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.