blogs here and think twice before taking anything that he says with an ounce of authority.

Skeptic, I invite you to revisit some of my non-Jason posts and reevaluate your assertion that I offered nothing positive and meaningful here. Perhaps you saw the name TImmy in Jason's posts so often that you mistook it all for my inane babble, not his.

Either way, all the best to you and your more mature battles against immature religious fanatics.

Dear Mr. Frost:

Jason Bradfield doesn't know whether 1+1=2, is true or not. While I'm not sure what his job duties as office assistant may entail, but you should not employ his skills in any area requiring math.

I mean, you can if you so choose, but it would be a "leap of faith" that your books would still balance, in short order.

For any tasks involving shoveling manure, however, this IS your man.

To put the record straight, on my own initiative I mailed the following message to Samuel M Frost, President of the Reign of Christ Ministry.

---
Dear Mr Frost

Until this week I had no reason to regard your honorable work to bring a message of hope and salvation to people in difficult circumstances with anything but tolerance and respect.

However, I regret to inform you that your office assistant Jason Bradfield has conducted himself shamefully in an online forum dedicated to the reasonable discussion of matters pertaining to religion. If you would care to go to [link] and read his postings, I think you may agree that this is not the way to bring new converts to Christ.
---

I continue to believe the practical work of organizations like RCM in bringing aid and comfort to poor people who lack a welfare net of European generosity is both honorable and respectable.

However, their doctrinal work is less easy to accept. Although it is doubtless well meaning - who does not wish to save the souls of his or her fellow citizens according to his or her own beliefs? - it creates precisely the problems that this blog is dedicated to discussing.

Members of the RCM, if they have the interests of humanity truly at heart, should welcome honest discussion of how best to offer the huddled masses of this world real hope of salvation.

James Dobson, Focus on the Family movement: "Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience -- what they see, hear, think, and believe -- will determine the future course for the nation."

We have a prime example of the success of the replicating virus that is Christianity in our midst: Jason. His arguments are childish, rigid, dualistic. He is a case study, from his first post to his last.

Thank you Jason, for being prima facia evidence of the childish gullibility model.

Skeptic,

leave then. And your last post demonstrates again that the only thing you have to offer is more ad hominems.

Please give me an example of "irrational banter".

oh wait,...what is "irrationality"?

Skeptic, you and all the other atheists/agnostics are nothing but leeches.

You try to suck the life out of the very one who sustains you. You deny Reason Himself, yet you expect me to approach you as a 'rational' person.

And what is real funny is that my ministry (RCM) got an email from ole Andy Ross here who is disturb over my method. He believes i bring shame to my ministry, which otherwise has the honorable work of bringing hope and salvation to people....

uhhh...Andy...salvation from WHAT? Have you read the rest of my site?

Mission Statement:

Our mission to the Church is to unite her under the word of God in peace and harmony, and strive towards that goal with holy enthusiasm. We believe that this is the mission of God, and work toward that end. As to the world, we affirm that the gospel is to be preached to every man God sends our way, either in word, or in deed. We discriminate against no sinner, and no sin, since we affirm with the WCF, which, in turn, affirms the Biblical position, that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent” (15.4). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is first and foremost the Gospel of Restoration and Reconciliation. Our motto is, “Relating the Gospel to the world through knowledge in order to bring healing to the nations.”

Beliefs:

RCM affirms without reservation:

* The Inerrancy of Scriptures
* The Trinitarian Understanding of the Godhead
* The Full Deity and Humanity of Christ
* The Necessity of the Atonement of Christ as our substitutionary Head
* That Christ alone is the only way to the Father and that without faith in God, in Christ and signs of that faith (however dim they may be at the time since God works through us all individually, at different levels, on different steps) no one can be saved

Andy, the same Bible I love and read and teach is the same Bible that calls folks like Timmy "fools". It's the same Bible that says of folks like Timmy:

Romans 1:28-32 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

THIS is the context in which our mission statement is made. The Good News of the Reign of Christ is that He delivers people from the very foolishness promoting here by yourself, Timmy, RB, and Sam Harris.

But folks, you saw it here! Andy Ross says this is an "honorable" work.

Wow...no, what Andy has actually done is he rips that paragraph off of the frontpage of my site and redefines words and places it in another context to serve whatever purpose he has.

But hey...I guess that is ok when we "can not be 100% certain about anything."

RCM's motto can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean since we can not be certain about the law of contradiction.

okie dokie.

we can now add a new character in Ms Garrison's evolutionary chart - retard leech monkey

Au voir, Skeptic.

You should, imho, view the exchange between Tim and Jason for what it is: the clash between the rational and irrational. Tim has freed himself of bad programming code, Jason has not.

It is clear to me that Tim and others are trying to help Jason re-boot, but alas, he has constructed a lockbox around the re-boot button and has lost the key.

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infrection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad.

Ibid.

This model explains, for example, why Bruce is a Christian and why Sayid is a Muslim. Different geographical regions, different arbitrary beliefs, none with factual basis, have been handed down, and believed with equal conviction.

I have decided to withdraw from this discussion. Overall, it has been a good experience. Thanks to those who shared their ideas. The only distubing thing about the discussion has been the inane, immature, uncivil, and largely irrational banter of Jason and Timmy. You guys really deserve each other. Nevertheless, Happy New Year to all!

Computers do what they are told. They slavishly obey any instructions given in their own programming language. This is how they do useful things like word processing and spreadsheet calculations. But, as an inevitable by-product, they are equally robotic in obeying bad instructions. They have no way of telling whether an instruction will have a good effect or bad. They simply obey, as soldiers are supposed to. It is their unquestioning obedience that makes computers useful, and exactly the same things makes them inescapably vulnerable to infection by software viruses and worms.

Richard Dawkings, The God Delusion, page 176

Jason is a computer running malicious software. He cannot help it.

I really do feel bad for Jason in the end.
It's not his fault.

You see he read this paper by this guy who told him that if he read this book and memorized all of the arguments in it that he would never again lose an argument with a heathen non believer empiricist.

That guy who wrote that paper misled Jason.
It's not fair.
Jason worked so hard to memorize these arguments because that guy promised him that he would never lose this argument, if he made it.
I'm concerned what other crazy promises people have made to Jason that might not hold to be true.
I mean a person like this might even believe that he could have eternal life if someone promised it to him.
You know, if he read the right books and all.

Another fun day on the old thread.
Night all.

Andy, for that I think that you should be beaten until you admit that "to be beaten" is not the same thing as "not to be beaten."

Unless of course the one doing the beating is a mosquito and you are a man. In this case, getting beaten is not much of a beating at all.

I get it now. Jason is a mosquito. And though he beats away at us, we are not really taking a beating at all.

Cool.

Okay jason, I'll bite (in the metaphorical sense): A homeless person does not have a home/house to live in, but the street, car or cardboard box is his/her home. It's not a home per se in the sense that it has walls and a roof etc. however, where ever he/she sleeps is his/her home. So there you go, a home that is not a home.
As much as Timmy would like for you to make good on your offer to shoot yourself, please don't--place that bullet in the bible if you have to shoot something.
J.

My bad,
I guess Jason didn't make an empirical statement after all.
He was just plagiarizing.
Damn.
Back to waiting for Jason to make a statement of his own I guess.
Ho hum...

Thanks Andy

I contribute my professional opinion as a certified logician.

Gordon Clark (channeled by a disciple):
"The law of contradiction has to be one of the most fundamental, non-negotiable laws necessary for you and I to even have a conversation."

One formulation of the law of contradiction is that a speech act is vitiated in the case that one and the same statement is both asserted and denied without further explanation or justification.

Examples of contradiction

1. "It will burn!" versus "No, it won't!"

2.
Galen Strawson, metaphysical thesis #36: "Reality is substantially single. All reality is experiential and all reality is non-experiential. Experiential and non-experiential being exist in such a way that neither can be said to be based in or realized by or in any way asymmetrically dependent on the other (etc.) (Equal-Status Fundamental-Duality monism)." Journal of Consciousness Studies 13(10-11), 2006, p. 223

3.
Step A: Statement "It's round" contradicts "It's square."
Step B: Statement "It looks round from this angle" appears to contradict "It looks square from this [other] angle."
Step C: Statement "It's a cylinder whose height is equal to its diameter" resolves the contradiction.

Discussion of examples

1. Hopeless.

2. Potentially fruitful - all hangs on the "etc.".

3. No problem at all. This is how to do it.

On this occasion I shall not invoice anyone for my services.

Santa, Very funny.

And Jason! You did it! You made a statement!
Now the fun begins

Jason Bradfield says,

"however, the law of contradiction has to be one of the most fundamental, non-negotiable laws necessary for you and I to even have a conversation."

Really Jason? It has to be?
Are you certain of this? 100% certain?
Is this statement that you make true?
If yes, then what is your definition of "true"?
If no, then how can this be the basis for your argument if it is not true.
You are a paradox Jason.

You make empiricists statements and cannot back them up.
You are like TIMMY.
Look everyone. Jason made an empirical statement of truth that he can not prove.
What arrogance.
What a hypocrite
Okey Dokey.

lol

Doug - sorry for the delay - I'll do my best to respond to you tomorrow. The baby is acting up tonight & I desperately need some sleep!

Jason - sorry I couldn't help you out - I hope that you find the answers and certainty you are looking for elsewhere! Good luck!

Has anyone else noticed that the poster named Jason has very bad punctuation.
He only asks questions but he uses a period at the end of his sentences.
He is either iliterate or trying to disguise the fact that he can not make a statement.
Or both.
lol

I found the following on a christian blog about why prayer doesn't hold up to experiment:

"I think it is very important that we don't expect too much from those who do not believe. Prayers work by faith, which is essentially a choice to believe. God has designed prayer to work for those that believe and not for those who don't. There will always be these two camps. The most diffcult ones are those who "will" not to believe."

This is a fantastic idea!

I am considering adopting this approach to my beliefs. I think it explains pretty well why I no longer get presents from santa - those who believe in the supernatural santa get presents from him, and non-believers do not get presents from him.

See, as a believer in santa I prayed to him that he would give me gifts. Lo and behold, each christmas I got gifts. Therefore he exists, and he is love. I had a personal relationship with him.

Now, one day I was sadly provided with an alternate theory that the presents come from a more earthly source. Doubt crept into my santa belief system. And then that very year - no presents from santa - only from my parents.

Apparently god and santa have at least this in common: Neither answers prayers if you don't believe in them. Oh and one other thing - THEY DO NOT EXIST!

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” - Avicenna

well WM,

On the one hand i commend you for at least being consistent with your empiricism (if only Timmy and others would be so honest).....

however, the law of contradiction has to be one of the most fundamental, non-negotiable laws necessary for you and I to even have a conversation. And you have basically demonstrated my entire point here in this thread that a (consistent) empiricist epistemology cannot even provide the conditions for a you and I to even have a rational conversation.

If it is not necessary, then please tell me what this sentence means:

"I hard car saw fat fart home nuggets pool bladder in."

I'm sorry WM, but I see no need to converse with you any further.

If the word "home" can mean "home" and "not home" at the same time and in the same respect in our conversations, then throw me in looney bin. Hell, put a bullet through me and get it over with.

So, WM, is the following generalized summary accurate?
1. You were removed from your previous immersion in a belief system.
2. You were exposed to alternative belief systems.
3. You felt a need to reduce the conflict between systems.
4. Relatively suddenly the old system didn't make sense anymore and you abandoned it.

I'm not trying to grill you over old news, I'm looking for insight into how people change their beliefs.

In my case, my intense early religious immersion resulted in full faith as a pre-teen, but an increasingly rebellious attitude through high, school. I was eager to get away to college and cut loose. Which I did to excess, but I survived and am a wiser man for it all.

I think there were several factors that contributed to the weakening of my faith:

Knowledge of science was a factor. I learned and believed in evolutionary theory and couldn't see how anyone could reject it. I could no longer take everything in the Bible literally. The people who insisted in a literal interpretation lost credibility.

Observations of hypocrisy in SOME of the people in my church (principally the Pastor) was a factor.

Support from a close friend who was also rebelling from a strong religious background was a factor.

There was a situation that occured at Teenage Church summer camp in which the camp Pastor who I admired very much (and still do) had allowed us to listen to popular music. Someone with a high position in the Church Conference showed up and made a large scene and criticised him strongly.

And then there was sex - how could something that felt so good and didn't hurt anyone possibly be a major sin?

Maybe I just got tired of all the controlling guilt trip that the church and my parents were laying on me.

I went through a rebellious period - where everybody that believed was stupid, ignorant, weak-willed, hypocritical or some combination.

Then I became accepting of others beliefs, while wanting none of it myself. During my late 20's and early 30's I thought religion was relatively harmless and did good works.

Over the past 10 years I've realized that Faith of this nature sets up some really un-healthy mental processes in the individual that do spill over into other areas of life. And of course, I regard conservative literalists to be a major threat to the future of society in this country. Sam Harris only confirmed what I already believed, although he put a fine point on it, particularly as regards Islam.

Jason - I'm sorry that I can't give a more certain answer to your question than I already have. I'm pretty darn sure (not 100% certain, since there could be issues that I have not thought through and situations that I'm unaware of, omniscient that I'm not) that something can't be true and not true. But since I'm not absolutely certain, I don't think that your subsequent questions apply.

Believe me, I wish that I was omniscient and could confidently provide a binary yes/no answer to your question. (wm for god? ... ok, maybe not!)

Jason,

I think I answered your question already, although talking with you, I might need a clearer idea of what you mean by "absolute," "certainty," and "absolute certainty." I have confidence in mathematical certainties and in probabilities.

Since I answered, please extend me the courtesy as well and tell me your answer to your own question. If yes, name one, and of course tell me why (using your own logic). If no, then how can we do even start to do (learn, build, etc.) anything?

"Now, is this a universal law that is true at all times and in all places? Should we ever question this law?"

sorry about that...i asked two questions then gave options. Just ignore the second question.

Again: Is this a universal law that is true at all times and in all places?

If you answer:

Yes - then i would like to know how you reconcile that with your statement that we can not be 100% certain about anything.

No - then i would like for you to give an example of something that is and is not in the same respect and at the same time.

WM,

Well, I'm no PhD candidate either, but it's a very simple question.

Let's define it: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time""

Now, is this a universal law that is true at all times and in all places? Should we ever question this law?

If you answer:

Yes - then i would like to know how you reconcile that with your statement that we can not be 100% certain about anything.

No - then i would like for you to give an example of something that is and is not in the same respect and at the same time.

Oops ... that was me! Sorry!

Doug, the stimulus for me basically involved a moment of intense cognitive dissonance between action and beliefs and a question I asked myself to try to figure out whether the action was in error or the belief was in error. The details are personal enough that I'm not too excited about sharing them on the internet - and I don't think that they'd be useful in trying to provide a similar experience for others (believe me, I wish they would, I have a few family members that I think could use it!)

I think that there were several major things contributing to the change:
- The situation that I was in with respect to those heavily invested in my beliefs had changed. I was no longer physically dependent on them and there was some distance between us as well.
- I was in a place where I came into contact with people of many varying, conflicting beliefs. I think that this helped unleash my imagination of alternatives to my beliefs as well as emphasizing what should have been obvious - that beliefs do not necessarily correspond to reality.
- I was in such a miserable state of mind due to trying to live up to various beliefs and expectations that something had to give.

WM - what was the nature of the stimulus that triggered your change?

WM

Nothing could be more hopeful than your story.
Logic cracked the armor of belief.
You are proof that it can happen.
Inspiring.

See WM?
Aren't you glad I defined the word "Timmy" for you?
All empiricists must answer for what I said. Sorry about that.
I only said that I was certain enough for me but he won't let it go.

And the irony of someone who can not answer 1+1 or any question for that matter calling someone else a coward for not answering his question.
The irony.

Jason, I apologize if I misunderstood the nature of your inquiries. My understanding from the nature of your questions and comments was that you see a significant difference between 99.99% certainty and 100% certainty and think that science’s – indeed anybody’s – inability to achieve 100% certainty destroys any validity that it might have. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, maybe if you let me know where you were going with that line of discourse would help me engage you in a more meaningful dialogue.

I’m sorry that I can’t answer your question about the law of contradiction being open to doubt. I am not a philosopher, scientific or otherwise – I am sure that there are much better minds than mine much better schooled in philosophy who would be better at discussing that question with you. As an engineer, I would tend to say that X cannot be true and not true at the same time – but I am a simple engineer and tend to think very practically! It wouldn’t do me a lot of a good if my circuits and software worked, yet didn’t work! I am curious as to where you are going with that, though, assuming you got any particular answer.

Thanks, Timmy. I have been enjoying your posts! I have trouble believing that Jason is a lost cause, though. I'm pretty sure that there's a rational soul underneath all that rusting armor of belief just aching to let in the pure, sweet light of reason.

I have sympathy for Jason because I too was once a believer. I grew up in a situation in which for me not to believe would have been intolerable. So I'm well acquainted with how one can use pat arguments provided by authorative sources to construct a set of armor around a set of prepackaged beliefs. I know how the mind can latch on to these arguments and use them to deflect contradictory evidence and arguments, carefully avoiding subjecting the armor itself to scrutiny, much less the beliefs that it protects. I also know what a toll this can take on a person who is trapped within that armor.

I was very fortunate that I finally had my moment of awakening when I was in college - and it really was something that occurred in a moment. Somehow, a critical question managed to make it through a chink in the armor and the suit just blew up. My life has been so much more beautiful and meaningful since that moment that I can't help but hope that the light of reason reaches others who are in a similar situation. I don't know if Jason is one of them, but if he is, I believe there is hope for him. From the tone of his emails, I suspect he is fairly young - maybe that improves the odds in his favor.

Well it's late and in extra innings , but I'd like a turn at bat if I may: First, Victoria deserves a bowling trophy or something for her bravery in even posting on this blog...if the wrong (or most pious) imam gets wind of it, it may be off with her head. (That's what religious certainty get you jason--I'll take scientific uncertainty, thank-you) I admire your courage Victoria and hope that you continue to study the history of your religion as well as others throughout the world. (You are aware that mohammad's wife dictated the koran from memory for her illiterate husband are you not?) Like all "holy" books, there is nothing holy about them and they belong in that fire that Timmy started where they will burn baby burn, much to jason's chagrin.
Although I'm not a fan of book burning, our world would be safer and more rational without them. The problem lies in the fact that too many religious-minded folk use their "holy" book as a "how to" manual for living their life. When that particular manual encourages death to the infidel or non-believer (which is especially ironic in the koranic sense, because non-believers are non-believers because allah made them non-believers....mmmm, what a yummy god that is: I'll make non-believers so you can murder them in my name), that manual ceases to be useful, not to mention inhumane. I propose that any "holy" book that does not conform to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights ought to be relegated to ashes.
I believe it was Doug, no, I think it was, (with 99.999% certainty), who got a good start on a list of changes we can make to help the religous-minded out of their "holy" book-imposed inhumanity. (Maybe we could replace their old books with "The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance" or anything by Dr. Phil...)
Well, my turn at bat is done, hopefully nobody got hurt or fired or caught for illegal betting. I will now exit stage left with the brilliantly existential lyrics of Billie Joe Armstrong: "I walk a lonely road, the only one that I have ever known. Don't know where it goes......
Sometimes I wish someone up there will find me, 'til then I walk alone..."
Peace to all of us on our solo journeys in this life. J.

WM,

"I think that you may be struggling with the idea of likelihood. Nobody that I know can be 100% certain about anything, whether the question is whether or not paper always burns or ones favorite deity exists and communicates with select people."

Actually, if you've been paying attention, you'll notice above that i was the one that actually expressed doubt concerning Timmy's claim that newspapers always burn when thrown into the fire.

Timmy said it's certain. And he bases this certainty on previous observation.

I then asked Timmy to provide a logical syllogism that demonstrates for me how he deduced that "certainty" from his previous observations.

He said he can't. It burns because it just does. And i'm a retard for doubting it.

So WM, your post to me is uncalled for. Perhaps you need to chat with Timmy.

Secondly, since RB is too much of a coward to answer the question, I'll ask you...especially since you believe that we can not be 100% certain about anything:

Is the law of contradiction open to doubt?

Okay, I'm on that site, whoo-hoo, lots to chat about with those folks!!! See ya!

Welcome WM,

A few tips on dealing with Jason,

1)Logic is out of the question.

2) and you will notice that he uses the word "Timmy" a lot.
It means, everyone else on this thread but Jason.
He named the term after me because I said that I was certain of something and now I represent all empiricists.

I'm going to check it our Katie,
See you there.

Okay, just registered for that person's chat. Very distasteful but if perhaps the pot is well-stirred, it could have beneficial effects...Whoever goes there, just make sure you don't accidentally click on something that could make her more money!

When are we moving to the Ann Coulter site? I have been reading this thread from the beginning and I'm really tired of Jason's nonsense; maybe we can get better nonsense somewhere else. I agree with Timmy, Jason's posts don't exist - who here can prove that they do?

Thank you all for the unusually interesting posts – I appreciate all the food for thought, despite the thread stalling out in a few places …

Jason,

I think that you may be struggling with the idea of likelihood. Nobody that I know can be 100% certain about anything, whether the question is whether or not paper always burns or ones favorite deity exists and communicates with select people.

But we can evaluate the evidence for various claims and make rough evaluations of their likelihood. For example, I can be fairly certain that I will not find quarters growing on my pea plant when I go outside. Maybe if I’m lucky I will find peas, but nothing that I have read or personally experienced provides good evidence that it is possible for quarters to grow on pea plants. I am confident – in every practical sense, certain – that coins do not grow on vines.

In the same sense, I am certain that paper burns if the typical conditions for burning are met (hot fire, dry paper, etc). If I ever come across a case in which it does not burn, I will reevaluate my estimation. For now, I feel that behaving in line with this certainty will serve me in good stead.

Fortunately, we do not need 100% certainty in order to make reasonable evaluations of what is likely and what is not. I, like previous posters, am certain that it’s not a good idea to step out in front of a fast-moving truck, jump off a high building, or spice up my tea with a little arsenic. I can make the reasonable evaluation that none of these things would normally end well for me. If I needed to be 100% certain of evaluations of these types before I acted on them, I would never have survived to adulthood.

All this talk about absolute certainties is pointless. Nobody lives his/her life with perfect knowledge of everything that has happened and will happen everywhere. But at least science provides a good framework for evaluating likelihoods, which is more than can be said of magical thinking, in which anything goes if you just believe hard enough.

I hope that enough people of faith reevaluate their unreasonable certainties that we on this planet are able to survive to a more highly-evolved “adulthood.”

Jason: go away until you have something cogent to add.

Ok, I'm quite intrigued by Richard Dawkins' explanation for the origin of religion, from his most recent book, the God Delusion:

From an evolutionary POV, why does religion exist?

The hypothesis is childish gullibility. Children who obey their parents' admonistion: "Don't swim in that lake, a monster will eat you." Because it's true, the lake is full of crocodiles. Kids who listen will survive.

Religion is a by-product: An authority tells them something, they listen. Some people -- we all know some -- never outgrow this.

Bruce, Victoria: are you victims of childish guibillity?

RB,

Is the law of contradiction a principal that is open to doubt?

Who was it earlier that had the line about non stamp collecting.
I liked that one.
Surely if 60 to 70 percent of the worlds population collected stamps, we would need a term for non stamp collectors other than "non stamp collectors".
Just like we have had to come up with a name for the non believer, (Atheist) because 60 to 70 percent of the world are believers.
I am an atheist because when people tell me about God, I do not believe them. I do not believe them on my own. Not as a group with all of the other atheists. I did not ever have to be told about atheism or what atheism was before I could decide if I was an atheist. In fact, I was an atheist long before I knew what an atheist was.
Hence, when I became an atheist, I did not join any group or belief system. I simply didn't believe when somebody told me about God. I didn't have to be told about the option of not believing. It was a natural state of being for me.

If nobody ever told me about God in the first place, I would be the same person I am today, but not an atheist, because I would have nothing to "not believe".

In other words.
Athee ain't no "ism" man.

Jason:

Please define "define" as you are using it.

Ah, shucks rube, here it is:

dogma: a principal or set of principals set down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, ie the Christian dogma of the Trinity.

or the dogma that the Aryan race was superior to all, or Pol Pot's dogma that, first, all educated people must be killed, or Islamic dogma that only those who die by the sword in Mohammad's name can ascend to heaven instantaneously to enjoy the nirvana of 72 virgins.

Take your pick. (Is your answer "2"?)

"They reject dogma of all shapes."

RB,

Please define "dogma" as you are using it. One naturalist named Pam told me that dogma is only the stuff of religions, and here you say "religious" dogma is a subset...

so please, define what you mean by "dogma" so that i know what you are saying.

(Whisper) He's not taking it well.

Jason:

You need to convert to Shi'ia Islam. Then, you can self-flaggellate to your heart's desire... in Iraq.

Meanwhile: 1+1=?

BTW, are you an albino?

(Yes, everyone else, see DaVinci Code for this obscure reference. Indulge me.)

Timmy is such a hypocrite.

Timmy claims he is after peace, yet he calls me a "retard" because i doubted his "certain" claim that newspapers always burn.