The Sacrifice of Reason

If jesus really did teach a better sense of morality he would have provided more benifit by not sacrificing himself and teaching more morals.
However there is doubt about whether he taught as good a sense of morality or not and letting a religion in his name be used to prop up tyrants certainly isn't the way to teach morality.
For more see:
http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/culttactics.htm

lhvubz jsqhvtfwx spoih ynxar vzfgw qxlbzswyt myaenxh

lhvubz jsqhvtfwx spoih ynxar vzfgw qxlbzswyt myaenxh

lhvubz jsqhvtfwx spoih ynxar vzfgw qxlbzswyt myaenxh

sounds like blind senseless sacrifice to me. Many religions no longer do the crudest versions of this but ignorance leads to much more blind senseless sacrifice than most realize.

http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/culttactics.htm#1ch5

Hello my friends :)
;)

Great post., bro

Can I find tools to keep air clean ? Please let me know
about tools and information about their manufactures.

Iam very interested in your comments!

well done, man

If one is to make an accurate measure of man, one should strive for a full picture of him. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it"? We can somewhat answer this question, thanks to the fondness of large groups of people in the the last century for declaring God dead. The horrors of the Soviet Union in general and Stalin in particular; of Mao; of Pol Pot; and of their godless Left Wing apologists in the West who championed the progressive principles of "scientific, godless government," made the 20th Century into the bloodiest period in human history. Humanity is not evil because it is religious; humanity is evil because that is humanity's nature! Incidentally, that is a common theme in Christianity.

It might further interest you that most of the religions that practiced ritual human sacrifice had visible manifestations of their gods. These are called "idols," and were typically made of stone, wood or metals. Idol-makers sometimes became wealthy from their craft. When Christians threatened the use of idols, these wealthy people used their influence to attack the Christians. A great divide exists between Christians and their invisible God and pagans with their tangible gods and charms.

If one is to make an accurate measure of man, one should strive for a full picture of him. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it"? We can somewhat answer this question, thanks to the fondness of large groups of people in the the last century for declaring God dead. The horrors of the Soviet Union in general and Stalin in particular; of Mao; of Pol Pot; and of their godless Left Wing apologists in the West who championed the progressive principles of "scientific, godless government," made the 20th Century into the bloodiest period in human history. Humanity is not evil because it is religious; humanity is evil because that is humanity's nature! Incidentally, that is a common theme in Christianity.

It might further interest you that most of the religions that practiced ritual human sacrifice had visible manifestations of their gods. These are called "idols," and were typically made of stone, wood or metals. Idol-makers sometimes became wealthy from their craft. When Christians threatened the use of idols, these wealthy people used their influence to attack the Christians. A great divide exists between Christians and their invisible God and pagans with their tangible gods and charms.

If one is to make an accurate measure of man, one should strive for a full picture of him. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it"? We can somewhat answer this question, thanks to the fondness of large groups of people in the the last century for declaring God dead. The horrors of the Soviet Union in general and Stalin in particular; of Mao; of Pol Pot; and of their godless Left Wing apologists in the West who championed the progressive principles of "scientific, godless government," made the 20th Century into the bloodiest period in human history. Humanity is not evil because it is religious; humanity is evil because that is humanity's nature! Incidentally, that is a common theme in Christianity.

It might further interest you that most of the religions that practiced ritual human sacrifice had visible manifestations of their gods. These are called "idols," and were typically made of stone, wood or metals. Idol-makers sometimes became wealthy from their craft. When Christians threatened the use of idols, these wealthy people used their influence to attack the Christians. A great divide exists between Christians and their invisible God and pagans with their tangible gods and charms.

If one is to make an accurate measure of man, one should strive for a full picture of him. "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it"? We can somewhat answer this question, thanks to the fondness of large groups of people in the the last century for declaring God dead. The horrors of the Soviet Union in general and Stalin in particular; of Mao; of Pol Pot; and of their godless Left Wing apologists in the West who championed the progressive principles of "scientific, godless government," made the 20th Century into the bloodiest period in human history. Humanity is not evil because it is religious; humanity is evil because that is humanity's nature! Incidentally, that is a common theme in Christianity.

It might further interest you that most of the religions that practiced ritual human sacrifice had visible manifestations of their gods. These are called "idols," and were typically made of stone, wood or metals. Idol-makers sometimes became wealthy from their craft. When Christians threatened the use of idols, these wealthy people used their influence to attack the Christians. A great divide exists between Christians and their invisible God and pagans with their tangible gods and charms.

hqkzplseb xgcjbop hxiwb rdhjwfbo hyvbneq jbsqcey zknct

hello. im a 26 yr old mother from billings montana. (just try being an athiest here!)
i am not collage educated, but even i know that fairy tales are not real!! its comman knowlege that there is no god, no one has the balls to admit it, out of fear. my husband and i were ran out of seaside or, for not hiding our atheism. all i can do is raise my kids to be smart and well spoken and brave!!!

If you are losing your hair, you know that the process doesn't simply affect the way
you look; it can also affect the way you feel about yourself.

Hair Loss Product

very interesting, but I don't agree with you
Idetrorce

P.S.

I was raised by an atheist father. I am now a practicing Catholic convert.

Timmy said:

"Some think that worshiping the virgin Mary is good."

I can rightly assume you mean Catholics here. For the record, as a person who converted to Catholicism, I will tell you we do NOT worship Mary.

If we did, then I would have never become a Catholic.

You should learn about people's religious beliefs before you attempt to talk about them.

You're a good writer. Too bad you're so jaded with your hate for faith and people of faith.

To believe in anything, one must define that “thing” that one believes in. I have a list of 1626 gods whose nature, power, authority, and worshippers are all clearly defined. Strangely, they all represent the fickle nature of the humans who created them in their own image and after their likeness!

I can choose to “believe” in one or more of these deities, or in none at all, but my dilemma is that the list includes 140 gods of everything, 54 gods of everyone, 45 supreme gods, 17 creator gods, 14 one-and-only-gods, 13 almighty gods, 3 dreamtime gods, and 1 devious god, which makes the choice somewhat difficult, and presents me with the dilemma of which one I should choose to impose on my unborn children!

What makes the choice of a suitable god or goddess to worship (and to obey the words that we put into his or her mouth) even more of a problem is that among the gods (elhim) in my list who lack any clear definition of who or what they are supposed to be, are those the Jews call YHWH, their supporters call Jehovah, the Iranians call Khuda, The Russians call Bog, the English call God, the Germans call Gott, the French call Dieu, the Greeks call Kiri, the Spanish call Senior, the Arabs call Allah, etc,. etc,.

Now if the 14 one-and-only gods are one-and-the-same deity (with different monikers), then shouldn’t he or she or they all have exactly the same definition in the minds of his or her or their promoters and followers? And shouldn’t the multitude of rabbis, bishops, priests, mullahs and gurus all meet in a general conference at a godless place (e.g., Washington or Rome or London or Moscow or Constantinople) in order to agree on a one-and-only definition of the 14-in-1 or the 1-in-14 god or gods?

I am just trying to be helpful!

Z. Bishrey
Peterborough

Hi!не могу понять
http://a-cash.info/caronline/fortis-health-insuranceonline ">.fortis health insurance

You have the natural advantage in debt settlement solution , which may be appropriate for debtors with ...
Great Solution

Rhyme nor reason

By the skin of your teeth

Every day, thousands of people are turned down for finance because they have past florida mortgage loan or no credit history.

Bubble and squeak

Gone for a burton

Little bird told me - A

Be afraid, be very afraid

Truth will out

Clue - don't have a

Act of God

Scot free

Come on down

Many business managers and principals entrusted with consolidation loan lowest rate student, have had problems with their own finances...

http://allinfo.iifree.net >st paul traveler insurance co French phrases

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >traveler insurance company Bog standard

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >traveler insurance claim Gregory Peck

http://allinfo.iifree.net >canada consolidation loan student Men in suits

Follow these guidelines and you will build that new home with little, or no, problems. copper metal roofing can help...

Sounds like your finances are becoming a problem creditor debt settlement usa is the solution. ... 2007 USA Debt Consolidation.
Real debt help is not quick or easy ...

French parliament has shown that several question marks hang over the accounts of no fax payday advance

Stress is taking a toll on people -- contributing to health problems... health risks for men reproduction and sexual health care...

60 Second Quote To Consolidate Your Student Loans

student loan consolidation

What Harris and Hitchens both fundementally fail to understand is the very nature of faith. Without faith mother teresa's position is impossible to understand or defend. There are no half measures with it, you just have to stick with the ride.

Dear Sam,

I was fortunate enough to have met Mother Teresa and seen first-hand her wonderful and selfless work.

I laughed when I saw your comment "she was a woman who was surely suffering from run-of-the mill depression"--

Sam,nobody ever built a statue in memory of an armchair critic----I suggest when you get time go around and see a leprosy colony in India----and see the work Mother's sisters does for them--

Perhaps, you may want to re-write this article after your India visit.

Have fun and do take the time to see things first-hand before pontificating on "religion" and "dogmatism".

Warm regards,

Sunil

Dear Sam,

I was fortunate enough to have met Mother Teresa and seen first-hand her wonderful and selfless work.

I laughed when I saw your comment "she was a woman who was surely suffering from run-of-the mill depression"--

Sam,nobody ever built a statue in memory of an armchair critic----I suggest when you get time go around and see a leprosy colony in India----and see the work Mother's sisters does for them--

Perhaps, you may want to re-write this article after your India visit.

Have fun and do take the time to see things first-hand before pontificating on "religion" and "dogmatism".

Warm regards,

Sunil

Mr. Harris, please tell me where the primate who appeared 20 centuries ago came from?

Mr. Harris, please tell me where the primate who appeared 20 centuries ago came from?

Mr. Harris, please tell me where the primate who appeared 20 centuries ago came from?

I am a very big Sam Harris fan.

This is one of the better articles I have read. It takes an angle many don't consider, but is such a simple argument that it is impossible (with any reason) to disagree.

It's obvious that Mr Harris doesn't understand redemptive suffering and isn't interested enough to find out about it, probably because it would weaken his argument that a loving God wouldn't do something like that to His own Son. Well, God didn't make Jesus do anything, Jesus freely accepted His own death out of His unfathomable love for us.

There is only one question to be asked:i.e. Is anyone willing to take a chance that there is NO GOD. It's better to live a good,clean,and honest life for the short life span here on earth.

I think Mother Theresa's life speaks more to religion's failure to deal fully and forthrightly
with the illness of clinical depression than to the nonsensicalness of Catholicism's truth claims.
It's a tragedy that she was forced( by ignorant and superstitious people) to suffer so greatly with something so readily treated.

There is, I believe, a greater problem here.

Mr. Harris, as usual, is being attacked for his "controversial beliefs." But Mr. Harris is not espousing beliefs. He is presenting observations about the detrimental effects of other people's unreasonable and unsubstantiated beliefs. Clearly, Mr. Harris does have beliefs (beliefs about a system of secular ethics, beliefs about compassion, etc.), but those beliefs are rarely challenged in these forums. Instead, religionists attack his observations. And these are very truthful observations, indeed. There is undeniable evidence linking irrational beliefs with manical violence and repression. There is not even a causality argument to be had here, as many of the perpetrators of these atrocities literally spell out their (religious) reasons for committing such acts.

It is time the focus of intellectual discourse in this country changes: from attacks on science and observation to an honest criticism of what people believe on the basis of insufficient evidence and the corresponding (and well-documented) results.

Excellent article and discussion. Go Sam!

I agree with a lot of Mr. Harris' points in his recent article, "The Sacrifice of Reason". It is definitely easier to look back in history and identify the idiotic behaviors and belief systems that we as humans once held to (hind sight is 20/20). I was raised as an evangelical Christian, struggled to survive various psychiatric illnesses which at one point caused me not to remain faithful, but to contemplate atheism. I am delighted to see these personal letters of Mother Teresa's own struggle as she was surrounded by so much human suffering. I do not doubt Mr. Harris' belief that she struggled with depression, and suggest that her written letters were a healthy attempt, even, to release the emotional pain connected with her depression. However, a person does not need to be intensely religious to experience doubt about their world view and decisions in life. I would propose that with too much stress and loss any human being would succumb to depression, which in itself leads to insecurities about one's life, indecisiveness, loss of motivation to continue with a present course, and a multitude of emotional, cognitive, and even physical manifestations of not being healthy. I am confident of this not only because of the medical definition of clinical depression, but because of my experience of having been clinically depressed. I also believe, as Mr. Harris relates, that some of our current religious beliefs with regard to Christianity are built on years of tradition and seem "magical" in origin, not reasonable. I do not believe in some of these traditional ideas (transubstantiation, e.g.) nor do I believe in militant evangelism to assure that someone's soul is "saved", as I had when I was a child. I no longer see the need to focus on the "after-life", but rather to embrace each day as a valuable opportunity.

However, I see no reason to eliminate the belief in a God,and the rituals associated with it, that brings purpose and comfort to many people. After my own battle with psychiatric illnesses, I can see that certain personalities could be attracted to religious belief systems in an extremist fashion, and do great harm to others. I was fortunate to have had an education in a health profession to balance out my personality and religious faith. My main problem with Mr. Harris' perspective is that he also presents as an extremist to some extent. In assuming that the most horrific treatments of humans and other creatures can only be related to religious faith systems, he has taken on an extreme belief system,himself. I propose to him the possibility that humans have a NEED for faith/belief in something in order to feel some control over their life/existence.(I am not saying that this is good or bad, just a part of being human and having the drive to survive.) With less understanding of our world scientifically, it makes sense that our ancestors might look to "the gods", and pleasing them, as a means to have some control over their lives. The fact that it had to include blood sacrifice (human or animal) does indeed seem barbaric. But may I also point out that science at the hands of humans has produced its own atrocities, even if that was not the original intent. The use of warfare tools such as guns and bombs has surely taken more lives, also in brutal fashion, than our ancestors accomplished with human sacrifice. The A-bomb that devastated Hiroshima,Japan but allowed the USA and its allies to win an important war has also led to the current struggle with nuclear weapons that could devastate our planet. We have also had years of cruel scientific experiments on animals and at times humans for the sake of another's gain medically (i.e. blood sacrifice of some for the "salvation" of others). Please don't get me wrong. Scientific study to learn about our world and come up with solutions to save it is a gift in itself. But Mr. Harris, in my opinion, is disregarding our tendency as humans to take things that are good (religious faith and science)and misuse them for personal gain. Atleast some humans do this.

My experience as a health care professional, trying to meet the needs of others, also challenged my religious faith. It became apparent that people suffer regardless of religious faith and regardless of how much they prayed or took communion. A belief in God, and even an avid participation in the traditions and rituals of a faith system, did not spare them, or me for that matter, from suffering. So, it became clear to me that believing in God has nothing to do with having control. I suspect that Mother Teresa needed some serious R and R (rest and relaxation, with her own needs tended to) in order to address her depression and desire to continue with her chosen life. Unfortunately, her religious faith (Catholicism) did not allow her to reconsider her committment unless she defied it. That in itself may have left her feeling "trapped", or have been too painful for her to seriously contemplate during her times of doubt. But this does not have to be limited to religious faith. It can also be connected with a strong conviction toward any belief system, including with the scientific method. At times during research, the end result is a failed hypothesis--yet some researchers have difficulty accepting that their hypothesis was wrong, and will keep trying and trying to get success. Some areas of science are still limited, and can produce significant mistakes in the process of trying to find a solution. Personally, having been trained in the scientific method of delivering modern day healthcare, I was an avid participant in receiving psychiatric care when I first experienced a clinical depression. I discovered, as Mother Teresa did, that my prayers went no where, and I felt deserted by my God. My hope and faith was in modern medicine and pshycotherapy techniques. However, there was an initial period of treatment that turned out to be more horrible than the underlying condition. A worsening of my health and symptoms occurred prior to successful treatment, with more severe suicidal instances that I believe I only survived because of my parents and siblings love, and my love for my daughter--these being very connected with my original religious faith system, not my faith in modern medicine. In the end they worked together for a good solution, atleast for several years. Due to other health problems, I went off my medications. It turned out that I needed to return to treatment, but the memory of the initial mistakes under the scientific method produced such fear that the efforts of well intentioned people took months upon months to produce a final good solution. Again, it was the combination of science and religious faith that brought about that result.

For many people, religious faith and science do not have to be at odds with each other, but work together for a successful solution. I discovered following my experience of illness and recovery, that in working with patients and their families, I had to almost embrace their world view while trying to use scientifically based medicine techniques as well. I got better results when I connected with them in these areas. For some, that meant going back to my original roots in evangelical Christianity, while for others it meant focusing purely on science and not daring to address religion; often it fell somewhere in between and might include trying to understand a totally foreign religious belief system so that they could trust that I respected them as a whole person, not just a diagnosis or body part.

Hind Sight is 20/20. I just hope that Mr. Harris' world view of "reason" is realistic in the sense that even with "reason" mistakes will still be made in the hunt for solutions (try, we must). With great victory, comes great sacrifice. Even in an age of reason, sacrifices will be made. Focusing too much on eliminating "unreasonable" religious faith to get to an "Era of reason" may only produce more conflict. Change takes time and great patience. If it is forced too quickly, a lot of destruction will be done in the process--possibly doing more harm than the current situation is producing. Discussion is good, but it must be tempered with respect. And that includes Mr. Harris making some attempt to understand why many of his fellow humans have a NEED for religious faith. Suggesting too forcefully that all religious people aren't using "reason" will be just as offensive to them as an angry Christian responding with profanity would be to him. Whomever has the power position will find it easy to stay calm and "rational". The one without the power position, or that feels threatened, will find it very difficult to stay calm and "rational". A conflict has begun in the form of words and ideologies. In response to the question at the end of his article, I ask another. Why do you, Sam Harris, feel the NEED to disconfirm other people's faith systems/doctrines?

Religion, in general, reminds me of a blind person in a dark room, with his eyes tightly closed, looking for something that doesn't exist.

What about the sacrifice of millions to tobacco and its added addictive chemicals,while political(ALL)parties funded by tobacco profits, they then turn a blind eye, to the millions sacrificed,to tobacco then of course the sacrifice to war,where the most powerful nations use any excuse religion or other,used as a cover to invade other nations where then commit appalling human slaughter...

Calling all atheists and agnostics.
GAD and I are having a debate about our different beliefs as atheists. We have two opposing positions and are in need of some other opinions. Join the conversation and weigh in.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/

Honestly, I think most Christians and members of other religious beliefs suffer from depression.

They are taught to be hyper-critical of themselves, each other and people who do not share their belief structure - with that sort of mindset, I think it is very hard for any of them to be happy with their lives.

And he closes it out with the funnniest line ever.
lol

Thanks guys, I've had enough. It does not appear that we are going to engage in honest debate.

Take care everyone!

Peter is so funny: "You didn't SEE evolution happen, therefore evolution is a fake." The next sentence: "We don't SEE god (happen) therefore he is real".

Brain damage, as can be observed in all sorts of hospitals.

Unfortunately, it is contagious to a certain degree, so we have to watch for sanity and fight mentally unhygienic nonsense.

Gerry, you are correct. Keep in mind, he also said he would stop coming to this blog too. He dared me to look at a web site, so I did. He then said I hadn't read the title correctly. He also said there was proof on that web page - so I searched - what I found was a dawkins quote taken out of context. THAT is proof that evolution is really wrong - how hillarious. I kept looking at what he gave me, and then he had the nerve to say I was chicken, was I afraid to look at the truth? I just did try and look for it. I was afraid of the "house of cards" falling down around me? Funny, that one was!! There's no house of cards!! Sure, it's like - uh oh, 2+2=4 but I'm afraid that someone might prove it wrong - what bullcrap. Even if I or others don't believe it, 2+2 will always=4 - it is not subjective, like peter's VIEWS - it's a hard fact. There is no fear involved in trying to live life in reality. (The fear is having havin a fake belief proved wrong.) I liked one person's analogy to their argument of "oh, you didn't SEE evolution happen, so it's not real" to the fact that murders aren't seen either, but detectives sure do figure out most of them, and people get arrested. If you had to actually see everything for it to be true and have REALLY happened, then we'd have no one in jail.

I just caught a clip of sam harris that I hadn't seen before - about how he could say every night if he said a roman prayer over his food, it would really turn into the body and blood of elvis - and how people would think he was crazy. But when people do it in christianity, it is considered sane. And he is right, it is EXACTLY the same thing. (I was raised methodist - we were never confused about that - it was always representational, NEVER meant to be real. OHHH, and if the bible is to be taken literal (like peter seems to be doing) one thing as a child I was told in the methodist church is that in the bible there is a passage that jesus says, remember me NOT in my suffering. THAT is why the protestants do not have crucifixes. And there are also passages about figures and statues representing god or gods (even THE god) no statues were to be had, it says so right in the bible, so they aren't following their own book.

Wow, there's proof that Jesus was a real person?
News to me. Can't wait to see it.
Unless of course Peter is referring to that 2000 year old hearsay.
He probably is. I think I got all excited for nothing.

In spite of what you might think Peter, I would actually be very excited to learn that there is proof of Jesus' existence as a real historical character. But there isn't.

Meg, Gerry,

Timmy and I are having a very interesting discussion on our differences in atheist views. Your welcome to join if you like, I'm interested in getting a larger sample of atheist views.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/

Gerry, as usual, your prejudice becomes you. I think it was your post earlier that compared Christianity to the ideas of the pagan cults and mythologies before it. When you look at them there is a vast difference. Christianity is based on a real person, Jesus Christ, and His teaching, which in turn was foretold in the Old Testament. You would be hard pressed to support your evidence that Christianity is mythology.

So we finally have arrived at a really objective measure system for truth: The amount of time elapsing between a question and an answer!

Peter Huff: Quick answer, ergo truth.

Richard Dawkin: Slow answer, ergo lie.

Meg,

Peter Huff never hesitates before giving an answer, lol!

His question why you keep replying to him, however, has some merit! (I know how you feel!!)

Meg, there again, if I am so uneducated that it disgusts you why do you keep replying to me? You threatened many post ago to discontinue the dialog.

I have not been getting any great evidence from you either.

As for the decay rate, it is not as accurate as you think it is. When the different radioisotope dating methods are used on the same rock unit they yield different ages for the rock. Therefore you would have to make assumptions on which is the accurate rate of decay.

http://www.icr.org/rate/

Here is a tad bit for you as a Richard Dawkins fan.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/richard_dawkins_on_the_origin.html

peter,
"looking at the evidence from a Biblical perspective."
that's exactly where your whole argument goes wrong.

Look at reality, then figure it out. you can't figure out gravity by saying "oh, the apple fell - god made the apple fall - how can we discribe it so it sounds like god caused it?" Try an experiment! Do you know what they are? Nothing you have offered stands up to experimentation!!

Don't first look at the bible, "from a biblical perspective" then try to fit things to match. All I have heard from your side is arguments against evolution, instead of evidence for something new. Saying something is too hard to understand does not make it untrue.

Young earth? Just that one alone - tell me then how THOUSANDS and thousands of scientists, even simple students, can do experiments and concurrently date something older than what the bible says? Our laws about the atom and decay rate are incorrect? Everyone would have to have it incorrect by exactly the same rate. If you REALLY BELIEVE, in your heart, that the earth is only 6000 years old, you are so uneducated its disgusting.

In answer to your questions Meg,

"I just spent quite a lot of time looking over that web site - I searched high and low for some evidence of a new theory."

The evidence for the young earth can be found on sights that you refuse to go to. Try answersingenesis.org or a myriad of creation sites that explain origins. These sites have scientists from all walks looking at the evidence from a Biblical perspective.

Even more relevant is the Bible itself, something you refuse to acknowledge as the very Word of God. I would be willing to exchange posts with you on your evidence that refutes the Bible (without using sarcasm, ridicule or mockery to cut down the other's position) if you are willing to post your source references, as I will too.

You keep making the claims that the Bible is unreliable mythology and that history has been embellished. Well let's see what kind of grounds you have to stand on. It can be established that it is the Bible and not these mystery religions that is based factually on historical events, places, people, etc. Let's take a look at the Osiris-Dionysius myth to see how your claims hold up that Christianity is borrowing from ancient mythology. Let's see the evidence that Jesus never existed or that Paul did not ground his faith on the historical Jesus.

"I didn't find one. Where's the theory? Where is the supporting evidence? You DO KNOW that you need supporting evidence for something to be true?"

Check it out. Are you willing to look at the evidence? If not, then this is a waste of time. How do you know that you are not the one deceived and following the "herd" mentality?

"The bible doesn't count - give me facts. All I found was PARTS of quotes from other people taken out of context to suit your needs - how does that make evolution untrue?"

Give proof these quotes were taken out of context, don't just assert it.

There again, in making a statement like this, that the Bible does not count, you already are discounting a historically reliable document, that has far more evidence of its historicity than anything you can come up with from ancient mythology. The New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses in many cases to the historicity of Jesus and to His resurrection. "The Bible doesn't count" rules out that you will look at it as historical fact. How scientific is that, skewing the evidence before it is even looked at?

"You could take a quote about neutrinos being practically hard to detect, and say "SEE, they must not exist!" Taking a quote does NOT change the fact that neutrinos exist. They have been found. And I have proof that 80%, AT LEAST, of the people I talk to don't know they exist, or have even heard of them. It's called scientific knowledge, peter, and you are pitifully lacking."

Since neither you nor I are arguing for the existence of neutrinos lets not change the subject.

Let's establish some ground rules if you are willing to discuss the Bible as being mythological as opposed to historical. Let's also trace the theory of evolution back a few hundred years and see if what Darwin and Hegel and Lyell and others said is actually reliable and accurate science. Are you open minded to consider the proofs against evolution or have you ruled them out without seeing the evidence? Are you willing to do that? In other words, let's see your evidence and I'll show you mine.

If someone else wants to post, so be it, but I am not going to chase my tail by answering five different bloggers all coming at me at once. I will focus on what you have to say, so make it good.

peter, I find it funny that every time you tell me to do something (look at a web site) and I do, you say I didn't read the title, and I misunderstood. When you tell me to look at the list of scientists, I did, and found it pitifully lacking. You then say I didn't understand, and didn't do what you asked.

I just spent quite a lot of time looking over that web site - I searched high and low for some evidence of a new theory. I didn't find one. Where's the theory? Where is the supporting evidence? You DO KNOW that you need supporting evidence for something to be true? The bible doesn't count - give me facts. All I found was PARTS of quotes from other people taken out of context to suit your needs - how does that make evolution untrue? You could take a quote about neutrinos being practically hard to detect, and say "SEE, they must not exist!" Taking a quote does NOT change the fact that neutrinos exist. They have been found. And I have proof that 80%, AT LEAST, of the people I talk to don't know they exist, or have even heard of them. It's called scientific knowledge, peter, and you are pitifully lacking.

peter, you say
"I was sarcastic over your lack of proof," if there was lack of proof, and proof of other theories was better, then that is what we would be teaching in school. Sure, the groupings of hominids might change a bit, but the early hominids are still here in fosil form. Some of their DNA is testable. Fact is fact peter, you can wish all you want.

people professing religious beliefs is not science. Looking after the fact and trying to fit the bible to match reality is not science.

It is wishful thinking.

Meg, I have some final comments before moving on. (Sorry, could not resist it) What a laugh, that Professor Timmy Peabody has made the observation that I am the missing link. What an honor too, that after all these years somebody has finally found it!

You weren't paying attention again. What I did was give you a list of scientists today from all fields of science who do not believe in evolution since you made the comment from the other list, "Oh, your list of scientists that believe in creation? It is pitifully short."

I supplied you with a list of some of the scientists today who believe in creationism and asked you to look up some of their works. I did not say that you would their works on the link provided. That is why I provided the video which you did not view. What the scientist's were doing were providing their testimony as to why they had switched from evolutionary science to creation science. They were doing what scientists do, they were looking at the evidence, discussing the observations and examining the hypothesis of evolution and found it wanting.

One last comment. What a laugh to have you and the atheist coalition call me juvenile at the same time practicing all the traits and tactics that would classify the coalition as the same. Your posts speak for themselves. I was sarcastic over your lack of proof, but I would like you to know that although my humor was poor at times, from my point of view I did not intend it to be malicious, just as a tool to emphasis a point, as My Lord Himself did on many occasions. My hope and prayer is that the Holy Spirit would one day open your heart to the truth. That is beyond what I could ever hope to do. Take care!

Oh yeah, timmy, I forgot to add- I just find it interesting how he DARED me to look at his web site - and all I found was that - no PROOF as to other theories. Only a wife who had him switch churches, and reading the bible.

Now peter, if you find a dinosaur fossil that REALLY dates to 4000 years ago, then you have something. But people have been looking for 100's of years, and not one was found. No, the dating is not flawed. Take a chemistry course, and you'd understand. Basic highschool science. Everyone else in the country is doing it - try it. Even the CATHOLIC CHURCH across the entire united states is teaching evolution, and the fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old. So MOST christians and religious people believe in evolution too!

Timmy, you are correct. A scientist just the other day said something I thought was cool - he said for a species that had evolved to only be able to peel bananas and I forget what other simple thing he said, it is GREAT strides that we have been able to wrap our simple minds around huge concepts like black holes, gravity (my favorite - try and explain that force - I am still looking for the true subatomic explanation of that force) and just the sheer volume and distance of our huge galaxy. The concept of so many millions of light years is mind boggling, and quite interesting. You're right, people like peter with primitive minds not able to look beyond their doorstep or nearby church are really missing out.

Thanks for the comment - I will give up on him too - he's ready to drink the coolaid if god tells him to, huh? Hey, it's all about the afterlife, isn't it? (I'm surprised the christian people didn't think to add in the 77 virgins too - perhaps more boys would join the church if they did!!)

peter, I pity you. You are quite lost. And grasping at straws. Try to stand up on your own for your own values. You can do it - you don't need the church to tell you how to be. Funny how the brainwashed never notice that they are brainwashed.

Hi Meg,

We've done our best.
"E" for effort is all we get.
I'm done with Peter. There is no sane conversation to be had there.
All you're going to get from him is "because it says so in the great book" . That's all he has. That's all any of them have.

The funny thing is, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow. Such a discovery would say nothing that would increase the likelihood that god gave a patch of desert to the Jews and cancer to humanity as punishment for our sins.
The funniest thing to me is, Peter stands as a walking talking example of evolution himself. He is a form of primitive man. The missing link.

Hi timmy. You sound needy too if you have to be 1500. Just kidding. Read the proof that peter had, and let me know what you think. He said that evolution is not true because there are other scientists that don't believe in evolution, and he gave me a web site. So I looked, and the only proof from the scientist (one on his list) of why he went from evolution to creation was that he changed churches. Not that he found some new scientific information - he just read the bible some more. How is that for scientific proof? Is this all that they are basing it on? I thought peter said they had REAL proof. (and peter, don't quote the bible - that has been re-written at least 4 times before the bible was put together - you don't know WHO wrote that - that is historical fact. Or are we not believing in historical fact too?)

Just wanted to be comment number 1500

peter, I did look at the title.

Also, EVERYONE, please read on - I want you to see what peter keeps trying to throw at us as evidence. From the life story below, peter, (that YOU pointed me to) the scientist did NOT - I repeat - did NOT come across new evidence to dispel evolution!!!! He went to a new church, and read the bible. You can't use the bible as proof of evolution - it doesn't even pass in a court of law (yes, the common morality here.) This is so ridiculous to say these scientists believing are proof that IT IS A SCIENCE that I just HAD to include this - read on everyone, and tell me if someone changing churches is scientic proof that evolution has a different theory. peter, you are full of crap. And so disolusional you should be in a hospital.

(directly from the web site)
Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh), retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992.
He thought that evolution explained the similarities that exist between living things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. Things shared the DNA code because they had a common ancestor, he thought.
Jim started to go to a different church and heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time. He says:
‘I saw my weaknesses, my sin, my faults. I was converted and I began to read Scripture really meaningfully for the first time.’

‘This whole argument of DNA—the universality of DNA—is a major plank of the common ancestry argument. I became aware that the Word of God was more important than my concept of science. And I truly can say that I became aware that I’d been worshipping and serving created things rather than the Creator, as Paul said (Romans 1:25).’
Jim says he had a ‘double conversion’—his spiritual conversion and his conversion from evolution to accepting creation. He says that this brought about a ‘radical change’ in the way he regarded God. He says that previously, he had a god of his own making, one he kept ‘in a box,’ not the God of the Bible. But now, the beauty, perfection and the wonder of the Scriptures just ‘jump out’ at him.

Obviously, these people are very needy.

Peter,

So long monkey boy.
Ooohh Ooohh Ahhh aahhh ooohh oooh aahh aahh.
(scratch ass) (pick bug out of fur and eat it)
Oooohh Ooohhh Aahhh ahhh!
lol

Good afternoon Meg,

When you say,

Oh, your list of scientists that believe in creation? It is pitifully short. And containing gynocologists, physiologists, and a rhumatologist."

I was just showing you that a lot of the science we take for granted today was started by Christians centuries before. Please notice the title,

"Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator"

You did not read the headings which gives me further evidence to the fact that you ignore whatever I have to say. Talk to the hand. Here is a list of some of the current scientists who believe in creationism,

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4983

Why don't you look at some of their works if you are really interested in the evidence.

"I'll say it again - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE NOTHING. There, and in your words, I've won the argument."

Meg, why would I waste time on presenting evidence to you? You have proved time and again that you have your own agenda and will not even consider what I have to say. You are not interested in any evidence I can offer you. You will not even offer a sensible standard for good. It is all subjective preference.

Your agenda is to lampoon the Christian evidence so that what you say seems right. Your hostility and bias is evident towards Christianity. Both you and I know that there is a battle going on here. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the general public. Truth will eventually prevail.

Keep plugging the cracks in your foundation until you realize that abandonment is the only recourse. The winds of change are building strength. My suggestion is to not be under the building when it collapses.

Evolutionary science has been ignoring all opposition for over two hundred years now. But important questions are/have being/been raised as to its validity. Creation scientists do not have the capital for research that has been provided for research into evolution. Evolutionary science is a multi-million or billion dollar enterprise supported on nearly ever front by the secular community, so that it has saturated every area of life with its propaganda.

So when the baby cries for attention, the secular scientific communities first motion is to put a pillow over its face to quite the noise. Even so, the challenges are coming. The smothering will continue until either the baby is looked after or until there are no more babies to smother. Looking at the record of your fellow atheist leaders, such as Mao and Stalin, it has been the latter. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

Thanks for the chat.

Sorry to interject but I couldn't let this go by without comment.

"Ever-insightful author Tom Wolfe got to the bottom of Dawkin's propaganda theory, which is called "meme" (short for "memory") theory. Dawkins refers to ideas, images, beliefs, etc. as "memes" which are transmitted through humanity based on their fitness to breed. Wolfe ends the charade:

"There turns out to be one serious problem with memes, however. They don't exist. A neurophysiologist can use the most powerful and sophisticated brain imaging now available - and still not find a meme."

So, one of the most publicly revered scientists in the world has established his career on something that cannot scientifically be detected to exist."

First as stated "memes" are ideas, images, beliefs, if genes are the hardware then memes are like software. The idea here is that some ideas seem run on the hardware better then others, they get remembered and modified and passed along (like religion and the idea of memes), while others are thrown out as soon as they are heard or seen.

Second, Dawkin's didn't established his career on memes the idea took up only a few pages of The Selfish Gene, a brilliant book you have obviously never read.Dawkin's career is based on being a brilliant scientist, not memes!

Third, to claim that memes don't exist is to really say that ideas, images, and beliefs, don't exist which would include your own idea and belief in god! God damn can't you even see that!

Tom Wolfe is an idiot and his claims are complete misdirection and only other idiots would believe them (which would be a meme!).

Thanks gerry. I know. I think it is time I am done with this. I think it is down to three of us arguing with peter huff - that's pointless. He has not shown any scientific proof, then says we aren't looking at his ideas, or that we are looking at it SKEWED by the scientific group! Duh, of course reality would be skewed towards reality, and faith and mysticism is skewed towards no proof needed, just believe because we told you so. You are right - if he is able to say 2+2 does not equal 4 if his god says so, he is not of this world. He can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help humanity. Really. He can't add to what is right or wrong humanitarian-wise, or what is right or wrong scientifically, since in the bible it is not scientific - even catholicdad way back in the beginning said the bible is not a science text book! At least HE got that part. I am done talking with peter huff.

Beware, he will now say because I have not replied again, I am afraid of his answers or something stupid. So you and everyone else please respond to him for me. I have absolutely no use for someone that stupid.

Timmy, again not an answer, just more mockery. It just goes to show what I have been saying all along. You are at a lost to make sense of what is right and good and true. You position changes like the wind.

Thanks for the chat. I think it is time to move onto a new forum.

Meg,

on the bright side: I sometimes have the suspicion that WAPO (maybe even Sam, lol!) engaged PH to provoke some of the best atheist secular, scientist anti-superstition contributions on the thread. We have to thank Peter for this function!

But you will not succeed to convince him, if the idea mentioned above should be wrong: If his god can achieve EVERYTHING, logically there is nothing left that he can not achieve, like 2x2=5. If his god created his brand of "reason", he is immune to reason!

peter says
"No matter what evidence I gave you, you would reject, unless it was sanctioned by one of your scientific gurus. You have proved that already."

It is amazing how you twist your "world view" to suit your needs. No one is listening to your crap because it is just that. But in order to make yourself feel better, you say "oh, it's some sort of conspiracy against YOU and your theories - that's why we are not listening". No, it is because your THEORY has NO MERIT. Hey, if you were right, people would be listening, wouldn't they? When Einstien had a theory, others tested it, and went OH, that's correct - how brilliant, we'll use it in school. But when you pose a ridiculous, unfounded theory, just because others SAY or HOPE it is true, doesn't make it true, and when scientists look at it and say, Oh, there is nothing there - we cannot reproduce it, I don't see any evidence AT ALL.

You are correct - the scientific community only looks at reality - and if rejecting rubish and medieval stories and looking at only facts make them scientists, then WHAT IS wrong with that! That is what you are SUPPOSED to do. Let me see - let's believe in this because someone TOLD me to.... or,... lets experiment, see what the natural world does, and find out what REALLY is happening - oh, I take reality over hearsay ANY DAY.

Freud is a nutcase? Well, I seem to remember in college Freud making it into the text books, not you.

Oh, your list of scientists that believe in creation? It is pitifully short. And containing gynocologists, physiologists, and a rhumatologist. Of course you are going to get an archaeologist or two who can't shake the shame and guilt that has been shoved on him since childhood. If not, did they still believe in god because they SAW him? So where are the pictures? The writings? WHERE is all this stuff? Without evidence, you have nothing. (oh, you also did not include a list of scientists that were muslim, hindu, or other religion. There are many of those too. Perhaps they are right, and you are wrong?)

I'll say it again - WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOU HAVE NOTHING. There, and in your words, I've won the arguement.

Hello Peter,

I'm sorry, but all I can do is laugh now.
Yours is the most primitive mind I have ever encountered.

If living in a world with a single objective standard for good and bad is imperative to you? You are going to be miserable and frightened for your entire life. You will never know that world.

Oh right, (pause for laughter) the afterlife. (pause for more laughter) (pause for more laughter) Here's hopin. (pause for more laughter.

But here on this earth, in this life, which is the life you have been asking us questions about, your world view will provide you with nothing but frustration. There will never be a christian theocracy ruling the whole world or any one country for that matter. There will always be ambiguity in this world over good and bad.

This objective moral standard you speak of is as fictitious as your god and your bible. Fairy tales all around.

I wish you luck with your quest.

Hi Timmy,

"Where oh where is this objectivity you speak of Peter."

The Word of God - the Bible.

"Before you start talking to us about your objective viewpoint, you need to get all of your christian brothers on the same page. Good luck with that."

Any time you want to challenge the viewpoint I hold, I would invite you to open up the Bible and show me what the words in context actually mean.
Case in point, your citing of Deuteronomy 20:10-18,

I will answer that when I am not so tired.

"In fact, atheism in clearly the better way, because we admit that everything is indeed subjective."

Just as I have been saying all along. You cannot make sense of good, because the definition is different for every person. You cannot tell me that anything is good, all you can do is say I prefer this over this. There is no standard that is objective that you can appeal to. When your pocket gets picked or your family gets tragically killed all it is is your subjective experience. There is no good or bad about it.

"Peter claims that without an objective good and bad, anything goes. Well there is no objective good and bad in my society. And clearly, anything does not go. People go to jail for transgressions against their fellow human that society deems to be wrong."

You still have a moral restrainer in the form of a once Christian society, so there are still many working to uphold the good that God has decreed. Take a look at France during the French Revolution if you want to see what happens when the Christian conscience is silenced. Take a look at Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Sheer brutality.

"Your argument is bankrupt Peter.
3000 christian. sects.
Where's the objectivity Peter?"

The Bible, Timmy, the Bible.

Hi Meg,

"Peter, I have not looked at your video, I actually have been busy watching videos of carl sagan and my favorite, Neil Tyson."

Meg, you keep proving what I have said all along. You are not neutral and the way you look at science is not neutral either. All your favorite evolutionary scientists are just confirming what you so much want to hear and you are deaf to any evidence to the contrary that anyone will offer you. So much for your unbiased opinion.

"If there was a scientist saying evolution is flawed, and it was wrong, it has not made the peer reviewed papers. Instead of the video, show me an accepted peer reviewed journal (a REAL one) that is reviewed by scientists that say the facts are correct, and I might review it."

Evolutionary science gets the scientific funding and controls the politics of science to the extent that anyone who proposes something that does not meet their standard is ridiculed without the evidence being allowed to be heard by the general public. I believe that the tide is slowly turning with books such as "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Slowly the challenge is starting to gain momentum as scientists from all fields raise questions and concerns about Darwinian and evolutionary science.

"I am not afraid to look at controversy – like the one scientist I watched today, he said gaps in evolution aren’t a problem, his exact words were, gaps were WONDERFUL – it gave them something to work towards, to discover."

Again, you ask why these scientific challenges to evolution and Darwinism have not been published in periodicals and scientific journals. For the exact same reason you have listed about, you/they will not listen to anything that rocks their theories. You are afraid.

"Obviously, AGAIN, you still do not know how scientists work!!!! Of course they would LOVE it if someone came out with FACT of how things REALLY happened that was a better theory of what they have now! They are always testing each-others theory – it is not a PERSONAL opinion, only fact wins out in science."

Rubbish.

"Something you would not know, since you are basing this on PERSONAL OPINION, not fact. Where is this mounting evidence you talk about?"

No matter what evidence I gave you, you would reject, unless it was sanctioned by one of your scientific gurus. You have proved that already.

"I have not seen it in Science magazine, scientific American,"

Controlled by evolutionary thinking.

"written about by Dawkins, who by the way I think was voted as TOP evolutionary biologist in England, SO IF THERE WAS A BETTER THEORY TO DARWIN’S EVOLUTION, I think he of all people would know – since it has to do with evolution. Wasn’t that the topic?"

Joel McDurmon, "The Return of the Village Atheist", p.71,72 had this quote from Tom Wolf, "Digibable, Fairy Dust and the Human Annthill, p. 84-86,

Ever-insightful author Tom Wolfe got to the bottom of Dawkin's propaganda theory, which is called "meme" (short for "memory") theory. Dawkins refers to ideas, images, beliefs, etc. as "memes" which are transmitted through humanity based on their fitness to breed. Wolfe ends the charade:

"There turns out to be one serious problem with memes, however. They don't exist. A neurophysiologist can use the most powerful and sophisticated brain imaging now available - and still not find a meme."

So, one of the most publicly revered scientists in the world has established his career on something that cannot scientifically be detected to exist."

End of quote.

So please spare me your Richard Dawkins and Scientific America.

"Did some of those famous quotes hit a nerve? There were a LOT of highly intelligent people saying those quotes. In fact, I think that was one of those quotes – if any man was intelligent, he would be an atheist."

Again, it reveals to me your bias. You pick quotes from a bunch of atheists and agnostics for the most part and tell me how intelligent they are. Let me play at that game too. Take a look at Bible believing scientists,

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/

"Although I must say the quote by Freud was my favorite. It really gets down to the basic fearful psyche of why insecure people need to have a safety net – otherwise their lives mean nothing."

Good pick of a real nut case!

"That is why you keep talking about not knowing what right and wrong is unless a god tells you so."

I know what right and wrong is but you have not demonstrated how you can make sense of right and wrong in an atheist universe. Please do.

"Aren’t you smart enough to know it is wrong to steal?

Apparently not in your mind.

"Didn’t you know that before “god” happened?"

I have news for you. God did not happen. He is eternal. You happened. The reason that you know it is wrong to steal is because you have been created in the image of God.

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law [It was given to Israel by God in the Old Covenant], do by nature things required by the law, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
Romans 2:14-15

Hello Timmy,

Hope you had a good weekend?

Funny how the moral question always seems to get dodged. I keep waiting. I liked your term "the collective group."

Let's try this again. How do you make sense out of "good" when two collective groups oppose each other? Which one is right? The one you are in? Why? What makes you and your collective group right when the other is claiming they are the ones who are right?

Oh yeah, you make up your definition as to what you accept as right. So how do you know your definition is right when others are saying it is wrong? Oh yeah, your feelings and perceptions tell you it is right. What makes your feelings and perceptions right when other individuals and collective groups that are larger have feelings and perceptions that say they are wrong, such as Christians on certain issues?

What happens when a new leadership comes to power that challenges your definition of what right is, and persuades the members of your collective group to go along with its new definition. Are you still right in this case? Do you have to find another group with similar beliefs on what is right? What if you cannot find one?

What gives you the right to say what you believe is right when others are saying it is wrong? What gives them the right? What makes your standard any better than their standard, or visa versa?

As usual, I am waiting for the atheist coalition to make sense out of morals without an absolute standard, which you have denied. Make sense of morals without God.

As for your comments,

"Are you still counting the Muslims as people with the same world view as yourself?"

My point is that there are over two billion people in this world who believe in a monotheistic God. That makes that collective the larges collective in the world as to whether or not God exists. Can they be wrong according to your reasoning? If they can be wrong, how do I know that you are not wrong too? How do I know that anything is right according to your atheistic, evolutionary outlook?

As I said before, without God how do you justify or make sense of Good or right or for that matter, evil?

Peter, I have not looked at your video, I actually have been busy watching videos of carl sagan and my favorite, Neil Tyson. If there was a scientist saying evolution is flawed, and it was wrong, it has not made the peer reviewed papers. Instead of the video, show me an accepted peer reviewed journal (a REAL one) that is reviewed by scientists that say the facts are correct, and I might review it. Frankly, it is like you are telling me “no, really, santa IS really real – you must look at the video”. I am not afraid to look at controversy – like the one scientist I watched today, he said gaps in evolution aren’t a problem, his exact words were, gaps were WONDERFUL – it gave them something to work towards, to discover. The gaps are what make careers, awards, and teaching positions when they find the answers. If you find evidence that OTHER SCIENTISTS say are evidence, then I will look at it. I am not a scientist, so my word does not count. You are not a scientist, so your word doesn’t count either! When the scientific community has reviewed it, let me know.

“Are you afraid to examine the other side, in case your house of cards fold and you are caught underneath it?”

Obviously, AGAIN, you still do not know how scientists work!!!! Of course they would LOVE it if someone came out with FACT of how things REALLY happened that was a better theory of what they have now! They are always testing each-others theory – it is not a PERSONAL opinion, only fact wins out in science. Something you would not know, since you are basing this on PERSONAL OPINION, not fact. Where is this mounting evidence you talk about? I have not seen it in Science magazine, scientific American, written about by Dawkins, who by the way I think was voted as TOP evolutionary biologist in England, SO IF THERE WAS A BETTER THEORY TO DARWIN’S EVOLUTION, I think he of all people would know – since it has to do with evolution. Wasn’t that the topic? Check out his web site. I have not seen your theory on it. Also, your theory keeps getting turned down in courts. I get email updates on EVERY defeat the religious groups have in court. It really is quite satisfying.

Did some of those famous quotes hit a nerve? There were a LOT of highly intelligent people saying those quotes. In fact, I think that was one of those quotes – if any man was intelligent, he would be an atheist. Although I must say the quote by Freud was my favorite. It really gets down to the basic fearful psyche of why insecure people need to have a safety net – otherwise their lives mean nothing. That is why you keep talking about not knowing what right and wrong is unless a god tells you so. Really, you should be able to figure that out yourself, don’t you think? Aren’t you smart enough to know it is wrong to steal? Didn’t you know that before “god” happened?

Meg, any comments to the video? How objective are you in the way you look at evidence? Do you think you have any bias at all? Have you even examined why many scientists are questioning Darwinian evolution and the growing evidence against it? Are you afraid to examine the other side, in case your house of cards fold and you are caught underneath it?

It is quite laughable that Peter Huff tells us that the reason to believe in god is because it is the only objective way to know good and bad. Over 3000 christian sects. Over 3000 different interpretations of god. Some think that worshiping the virgin Mary is good. Some think that is bad. Some think certain bible verses are literal. Some think that they are allegorical. Some think that god loves gays. Some think gay is bad.

Where oh where is this objectivity you speak of Peter.
Before you start talking to us about your objective viewpoint, you need to get all of your christian brothers on the same page. Good luck with that.

In fact, atheism in clearly the better way, because we admit that everything is indeed subjective. Oh the hundreds of millions of dead, enslaved and tortured people over the claim that one group of people's objective view is right while others is wrong.

Peter claims that without an objective good and bad, anything goes. Well there is no objective good and bad in my society. And clearly, anything does not go. People go to jail for transgressions against their fellow human that society deems to be wrong.

Your argument is bankrupt Peter.
3000 christian. sects.
Where's the objectivity Peter?

Since peter likes to quote the bible, I thought I'd throw these out for him to ponder. Peter, see if you can refute some of the best minds in history. (The last one is the best.)

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
Thomas Jefferson

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D. Cardi
John Adams, 2nd president.

"Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea."
Mark Twain

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Einstien

-And this next quote is long, but very good at pointing out why peter is stuck in infantile denial. From Sigmund Freud:

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

"In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable."

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."

"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind." A History of God
Sigmund Freud

peter, you say

"When I look up into the sky on a clear night one of the first configurations I see is the constellation called Orions Belt of which I make the cross out. In the southern hemisphere it is the Southern Cross."

As you know, (hopefully) our minds are evolutionarily programmed to try and recognize faces and objects. (Those that couldn't recognize an enemy or dangerous animal got eaten - and did not pass on their genes - basic 2nd grade biology here) so using the star formation means nothing. You do know that in the beginning of humanity those stars were in a different formation? At the begining of our planet, they were in another formation? We saw a "face" on the surface of mars. Further photos then just showed rocks. Our brains try to put identity to random patterns. Just because your brain sees a pattern in stars that aren't anywhere near eachother does not represent a cross. Sagan meant a whole cross - all in one piece. Those stars are not all together, but at many, different levels.

I am sure there are people that can see the face of the devil in there - does that mean satan put it there, and is talking to them? Is satan controlling the other half of the stars?

In the beginning of a human life, a child cannot discern between reality and imagination - its brain simply isn't equipped for it. On the other hand, a child has the comforting feeling, generally speaking, of being protected by his/her parents, a certainty of security.

Thus, the desire for security on one side and the world of imagination, dream, fairy tale, in short: belief in the unreal on the other side unite into a feeling, into a "world-view" which desperately clings to the child's avoidance of reality in order to keep the "guarantee" of security ("eternal life"). Believing in the "supernatural" (as if nature wouldn't be mysterious enough!) is infantile regression pure. And the bible admits it: "If you don't become like children..."

Now, people would do anything, really anything, kill, lie, fantasize, start wars of aggression (Crusaders, Mohamed, 9/11, Robertson, Hagee, Bush, etc. etc.) to defend this marvelously delusional feeling of security. Sometimes, people even change from one brand of superstition to another one (converts, as we have some outstanding examples on these threads), to potentiate their creed in the non-existent: The German would-be bombers two weeks ago were native German islamist converts.

Species have vanished, and there is no guarantee for us either: It may well be, that the intellectual perversion of religious humanity, together with its infinite power of self-destruction, will bring it to an end. It would be a final deadly proof that Darwin was right (survival of the fittest. We were not fit). Sam Harris, Dr. Dawkin and others, thank you for your optimism that this will not happen if we fight for reason, insight into reality, against superstition. That is what I would like to call human dignity. The first article of the German constitution is: The dignity of man is sacrosanct (unantastbar). A lesson the Germans learned after Hitler.

Thank you Sam for your efforts in helping people understand the irrationality of believing in an unproven, unprovable sky god. The concept of a God is just a theory, invented many moons ago to reassure the frightened and the ignorant and to try and explain what was at that time, the unexplainable.

Religion unfortunately became a means of extortion, of controlling the masses and creating enormous fear and wealth.

If any God exists he is a callous indifferent one not worthy of any form of acknowledgment, let alone worship; one who permits the slaughter and brutalisation of the innocent, the aged and the infirm and who does naught to prevent or intervene in that cruelty.

How can that God be a God of love, if he stands idly by whilst people of different faiths try their utmost to obliterate each other and everything in this world?

Mother Theresa said in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize that the biggest impediment to World peace was abortion. She was gravely mistaken; there are many impediments to World peace and none more than religion and belief systems which await the emergence of the second coming of Jesus Christ through the clouds like some avenging angel and who refute the right of women to control their own fertility.

Jesus if he ever existed was created just like any other human being; from the union of a man and a woman; sorry, no divine intervention there.

His speciality was promoting a way of living by suggesting people live their lives by treating all as we would like to be treated. Sadly a few men with furtive imaginations and the desire to embellish compiled books which to this day are taken literally and which cause enormous harm to many.

Meg, a couple of comments on your last post in which you quoted Sagan,

"Or why not a hundred- kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit?… Why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?"

Funnily enough, I was born in the southern hemisphere and live there for part of my life. Both there and here in Canada I am always reminded of the cross and work of Jesus at Calvary. When I look up into the sky on a clear night one of the first configurations I see is the constellation called Orions Belt of which I make the cross out. In the southern hemisphere it is the Southern Cross.

As for the other evidences, they are countless, from the complexity in the microscopic life to the vastness of space. It is all in how you look at it.

Meg, thanks for the post. Here is something for you as a scientist, if you are open to a challenge,

http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/8547.rm

Hi Lindajean,

Thank you for your kind words.

I was honest with you as to your questions. I was hoping you were honestly inquiring too. God has a way of humbling the arrogant, but also a compassion for the poor of spirit and those who recognize their need for a Savior, through His grace and mercy. It is up to Him on whether He gives you the grace to see the truth. But, I know that unless you receive the kingdom of God like a little child you will never enter it. (Mark 10:15)

I did not come onto this forum expecting to convince anyone of the true of Christianity. I entered this discussion to show the futility of a life without God, of explaining how you can arrive at a standard for good or truth without Him. So far I have not seen anyone make any sense of "good" who holds to an atheistic worldview. All I see is people who resent it when their position is challenged, people who avoid the challenging questions and call me juvenile because I am a Christian.

I am not foolish enough to think that you or any of these other human beings are neutral in your thinking. None of us are. We all come with our presuppositions to the table of life. On each meal we build on those presuppositions the foundation for our thinking. Only God can make sense out of the otherwise meaninglessness of it all. But don't look for justice without God; you will not find any. Justice requires an objective standard. All you will find is someone pushing their own agenda and trying to get you to believe in it, including the wise Sam Harris. There is a war going on and it is a battle for your heart and soul. Call me delusional, but before you do make sense out of your standard for good and truth.

Here is a something for you to listen to if your mind is open to it,

http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6471FroBigBanIrr.rm

I thought it relevant to include this quote from carl sagan's new book, in the form of a review from scientific american. Pertaining to proof of a god.

peter, these thoughts are from scientists. You are alone on this. I have never heard of someone getting the nobel prize for NOT believing in something - of not doing anything because god created it, therefore no more thought - it does not better humanity, it does not further our knowledge of the world. Please read on.

From Scientific American
Sagan, writing from beyond the grave (actually his new book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, is an edited version of his 1985 Gifford Lectures), asks why, if God created the universe, he left the evidence so scant. He might have embedded Maxwell's equations in Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Ten Commandments might have been engraved on the moon. "Or why not a hundred- kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit?… Why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?" He laments what he calls a "retreat from Copernicus," a loss of nerve, an emotional regression to the idea that humanity must occupy center stage. Both Gingerich and Collins, along with most every reconciler of science and religion, invoke the anthropic principle: that the values of certain physical constants such as the charge of the electron appear to be "fine-tuned" to produce a universe hospitable to the rise of conscious, worshipful life. But the universe is not all that hospitable-try leaving Earth without a space suit. Life took billions of years to take root on this planet, and it is an open question whether it made it anywhere else. To us carboniferous creatures, the dials may seem miraculously tweaked, but different physical laws might have led to universes harboring equally awe-filled forms of energy, cooking up anthropic arguments of their own.

George Johnson

peter, you said
[So far they have not been able to explain ~ how they make sense of "good."]

This was never about HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR NOT. I have heard about religious people doing AWFUL things, like priests doing things to boys. And I have heard of non-religious people doing wonderful, helpful charitable things. RELIGION AND GOD OBVIOUSLY were not in the picture. Especially if it is the religious doing the bad things.

THE POINT of the discussion was whether god was real or not, and if there was concrete proof of him, which there was not. Deciding what is good IS A MOOT POINT. I think all of the mafia who killed were actually catholic, and went to confession - ironic, huh?

another anonymous #2: That's where the innovation comes in. Probably wildly different prayers :)

I believe I had the wrong Peter. Our Peter wouldn't lie.

Hello Anonymous,

No I am not that Peter A. Huff, nor am I American. I was born on the dark continent. That may explain to Meg, Timmy and Gerry why I am on a lower level of advancement, evolutionarily speaking. I'm next in line from the common slug. We share about 90% of the same characteristics.

I spent my days along the Zambezi River with my cousins, the baboons. My hope is that my offspring will one day advance to the monkey stage. It looks like a riot!

My hobbies include slow crawls along the hundred centimeter path under the rain canopy created from the mist of the Victoria Falls. I spend my evenings under a rock or responding to the most advanced village atheists. So far they have not been able to explain to a sluggard (the more advanced form of slug, at least as it fits my definition) how they make sense of "good."

I am honored that you would include me is such noble company. Sorry to disappoint you.

wow,

"marries rejection of modernity"

If he rejects modern things, I sure hope he does not try to go to a hospital when he is sick - since most things that could help him would be from MODERN SCIENCE. Even the flu shot shouldn't be taken - the people who formulate it do so with EVOLUTION of the virus in mind. If evolution is not real, then the virus shot must be bogus!

But this sounds like him: "in the words of the theologian, Peter Huff, from Centenary College, Lousiana: “the future of inter-religious dialogue means being able to integrate fundamentalist movements”.
In Huff’s view, fundamentalism, perceived as the reclaiming of the fundamental values of religion and traditions, marries rejection of modernity and innovation and, as such, has a unique character."
http://www.barcelona2004.org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?IdDoc=1490

anonymous- I don't think so. That would imply education. How would he have gotten so far without a basic knowledge and UNDERSTANDING of science?

I thought we were dealing with a 16 year old, or so.

Peter, Is this you???

PETER A. HUFF
T. L. James Associate Professor of Religious Studies
Chair, Department of Religious Studies Centenary College of Louisiana
* Ph.D. in Historical Theology 1994
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, Missouri
* Dissertation: “Trace of the Fugitive Gods: Allen Tate and the Catholic Revival”
Director: Belden C. Lane
* Graduate Study in Religious Studies 1985-87
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana

While looking at some myspace comments, I came across this quote - it is SO appropriate with our ridiculous discussions with peter;

Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
~Carl Sagan

PeterHuff:

Thank you for taking the time (to attempt) to answer my questions from last week. I have been occupied with work and only today find myself able to catch up with your posts.

Your ability to spin scripture and quote passages is a true art form and indicates somewhere deep inside of you is a hidden talent intertwined with your obvious intelligence.

Be that as it may, I have not been inundated and propagandized with this degree and magnitude of Biblical orthodoxy since attending Bible study in 7th grade (many years ago.) And to be frank, it has induced a headache and left me exacerbated. (This is not uncommon when attempting to “reason” with religiously minded individuals. I don’t want to insult you but it is analogous to reasoning with a small child and about as futile.)

However you choose to toss the coin, your intelligence, your talent, your knowledge of scripture is lacking any rational ability to dialogue with me (and others on this thread as well.) You begin quite honestly saying in response to my inquiries that they are “difficult questions.” They are indeed! And perhaps they are best left for the philosophers, scientists and lawmakers of our day to contemplate. But can we agree with this point: we are fortunate to live in a society whose laws do not judge the “sins” (through punishment and incarceration) of those who are unable to make rational judgments about life for themselves.

Science, through the study of the brain, readily acknowledges a 5 year old, a 12 year old, a 19 year old, a mentally retarded individual and the mentally insane are often not able to reason and understand the consequences of their actions. Brain scans show children, adolescents and even older teens (including those in their early 20’s) lack the ability to reason qualitatively as mature adults do. That their brains are different from the “normal” adult brain is the exact reason why they are unable to perform the complex cognitive thinking and reasoning skills (most) adults have mastered. There is a reason we do not lock up 15 year olds who commit murder (“sin” in your words) for life in prison; ditto the MR and insane. To do so is considered “cruel and unusual punishment” because we believe in a civilized society the “punishment should fit the crime” or “the punishment should reflect the reasoning abilities of the perpetrator.” According to you, I see no evidence of your God adhering to this dictum.

When I recall my own youth, I was romanced by various indiscretions, which today as an adult, if I acted on them at this age, would leave me wondering if I was indeed sane. Yet, I have matured into adulthood rather gracefully, am competent, hard working and perform the required duties of any civic-minded individual. Ought I be judged for these juvenile choices and rot in hell for my part in them? Science indicates I was not “thinking straight” so can I justly be punished for said choices?

(This does not ignore the fact that “sin” is a factor in our world. I prefer to call it “evil.” Evil is the abuse of power one individual or group of individuals exert over others—usually contingent on greed, ignorance, and arrogance. For example, child abuse is evil. Genocide is evil. Murder is evil (but self-defense is not). War (can be evil but not always. The war in Darfur is evil. Hitler’s war was evil. The Iraq War-- I think is evil but others disagree…). Poverty is usually based on evil. Female genital mutilation is evil. Stoning an adulteress is evil. Slavery is evil. Child labor is evil. Suicide bombers are evil. 9-11 was evil. But hurricanes are not “evil”---they are natural disasters. (Natural disasters are horrific when people die and suffer, but are not caused by man’s arrogance, greed or abuse.) Ditto with earthquakes, tornados, floods, etc…

If your God is going to “punish” a 12 year old for “sinning” (stealing money from his mother’s purse) your God does not understand the brain functions of a 12 year old (at least not as well as scientist do.) Likewise, your God who would send an unmarried teenager to hell for getting pregnant is a God that does not understand this person’s lack of ability to effectively comprehend the results and consequences of her actions.

Your God sends people to hell because their brains are not equipped to understand “sinful” actions? A schizophrenic (who forgot to take her medicine) and acts out violently by stabbing her mother will be condemned to Hell by your God. That the chemical imbalance in her brain is responsible for her actions, actions that would be quelled by the correct amount of medicine, is irrelevant to your God.

This vengeance by your God speaks of its own kind of madness and insanity. Is it possible your God actually is insane—or is he just sadistic and cruel?

When you state, “I can only speculate on something the Bible does not tell me one way or the other unless it is inferred” belies my exact point. Christians are indeed reduced to “speculate” about and infer the meaning of the Bible when confronting issues in the 21st Century, therefore what credence can we give such a book as we face crucial issues in our world? Any speculation about the Bible, including your speculation, my neighbor’s speculation, my Congressman’s speculation, my employer’s speculation, my priest’s speculation, my parents’ speculation, my spouse’s speculation, the jury’s speculation, the President’s speculation, an author’s speculation, my doctor’s speculation all become rather meaningless and arbitrary when we are faced with grave and numerous problems in our world today? And if my speculation (of the Bible) is different than all of the above, then whose speculation is the “correct” one?

Speculation---whether it originates in your God’s word or from my nephew’s favorite video game--- is guesswork and a method of contorting what one “believes” is true into a “truism” --- and when convenient and the cards are stacked in your advantage will be dutifully blessed by your God.

Speculation is not inquiry, analyzing, synthesizing and questioning. This is what reasonable, rational and critical thinking skills do under the name of science and modern civilization. (The video game may be entertaining, but it does not have the qualities necessary to solve societal problems.)

As Sam Harris has stated about the Bible: There are diamonds among the dunghill. Your Bible has some beautiful passages of poetry, metaphor and prose. Let’s just accept it for what it is. A literary and dramatic work of ancient times, with some myth thrown in for special effects.

Tim B: I liked your short post on 9/11. “Allegiance” is appropriate. And missing the Atheist Conference will be like missing the first day of spring after a long, cold winter.

Martin Larios: As Meg addressed, you are on the correct page regarding Sam Harris. That he can “tell it like no other can” is absolutely right. I would only add “or will” to the end of your phrase. That he has the motivation and fortitude to go against an incredible tide of animosity, tradition and orthodoxy speaks volumes about his courage and grace.

gerry, oh I love that quote! I had not heard that one. Thanks.

Meg,

don't forget: Even Peter is a voter! Democracy, unfortunately, is, ideally seen, at best a statistical phenomenon. We have to put up with it.

I don't intend to convince anybody personally that he chases a chimera - it may be impossible. But I am here, like you, to show that there are atheists, many of them, educated, thinking, reasoning, open-minded, but opposed to superstition and Middle Ages and bronze age mulling, ready to take up the spiritual fight against bigotry.

The present state of human evolution is one of the stimuli which cause me at least to hope for further evolution.

To quote Einstein once more: "There are only two phenomena which are infinite - the universe and stupidity, and I am not so sure about the universe."

It's pretty scary when you see the argument of religious nut-jobs and you realize that based on their argument, they wouldn't know that murder was a bad thing without the word of the bible telling them so. It's pretty telling.

Imagine if the only thing stopping you from murdering and stealing was the word of the bible. You would then think that the only thing stopping others from murdering and stealing from you is the bible. No wonder they are so frightened by the new atheist movement. If religion goes away, everyone will just be murdering and stealing all over the place. And not in the name of god. Can't have that.

to peter - “I'm just trying to understand your evolutionary thinking, asking how can you justify your position.”

Peter, try and think. I am not justifying my world view. There is no “world view”. There is reality, and then there are “stories”. Some “stories” might be true (harod the great) and others might be imaginary (noah and a world flood). That is not a world view. It is reality (like gravity) or imaginary (like astrology).

{"If you are trying say Christianity has won because of evolutionary strengths (wait a minute – I thought you didn’t believe in evolution?) then it should have been around much longer."
“Come on Meg, let's get real. You are not reading the authors intent, because you are skipping the context.”}

Peter, stop misdirecting the topic. You said Christianity won, survival of the fittest, therefore you won the argument. YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU GOT IT WRONG.

(Why would I believe in evolution when God has clearly revealed that the earth is not billions of years old and what good is?)

Peter, that statement right there shows that you are uneducated. If you cannot follow basic science, then you have no logic, knowledge, or common sense at all. What did you tell you high school biology teachers, physics teachers, chemistry teachers? All those classes, all that knowledge – did you tell them you didn’t believe in any of it because god created the atom?
I am all about education and teaching people – you are all about un-educating people and not looking at reality. I hope I never, ever, ever meet you in real life because you are really stupid. I’m sorry for the insult, but you are ridiculous. 4th graders have more scientific knowledge than you do.

As I stated Peter, there is no christian government anywhere in the world. Because the collective has indeed asserted it's voice, and the collective voice said "secular democracy please. Through the entire western world.

It seems that some of your fellow christians are traitors. They must have voted for secular democracy over gods rules.

It's not about numbers on a census form Peter. That number includes children who's parents wrote down "christian" or "muslim" for them. That number includes people who write down the religion of their parents on census forms without giving much thought to what they really believe. The collective that is deciding things in the western world is much stronger than your group Peter.

You really don't want it to be about numbers Peter.
Because statistics show that the number of muslims in the world will very soon surpass christians. Then what?

The collective is society Peter. Not religious demographics.
Besides, we all know how both of those religions got so wide spread. It wasn't by popular demand. Conquering wars and dictatorship. Millennia of there being no difference between the church and the state. Pope emperors decrying national religions etc. Not because everyone believes that rubbish in the bible. That is why democracy is slowly destroying religion. That is why the middle east is so angry at us.

Afternoon Meg,

"peter, you say “Am I not using evolutionary principles when I state the the fittest are the ones that survive?"

Are the fittest the ones that survive in your worldview? Do not the weaker strains eventually get eliminated from the gene pool?

"Peter, you need to think beyond your small area of the world, and of time."

I'm just trying to understand your evolutionary thinking, asking how can you justify your position. In evolutionary principle are not the currently most evolved the ones who are most favored and adapted for their environment? So why would I need to include all the strains that have been around since time itself? Since the collective group (I love that term) that is presently in control determines what the "good" is, why should I include all the collective groups that have at one time existed and that do not exist today? Those one time collective groups have been weeded out by the more evolved collective group.

"If you are trying say Christianity has won because of evolutionary strengths (wait a minute – I thought you didn’t believe in evolution?) then it should have been around much longer."

Come on Meg, let's get real. You are not reading the authors intent, because you are skipping the context. I am using your evolutionary logic to look at the problem of right and wrong from your perspective in explaining right and wrong. (Why would I believe in evolution when God has clearly revealed that the earth is not billions of years old and what good is?) Timmy, Gerry and you have all said that "good" and "right" are determined by the collective group. Since the collective group is evolving its definition of right and good (and since only the fittest survive), then what makes your collective group (atheism is a small minority) the ones who determine what right and good is? Why are you pushing your small minority view when the bigger majority have already determined that you are wrong? Christianity is the biggest single collective group on the planet. There are more professing Christians than there are professing atheists or Muslims.

I'm just pushing your logic to where it is actually going, nowhere. You can't establish right and wrong, but only your preference as opposed to those of another.

Each collective group in your worldview, has its own standard. How do you determine that your standard is better than an opposing standard? You would have to do it by sheer numbers and by force or friendly manipulation.

When you say,

"Hominids have been around for 6 million years. I guess religion could have started with the advent of cave wall paintings. Others help me on the exact date on that. If we are talking at least 30,000 years ago, Christianity at only 2000 years old is SUCH a minority statistically! It is like comparing the changes on our bodies, extremities, to the appendix."

Well according to evolutionary theory the strong weed out the weak, so the dominate group must be the one that is the most capable of survival and adaption, therefore the ones who determine the standard for good.

The point being that your evolutionary standard for "good" is always changing.

"Actually, peter, you show your ignorance to evolution. Yes, usually the stronger survive. But there are also traits that survive that might not have any advantage. I notice a trait of back pain is awful, or pain in general – but as long as that trait does not prevent us from reproducing, we can reproduce the gene for poor spine health –"

Are you saying that the Christian definition of good is one of those traits that has survived, that is a weakness, that is preventing us from changing our definition of good? How do you determine which traits are the ones that are weaker? Is it just, as always, by your subjective opinion and preference?

You still have the problem that I have been on about since I started these posts. Why is your standard the standard that I should accept in an ever evolving world where what was perceived as good at one time is now perceived as bad? How can you determine that your perception of "good" will still be the perceived "good" in ten years from now? So how do you determine morals? One collective group determines good is the opposite of another collective group. Which group rightly perceives what good is?

How can rape and murder be good? If you do not condone in your culture or collective group, then you have no recourse when a collective group that practices these opposite ethics practices them on your family and your collective group. A good example that hit your homeland was 9/11. Some estimates are that there are over one hundred million Muslim extremest. That is an awful lot of persuading power for you to see "good" the same way they see "good."

As I continue to say, you cannot make sense of ethics without an absolute standard of right and wrong, which is just another proof for the existence of God. Don't tell me what is good without an absolute standard, just tell me what your preference is, and don't expect any justice because justice has to recognize a standard that does not change and that is always right.

"You really are missing out on things going on around you by refusing to look at reality. What a shame."

God is the Maker of reality and He determines what is true.

Peter Huff,

2x2=x

Substitute any number for x, provided you believe in god, since he created math.

Martin Larios writes:
Sam Harris is, in my opinion, the most eloquent living writer

I am glad to see others saying the same thing. WAY WAY back at the begining of this blog, I said the same thing - something about this being the most intelligent article I have read. I was responded by "meg, if you think that dribble was intelligent, you couldn't even make it on "who's smarter than a 5th grader". I must have made someone upset. It is interesting when a religious person says something "mysterious", we usually say, oh, that can't be true, it breaks all the laws of nature. They then come back and call us stupid and unmoral, and try and insult us any way possible. They really are threatened with the possibility that they are wrong, and have wasted all their time on an untruth.

My wife and I, when we just had dinner, tried a "game". Who can bring up a question, statement or argument that Peter could not counter with his infantile belief.

In this game, my wife was the atheist, I was Peter.
Some of the questions:

Can god travel faster than light?
Can god think of a task he cannot solve?
Can god lie?
Can god correct a word he has said in the bible?
Can god travel in two opposite directions simultaneously?
etc.

I (Peter!) won!

Seriously: Once you give up reason, there is nothing that can be disproved anymore. The word "impossible" has disappeared from one's vocabulary.

Peter Huff = Harry Potter. Feels good!

Sam Harris is, in my opinion, the most eloquent living writer rising his voice in defense of reason and against the corrosive effect on society of unfounded beliefs doggedly held for the material benefit of the hierarchies of all religions.
Given however that the present mainstream religions have laboured tenaciously for two thousand years to perpetrate their falsehoods upon the weak of mind and the prone-to-self-deception members of the human race, and given further that even as we write today, their forces are engaged worldwide in a tenaceous fight for their very livehood, I also believe that it is going to take many Sam Harrises and Richard Dawkins to bring reality to a world hell bent on self deception and which is racing to self destruction on the wheels of religious unreason and pig headed dogmatism.
A frontal attack on religion has never worked before; perhaps an appeal to a logical thought process, an invitation to the faithful to ask, and answer to themselves, the many unanswerable question posed by their beliefs and the numerous inconsistencies in the writen books which foment such beliefs, might meet with some success.
It is a sobering thought, that if all religions now afflicting the world population were to disappear over a twenty four hour period, after which period the only thoughts replacing religion's ideas in our minds were a preocupation with the betterment of and attention to human conditions everywhere, the world would become overnight, perhaps for the first time in history, a much better place to live.
The fight against religious muddleheadness has just begun, we have a long way to go before this venum poisoning the human brain will be eradicated; keep up the good work Mr. Harris, you tell it like no other can.

Peter,

Are muslims going to hell?
How about Jews. (They killed Jesus)

Are these people in your group, or ar you an extreme minority?

Peter,

Not one word of what you said in response too the things that I asked you to make sense of makes any sense whatsoever to me. Nor do I believe a word of it.

Ar you still counting the muslims as people with the same world view as yourself? Are you thinking of moving to the middle east?

You asked for my reference to God calling on the jews to kill the babies and rape the women of their enemy.

Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

What a sick sick religion.
Is it any wonder as to why it has caused such horror in the world.
Divisive tribalism at it's finest.

Hey Gerry,

"So you think the sun revolves around the earth."

No, but it can appear that way to the naked eye. We expect to see it rise above the horizon every morning in the east and disappear every night below the horizon in the west.

As for Joshua's long day, I believe that the Almighty is capable of doing the supernatural. Your concept of God is limited and you cannot think outside your box.

"Do you know what gravity is?"

Yes. I also know the God who created gravity.

"And god can name all the stars, black holes, nebula, evolving galaxies with billions and billion of fledgling stars through the course of billions of years!"

What is impossible for an infinite mind to do?

As usual, no answers from the atheist coalition.

Timmy, Gerry, even a priest or minister would call peter crazy. He is not worth our time - even the religious leaders try and have some intelligence! I have spoken to many priests, and they are normal. This guy is not. Wow, does he really think the world stopped for a day because it says so in the bible? It seems that we are much happier, and more comfortable with our knowledge of reality, then he is with his bible rules. I couldn't imagine not being able to think for myself. How unfulfilling to live a life of beliefs and the god doesn't even speak to you or show himself to you, even with all that blind faith. I would find that very frustrating. (and not worthy of my faith.)

Here we go Timmy,

"As for making sense of things.
Why did the tsunami happen?"

Because God decreed it should happen. It accomplished the purpose for which He sent it, what ever that purpose may be, whether judgment or so that some good will come out of it I can only speculate at this present time. Probably both.

"Why did the New Orleans flood happen?"

Same answer.

"Why does AIDS exist?"

God's judgment on sexual immorality. Unfortunately, when man disregards what God has said the consequences are overflowing.

"Why does cancer exist."

It is a curse that God put in place upon the earth to accomplish His good plan of redemption as well as remind us of the consequences of the original sin and of disobedience to our Creator. We are needy and tragedy and disease are two ways of making us realize it. If there was no trouble in life you and I would take for granted all the Creator has given us.

"Why does a christian mother drown her children?"

There could be any number of reasons. One, she is only professing and does not take God at His Word that no murderer will inherit the kingdom of heaven, or two, because of her fallen sinful nature, in which she has not been perfected from yet in that her old nature has not been eradicated and it is constantly battling with her new nature. In a moment of weakness she gives way to the old nature. The apostle Paul was critical of the Corinthian Church, for one, because they were still practicing sin and did not understand the scope of the profession they had made.

"Why do priests molest little boys?"

Because they are sick and ignore God's warning in the Bible.

"Why did god tell the jews to kill the babies of their enemy and rape their women?"

Please give me the reference so I can look at the context.

"Why was slavery ever acceptable to god?"

Many reasons, one being an object lesson on submission and dependency upon another (i.e. God). Another being the type of slavery is not the same as that which is practiced by many other nations. There were many different circumstances for slavery. I can get into it if you want to? That will require a post within itself.

"If god is timeless, why are the morals in the bible not timeless?"

Give me an example of one that is not. God does not change in character. He always does what is right and good. There are circumstances in which
He sets conditions for a people to follow that, if broken, have consequences. Genesis 2:15-17; Deuteronomy 28, John 14:6; Acts 4:12 and so on throughout, but the consequences are only enacted once the conditions have been broken.

"Why does a supposedly all loving god allow such confusion about him to cause such massive world-wide misery?"

He permits His creatures to live as though there were no god to show the foolishness of trying to live without God and also the consequences. It also is a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to Him in the Garden where He stipulated what they were free to do and not to do. When they disobeyed He put the consequences into effect, just as He had warned them He would do. It is a precarious thing not to take God on His Word.

Also, Satan is at work in spreading lies about God. As he deceived Eve in the garden so he is about deceiving whoever he can because of his hatred towards God.

"Why did god create gay people?"

He set boundaries that people who reject Him cross. "They did not think it was worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" therefore "He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:28) When you become your own god, determining right from wrong according to your own subjective standard, anything goes.

"Why did god only talk to people of ancient times?"

Did you mean audibly? Because He is sovereign and that is the way He chose to reveal Himself. Today He has chosen to reveal Himself by His Word, which He has preserved for us.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and by whom He made the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

The term "last days" there can refer to the coming judgment and could be speaking of finality. There is no need for another to reveal who God is and what He is like. That has been done in Christ Jesus completely for the very next verse says,

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word." (vs 3)

He is the genuine God who has taken upon Himself humanity.

"Why does god need us to believe in him without evidence?"

That is just the point, He has left us abundant evidence. You, as an atheist just fail to recognize it. God also does not need anything from you or me for He is self sufficient. He does not need us to believe, but He has granted for some that they will for His glory and praise.

"Why faith?"

Because God is Spirit and we cannot see Spirit. Because that is the way God requires, for now, that we worship Him. He wants us to take Him at His Word for He does not lie.

"Why is it a virtue to believe what priests tell you without question?"

I don't believe what priests tell me without question and I am not RC. I believe that Reformed theology is Biblical theology. I have God's very word that He has preserved so that I can know Him and about His plan of salvation. It is simple enough that a child can understand it and yet so profound that I can spend my life time and still not fathom the depths of its richness.

"Why did god give us skepticism and expect us to over ride this necessary survival instinct and believe in ancient literature?"

For His glory and purpose and because you have a volition to the first part of the question. Because of the original sin you are going to die. God just traces His interactions with mankind from the beginning and man's rebellion against God because man wants the control. That is a result of the original sin.

"Why is Paris Hilton a star?"

Because people are looking for something to believe in and riches is enticing and something that people admire. Because humans have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Because people are willing to invest in what she is selling.

By the way Peter,

You asked why I call myself an atheist.
I don't actually.
I call myself an anti-theist.
The difference being that an atheist can wish it were true.

Hello Peter,

Do you worship Mohammed?
Is his word the final word of the one true god?

If you do not believe this, then why are you trying to bolster your numbers by including muslims in your world view group? Are you kidding me?

We currently live in a secular democracy, as does the entire western world. It would seem that the collective does not look to god for everything as you do.

Why don't you live in Iran Peter?
Or better yet Mecca.
It's the same god right?
You included those people in your world view group right?
Only in Mecca, everyone believes in god and bows down to him 5 times a day. Sounds like paradise for someone with such a common world view as christians. I can't believe you didn't move there years ago. They have it right. God is the way. Why live in a secular democracy?

Do you really include muslims in your group Peter?

How objective is gods word when there are a million different versions of it. Christianity alone has more than 3000 different sects. How objective is that Peter????

You want to talk about "little bitty collectives"?
How about the number of christians who believe in the exact same interpretation of the bible as you.
Now that's a "little bitty collective".

You really have become a ranting lunatic Peter.
You claim to be able to make sense of the world but nothing you say makes a lick of sense to anyone else on this thread.

peter says
“You believe in nothing, do you Meg, or should
I say you are without belief? Then what is your foundation to say there is no God? How can you say my belief in God is incorrect when you don't have a belief to contrast God to???? What can you compare my belief too, to say that it is untrue???”

Peter, you really are confused, aren’t you? You say how can I when I don’t have a BELIEF TO CONTRAST god TO? What even do you mean by that? You are so stuck in your pretend world, because it makes you feel better, that you can’t conceive of “not”.

Listen carefully - I don’t have to HAVE a belief to contrast. I don’t have a contrasting opinion as to unicorns. *They just aren’t.* What do I think is up in the sky/heavens? I think there is space. I know there is space. I know there are planets, stars, and VACUUM. These are facts. The astronauts have not seen a god floating by. NO ONE has actually “talked” to god – don’t you realize that? Sure, some people say they did, but isn’t it convenient that it always happens in private? That was the whole point of this article – MT did not get an answer back from god, no matter how much she prayed and talked to god. NO ONE HAS SEEN A GOD, TALKED TO ONE, ACTUALLY GOTTEN A WRITTEN DOCUMENT DIRECTLY FROM GOD. That is why I don’t see a reason to believe in one – it just doesn’t make sense. It is not there, except in the minds of those who pretend it is. I can pretend about a lot of things - but I have better things to do.

peter, you say “Am I not using evolutionary principles when I state the the fittest are the ones that survive? In that case Christianity has 1.5-2 billion adherents. On that logic alone I win my case. Or are you the new mutant strain that is twice as strong as the old strains, and it is only a matter of time before your strain is the majority?”

Forgive me, others, if you have answered. I am going through these posts one at a time.

Peter, you need to think beyond your small area of the world, and of time. If you are trying say Christianity has won because of evolutionary strengths (wait a minute – I thought you didn’t believe in evolution?) then it should have been around much longer. Actually, it is A MINORITY. So no, you have NOT won your case. Hominids have been around for 6 million years. I guess religion could have started with the advent of cave wall paintings. Others help me on the exact date on that. If we are talking at least 30,000 years ago, Christianity at only 2000 years old is SUCH a minority statistically! It is like comparing the changes on our bodies, extremities, to the appendix.

Actually, peter, you show your ignorance to evolution. Yes, usually the stronger survive. But there are also traits that survive that might not have any advantage. I notice a trait of back pain is awful, or pain in general – but as long as that trait does not prevent us from reproducing, we can reproduce the gene for poor spine health – especially if these things happen after age 50. I could go on and on about evolution, it is so fascinating. You really are missing out on things going on around you by refusing to look at reality. What a shame.

Hey Timmy,

Thanks for the quiz. I will get to it after I answer your other comments.

"First off, let's get some numbers straight.
1. There are more people in this world who do not believe in your god than those who do."

According to the last poles I looked at, people professing Christianity still make up the biggest group of believer's of one worldview, so therefore, according to your logic "the collective" determines right and wrong, so therefore, at this point in time Timmy you are wrong. Hear that, you are wrong my friend. That is according to your evolutionary worldview.

Second, there are more people that believe in a monotheistic god than any other collective group. And they also believe your worldview is wrong, as well as some of your morals.

Please Google world religions by size. According to one list, Christianity and Islam comprise 54% of religious beliefs.

"2. The fastest growing demographic in the world used to be muslims, right up until about 9 months ago. That is when they were surpassed be the group that describes itself as "non religious"."

By the way, what is your reference?

Still, in sheer numbers Christianity is still the largest collective in the world. And Christians say that atheism is wrong. Who are you, in an evolutionary framework of morals to say that it is not?

"Primitive thought is giving way to enlightened reason."

God calls your thinking darken, not enlightened, and I will side with Him.

"It's just so sad that you, and people like you, so desperately need an ultimate authority figure to tell you what is right and wrong. What is good and bad.
I choose to think for myself. And I love how that scares you."

Well, you had better get some guidance for your thinking. So far you are unable to make sense of origins, morals, truth.

Why is your "right" right? Because your little bitty collective says it is right? Who are you or they to decide what right and wrong is?

The thing I am learning about atheism is that I can ask until I are blue in the face and the questions still get evaded.

"Everyone's view of the world is subjective Peter, even yours. There is just no getting around that. We all do our best to be objective when we can but everything we view in life is subjective."

There is an objective standard that we can appeal to - God's Word. Are you saying that God is not able to communicate to His creatures in a way that they can understand and rightly interpret? Who are you to say that Timmy? How did you become all wise and why are people not worshiping you? Is your subjective opinion the one that counts above all others?

"How do we know what is good and bad?
The collective. We compare our own feelings with the feelings of the majority around us, and as a society, we come up with a common morality that people are free to agree with or disagree with. But if they break one of our laws, then they are dealt with accordingly."

Wow! You compare your feelings with the majority of those around you. Then why are you an atheist? The majority say there is a God. As usual, you have so many gapping holes in your worldview that it is hard to make sense of. As I keep telling you, without God everything boils down to subjective experience where nothing can be established for certain. Wait long enough and your view of right and wrong will change again. Your free thinking brain will be lead by the latest fad philosophy.

I never said that you are unable to disagree with the God of the Bible. Just that you are unable to offer anything in return that can make sense of the important issues of life.

"Why does individuality scare you so much Peter?"

Individuality does not scare me Timmy. What scares me is when people trample truth to believe a lie. When everyone does what is right in their own eyes, anything is justifiable and anything goes. (Judges 21:25; 17:6)

This post is getting long. Please see the next post.

Peter, do you really believe this infantile stuff of Joshua etc.? Gosh!

So you think the sun revolves around the earth. Because if the earth revolves around the sun, the centrifugal force would stop immediately if the earth "stopped", and the earth would be "mercilessly" attracted to the sun and fall into the sun. Do you know what gravity is?
And god can name all the stars, black holes, nebula, evolving galaxies with billions and billion of fledgling stars through the course of billions of years!

I think you should grow up from the times of Santa.

This "discussion" has long reached the realm of humor.

Gerry,

You said,

"Meg, there must be something in in our human brain that could be called "partial loss of judgment" (maybe by some evolutional whim), while all the other intellectual capacities are still working perfectly."

May I suggest the mixture of evolution and atheism.

"The panel that argued against Galileo that the sun must revolve around the earth because otherwise Joshua couldn't have stopped it argued fully logically, while having lost all judgment capacities. This panel most probably consisted of intellectually completely unimpaired humans."

A couple of points. Why does your weatherman keep saying that the sun sets every night? Is he a Christian too? Just because someone takes the weatherman's figure of speech literally does not mean that is what the weatherman intended. Context determines the interpretation, as does intent.

Second, in such passages as Joshua Chapter 10, you doubt that an Almighty God could do such a thing because from your worldview the only thing you will acknowledge is the natural. As a Christian, I do not limit God as being able to perform supernatural events.

"The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel." (Joshua 10:13b)

"Oh, and don't forget that Joshua stopped the sun, so that he could have more time to kill his enemies, as the "god of love" had ordered him."

Joshua did not stop the sun, the LORD stopped the sun for Joshua, so that justice could be done.

Hello Peter,

First off, let's get some numbers straight.
1. There are more people in this world who do not believe in your god than those who do.

2. The fastest growing demographic in the world used to be muslims, right up until about 9 months ago. That is when they were surpassed be the group that describes itself as "non religious".

The world is slowly waking up from this long religious nightmare. The tide is turning. Primitive thought is giving way to enlightened reason.

It's just so sad that you, and people like you, so desperately need an ultimate authority figure to tell you what is right and wrong. What is good and bad.
I choose to think for myself. And I love how that scares you.

Everyone's view of the world is subjective Peter, even yours. There is just no getting around that. We all do our best to be objective when we can but everything we view in life is subjective.

How do we know what is good and bad?
The collective. We compare our own feelings with the feelings of the majority around us, and as a society, we come up with a common morality that people are free to agree with or disagree with. But if they break one of our laws, then they are dealt with accordingly.
Why does individuality scare you so much Peter?

As for making sense of things.
Why did the tsunami happen?
Why did the New Orleans flood happen?
Why does AIDS exist?
Why does cancer exist.
Why does a christian mother drown her children?
Why do priests molest little boys?
Why did god tell the jews to kill the babies of their enemy and rape their women?
Why was slavery ever acceptable to god?
If god is timeless, why are the morals in the bible not timeless?
Why does a supposedly all loving god allow such confusion about him to cause such massive world-wide misery?
Why did god create gay people?
Why did god only talk to people of ancient times?
Why does god need us to believe in him without evidence?
Why faith? Why is it a virtue to believe what priests tell you without question?
Why did god give us skepticism and expect us to over ride this necessary survival instinct and believe in ancient literature?
Why is Paris Hilton a star?

Okay Peter.
Ready? Set? Start making sense.

Here we are again Gerry,

"Again, I want to contribute some fodder for imagination of the "universe", which the pitiable faithful so adroitly converse about, when they talk about the Jewish tribal god."

There again, this God who chose to reveal Himself through a people to the world did so to make His plan of redemption known and also complete through the "seed" or offspring of this people. From the start this God has revealed Himself as the only true and living God. The rest are just in the imaginations of men who make for themselves a god in their own image.

I do not dispute the great distances between planets, stars, galaxies. This only confirms the almighty power of God to create what is so immense and only partly comprehensible to our finite minds.

"There are 200.000.000.000 (200 billion) stars similar to our sun in our cozy "home" galaxy, the Milky Way."

Of which God has named every one.

"He determines the number of the stars and calls them each name. Great is the LORD and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit." (Psalm 147:4, 5)

"Lift your eyes and look at the heavens: Who created all these? [The atheist does not wish to admit that it was God and therefore has no explanation]He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name." (Isaiah 40:26)

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (Psalm 19:1)

"I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky..." (Genesis 26:4)

You are just confirming what the Bible has already told me.

"(God created the world in six days? A nice, but helpless, almost funny proxy token for the then and now completely ignorant.)"

Not as ignorant as Timmy on origins. How do you explain how we got here Gerry? Care to comment?

"Man is inclined to reduce nature to his own smallness. Therefore he created gods."

You caricature Christians as dimwitted, as does Timmy. I see and understand that the universe is vast and majestic, I just attribute it to Almighty God who is vast and majestic in His knowledge as to create all this, whereas you to evolution. Timmy is the one who keeps saying "I don't know and I don't care, it just is and how wonderful it is. I don't need to explain how, but can definitely say that it is not how you Christians believe it to be. Of course I cannot say anything for sure, it is just my subjective experience."

I am finding that you cannot push for an answer with an atheist to the tough questions of life. They simply don't know is the experience I am finding. Complete non-sense; "we don't know but what you believe is wrong."

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; and the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'" (1 Corinthians 1:19)

Gerry, Timmy, Proverbs 1:20-33 are words of warning you would be wise to consider.

Good morning Timmy,

"You accuse me of not being able to make sense of it all.
From what do you draw that conclusion.
I am asserting that I can in fact make sense of it all.
What can I not make sense of Peter?"

Yes I do. For one, truth. Everything to you Timmy is a subjective experience. When someone disagrees with you what makes you right and them wrong? You "assert" that you can make sense of it all. Why are you right Timmy? Because you can back up your statements with those of other atheists? Atheism is a minority worldview. Why is your minority right?

Am I not using evolutionary principles when I state the the fittest are the ones that survive? In that case Christianity has 1.5-2 billion adherents. On that logic alone I win my case. Or are you the new mutant strain that is twice as strong as the old strains, and it is only a matter of time before your strain is the majority?

What can you not make sense of Timmy? How we got here, for one, as you have admitted as much. How life comes from none life. Why we are self aware when a rock is not, yet supposedly we evolved from non-living chemicals. How can that happen? How your morals are good as opposed to someone who disagrees with your morals. How in a universe that supposedly came about by chance, chaotic, random happenings, we see order and design. Make sense of these things Timmy.

Do not extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence? That is what your kin keep telling me. Yet you cannot make sense of these things???

"Historical evidence #1
Many of the religions that preceded your religion had stories that were remarkably similar to the stories of your god.
Flood stories, prophets and gods born of virgins, Crucified and risen from the dead, miracles etc."

There again, you presuppose that these religions predated the Judeo-Christian faith. My contention is that they spun off of the Judeo-Christian faith. Before Moses wrote the first five books the accounts of creation were handed down from generation to generation. Pagan's have an account of origins and worldwide floods because people heard the Genesis account and over time the stories got embellished and/or because they wanted to create their own god(s). From the Garden of Eden we hear of man's rebellion from God and how man sets up replacement gods and chose what they will and will not worship. Man wants to be the sovereign controller of his fate.

"Any objective jury would see this as evidence that your god is just another version of previously believed in man made gods. It makes perfect sense that humans of that time would invent gods to help them understand the world. Just as you are doing today.
From my perspective, your inability to draw this simple conclusion makes you like humans of ancient times to me.
Lesser evolved. Still believing in witches and monsters and gods."

You talk about objective. How in your worldview do you achieve objectivity? You have already admitted that you see and measure things through your subjective experience and your own eyes. Just like Meg, you claim independent thinking, an ability that only your kin seem to have. How can there be objectivity in a subjective world, in which your mind is governed by chance biochemical happenings?
Do you have a guarantee that these biochemical happenings are going to generate the same reaction a second time?

Your worldview just keeps contradicting itself.

Lesser evolved. Same logic Hitler used. I would dread the day that atheism ruled the world. Make it mandatory that there is no religion and if they don't comply send them to the gas chambers. "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try." That's all it is, imagination. There is nothing objective to base atheism on.

"It makes sense that one would not believe in evolution if one has not yet evolved them-self."

Let's shorten that even more. It makes no sense that one would believe in macro-evolution, period.

When you say in your next post,

"I don't say it's untrue.
I just don't believe that it is true."

Why do you call yourself an atheist then? Why not an agnostic - one who is ignorant of whether or not there is a god. Atheism is a contrast belief to theism.

With your worldview you cannot make any absolute claim to know truth, as you have demonstrated in the last quote I took from you. You don't say it's untrue because you just don't know. And yet you have a belief that it is untrue.

Oh, and don't forget that Joshua stopped the sun, so that he could have more time to kill his enemies, as the "god of love" had ordered him.

Meg, there must be something in in our human brain that could be called "partial loss of judgment" (maybe by some evolutional whim), while all the other intellectual capacities are still working perfectly. The panel that argued against Galileo that the sun must revolve around the earth because otherwise Joshua couldn't have stopped it argued fully logically, while having lost all judgment capacities. This panel most probably consisted of intellectually completely unimpaired humans.

We have quite a few examples of this strange phenomenon, also on this board.

peter, you tell me “Brainwashed by Dawkins, reinforced by Harris. Great objective role models to teach to your children!!!”

(I had written a great response, but my computer crashed – I will try this again.)

Peter, listen very carefully about brainwashing, and what I said was true about the brainwashing of my children.

How could I have been brainwashed by Dawkins? I came on these ideas YEARS ago on my own. I am old, and have had these thoughts for a long time. I only JUST started reading Dawkins this past summer!! I had not heard of any of these guys, nor had I read their articles. I deduced reality after my quest to find the difference between protestant churches and the catholic church, which was feeding me all kinds of crap. Especially since I hadn’t “joined”.

As far as my children – yes, they were brainwashed. From day one, they were dragged to church. It was reinforced in school. I put up with it because a good education is important in other topics – private school was needed here. In fact, I think they taught evolution clearer than the public schools! Thank goodness, or I would have pulled them. As far as role models for my children, they have learned right from wrong. Also, when my one child says (in response to parting of the red sea) oh, that’s a bunch of crap” I had to agree with him – physically, it is impossible, and I surely am not going to try and teach him impossible things happen – that would be ridiculous. So yes, I am being a good role model by not feeding him lies as to the reality of the world. As far as others brainwashing them, telling them to believe in something, without proof, don’t worry, just believe because we TELL you to believe – oh, and when you question? The answer is “oh, it is not for us to know”. That is NOT an answer. That fosters NO questions, NO inquisitive thinking. I think it would be great to teach someone to think like a scientist, NOT like a mindless drone who would believe everything told to them, just because they were told to.

Religion is not objective.

You say we are borrowing values from your world view? Christianity borrowed it from those before – you did not own them. You think Christianity had the cornerstone on values? What, with all the murders and all?

Again, I want to contribute some fodder for imagination of the "universe", which the pitiable faithful so adroitly converse about, when they talk about the Jewish tribal god.

Go to Google earth and take a look at the globe (unless you adhere to the flat earth society, of course). The sun is 12500 times the diameter of the globe away. The globe reduced to the size of a tiny grain (1 mm) would be at a distance from the sun of about 12 m. (the sun having 330.000 times the earth size, a soccer ball full of 1mm grains)

Our next neighbor star is 277.000 times this distance earth-sun away from us, that would be at about 3000 km. (Of course the stupid creationists would deny this, relying on their "faith" instead).

There are 200.000.000.000 (200 billion) stars similar to our sun in our cozy "home" galaxy, the Milky Way.

And then, of course, there are billions of other galaxies around. Somehow I have the impression, even if the faithful vehemently deny it, they still cherish the image of the old bearded friendly man of Michelangelo's creation of Adam.

From Wikipedia: As a guide to the relative physical scale of the Milky Way, if the galaxy were reduced to 130 km (80 mi) in diameter, the solar system (not the earth!) would be a mere 2 mm (0.08 inches) in width.
And the Milky way stretches 180.000 light years from one end to the other. (God created the world in six days? A nice, but helpless, almost funny proxy token for the then and now completely ignorant.)

A nice comparison of the scales you can find in

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/scales.html

Man is inclined to reduce nature to his own smallness. Therefore he created gods.

If this unimaginable grandeur of the world doesn't inspire awe, I don't know what awe is. I don't need this little reduced proxy of a murderous tribal god to feel "religious" in the Einsteinean sense.

Peter,

You ask:
"What can you compare my belief too, to say that it is untrue???"

Unicorns, Zeus, Ferries, Thor, Godzilla, Harry Potter, Guliver, The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Clause, Sherlock Holmes, Witches, Wizzards, Warlocks, Ghosts.....

And other such things for which there is no empirical evidence, and no credible reason to believe that they exist, no matter how many people at one time believed in them.

I don't say it's untrue.
I just don't believe that it is true.

Peter,

You accuse me of not being able to make sense of it all.
From what do you draw that conclusion.
I am asserting that I can in fact make sense of it all.
What can I not make sense of Peter?

I will now start giving you that evidence that I promised in single installments with each post.

Historical evidence #1
Many of the religions that preceded your religion had stories that were remarkably similar to the stories of your god.
Flood stories, prophets and gods born of virgins, Crucified and risen from the dead, miracles etc.

Any objective jury would see this as evidence that your god is just another version of previously believed in man made gods. It makes perfect sense that humans of that time would invent gods to help them understand the world. Just as you are doing today.
From my perspective, your inability to draw this simple conclusion makes you like humans of ancient times to me.
Lesser evolved. Still believing in witches and monsters and gods.
It makes sense that one would not believe in evolution if one has not yet evolved them-self.

Could not resit this post either Meg. I will forgo a little more sleep. You said,

"Peter, as others have said, your statement implies that if there is a disbeleif in god, there is a belief in something else- What about unicorns? what is the OTHER belief if you do not believe in unicorns?"

Did you not say the flying spaghetti monster? How about alien beings from a dying planet, destination the earth. The purpose to make it their planet?

"I don't believe in unicorns, I don't believe in god - that does not mean I believe something else. You are correct - it does not happen in a vacume. We have heard the comments, the beliefs, it does not make sense, it is not reality, so we don't believe. It doesn't mean we believe in something else.

You believe in nothing, do you Meg, or should
I say you are without belief? Then what is your foundation to say there is no God? How can you say my belief in God is incorrect when you don't have a belief to contrast God to???? What can you compare my belief too, to say that it is untrue???

Hi Meg,

I won't respond to your post's tonight, it's been a long day, but to make one comment.

You said,

"Dawkins said that - children get it that it is not real. It is a shame my older did not see that logic at first until it was ingrained. I can see first hand the brainwashing. Reenforced by grandparents."

Brainwashed by Dawkins, reinforced by Harris. Great objective role models to teach to your children!!!

You see Meg, the same logic you use against the Christian can be applied to your worldview also. You have bought into something that has no foundation to justify itself. Timmy, himself has admitted it. But the belief is so ingrained and so foundational committed in your mind that you do exactly the same thing you and Timmy, and Gerry, and the rest accuse Christians of, being brainwashed. Subjective feelings do not make a belief true. That is why God is the source of all truth.

To continue Timmy,

You said,

"There is a mountain of evidence from which one can make an "intelligent deduction" that god was created by man and not the other way around. Evidence so powerful that it has forced the church time and time again to reinterpret it's scripture to justify it's way around the embarrassment. I suspect you are going to ask me for some of that evidence. And if you think this blog is long now?"

Sure, let's see it, I'm open.

"There is no evidence that he does exist either. That's a wash.
(by the way I am using our society's legal definition of evidence here, before you start on about how many pieces of paper you have with 3000 year old hearsay ten times removed on them)"

"But we live in a society that has developed standards of evidence through our legal system that are integral to our peaceful coexistence, and you must concede that there is no evidence for god that meets that standard."

Look up Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of the Harvard Law School. Much of what he wrote on human evidence is still used in the court room today. Then look up Testimony of the Evangelists.

"It's funny how you are quite with me on the "man created gods" part. Jupiter, Zeus, The Egyptian sun god and all those other Sumerian gods before your god. Those weren't real. Man created those for sure."

Yes I agree with you on other gods for the Judeo-Christian God is the only true God. You have to have a genuine before you can create a forgery. You don't make a forgery out of nothing. You first have to have the real article.

"You often ask:
"How do you know what is good and what is bad without god?"

"The answer is I just do."

Completely subjective Timmy. Since your standard is yourself how do you KNOW it is right? You don't. As you say below, you operate on feelings, nothing objective. It's all pure speculation. There is nothing to measure good against, other than what you determine good to be. When someone else determines that good is flying a plane into your place of employment, whose to say that his subjective feeling were not good also? Here is your circular reasoning. "My feelings tell me what is right and wrong therefore my feelings are right."

Here is what you said,

"I know that stealing is wrong, because it feels wrong.
I have stolen things in my life, and it makes me feel bad.
Conversely nothing makes me feel better that giving. So I know that is good.
I know that killing is bad because I could never do it. The very though of it makes me ill.
I know that I shouldn't have sex with my neighbor's wife because that would also make me feel bad.
I know that love is good. Hate is bad."

"There are no religious morals and secular morals. Just human morals. Religion is a hijacker of common human morals, not a provider of them."

All those moral qualities you listed are found in the Christian God. You are just borrowing from my worldview.

I have news for you Timmy, you don't get morals from subjective human feelings. What you get is a difference of opinion with no resolution other than forceful persuasion, or manipulation with an ulterior motive. You get morals from a standard outside of yourself or it is merely subjective preference.

When you said,

"History is where all of the real damning evidence comes from."

Would you care to share. Include your references. I'm still waiting for you to answer what you promised to before.

When you said,

"Then you said:
"Yes, I have a belief in which I can make sense of it all. You do not and have admitted such."

"Which is it Peter? Do I have a belief or don't I."

You are reading into the statement Timmy, something I, as the author did not mean. Yes, it could have been clearer, but I thought you would get the inference. Let me state it so that it is more clear to you.

I have a belief in which I can make sense of it. You do not have a belief in which you can make sense of it.

No contradiction there Timmy. Your belief does not give you any evidence for why you are here, just that you are here. It does not give you evidence (a standard either) why things should or ought be the way they are, only that they are, no evidence for why you should believe as you do, only that you do, no evidence that there is no God, only evidence that you cannot see Him.

You say that you were not created by God. You say that evolution is the reason you are here, although you cannot explain how. You say science is not prescriptive, but descriptive (i.e. - it describes why we are here, not how we got here).

They are all beliefs Timmy.

It's hard to get away from belief Timmy. Before you sit in a chair your mind analyzes whether the chair is sturdy enough to support your weight. As you sit you believe it will support you.

Sorry to those who answered peter right away - I seem to have said the same thing. I hadn't read ahead.

Peter or timmy - not sure which - was talking about looking as a visitor. I agree. I sometimes remove myself and think if I was an alien, and I visited this planet, I would be amazed at the archaic beliefs some have. I feel like I am in medieval times.

(Ironic, for personal reasons I am stuck with some catholic family members. I went along with some things when I was younger, not really believing, but going through the motions because it was expected of me. I am now faced with one child doing confirmation. It is all I can do NOT to say something. But I did make a promise many years ago...and I think it might confuse the child now if they get conflicting thoughts - so I will be quiet until age 18. I DO make sure RATIONAL thought is practiced though! Angels will not keep you safe on a highway! Defensive driving will For now, I guess that is all I can do. My younger has said, oh, that's crap - it can't be true. At that I can be quiet, and encourage critical, rational thinking. Dawkins said that - children get it that it is not real. It is a shame my older did not see that logic at first until it was ingrained. I can see first hand the brainwashing. Reenforced by grandparents. At times I feel a hypocrite, but I also have to think of the bigger picture of my child's well being for now.) Sorry for the personal issues, but I feel trapped.

Hi Timmy,

"Now I've got you making my argument for me. You said:

"But we can make an intelligent deduction. From that deduction I can believe that chocolate fudge is one stupid explanation for what the earth's core is made of. There are again countless evidences as to why chocolate fudge does not fit."

Simply replace the word "chocolate fudge" with "God"
And "the earth's core" with "creation of the universe"

Hey, you can interpret it any way you want to Timmy. I don't expect anything different from a postmodernist. You do not try to get the author's intent out of what was said, but read into everything whatever you fancy it to be. You can also replace "chocolate fudge" with "atheism" and "earths core" with "an intelligent mind" if you like.

peter huff again, you say
"But we can make an intelligent deduction. From that deduction I can believe that chocolate fudge is one stupid explanation for what the earth's core is made of. There are again countless evidences as to why chocolate fudge does not fit."

yes, yes,yes!! Change the topic. Try again in this form -- your words - We can make an intelligent deduction. That is one stupid explanation. There are again countless evidences as to why it does not fit. Your words. Exactly why god does not exist. That is our explaination.

you say "If you cannot believe without seeing then how can you believe in logic. Can you see logic? Just because I don't see the earth's core does not mean that I cannot think logically about it."
You obviously don't have a clue about science. Again, just today I was reviewing some great physicists talking about origins of universe, and finding background radiation, and doing tests to see the temperature of the cooling universe - was it uniform or not? That is science. Not logic. Logic got them thinking to perform the experiment - they created a hypothesis. You keep talking about believing in logic, and you don't have a clue. Logic says quantum physics is just odd, but that does not mean it is not true. You are hiding behind what YOU think is logical, and then not listening to reality because it contradicts what your bible says - you can't have that, huh?

Peter huff, you say to timmy-
"What I said was that your disbelief in God is a belief in something else. Disbelief in one thing requires belief in something else unless you are mindlessly spewing out random thoughts without analyzing them. In that case you are not being logical, but you claim you are. Here is some of what I said and I stand behind it,

"Your disbelief in God does not happen in a vacuum."

(if others have answered, I am sorry - I have not read further.)

Peter, as others have said, your statement implies that if there is a disbeleif in god, there is a belief in something else- What about unicorns? what is the OTHER belief if you do not believe in unicorns? I don't believe in unicorns, I don't believe in god - that does not mean I believe something else. You are correct - it does not happen in a vacume. We have heard the comments, the beliefs, it does not make sense, it is not reality, so we don't believe. It doesn't mean we believe in something else.

Gerry,

You are so right. Peter is lost for life, I know that.
He will do no harm to anyone, and his life will most likely continue to be enriched by his faith. (at least in his mind)

But as you said, that is not why we are being vocal. We do not ever expect to convince Peter. But our voices are integral to the enlightenment that the "new atheists" have started. Our voices give comfort and confidence to people like Tom Westbury (above) who de-converted on their own reasoning and need to know before they speak out that they are not alone in their doubts, and in their disgust with the contradiction of an all loving god and the massacre of children.

We can not help Peter. ( I know Peter, you neither want nor need our help) But we can and will help Peters children's children. They will benefit greatly from the conversation that Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and Hitchens have started. And that we will continue.

It's going to be a long hard leap, from primitive to non primitive thought for mankind. Some of us are there, and some of us are not. It's exciting to be here to watch it go down. I feel like I am visiting from another time and observing this historical moment. A time traveling history student.

That this battle is so commonly seen as a debate between science and religion is wrong. Science can do very little to rebuke religion. History is where all of the real damning evidence comes from.

I was surprised at Mother Teresa's confessions of her doubts about the existence of God but then I went through a similar experience at around the age of 15 when I converted to Catholocism. I was baptised and accepted the other sacraments. I clearly recall the first time I went to mass and went up to receive the communion. The priest placed the wafer on my tongue, I returned to the pew and I felt absolutely nothing, just like Karen Armstrong, who spent 7 years in a Catholic convent, also described in her great book, 'The Spiral Staircase'.

I didn't give up then. I would kneel in church, resiting the rosary over and over. Went to confession often and honestly confessed my "sins". Still nothing. After about years I gave it all up, became agnostic. Now, at 64 I absolutely reject the Judeo-Christian concept of god which says 'he' is perfect, all powerful and all loving. I cannot reconcile that with the evil and cruelty of human existence. I read that over a million of the holocaust victims were children. Where was this perfect, all powerful, all loving god! He was nowhere to be seen, silently indifferent or he doesn't exist.

Tom Westbury
Atlanta

I was surprised at Mother Teresa's confessions of her doubts about the existence of God but then I went through a similar experience at around the age of 15 when I converted to Catholocism. I was baptised and accepted the other sacraments. I clearly recall the first time I went to mass and went up to receive the communion. The priest placed the wafer on my tongue, I returned to the pew and I felt absolutely nothing, just like Karen Armstrong, who spent 7 years in a Catholic convent, also described in her great book, 'The Spiral Staircase'.

I didn't give up then. I would kneel in church, resiting the rosary over and over. Went to confession often and honestly confessed my "sins". Still nothing. After about years I gave it all up, became agnostic. Now, at 64 I absolutely reject the Judeo-Christian concept of god which says 'he' is perfect, all powerful and all loving. I cannot reconcile that with the evil and cruelty of human existence. I read that over a million of the holocaust victims were children. Where was this perfect, all powerful, all loving god! He was nowhere to be seen, silently indifferent or he doesn't exist.

I was surprised at Mother Teresa's confessions of her doubts about the existence of God but then I went through a similar experience at around the age of 15 when I converted to Catholocism. I was baptised and accepted the other sacraments. I clearly recall the first time I went to mass and went up to receive the communion. The priest placed the wafer on my tongue, I returned to the pew and I felt absolutely nothing, just like Karen Armstrong, who spent 7 years in a Catholic convent, also described in her great book, 'The Spiral Staircase'.

I didn't give up then. I would kneel in church, resiting the rosary over and over. Went to confession often and honestly confessed my "sins". Still nothing. After about years I gave it all up, became agnostic. Now, at 64 I absolutely reject the Judeo-Christian concept of god which says 'he' is perfect, all powerful and all loving. I cannot reconcile that with the evil and cruelty of human existence. I read that over a million of the holocaust victims were children. Where was this perfect, all powerful, all loving god! He was nowhere to be seen, silently indifferent or he doesn't exist.

Timmy,

congrats for this statement:

"Religion is a hijacker of common human morals, not a provider of them."

But it won't change the neuronal wiring of a person like PH. Change for him would mean disaster, it would mean insight into his basic misconception, maybe it would even jeopardize his profession.

So I'm afraid it is "love's labor's lost".

Still, even though, we have to become more vocal, and that is the reason why I am on this thread too.

Oh and Peter,

You keep telling me that I have a belief, but you can not tell me what that belief is. I can tell you what yours is. But you can not reciprocate. The best you've come up with is "not god", which is clearly not a belief. You can't believe in "not something".
You've really hit a dead end with this line of argument I suggest you move on.

Then you said:
"Yes, I have a belief in which I can make sense of it all. You do not and have admitted such."

Which is it Peter? Do I have a belief or don't I.
You are as self contradictory as the bible. Makes sense I guess.

Hi Peter,

Now I've got you making my argument for me. You said:

"But we can make an intelligent deduction. From that deduction I can believe that chocolate fudge is one stupid explanation for what the earth's core is made of. There are again countless evidences as to why chocolate fudge does not fit."

Simply replace the word "chocolate fudge" with "God"
And "the earth's core" with "creation of the universe"

There is a mountain of evidence from which one can make an "intelligent deduction" that god was created by man and not the other way around. Evidence so powerful that it has forced the church time and time again to reinterpret it's scripture to justify it's way around the embarrassment. I suspect you are going to ask me for some of that evidence. And if you think this blog is long now?

The evidence that I will fill pages and pages with, if you ask for it, is not evidence that god does not exist. There is no evidence that god does not exist. There is no evidence that he does exist either. That's a wash.
(by the way I am using our society's legal definition of evidence here, before you start on about how many pieces of paper you have with 3000 year old hearsay ten times removed on them)

But Peter, there is a staggering heap of historical, sociological and anthropological evidence, that makes it quite apparent to anyone who looks at it objectively, that man, first created gods, and then created god, for reasons that are as bountiful as they are transparent.

It's funny how you are quite with me on the "man created gods" part. Jupiter, Zeus, The Egyptian sun god and all those other Sumerian gods before your god. Those weren't real. Man created those for sure.

The sum total of evidence for your god amounts to ancient rumors of miracles. More likely the heat induced hallucinations of bronze age nomadic goat herders trying to make sense of disease, death and floods pre-science.

Peter I realize that, if you believe in god as you do, obviously there is sufficient evidence by your standards of evidence for his existence. But we live in a society that has developed standards of evidence through our legal system that are integral to our peaceful coexistence, and you must concede that there is no evidence for god that meets that standard.

But that's what faith is for.
I hope it serves you well. It's not for me though. I'm a skeptic through and through. That is what serves me well.

You often ask:
"How do you know what is good and what is bad without god?"

The answer is I just do.
I know that stealing is wrong, because it feels wrong.
I have stolen things in my life, and it makes me feel bad.
Conversely nothing makes me feel better that giving. So I know that is good.
I know that killing is bad because I could never do it. The very though of it makes me ill.
I know that I shouldn't have sex with my neighbor's wife because that would also make me feel bad.
I know that love is good. Hate is bad.

Am I getting any of these things wrong Peter?
I don't have faith in god to guide me on this so I'm probably screwing some of these up right?

There are no religious morals and secular morals. Just human morals. Religion is a hijacker of common human morals, not a provider of them.

That's all for now, until you type more things that are wrong.

One last addition:

2x2=4, but only if you believe in god!

Peter, since you are unable to understand any thought not entrenched in your system, we leave it at that.

Your two sentences

"My point was that "they use mathematics as the system to disprove other systems from within that system." To put it another way; they use mathematics to disprove other systems from within the system of mathematics."

don't make any objective sense whatsoever, so I stay with my "pretensions" to keep to clear thinking. Thanks.

Hi Gerry,

You said,

"mathematics is not a part of the bible. It is outside the "bible system"."

My point was that "they use mathematics as the system to disprove other systems from within that system." To put it another way; they use mathematics to disprove other systems from within the system of mathematics.

So what applies to my way of thinking also applies to their way or your way of thinking. I'm just as sure you reason within a circularity also. The only difference is that you have no one beyond your self and your subjective fellow humans to claim authority. That is your highest source, subjective humanity. My source is the Almighty. He is outside of myself and the only objective standard. When you reason against Him, He has the ability to demolish the strongholds of your pretensions.

Hello again Timmy,

Your post dated September 12, 2007 12:37 PM has a lot to unpack. Sorry I do not have the time now since I work tomorrow.

Excuse me Timmy,

My wife wants to know how you ever were so lucky to purchase such a prise piece of swamp land and did you build a house on it?

You are killing me.

Evening Timmy,

"I have not dodged a single question of yours. I don't need to. I have a logical answer for all of them. If you think I missed something, ask again, I promise you prompt answers"

Take a look back over the posts. I will ask again, thanks, when I have time!

"In case you haven't noticed, I have won the debate with you about whether or not disbelief is a belief. It is not."

What I said was that your disbelief in God is a belief in something else. Disbelief in one thing requires belief in something else unless you are mindlessly spewing out random thoughts without analyzing them. In that case you are not being logical, but you claim you are. Here is some of what I said and I stand behind it,

"Your disbelief in God does not happen in a vacuum. You have to presuppose a myriad of things, so your disbelief in God is transposed into a belief in something other than God. Regardless, it is still a belief by which you look at the world with."

You have to have a conception of what is being argued against (God) to say that something (He) does not exist. Without some conception you would have no foundation to set your argument against that something (Him) on, but you do have a belief that explains why the world is the way it is and why there is no God because of that belief, be that evolutionary science or imagination. If you don't then why are you appealing to what you say as logical? There is nothing logical about stating conclusions upon which no propositions are based. That is just wishful thinking.

You said,

"Your inability to give me an alternative belief to the chocolate fudge assertion proves that one does not need to have an alternative belief about something to disbelieve someone's silly unfounded assertion."

Your own words:
"since none of us have seen the core of the earth we can only deduce from what the rest of the earth is made of"

But we can make an intelligent deduction. From that deduction I can believe that chocolate fudge is one stupid explanation for what the earth's core is made of. There are again countless evidences as to why chocolate fudge does not fit.

If you cannot believe without seeing then how can you believe in logic. Can you see logic? Just because I don't see the earth's core does not mean that I cannot think logically about it.

You said,

"What you are saying here is that since none of us have seen the earth's core, no one can say for certain what it is made of."

But I am not saying that of God's Word for His Word is truth, and I have not seen God, for God is not physical, but Spirit.

"That is my answer for the origin of the universe.
No one saw it. So we don't know how, when or why.
No theory.
No belief.
Just wonder.
Wonderful wonder."

I have news for you Timmy; God created it, so He was there and knows exactly when and how He created it.

"But not you Peter.
You do have a belief about the origin.
Even though no one saw it. No one was there.
You believe the 3000 year old hearsay of bronze age nomadic sheep herders.
I don't."

Yes, I have a belief in which I can make sense of it all. You do not and have admitted such.

God saw it, God was there and God understands how it came about. And we have His explanation of how it was made. He spoke it into existence. God said, and it was so. Now that is true wonder, that the Almighty is infinite in wisdom and power.

"But I do have some swamp land in Florida for sale.
You buyin sucka?"

Thanks, but keep your land Timmy, not interested. I'm sure you can sell it to one of your atheist cousins for twice the amount.

How tribal.
How devisive.
How arrogant
How sheep-like

My favorite argument tactic that the believers employ, when making a case for their god, is when they make the claim that the order and logic of the universe, as discovered by science, implies a designer.

It does. They are right.
From our human experience, it makes sense to us logically that there is some kind of design to it all. It is easier for the human mind to imagine the universe as having a creation point, as opposed to something that has always been, or appeared suddenly out of nothingness and for no reason. Our mind can not grasp the latter, because we know of nothing that does not have a beginning or creation point.

It is not weird or delusional to imagine that the universe was created, by a he, she, they or it. The key word here being "imagine."

But then there are those monotheists who make that giant leap from:
"the order of it all implies a designer"
to
"there is definitely a designer, and it is god"
"Moreover it is my tribe's specific god. And only the bronze age elders from my tribe know what he wants from us."

How do you make that leap?
From: The order of the universe implies a possible designer
To: The one true god described in this book is the creator.

I'm starting to understand why you believers made that leap.
Because you need an answer to order your life and morals around, even if it is not the right answer.

So you see Peter, that is the difference between you and I.
I can accept the possibility of a creator because I have no belief.
But you believe with certainty that, not only is there a creator, but he talks to special people and he gave a parcel of land to the Jews.
How silly.
How delusional.
How pathetic.

If anyone is interested I created a blog site which should be easier to use then this one. Feel free to use it, I will join in when I can.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/

If anyone is interested I created a blog site which should be easier to use then this one. Feel free to use it, I will join in when I can.

http://atheistgods.blogspot.com/

Peter Huff,

mathematics is not a part of the bible. It is outside the "bible system".

Your endless quotations (plus the huge amount of comments on quotations) prove exactly nothing but your personal superstition.

Hello Peter,

I have not dodged a single question of yours. I don't need to. I have a logical answer for all of them. If you think I missed something, ask again, I promise you prompt answers

In case you haven't noticed, I have won the debate with you about wether or not disbelief is a belief. It is not.
Your inability to give me an alternative belief to the chocolate fudge assertion proves that one does not need to have an alternative belief about something to disbelieve someone's silly unfounded assertion.

Your own words:
"since none of us have seen the core of the earth we can only deduce from what the rest of the earth is made of"

What you are saying here is that since none of us have seen the earth's core, no one can say for certain what it is made of.

That is my answer for the origin of the universe.
No one saw it. So we don't know how, when or why.
No theory.
No belief.
Just wonder.
Wonderful wonder.

But not you Peter.
You do have a belief about the origin.
Even though no one saw it. No one was there.
You believe the 3000 year old hearsay of bronze age nomadic sheep herders.
I don't.

But I do have some swamp land in Florida for sale.
You buyin sucka?

Thomas, in what sense do you mean "Have you ever met Dad, God the Father?, Have you ever met the Holy Spirit?, Have you ever met satan?"

Please tell me what they look like?

Just a few quick questions Meg,

Are origins observable? How do you know that the universe was formed, what, 13-20 billion years ago and the earth 4.3 billion years ago? How old do you believe the universe to be, BTW, because depending on which scientist I quote from I get a different time span? The dates keep changing as we learn more about the universe. It seems that the dating methods are not that reliable after all. Give it a few more years. Evolutionary science is that exacting.

Thomas, only so much time in a day and I work tomorrow and Thursday. I will answer your questions Friday, the Lord willing.

Well Timmy,

Try answering some of my questions and I'll reciprocate. Who is the artful dodger here?

"I'll assume that you believe that the earth's core is made of chocolate fudge until you tell me what you "beleive" it is made of."

Again, since none of us have seen the core of the earth we can only deduce from what the rest of the earth is made of, and none of that includes chocolate fudge.

"Because as we know, if you disbelieve my assertion, then you must have an alternative theory. That's how it works right?"

Theory yes, but observable science no.

"Disbelief is an alternative belief, right?"

Your disbelief in God does not happen in a vacuum. You have to presuppose a myriad of things, so your disbelief in God is transposed into a belief in something other than God. Regardless, it is still a belief by which you look at the world with.

"Yes of course you cherrry-pick science Peter.
Just like you cherry pick the bible, and history.
That's what believers are best at."

Not all science is good science. Origins cannot be observed and tested. You keep forgetting that evolution is a theory.
Since I cherry pick the Bible show me where?

"It is wonderful to have a world view that does not require one to cherry-pick science and history in order to maintain it's logic."

Spoken as a truly unbiased person that you are.

Hi Lindajean,

Your last two questions,

"Likewise, when a profoundly mentally retarded person (IQ=10) dies, does she go to hell also?"

There again, has he/she sinned and broken God's laws? If yes, then Jesus is the only means of salvation (Acts 4:12). If not then I would say the person is innocent and does not need a Savior, for the person has not rebelled against God and broken His law.

But the question is, did God judge Adam as representing all of us in our ability to sin or not to sin when He said "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

"Has a 12 year old Buddhist who dies of cancer made a pack with the Devil? Will those who never have the opportunity, inclination or “privilege” of knowing God burn in hell?"

"What kind of God would punish such innocents?"

First, you presume that the 12 year old boy is innocent, or for that manner any of us are. Second, you presume that God is not just and third that because God is the standard for good that He will not punish all disobedience, for then in your eyes He would not be good.

A.W.Pink had this to say in his book "The Total Depravity of Man"

A Vital Contemporary Question

It is our deep conviction that the vital question most requiring to be raised today is this: Is man a totally and thoroughly depraved creature by nature? Does he enter the world completely ruined and helpless, spiritually blind and dead in trespasses and sins? According as is our answer to that question, so will be our views on many others. It is on the basis of this dark background that the whole Bible proceeds. Any attempt to modify or abate, repudiate or tone down the teaching of Scripture on the matter is fatal. Put the question in another form: Is man now in such a condition that he cannot be saved without the special and direct intervention of the triune God on his behalf? In other words, is there any hope for him apart from his personal election by the Father, his particular redemption by the Son, and the supernatural operations of the Spirit within him? Or, putting it in still another way: If man is a totally depraved being, can he possibly take the first step in the matter of his return to God?

The Scriptural Answer

The scriptural answer to that question makes evident the utter futility of the schemes of social reformers for "the moral elevation of the masses," the plans of politicians for the peace of the nations, and the ideologies of dreamers to usher in a golden age for this world. It is both pathetic and tragic to see many of our greatest men putting their faith in such chimeras. Divisions and discords, hatred and bloodshed, cannot be banished while human nature is what it is. But during the past century the steady trend of a deteriorating Christendom has been to underrate the evil of sin and overrate the moral capabilities of men. Instead of proclaiming the heinousness of sin, there has been a dwelling more upon its inconveniences, and the abasing portrayal of the lost condition of man as set forth in Holy Writ has been obscured if not obliterated by flattering disquisitions on human advancement. If the popular religion of the churches—including nine-tenths of what is termed "evangelical Christianity—be tested at this point, it will be found that it clashes directly with man's fallen, ruined and spiritually dead condition.

There is therefore a crying need today for sin to be viewed in the light of God's law and gospel, so that its exceeding sinfulness may be demonstrated, and the dark depths of human depravity exposed by the teaching of Holy Writ, that we may learn what is connoted by those fearful words "dead in trespasses and sins." The grand object of the Bible is to make God known to us, to portray man as he appears in the eyes of his Maker, and to show the relation of one to the other. It is therefore the business of His servants not only to declare the divine character and perfections, but also to delineate the original condition and apostasy of man, as well as the divine remedy for his ruin. Until we really behold the horror of the pit in which by nature we lie, we can never properly appreciate Christ's so-great salvation. In man's fallen condition we have the awful disease for which divine redemption is the only cure, and our estimation and valuation of the provisions of divine grace will necessarily be modified in proportion as we modify the need it was meant to meet.

David Clarkson, one of the Puritans, pointed out this fact in his sermon on Psalm 51:5:

The end of the ministry of the Gospel is to bring sinners unto Christ. Their way to this end lies through the sense of their misery without Christ. The ingredients of this misery are our sinfulness, original and actual; the wrath of God, whereto sin has exposed us; and our impotency to free ourselves either from sin or wrath. That we may therefore promote this great end, we shall endeavour, as the Lord will assist, to lead you in this way, by the sense of misery, to Him who alone can deliver from it. Now the original of our misery being the corruption of our nature, or original sin, we thought fit to begin here, and therefore have pitched upon these words as very proper for our purpose: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Characteristics of the Doctrine

This subject is indeed a most solemn one, and none can fitly write or preach on it unless his own heart is deeply awed by it. It is not something from which any man can detach himself and expatiate on it as though he were not directly involved in it; still less as from a higher level looking down on those whom he denounces. Nothing is more incongruous and unbecoming than for a young preacher glibly to rattle off passages of Scripture which portray his own vileness by nature. Rather should they be read or quoted with the utmost gravity. J. O. Philpot stated:

As no heart can sufficiently conceive, so no tongue can adequately express, the state of wretchedness and ruin into which sin has cast guilty, miserable man. In separating him from God, it severed him from the only source of all happiness and holiness. It has ruined him body and soul: the one it has filled with sickness and disease; in the other it has defaced and destroyed the image of God in which it was created. It has made him love sin and hate God.

The doctrine of total depravity is a very humbling one. It is not that man leans to one side and needs propping up, nor that he is merely ignorant and requires instructing, nor that he is run down and calls for a tonic; but rather that he is undone, lost, spiritually dead. Consequently, he is "without strength," thoroughly incapable of bettering himself; he is exposed to the wrath of God, and unable to perform a single work which can find acceptance with Him. Almost every page of the Bible bears witness to this truth. The whole scheme of redemption takes it for granted. The plan of salvation taught in the Scriptures could have no place on any other supposition. The impossibility of any man's gaining the approbation of God by works of his own appears plainly in the case of the rich young ruler who came to Christ. Judged by human standards, he was a model of virtue and religious attainments. Yet, like all others who trust in self-efforts, he was ignorant of the spirituality and strictness of God's law; when Christ put him to the test his fair expectations were blown to the winds and "he went away sorrowful" (Matt. 19:22).

It is therefore a most unpalatable doctrine. It cannot be otherwise, for the unregenerate love to hear of the greatness, the dignity, the nobility of man. The natural man thinks highly of himself and appreciates only that which is flattering. Nothing pleases him more than to listen to that which extols human nature and lauds the state of mankind, even though it be in terms which not only repudiate the teaching of God's Word but are flatly contradicted by common observation and universal experience. And there are many who pander to him by their lavish praises of the excellency of civilization and the steady progress of the race. Hence, to have the lie given to the popular theory of evolution is highly displeasing to its deluded votaries. Nevertheless, the duty of God's servants is to stain the pride of all that man glories in, to strip him of his stolen plumes, to lay him low in the dust before God. However repugnant such teaching is, God's emissary must faithfully discharge his duty "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear" (Ezek. 3:11).

This is no dismal dogma invented by the church in "the dark ages," but a truth of Holy Writ. George Whitefleld said, "I 1ook upon it not merely as a doctrine of Scripture—the great Fountain of truth—but a very fundamental one, from which I hope God will suffer none of you to be enticed." It is a subject to which great prominence is given in the Bible. Every part of the Scriptures has much to say on the awful state of degradation and slavery into which the fall has brought man. The corruption, the blindness, the hostility of all Adam's descendants to everything of a spiritual nature are constantly insisted upon. Not only is man’s utter ruin fully described, but also his powerlessness to save himself from the same. In the declarations and denunciations of the prophets, of Christ and His apostles, the bondage of all men to Satan and their complete impotence to turn to God for deliverance are repeatedly set forth-not indirectly and vaguely, but emphatically and in great detail. This is one of a hundred proofs that the Bible is not a human invention but a communication from the thrice holy One.

It is a sadly neglected subject. Notwithstanding the clear and uniform teaching of Scripture, man’s ruined condition and alienation from God are but feebly apprehended and seldom heard in the modern pulpit, and are given little place even in what are regarded as the centers of orthodoxy. Rather the whole trend of present-day thought and teaching is in the opposite direction, and even where the Darwinian hypothesis has not been accepted, its pernicious influences are often seen. In consequence of the guilty silence of the modern pulpit, a generation of churchgoers has arisen which is deplorably ignorant of the basic truths of the Bible, so that perhaps not more than one in a thousand has even a mental knowledge of the chains of hardness and unbelief which bind the natural heart, or of the dungeon of darkness in which they lie. Thousands of preachers, instead of faithfully telling their hearers of their woeful state by nature, are wasting their time by relating the latest news of the Kremlin or of the development of nuclear weapons.

It is therefore a testing doctrine, especially of the preacher's soundness in the faith. A man's orthodoxy on this subject determines his viewpoint of many other doctrines of great importance. If his belief here is a scriptural one, then he will clearly perceive how impossible it is for men to improve themselves—that Christ is their only hope. He will know that unless the sinner is born again there can be no entrance for him into the kingdom of God. Nor will he entertain the idea of the fallen creature's free will to attain goodness. He will be preserved from many errors. Andrew Fuller stated, "I never knew a person verge toward the Arminian, the Arian, the Socinian, the Antinomian schemes, without first entertaining diminutive notions of human depravity or blameworthiness." Said the well-equipped theological instructor, J. M. Stifler, "It cannot be said too often that a false theology finds its source in inadequate views of depravity."

It is a doctrine of great practical value as well as spiritual importance. The foundation of all true piety lies in a correct view of ourselves and our vileness, and a scriptural belief in God and His grace. There can be no genuine abhorrence or repentance, no real appreciation of the saving mercy of God, no faith in Christ, without it, There is nothing like a knowledge of this doctrine so well calculated to undeceive vain man and convict him of the worthlessness and rottenness of his own righteousness. Yet the preacher who is aware of the plague of his own heart knows full well that he cannot present this truth in such a way as to make his hearers actually realize and feel the same, to help them stop being in love with themselves and to cause them to forever renounce all hope in themselves. Therefore, instead of relying upon his faithfulness in presenting the truth, he will be cast upon God to apply it graciously in power to those who hear him and bless his feeble efforts.

It is an exceedingly illuminating doctrine. It may be a melancholy and humiliating one, nevertheless it throws a flood of light upon mysteries which are otherwise insoluble. It supplies the key to the course of human history, and shows why so much of it has been written in blood and tears. It supplies an explanation of many problems which sorely perplex and puzzle the thoughtful. It reveals why the child is prone to evil and has to be taught and disciplined to anything that is good. It explains why every improvement in man’s environment, every attempt to educate him, all the efforts of social reformers, are unavailing to effect any radical betterment in his nature and character. It accounts for the horrible treatment which Christ met with when He worked so graciously in this world, and why He is still despised and rejected by men. It enables the Christian himself to better understand the painful conflict which is ever at work within him, and which causes him so often to cry, "Oh, wretched man that I am!"

It is therefore a most necessary doctrine, for the vast majority of our fellowmen are ignorant of it. God's servants are sometimes thought to speak too strongly and dolefully of the dreadful state of man through his apostasy from God. The fact is that it is impossible to exaggerate in human language the darkness and pollution of man's heart or to describe the misery and utter helplessness of a condition such as the Word of truth describes in these solemn passages: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor. 4:3A). "Therefore they could not believe, because he hath [judicially] blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them" (John 12:39-40). This is yet more evident when we contrast the state of soul of those in whom a miracle of grace is wrought (see Luke 1:78-79).

It is a salutary doctrine—one which God often uses to bring men to their senses. While we imagine that our wills have power to do what is pleasing to God, we never abandon dependence on self. Not that a mere intellectual knowledge of man's fall and ruin is sufficient to deliver from pride. Only the Spirit's powerful operations can effect that Yet He is pleased to use the faithful preaching of the Word to that end. Nothing but a real sense of our lost condition lays us in the dust before God.

Hi Lindajean,

Your questions,

"By this excerpt I understand the Bible states (and you believe) all humans who do not know of God (and Jesus) are aligned with the Devil. If this is so, please explain how God could condemn people who have never been privy to his “grace” or are unable to understand the consequences of his scripture due to lack of maturity or cognitive/mental deficiencies. Examples: babies, young children, teenagers, the severely mentally retarded or the mentally insane. These groups may have no/limited contact or knowledge of God. If a 6-month-old baby dies (from some god-forsaken disease or accident) is he a child of the Devil?

Difficult questions. There again I was arguing for limited atonement as opposed to universal atonement. I can only speculate on something that the Bible does not tell me one way or the other, unless it is inferred. The question is, is there an age where we become accountable to God because we can reason about God, or not? Or have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Does "all" mean every single man, woman and child without distinction, or does "all" mean every type of human - male, female, slave, freeman, people from all nations, kings, queens as well as commoners? I think the context determines which it is.

The next question is, did Jesus die to save all His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), or did His death just make salvation possible? In other words, did He die a death that was a substitute for mine (one that satisfies God's righteousness, pays the penalty for my disobedience by that physical death that should have been mine and provides a justification before God that is not through anything I could ever do - I have already broken His just standards), or did He by dying just make my salvation possible. If He died just to make my salvation possible then there is no guarantee that anyone will ever be saved. Has Jesus justified the elect before the Father in heaven, or do we justify ourselves before God by our "good works" that could never measure up to His perfect standard? To put it another way, will God compromise His righteousness, or what is right?

Who saves men? Is God sovereign or is man sovereign? Scripture does not allow that all men will be saved, only those who believe in Jesus Christ.

"Likewise, when a profoundly mentally retarded person (IQ=10) dies, does she go to hell also?"

That question brings three issues to my mind.

1. Is there an age at which the human being is able to reason about God and therefore accountable to God?

2. Jesus did say,

"Unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." or "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Matthew 18;3 Mark 10:16,18), therefore is Jesus just talking about the easiness of little children to believe and trust or actually saying that His kingdom is prepared for such as these and includes them?

3. Has every individual sinned and fallen short of God's glory? Was Adam the federal head of the human race and did he represent each and every one of us in the Garden of Eden in his moral disobedience to God?

"For the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation...Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..." (Romans 5:12, 16b, 18)

Is "man" in these verses inclusive of all humanity?

"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. They have all turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)

I will leave you to decide for yourself, but include another post for your other questions.

Nice dodge Peter,

I'll assume that you believe that the earth's core is made of chocolate fudge until you tell me what you "beleive" it is made of.
Because as we know, if you disbelieve my assertion, then you must have an alternative theory. That's how it works right?
Disbelief is an alternative belief, right?

And then this wonderful line from Peter:
"BTW, I use science just as you do, I just don't use evolutionary science."

Give me a second while I stop laughing.

Sorry, still need a minute.

Okay there. Whew.
Yes of course you cherrry-pick science Peter.
Just like you cherry pick the bible, and history.
That's what believers are best at.

It is wonderful to have a world view that does not require one to cherry-pick science and history in order to maintain it's logic.

Nevermind.
Nothing is true but god.
The book is true because it says so in the book.

PeterHuff:

I am curious about a recent statement you posted with a Biblical quote thrown in (for good effects no doubt.)

You stated:

“I believe God cares for his children but not all are his children. Only those by the grace of God that put their faith in his son…the rest are wolves and goats and children of the devil (John 8:42-47, 10:26-30).”

By this excerpt I understand the Bible states (and you believe) all humans who do not know of God (and Jesus) are aligned with the Devil. If this is so, please explain how God could condemn people who have never been privy to his “grace” or are unable to understand the consequences of his scripture due to lack of maturity or cognitive/mental deficiencies. Examples: babies, young children, teenagers, the severely mentally retarded or the mentally insane. These groups may have no/limited contact or knowledge of God. If a 6-month-old baby dies (from some god-forsaken disease or accident) is he a child of the Devil? Likewise, when a profoundly mentally retarded person (IQ=10) dies, does she go to hell also? Has a 12 year old Buddhist who dies of cancer made a pack with the Devil? Will those who never have the opportunity, inclination or “privilege” of knowing God burn in hell?

What kind of God would punish such innocents?

Just wondering for the sake of wonderment…………..

Hi Gerry,

You said,

"The fact of nature proves, to start with, nothing but its existence. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of anything beyond nature."

According to most scientist, the universe had a beginning. Is it logical to suppose that nothing is the cause of what we have before us today?

"Mathematicians (Kurt Goedel) have explained beyond doubt that you cannot make a statement or judgment of a system using arguments from within that system. Therefore the bible quoting proves nothing but the belief of the quoter."

And what system do they use to prove that statement? Oh yes, they use mathematics as the system to disprove other systems from within that system.

Peter huff says "BTW, I use science just as you do, I just don't use evolutionary science."

Evolution IS SCIENCE. You can't pick and choose. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't say "I believe in gravity, but I won't believe in electricity, because it goes against what i was told to believe in - or it will contradict my vision of god - and what will I do then?"
When they have done it in the lab, when they have seen it in the butterfly example, when people working with HIV drugs have to deal with quick evolution of that virus, it is not a whim or thought - it is something real, and it happens. The interesting thing though, it happens whether you believe in it or not. But religon goes away if people stop believing... you don't see the sun god coming down and punishing us because we switched gods, do you? I have no use talking to you any more - if you don't believe in evolution, I don't care - as long as you aren't voted into office, or try to teach at my children's schools. Science is not about me believing in it, or someone else believing in it - things are happening, and some of us try to take a peek into the process. We are looking at things already going on - we didn't create evolution.

Also, if you are going to quote me, get it correct. I wasn't me who quoted Carl Sagan, even though I agree.

I

Neither science nor religion knows where it all came from. The difference: We atheists admit we don't know and try to expand knowledge (that does not mean agnosticism!). Peter Huff and his ilk pretends to know, because, as he says,
"whereas the theist claim (!) it got here by supernaturalistic means". The claim is based on nothing but other claims, the old tales of human superstition when the "earth was still flat". I wonder what sort of science Peter Huff is "using".

The only difference is the "claim" factor. And if it is decorated with such an amount of pseudo-intellectual condescension towards an opponent (we had that illogical fantasy of PH about "contradicting" myself if I say "I don't know", using logic reminiscent of Zenon' Achilles and the turtle paradoxy) you know that you meet a religious fanatic impervious to reason.

Timmy,

Nice logic there, all the time evading the real issue. Throw out some more tangents. Is this how atheists answer the tough questions?

I do believe the Iliad is a reliably historical document, but not infallible or the very word of God. It does not claim like the Bible to be the inspired word of the Creator, God, or for that matter an account of God's dealings with mankind and the problems that are inherent if we are to have a relationship with God.

You said,

"Oh right, 5000 pieces of paper say that your god is true."

No, 5,000 manuscripts. That is a lot more than 5,000 pieces of paper (closer to 1,750,000 – 5,000 X 350 - if you do the math), and that is the best evidence for any ancient book - remarkably preserved. Here again, you are relying on conjecture, not research.

Then you have the early church fathers from whom all but nine verses from the Bible can be retrieved in their writings. Plus 39 historical references to Jesus Christ outside the Bible within the first two centuries.

You assume the Scriptures are no different than The Iliad. Try looking at the evidence rather than assumed the likeliness. I do not kid myself though, no matter what evidence I present to you, you will argue against it. That is the nature of the beast of naturalism. You do not know it to be, you presume it to be, just as you have admitted such in admitting there is no such thing as absolute truth. Are you absolutely sure of that? Do you know if all of nature operates according to the laws?

"Okay Peter, try this;
I assert that the core of the earth is made of chocolate fudge."

God is my ultimate authority, by which I can judge all claims to truth, not human reason, which can be faulty, even in the best of minds. God is the source of all our intellectual abilities. As with belief, or in your case disbelief, reason does not take place in a vacuum. You build upon your premise with the evidence at hand. Reasoning is never bases on man's neutral authority. When you misinterpret that evidence you land up with a faulty premise, just like you have in your assertion that the earth's inner core is comprised of chocolate fudge. How did you test that theory? Did you stand at the edge of a Mt. St. Helen's volcano with a spoon in hand? Did you use that spoon to dig down to the core so that you could have an abundance of chocolate fudge?

Knowledge involves justifying the reason you believe. It requires verification. So far, I have not seen any of that from you. You are like the blind leading the blind. You do not know that the world is created, whereas I do, you simply assert it is not. When we claim something to be true, we are claiming to have adequate knowledge and evidence for it to be true. The origin of your worldview, allegedly came about by natural means and yet you cannot explain how, nor do you care? That is definitely placing your feet firmly in mid-air.

How in an atheistic, evolutionary universe can chance produce reason? There is no way of knowing that the biochemicals in your brain are going to react in the same way they are at present doing. They are unpredictable. Your worldview is beset with contradictions.

There again, in your worldview it all started with empirical matter (evolutionary science - In the beginning matter). No wonder you are coming up with such outlandish statements.
Neither you nor I can look at the observable evidence for the inner core of the earth, for it is not observable. But we can reason about it and the limits of what it can and cannot be, such as chocolate fudge.

Your most fundamental beliefs determine what you will accept as evidence and how to interpret that evidence. The atheist claims everything got here by a naturalistic means, whereas the theist claim it got here by supernaturalistic means. Timmy, you are not even using reason in refuting my belief in the nature of origins for you have said,

“Most have absolutely no theory as to how it all began or what it all means. No belief. Just awe and wonder.”

My definition on what you believe from such statements – unreasoned prejudice based on nothing, since your presuppositions do not comport, are subjective and totally unreliable for nothing is known about them. You need to have the ability to discern what is real (metaphysics), what is knowable (epistemology), and what is moral (ethics). Do you expect to have a philosophical argument about origins based on “I am here because I am here and have no meaningful argument as to why I am here, but isn’t it wonderful that I am here? Isn’t it just amazing that I have no idea, nor do I wish to know, or cannot know, but I can tell you that your belief in God as the originator of why we are here is totally unfounded?” Is that what reasoning is in an atheistic universe?

BTW, I use science just as you do, I just don't use evolutionary science.

Dearest Peter,

Your latest post only raises the question of why you do not believe in the Illiad. 600 pieces of paper, that is irrefutable.
Oh right, 5000 pieces of paper say that your god is true.
It's about how many ancient pieces of paper you have. I see.

Okay Peter, try this;
I assert that the core of the earth is made of chocolate fudge.

By your own logic, you must either believe my assertion, or propose your own theory as to the make-up of the earths core.

Remember, "I don't know what the core is made of" is not an answer, you've show us that. And obviously you can not use science to explain what the earth core is made of because your world view does not recognize science.

So Peter, tell us what you "believe" the earth's core is made of?

The fact of nature proves, to start with, nothing but its existence. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of anything beyond nature.

One basic difference between religionists and "naturalists" (atheists): Nobody promised any award nor threatened me to go to hell or any other place if I don't accept atheism: It was and is my free will to see and admire nature without the "watchmaker" fable.

Mathematicians (Kurt Goedel) have explained beyond doubt that you cannot make a statement or judgment of a system using arguments from within that system. Therefore the bible quoting proves nothing but the belief of the quoter.

TO PETER HUFF: I would like to pose a few questions: Have you ever met Dad, God the Father?, Have you ever met the Holy Spirit?, Have you ever met satan?, Have you ever experienced the hell the bible speaks of?, Have you ever experienced spiritual death? I would also like to ask you if you think the bible is the Word of God or is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews the Word of God? I, personally, believe that the bible is kind of like the miracles or signs that Jesus did as something that could help point you to God, Who happens to be a Trinity, but that the bible is not God. You also said that the bible says that the universe is eternal, it seems to me that somewhere in there it talks of new heavens and a new earth, think about it. God is the Judge, I am not, you said that we should start judging with ourselves, well that is also where we should stop judging, God is God, we aren't. God created everyone. So many bible thumpers hate PAGE ONE, "Let Us make man in Our Image", you can slice and dice the bible all that you want, that is your choice, you have free will. What I know, I know and there is plenty that I don't know but God is not the loser that you think that He is. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", think about it, does He say that there is only one way to Jesus, no, not even close, He said that He is the Way to the Father. God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, I stake both my eternal and everlasting destiny on Total Victory. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sam - I'm sorry that I will miss your upcoming conference in Washington, D.C. I pledge allegiance to your cause. Keep up the good work.

Hi Timmy (Meg),

I would like to point out a few things to you. Scoff at them if you must.

First, the hypocrisy of your position. You said,

"Your belief is regarding the origin of the universe.
You believe that god created it all.
I do not have a belief as to the origin of the universe.
I do not know how it came to be.
It is a mystery to me.
I do not need to form a belief about that.
I do not need to know the answer."

Any worldview that does not have answers to how we got here, meaning and purpose, and a reliable standard for the ethics that its foundation rests on is just hot air.

You have proved to me that you are doing the very thing that you have accused me of, following a blind faith.

It was Meg who quoted Carl Sagan's ditty that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You don't know how life got here. It is one gigantic mystery to you that you have no answer for. And yet you criticize the Christian while offering no support for your own extraordinary claim.

As I said before the possibilities are three or four; we evolved from nothing, the universe is eternal, we were created, or this is all an illusion.

Both the God of the Bible and evolutionary science have rules out the theory that the universe is eternal. It had a starting point in time.

Nothing from nothing still leaves nothing and yet your contention is that evolution is true or that energy, by a random, chance process made it happen. That is one extraordinary claim.

Your contention, or at least the contention bantered about in evolutionary circles is that life came from none life, and yet there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. Another extraordinary claim.

Your contention is that you or your cultural group decide what "good" is. And yet you have not been able to offer any argument other than your mere subjective opinion that it is so. The shear arrogance of it all. No extraordinary evidence there folks.

You tell me that my way of looking at things is wrong, and yet your standard for truth is yourself and evolutionary science. You and others have admitted mistakes and have to keep readjusting your truth claims. Not many scientists view the Darwinian model as correct any more. Now it is the Neo-Darwinian model or the more recent punctuated equilibrium model.

That is a fickle truth. God's standard is always true, for He does not change.

Evolutionary science tells those who believe it that the evolving process started with simple organisms and built into the complexity that we see today. But scientists such as Michael Behe (Darwins's Black Box) have demonstrated that life is irreducibly complex. Simple organisms need many simultaneous, vitally functioning parts in order to live. Take one away and the organism will not live.

He gives a simple analogy of a mouse trap with only five essential parts. Take even one of those parts away and the trap fails to work.

Meg gives the youtube website link that discusses the eye, an extremely complex organ that will not work without its many vital parts. There again, we have the extraordinary claims of evolutionary science as it molds the evidence to suit its presuppositions.

On the other hand, Christian's have extraordinary evidence for the existence of God, one being the creation itself. I will agree with you Timmy, that it is wonderful. It declares the nature and glory of God. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)

Only Someone supernatural - beyond nature - could bring into existence this world, and make it from nothing; as also only Someone and not something could create personality.

Again, the Bible is also an extraordinary book, written over a period of thousands of years, written with over forty human author's superseded by God Himself, having a unity and consistency throughout. Prophecy, history and archeology confirm the accuracy of the Scriptures, plus it's miraculous ability to remain after so many attempts to destroy it through history.

Then there is the extraordinary events of Jesus' life, death and Resurrection that confirms who He is. Even atheist scholars will grant that He existed.

But what happened to His early followers is an extraordinary claim that has extraordinary evidence that He did raise from the dead. From the eyewitness testimonies (over 500 and no one to refute it from that time period that I am aware of, other than the account the Bible itself gives) written at that time, we know the tomb was empty after His crucifixion, the woman were the first to confirm this, the disciples were transformed by seeing Him alive after witnessing His death, and they willingly died to proclaim that message. Try and answer what best accounts for these events.

Then there is the preservation of God's Word. Think of all the heresies that have fought the truth.

We have over 5,000 manuscripts and 24,000 fragments of manuscripts that confirm that the Bible, through transmission errors by fallible scribes, has remained intact as the Word of God. Homer's The Illiad is next in preservation with just over 600 copies preserved. There is no question as to it's authenticity. Just think how many more manuscripts we have to compare Scripture with Scripture.

And the list goes on and on for the Christian, because God has not left Himself without witnesses.

So, Timmy, I would suggest that if you are going to critique the Christian God as non-existent, you need to make sure you do not fall into the trap of hypocrisy and blind faith. Do not be afraid to step over and look at the other side of the evidence before you speak. At one time I was where you are now, a disbeliever.

Hey Thomas Baum,

You said,

"To Peter Huff: Maybe you should believe that God cares for all of His children, and that God has a Plan whether you agree with it or not and also maybe think about some of the things that Jesus said including but not limited to: "Father forgive them", "I have overcome the world", "My Kingdom is not of this world",

I do believe in God's plan. Thomas, try taking a verse in context once in a while. I believe that God cares for His children, but not all are His children. Only those, by the grace of God, that put their faith in His Son. Those are the ones who are adopted into His family. The rest are wolves and goats and children of the devil. (John 8:42-47; 10:26-30)

Those who belong to God hear what God says. (John 6:44, 64, 65; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

You said,

"The measure that you judge with, will be the measure that you are judged with", "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Whatever you do to the least, you have done unto Me", there are many others."

Notice it says FIRST take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see more clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5)

As for making judgments, we need to make sound judgments or else we would fall prey to every wind of doctrine. (1 Timothy 4:16)As for judging who will be saved, that is up to God alone. Yes, I admit, we need to judge ourselves first and foremost to make sure we are in the faith, but if we don't judge what is wrong in God's sight, we will practice that's wrong.

When you say,

"God is Love, Pure Love."

That is true, but He is also righteous and a just Judge. He will not wink at the practice of evil, hence our need for a Savior.

"and God's Plan, referred to as the mysterious Plan of God is for All of His children"

As I said before, not all are His children and not all will be saved. Don't turn to another gospel Thomas(Galatian 1:6-8). We are called to preach the truth in love my friend.

The Gospel tells us that there is one means given under heaven by which men must be saved. Anything else is to tell a lie. Men cannot earn their way to God; salvation is a free gift given to those who will inherit eternal life. Likewise, you cannot get it by worshiping other gods. It comes by hearing the message to those who the Holy Spirit is working in. (Roman's 10:17; John 1:12,13; 3:5-8)

Please read the verses.

Timmy said,

"If all of the Christians in the world, all 2 biilion of them, practiced (truly practiced) instead of preached, they'd have us all convinceed by now."

If they had truly practiced what they preach, they would all be dead (or beggers) and their insidious religion along with them.

In the early days of Christianity willingly sacrificing your life without putting up a fight was considered the greatest act a human could commit. This apparently did not sit well with the Christians who liked life and wanted to live, so they went back to the old ways, killing other people for god like the Jews had always done...........

I'm not a theist but I'm pretty sure Thomas has it right.

I know this.
If all of the christians in the world, all 2 biilion of them, practiced (truly practiced) instead of preached, they'd have us all convinceed by now.
No question.

But alas...

To Peter Jackson: You wrote, "It Is In A Behavioral, Action Manner That We Will Have To Build __ The Heaven On Earth World __ Advocated By Jesus Christ".
You do not have a clue. Jesus Himself said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". Jesus also said, "Come follow Me", did He try to establish an earthly kingdom, no, not even close. Christianity, contrary to what a lot of people believe and have tried to do thru the ages since Jesus left, is not to institude a theocratic government on earth. The heavenly Jerusalem, as spoken of in the bible, is not made with human hands as it so clearly says. I repeat: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, God-Incarnate did not even come close to advocating what you wrote. Thank You. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Respond if you must Peter, but please keep in mind; when you are trying to make any point with me, quoting the bible is like me quoting Harry Potter to you in order to assert some universal truth.
They have the exact same amount of credibility, and for the same reason.

Now, tell me what you know god wants.
lol

Peter Jackson,

That was a very long and convoluted way of trying justify MT's life. Let me rephrase.

MT spend her whole life going through the motions trying to find something, but always got the same results, she found nothing. Nevertheless, she did things you (we) like, therefore she is great even though she spent whole life searching and failing to find what "she" was looking for. That in a nut shell is the same doctrine as the church. I.E. do what we say god says to do irrespective of the results. That's good for the church and it's good for us (humanity), because it's far easier to make someone else a hero then to do anything about its ourself.

Mother Teresa Was Indeed Acknowledged and Favored by God But Through Her Lack of Understanding She Could Not Recognize It.
This is a mistake easily made today in our era. The explanation starts in the working of the brain. Let me explain.
Our head contains three main drives or brains, each independent but tremendously inter wired i.e. an emotional brain, a behavioral, action brain, and an intellectual brain. Each of these is able to communicate with another person or with God. Each has memory and can reason. Each person is an individual and develops each brain differently and differently to other people. The result is some people are more intellectual, others are more emotional with love and relationships, and yet others are more physical and active. In relating to God intellectuals emphasize prayers, facts, faith, emotional people emphasize love, feelings, adoration and action, behavioral people emphasize rituals, ceremony, service.
According to the above article Mother Teresa desperately longed for God’s love. – I long for God, she wrote, but find longing and no love.
Washington Post article September 5, 2007 Article –10 Years Later, Mother Teresa Remembered – states –When she died on Sept. 5, 1997 at 87, her Missionaries of Charity had nearly 4.000 nuns and ran roughly 600 orphanages, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics around the world.
There are now more than 4,800 sisters and more than 750 homes around the world, according to the order.
The above is a fantastic accomplishment and in so many cultures.
Surely anyone on such an amazing journey and accomplishment against such great odds must be dancing in the streets for joy and forever giving thanks to God for such fantastic success and such continuous help and solutions given naturally through the subconscious to anyone living and working in the spiritual world.
It is sad that a person living and working in the behavioral, action world would not see the great reward given in the same area but look for reward only in a different world and brain area.
What I am saying is that there are three brain areas of communication between a person and God and if God is over whelming a person with success and praise in one certain brain area he can not be accused of neglecting the person.
It Is In A Behavioral, Action Manner That We Will Have To Build __ The Heaven On Earth World __ Advocated By Jesus Christ.

To Peter Huff: Maybe you should believe that God cares for all of His children, and that God has a Plan whether you agree with it or not and also maybe think about some of the things that Jesus said including but not limited to: "Father forgive them", "I have overcome the world", "My Kingdom is not of this world", "The measure that you judge with, will be the measure that you are judged with", "Judge not lest ye be judged", "Whatever you do to the least, you have done unto Me", there are many others. Knowing God's Name is not necessarily the same as at least trying to listen to Jesus when He said, "Come follow Me". So many people seem to be content with a tie as long as "they" get to the "good place", well that is totally unacceptable. God is Love, Pure Love. God's Plan, referred to as the mysterious Plan of God is for All of His children, as in "Let Us make man in Our Image and Likeness", man as in mankind, humanity, Image and Likeness as in Love, that sure does seem to be lacking on some of these posts, no matter what label people put on themselves. Take Care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

peter huff, don't bother.

Hello Meg, Timmy, and the gang. Back from the long weekend and I see you have been busy. I have some thoughts on your posts, but I'm going to review the posts from where I left off first. I will sit down tonight, the Lord willing, for I definitely have something to say to some of your comments.

The battle for truth continues!

I have two final points on this. It's taking too much time away from my work, which is trying to effect real change in the fundamental approach to teaching in a predominantly Muslim community in the hope that instilling the principles of a Socratic method is ultimately more conducive to survival and growth (individually and socially)(stated as the social objective by the government)than the traditionally Confusion one (questioning vs. blind subservience).

1. Timmy, I think if you and the others agree with the following quote you will see we are essentially on the same page as far as right to criticize is concerned. We must always have the right to question, to reason, to discuss; those are our distinctly human gifts:

Please Understand Me
If I do not want what you want, please try not to tell me that my want is wrong.
Or if I believe other than you, at least pause before you correct my view.
Or if my emotion is less than yours, or more, given the same circumstances, try not to ask me to feel more strongly or weakly.
Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be.
I do not, for the moment at least, ask you to understand me. That will come only when you are willing to give up changing me into a copy of you.
I may be your spouse, your parent, your offspring, your friend, or your colleague. If you will allow me any of my own wants, or emotions, or beliefs, or actions, then you open yourself, so that someday these ways of mine might not seem so wrong, and might finally appear to you as right -- for me.
To put up with me is the first step to understanding me. Not that you embrace my ways as right for you, but that you are no longer irritated or disappointed with me for my seeming waywardness. And in understanding me you might come to prize my differences from you, and, far from seeking to change me, preserve and even nurture those differences.

Excerpted from Please Understand Me II
Copyright © 1998 David Keirsey

We should always QUESTION, reasonably (critically in the scientific sense, which means tolerance for fault and an open mind to unknown possibilities) and rely on the facts to reveal truth and then take the action this truth warrants. It is the PROCESS and the freedom in that process, governed by just laws, that we must protect with constant attention.

2. Actions do indeed speak louder than words and more, they are demonstrable signs, in this context, of effecting, what we perceive and history may show, as positive steps in realizing our human potential.

Thank you all for helping me to clarify some thoughts on these issues (and Sam and the Washington Post for providing the impetus and forum). It IS encouraging to know we are not alone in the universe - we have each other. My motto is: Together WE Are Better!

I have two final points on this. It's taking too much time away from my work, which is trying to effect real change in the fundamental approach to teaching in a predominantly Muslim community in the hope that instilling the principles of a Socratic method is ultimately more conducive to survival and growth (individually and socially)(stated as the social objective by the government)than the traditionally Confusion one (questioning vs. blind subservience).

1. Timmy, I think if you and the others agree with the following quote you will see we are essentially on the same page as far as right to criticize is concerned. We must always have the right to question, to reason, to discuss; those are our distinctly human gifts:

Please Understand Me
If I do not want what you want, please try not to tell me that my want is wrong.
Or if I believe other than you, at least pause before you correct my view.
Or if my emotion is less than yours, or more, given the same circumstances, try not to ask me to feel more strongly or weakly.
Or yet if I act, or fail to act, in the manner of your design for action, let me be.
I do not, for the moment at least, ask you to understand me. That will come only when you are willing to give up changing me into a copy of you.
I may be your spouse, your parent, your offspring, your friend, or your colleague. If you will allow me any of my own wants, or emotions, or beliefs, or actions, then you open yourself, so that someday these ways of mine might not seem so wrong, and might finally appear to you as right -- for me.
To put up with me is the first step to understanding me. Not that you embrace my ways as right for you, but that you are no longer irritated or disappointed with me for my seeming waywardness. And in understanding me you might come to prize my differences from you, and, far from seeking to change me, preserve and even nurture those differences.

Excerpted from Please Understand Me II
Copyright © 1998 David Keirsey

We should always QUESTION, reasonably (critically in the scientific sense, which means tolerance for fault and an open mind to unknown possibilities) and rely on the facts to reveal truth and then take the action this truth warrants. It is the PROCESS and the freedom in that process, governed by just laws, that we must protect with constant attention.

2. Actions do indeed speak louder than words and more, they are demonstrable signs, in this context, of effecting, what we perceive and history may show, as positive steps in realizing our human potential.

Thank you all for helping me to clarify some thoughts on these issues (and Sam and the Washington Post for providing the impetus and forum). It IS encouraging to know we are not alone in the universe - we have each other. My motto is: Together WE Are Better!

Dear Lindajean,

I think you misunderstood me. you commented "I think the beauty of our country is that people of color, people in the minority can wear such a t-shirt with no fear or trepidation—that they can proclaim their heritage with pride and confidence. I do not find that offensive or a threat. You seem to indicate it is."

I agree about the freedom of pride of heritage - and that we have that right. I never said it was offensive. The only thing offensive (not my word) was the double standard. I too am german, english, perhaps a bit french. But like you said, we'd get dirty looks for wearing white pride (I'd never wear one - this is just a point) but if I was black and wore black pride, I'd be celebrated. I think the whole subject was a tangent on the previous comments of the unfairness or over sensitivities that people have about making comments about someone's religion, and Dawkins comments about how we should be free to criticize religion like we do politics - but it is frowned upon. I think I was trying to make an analogy. Sorry if I came across with an attitude. I said before, freedom of religion is great, also part of our country, but not when it interferes with science and reality.

Dear Lindajean,

I think you misunderstood me. you commented "I think the beauty of our country is that people of color, people in the minority can wear such a t-shirt with no fear or trepidation—that they can proclaim their heritage with pride and confidence. I do not find that offensive or a threat. You seem to indicate it is."

I agree about the freedom of pride of heritage - and that we have that right. I never said it was offensive. The only thing offensive (not my word) was the double standard. I too am german, english, perhaps a bit french. But like you said, we'd get dirty looks for wearing white pride (I'd never wear one - this is just a point) but if I was black and wore black pride, I'd be celebrated. I think the whole subject was a tangent on the previous comments of the unfairness or over sensitivities that people have about making comments about someone's religion, and Dawkins comments about how we should be free to criticize religion like we do politics - but it is frowned upon. I think I was trying to make an analogy. Sorry if I came across with an attitude. I said before, freedom of religion is great, also part of our country, but not when it interferes with science and reality.

Meg/Timmy and others:
I appreciate many, many of your comments on this thread and please continue your discussions about the problems of religion.

Unfortunately, my computer has some annoying quirks and I have been unable to scroll up and down the complete blog to read all of the 1300 plus posts on this website, which has resulted in me having a less than complete perspective on what has so far been discussed. Given this situation, but wanting to enter into the discussion this evening, forgive me if I overlook any previous points made.

I simply want to comment on a recent post discussing “Proud to be black” t-shirts remarked on earlier by Meg. I think the beauty of our country is that people of color, people in the minority can wear such a t-shirt with no fear or trepidation—that they can proclaim their heritage with pride and confidence. I do not find that offensive or a threat. You seem to indicate it is.

You commented that it was a double standard and I suppose that in some ways it is. But our constitution deems the rights of the minority must not be denied and such a t-shirt is a form of free expression. If you are inclined to wear a “Proud to be white” t-shirt you have every right to do so—although I would suggest doing so would elicit strange looks. I have seen many “Proud to be Irish” or some similar slogan on t-shirts worn by Irish-Americans. No one seems to see that as a double-standard.

I agree with you, as a white person, I have no interest wearing a t-shirt stating “Proud to be white.” The reason for this is I have very little connection to my past heritage, as it is a mish-mash of German, Irish, Scottish, English and I don’t identify myself with my ancestry. I see myself as an American and don’t think much about my heritage in the day-to-day challenges of life. I don't think of myself as "white" but that is because my color/race has never been a factor in my daily struggles. Whatever challenges I face throughout my day, the color of my white skin is insignificant. That is not the case for others. (However, my disbelief in God has created many struggles for me in my daily life--read my Sept 2 post).

If other people—of whatever nationality or ethnic group—do have a connection to their heritage than I applaud them for it. If I knew that 150 years ago my great-great grandmother was a slave in Dixieland and I had been told stories about her struggles throughout my lifetime, I might be very determined to wear a “Proud to be black t-shirt.” That t-shirt would be symbolic of the struggles of my grandmother and those who came before me. That I (as a white person) am so completely ignorant of my own ancestry and my forefathers’ inevitable struggles ought not deny others.

My point is this: let’s stay focused on the subject of religion and the inherent dangers of it in the 21st century. You, others and myself understand that religious beliefs do indeed have consequences and bad religious beliefs can result in very lethal consequences and curtail important policy. Those who do not understand this are not thinking rationally and clearly about religious beliefs. Your discussions help shine the light on this very serious topic of discussion.

Dear Washington Post,

I do wish you could find an atheist commentator who can tell the difference between religious ritual and rituals related to war (Iroquois war prisoner sacrifice), Hierarchy (retainer deaths at the death of leaders), magic (using entrails to tell the future) and other human resorts to butchery. Without that kind of discernment, the rest of his ideas are worthless.

I'm glad to live in a country and period in history where such can be openly published and shared for free.

Hi Timmy,

I see you have returned to WP after what seems to me to be a very long vacation from blogging here. If you don't remember me I blogged with Ted S, Richard Wade, Alain, Tammy. We were daily posters on Sam's page. Eventually we moved on to our own personal site and also The Church at Belton site which included Bruce and several others that posted here frequently. If you tried the Belton site I am sure you realized it no longer exists.

We still have our own site and could use some new blood (so to speak). If you decide to join us email me at Pammy1151@Aol.Com and I will send you an invite. I am sure Richard and Ted would like to hear from you.

This blog is a pain in the you know what because it really isn't much of an exchange of info or ideas as it is a constant arguement. We all also blog on Friendly Atheist daily. You might want to check that one out.

Keep up the good fight!!!!!

Show respect for the person. But not for the religion.

Again, we are attacking the religion, not the people.
It is understandable that many believers will defend their religion as though a personal attack has been launched upon them. But that is the nature of religion. It's like insulting someone's mother.

[["Teresa’s doubts have only enhanced her stature in the eyes of the Church, having been interpreted as a further evidence of God’s grace.

Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?"]]

Luke 14:26
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Indeed, what could possibly disconfirm it?

Mr Serpent

Timmy,

Very good point. Like you said, we criticize people for smoking. And Dawkins does point out - why ARE we afraid to criticize religions, but it's ok to criticize a political stand? Those are beliefs here too. (To Peter, that is one original thought I had not had - I figured out reality on my own, but was still respectful of others - yes respect in general is good manners, but I feel Dawkins makes a good point, and it make me think WHY do we do that?) Where is the point between we are not allowed to be racist, and discriminatory - no name calling as to heritage, but we can make comments about religion, politics, and even what state is better to live in. As far as the discriminating things, I still think that is unfair - I agree totally with what some comic had said. You could wear a "proud to be black" shirt, and have black appreciation month, but we are not allowed to have "proud to be white" or white appreciation month. All other people can get away with that - spanish pride, mexican pride - I would never think of wearing a "white" t-shirt, because I consider myself just a person - but there is such a double standard with that, and also with religion comments. Back to the moral question way back, this is a good example of morals that are created by our CULTURE AND LAW SYSTEM, not biblical morals.

Gerry,

I like the thought of a neutron star rotating 30 times a second - all that mass moving so fast - no wonder they generate x-rays or whatever they emit. We should start an "I love space" club.. oh, I guess thats already there. I do need to re-join the planetary society. I did start on a second degree, cause I thought it would be so cool to be called an astrophysicist.

I agree somewhat with the most recent line of discussion started by the professor, however I think it's important to clarify the difference between having the right to believe, and having the right to not be criticized for your belief. There is no such thing as the latter, nor should there be.

The statement by the prof:
"I do think noone has the right to criticize another for their beliefs.."
This statement needs correcting.
"The right to criticize?"
Of course we have "the right" to criticize. It's called free speech.
What you meant to say is that you don't think people SHOULD criticize. It would be awfully fascist if you really meant that we shouldn't have the right to criticize.

The most common misconception by believers reading a thread like this is that we are somehow trying to take away people's right to believe. Of course we are not.
IT'S JUST CRITICISM.
It is not only allowed, but it is necessary and whole heartedly encouraged by me. No one is calling for any laws against religion.

I will criticize people for having beliefs about things that are as fallacious and dangerous as monotheism. Do i think that I am going to convert hard core believers? Of course not. That is not ever my intention.
Telling people that smoking was bad for them did not work.
Making smoking illegal would not work.
Creating a social stigma about smoking that made people feel like losers and social outcasts for smoking did work, and is working.

This is the intended outcome of this new brand of outspoken atheism. It is only the silence of atheists in years past that makes the current barrage of religious criticism seem so harsh and over the top. That silence is now over, thank god.

I will continue to criticize people about their silly and dangerous institutionalized superstitions at every opportunity. And they are of course more than welcome to criticize me for my overly rational and logical thought process, as they have been doing for millennia.
That's how it works.
That's how it should work.

Thank you, Meg!

For those - believers or otherwise - who have not completely abandoned scientific astronomy, I would like to add a metaphor for the immensity of our universe (taking into account the "anthropocentric" story of the 6 days' creation!). It does not prove or disprove anything as to the existence or non-existence of god, but it may add some insight, since I have the impression when people talk of "creation" their fantasy does not exceed the earth by very much:

In Google earth (I hope nobody doubts even this!) you see our globe. Now imagine the globe to appear reduced to the size of a pea, just for the idea of proportion. I think this can be done by everybody.

Then, the Sun would have the size of a rather big round bag of 330.000 peas at a distance of 10 meters, actually pretty close. Even this can be imagined. Now, the closest star in our "home" galaxy, the Milky Way (Alpha Centauri), would be at a distance of 10.000 km, one quarter earth circumference (4 light years, reduced proportionally). This stretches our imagination rather heavily, it is difficult to imagine.

Our "home" galaxy Milky Way has an estimated 200 billions of stars of the size of the sun and even much bigger. That is beyond our (at least my) ability of imagination. And the fact, that there are so many (billions!) of galaxies is out of the reach, I think, of any human space or numbers imagination, even if we have to accept the mathematical fact. And all of this immensity is in perpetual motion guided by the immanent physical laws of nature.

I feel proud to be at a very special point in time and space in this miraculous universe, even endowed, by such enormous evolutionary possibilities, with the ability to reflect on it...!

I wouldn't know where heaven or hell or punishment or reward from any additional entity could enter into this gorgeous picture! I think we should try to widen our perspective as compared to what it was 3000-2000 years ago!

I agree with professorredbag

"I do think noone has the right to criticize another for their beliefs unless they are trying to right a commonly recognized wrong" - I have said before, that is what makes this country great - the freedom of religion, and I stand by that. People can sit on a mountain and meditate all they want. But when the religion interferes with things here, I have a problem with it. Gerry did a very nice job of answering - thank you gerry, I agree with everything you said. I would also like to add the hindrance it puts on science. Yes, science research (well, most of it) is going on anyway, but the religion doctrine is harmful in the way it is trying to keep our science out of classrooms. It won't allow stem cell research here. I have heard scientists go on as to the loss of research and life-saving findings because of that issue. Over in europe, they have no problem. (They also don't have the problem with evolution like we do here too.)

It is very important to have the separation of church and state - that is what makes our country so great. And right now, we don't have that.

For the person who thinks the universe is just too complicated, so god just "poofed" it here, he will never look for any real answers. (I think it was peter huff - and others) We would never learn anything if all people thought like that! Thank goodness there are people interested in HOW things happened, and yes WHY things happened (asking that question gets us to figuring out evolution - why is this one yellow and that one red?) so I am very glad that there are inquisitive people out there, not stalled in there thinking, because I love to hear all the wonderful things they find out about our universe.

Professorredbag,

since I am probably one of those persons you refer to, I would like to give a short answer.

I willingly agree with you about the common ground we have to look for.
There are, however, a few reasons why we "waste" so much mental energy:

1. The present state of world affairs, starting with US politics, is poisoned by ALL sorts of radical superstitious thinking. I feel (I am also an educator) a certain responsibility to at least add a tiny drop of rational progress, to have people see that an educated person who possibly can lead a worth-while life does NOT need any religion for his set of morals and for the happiness in life.

2. The claim of absolute truth of the believers - any believer - is one of the greatest dangers for the survival of mankind. All disasters in world history, religious or otherwise, were perpetrated by "possessors of truth".

3. We oppose the condescension on the non-believers, together with the wielding of power by religious doctrine.

4. We think with a certain degree of optimism, that the believers at least perceive and tentatively think through a reasonable argument, if only as a "mental experiment" as a first step.

5. So, a steady flow of such drops might at least change the idea that all "decent" people must be religious.

6. The idea that all life, personal, historical or species-wise, is development (to avoid the synonym "evolution") and not an "eternal", stalled state of affairs may be something even a believer might consider in a certain stage of his life as not completely demented and religiously evil.

I would never try to convert an individual believer, but I am interested, like you, in reason prevailing over intentional stubborn irrationalism.

It saddens me that so much precious energy, mental and otherwise, is spent in going around in pointless circles. I say 'unto' you believers: "Believe!" Non-believers: "Leave the believers to deal with their fear and ignorance through faith as we deal with them through trying to understand our reality!" and to all: "Co-operate with each other on the common ground where freely realizing our potential and helping others realize theirs are the binding forces." Those who cannot join us on that common ground will ultimately benefit though I pity their inertia. I do think noone has the right to criticize another for their beliefs unless they are trying to right a commonly recognized wrong (such as propogating lies that lead to murder for the sake of greed - an extreme but contemporary example). I also believe it wrong anyone to try to persuade another into their belief through an immoral use of fear or taking advantage of ignorance. (A question worthy of expansion and debate.)
I do suggest that the few protagonists parrying and thrusting blindly in the cirles here, share their email addresses with each other, work their differences out more privately then publish some conclusion that indicates some progress towards a resolution of their issues, if it benefits us all. I can be reached at jwmt2nd@yahoo.ca but refuse to be drawn into useless discussions that don't involve tangible facts. I'm an educator who has spent the last 13 years working, learning, and sharing my knowledge and experience with teachers in foreign countries while respecting their cultures and beliefs. The common ground isn't hard to find - it's in the mind tilled by the heart and it's there that we find the glimmers of light that will help us all into a better tomorrow.

test

Timmy,
You said
"Or maybe there is a creator something like the god you describe, but maybe the real god sees healthy skepticism as a much greater virtue than blind faith."

I agree. I think it's rude that some poeple presume to "know" what god's plan is, or why he did something (if there was a god) They do not have any proof as to WHAT he wants to do, any more than he actually exists.

And to the person who said -oh, it was peter- that I had no original thought... I realized a long time ago, (all by myself) while pondering the universe and just how HUGE it is - just some of the super giant stars compared to ours is amazing to think of .. and then you think of how many there are.. then you think of how tiny our planet is (all the while thinking god created all this) now think of all the people and animals on this planet.. and the millions that are starving, or the few that might be trapped in a cave, and dying, or the ones being beaten up, or robbed... and the few that pray that they get that job promotion or that something minute might happen - it is ridiculous, self centered, and down right impossible even if there really was a real god that they would pay attention to some little thought, when there is so much bigger things out there. I would think if there was a god, he's way out somewhere else creating billions and billions of other stars - not watching us make cars and go fly fishing. What, is he bored? Sorry, I'm getting a bit tired of this foolishness. I'd much rather read or watch something like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8
where the scientists talk about the complicated evolution of the eye - and arguments how if it was designed, that was pretty bad. Also, in the video there is proof as to the different stages of development of the eye, because some of the animals still have that type today.

It kills me that the believers think that if you don't believe in god (and by god they mean their god, as opposed to the thousands of other proposed gods) then you must think that it all came to be by random chance.

Listen closely believers.
There are not only two choices. Your god or random chance.

Aside from the thousands of other versions of god and gods, there are an infinite number of possible reasons for the existence of the universe. There could be a creator that in no way resembles the god of monotheism. We could be someone's science experiment. Our universe may be sitting in a petri dish in some lab somewhere.
Or maybe there is a creator something like the god you describe, but maybe the real god sees healthy skepticism as a much greater virtue than blind faith. Perhaps he will send us atheists to eternal happiness and the dupes to.... I don't know, somewhere where dupes learn their lesson.

The options are not: Your god, or random chance.
They are infinite.
That is why disbelief in your god, is not automatically a belief in something else. Atheists believe all sorts of different things.
Most have absolutely no theory as to how it all began or what it all means. No belief. Just awe and wonder.

Liam,

difficult discussion. Huge debate in Germany with neuro-scientists (Roth, Singer, whom I happen to know personally quite well) and philosophers about the concept of "I", plus the free-will-question. Singer, though skeptical about free will, is socially profoundly engaged in the improvement of pedagogy...

The last word hasn't been spoken about it, and we might finally have to settle for a "logical contradiction" as a (dialectical?) form of reality (not the simple one discussed with Peter Huff) similar to the double form of light as waves and corpuscles, which in simple "logic" are mutually exclusive.

Timmy,

In PH's personal logic a statement like "I don't know" would be either a lie or a self-contradiction.

His "creed" has obfuscated his logical thinking completely: If I make a statement, I make a statement. True or false? For the rest of us: True.

The CONTENT of the statement "I don't know" cannot mean truth nor untruth - it leaves it open - I don't know.

He confounds the FACT of a statement made with the AMBIGUITY of its CONTENT.

And teaches others about logic.

Of course I am, like every human being except PH, exposed to error. But then, error, mistake is the root of learning: Edison tried 3000 failed, mistaken experiments until his bulb glowed for the first time. According to PH's logic; he must have "lied" or "contradicted himself" 2999 times, saying "I still don't know".

I play and teach a musical instrument and I know, that nobody can make any progress without mistakes, necessary mistakes. They are the essence of learning. Learning means changing. But if you know "the truth", there is no reason for learning anymore. It is this "I have arrived at the truth, why change?" while "you are in the morass of stupidity, or worse, untruth, therefore, you must change" which makes non-believers so mad, and understandably so. A person proud of his stalled development telling us condescendingly to also stop evolving!

Rick: Congrats and thanks!

MEG:

Officeman said: "I repeat that the laws that govern the material universe infer an author."

Meg responded: it tells me you are not looking at evolution as a science(which discounts an author....

Officeman responds: Your statement is plain wrong and reveals a dogmatic faith which I have thus far been unable to penetrate. Let me try again.

First, science does not anywhere discount a creator. Science deals with observable phenomena and the existence of God goes beyond that. As Maurie Beck said earlier, "the fact of evolution and a belief in god" are not mutually exclusive. The same can be said of all science. Why are you having trouble understanding that?

Second, name one single proven scientific theory I reject. You won't find any. To reject what science can prove is to reject the organization God put into the universe. Quite honestly, it is a rejection of God as he is in favor of a God on my own terms.

The only difference between you and I is that I appreciate God in all the beauty of science while you appreciate the random chance that you believe is responsible for it all.

Put another way, I accept an inference. You reject that inference. The only reason you've given for rejecting it is that not every inference turns out to reveal truth. That's a valid point and I agree with you. But, more often than not, inferences do reveal truth. You must agree with statement because it is true. I would rather follow the inference in this case, both because the alternative (random chance) strikes me deeply flawed (and for many reasons besides).

GAD:

Although I leave to go camping shortly, I am disappointed you never apparently read my post of 4:21 pm yesterday (addressed to Gerry). I think I gave a reasonable response to the whole Midianite thing.

My answwer to slavery is the same. It is true that if the NT ordered slavery it would inherently contradict Catholic principles. But none of those NT verses advocates slavery. They simply accept the world for the way it was while advocating all the principles that would one day end the practice. That is an extraordinary thing.

Good luck.

Maurie Beck,

Thank you for your post yesterday. I was quoting the physicist Archaeopteryx from 9-1-07 at 3:49 PM when I quoted him saying “if you want to claim that science refutes the existence of a "supernatural" God, get outa town. Science is restricted to the observable BY CONCEPTION, and all it has to say on the matter is "haven't seen any evidence yet." How people can draw deep conclusions from this, I can't understand.” It seems that he was only saying that science cannot “disprove” the existence of “god”. But I do not think he was advocating a “belief” in something not provable such as your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Z-BOB said in part on 8-31-07 at 10:42 PM: “If one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. In other words, we as physical beings are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. “

This analysis reminds me of some of the work produced by Dr. Susan Blackmore, the British neuro-psychologist who basically states that the brain creates an illusory self. As a memetic theorist, along with Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Blackmore theorizes that through memetic evolution and biological protection, a selfplex is created which thinks it is conscious and has free will but this is illusory. Does this mean that there are no individual selves in the universe but only a false belief in separateness?
See:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk

Not only is god an illusion, so are each one of us. Enjoy your illusions everyday!

ON CHRISTIANS AND LIONS

Do we know what the Christians felt like
When the lions of the Emperor roared?
Their minds were closed and their hearts composed
As they put their "faith" in the “Lord...”

But all of their cries went unanswered,
As they prayed upon bended knees...
For Nobody cared if their lives were spared,
And Nobody heard their pleas...

It is thus with the blind and the faithful
Of the 20th century breed...
Declaring instead they would rather be dead
Than give up a word of their creed...

Never once have their gods come to save them
From a bullet, a beast or a flea...
And yet the devout are untroubled by doubt
That mountains can move to the sea...

It is time we should waken our neighbors
From a dream which is senseless and wrong
And with kindness and mirth bring their “souls” back to earth
To the place where they rightly belong...

No one sane ever wished to be eaten
Or consumed in a nuclear flame...
They prefer to appeal to the things that are real
And survival's their principal aim.

For the world of the near-distant future
Could be blessed both by knowledge and love,
And with the alliance of Reason and Science
Be better than "heaven” above..._.

Rick Rickards
Copyright

ON CHRISTIANS AND LIONS

Do we know what the Christians felt like
When the lions of the Emperor roared?
Their minds were closed and their hearts composed
As they put their "faith" in the “Lord...”

But all of their cries went unanswered,
As they prayed upon bended knees...
For Nobody cared if their lives were spared,
And Nobody heard their pleas...

It is thus with the blind and the faithful
Of the 20th century breed...
Declaring instead they would rather be dead
Than give up a word of their creed...

Never once have their gods come to save them
From a bullet, a beast or a flea...
And yet the devout are untroubled by doubt
That mountains can move to the sea...

It is time we should waken our neighbors
From a dream which is senseless and wrong
And with kindness and mirth bring their “souls” back to earth
To the place where they rightly belong...

No one sane ever wished to be eaten
Or consumed in a nuclear flame...
They prefer to appeal to the things that are real
And survival's their principal aim.

For the world of the near-distant future
Could be blessed both by knowledge and love,
And with the alliance of Reason and Science
Be better than "heaven” above..._.

Rick Rickards
Copyright

Gad,

> These links don't provide any real answers, but it is always fun to watch Christians walk through fire to try and make slavery a nice thing!

Well, then I'll have to punt again, since I have neither the breadth nor depth of Biblical and historical knowledge to make any more convincing an argument than those in the references I provided. Besides, it's pointless to debate with someone who has already formed the opinion that any opposing (Christian) opinion cannot be taken seriously.

Here's another reference for your pleasure and enjoyment:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

Peace.

Timmy,

that is exactly what I sense as to the wonderful and mysterious universe, of which we know still so little. That exactly makes it fascinating to learn ever more about it, be open to learn more, using all our spiritual and emotional forces to learn, change, develop, all while knowing we will never know "all".

To put a joker ("god") in this place of present ignorance which stalls all development is a rather simple and sad strategy. It would reduce my awe and joy for this dynamic (not static!) miracle, the universe, nature.

Thank you!

Well Gerry,

I saved my last post of the night and weekend for you. Hopefully I can appease some of your anger?

You said,

"Your circular reasoning is really annoying. I make a statement, and you allege erroneously, that by making a statement I claim absolute truth about it, exactly what your funny logic reveals about yourself. You don't have to believe the content of my statement, but you can perceive it as an honest opinion."

Without God you cannot have any absolutes, because to your way of thinking there is always that .000000000009% chance that you can be wrong. I have accomplished my purpose in getting you to say that,

"I don't claim to make any statements of absolute truth."

Or

"Good is never an absolute."

I did a critique on those statement to emphasis my point.

"So therefore this statement is not absolutely true. Why should I believe you in your claim then? You can never be 100% that it is true."

It's a dilemma Gerry. As soon as you admit that you don't claim to make ANY statements of absolute truth, or say good is NEVER an absolute, in order for those statement to be true you would be stating an absolute. So although you deny absolutes you affirm them and in the process create a self refuting statement. Either way you lose because you have to borrow from the Christian worldview if you affirm absolutes and cannot make absolute statements without being self refuting if you don't.

"Can't you grasp that quotations from WITHIN your system are worthless to prove anything as for the validity of your system?"

For you, yes, but I appeal to the highest standard there is.

"Your assertion that if I don't pretend to make a statement of absolute truth (I don't, since I follow the normal ethical behavior of modesty of any scientific mind), my statement, since not absolute, contradicts myself is plain stupid."

If you don't know whether it is absolutely true why would you want to believe it? Can something true ever be false, at the same time and in the same way? Logic would tell me no. Since we are living in a relativistic, postmodern, pluralistic environment it is understandable if you feel that it is arrogant and immodest to state something as absolutely true, meaning that it applies as valid to everyone, even if they do not believe it to be so. But since you deny the existence of God I see you as having no choice but to think this way.

"Nobody "makes up" when he speaks what he believes. I will even infer this for you in your favor. My truth does not change as I speak, but I stay open to correction of my opinion if somebody comes along with a reasonable (!) argument to change or modify my opinion."

Well if your opinion in the above statement is corrected you must believe that what you had previously said was not true, not accurate, even though you believed it at the time of saying it. Correction implies error or falsehood or untruth or mistakes or inaccuracy.

"You call this lying. Well, so much for your moral absolutes."

I do not remember using that term. I called it a contradiction if I remember correctly. There is a difference between lying and contradiction. A lie is deliberately misleading. A contradiction is a discrepancy is it not?

"I have never denied anything I stated. I usually mean what I say. Where do you get the preposterous idea from, that I don't mean what I say, only because I am open and you are closed, finished, absolute, in the possession of "eternal truth", end of development - what a hoax?"

I already gave you the examples above in this and other posts that show that your statements are contradictory.

"Enough reason to pity you! Funny that you have to call me an intentional liar to save your warped philosophy, avoiding any realistic information that might gnaw on your superstition."

Well I can see I am gnawing at yours. When someone starts using angry or words intended to hurt it is usually a good indication.

As for me, I more often than not use sarcasm to make a point when something is right out there in left field, but I do not usually feel angry during a discussion. I have no ill feelings towards you.

If you are still conversing with me show me where I called you "an intentional liar"?

"Good luck for your next conversion."

Thank you sir!

Peter you're just repeating yourself.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it.
Disbelief in one thing is not an automatic belief in something else.
It goes like this Peter:

Your belief is regarding the origin of the universe.
You believe that god created it all.
I do not have a belief as to the origin of the universe.
I do not know how it came to be.
It is a mystery to me.
I do not need to form a belief about that.
I do not need to know the answer.
The mystery doesn't scare me one bit. In fact I love it.
It makes life absolutely wonderfully joyously fascinating.
I am not only comfortable with the fact that nobody has figured it out yet, I am invigorated and inspired to start every day knowing that wonder of it all awaits me.

I weep for you that you will never know that joy.

Sorry Peter.
I do not have a counter belief to your belief.
Nor do I need one.
Your posit is not credible enough to require one.

Yes Timmy, I definitely think an anti-thesis is a better term for you. You are against Him in every way. Hopefully He will have mercy on you and open your eyes to the truth of His Word.

You definitely confirm what He has said about you.

Romans 8:7 with Ephesians 2:1-3

Gerry,

I agree. He just sounds like a crazy man now.

An earlier poster quoted Voltaire
"reason cannot remove from the mind what reason did not first put there."

I don't know if reason has ever payed a visit to Peters mind.

Hi Timmy,

You said,

"I'd say something like "oh you are so very clever", but you're not."

I never professed to be.

"You are stating as though you are correct, that "disbelief" means opposite belief. It most certainly, and obviously does not."

dis·be·lief (dĭs'bĭ-lēf') pronunciation
n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.
Antonyms: belief, trust

"It means (this is embarrassing to have to explain to an adult) lack of belief. And "lack of belief", can not be a belief by definition."

When you lack belief in something you put that belief in something else. I put my belief in God. You put your belief in no God. Are you trying to tell me because you do not believe in God that you believe in nothing? No, because nothing is pretty hard to believe in. You would have to be brain dead.

"There is no opposite to god.
There is an opposite to "hot". Cold
There is an opposite to "fast". Slow
But no opposite to god.
I think you're going to try and present me with one.
And I think it's going to be some form of "not god""

I'm not sure if I can think of an opposite to God, except maybe "a god." God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal, whereas "a god" is something that has been created in the minds of men and is none of the things that God is. As the Bible says,

"We know that an idol is nothing at all in this world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everybody knows this." (1 Corinthians 8:4b-7a)

When you say that lack of belief cannot be a belief you are right in one sense. You cannot believe and not believe in God at the same time and in the same manner. What I am saying is that your lack of belief in God is still a belief. But it is a belief that opposes belief in God, since you are denying that He exists. Denying that He exists is a belief in itself. You put your trust in that premise that God does not exist. I don't think I can put it much simpler than that? Is there another Christian reading this who can put it any simpler?

"I completely understand why, from your perspective of "god is", you perceive disbelief in god to be a belief. It's just not correct."

Sure it is. Are you absolutely sure of that?

"You are saying "disbelief" is an opposite belief.
It is not."

Yes it is. Disbelief in one thing is a refusal to believe that particular thing, but in turn there has to be something else there to form your opinion on. A belief is not formed in a vacuum. You did not decide to be an atheist without any evidence did you? You must be aware of the idea or concept before you choose whether or not you are going to believe or disbelieve. Although a disbelief of something is the opposite of the thing it is still a belief. To not believe in something you first have to be aware of the concept or idea. I think where you are getting confused is between the word "disbelief" and "no belief." To have no belief you would have to be totally ignorant of God or whatever is being discussed. You are not. You know enough about the Christian God to have a discussion about Him. That is why the Bible says that you are without an excuse.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

You said,

You are saying "disbelief" is a belief.
It is not, by definition."

I disagree.

When you disbelieve in one thing, you place your belief in something else or else nothing is going through your mind in which to argue that you are an atheist. No belief is no opinion; disbelief is opinion.

"Alright Peter.
Now tell me what the opposite of god is."

It depends in which way you are using "God" "god."
I think the definition I used earlier is good enough. Here is another one that came to me when I was typing the Romans passage.

Godless.

Ciao

Meg, Timmy, Gad, other friends:

You cannot pour water into a sieve.
So I don't even try anymore.
cf. my last (last!) post Sept.6.

Thanks for the intelligent and honest (!) discussion! I think many people like Peter Huff deep down know their belief is just fog. They scream in despair like somebody in the dark forest to generate some courage. I remember exactly this feeling from my childhood. I have grown up since.

Gerry

Meg,

You said,

"I've never talked about abortion - where the heck are you getting all this stuff?"

I was giving you an example of how two different cultures both view abortion differently, one views it as good and the other as bad. How do you determine good from opposing cultural positions that are saying the opposite thing is good?

In mathematics or logic it is like saying that A=A and A=Non-A at the same time and in the same manner. That is called a logical contradiction or self refuting statement and both positions cannot both be true in such a case at the same time and in the same way.

"It was only after hearing Dawkins say EXACTLY THE SAME THING I had thought years ago, about how I realized that who we were born to really determines your faith... No one influenced me. Why do you need to believe that? Are you that threatened if people have independent ideas all on their own? You even said without god telling you right or wrong, or what to think, you didn't have a purpose - or you even said, god had to tell you what reality is - I don't think you know what free thinking is."

Ideas do not come from nothing. In science they come from observations and tests of those observations. Origins only happened once. You did not think up the theory of Evolution all on your own. Someone influenced and convinced you that it was how things really are. Since no one was there at the origin of the universe nobody observed it being formed(except for God, of course). So please don't give me this hogwash that evolutionary science is fact. It is the way people choose to interpret the facts thousands of years (in your case billions) after the initial happening (in my case where God spoke the universe [uni - one; verse - spoken] into existence; in your case possibly the Big Bang).

And no, I'm not threatened when people have independent ideas, but those ideas do not come from nothing. They take time to formulate based on a number of factors.

Kids have been taught and influenced in their thinking by evolutionary science through watched Barney the dinosaur on T.V. before preschool, all the way through to the higher institutes of learning. It becomes a lot easier to accept an idea when everyone is also jumping on the bandwagon.

As a Christian, I think outside the box that you are used to, by looking at the way God has revealed the world to me. Since His standard is the highest truth I am 100% certain that it is true. Yes, like you that requires faith, and I have to presuppose my core values, my foundation, but so many of the things that you cannot make sense of God has made sense of.

The foundational beliefs are the one that support the whole structure and when they are poorly constructed it is only a matter of time before everything collapses. You have to build you foundation on truth in order to know truth.

As a Christian God has called me forth with other Christians to proclaim the truth. And no, I cannot convert anyone. That is something only God can do. But I can tell them the message. What God does with it is not up to me.

Thanks for the chat.

Christopher Hitchens calls himself an anti-theist.
The difference being that an atheist, although disbelieving, can wish it were true.
And anti-theist doen't even wish it were true.

After listening to Peter Huff describe his world view, I have to go with anti-theist. I don't even wish it were true.

Hey Meg,

You said,

"wow - if you need god to exist in order for you to make sense of anything, then you are lonely. Do you see how you NEED god? Needing a god is not the same as having something really exist. You also state that if 20 years from now, when you are gone, and if no one remembers, where is the meaning? Do you really need to be immortalized?"

You are missing the point. Evolution cares nothing for you, God does, He grants you life and every breath. Death for you is the final curtain, for a Christian it is life eternal. Everything in your worldview becomes meaningless and void when the lights go out.

"Biologically, we are animals, a species."

Are you 100% certain that we are animals? Remember, a man, Carolus Linnaeus, came up with the categories of classification you now use. They were invented to put things in an order that he determined. Since then the have been modified, but the point being that they were invented.

Anyway, that is your view that man is an animal; it is not mine. God tells me, through His word, that man has always been human, there is no transitional links. God has given us dignity in making us in His image and likeness with self awareness and the ability to use of brains in ways the animals cannot.

"How we got here certainly isn't found in the bible"

Sure it is stated many times throughout the Bible. God created us.

"Even the catholic church agrees (and some here are claiming that it is the "one, true" religion?"

I am not Catholic. The Bible is the final authority on matters of faith, not tradition handed down many centuries later.

"Also, the reasons priests had to be celebate was because the church could not afford to also support the family - that was it. Not for religious purity. Gosh, if god made you, and wanted you to procreate (must have, since being gay was a sin) then WHY would he want people NOT having sex? Explain that logic."

We have a High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, who intercedes on our behalf before God. I don't know from what verses the Roman Catholic Church justifies its position on these matters of priests and celibacy, but on matters pertaining to sex, God gave us the mandate to procreate within the bounds of marriage, not outside of it.

"I do not believe evolution distinguishes between right and wrong - not sure of your statement. The bad could pass on more genes if they were the stronger ones."

So by that statement you are condoning whatever it takes for the strong to survive (or just stating another hypothetical, which is not science but conjecture), whether that be genocide, war or rape? As a Christian I see these things as evil.

"We don't need a god to describe logic.... But if we need god to describe logic, then do we need god to understand integrals? Calculus? Quantum physics?"

Where did logic come from? In your worldview it evolved from a random, blind, chance, chaotic accident 13-20 billion years ago (the age varies depending on who you believe in the dating game).

You may believe this, but how do you make sense of it? Do chemical reactions produce logic over time from physical matter?

It would be interesting to see a scientist, in a controlled environment, much less the natural setting, over time produce from molten lava or a primordial soup, by mixing chemicals together thinking beings with the ability to reason and understand language. I would like to see them make life from non-life for starters or something from nothing.

Why was all the energy in the universe contained in an area the size of a pin head to start with and where did this energy come from before it exploded (if you believe in the Big Bang theory)?

Explain to me how a random, chaotic chance happening can produce a non-physical concept such as logic, that we, as humans, all use to communicate and share ideas.

As I said before, without God you cannot make sense of these things.

CatholicDad,

I said,

"popular opinion and sentiment on the ills of slavery was the driver (moral relativism) , not the bible. In the OT slavery was condoned and regulated by god, show me where in the NT (New Covenant) where it was condemned."

You replied,

"The Old Testament was in fact used invalidly to justify slavery by ignoring the parts of the Old and New Testaments which clearly forbid it (recall "love thy neighbor as yourself")."

Nice sentiment, but pointless..... The OT condoned and gave laws for slavery, the NT never condemned and indirectly supported it. Here's a few fun verses.

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Look at Ephesians 6:5, slaves are being told to obey their masters as they would Christ.........

Then CatholicDad said,

Rather than take up more bandwidth and risk reinventing the wheel, I suggest checking out these links:

Catholocism v slavery:
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

On slavery in the OT:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7273/slavery.html

These links don't provide any real answers, but it is always fun to watch Christians walk through fire to try and make slavery a nice thing!

Professoredbag

Very well said indeed.

CatholicDad said:

"I'm not sure that admitting lack of knowledge is the same as dodging, but so be it"

We know what happened, the bible states it very clearly..........

We must embrace the fear that not knowing the reason for our existance engenders and conquor it by knowing that our survival as a species lies in all mankind working humanely to reach beyond doubt, to continue, with basic democratically determined human values, to scientifically advance, develop, and understand and accept our place in this mysterious continuum.
The world lacks the leadership to dispell the myths that divide people and could ultimately destroy us. Not knowing all the answers doesn't cause people to die. However, blindly following those who would have us believe they do, can, has throughout history, and does today.
Without the sham and shame of the trappings of religion we could simply honor and remember Mother Teresa as one individual who recognized the potential within her and had the courage to help give her children their chance to make the world a safer, more honorable and productive place; Something each of us can do to the extent of our abilities.
Is it impossible for societies to transform the grip of fear into a dignified fervor for survival? to replace life in myth and conjecture with life in reality and knowledge?

Catholicdad said:
"You'll have morons and powermongers regardless of religious (or non-religious) affiliation."

Morons and powermongers created religion in the first pace.

Meg,

> Catholicism is one of the groups that have gotten so out of hand...

I didn't say *Catholics* (i.e. the people) were intellectually and theologically complete and self-consistent, I said *Catholicism* is. You'll have morons and powermongers regardless of religious (or non-religious) affiliation.

Peace.

officeman,

I did not try and put you in a stereotype. When you say

"I repeat that the laws that govern the material universe infer an author."
it tells me you are not looking at evolution as a science(which discounts an author - that is not taught in our schools at all) and so I really don't think you accept science because of your comments - not because of a stereotype.

peter asks "Are humans animals in your view?" YES YES YES. We are mammals, like cows, bats, dolphins.
"Where did they come from?"
The same place we did - like I said earlier, the one scientist on tv was having great fun talking about how we owe our life to scum (the origins of single celled organisms) - we are the scum of the earth. He thought that was funny. Where did we come from? Evolution. Look it up.

I've never talked about abortion - where the heck are you getting all this stuff?

I also have to address this, to correct your misconception - I think you are saying things just to try and make yourself feel better. I said "THE REASON I am on the faith forum, isn't because I am looking for something! I subscribe to sam harris web site, so he sent me an email that he posted a new article. I read the article."

you said - "Well, it is interesting to know who is influencing you. That explains your confused worldview."
Funny you should say that. Let me give you a brief history. I have thought this way for YEARS. But ironically have had to keep quiet about it. I thought I was the only one. I am proud to say, I came up with some really good arguments all by myself. It was only after hearing Dawkins say EXACTLY THE SAME THING I had thought years ago, about how I realized that who we were born to really determines your faith - I could have been raised jewish, instead of christian. No one influenced me. Why do you need to believe that? Are you that threatened if people have independent ideas all on their own? You even said without god telling you right or wrong, or what to think, you didn't have a purpose - or you even said, god had to tell you what reality is - I don't think you know what free thinking is.

catholicdad-
I'm surprised to hear you say "That I became Catholic is no surprise, since Catholicism is intellectually and theologically complete and self-consistent. This stands in stark contrast to the tens of thousands of spin-offs created by (presumably) well-meaning dissidents led astray by the idea that they were more qualified to interpret the Bible than the hundreds of Catholic theologians that came before them."

Catholicism is one of the groups that have gotten so out of hand. Have we had wars because of the methodists? And I understand the baptists were put between the catholics and the protestants in the new america since they were so peaceful, and might hopefully be a buffer and keep peace. No, catholicism has been the most twisted. You state that other spin-offs were let astray - I think methodists were actually started by a priest.

If I were join a religion (I certainly have no inclination!!!! And no need. And no belief.) But if I were, I'd probably join the masons. They believed, but without organized religion over their head. Or I'd be with one of those religions that don't believe in a god, but in meditating and trying to better yourself. (Although I won't join that either, because I really don't feel the need to try and fill my life with anything. If I want to better myself, I'll read a book! Not join a cult. I guess they are all cults, huh?)

Peter huff – at 3 pm you wrote’
“Answers:
God is not fraudulent or artificial. He always tells the truth. That is genuine.
Before the physical there was the spiritual. God is Spirit. He created all there is. --since you were created by Him and rely on Him for existence.
God actually exists, whether you acknowledge this in your mind or not.”

And I say – really? God actually exists? I think that was the whole point of this article. The last statement you just said is ridiculous – you have not tried to PROVE anything, other than quote an old book – that does not prove anything. Just SAYING WORDS doesn’t prove a fact. If it DID, WE WOULD ALL BE LEARNING ABOUT GOD IN SCIENCE CLASSES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A REALITY. (I am not shouting - I just want you to read it r-e-a-l slow. Hear what I am saying.)

At least there were a few people here who said they were religious, for personal reasons, but that they could understand some of the questions and uncertainties. At least they were THINKING – and trying to go through a logical process.

GAD:

I addressed the Midianite issue as best I could in my last post. I may have mistakenly addressed it to Gerry.

I noticed your comment to Catholicdad recognizing that he might be the exception to the rule on some matter. The computer I am on moves at a glacial pace so I can't see the issue. If it has to do with whether the religious or atheists think more critically or use reason or logic better, I think you are on a false issue. I've seen enough written on this site amongst both the religious and non-religious (including that unprovable generalization) to conclude that idea is not true.

It's ironic. There are many Fundamentalist Protestants who blame atheism and all "reason-based" heresies on the Catholic Church because it was Catholic theologians (Aquinas chief among them - lived in the 11th Century as I recall) who Christianized Greek philosophy (principally Aristotle). Now an atheist is accusing Catholics of abandoning reason and philosophy. Oh my.

This may be my last post on this thread as I go camping tomorrow.

Thanks to all for the good times.

Gad,

> Of course I still think my claim is logical and statically valid ...

You can think it, but can you prove it? You *could* in fact try to prove your claim statistically, if you are familiar with how to validly sample a population. The overriding problem would be honesty of the people you sample, of course, but if you can somehow estimate the dishonesty rate...

> Since you are dodgeing the Midanite conflict ...

I'm not sure that admitting lack of knowledge is the same as dodging, but so be it.

Peace.

SAM HARRIS,

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING ME IN MY EFFORTS TO ENLIGHTEN THE WORLD ON THE TRUTH OF REINCARNATION! YOUR HELP HAS BEEN VERY WELCOMED.

SHIRLEY MACLAINE

Hi Peter.

I'd say something like "oh you are so very clever", but you're not.

You are stating as though you are correct, that "disbelief" means opposite belief. It most certainly, and obviously does not.
Your argument would work if it did.
But it does not.
It means (this is embarrassing to have to explain to an adult) lack of belief. And "lack of belief", can not be a belief by definition.

There is no opposite to god.
There is an opposite to "hot". Cold
There is an opposite to "fast". Slow
But no opposite to god.
I think you're going to try and present me with one.
And I think it's going to be some form of "not god"

"not god" does not exist. Except in the face of a posit of god.

I completely understand why, from your perspective of "god is", you perceive disbelief in god to be a belief. It's just not correct.

You are saying "disbelief" is an opposite belief.
It is not.
You are saying "disbelief" is a belief.
It is not, by definition.

Alright Peter.
Now tell me what the opposite of god is.

Okay Timmy,

If you insist, I will answer your question. It is the same old question that I see throughout these Forums. You throw out a stat without a reference in order to disparage Christianity in favor of atheism. I'll point out to you that the 20th century has been the bloodiest on human record to date, largely due to atheistic regimes. Does that mean that atheism is more barbaric than Christianity? Does that mean that atheists find it easier to murder than the rest of humanity? Does that mean that atheists have throwaway morals?

"Are you unable to answer my question about how why are there way more religious inmates in prison than atheists?"

Your stats could be interpreted a number of ways. Maybe these people were looking for a better way to live that gave them reason and meaning. How many of them converted to Christianity in jail? I know of countless prison ministries that give hope to people who have taken a wrong turn in life.

Do you ever hear of atheists going into prisons to inspire and give help to those who are hurting? How many atheist groups are doing this as compared to Christian groups?

That is just one of many possibilities. Show me the findings and we can discuss it more.

"Why are crime rates in the bible belt higher than NY City?"

There could be any number of reasons. Again, you throw out a stat like this without a reference and expect me to make comment on it. Just because there may be more crime rate in a Bible Belt does not mean that the Christians in these regions are the ones doing the crimes. You are trying to place guilt by association.

"Wrong about how only god knows good?"

God is the objective standard for good. Without Him you are like a flounder on the beach at low tide. You have yet to give an explanation that can make sense of good.

everyone, sorry for the repost of this, but it is important to make my point.
peter huff: you say
"He (god) is necessary for anything to be made sense of. As you can see from these posts, these people who are operating with a belief that God is not real cannot answer the foundational, the important questions of life such as how we got here, is there meaning and purpose in life."

"If all I am is a biological bag of matter that is here today and gone tomorrow that no one will remember anything about me or you in twenty years from now, maybe not even tomorrow, then where is the meaning; what's the purpose. I'm just reacting on impulse as my electro-chemicals mix together."

wow - if you need god to exist in order for you to make sense of anything, then you are lonely. Do you see how you NEED god? Needing a god is not the same as having something really exist. You also state that if 20 years from now, when you are gone, and if no one remembers, where is the meaning? Do you really need to be imortilized? Wow, that is sick. Biologically, we are animals, a species. We need to pass on our genes - or not, but for survival for our species, we need to. Those species that don't, go extinct. That is basically it. Your purpose genetically is to pass on your genes, if they are superior. The bigger, stronger men capture the women and the offspring generally are more healthy. Otherwise, beyond that, just enjoy the journey, or not - you are here for the ride whether you like it or not.

How we got here certainly isn't found in the bible - even catholicdad agreed the bible isn't a science text book. Even the catholic church agrees (and some here are claiming that it is the "one, true" religion? I could go into a whole other post on that! It was 100's of years before the catholic church was created! Also, the greek orthodox also feel THEY were the one first true church. ALSO, things that are REAL - the catholic church did NOT accept communion as real - it was representational. Check the original historical documents. Around 900 AD documents went back and forth high up in the church, asking eachother if they really meant for it to be "real". It wasn't until around 1100 (I forget the exact date -within a 100 years of that or so) that the organized catholic church declared that the bread and wine magically turned to FLESH. And also that you are a sinner if you miss mass - you MUST attend EVERY sunday. That is how the king had power over people. They had to show up. It's all in the history. Also, the reasons priests had to be celebate was because the church could not afford to also support the family - that was it. Not for religious purity. Gosh, if god made you, and wanted you to procreate (must have, since being gay was a sin) then WHY would he want people NOT having sex? Explain that logic.) I really digressed, but i had to.

I do not believe evolution distinuishes between right and wrong - not sure of your statement. The bad could pass on more genes if they were the stronger ones.

We don't need a god to describe logic. I can understand someone's confusion when talking about "love" and other feel-good things. But if we need god to describe logic, then do we need god to understand integrals? Calculus? Quantum physics? No. I did not finish your post - I have to leave now.

Hi Timmy,

You asked,

"Why are the words "belief" and "disbelief" two separate words?"

Because they mean two different and opposite things.

"They both mean "belief" right?"

See above.

"That is what you are saying right?"

No. What I am saying is the just because Atheist deny the existence of God that does not exclude them from having a belief. Their belief is the opposite of a person believing in God.

Why are you trying to disassociate atheism with belief. You are still placing your trust in the premise "there is no God." That is still a belief, just opposite to my belief. What you are doing is disbelieving what I believe, but still believing what you believe. Is that so difficult to understand?

"Belief and disbelief are synonymous right?"

No. Exactly the opposite, but that is not what we are arguing about. We are arguing about your claim that atheism is not a belief. Your logic in arriving at that conclusion is equally baffling. How about answering some of my previous question on the subject? Cat got your tongue?

"Who needs comedy on tv when I have Peter Huffs posts on line here."

We aims to please.

Maurie,
you said ----"Hi Meg. You wrote, "I hope Maurie takes a stab at showing you how we know things."

I'm going to pass on the futile attempt to present ironclad evidence on the fact of evolution."

I agree - it is frustrating when something stares them in the face and they cover their eyes - not sure what they are hiding from. But I didn't want you to go into the whole thing - I sent the quote down where he asks "oh, the fossil has written on it that it is 3 million years old?" or something. I said yes it did. He then asked for something - I forget the exact wording. I am quite familiar with carbon dating, other dating methods, and certain things can't be dated but the things AROUND it can be dated, but I couldn't succinctly put it into short text as to the science of dating a fossil, and needed some help without having to open more books. (Which all must be filled with jiberish, by the way, if these people are for real.) He did not understand HOW a 3 million year old fossil could be dated - he did not think it was possible to have that knowledge.
Thanks.

And Peter,

Are you unable to answer my question about how why are there way more religious inmates in prison than atheists?
Why are crime rates in the bible belt higher than NY City?
Are you perplexed?
Stumped?
Wrong about how only god knows good?

CatholicDad said:

"Necessarily something changed my mind, but there was no basic need to be filled by doing so. I didn't wake up one day thinking, hey, I lack love and purpose, maybe I should be Catholic?" I was quite happy (and good at) debating with my wife and others about how "silly" this religion or that is, and how "as long as we don't kill each other, what's the harm in living and let live?" I simply realized that I was wrong and corrected the error, with no small nudge from the Almighty."

Since my claim was based on conscious deliberation (Vs subconscious) and assuming you answer is honest (I have no reason to believe otherwise), then you don't fit my claim. Of course I still think my claim is logical and statically valid, therefor I will say that you are the exception and not the rule.

Since you are dodgeing the Midanite conflict, there is only one issue left that I would to close on, slavery. I got to do some work now, so will post later.

So Peter

Why are the words "belief" and "disbelief" two separate words?
They both mean "belief" right?
That is what you are saying right?
Belief and disbelief are synonymous right?

Who needs comedy on tv when I have Peter Huffs posts on line here.
lmao

Your closing statement says it all; "when even the doubts of experts confirm the doctrine, what could disconfirm it?" In the words of Voltaire "reason cannot remove from the mind what reason did not first put there." Always look forward to your commentaries. Keep up the good work!

MAURIE: Welcome. It is nice to have you here.

Maurie Beck wrote:

"For some reason he equates the fact of evolution and a belief in god as mutually exclusive (they are not, unless one happens to be a biblical literalist)."

Officeman: Thank you. I agree completely. I hope Meg understands by now I am not a biblical literalist.

Maurie Wrote: "The biblical view of creation paints God as a dolt who knows nothing about his own creation."

Officeman: Only if the Bible was intended to be a science textbook, which it was not.

Thank you.

I may have time to post once more today, but after that I will be in the woods without access to a computer for three days. Given how long it takes to find any particular point in this discussion, I am not sure I will return to it after the weekend.

COLIN L: I agree with you on civil discourse. I try to do my best. We can disagree while remaining charitable. I learn far more from honest intellectual discussion, even when it is critical of my position.

Colin said: "If you are right about there being a creator (and I still don't see any proof of that, but to make my point nonetheless), then maybe you are just worshiping a distant scientist."

Officeman: Good point. It gets at the heart of why both atheists and theists have "faith." It is possible that we are the product of a distant scientist's experiment. But if you take that back, infinitely, you eventually end up with the problem that simply random chance produced all this "exactness" in science. That means somewhere back there, random chance produced the scientist who started our existence. Put another way, you end up either with the material universe developing out of nothing (which science can disprove - everything has a cause), or with an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause may be unintelligent matter or an intelligent author. Atheists believe it was unintelligent matter. The inference favors an intelligent author. It takes more "faith" to accept that it was unintelligent matter.

Good luck to you, Colin. If we meet on the subway one day, may we be kind to each other.

GAD: I think you make a very good point about God requiring death (and possibly rape) in the OT. Simply put, that is hard to reconcile with the God I know (as is the existence of human suffering and many other things).

That said, this does not fundamentally shake my faith in the God revealed in the Bible (and I speak as a believer whose faith requires I disobey orders like some of those given in the OT). God's revelation to us evolved. He could not speak to ancient peoples in the NT terms of mercy and forgiveness any more than you or I could have spoken to them in terms of subatomic particles or string theory. (They would have enslaved or killed us either way.) God, who is outside of time and knows the hearts of all, knew something then that I do not know now. The NT has taught me enough about that God of the Bible that I can trust he saw it was either obey Him or be annihilated.

My faith consoles me with the thought that death is not the ultimate evil. I know God loved those he ordered killed and trust that he took care of them. I also trust that God ended those practices the instant it was no longer necessary. But all of that was unique to God's revelation. It did not continue past a certain period of ancient Jewish history and certainly not into the NT. Had it done so, the contradiction between the natural moral law and the Christian God would be too much for me.

I think this is a legitimate topic for inquiry and do not expect this answer to satisfy every atheist. But it is reasonable to put historical events in context, understand that God's complete revelation in the NT has earned my trust (and so has his action in my personal life). Therefore it is satisfactory for my own purposes.

GERRY: Spoke about fairy tales as if the existence of God equates to one.

Officeman: I find this entire line of argument unpersuasive. There is neither plausible circumstantial nor direct evidence pointing to a genuine "fairy tale." On the other hand, if there is circumstantial or serious direct evidence pointing to a particular "fairy tale", then it might be reasonable to believe (e.g., I might be convinced to accept the existence of something unusual in Loch Ness). I repeat that the laws that govern the material universe infer an author.

MEG: Apparently you still don't understand that I accept all that science can prove or establish by strong probability. I believe the universe is 16 Billion years old (give or take a few) and that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. I do not need an analysis of moon rocks to convince me it is not made of cheese. Dairy products can't leave our atmosphere and wouldn't survive repeated collisions with space debris if they did. Heck, cheese just doesn't weigh enough to cause our tides to act as they do. I am familiar with the history of our discovery of Black holes and don't need the science explanations.

If I could, please stop thinking I fit your stereotype of religious people. Some people do probably fit your stereotype, but I do not.

MEG said: "Imply is not “I saw it there” or “it fell on me and left a bruise”. Imply is to imply – suggest. I can suggest and imply a whole lot! That certainly does not make it true."

Officeman: This is the first time I believe you have directly addressed my argument. Thank you. You make a valid point here. In response: inferences are used in science and law all the time. Sometimes science eventually proves why the inference existed and sometimes it disproves the conclusion. When it comes to God, I choose to follow the inference. It makes sense of so much else in life. Furthermore, inference is utterly silent on the subject of whether the "exactness" of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc." could have resulted from random chance. Please see my response to Colin L.

Thank you.

Time will tell. As someone posted, science is the study of the observable. Reality is more than just the observable. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Peter,

this is my last post to you.

Your circular reasoning is really annoying. I make a statement, and you allege erroneously, that by making a statement I claim absolute truth about it, exactly what your funny logic reveals about yourself. You don't have to believe the content of my statement, but you can perceive it as an honest opinion.

Can't you grasp that quotations from WITHIN your system are worthless to prove anything as for the validity of your system?

Your assertion that if I don't pretend to make a statement of absolute truth (I don't, since I follow the normal ethical behavior of modesty of any scientific mind), my statement, since not absolute, contradicts myself is plain stupid.

Nobody "makes up" when he speaks what he believes. I will even infer this for you in your favor. My truth does not change as I speak, but I stay open to correction of my opinion if somebody comes along with a reasonable (!) argument to change or modify my opinion. You call this lying. Well, so much for your moral absolutes.

Believing, like you, that your statements as opposed to mine represent the absolute truth is as silly as Bush's "staying the course" in view of the lies and oncoming disaster of that stance.
I have never denied anything I stated. I usually mean what I say. Where do you get the preposterous idea from, that I don't mean what I say, only because I am open and you are closed, finished, absolute, in the possession of "eternal truth", end of development - what a hoax? Enough reason to pity you! Funny that you have to call me an intentional liar to save your warped philosophy, avoiding any realistic information that might gnaw on your superstition.

Ok, Peter: The world is flat. The sun revolves around the earth (everybody can see this). God created the universe in six days, it is written in the bible (how about our next neighboring star being 4 light years off, or don't you even know this?). Science is from the devil. 2x2=5, unless I pray to god to make it 4. I go to hell, you go to heaven. I don't know what I am talking about (and if I do, I deny it). You do. The god of love was right in his love for slavery and genocide. (You have to know the context!) Santa Claus will bring me presents for Christmas. After rapture, lions will eat grass. Don't walk under a ladder (oh, sorry, that is from a neighboring philosophy).

The Nepalese Air line slaughtered two goats when they had some technical trouble with their two Boeings. On faith.

Good luck for your next conversion.

To continue Meg,

"peter huff--In other words, Meg, you don't know why laws are universal and apply to the whole of humanity."

"first of all, this isn't about you - things aren't about humanity. Gravity acts on matter. Dogs, rocks, there is nothing in there about humanity. Take humans away, and look at the science. It is still the same."

I never said it was about me Meg. It's about God. Are humans animals in your view? Where did they come from? I'm asking how humanity explains invariant universal laws such as gravity in a universe that came about by chance. How can you know that what applies today as a law will be so tomorrow in a universe that is constantly in flux? How can a chance accident produce order and uniformity in nature? Please tell me that.

"I will say this again. I don't believe in anything. If you have to call me a athiest (definition as the root word - thiest is someone who believes in a god - by puting the a in front of it, it is the oposite - a-thiest. Otherwise, I would be a thiest, of a non-gog religion. I am not. I am a non-believer - which is different of a believer of a different set of standards."

Rubbish. Please see my replies to the same statements in the other posts.

"As far as my morals, I don't have anything, and I don't have something that is "binding". Call it personality. Call it proper thinking."

Pardon, please explain further how this is proper thinking. You don't have anything and you don't have something that is "binding"?

"I got it mainly from growing up, and noticing how I feel when someone does something to me. If I don't like people stealing from me, I try not to steal from others. I could steal, and I still would be a normal human being. Nothing is "binding", I don't get that."

So your environmental and cultural input molded you. So are you really thinking properly? If all you are and all you believe is what has been programmed into you by these factors, how do you determine that your standard is "good" when someone down the road in another culture and environment is being molded differently from you?

They are saying that abortion is wrong, murder,the taking of innocent life, not good. You (just an example) are saying that abortion is right, not murder. Just one minute before birth the mother determines that the baby is not human, therefore permissible to abort because your society has determined it to be right and "good" for the mother to decide.

So who is right? Both of you are saying something that is diametrically opposed to the other. Both cultures are diametrically opposed to the other. What gives either one the moral right to say what they believe is good? How can you critise Nazi Germany for murdering six million Jews. They are just doing what their leaders believe is in the best interest of their race in exterminating the lower animal forms (sorry to those who are Jewish - I just use this example to show the absurdity of such thinking).

In five years from now the gatekeepers change and so do the laws. What you have been told is right is now wrong and not good. So how can something that was good now be bad?

Suppose I am Muslim. What is to stop me from forming a group of 100 million militant Jihadists seeking social reform in your country, strapping bombs to our backs, coming into your culture and blowing ourselves and as many of you up as we possibly can. We believe it is in the best interest of our political and ideological struggle to do so. Eventually you will submit to our way of thinking and you, if you are still alive, will come to see it as being in your best good eventually.

Why is my view not good as a militant Muslim? Who are you to tell me otherwise?

You see, Meg, without God, you are the victim of whoever can weld their concept of good over you. And good is constantly changing and can never be understood as anything more than a passing fad.

"I personally can figure that out for myself. As far as religion - in my mind I feel secular humanists will always be more moralistic and fair, if it is their personal nature, and they will also have to live with their choices."

In some cases, yes, but they do so despite their worldview. So they are a contradiction. They borrow from Christianity and Judaism in doing what ought to be done.

"I REALLY have a problem with the thought that someone can do something bad, do something morally wrong, but claim to go to confession and have their sins wiped out. I find it ironic that people like the mafia are catholic! Kill, go to confession, good to go. Just because you admit your mistake to another HUMAN doesn't make it magically go away - that is such a cop-out of RESPONSIBILITY."

Well, I am not a Catholic and have problems with some of the traditions, but I do understand that I have sinned and done what is wrong in God's sight. Without Jesus as my sin bearer I would have to answer to God for all the ways I have violated His holy laws. Those laws are in place for our benefit. Without them it would be shear anarchy, each person doing what is right in their own eyes as you are proposing in your worldview, or at least right as you see it.

"THE REASON I am on the faith forum, isn't because I am looking for something! I suscribe to sam harris web site, so he sent me an email that he posted a new article. I read the article."

Well, it is interesting to know who is influencing you. That explains your confused worldview.

"You believe in a magical being that you can't see - but you don't understand the truth of a fossil that I CAN see, touch, test, and analytically compare? Which is the truth? I might not classify it correctly (as to the right sub-species" but I know at one time the truth was there was skin and flesh on that skull. What is your god make of? vapor? Tell me the "truth" of truthful things that you have found."

Your belief seems pretty hocus-pocus too. Something from nothing, life from non-life, non-physical from physical. Ever thought that maybe it is you who don't understand the truth behind the fossil? Are you of the same ilk as Gerry, not knowing anything as absolutely true, except of course, the one absolute that nothing is absolutely true? Whoops, self refuting belief.

As I have said, without God you cannot make sense of this world as to origins, ethics, truth, logic.

Gad,

> You experienced the God you can't prove speaking to your heart, how do you know it was him.

In much the same way you "know" it *wasn't* Him. I certainly can't prove it any more than you can disprove it, but I have a fair idea that it was based upon my personal experience throughout the conversion process.

> The point is that you surly went to theism to fill some need that you weren't getting from atheism ...

Necessarily something changed my mind, but there was no basic need to be filled by doing so. I didn't wake up one day thinking, "hey, I lack love and purpose, maybe I should be Catholic?" I was quite happy (and good at) debating with my wife and others about how "silly" this religion or that is, and how "as long as we don't kill each other, what's the harm in living and let live?" I simply realized that I was wrong and corrected the error, with no small nudge from the Almighty.

That I became Catholic is no surprise, since Catholicism is intellectually and theologically complete and self-consistent. This stands in stark contrast to the tens of thousands of spin-offs created by (presumably) well-meaning dissidents led astray by the idea that they were more qualified to interpret the Bible than the hundreds of Catholic theologians that came before them.

Oops, sorry, off on a tangent again.

Peace.

Liam - Science is restricted to the observable BY CONCEPTION, and all it has to say on the matter is "haven't seen any evidence yet." How people can draw deep conclusions from this, I can't understand.”

Not quite. As Carl Sagan stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When people say, "You can't prove God doesn't exist", my retort follows Bertrand Russel's conjecture on the Celestial Teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

No one can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (How can it be invisible and pink, you may ask? We have faith that it is pink, but we know it is invisible because we can't see it.) either. Shall we have Pastafarian Sunday school too? And what of the schism between those preferring Putanesca to Carbonara. There are other schisms brewing, threatening to tear apart the Loose Canon of the Gospels of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Peter Huff,

I'm afraid I'll have to end our discussion here, I am simply not in your league, your logic and reason are beyond my comprehension.

Hi Meg,

You said,

"Since we are talking about what is real--
How is god real? Tell me. How do you know you got revealed to his word? Is it because of a good feeling you get? Perhaps it was just gas. You don't know."

He is necessary for anything to be made sense of. As you can see from these posts, these people who are operating with a belief that God is not real cannot answer the foundational, the important questions of life such as how we got here, is there meaning and purpose in life.

If all I am is a biological bag of matter that is here today and gone tomorrow that no one will remember anything about me or you in twenty years from now, maybe not even tomorrow, then where is the meaning; what's the purpose. I'm just reacting on impulse as my electro-chemicals mix together.

Without God values or ethics are whatever you choose them to be, or whatever someone else forces you to accept. There is no intrinsic value to human life, only what each one of us makes it, because evolution does not, so I have been told, distinguish between right and wrong. (Don't believe it) It is descriptive, not prescriptive according to what I have read. There is no ought, just a why.

Without God how do you explain universals such as logic? We all use it to communicate, but supposedly it came from physical matter as it evolved. We just don't see it happening, or can you give me an example? If all we are is electro-chemical reactions, being conditioned by our environment then don't tell me that murder is wrong. It is just the impulse of my chemicals mixing together.

Without God truth becomes subject to popular opinion. The theory of evolution is a prime example. It is the bastion of higher learning, of modern civilization, brought forth largely by the Enlightenment and the questioning of the existence of God. You will find that when you research most of these modern thinkers that they all had something in common; they were looking for an explanation of life without God. Therefore they molded a belief together that they could filter everything through. (A lesson I learned long ago was that if you want to find out something about someone, find out who influenced them)

Once the idea of man living without submitting to the laws of God took off, everything immoral became acceptable. Squash God and you are free to do whatever you want without consequence. So, just as in the Garden of Eden, man rebelled, "Did God really say?" This undermining of the Christian God really took off with the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

Since the publication of the Origin of Species, worldviews have been influenced and changing so that you are now thoroughly indoctrinated into the idea. And all ideas have consequences. Hopefully what I am doing is getting you to think more deeply on what you believe, just as you have me.

Educate yourself, go down to the local library and start looking up names like Darwin, Spenser, Wallace, Lyell, Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, Hitler Marx, Stalin, Mao, Descartes and so many of the others during this period and find out what they have in common. Find out how the ideas started to take shape and the consequences. Ideas do not happen in a vacuum and once the intellectual gatekeepers of a society get hold of an idea usually the masses will follow.

You said,

"Here is REAL from M-W 1 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)"

Answer: God is permanent since He is eternal.

"2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : GENUINE ; also : being precisely what the name implies b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard -- compare IDEAL 3b c : having objective independent existence d : FUNDAMENTAL, ESSENTIAL e (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers ; also : being precisely what the name implies b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality " --- so show me the actuality of something that is just in someone's head."

Answers:

God is not fraudulent or artificial. He always tells the truth. That is genuine.

Before the physical there was the spiritual. God is Spirit. He created all there is. You are more than just a material body, are you not? Be careful how you answer.

Since He is eternal He has independent objective existence. You do not (Acts 17:24-31)since you were created by Him and rely on Him for existence.

God actually exists, whether you acknowledge this in your mind or not.

Hi Meg. You wrote, "I hope Maurie takes a stab at showing you how we know things."

I'm going to pass on the futile attempt to present ironclad evidence on the fact of evolution. I've tried before, but Peter's mind is impervious to logical argument and physical evidence. For some reason he equates the fact of evolution and a belief in god as mutually exclusive (they are not, unless one happens to be a biblical literalist). I am an atheist, but I know some biologists and other scientists who are true believers who think science is a great way to understand the Creators creation. The biblical view of creation paints God as a dolt who knows nothing about his own creation. In addition, the biblical view is like a stick-figure drawing compared to Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. If anything, I would think God would be insulted.

Hey Gad,

"religion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

You can do that but you are using it of context, and comparing apples with oranges. I.E. when you say atheism is a religion just like theism you are wrong because you are saying thatatheism is supernatural based same as theism which just isn't true."

Am I using it in context. Are you stating a principle - i.e. there is no God?
Do you have a cause? Or are you just here making noise like Gerry? Your cause, seems to me, is to make known your worldview and do battle with those who oppose your it. Neutrality is a myth.
Do you have a system of belief? Well, your ideas are not isolated. They come from core or foundational principles and form a web of beliefs through which you look at the world by, built upon thought by thought, precept by precept. Unfortunately you started from a shaky foundation. (Matthew 7:24-27)

"Try the forth definition give by Wikipedia. You qualify."

4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

"Same as above, two different contexts, supernatural Vs natural."

As for supernatural, you deny the supernatural, but in order for you to know there is no God you would have to have supernatural ability, because I, as a human being can only be in one place at one time and am limited in my thinking. You on the other hand are stating that there is no God, therefore you would have to be in all places at the same time to make that assertion. You would also have to be all knowing to rule out the possibility that there is a God.

I said,

"Your denial of God places you as the one who determined truth, right and wrong."

"Yep!"

So therefore your idea of truth is subjective, unless of course you are all knowing, and therefore I or Bush or Hitler says that your idea of truth is wrong are you and I and Bush and Hitler all right? In other words, can truth ever be false?

"My knowledge is infinity superior to God's because god doesn't exist."

Well, for one, you would definitely have to be all knowing as I see you are from your statements.

"Look at the Buddhism definition of God,"

"Why? I view Buddhism same as theism, wishful thinking."

Just as I view the Buddhist and atheist view as wishful thinking.

"Religious faith is a special case of faith that doesn't apply in the same context outside of theism."

Oh yeah, I forgot you make the definitions to suit your worldview since you determine truth, right and wrong.

"BTW, what logical proof or material evidence do you have that God does not exist? You say it so therefore it is so?"
That there is no logical proof or material evidence............. This is just getting silly now.

Excuse me for disagreeing with one so infinitely wise, but the material proof is all around you, including yourself. It is surprising that one so wise as yourself would fail to miss it.

As for logical proof, how do you get logic from a random, chance, blind, process? How do you get a non-physical, immaterial concept from an empirical, physical, material universe? Do tell. I have yet to see a rock use logic. Maybe you can explain the transition from material to immaterial, from impersonal to personal?

"I have no idea what your trying to say on belief, and I don't think you do either................."

I have stated it enough, but I will say it again. For you to state there is no god is a belief. Granted it is a disbelief in God, but a belief non the less. You have formed a core basis with your lowest common denominator being that there is no god and built your worldview around this belief. Everything filters through your core foundational principles in the way you interpret the world. You eliminate every premise that does not tie in with this minimalist or bare essential belief.

Hi Gerry,

You said,

"Who guarantees, that you will not convert to another "eternal truth"?"

God has given His promise that those who believe and trust in His Son have eternal life. Since His truth is absolute I can know that He is able to keep me from falling from His grace.

"Because He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

Notice the imperative - He WILL.

"Therefore, He is able to save completely those who come to Gd through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

"Because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14)

Notice the future tense - He has made perfect - completed act for those who believe.

You said,

"I don't claim to make any statements of absolute truth."

So therefore this statement is not absolutely true. Why should I believe you in your claim then? You can never be 100% that it is true.

You truth changes as you speak. You make up what you believe to be true. How do I know you are not talking out the corner of your mouth, saying one thing and meaning something else, both of which can never be known for sure as to their accuracy, so why should I ever take you seriously?

Yes, I know from our previous dialogs that you do not believe in absolute truth, but your wording always betrays what you say. You assert absolute truth in statements like "Good is never an absolute." You state NEVER absolute, so you contradict yourself right there. You have made the possibility of good not being absolute into an absolute by saying never. Never implies not ever. That is pretty absolute. So you continue to contradict yourself.

The whole point of me bringing up absolutes is to show the bankruptcy of your worldview. You keep stating them and then denying them. That is contradiction, inconsistency and complete non-sense. Truth you claim is something that you can never be 100% certain about. By the way, that is why you are a skeptic. The point is you keep affirming the Christian position that there is absolute truth in what you say. Otherwise you are just making noise for the sake of making noise.

Without objective, absolute truth nothing can be known for sure. But you certainly act as though it can. You state that God is a myth we have made up. Well folks, we have an all knowing atheist who really knows nothing for sure, not even the absurdity of his worldview.

"My comment about Hitler and Stalin was not about the number of murders, but on their subjective faith."

Oh, really, what was that?

CatholicDad said:

"No, this is not what I wrote. I made no statement *why* atheists believe as they do, only that the definition of the *word* atheism does not include the word "proof"."

6 of 1 half dozen of the other....

"This reduces to proving that God exists, so your demand is necessarily absurd. I did not believe in God. I experienced God speaking to my heart. I believe in God. It's that simple."

You experienced the God you can't prove speaking to your heart, how do you know it was him. The point is that you surly went to theism to fill some need that you weren't getting from atheism, even though there was no way to prove that that need was realistic or could be fulfilled by theism.

"Then it's probably pointless to continue on that line of discussion, since I am not, and I have no desire to be."

Being well versed in the Midanite conflict doesn't change the facts. What was done was quite practical for the time, virgins were prized, especially for keeping bloodlines and replenishing the ranks, little boys left alive might grow up and try to kill you, an army on the move can't afford to spend resources on pregnant women, babies etc. etc.. Harsh but practical for men, not for god.

Gad,

> [CatholicDad] > "Proof" does not enter into the definition;"

> So atheists disbelief in a supernatural god does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, we disbelieve for no reason.

No, this is not what I wrote. I made no statement *why* atheists believe as they do, only that the definition of the *word* atheism does not include the word "proof".

> [CatholicDad] > ... that only *your* brand of "proof" is sufficient to change one's mind from atheism to theism."

> Prove me wrong.

This reduces to proving that God exists, so your demand is necessarily absurd. I did not believe in God. I experienced God speaking to my heart. I believe in God. It's that simple.

Now, your turn. Using only the rules of formal logic, and without resorting to insisting that you know something about me and my experiences that even I myself don't know, prove that:

... [there] was something missing in [my] reality, love, hope, purpose, meaning ... that caused my conversion.

Go ahead, try it. It's tantamount to proving that God doesn't exist, which we have already established as being impossible (and pointless).

> I'm well versed in Midanite conflict ...

Then it's probably pointless to continue on that line of discussion, since I am not, and I have no desire to be.

Peace.

Peter Huff: said:

"Let me swap your definition for the one in Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, definition # 4"

religion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

You can do that but you are using it of context, and comparing apples with oranges. I.E. when you say atheism is a religion just like theism you are wrong because you are saying thatatheism is supernatural based same as theism which just isn't true.

"Try the forth definition give by Wikipedia. You qualify."

4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

Same as above, two different contexts, supernatural Vs natural.

"Your denial of God places you as the one who determined truth, right and wrong."

Yep!

"So you act in the place of God. You idolize your knowledge as superior to God's since you believe you have the wisdom to determine whether or not He exists"

My knowledge is infinity superior to God's because god doesn't exist.

"Look at the Buddhism definition of God,"

Why? I view Buddhism same as theism, wishful thinking.

On the subject of faith same as above, two different contexts, supernatural Vs natural. Religious faith is a special case of faith that doesn't apply in the same context outside of theism.

"BTW, what logical proof or material evidence do you have that God does not exist? You say it so therefore it is so?"
That there is no logical proof or material evidence............. This is just getting silly now.

I have no idea what your trying to say on belief, and I don't think you do either.................

Joining this blog late and haphazardly has created a situation where I have a lot of reading to do to catch up with the flow of ideas. I may have missed many good ideas by many contributors but a few stand out as relevant to me. MEG is an excellent advocate for the wonderful and exciting discoveries of modern science and has a, seemingly, relativistic view to everyday life but also sees a larger picture of the flow of scientific inquiry. Cheers MEG!

But as Archaeopteryx:, the physicist, stated we are basically only talking monkeys who have learned very little about our universe and goes on to say: “if you want to claim that science refutes the existence of a "supernatural" God, get outa town. Science is restricted to the observable BY CONCEPTION, and all it has to say on the matter is "haven't seen any evidence yet." How people can draw deep conclusions from this, I can't understand.”

Clearly, we talking monkeys continue to discover more about the universe every year. Even the most educated scientists of the pre-Copernican era were geocentrists. (Ptolemy made excellent observations which were eventually proved to be incorrect)

Paraphrasing astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson who basically states that we are not only in the universe, the universe is in us. We are truly star stuff!

Be amazed at being alive. Don’t take it for granted. Thank you UNIVERSE!

sorry about the misspellings - I should not write after 4 hours of sleep. "physicists" was incorrect.

to Maurie Beck-
Thank you. It is good to have a evolutionary biologist to help explain. I wish we also had a physisist, anthropologist, and archaeologist!

Perhaps you can answer peter huff's comment- "Oh really, when I pick up a fossil where does it say that it is 3 billion years old?"

Peter, I really don't have the time to get textbooks out and start quoting them. I suggest if you want the answer, go to a university library and look it up -IT IS ALL THERE. If you want the answer, look it up! It is not hearsay, there are scientific methods. (Don't now knock science as a belief system - is it a belief system that makes the x-ray machine work??) I hope Maurie takes a stab at showing you how we know things.

catholicdad,

you have it backwards. It is the religious who hang on to ideas regardless of the evidence.

you say
"in fact I would argue that even if God made an obvious personal appearance on earth, there would *still* be atheists holding out hope that they were right."

The reason we don't believe in a god is because there was no evidence of an imaginary thing. We are not trying to be right, we are just looking at reality, and imaginary things. IF god were to call us up, meet us at the door, send us an actual letter that HE wrote, instead of a person, then we would believe in that "thing" standing at the door, because he is real. That was the argument - as of right now, he isn't real, because he is only created in people's minds. Listen to Dawkins - he even states he would gladly believe in god if he saw the evidence. The evidence just isn't there.

peter huff-

"Truth is what is real and God knows what is real, I may not until He reveals it though His Word."

Since we are talking about what is real--
How is god real? Tell me. How do you know you got revealed to his word? Is it because of a good feeling you get? Perhaps it was just gas. You don't know.

Important - please read below, it is very self explanatory.
Here is REAL from M-W 1 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)
2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : GENUINE ; also : being precisely what the name implies b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard -- compare IDEAL 3b c : having objective independent existence d : FUNDAMENTAL, ESSENTIAL e (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers

I really like -"not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : GENUINE ; also : being precisely what the name implies b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality " --- so show me the actuality of something that is just in someone's head.

thank you gerry. I am just now catching up on the 2 am posts.

peter huff--
"why is gravity up there? Gravity stands by itself."

"In other words, Meg, you don't know why laws are universal and apply to the whole of humanity."

first of all, this isn't about you - things aren't about humanity. Gravity acts on matter. Dogs, rocks, there is nothing in there about humanity. Take humans away, and look at the science. It is still the same.

I will say this again. I don't believe in anything. If you have to call me a athiest (definition as the root word - thiest is someone who believes in a god - by puting the a in front of it, it is the oposite - a-thiest. Otherwise, I would be a thiest, of a non-gog religion. I am not. I am a non-believer - which is different of a believer of a different set of standards.

you say-a'I'm still waiting for you to account for your moral standard and how and why it should be binding. Is it because you say it should, or because you have been convinced that the group or culture determines the "good?"

As far as my morals, I don't have anything, and I don't have something that is "binding". Call it personality. Call it proper thinking. I got it mainly from growing up, and noticing how I feel when someone does something to me. If I don't like people stealing from me, I try not to steal from others. I could steal, and I still would be a normal human being. Nothing is "binding", I don't get that. I guess that comes from the religious who don't know what to do if they are not told what to do, or told if it is wrong to do - I personally can figure that out for myself. As far as religion - in my mind I feel secular humanists will always be more moralistic and fair, if it is their personal nature, and they will also have to live with their choices. I REALLY have a problem with the thought that someone can do something bad, do something morally wrong, but claim to go to confession and have their sins wiped out. I find it ironic that people like the mafia are catholic! Kill, go to confession, good to go. Just because you admit your mistake to another HUMAN doesn't make it magically go away - that is such a cop-out of RESPONSIBILITY.

last two corrections: you say "The reason you are on a Faith Forum I would suspect is either you are looking for answers to the complexity of life or you think you have the answers and want others to know them. But I will take you at your word below, in that you are looking for truth, you just don't know what it looks like."

THE REASON I am on the faith forum, isn't because I am looking for something! I suscribe to sam harris web site, so he sent me an email that he posted a new article. I read the article. I definitely am not looking for answers to the complexity of life as you are - if I was, I'd complete my degree in physics (alas there are only so many degrees I can get....) As far as you stating I don't know what the truth looks like - interesting. You believe in a magical being that you can't see - but you don't understand the truth of a fossil that I CAN see, touch, test, and analytically compare? Which is the truth? I might not classify it correctly (as to the right sub-species" but I know at one time the truth was there was skin and flesh on that skull. What is your god make of? vapor? Tell me the "truth" of truthful things that you have found.

To officeman-
I will try and answer some – not all – I have things to do- I will also try not to repost your comments and only refer to, and answer, so I don’t take up too much space.

My construct. You ask “OK then, how does your belief system handle: A) a scientific theory not yet discovered? Or, B) a historical figure for whom there is no longer existing physical evidence, but only recorded reports? Or, C) an unimportant slave who lived thousands of years ago but for whom there is neither physical nor recorded evidence? I'm curious about A through C and how they fit into your construct. I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm trying to understand it right now.”
It really isn’t that complicated. Exactly that. A) For example, I will use black holes. And I think most scientists had the same thought process – I am not a scientist (but would love to be) so I am not trying to put words in their mouth. Black holes for example – a math equation made them a possibility. Cool. Were they deemed to be truth? No. But scientists started looking. It was something to study, TO SEE IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT. If I remember correctly, I think it was Stephen Hawkins who did the math, and proposed black holes. Scientists then either try and prove a theory, or disprove, and look at the facts and evidence. No one believed they were true just because of a THOUGHT. Or that it was WRITTEN DOWN. Around 10 years later, one was found. Cool! They thought that was it. They also thought they were not common. As others have said before, science is such that if we find more evidence, or better evidence, of course we will evaluate the original thought. Because we are trying to figure out how things work, not hang on to an old belief system, regardless if it is truth or reality or not! So when many more black holes were found, the thought process on how universes were formed had to be re-evaluated. That’s ok! It’s called learning. If we didn’t look for answers, or try new things, we wouldn’t learn. That is why religion has held back humanity for so long, and why it is a terrible thing – when someone finds something true, but new, religion puts them in jail! How awful to talk about new things! Absurd – the earth going around the sun? They were so upset at that idea, just as you are about the possibilities of no god. B) I have no problem with that. If the recorded events were written down by more than one person, and there are multiple accounts, that sounds reasonable. Don’t confuse that with biblical statements (tripping me up) thinking that a human named bob lived 100 years ago isn’t that far fetched. I know humans were around 100 years ago (fact) and I know we name them many things – bob isn’t too bad. So, I have no problem with that fact, without the body. It is REASONABLE based on what I know now, and what I know from the past. (Other humans were around.) That is called critical thinking. Now if there was a writing about a guy named bob 7 million years ago, I would have a problem with that. Just because the bible says Noah lived to be over 500 years old, I do not believe it, because it is not reasonable. C). Same thing – people were around, that is not a stretch. It is based on intelligence and thought process. And also, since basing on truth, if someone proved to me that that particular bob did not exist 100 years ago, I’d reevaluate my theory.
Do I treat logic like the troll? First of all, you are splitting hairs so ridiculously – fact vs. faith really aren’t changed by logic or illogical. Actually, quantum theory is illogical, when looked at the macro level. (Hitting a tennis ball 10,000 times against a wall – one of those times it has a chance to go through… which really is unfair to say since quantum is for the very tiny, and should not be used in examples with large things. ) It is illogical. That is why many physicists don’t like it or will even say they don’t understand it, but they will also say it is 100% true – the math and the science proves it, whether they like it or not.
You saying “imply a perfect being” at the end just proves that you made up god for yourself. Imply is not “I saw it there” or “it fell on me and left a bruise”. Imply is to imply – suggest. I can suggest and imply a whole lot! That certainly does not make it true.
Oh, I just got to the bottom of your post. Be careful! You say “The Bible is not a science textbook. If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese and I know that cheese comes from dairy products, I don’t need anyone to go to the moon to tell me that the Biblical mention of cheese has some other meaning.” Well, wait a minute – do you mean you wouldn’t think it was cheese because dairy is on earth, or because of the science that NASA did on the rocks? If you know that the bible is not a science book, and we have scientists (LOTS of them) telling us the earth is 4.5 billions years old, and scientists tell us life started out as single celled organisms, life started in the seas first (whales have ankle bones.. I don’t see a designer designing a sea animal there!) you are saying that you believe the science from the scientists, since the bible is not a science textbook? The bible really isn’t a good text to find out exactly how many days it took to make the earth..

sorry - just found this in am - wrote in response last night. posting now.

Peter you're all about this "what is good, without god" thing.

Why are there way more religious inmates in prison than atheists?
Why are crime rates in the bible belt higher than NY City?
It seems that having a firm moral authority god doesn't help you do the right thing. The "good" thing.

Your argument is just so bankrupt it's embarrassing.

I am so very curious though what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you succeeding?

Peter Huff,

since you are a convert, the "eternity" of what you think is "good" or "truth" seems not so eternal after all - your absolute truth is apparently subject to change. Your own biography should convince you of the relativity of your "eternal" religious qualities, "eternal for the time being". Who guarantees, that you will not convert to another "eternal truth"? This possibility is meant as a compliment.

I don't claim to make any statements of absolute truth.

My comment about Hitler and Stalin was not about the number of murders, but on their subjective faith.

Gerry, you said,

"It sure is impossible to reasonably argue with someone who has abandoned reason for good,"

Likewise, I'm sure it is impossible to argue/dialog with someone who so sure of himself that he has no absolute definition of good. Today it is one thing; who knows what it will be tomorrow?

"All he can resort to is verbal attacks without any argument. He doesn't even recognize irony when it is put in quotation marks ("god-given brain", ha!)."

Oh yeah, like you are not verbally attacking Gerry. Debate and discussion involve questioning and the use of language that shows the absurdity of something that is false. Obviously you do not recognize irony in response to irony.

"The best part of the old testament, as an allegory,"

Where do you read that into the text Gerry?

"is the fact that Adam and Eve DID eat from the tree of knowledge. That is the basis for human dignity. The rest is obscurantism, power grabbing superstition to subjugate the minds of people."

How about that?

"Hitler and Stalin believed in their respective "truths", just like the inquisition, crusaders and the other holy missionaries..."

They certainly murdered more people in the 20th century than in the entire history of what was done in the name of religion, and falsely interpreted at that.

"The real "sin" of the faithful is not to maybe believe in the wrong supernatural entity, but to believe in the absolute truth."

Oh really, is that absolutely true? If not, to what degree of certainty can I believe what you are telling me is true?

GAD:

You said,

"I am atheist, I am godless, you are a theist, you have a god, so far so good. But when you claim atheism is a religion, that we made our selfs god, that we have faith and that atheism is a belief you are the one changing definitions."

Let me swap your definition for the one in Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, definition # 4,

religion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

"god

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Try the forth definition give by Wikipedia. You qualify.

4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

Your denial of God places you as the one who determined truth, right and wrong. So you act in the place of God. You idolize your knowledge as superior to God's since you believe you have the wisdom to determine whether or not He exists. To do so is to either be very ignorant of God or claim that you know everything and can eliminate the possibility of God because of such knowledge.

"Where is the supernatural power being in atheism."

Since you claim there is no God you must have the power to transcend the natural realm and investigate everything that can be known, otherwise you would be an agnostic, ignorant of the fact of God's existence. I, on the other hand, am just a human being who does not know everything, but only knows the One who does, and you are not Him.

Look at the Buddhism definition of God,

God

Buddhism is atheistic and does not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being or Creator God. However, it acknowledges the existence of a wide range of supernatural beings known as devas, many of whom were incorporated into Buddhist mythology from Hinduism.

"faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a PERSON,IDEA,OR THING."

There you have it. The thing you place your belief in is you. Last time I checked you showed the signs of personality. Does that make you a person? Well you definitely are showing signs that you place your confidence in yourself as trustworthy.

"2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust."

BTW, what logical proof or material evidence do you have that God does not exist? You say it so therefore it is so?

"You could claim that atheism has faith but it is not in the same context as theism."

Is it something you put your trust in? Or do you just believe it devoid of trust?

"be·lief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons"

"Here again you could claim that atheism has belief but again it is not in the same context as theism. I don't have a belief in atheism per se, I have a "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, and validity that the evidence for gods existence is false."

Well, on those definitions of belief alone you qualify for definition 2 and 3. Two out of three ain't bad!

It sure is impossible to reasonably argue with someone who has abandoned reason for good, believing the Adam and Eve and the rest of the bible stories of the beginning of the universe literally.

All he can resort to is verbal attacks without any argument. He doesn't even recognize irony when it is put in quotation marks ("god-given brain", ha!).

With human dignity I connect the modesty to be ready to review an opinion if new informations modify it. That is what honest scientific thinking honors. The reluctance to correct a false position is what brought the Titanic down. The captain "stayed the course".

The best part of the old testament, as an allegory, is the fact that Adam and Eve DID eat from the tree of knowledge. That is the basis for human dignity. The rest is obscurantism, power grabbing superstition to subjugate the minds of people.

Hitler and Stalin believed in their respective "truths", just like the inquisition, crusaders and the other holy missionaries like Jacob Sprenger with his "witch hammer" (malleus maleficarum).

The real "sin" of the faithful is not to maybe believe in the wrong supernatural entity, but to believe in the absolute truth. The truth possessors are the ones that have created the major mischief in history, today represented with Bush's "Dead certain".

CatholicDad said:

"You have attached extra qualifications to the word atheism, which simply means disbelief of a supernatural god. "Proof" does not enter into the definition;"

So atheists disbelief in a supernatural god does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, we disbelieve for no reason. I think your confusing our sides, thats the theist argument for belief.

"You assume a great deal with this argument, though most agregious is the assumption that only *your* brand of "proof" is sufficient to change one's mind from atheism to theism."

Prove me wrong. You went from atheism " no proof of god" to theism without proof of god. If not for the reasons I stated, then explain it, all you did was huff and puff about how dare I.

"I was pointing out the error in taking bits and pieces of the Old Testament and calling it "proof" that a Bible-based morality is somehow corrupt."

Taken as a whole it is even worse.......

"I can't possibly address your concerns here, so I defer to this web page for a quite comprehensive overview of the Midanite conflict:"

I'm well versed in Midanite conflict: and the Christian attempts to wiggle out of it (they always make me laugh). Fact is 10's of 1000's of pregnant women, babies and small boys were killed (not in battle but after they were captives) and the virgin girls were given as payment by god for a job well done. You can't get around that, and you can't sugar coat it.

Howdy Gerry,

You said,

"God never told anybody anything, let alone truth."

Are you absolutely sure of that? Of course you would have to be all knowing to make such a statement, so in your mind you would be god. Do you determine what is real and what is not?

"Of course, once you have posited him as real, you can continue with every imaginable fairy tale, and, alas, there are so many in the bible and elsewhere in religions. And once you believe in fairy tales, you have gotten rid of any possible contradictions, because in a fairy tale everything is possible, that is what makes the charm of fairy tales (Harry Potter)."

There again, once you have posited Him as imaginary and unreal you bring in the subs and imagine them to be real and truthful. But, as Gene Cook Jr. says, "you are a walking contradiction my friend." You can't even determine good with any degree of certainty.

"We should use our "god-given" (excuse me) brains for more important things, for instance how to get along with each other and our little planet."

Gerry, your God given brain, operating as if there is no God doesn't seem to be working well. Your bitting the hand that feeds you, then denying that you did it.

Atheistic regimes have really proved how well they can get along without God in the 20th century alone. See The Black Book of Communism for one.

Meg, you said,

"oh peter huff, Do you really believe in adam and eve? I really have no use talking to you then."

Yes I do believe that Adam and Eve are literal people; the first man and woman that God made, in which we are all descended from. Does that dissolve our conversation, then, since it goes against what you believe? Is that the denominator that causes you to break off the dialog?

You said,

"Please explain to me (keep in mind the conservation of energy thing) how adam and eve go "poof" and are here?"

Be glad to, Meg. God is supernatural in that He can do things that we do not witness naturally, like creating something from nothing. How do you explain how something came from nothing, since it is commonly believed that the universe came from nothing? After the "Big Bang" if you hold to that theory, how do you explain life coming from non-life? How do you explain the personal coming from the impersonal? The list goes on.

Conservation of energy - "For by Him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. (Colossians 1:15-17)

"Even when I was religious, I always took that figuratively.

Your mistake.

"PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS POSSIBLE. Give me the example of that knowledge, since you believe it to be true."

Language has meaning and the text and context determines the meaning. God has spoken to us in language that we can clearly understand. He says what He means and means what He says. So you look at the text and context and other passages that speak about the creation and Adam and Eve to arrive at God's intended meaning. Try for instance reading Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 with what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:5-9. Since Jesus is the Creator He knows better than we do of when the beginning of His Creation is. There are a multitude of text that I can use if you are interested in pursuing the matter further. Isogesis is where you read something into the text that is not there, exegesis is when you take out of the text the Authors intended meaning. By making Genesis 1-3 as mythology or figurative you are reading something into the text that is not there.

" if you look back historically, humans could never make up their mind who to worship! AND, in the begining, religion was started to try and explain things humans didn't know."

That has been the problem from the beginning of creation. Man wants to worship God on his/her terms rather than how the Creator has determined; therefore the myriad of man made religions. You are not telling me anything the Bible has not already disclosed.

"Isn't it awful that we are raising our children not to think good things of themselves, but to think of themselves as sinners?"

There again, you have to have a standard to measure "good" by, since it is a qualitative statement. What is your standard and measure? Gerry, one of your atheistic cousins doesn't know or cannot determine any absolute standard for good.

"Good is never an absolute: A liar who saves his family through a lie is still a liar, but he also is a hero."

So you will have to take his word for it that his subjective standard is good, even though it is opposed to what others believe good to be. Since he cannot state absolutely what good is, what chance is there that he is right in his opinion?

Peter Huff said:

"You and your atheistic cousins (Gad for one) keep trying to deconstruct the definitions to suit your purposes"

No, thats your specialty. I am atheist, I am godless, you are a theist, you have a god, so far so good. But when you claim atheism is a religion, that we made our selfs god, that we have faith and that atheism is a belief you are the one changing definitions.

re·li·gion

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Where is the supernatural power power in atheism.

god

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Where is the supernatural power being in atheism.

faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

You could claim that atheism has faith but it is not in the same context as theism. Here go read something and maybe you learn the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

be·lief

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

Here again you could claim that atheism has belief but again it is not in the same context as theism. I don't have a belief in atheism per se, I have a "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, and validity that the evidence for gods existence is false.

Gerry,

> A soldier holds a gun to your head ... If you are "imaginative enough" to successfully bargain with the soldier without lying, you are a saint.

You assume that one has to "bargain without lying". How about not saying anything? Within the parameters of your scenario, that would in fact be the right thing to do. Of course, I would like to think that I would do the right thing in such a situation, but it seems unlikely. :-)

Peace.

Gerry,

> A soldier holds a gun to your head ... If you are "imaginative enough" to successfully bargain with the soldier without lying, you are a saint.

You assume that one has to "bargain without lying". How about not saying anything? Within the parameters of your scenario, that would in fact be the right thing to do. Of course, Of course, I would like to think that I would do the right thing in such a situation, but it seems unlikely. :-)

Peace.

God never told anybody anything, let alone truth. Of course, once you have posited him as real, you can continue with every imaginable fairy tale, and, alas, there are so many in the bible and elsewhere in religions. And once you believe in fairy tales, you have gotten rid of any possible contradictions, because in a fairy tale everything is possible, that is what makes the charm of fairy tales (Harry Potter). It is all in the fantasy of humans, and the more dubitable those fantasies appear (especially to a convert, the German Islam terrorists caught yesterday also were converts to Islamism), the more the religious fanatics cling to them to save their face.

We should use our "god-given" (excuse me) brains for more important things, for instance how to get along with each other and our little planet.

Meg, you said,

peter huff --- "and the fossils have nothing stamped on them to say they are 3 billion years old."

"YES they DO. Here is a fine example of when I told people to read a science magazine. The atoms and their decay rate are STAMPED on that fossil, or the ground around it. "

Oh really, when I pick up a fossil where does it say that it is 3 billion years old?

There are so many factor built into the decay rate that you or I were not present to experience. Since you base truth on what you experience and since you were not there to experience all these factors that could influence the correct reading of this fossil, you just presume that science is true in these aspects. The dating of the moon rocks is a prime example of how scientists determined the age of the moon since they had various readings. They make assumptions.

A tree fossilized ten years ago can have various reading to it including massive time spans as to its age.

Gad,

> [CatholicDad] > "Simply because your view of "reality" is different from mine gives you no leave to make such ridiculous claims"

[Gad] > Why not? Why can't I state my beliefs...

State your beliefs as you will, as that is the stuff of interesting conversation. I *do* have a problem with (again) sweeping generalizations, particularly those posed derisively and without merit.

[Gad] > There was something missing in your reality, love, hope, purpose, meaning, it doesn't matter what, yet without any proof you added god to your reality to try and fill that need.

You assume a great deal with this argument, though most agregious is the assumption that only *your* brand of "proof" is sufficient to change one's mind from atheism to theism.

[Gad] > Atheism says no proof no god ...

You have attached extra qualifications to the word atheism, which simply means disbelief of a supernatural god. "Proof" does not enter into the definition; in fact I would argue that even if God made an obvious personal appearance on earth, there would *still* be atheists holding out hope that they were right.

> [CatholicDad] > ... in light of the political and social climate during which it was handed down, and try to rectify what he finds with the New Testament teachings of Christ.

[Gad] > Thats moral relativism!

Now you are even quoting *me* out of context, is there no end to it? In my response to Meg, I was not trying to justify the morality of the Old Testament. I was pointing out the error in taking bits and pieces of the Old Testament and calling it "proof" that a Bible-based morality is somehow corrupt.

> [CatholicDad] > ... but when the social and political climate of the time was warlike, what do you expect?"

[Gad] > Again moral relativism, so much for absolute values from god.

Though I was not trying to justify anything, this particular statement does come across as moral relativism. But don't let my poor choice of words lead you to believe that God is not the source of absolute right.

I can't possibly address your concerns here, so I defer to this web page for a quite comprehensive overview of the Midanite conflict:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

Peace.

Zeus loves you Sam.

Catholicdad,

I really had to laugh at your naive try at a solution in a given situation that has taken place over and over. A soldier holds a gun to your head and asks you where your son is, in order to kill him, since, in the eyes of the soldier (talking about absolutes, Peter Huff!) he is a terrorist, while you regard him as a freedom fighter (French resistance, e.g.). If you are "imaginative enough" to successfully bargain with the soldier without lying, you are a saint. (There really, again, is no such thing as a saint).

But you should publish your strategy and could make an awful lot of money with it.

Another little chapter in the book "religion and reality".

Meg, to continue our discussion, you said,

"You say even though you experience something is true, you will not believe it is true? Really? Where is your reality? If a car hits you, will you not think it is reality unless god tells you it is?"

What I meant is that to have a subjective opinion to what is true does not necessarily make something true - case in point is evolution. If God, in His Word, tells me otherwise, then I know that what I believe to be true is not the case. There must be another explanation in such a case. Truth is what is real and God knows what is real, I may not until He reveals it though His Word.

"That is pretty poor. If a teacher tells you 2+2=4, will you not believe it is reality if it is slightly against what is in the bible?"

Well, it does not go against what God has revealed, therefore it is true. When He said six days He meant six days.

"You have no hope making it in the real world if even if you experience it as true you are still not willing to look at the "truthness" of that experience."

It boils down to your standard. Truth, as you say has to conform to what is real, and God is real and the Originator of all truth. In deducing that 2+2=4 you are thinking God's thoughts after Him since He has made you in His image or likeness.

When I said,

"To me, experience is a secondary issue. Something is not true because I wish to believe it as true, and because I experience it as true, but it is true because God has said it is true and God determines truth. So whether you experience Him or not does not nullify His existence"

You, as well as I can experience or perceive something to be true and later find out that it was false. But when God, in His Word, confirms something to be true you can take it to the bank because God is not like man in that He should lie.
It is not in His nature to lie.

Meg,

I admire your persistence. I give up on the fanatical convert Peter Huff. He is unable to refer to a single argument of yours or mine or other reasonable secular humanists' without offering his circular reasoning: Because there is god, there is god.

As soon as he finds out he cannot answer, he calls what you say is nonsense.
The preposterous idea that we are atheists because of Harris or Dawkins or any other author we "worship" shows his limited imagination, his lack of empathy into other people's humanity outside his own little safe haven. He is completely unable to imagine that people can think for themselves, take fables and myths for what they are, look into their history and don't confound superstition with reality.

Peter,

So a disbelief in the tooth fairy is a belief in something else?
What is disbelief in the tooth fairy a belief in?

A disbelief in Santa is a belief in something else?
What?

A disbelief in voodoo is a belief in something else?
What?

Your answers can't be, "Not tooth fairy" "not santa" "not voodoo"

But here Peter in your own words you define the core of the difference between you and us.

Peter said:
"The problem is without God, good is arbitrary. It means whatever you want it to mean. Nothing can be clearly defined because everything is open to subjective opinion, whether that be of one or many. It is all meaningless. As I said before, without God you cannot make sense of this world."

No Peter.
Without god YOU cannot make sense of the world.
I do just fine. As I'm sure Meg does fine.
YOU need an authority voice to tell you what good and bad is. YOU need a black and white definition.
We're just fine, thanks for asking.
More importantly, you need to know that everyone else is following the same rules as you and not getting away with something that you can not do. it's just not fair is it?
You only consolation is that we are all going to hell.
Only deep down you know that's not true.
You know we're getting away with all of this atheist fun and not going to pay a price. This is your frustration.

We have absolutely no problem working out what good and bad is. What is our standard you ask? Everyone has their own personal standard and society has a collective standard that has evolved (I know you don't believe in that word) through cohabitation over the millennia.

The most hilarious and telling comment by believers on this thread is when you tell us atheists that our life has no meaning without your god. Too funny.
My life has plenty of meaning. I am completely satisfied and content and purposeful without your god.
That bothers you because you need god to validate your existence. I hope it makes you as happy as I am.

Peace.

Come on Timmy, get real. You said,

"If there is no religion, there is no such thing as atheism.
On the other hand, take away atheism, and religion still exists.
Because religion is a belief in something. It does not require a counter point to exist. Atheism is a disbelief of something. It does not exist without that initial posit."

If atheism is a disbelief of something it is a belief in something else. Ideas don't come from nowhere.

Hello again Meg,

You said,

"why is gravity up there? Gravity stands by itself."

In other words, Meg, you don't know why laws are universal and apply to the whole of humanity.

"But basic right and wrong (killing, stealing) do not come from the bible. I am sure it has been written in other religious texts too! Before christianity. Did christianity steal it? Or is it because it was written by people?"

Nice deflection there Meg. I'm still waiting for you to account for your moral standard and how and why it should be binding. Is it because you say it should, or because you have been convinced that the group or culture determines the "good?"

Did you notice what Gerry said. He has a hard time determining what is good also. Yet he banters the term about making his moral judgments.

The problem is without God, good is arbitrary. It means whatever you want it to mean. Nothing can be clearly defined because everything is open to subjective opinion, whether that be of one or many. It is all meaningless. As I said before, without God you cannot make sense of this world.

I like the way the rock group King Crimson put it in their song Epitaph,

"Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow Ill be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow Ill be crying."

The last two lines are the marching cry of the Atheist. The 20th century bears witness to it with what some estimate at over 100 million killed by atheist regimes.

That is not to say that an atheist cannot be a moral person; just that he/she is being inconsistent with their worldview. If you want to argue this statement first define the standard you measure good by.

By the way, my contention is that the Bible traces man to his beginnings, so it does supersede all other religions in its moral teaching.

You said,

"Your second paragraph couldn't be any more incorrect. We do not believe in atheism. If we had a belief, we'd be theists."

Everybody has a belief. Don't kid yourself. You have a way of looking at the world that you place your trust in those attempts to answer origins, meaning and purpose. Origin - where we came from; meaning - why are we hear; purpose - am I accountable to anyone. Atheism is attempting to answer some of these questions for you. The reason you are on a Faith Forum I would suspect is either you are looking for answers to the complexity of life or you think you have the answers and want others to know them. But I will take you at your word below, in that you are looking for truth, you just don't know what it looks like.

"We are looking for truth, not following someone in their beliefs."

Yes, you are following someone in their beliefs, just like the person(s) you follow in turn followed others in the shaping of their beliefs. You just claim you are not. I think others can see it for what it is. Ideas do not come from a vacuum. They are built upon, precept by precept.

You believe as an atheist, just as I believe as a Christian. The difference is we believe different things.

French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god.

You and your atheistic cousins (Gad for one) keep trying to deconstruct the definitions to suit your purposes. Look in common dictionaries as to what atheism means. I'm sure you will find "a BELIEF that there is no God or gods." Simply put, a belief without God or a god(s).

elena balyberdina - Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and I never borrow and espouse Christian values because they are Christian. As might be expected, there is some overlap in my values and what might be found in the bible, but it certainly doesn't originate there. There is also much in the bible that is wonderfully bloodthirsty and quite beyond belief.

(Deuteronomy 13:7–11) If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ."

elena balyberdina - Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. The fact that the homosexuals cannot reproduce ... does not imply that they should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.

I don't know where you get your ideas about evolutionary biologists. First of all, homosexuality is incredibly common in the natural world, appears to have a biological basis, and is almost certainly not a "choice" in the way the debate is framed by religious fanatics. At the same time, even if it was a choice, it would still not be any of their damn business.

As far as natural selection, it is a process not an entity with a mind. Nor does the process of natural selection result in a destination, primarily because the environment is a moving target in which a trait might be favored under some circumstances, but not others. For example, there might be positive directional selection for fur length in a population of mammals as the climate gets colder. Those with longer fur would leave more offspring. Later, if the climate gets warmer, shorter fur would be favored and there would be directional selection resulting in shorter fur in the population.

CatholicDad,

At first it seemed as if we could have an interesting discussion, but alas that doesn't appear case. I'll put that on my self for not being skillful enough to communicate with you at your level. I'll respond to your last posts and we can end it there.

CatholicDad said:

"You are fond of making sweeping generalizations, it seems."

I learned it from Christians, albeit mine are based in reality.

"Simply because your view of "reality" is different from mine gives you no leave to make such ridiculous claims"

Why not? Why can't I state my beliefs, Christians do it all the time, on TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, no the bumpers of their cars, on street corners, in congress, on this blog, hell they come to my house and knock on my door top tell me............

"Demonstrate empirically or otherwise that every convert from atheism to (e.g.) Christianity is trying to avoid reality?"

First I said "accept", second I'll use you as an example. Atheism says no proof no god, and by your own words you said you can not prove god, yet you became a theist anyway. There was something missing in your reality, love, hope, purpose, meaning, it doesn't matter what, yet without any proof you added god to your reality to try and fill that need.

"And simply by stating that you are not trying to be derogatory does not remove that fact that what you've written *is* derogatory."

No, it wasn't in the context intended.

"Yes, and taken out of context as it *obviously* has been, an uninformed reader would be led to believe that a Bible-based moral structure would be atrocious."

Taken in context they are even worse.

"Of course, any Bible scholar worth his salt---or any thinking person, for that matter--would both try to view the Old Testament in light of the political and social climate during which it was handed down, and try to rectify what he finds with the New Testament teachings of Christ."

Thats moral relativism!

"In concert with a good set of Biblical references, and with honest study, you would be hard pressed to go on *assuming* that modern-day Christian morality would be based upon the things in the Old Testament which have no place in a New Covenant (New Testament) world."
Again moral relativism. The NT doesn't justify the OT.

"Brutal times, those Old Testament years, eh? I despise Bible quotes because you never know the context, and you have quoted out of context to support yet another sweeping generalization. A cursory reading of Numbers 25 attests to to this, as Num 25 explains in no uncertain terms why the Midianites were destroyed"

I'm absolutely in context, that old dodge doesn't work with me, I'm very well versed in the bible. So go ahead and explain to everyone why it was very moral and justified to kill ~30,000 little boys (babies as well) and women (pregnant ones to) and only keep alive the virgin girls as payment.

"Especially see the footnotes. Obviously it was still a brutal slaughter, but when the social and political climate of the time was warlike, what do you expect?"

Again moral relativism, so much for absolute values from god.

"To try apply this sort of "they did it then, so they'll do it now" reasoning to modern Christianity is---as I wrote to Meg---simply moronic."

I didn't try and apply it to modern Christianity, but if I did it wouldn't be moronic in the least. God ordered people to kill each other in the past, that a fact, and you can not for a fact say that he will never ask his followers to do it again. If a man rapes a kills littles boys and then goes to prison for 20 years and then gets out is he still a killer? Would you let him babysit your kids? God did worse for thousands of years, but you say he doesn't do that anymore, thats the past, how dare you even bring that up, thats moronic.

Thanks to everyone who has made this such a stimulating read.

I would especially like to thank Officeman for his kind words even though we disagree on the major issue. I truly appreciate it when people can be civil to one another even in disagreement.

Officeman: If you are still here, I would like to point out that you missed one of the ideas I was trying to get across in my previous post. I know the idea of humans (scientists) replicating life from inert matter is proof of a creator. What I was trying to say is, "If you are right about there being a creator (and I still don't see any proof of that, but to make my point nonetheless), then maybe you are just worshiping a distant scientist. Why would we worship a distant, disinterested scientist who created our universe? Even if, using your logic, you come to the conclusion that there is a creator, everything else (tenants of Christianity, eternal life, benevolent God) is just a matter of faith. This is not intended as a "gotcha" question. I am just genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Again, thanks you for a very nice discussion on this topic. I wish more people of differing views could hold civil discussions because the world would be a much better place.

Peace,
Colin L

Thanks to everyone who has made this such a stimulating read.

I would especially like to thank Officeman for his kind words even though we disagree on the major issue. I truly appreciate it when people can be civil to one another even in disagreement.

Officeman: If you are still here, I would like to point out that you missed one of the ideas I was trying to get across in my previous post. I know the idea of humans (scientists) replicating life from inert matter is proof of a creator. What I was trying to say is, "If you are right about there being a creator (and I still don't see any proof of that, but to make my point nonetheless), then maybe you are just worshiping a distant scientist. Why would we worship a distant, disinterested scientist who created our universe? Even if, using your logic, you come to the conclusion that there is a creator, everything else (tenants of Christianity, eternal life, benevolent God) is just a matter of faith.

Again, thanks you for a very nice discussion on this topic. I wish more people of differing views could hold civil discussions because the world would be a much better place.

Peace,
Colin L

Sam Harris rocks.

I love the way he shuffles your mental categories so remorselessly: you're used to thinking of "faith" in the context of smarmy, somewhat uncomfortable-feeling fake-smiling middle aged bland people and ugly blank buildings, and he puts it back in the context of sacrifice to propitiate angry mythological figures.

The trappings of faith in our age are just a surface polish which he sees right through, and helps others see through. In time, they'll seem as absurd as any facepaint or naked dance.

Sam Harris rocks.

He rocks so hard he BREAKS THE COMMENT SYSTEMS OF MAJOR NEWSPAPERS.

Go Sam!

Go Sam!

"Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice . . . as offering to an invisible (and almost certainly fictional) God."

Ummm . . . to which fictional god were Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy et al making their sacrifices? Just as not all sacrifices involve blood-letting, not all blood-letting is sacrificial.
And God sacrificed His Son so there would be no need for another blood sacrifice.

As for Mother Theresa, the doubt would indicate that she's human & fallible. I notice that you ignore the YEARS of (blood-free) SACRIFICE this woman offered for a God she believed in deeply, after the doubting days.

Cathy

Peter Huff

It's very simple Peter. You can talk in circles around it all you like but you'll never convince anyone that, not believing in the god that you propose, is a belief system in itself.

If there is no religion, there is no such thing as atheism.
On the other hand, take away atheism, and religion still exists.
Because religion is a belief in something. It does not require a counter point to exist.
Atheism is a disbelief of something. It does not exist without that initial posit.

By your logic, you believe fully in the non existence of the flying spaghetti monster. And yet you have no proof of this. In fact there are an infinite number of posits yet unimagined that you are claiming to be a hard-core disbeliever in. Before they are even proposed. You are a member of an awful lot of disbelief cults.

It just doesn't work the way that you are looking at it.
But I understand that you will remain unconvinced.
Logic just can not compete with the oh so wise words of bronze age nomadic goat farmers and their heat induced hallucinations.

We try our best on this forum to help believers understand our stance on religion. Some don't want to understand. They just want to convert. Or yell at us for being so critical of the myths that define them.

That smugness that we atheists have frustrates you because you can sense that deep down, we are much more certain of our world view than are the faithful. It's understandable. How could a world view that requires faith in 3000 year-old hearsay ever be completely secure. Even Mother Teresa had atheist envy.

I wish you all the best Peter.
I promise you I do not belong to any belief group.
I'm just one of many different types of people, who believe all kinds of different things. The only thing we have in common, is that we're not buying any of that Jesus babble that you're selling.

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissiveness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. People get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and ramifications of marriage dissolution. It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that children of monogamous parents are given more stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not imply that the former should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those qualities are the causes of our continued existence and thus if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigrated if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must be altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certain positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissiveness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. People get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and ramifications of marriage dissolution. It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that children of monogamous parents are given more stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not imply that the former should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those qualities are the causes of our continued existence and thus if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigrated if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must be altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certain positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissiveness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. People get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and ramifications of marriage dissolution. It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that children of monogamous parents are given more stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not imply that the former should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those qualities are the causes of our continued existence and thus if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigrated if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must be altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certain positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissiveness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. People get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and ramifications of marriage dissolution. It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that children of monogamous parents are given more stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not imply that the former should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those qualities are the causes of our continued existence and thus if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigrated if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must be altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certain positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary biologists openly adopt Christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissiveness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. People get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and ramifications of marriage dissolution. It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that children of monogamous parents are given more stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shameful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talked to "natural selection" and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not imply that the former should be eliminated or degraded or called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those qualities are the causes of our continued existence and thus if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigrated if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must be altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certain positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary bilologists openly adopt christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissivness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in a necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. Generally, people get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind, and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and thus painful ramifications of marriage dissolution.It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that only children of monogamous parents are given stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shamful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talk to "natural selection" every day and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not qualify that the former should be eliminated or degraded or even called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those effects are the causes of our continued existence, and if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigraded if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must become altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certant positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training.

It is all excellent and necessary that someone started exposing religion for what it is, as a bunch of cruelty and non-sense.
However, there is certain demur on the part of atheists to re-examine moral values of the past. There is an unwillingness to confront Christian moral postulates. For the most part, we still have a propensity towards some or other version of moral conduct purveyed by Christianity. Evolutionary bilologists openly adopt christian values and dress them up in scientific vocabulary. There is still a great deal of submissivness and fear in our decision-making process, guiding our moral choices.
No one wants to suggest that we ought to do away with "don't kill", "don't steal", "don't lie" policies and start acting in reverse, but rather to look into the reasoning itself. For instance, we stubbornly believe in a necessary connection, namely, that we must treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Actually, it is a very illogical and inefficient way to construct a cause and effect relationship. It is sheer wishful thinking, which has nothing to do with necessity. Generally, people get killed and stolen from for entirely different reasons, not because the victims of those crimes did the same to others in the past.
Another example of our borrowing moral standards from Christianity and other religions is the story on True Love. There is nothing in Nature supporting this hypothesis. Love is Love. It is neither True nor False. It only varies in degree, not in kind, and the decision to stick with one sexual partner has nothing to do with evolutionary precept for True Love as a mechanism for successful reproduction and subsequent child-rearing practices, but rather with social conditioning and thus painful ramifications of marriage dissolution.It is easily imagined how children of polyandrous family may benefit from multiple attention and sources of income. It is clear that insistence that only children of monogamous parents are given stability and proper foundations to succeed in life is a result of a religious as well as scientific fallacy, and an example of how scientific method may be misused and sometimes not even suitable to study an organized complexity of social phenomena.
Another shamful borrowing from religious morality is our disdain for homosexuals. We often hear that it is not natural from a natural selection point of view to engage in homosexual intercourse. Evolutionary biologists sound like they talk to "natural selection" every day and know what it intends to do. Homosexuals lived along heterosexuals since the dawn of time. The fact that the former cannot reproduce without help of another gender, does not qualify that the former should be eliminated or degraded or even called abnormal.
Also, while altruism and cooperation are the voluntary healthy responses to or effects of satisfactory communal living, one cannot and should not assume and let alone teach youth that those effects are the causes of our continued existence, and if we want to survive in time we must be altruists and cooperators. The whole point of morality is denigraded if our responses to our well-being are mistaken for the causes of our well-being and it is erroneously concluded that we must become altruists in order to survive. The inspiring and liberating reason for being moral is about assuming certant positions not because they serve as means to some other distant end, but because they are good in themselves and their goodness is grasped immediately by the mind.
In conclusion, if we continue to borrow moral precepts from religious teachings and try to salvage them by justifying their causal relationship within scientific paradigm, we would end up denying the importance and validity of deliberation process of what is good and what is not, as a value in and off itself. So, let’s stop borrowing from values of religious training and draft our own, atheist moral training.

Is there consciousness without conceptualization?

Zen Koan

What is the color of wind?

Zen Koan

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree. Hui-neng, the sixth Patriarch, said: "Gentlemen! It is not the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe.

Zen Saying

Be master of mind rather than mastered by mind.

[CatholicDad] > ... as I wrote to Meg---simply moronic.

Whoops, I editted what I refer to here out of my post to Meg before submitting it, as it revealed my growing testiness with the conversation---only to have it pop back up in my post to Gad. :->

Funny thing, impatience... sorry, I'll restrain myself a little better in the future.

Peace.

Gad,

> [Officeman] > "Any God (or religious leader) who tells me to kill innocent people must be disobeyed. Such an order or God or religion would be inauthentic, at the very least."

[Gad] > Congratulations! You just discredited your religion (as well as most others)!!

[Gad] > Case in point, The slaughter of Midian...

Brutal times, those Old Testament years, eh? I despise Bible quotes because you never know the context, and you have quoted out of context to support yet another sweeping generalization. A cursory reading of Numbers 25 attests to to this, as Num 25 explains in no uncertain terms why the Midianites were destroyed:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers25.htm

Especially see the footnotes. Obviously it was still a brutal slaughter, but when the social and political climate of the time was warlike, what do you expect? To try apply this sort of "they did it then, so they'll do it now" reasoning to modern Christianity is---as I wrote to Meg---simply moronic.

Peace.

Peter huff,
"To me, experience is a secondary issue. Something is not true because I wish to believe it as true, and because I experience it as true, but it is true because God has said it is true and God determines truth. So whether you experience Him or not does not nullify His existence"

You say even though you experience something is true, you will not believe it is true? Really? Where is your reality? If a car hits you, will you not think it is reality unless god tells you it is? That is pretty poor. If a teacher tells you 2+2=4, will you not believe it is reality if it is slightly against what is in the bible? You have no hope making it in the real world if even if you experience it as true you are still not willing to look at the "truthness" of that experience. I can't even begin to clearly put into words how odd that is. Perhaps someone else has already answered - I am behind in the reading.

Here goes...

[Gad] > When you go from atheism to theism it is because you cannot accept reality. When you from theism to atheism it because you have learned to.

You are fond of making sweeping generalizations, it seems. Simply because your view of "reality" is different from mine gives you no leave to make such ridiculous claims. Demonstrate empirically or otherwise that every convert from atheism to (e.g.) Christianity is trying to avoid reality? And simply by stating that you are not trying to be derogatory does not remove that fact that what you've written *is* derogatory.

[Meg] > I can say this over here is real, and that over there is not real. ...

But there is really no way to make this sort of argument about everything, there are concepts which are intangible and cannot be explained by any of the five senses. Most of math and theoretical physics is based upon concepts which cannot be touched. The only argument you can make to avoid inconsistency is that the human mind can reason about mathematical concepts, even though they are intangible things. I think that trying to make such an argument has its own pitfalls, but I am not qualified to pose a meaningful argument.

[Meg] > If you are then getting it from religion, and the bible, then the morality is AWFUL! Slavery is fine - killing your wife for not being a virgin is just fine...

Yes, and taken out of context as it *obviously* has been, an uninformed reader would be led to believe that a Bible-based moral structure would be atrocious. Of course, any Bible scholar worth his salt---or any thinking person, for that matter--would both try to view the Old Testament in light of the political and social climate during which it was handed down, and try to rectify what he finds with the New Testament teachings of Christ.

In concert with a good set of Biblical references, and with honest study, you would be hard pressed to go on *assuming* that modern-day Christian morality would be based upon the things in the Old Testament which have no place in a New Covenant (New Testament) world.

[Meg] > the morality of today has changed, and it is because of popular belief, our court system, our politics - it really has nothing to do with the bible, and if it did, it would be awful.

I would agree with you that all of these have caused a shift in morality, but for the (much) worse. Mothers can kill their babies without fear of reprisal, people make a mockery of marriage and family purely for their own selfish purposes, the environment and our health have taken a back seat to financial gain. All of this thanks to popular belief, the court system, politics, and most of all our *pridefulness*.

The Bible speaks about the moral morass we have gotten ourselves into, and even suggests how to go about getting ourselves out of it. Granted, much of the answer boils down to common sense, but where do you find such common sense laid out in a single, interesting, *and* inspiring book?

[Officeman] > How can we connect without inviting the rest of the hostile world?

Unfortunately, if you Google me, I'm the first hit. :-) Hard to be anonymous these days...

Peace.

Margaret Scott: Thank you for your statement. You said-
"This article is really brilliant and honest. I have rarely seen as good an exposition on what is really wrong with the Christian religion." I can respect your concept of god, which it sounds like is your own personal one - you say you do not believe in dogma - so you are not creating a god that people told you to create - you create one that makes sense to you, but you are looking at all things critically. You are someone when shown scientific fact, might actually look at it and ponder if it is a correct statement, or not. That is important. (Our country, and future advances depend on that type of thinking.)

I am not sure what I am trying to say, except I am glad you are not clouded by organized religion. Keep up the critical thinking.

Thomas Baum said:

"As it says, "I will write My Law on their hearts", that is what a conscience is"

I assume your quoting Jer 31:33, so this is a typically Christian completely out of context feel good statement. First, this is a prophecy from ~600 BC, Second, it was only for the Jews, Third, it never (hasn't, if you are a Jew) happened.

peter huff --- "and the fossils have nothing stamped on them to say they are 3 billion years old."

YES they DO. Here is a fine example of when I told people to read a science magazine. The atoms and their decay rate are STAMPED on that fossil, or the ground around it. I found it so interesting that the frozen man they found a few years ago - they could tell where he was born, and they could also tell where he grew up. Oxygen has different isotopes, and they vary by region. So they could tell by the isotopes in his bones (from development and birth) and the DIFFERENT isotopes in his teeth (developed during childhood) where he was at those times. Science can tell us so much, that many of us, even those who love science and try to learn all, do not know how far it really has gotten, it moves so fast. How many religeous people here read about the neutrino sensors we have in deep water caves? Probably not many, even though I wrote a report on that well over 20 years ago.

Officeman said:

"Any God (or religious leader) who tells me to kill innocent people must be disobeyed. Such an order or God or religion would be inauthentic, at the very least."

Congratulations! You just discredited your religion (as well as most others)!!

Case in point, The slaughter of Midian:

Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The estimate is that they killed 30,000 little boys (babies as well) and women (pregnant ones to). There is only one reason they only kept virgin girls, and it wasn't to adopt them. Else where god gives the laws on how to rape your slave girls (funny, there is no law fro raping male slaves.....).

oh peter huff, Do you really believe in adam and eve? I really have no use talking to you then. Concepts such as quantum physics or even linear algrebra must be difficult for you to fathom. Please explain to me (keep in mind the conservation of energy thing) how adam and eve go "poof" and are here? Even when I was religious, I always took that figuratively. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS POSSIBLE. Give me the example of that knowledge, since you believe it to be true.

If you re-read your post to me, my first line was for most of humanity we did not have a god. I actually do not know what happened in pre-written history. AND if you are pointing to humans always being religious as a reason, that looks poorly to religion - because if you look back historically, humans could never make up their mind who to worship! AND, in the begining, religion was started to try and explain things humans didn't know. That is why they worshiped the sun, why gods caused the thunder, we angered the gods if there was a storm - that does not make origins of religion very intelligent.

ALSO - everyone, did you hear the news today? My radio tells the odd news - an airline in India sacrificed two goats in front of an airplane that kept having mechanical difficulties. Yep. So instead of getting a mechanic, they killed two goats to appease the gods. Then they also told of the man who cut off his penis because he didn't want to sin any more. Isn't it awful that we are raising our children not to think good things of themselves, but to think of themselves as sinners? As the catholic church says, "I know I am not worthy (why?) just ask, and i shall be healed. (of what?) I felt great in the morning, but after going to a service, I'd feel guilty as if I did something wrong - all I did was get up that morning!

Peter Huff-
I just had to address this one - the comment at the bottom really bothered me because of it's total inacuracies. Excuse me others if you have already adressed this - I am still reading through.
you said"I have read lots of ideas as presented by atheists, and they cannot make sense of such ideas as logic and gravity and morality without borrowing from the Christian framework, as to why these laws are binding to humanity. In a blind, chance, random universe just because something happened in the past, what guarantee do we have that it will remain constant and unchanging in the future?"

"You believe in atheism didn't happen in a vacuum, but because authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Atkins have made it popular and appealing to believe in atheism, but you have nothing but a subjective standard in which to base your opinions. You need a real Shepherd to guide you in the way of truth. (John 14:6)"

MY COMMENT: (caps to separate, not because I am mad, whoever said that.)why is gravity up there? Gravity stands by itself. Yes, morality can subtly be changed - for example, alcohol being legal now, when it was not at one time, or pot being legal or not legal. But basic right and wrong (killing, stealing) do not come from the bible. I am sure it has been written in other religious texts too! Before christianity. Did christianity steal it? Or is it because it was written by people?

Your second paragraph couldn't be any more incorrect. We do not believe in atheism. If we had a belief, we'd be theists. We are not following a shepherd. Dawkins says it well - we value what Einstein wrote and found - but we do not worship him or his papers. We think he is very smart, but we do not "follow" him. In fact, as good scientists, many have tried to disprove or prove statements of his. We are looking for truth, not following someone in their beliefs.

Catholicdad:

"If I have misunderstood your intentions with this response, please tell me, but it seems that you have started down the "I'm right and you're wrong because I know better than you" path. And that's no way to engage in civil discourse..."

I see that I have been misunderstood. If someone asks me if carbon dating is true, I can answer yes. If they ask me why, I can tell them. I can DO carbon dating. If someone tells me that there is some imaginary "thing", person, hanging around in heaven, or space, or somewhere, and I don't see the reason in that, and state that, I am not saying I know better than you, I am stating that while looking at what currently is reality in todays' world (my car is real, the weight of the electron has been measured, the price of gas)I can say this over here is real, and that over there is not real. If it is real to others, you have to understand that it is not the same "real" - it is real to you guys because of faith. And that goes full circle that faith is defined as belief in something without proof. That is where I get the imaginary part. Don't misunderstand where I am coming from - I used to be religious - I used to be very active in my church - I grew up, I studied science, but it wasn't so much that. It was that I started thinking more - meaning I sat down and said "wait a minute, what is really real??

As far as what you say as to morality being ill defined if follows public opinion, but is much better with religion.... Dawkins does a WONDERFUL job of refuting that - in a way you would never be able to ignore. I won't do it justice, but he states, look at morality! If you are then getting it from religion, and the bible, then the morality is AWFUL! Slavery is fine - killing your wife for not being a virgin is just fine... he clearly shows how the morality of today has changed, and it is because of popular belief, our court system, our politics - it really has nothing to do with the bible, and if it did, it would be awful.

oh, I found it. Called Miracles and morals. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKcx0biHPR0
it is not dawkins, but he explains well. Anyone who wants great youtube examples I have a huge database catologed - email me at mynameisunavailable1@yahoo.com for dawkins, carl sagan, Dr. Tyson, evolution, imaginary friends, etc. And quite a lot of comedy on the subject too.

As it says, "I will write My Law on their hearts", that is what a conscience is, and we should use it, I, for one, have not always followed mine. That is why I say it is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know. The reason that I write, God is a searcher of hearts and minds and not of religious affiliations or lack thereof besides being true is something to the effect, "They flap their lips, but their hearts are far from Me". Many people use the bible to justify their shortcomings and/or to say it doesn't matter what they do, well they are only deceiving themselves. I have met God the Trinity but I can't prove it, God will in due time. Remember a tie is unacceptable, total victory for the God of Love. Knowing or believing that He is Real and knowing or believing His Name does not necessarily add up to a bucket of snot, what you do with either the knowledge or belief does matter. Hi, Peter Huff, hope you are fine, like I have said before: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives will be freed and the dead shall rise, there is One Saviour and He is the Saviour of the Entire Human Race whether you agree or not. I am just a messenger, remember faith is a gift, no one should boast, faith without works is dead, it does matter what you do and why you do it. Some people look at it as a religion, for me it is a relationship and it is one that we all have, we just don't all know it. Take care, be ready. See you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hello Gerry,

Let's follow up on some of your statements,

"not a single one of your statements holds water. Your preaching about "dust in the wind" is nothing but pious blather."

Like yours isn't. You come across as angry and bigoted towards the Christian point of view. You talk about hypocrisy all the while preaching it yourself.

50 times (!) more inmates in US prisons are "believers" than would have to be their PROPORTIONAL number as compared to atheists whom you have the nerve to morally look down upon. This hypocrisy is really unbearable."

I do not look down upon you as a person, just ask you to make sense of morals and existence within a framework that you hold to. Because I do this you start slinging the name calling. You come on an "On Faith" forum and expect your dogmatic worldview to go unchallenged while all the time poking fun of others.

When you say,

"Good is never an absolute: ...."

Are you absolutely sure of that?

You said,

"I simply don't want to continue this fruitless unintellectual game. There is no conceivable event in the universe or in a person's life that you cannot attribute to a god, if you want, if you define him meaningless enough ("omnipotent"). A system with which you can prove everything together with its contrary using the same semantic joker "god" is simply invalid."

There again, you pull the standard response when your position is challenged. Pull the plug before the situation gets uncomfortable and your position is shown for what it is - non-sense.

You said,

"And finally: Bible quotations prove nothing whatsoever except that the quoter believes them - or pretends to believe them."

They accomplish the purpose that God intends them to accomplish. Whether that is bringing a sinner to repentance or just confirms His Word that says,

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the immortal God for images...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." (Romans 21, 22, 24)

You said,

"They are meaningless as to the existence of gods, even if some of them, granted, may have a certain general social value. The whole "revelation" myths are just that: Myths. The advantage for a believer, his conviction of "truth" takes place only within his brain. There is no factual validity outside this brain."

First off, I do not argue for the existence of other gods. There is only One true and living God. Second, there is no factual evidence for your belief outside your brain either or in it for that matter. You presuppose certain things to be true, just as I do, but the difference is that when pressed you cannot supply the reason for why you believe what you believe. You banter words like "good" around without having an objective standard for them. How can you measure "good' if all it is is the personal preference of your individual brain. How can you measure good if one society determines abortion is good and another that it is murder? Or, as has happened in the past, when the intellectual gatekeepers of your particular society change and what you once believed was "good" is now deemed bad/evil? Why is it good in one circumstance and not the other. Gerry, in such a case you have become the victim of the might of the majority. Hitler's Germany made the killing of six million Jews the good of its society. Muslim extremist's determined the good of its cause was flying planes into American buildings. Let's get real. Without God anything is justifiable as long as you have the might to enforce your belief or the persuasion to do so. Good is also subjective to each persons opinion, that is why you cannot determine anything absolutely. Everything is fuzzy in your worldview.

GAD said:

"How do you reconcile that with your religion? Example, gods kills and orders his followers to kill massive numbers of people, most of which were never given the word or option to know and follow god. All done to make the world better for his chosen people the Jews i.e. justification of the means......."

Officeman: This was not directed to me and you'll get a better response out of Catholicdad. But here goes:

Killing innocent people is not a part of my religion. You will never see it justified in any authoritative and authentic Catholic document (Catholic teaching). I think the following is perfectly consistent with that teaching. The first rule is to obey the moral law. Church law comes second. Any God (or religious leader) who tells me to kill innocent people must be disobeyed. Such an order or God or religion would be inauthentic, at the very least.

What happened in the Old Testament cannot be understood outside the context of the brutal times and circumstances in which primitive people lived. God's full revelation had to "evolve" through its human audience.

Finally, without contradicting in any way what I say in the para. above, death is not the ultimate evil (one of the points I'd make if I jump to the new Susan Jacoby piece).

When you go from atheism to theism it is because you cannot accept reality. When you from theism to atheism it because you have learned to.

Not meant be derogatory (at least in this case).

CatholicDad said:

"Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means."

How do you reconcile that with your religion? Example, gods kills and orders his followers to kill massive numbers of people, most of which were never given the word or option to know and follow god. All done to make the world better for his chosen people the Jews i.e. justification of the means.......

CATHOLICDAD:

I have friends like you who have travelled through agnosticism and atheism to religion, but few who came to the Mothership. How can we connect without inviting the rest of the hostile world?

In answer to your other post Timmy,

"There is no such thing as "belief in atheism"
just like there is no such thing as belief in non Thor belief.
You can't believe in a negative."

Well you are the one claiming that there is no God, are you not? So are you not believing that you believe that there is no God? That would make you a theist.

be·lieve (bĭ-lēv') pronunciation

v., -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.

v.tr.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v.intr.

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

You said,

"Theism is a posit.
A-theism is a rejection of that posit based on lack of evidence.
There is nothing to believe in.
Just something to disbelieve."

A-thesim is also a posit. You presuppose there is no god. Just because you disbelieve in God does not discount placing your trust and confidence in an explanation for existence other that God. That my friend is belief.

Your dogma is evolutionary science and the belief that you have enough self knowledge to discount the Christian God, along with all the other make believe gods.

You said,

"How about non stamp collectors.
Are they a group?"

Yes, they are a group. They are all those people who do not collect stamps.

"Do they all believe the same thing?"

No, but they all share something in common. You are trying to equate two different categories in that analogy. Collecting stamps has nothing to do with the existence of God. Both Atheism and Theism do.

You said,

"You'd love to make us seem as crazy as you by using phrases like "belief in atheism"
It's just not correct."

Not correct? - says who - you? Thank you for being the all knowing atheist.

Crazy is what crazy says. Sorry, poor humor.

Here is what the Philosophical Dictionary says,

"atheism

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."

Either way it boils down to a belief system. You build your worldview on those core values and everything is screened through those basic presuppositions.

Gerry,

> Good is never an absolute: A liar who saves his family through a lie is still a liar, but he also is a hero.

A man who saves his family through a lie was not imaginative enough to think of a truthful solution, or was not willing to accept the difficult (but at least not morally bankrupt) solution. Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means. You get the point.

Peace.

Sam Harris - clear thought - great prose - one split infinitive - but truth! Brought to me by the NSS weekly newsletter. More, more...

Sam Harris - clear thought - great prose - one split infinitive - but truth! Brought to me by the NSS weekly newsletter. More, more...

Sam Harris - clear thought - great prose - one split infinitive - but truth! Brought to me by the NSS weekly newsletter. More, more...

I don't know if I can post again.

Meg said: So you are asking why I am NOT believing in the troll under the bridge even though I never saw one there.

Officeman: I am OK with the troll reference here because it helps make your point. I find the troll references unpersuasive when they attempt to refute my position that the “exactness” (to borrow your word) of physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. imply an author.

You also reveal here something I missed earlier. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your position appears to be: I believe only in that which can be scientifically proven or verified. OK then, how does your belief system handle: A) a scientific theory not yet discovered? Or, B) a historical figure for whom there is no longer existing physical evidence, but only recorded reports? Or, C) an unimportant slave who lived thousands of years ago but for whom there is neither physical nor recorded evidence? I'm curious about A through C and how they fit into your construct. I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm trying to understand it right now.

What about something like logic? It is not a natural phenomenon, so science will never be able to prove or disprove its existence. (Like the existence of God, it falls outside the competence of the hard sciences. Like God, it falls more within the competence of philosophy or metaphysics.) Do you treat logic like the troll? If not, what is different and why? Again, knowing the answer to this question may help me understand your position better.

MEG said: “By the same token, I don’t think people who have not read up on current scientific findings as to evolution/DNA/etc. should criticize the facts of it when they are getting their knowledge from someone who studies a 2000 year old book that does not instruct us on what we have found so far.”

Officeman: I do not know why you think I don’t read science. We have two science magazines delivered to our house regularly. I read as much as I practically can on the subject. I love science, but I understand the limits of its competence.

MEG: “The analyzers came back with a particular chemical composition [of moon rocks]. Did you disagree with that? Why not? It was based on science. I think you did not disagree with that because it is not contradicting the bible. The problem I have is that the religion is forcing some people to purposely not look at truth because it conflicts with the bible.”

Officeman: Herein is the difficulty you and I have been having with our discussion. Are you aware that not all religious people fit into your stereotype. I, for one, agree with your statement above. I too have difficulty understanding why religious people stretch the Bible beyond its competence as I have difficulty understanding people why people stretch science beyond its competence. The Bible is not a science textbook. If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese and I know that cheese comes from dairy products, I don’t need anyone to go to the moon to tell me that the Biblical mention of cheese has some other meaning.

Officeman concludes:

Meg, I maintain with every ounce of reason in my being that no one has established on this website that my acceptance of the inference that there is an author to the exactness that exists in physics, chemistry, etc. is unreasonable or misplaced in any way. Moreover, that is not the only inference one can draw that points to the existence of an intelligent author. One can draw the inference from metaphysics (If I understand that term correctly): 1) the organization of logic implies an intelligent author; 2) the varying degrees of intelligence on this earth imply a perfect intelligence; and 3) the varying degrees of perfection (e.g, good vs evil) imply a perfect being.

Thank you

Peter Huff,

not a single one of your statements holds water. Your preaching about "dust in the wind" is nothing but pious blather.

50 times (!) more inmates in US prisons are "believers" than would have to be their PROPORTIONAL number as compared to atheists whom you have the nerve to morally look down upon. This hypocrisy is really unbearable.

Good is never an absolute: A liar who saves his family through a lie is still a liar, but he also is a hero.

A team prays for the victory, and "thanks god" if they win, and says "gods ways are inscrutable" if they lose.

I simply don't want to continue this fruitless unintellectual game. There is no conceivable event in the universe or in a person's life that you cannot attribute to a god, if you want, if you define him meaningless enough ("omnipotent"). A system with which you can prove everything together with its contrary using the same semantic joker "god" is simply invalid.

And finally: Bible quotations prove nothing whatsoever except that the quoter believes them - or pretends to believe them.

They are meaningless as to the existence of gods, even if some of them, granted, may have a certain general social value. The whole "revelation" myths are just that: Myths. The advantage for a believer, his conviction of "truth" takes place only within his brain. There is no factual validity outside this brain.

Hello Timmy,

Thanks for the reply.

Since you believe in the flying spaghetti monster what is the internal and external evidence for his/her/its existence? Has this monster revealed himself/herself/itself to anyone but you? Has the monster interacted in an historical setting with anyone other than yourself? Has the monster left any means to verify that he/she/it is who is claimed? If so let's test it out.

When you say, that your standard is the flying spaghetti monster can you produce his/her/its standard anywhere other than in your imagination?

Totally subjective, no eyewitnesses, no evidence.

Since you are dealing in hypotheticals need I say more?

Well Margaret Scott,

When you say,

"Everything needs to stand up to the test of experience. Critical articles like this one really help to weed out truth from fiction."

That seems like an awfully emphatic statement. Whose experience does it need to stand up to?

Is your standard in which you judge truth experience alone? Do you have to see to believe also?

In other words, does your subjective experience determines truth. So, unless you see the apple fall from the tree, gravity would not fit into your experience? It's not true unless you make it true. Gravity does not exist until you witness it to exist.

Or is your experience determined by someone else's experience? In other words, is your truth based/determined by someone else's truth, who in turn determines their truth again by someone else's, so that you have a whole myriad of different peoples truth's to determine yours by. And you know it's true because your experience tells you it is true. (Circular argument)

To me, experience is a secondary issue. Something is not true because I wish to believe it as true, and because I experience it as true, but it is true because God has said it is true and God determines truth. So whether you experience Him or not does not nullify His existence.

One thing is certain in truth claims - two opposing belief's that are contradictory in nature cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Truth cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense is another way of saying it. So one of us is wrong.

Good luck in making sense of your belief without an absolute standard of truth.

Hello again E favorite, Gerry

E-favorite, you said,

Peter Huff – personally, I think both entrenched (e.g., Pablo) and more open (e.g., catholicdad) theists feel threatened by the new interest and writings in atheism."

Possibly, for when you see truth trampled by subjectivism truth is lost. Not that I agree with the traditions of the Roman Catholic church, only in the commonality we find in the very Word of God. That is what Christians share, if they are truly redeemed in Christ - the Word of God.

"One of the things I find fascinating is that so few people in these discussions seem to be clergy. I suspect it’s because they know (having studied the bible and religious history academically ) that they don’t have much of an argument to make and are counting on the “faithful” to make the case for continued belief."

I find it interesting also, for jumping into the fray like this surely helps a person explain what they believe. As for not having much of an argument from the Bible I totally disagree with your assessment. I keep making the same arguments , as I see Pablo is also doing, in trying to get you and your atheistic cousins to make sense of anything without borrowing from the Christian framework.

You and I have been through this discussion before on another forum and the question of ethics,logic and origins can never be established in your worldview, (whether that be pagan or atheist) with any degree of certainty. As such, when the question is pressed the issue is sidestepped. The key to diversion is to create another obstacle to focus on without answering the first one.

The question of standards is always the snag in an atheistic or pagan worldview. You just keep pointing to subjective opinion after opinion to support your idea of "good" and "right." If it is not your own subjective opinion then it is the subjective opinion of the group or some subjective opinion of a scientist (as if he/she is the final arbitrator), who, along with you, has based his/her worldview on certain basic presuppositions. Any evidence to the contrary is eliminated immediately.

The Christian, on the other hand, has a standard that is above him and through which the world can be made sense of. I know what "good" is because God has revealed it by His written Word. Abortion is bad, so is murder, so is lying and adultery and marriage outside the parameters of what God has laid down.

As I said before, "good" is a question that fails to get answered with any degree of certainty because in an atheistic or pagan world there is no degree of certainty. All we are is dust in the wind, to coin a phrase.

Oh and Peter,

There is no such thing as "belief in atheism"
just like there is no such thing as belief in non Thor belief.
You can't believe in a negative.

Theism is a posit.
A-theism is a rejection of that posit based on lack of evidence.
There is nothing to believe in.
Just something to disbelieve.

Are all people who don't believe in Santa a group?
What is the belief system or dogma that goes with that?

How about non stamp collectors.
Are they a group?
Do they all believe the same thing?

You'd love to make us seem as crazy as you by using phrases like "belief in atheism"
It's just not correct.

This is a cut and paste from Peter Huff's recent post.
I just channged one word.

"No, I believe in the flying spaghetti monster because of His grace and mercy to me. The flying spaghetti monster alone has given me faith to believe His revelation (Richard Dawkins book)) as He does all believers. But by believing I can make sense of this world and see it in it's true light. My standard is not my own, it comes from a source that is above me in every way. (The flying spaghetti monster) Therefore it is the highest standard that man can appeal to, to make sense of morals or laws or logic or beginnings.

Your standard is internally inconsistent and highly combustible my friend. Oh, by the way what is your standard? You determine "good" by ____?"

Answer:
What ever the flying spaghetti monster tells me.
How's that?

This article is really brilliant and honest. I have rarely seen as good an exposition on what is really wrong with the Christian religion. The ghoulish examples leading up to the comparison with Christianity really shined a light on the bizarre dogma that is believed in and worked around in Christian churches today.

But still, I am not an atheist. I feel that there is a God, and I am open to people's honest experiences of God. But I do believe in looking at it all critically and not accepting dogma on faith. Everything needs to stand up to the test of experience. Critical articles like this one really help to weed out truth from fiction.

Hi Gad,

You said,

"You only believe in god because the bible and it's writers made it popular and appealing to believe in god! If that's not true for you why should it be true atheists, unless your advocating that there is double standard............."

No, I believe in God because of His grace and mercy to me. He alone has given me faith to believe His revelation (the Bible) as He does all believers. But by believing I can make sense of this world and see it in it's true light. My standard is not my own, it comes from a source that is above me in every way. Therefore it is the highest standard that man can appeal to, to make sense of morals or laws or logic or beginnings.

Your standard is internally inconsistent and highly combustible my friend. Oh, by the way what is your standard? You determine "good" by ____?

Gad,

> [CatholicDad] > "Check your history books and lookup who was at the forefront of the slavery movement, for example."

> At best you have Christians fighting Christians over how to interpret the bible, popular opinion and sentiment on the ills of slavery was the driver (moral relativism) ...

If this is how you choose to interpret historical fact, then so be it. However, the "popular opinion" at that time leading to the abolishment of slavery was predominantly borne of Christian morality, not moral relativism. Just look at the foremost abolitionist leaders. Regardless, it's not particularly fruitful to debate over who freed the slaves...

> If the "New Covenant" made the old null and void, then all that was achived in the context of slavery was that regulatory laws were made null and void allowing you to do anything to your slaves you wish without any condemnation from god.

The Old Testament was in fact used invalidly to justify slavery by ignoring the parts of the Old and New Testaments which clearly forbid it (recall "love thy neighbor as yourself"). Rather than take up more bandwidth and risk reinventing the wheel, I suggest checking out these links:

Catholocism v slavery:
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

On slavery in the OT:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7273/slavery.html

Peace.

Hello Jay s,

When Pablo asked you to:

"Give us some evidence for molecules to man evolution without looking at the universe through the lenses of naturalism and uniformatarinism. You are just another member of the evolutionary congregation who make statements that are not supported by empirical evidence."

You immediately try to equate evolutionary science with what I call plain everyday science. Here is your statement, let me try to unpack the difference,

"Oh, I see, I can't use naturalism (methodological?) to provide evidence for something that is naturalistic? Yes, the naturalistic perspective in trying to understand the universe just has not panned out in science, has it? (BTW, that's sarcasm)."

"Next time you visit your doctor with an ailment, be sure to ask him NOT to use a naturalistic perspective in diagnosing and treating your illness."

The difference between the science used to diagnose an ailment and the science of evolution is that evolutionary science cannot be duplicated and verified since origins only happened once. Evolution on a macro scale cannot be demonstrated, neither can the formation of life from non-life. Any evidence or fact used to support your theory has to be interpreted because no one was there to observe it, and the fossils have nothing stamped on them to say they are 3 billion years old. You interpret something in the here and now that you alleged happened in the distant past. But you have to presuppose certain things for your theory to hold true. What you and evolutionary scientist do, is start with basic core assumptions and then build and construct and change and manipulate the data to fit those original basic assumptions.

Please explain how non-tangibles such as logic and thought come out of a supposedly "physical" material/matter origin universe. Ever seen a thinking stone that is self aware? If we have our origin in matter that has been mutating over the last 13-19 billion years then what is morality? Is it just the way that certain electro-chemical reactions take place to produce a physical condition? Then don't tell me that there is such a concept as "good." Good is just a biological function that makes one person do something one way and another do something another way in an evolutionary worldview.

And in a universe where fitness is the key to survival, one person killing another is just the outcome of the way that person's genes reacted to a particular situation. Does a lion remorse over killing its prey or eating a cub stolen from the lioness?

If Hitler sees the Jews as a lower form of animal life than he is and he feels that their eradication is the key to producing a superior race of animals (i.e. those of his own race), then how can you say that what he did was wrong?

You can't and still make sense of things without an absolute, objective, ultimate standard - God.

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for pointing out that Mother Teresa's doubt was human (and much justified) rather than god-inspired.

Her letters are revelatory indeed. The interpretations accompanying them are also such. They remind us that, if nothing else, our capacity for self-delusion is endless.

Some interpreters call Mother Teresa's lack of faith a spiritual "crisis," as if anything lasting that long (60+ years!) could still be called a "crisis."

And in all that high-falutin' waxing about "dark night of the soul," they seem not to notice that she was a deeply depressed woman, whose inner suffering was attributable to, among other things, her narcissistic personality make-up, which drove her to pursue questionable actions in the name of sacrificing herself to her god. After all, she professed an insatiable desire to love and be loved by Jesus as no one had ever been before (talk about a narcissistic -- and delusional -- demand). That same hubris also excluded possibilities of any warm, real human relationship based on genuine empathy and love between individuals, rather than god-mandated "love" which sent people to death, after baptizing them first.

To her credit, she knew that something was seriously wrong with her life -- yet she was not able to reach the right conclusions as to the reasons for her pain and possible remedies. And her confessors aided and abetted her suffering, instead of helping alleviate it (but that's no surprise).

She needed to be directed to therapy (yes, and with a right therapist).

Let's see, what's the worst that could happen if she were to confront her own insatiable vanity and loneliness? Perhaps she would chuck the whole unsavory enterprise of baptizing people before their death and focus more on genuinely helping them live better lives. And perhaps she would achieve an ounce of relief, and -- perish the thought! -- personal happiness before she died lonely, tormented and greatly misunderstood.

But, well, happiness and genuine human love are not privileges that are allowed our saints and martyrs by the self-deluded demands of religious life.

Peter Huff said:

"You believe in atheism didn't happen in a vacuum, but because authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Atkins have made it popular and appealing to believe in atheism"

You only believe in god because the bible and it's writers made it popular and appealing to believe in god! If that's not true for you why should it be true atheists, unless your advocating that there is double standard.............

Hi Meg,

You said,

"I find that ironic - for most of humanity, we did not have gods. Then for the other part of humanity, we had all kinds of other gods, not christian. How can this be a fad? Not believing in something fake has always been. But believing in a new god every 2000 or 4000 years is the fad. In roman times, you would be saying the same thing, but about a different god. (gods.)"

There again, your worldview shapes the way you filter the evidence. Since recorded history man has always worshiped some god, even the atheist worships a concept of a god (self worship, self standard, self righteous, self wisdom), for the atheist has jettisoned God and replaced Him with himself, determining by his own subject reasoning what he will accept as "good" and "right."

Man has always been religious since the beginning of creation when God revealed Himself to Adam and set the standard. Adam and Eves disobedience set the stage for all the religious pluralism we see in the world today when Eve decided to question and rebel against God's authority by believing the lie of Satan "Did God really say..." (Genesis 3:1)

So, it is Anti-Catholic week at Newsweek? People (Harris and Hitchen) are entitled to their opinions, but propping up supposed "experts" who know nothing about the Catholic tradition and are eager to dismiss any nuance of detail and lie about the rest--I thought that went out with the Know-Nothings. Apparently not.

I'd answer all those claims if it would do any good. If you're interested, go to your local Church, read some of the most intelligent thinkers the world has seen (like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Rahner, and Hans Urs von Balthasar). And apparently, stop reading Newsweek.

Hi Susan,

You said,

"Einstein was a Jew; his description of G-d is the Jewish understanding."

No, not necessarily. The Apostle Paul was a Jew as were those chosen of God who wrote the New Testament. There understanding is different than that of Einstein's.

"Not believing in a Christian G-d does not constitute not believing in G-d, a very common mistake made by non-Jewish biographers of Jews."

But not believing in the Judeo-Christian God does constitute an inaccurate understanding of God as He has revealed Himself to mankind. Therefore, God is worshiped not as He truly is. That is what the Bible calls idolatry.

Your quote by Einstein,

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123."

We are all indoctrinated in some way. There is no neutrality. Einstein just happened to build his belief on God on shaky principles. He was indoctrinated in what he believed by shaping his worldview on core foundations that he learned and would not let go of.

We can know God in as much as He has chosen to make Himself known to His creation by His Word, the Bible, and by His Spirit. At least Einstein recognized that we do not make laws, such as gravity or logic, we only discover them.

Those laws work in principle whether we believe them or not, because God has made them so, not just because we choose to believe so. So Christianity is not a blind faith; it is a faith based on many infallible proofs. (Acts 1:3) Try making sense of this world without belief in an absolute objective standard - God.

I have read lots of ideas as presented by atheists, and they cannot make sense of such ideas as logic and gravity and morality without borrowing from the Christian framework, as to why these laws are binding to humanity. In a blind, chance, random universe just because something happened in the past, what guarantee do we have that it will remain constant and unchanging in the future?

You believe in atheism didn't happen in a vacuum, but because authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Atkins have made it popular and appealing to believe in atheism, but you have nothing but a subjective standard in which to base your opinions. You need a real Shepherd to guide you in the way of truth. (John 14:6)

CatholicDad said:

"Check your history books and lookup who was at the forefront of the slavery movement, for example."

At best you have Christians fighting Christians over how to interpret the bible, popular opinion and sentiment on the ills of slavery was the driver (moral relativism) , not the bible. In the OT slavery was condoned and regulated by god, show me where in the NT (New Covenant) where it was condemned. I can show you where it was condoned. If the "New Covenant" made the old null and void, then all that was achived in the context of slavery was that regulatory laws were made null and void allowing you to do anything to your slaves you wish without any condemnation from god. Not to mention the issue of how slavery was necessary before Jesus' and what his death would have to do with it becoming null and void.

Oops, should have proofread:

> ...who was at the forefront of the slavery movement...

should be

> ...who was at the forefront of the abolition movement...

And no, it was not an unconscious slip of the pen...

Just saw this:

[Gad] > In either case it is the same, it is learned from experience. We are all moral relativists, if you don't think so read the bible...

Don't know which Bible you are reading, and with what supporting materials, but mine certainly does not support this idea unless taken in bits and pieces---as much as any text can be made to fit a reader's perception if taken in bits and pieces, ignoring the fact the whole is generally more than the sum of its parts.

Fortunately, the moral structure afforded me by my Catholic faith does not solely rely upon the Bible, but on Tradition as well, which is approximately analogous to "learning from experience". However, unlike popular opinion or personal experience, Catholic Tradition is not fickle or wishy-washy; it has not succumbed to moral relativism, and remains stalwart and constant in spite of it.

I probably have not addressed your point adequately, but I have to get some work done sometime today. :-)

Peace.

Hello Thomas Baum

I do agree with one statement from Sam Harris,

"Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice."

The simple explanation, God has made that so from Genesis onwards. Man has twisted and molded it into many religious beliefs, including Atheism. The only one I support is the Judeo-Christian one, the rest are copycats.

With the others, mankind is working their way back into God's Good Book by their religious "good" deeds, or ignoring Him in as much as they can.

Blood sacrifice just brings man to the realization that sin is a costly thing, it require a life to make amends for wrong-doing, and since God is Perfect and the standard for perfection in every way, once that standard has been violated, the only sacrifice that can completely atone for our wrongful actions is by The Substitute, Jesus Christ. He was/is the only One able to live, as a man, in perfect obedience before a pure, perfect, holy God. As God has said, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Genesis 2:17).

You can make the sacrifice yourself or, if God gives you ears to hear, eyes to see, a heart to believe, you can place trust in the perfect sacrifice that all the sacrifices in the Jewish Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms were pointing to.

But the problem does go deeper than "blood sacrifices." It goes to justice and righteousness. Can a just God leave something that opposes what is good unpunished? Not without compromising His character that is good. He will not do this because He is the standard and His standard is truth and truth does not change.

His Son has supplied, to those who believe, righteousness before God, in that He [Jesus] has met every requirement that a holy God requires. He has paid the price for our sinful (or wrong) actions meeting God’s justice and dying in our place, the Just for the unjust. Therefore in fulfilling every requirement of God we have been declared righteous, or in right standing, before God. (re: Romans 8:1-4)

“but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them. Such a High Priest meets or need – One who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself.” (Hebrews 7:24-27)

E Favorite,

> I didn't make a "claim"- I said "I suspect"- which is actually what I meant.

You seem to be trying to dogde an imaginary bullet. Whether you say "I suspect", "I think", or just say it outright, it doesn't matter---you are still making a claim. Whether you want to commit to that claim ("I know") or not ("I suspect") is a different matter.

> Just as I suspect that you were not recently an atheist, now convinced otherwise. ... I'm saying your writing up to now doesn't sound like that to me.

I'll take that as a compliment, though your suspicion incorrect. I was agnostic, then atheist (a secular humanist, if you want specifics), until a little over three years ago.

> In terms of morality, I'm glad it's been swayed by popular opinion (in spite of religion). Otherwise, we might still have slavery, stoning of women and human sacrifice - all in the Bible.

Actually, all of the evils you mention were done away with partially or entirely due to the influence of Christianity. Check your history books and lookup who was at the forefront of the slavery movement, for example. Stoning and creature sacrifice, practiced by the Jews of the Old Testament to fulfill the Old Covenant, were supplanted by the New Covenant and Christ's sacrifice of Himself, respectively, in the New Testament.

Peace.

To Pierre JC, Gerry, and the rest of the world: One of you spoke about following your moral conscience and the other concurred. I am a catholic and I cherish my catholic faith and I was told from very young to follow my conscience and actually the present Pope before he became the Pope wrote that we are to follow our conscience. I think that it is kind of interesting that the two of you and the Pope agree on that. Just because people do not believe that some of the experiences that I have had, actually happened, that does not mean that they haven't. Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CatholicDad said:

"The question is not whether you can be moral without religion, but how is such a morality defined?"

In either case it is the same, it is learned from experience. We are all moral relativists, if you don't think so read the bible (also see my past post on the ten commandments). The difference is that theists claim that it was written down for them 1000's of years ago by men who said god told them, atheists say ya right.......

"As a Christian, I'd say that a godless morality is ill-defined, since the human conscience is prone to the ebb and tide of popular opinion."

As an atheist I'd say that a godless morality may well be ill-defined, but seeing as there is no god, it's all we got, and since it is not god defined we can improve it as our knowledge and understanding improves.

"popular opinion does not a moral structure make"

Oh yes it absolutely does, the bible attests to that as clearly as anything else.

Einstein was a Jew; his description of G-d is the Jewish understanding. In fact, in another place upstream somebody quoted him as saying that his G-d was Spinoza's. Not believing in a Christian G-d does not constitute not believing in G-d, a very common mistake made by non-Jewish biographers of Jews.

Anonymous responded to Colin, saying

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God By Einstein

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

Hello Pierre JC,

You have hit the nail on the head why atheism is a self refuting contradictory system of thought when you talk of good and evil. The evidence is in your very wording below,

"To us atheists, the answer is much simpler: We do the right thing, because our conscious compels us to do the right thing.
Apparently, many believers like Buzz are entirely unaware of the existence of the moral conscience. I guess they perceive no moral conscience within themselves, which explains why they need a magical, invisible friend to help them tell the difference between right and wrong. This also explains why they have so much trouble imagining that atheists have moral consciences, since the idea of a moral conscience is so foreign to them that they have trouble envisioning it."

I do not deny that you have a moral conscious, because God has put it there, only that you cannot make sense of it from an atheist perspective without borrowing from my Christian worldview.

How do you know you do the right thing?

"Right" and "good" imply a standard. You atheists imply a standard when you say you "do the right thing." How can you determine you atheists do the right thing? Because you atheists say you do the right thing? (That would be using the same circular reasoning that you accuse us Christians of using) Is your standard your own subjective feelings or the collective subjective feelings of the group? There has to be a more compelling reason for belief than a subjective opinion or personal preference or even majority rules, because if a standard keeps changing truth keeps changing and no moral can ever be established as true, just preferred.

One minute abortion is deemed wrong by the consensus and the next it is considered right by the consensus. So which is it? Today in your country same sex-marriage is deemed wrong by law, whereas in my country, Canada, the law says it is right. So who is right? Is the law right in my country or in your country and who decides?

From your moral perspective it is just like watching a game of tennis. The ball is being jockeyed from one court to the other. Who’s to say what you will believe in twenty years from now. By that time the current right may be wrong again. It all depends in who comes to power and who enforces and sets the "law."

The Christian perspective, on the other hand, has an authority that does not come from self. Our starting presupposition is that God is the ultimate and final authority and because He does not change like shifting shadows (James 1:17; Hebrews 6:13-18; Malachi 3:6; John 17:17), therefore His standard is objective, absolute and binding. I can make perfect sense out of right and wrong and not keep contradicting myself, because my standard is outside myself and does not change.

Please, all knowing atheist, tell me why your standard can be trusted?

Catholicdad – I didn’t make a “claim”- I said “I suspect”- which is actually what I meant. Just as I suspect that you were not recently an atheist, now convinced otherwise. I’m not calling you a liar – I’m saying your writing up to now doesn’t sound like that to me. And yes, I do think some non-theists are threatened by Christians – and for good reason – some Christians have become pretty threatening lately, specifically in attempts to bring religion into government.

In terms of morality, I’m glad it’s been swayed by popular opinion (in spite of religion). Otherwise, we might still have slavery, stoning of women and human sacrifice – all in the Bible.

Times change; the bible never does and Catholicism rarely does.

One final comment

George W Bush believes theres a god up there somewhere.He also believed there were weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
He didn't find any WMD,even though he was convinced
that they were there.He bet our childrens lives on it,and was totally wrong.
God is even harder to find than the WMD's.
He is nowhere to be found.Except between the ears.

Yes, Sam Harris, the voice of reason and rationality! He doesn't know how to be humane with his reasoning; he would rather let people know that he actually hates anything that has to do with religion. And he is the epitome of rationality in his beliefs in psychic phenomenon, reincarnation, xenoglossy, transcendence through meditation, and torture. Voice of reason my a**.

Meg,

> BUT, as others have said, as well as Dawkins, should they also be ignorant of unicorns, zeus, trolls, santa claus. ... They are not ignorant as to a fact. ... but god never called you and said hey, you must go to church because I told you to - people did that. That is the argument.

I don't follow you here. I am not making an argument about what compels Christians to go to church, and you have certainly not established any facts concerning God's existence by mere reference to unicorns, zeus, trolls, and santa. Moreover, you (collectively, as non-theists) may not think that God has called you to His Church, but that does not make it a fact.

If I have misunderstood your intentions with this response, please tell me, but it seems that you have started down the "I'm right and you're wrong because I know better than you" path. And that's no way to engage in civil discourse...

[E Favorite] > personally, I think both entrenched (e.g., Pablo) and more open (e.g., catholicdad) theists feel threatened by the new interest and writings in atheism.

I'm not sure how to respond to this, though I feel that I should. Let me start by saying that, as for me, personally, I do not feel threatened by atheism---I've been atheist and was only somewhat recently convinced otherwise. And though I can't speak directly to Pablo's actual state of mind, you should try to avoid the oversimplifcation that zeal for one's faith is equivalent to fear of something different. Could I validly make the claim that zealous non-theists like Sam Harris are fearful of Christianity?

[E Favorite] > One of the things I find fascinating is that so few people in these discussions seem to be clergy. I suspect it's because they know ... that they don't have much of an argument to make ...

Or, perhaps a more reasonable (and less derogatory) explanation would be that they have a great deal of work to do supporting their congregations, and don't have the luxury of entering into long, drawn out conversations in a clearly anti-Christian environment? I can easily make your claim apply to atheists not being present in predominantly Christian dialogues.

Sweeping generalizations like these really irk me...

[E Favorite] > giving believers the benefit of the doubt, I think many of them could easily be moral without religion ...

The question is not whether you can be moral without religion, but how is such a morality defined? As a Christian, I'd say that a godless morality is ill-defined, since the human conscience is prone to the ebb and tide of popular opinion. And popular opinion does not a moral structure make.

This very question, and the unsatisfying answer proposed by society, is one reason that I am *overjoyed* to be Catholic. Unlike with the vast majority of other religious belief systems, the fundamental moral structure offered by modern Catholicism has not swayed with popular opinion. Moreover, it is not extremist, and it logically flows from certain assumptions based upon faith in Christ.

In case someone has fixated on "not extremist", having recalled events from the Church's past, don't. I am not talking about the humans that comprise the Church---clearly there are extreme people in the Church, both past and present. I am speaking only about the clear guidance for right moral thinking provided by the Church's teachings, which I as a human with free will can chose to follow or not.

Oops, looks like I'm on a tangent, so I'll stop there. :-)

Peace.

Once again, Mr. Harris has hit the nail on the head--as he has done so many times before. It still amazes me that in a world as "advanced" as ours--filled with so many "intelligent" and "successful" people--unjustified belief outweighs basic rationality. Sam has always been preaching to the choir with me--I just hope that sooner rather than later more people will attend his "church".
Jeremy Fisher
Former Adjunct Professor of Philosophy; Kent State University

Meg wrote:

"If you look back to the begining, it has always been some person standing on a hill telling us we should believe in god. A god has never come down and told us these things. If you have faith, fine, but god never called you and said hey, you must go to church because I told you to - people did that. That is the argument."

Speak for yourself.

Peter Huff – personally, I think both entrenched (e.g., Pablo) and more open (e.g., catholicdad) theists feel threatened by the new interest and writings in atheism. One of the things I find fascinating is that so few people in these discussions seem to be clergy. I suspect it’s because they know (having studied the bible and religious history academically ) that they don’t have much of an argument to make and are counting on the “faithful” to make the case for continued belief. See Dan Dennett’s essay for more on disbelieving clergy.

Pierre JC and Gerry – giving believers the benefit of the doubt, I think many of them could easily be moral without religion – they’ve just never had the opportunity to try.

Meg – keep up the good work

Peter Huff:

"I feel the reason that Sam Harris gets so many responses to his posts is because atheism is the growing fad in our North American culture."

I find that ironic - for most of humanity, we did not have gods. Then for the other part of humanity, we had all kinds of other gods, not christian. How can this be a fad? Not believing in something fake has always been. But believing in a new god every 2000 or 4000 years is the fad. In roman times, you would be saying the same thing, but about a different god. (gods.)

to catholicdad-
you say ignorance is clearly not the same as disbelief. To your point, you are correct, I see your point. Those two words are different. BUT, as others have said, as well as Dawkins, should they also be ignorant of unicorns, zeus, trolls, santa claus. The people on the island had no reason to believe in santa claus since we make him up. They are not ignorant as to a fact. If you look back to the begining, it has always been some person standing on a hill telling us we should believe in god. A god has never come down and told us these things. If you have faith, fine, but god never called you and said hey, you must go to church because I told you to - people did that. That is the argument.

A logical reasoned society will eventually move faith out of the virtue column, into the flaw column.
Faith is such a hucksters tool.
If I were selling swampland in Florida, I wouldn't go door to door.
I'd go church to church. Cha ching.

Peter Huff,

don't fool yourself: The rise of human secularism is one of the few strands of hope the rest of the world experiences toward the US, after the terrible disaster the "faithful" Bush administration with his terrible hypocritical evangelical base has brought to the world, the exact mirror of the equally deadly Muslim superstition!

The age of superstition is slowly, slowly coming to an end. We can see some light at the end of the dark tunnel.

Thank you Pierre JC, you nailed it: Isn't it pitiful that so many people need a particular brand of superstition to bolster their otherwise underdeveloped moral conscience?

Thank you, Buzz, for clarifying what this debate is all about:
"Why should we do 'good' and not do 'evil'?"
To believers like Buzz, the answer to this question is mysterious, answerable only with the guidance of a magical, invisible friend.
To us atheists, the answer is much simpler: We do the right thing, because our conscious compels us to do the right thing.
Apparently, many believers like Buzz are entirely unaware of the existence of the moral conscience. I guess they perceive no moral conscience within themselves, which explains why they need a magical, invisible friend to help them tell the difference between right and wrong. This also explains why they have so much trouble imagining that atheists have moral consciences, since the idea of a moral conscience is so foreign to them that they have trouble envisioning it.

Mrs. Brown,

I feel the reason that Sam Harris gets so many responses to his posts is because atheism is the growing fad in our North American culture. Don't fool yourself, it is bankrupt of any lasting mean and purpose. It's foundation is like dust in the wind.

Meg,

Thanks for the tip, I had to respond to this:

> If I don't believe in god on an island, or I don't believe in god here in america, I still don't believe

This analogy is logically flawed; ignorance is clearly not the same as disbelief. Just because the aborigine doesn't know of the possibility of God's existence does not imply his *disbelief* of God's existence---he doesn't even know it's an option! I don't know how to say it more clearly than that.

Perhaps this is a semantic disconnect concerning our definitions of "atheism"---disbelief of the existence of any god (me) vs. lack of belief in any god, regardless of the reason (you)?

Peace.

Psalm 2

1 Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

If nothing else,this is easily the most popular thread of the On Faith blogs,1200 comments and counting.
Atheism,agnosticism,general non belief,is so much more interesting than faith,and a whole lot smarter.
Long may it continue to grow and flourish.
I have learned so much here,from so many interesting
essays,especially Sam's of course;he's really changed my life.

catholicdad says to me-You are really making (part of) my point here. If we were on an island having never heard of God or any religion for that matter, we would be neither atheist nor theist. It shouldn't be difficult to see, then, that you have to *actively* believe or disbelieve in God's existence.

If I don't believe in god on an island, or I don't believe in god here in america, I still don't believe. No difference. Others have made analogies as to not believing in unicorns, and are you actively NOT believing in the sun god, Zor, and zeus? If you don't believe in a god on the island, your non-belief is atheist. Theist is religious - so a-theist is not religious.

If you open another browser window, and post in one, and read it the other, it is not too cumbersome.

Ok, I will try again to say the same thing again that I have said before – please note the quotes for officeman’s comments, and mine to follow after dash – do not confuse the two.

Officeman says:
“The point I made, which I repeat in the event you want to answer it is: Organization implies an intelligent author. Our universe is undeniably, incredibly organized. I choose to follow the implication. You do not. You have not told me why it is reasonable to reject the implication”

---1. (this has a point at the end, so follow through.) If I was from an island, and no one told me I had to believe in a god, I would just BE – I would be trying to eat, find shelter, etc. So first of all, for me, I do not believe in a god. There was no special “sign”, I have not been given evidence of his existence. Now I might spend my time pondering gravity, for I will see evidence of that when the coconuts fall. So when I learn that the universe is organized (yes, I agree with you there – the atom is very organized – it is quantized in it’s energy levels – extremely organized – or better phrased, exact. [Organized is actually not a good word to use in nature. Rocks are not organized. They might be uniform, in a stream. Gases seek equilibrium. But organized is not the proper word.] There is no middle ground of where the energy can be.) Anyway, when I notice the “organization” or order of the universe, I will question it, and say “how come”? I might start putting particles in a particle accelerator to see WHY. Some of my answers will come as PROOF. These are things I can see, make equations of, generally reality. So when you say the organization implies an author, it really doesn’t. You made that up. And the reality is, you can’t prove to me that you didn’t make it up. You have no other proof whatsoever except for the words you wrote. I cannot base my knowledge on that. I CAN base my knowledge on what someone tells me when I know I can go into a lab, and repeat the test, and get the same results.
2. I did not tell you why it is reasonable to reject? That is a double negative. Again, I know you don’t like this analogy, but I have to repeat it – what you just said was identical to me saying, “even when I go looking for the troll under the bridge, AND I DON’T FIND IT, I WILL BELIEVE IT IS THERE ANYWAY”. Why would I say that in the first place? Have I ever seen him there? No. So you are asking my why am I NOT believing in the troll under the bridge even though I never saw one there. It doesn’t make sense, that is why I never told you.

You say “The only attempts have been conclusory or worse (e.g., calling the intelligent author "imaginary", comparing the intelligent author to a troll; attributing motives of emotional or intellectual inferiority, etc. etc.).” –I never said intellectual OVERALL inferiority. I said I myself am not a heart doctor – I would never criticize one on knowledge I am not well versed in. By the same token, I don’t think people who have not read up on current scientific findings as to evolution/DNA/etc. should criticize the facts of it when they are getting their knowledge from someone who studies a 2000 year old book that does not instruct us on what we have found so far.
You say “With regard to faith, I have seen no refutation. It is not fair to mischracterize my point about faith by talking about trolls or flying bananas. I have provided an implication (I never said proof) that an intelligent author organized the universe before the universe ever came into being. Where is there a corresponding implication that trolls or flying bananas exist? “
3. I am not trying to put you down at all – I just had to think of something imaginary to use in my analogy. I could have said unicorns, but I don’t know where to look for them. I know imaginary trolls live under bridges, so I thought that would be clearer. Think the argument through with reason, and you will get my point. If you do not get the implication, do you not think at any time that god could be imaginary? That is the implication. At no time (and I really wanted to say this earlier but did not have time for a whole new post) at no time do I say you are not allowed to have your faith, and if talking to god in the morning makes you happy, great. What I have been having a problem with is if then people hide behind faith to not see truth in things. You will deny that, but I will bet a billion dollars that if the bible said the moon was made out of cheese (instead of god put people on earth) instead of having evolution discussions, we would be having origins of the moon discussions. I bet you did not question the content of the rocks that the scientists brought back from the moon. The analyzers came back with a particular chemical composition. Did you disagree with that? Why not? It was based on science. I think you did not disagree with that because it is not contradicting the bible. The problem I have is that the religion is forcing some people to purposely not look at truth because it conflicts with the bible. I could go on and on, but this was to long – sorry everyone. But they kept saying I was avoiding the question, so I tried to fit some in. I think some were still left unanswered – that was not on purpose, I am not afraid of anything – I just can’t keep writing forever.

Sorry all, this will have to be my last post---this comments page is really cumbersome, even over a fast cable modem...

[OfficeMan] > Alas, sometimes the beauty of a thing (theology) strikes a spark.

Undoubtedly, and thanks for the kind (if perhaps not entirely accurate) words concerning my intelligence.... ;-)

[Meg] > If you and I were born on an island, just us, we would not be actively NOT be believing in the Christian god.

You are really making (part of) my point here. If we were on an island having never heard of God or any religion for that matter, we would be neither atheist nor theist. It shouldn't be difficult to see, then, that you have to *actively* believe or disbelieve in God's existence.

[A Skeptic] > >"Well, being a Christian, I take it on *faith* that God was, is, and always will be---therefore, there is no creator of the Creator."

> ... [It reduces your ability to criticize other models that make this assumption since you include the same in your model.]

Sorry, I'm not following here. I have not sought to criticize any "models of the universe" (at least not consciously); I was just answering your questions.

> No requirement for tearing or gnawing -- just consumption is needed.

Yeah, I wrote that in haste trying to get out the door to catch a bus. Anyway, note the implication of physicality in Webster's definition; to consume the flesh of another human being. Cannibalism requires a physical form that is, in fact, human flesh. However, the physical form of the Eucharist is bread and wine, not flesh and blood; its substance is Christ's Body and Blood. This is theological nuance, though, and I don't expect to convince you one way or the other with this argument.

> Can God create a boulder that he cannot lift? Can God create a place he cannot be? Does God know the future? Trying to answer these and all of the associated omni-related questions brings immediate inconsistencies into the model.

It is the questions that are self-inconsistent. I can't possibly explain here why in a short amount of space, so please check out this link (just ignore the God- and Bible-specific stuff and read it for the logical conclusions):

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2292

[Jay S] > Philosophical naturalism is a belief system. So is secular humanism. Atheism is just a poor term for describing something other than theism.

Point taken. As for my contribution to the misuse of "atheism", simply substitute the name of any non-theistic "belief system" in place of the word "atheism" in my previous posts, and, presto-change-o, there you have it.

That's all for me, it's been fun. Downloading 533 pages of comments is about my limit. :-)

Peace.

Jay S - I certainly meant nothing bad about naturalism or naturalists - it's just that the rocks hurt my back and neck in a tent, and I prefer a fluffy hotel bed - so I wasn't sure I was a naturalist. Actually, I had to look up secular humanist to make sure I want to be called that too - I like the definition of Humanism
(from merriam webster)
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.

Do theists like Superman better than Batman?

My impression is that atheists prefer Batman ... he is after all a mortal man, with human vulnerabilities, but a talent for hi-tech gadgets and martial arts. I bet Bruce Wayne is a secular humanist.

Superman is basically god with a cape, except for that kryptonite thing. There are no limits to what he can move, how fast he can go ... hell he doesn't even need air! Then there's that anti-gravity thing. You know, he originally couldn't actually fly and float in the air in the early comics, but the mythology got ahead of him ... not unlike some other charismatic storybook figures.

Superman's too far-fetched for a real superhero in my opinion, but I bet the theists can identify with him.

I have to go tonight. If Meg, or anyone else wants to respond to me tonight, I will try to respond tomorrow evening.

Before I go, I want to reply to the person who thought they had logically disproven the idea of an omnipotent God with the age-old question: can God create a rock he cannot lift?

Put the question directly:

Q: Can an infinite being render himself finite?

A: Not if he's infinite.

You've asked if God can be something other than what he is, which is particularly nonsensical when it comes to an infinite being. The question itself is incoherent.

MEG:

I am hesitant to respond. Yesterday my questions irritated you. I do not want to cross a line.

Because you addressed me, I suppose it's safe to answer.

There have been two arguments intended to asnwer the point I put to you thee days ago and put to you again yesterday. These arguments are valid and I accept them as such, but they are not refutations. The point I made, which I repeat in the event you want to answer it is: Organization implies an intelligent author. Our universe is undeniably, incredibly organized. I choose to follow the implication. You do not. You have not told me why it is reasonable to reject the implication (although at least one person, I think it was GERRY, has). And no one has even come close to satisfactorily explaining why it is unreasonable to follow the implication. The only attempts have been conclusory or worse (e.g., calling the intelligent author "imaginary", comparing the intelligent author to a troll; attributing motives of emotional or intellectual inferiority, etc. etc.).

With regard to faith, I have seen no refutation. It is not fair to mischracterize my point about faith by talking about trolls or flying bananas. I have provided an implication (I never said proof) that an intelligent author organized the universe before the universe ever came into being. Where is there a corresponding implication that trolls or flying bananas exist?

Meg,

What empirical evidence do you have?

Sam,

I am grateful that you, Dr. Dawkins, Hitchens, and other prominent intellectuals, scholars and scientists, have been willing to stick your necks out in the popular media and call a spade a spade. It is something our backward nation more than ever needs to hear.

Although it has pejorative and inaccurate connotations, the term "atheism" is appropriate here. Traditional Judeo/Christian "theism" is the belief in a particular kind of god - a personal god who created everything in the universe (except himself) from nothing. Religions organized around this concept leave me rationally and spiritually ravaged and empty for the reasons you have ably explicated.

But for those of us who still feel something more sublime in the universe than what can be found in a physicist's mathematical equation, atheism does not leave us empty handed. It is primarily the evils of organized religion led by a personal, capricious god that Sam and other prominent atheists decry.

I appreciate the spirituality Sam offers in "The End of Faith" as an alternative to the "spirituality" foist upon us by organized religion. My own spirituality, which does not depend upon the existence of a personal or transcendant "god," is tied more to the beauty and wonder (both scientific and esthetic) of life and the natural world and our humble place in it. In any case, unbound by the violent, arrogant, and self-defeating dogmas of theism and organized religion, a whole world of spiritual (or philosophical if you prefer) meaning and experience is open to us.

Thank you Sam for your courage in helping to open that door.

Meg

Yeah.I liked your 'living on an island' idea,
to illustrate that religion is a meme that is
pushed into our heads,and without the pushing,
we would be unlikely to believe in a god.
I was never memed that way,so i never believed.
The realization that if I had been born in Saudi
Arabia I would be a Muslim and not an atheist,is
also what makes me more than just a little suspicious
of religion. Its clear that one's
culture determines religious identity,and not
the supposed truth of a particular religion.

Wow - just to let you know, I pasted the entirety into word and it was 533 pages long. Is anyone else's family wondering what the heck you are doing on the computer for so long?

Thank you - and I also forgot secular humanist - that sounds better. I am slowly catching up with the posts.

Meg -- I like being in a tent and eating from a fire, so naturalist has a dual meaning for me. But whatever term you like, go with it.

Officeman, you must not be reading the previous posts - about 20 of them refuted what you state:
"There must be no author to our science experiment as atheists accept ON FAITH that there is not author to the universe." We don't accept it on faith. We looked, and it wasn't there. When you look for the troll under the bridge, and don't find one, you say "oh, there really isn't a troll there". Fact. I am running out of analogies. It is not faith that I now don't believe in trolls.

"Nature, reality, critical thinking... I would have to say out of all of them I like the word reality best. Perhaps someone could find an even better name."

Re-reading some of your earlier posts might I suggest 'Rationalist'?

Thank you Jay S, you are correct. I do consider myself a naturalist. Or I guess more a "realist". (I guess because I always associated "naturalist" with someone who stays in a tent eating from a fire!)Nothing against that. Nature, reality, critical thinking... I would have to say out of all of them I like the word reality best. Perhaps someone could find an even better name.

to Catholicdad,

You are wrong. You say “Your example is flawed because it compares action to inaction, not action to action. Atheism, like Christianity, is a belief system (see below), not a "lack of belief" system.”
I was once religious, and now I am not. For me personally (and I think most out there) religion was an active thing – a belief in god. Or at least going through the motions because we were told to do it. It is now a lack of belief system, (that’s not really true, I have a belief system – I just don’t have a “faith”. ) I am not actively doing anything. I just am here. You say you must *actively* not believe in a god.

Listen very carefully, because this is important. If you and I were born on an island, just us, we would not be actively NOT be believing in the Christian god. We would not be jewish either. Someone has to first tell us of those things, before we even blindly follow, or research and decide to follow anyway. There are aborigine people who have never heard of our god, so are they “actively” trying NOT to believe in it? Step back and look at that argument. From your standpoint, in the middle of ACTIVELY working hard at a faith, perhaps it is confusing, but for me, realizing god and santa claus are not real, is just is. It takes FURTHER action to believe. If I just sit back and do nothing, then I don’t believe. Atheism is defined as lack of belief system.

To Colin: Time will tell whether what I say has happened to me, really did or not. To YOYO: Contrary to most on these postings I do use my real name, Thomas Paul Baum is the name given to me at birth and is also my baptismal name and Moses is my confirmation name, I have been called Moses since before I can remember and I took it as my confirmation name. To Colin and YOYO and the rest of humanity: I would like to make an observation, it sure does seem that a lot of people really get upset if people believe something other than what they believe, personally I don't care what anyone believes. I have met God the Trinity though and He is a lot nicer than most people are going to believe until they meet Him, especially a lot of people that call themselves christians. There really is more to reality than meets the eyes and that also includes all of the senses. I've noticed a few people have brought up Einstein on these postings and it seems to me that he had a child-like wonder to him when he thought of the things he thought. There is a world of difference between child-like and childish. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

CatholicDad said:

"You can make a rather convincing empirical argument that Santa doesn't actually exist, so no, there is no need for faith to believe it"

Change Santa to god and you are an atheist.........

Why is is that so many Xtians posting here think that those of us that are agnostic, athiest, etc. don't know anything about the bible or Christianity? Has it ever occurred to you that many of us USED to be Xtians and study the bible extensively, then finally saw the light and realized how ridiculous religion is? I laugh reading all the threats of "just wait until you're dead, you'll be sorry you didn't believe in God" and endless recitation of bible verses. That's how I used to be and now I find it hilarious. Saying stuff like that doesn't convince anyone.

Also, PLEASE stop praying for all of us poor nonbelievers. Satan does not have a hold on me (despite what you think), nor does he exist, and whenever Xtians say they'll pray for me it feels more like a curse.

The day I gave up my Xtian beliefs was the day I finally felt free and happy for the first time in my life.

Pablo

There are two realities.
The reality inside your head,
and the reality outside your head.
They are easily confused.
The reason your god can never be proved
is because he dwells within.
And only within.

I don't know whether anyone is still here. I didn't realize these discussions continued past the disappearance of the thread from the front page of the WashPost.

COLIN L: Very glad to make your acquaintance. You are very kind.

You wrote: "What I am saying is that maybe one day a human WILL be able to throw inert chemicals and proteins into a vacuum and create life. Its not doable now, but the idea of flying was farfetched just a little over a century ago."

Officeman responds: You are very close to understanding my point. But not quite. To recreate what the atheist accepts, that it all happened (organization, order, predictability in math, physics, chem, and bio) without an intelligent author, the action of creation must be entirely random. That means, to make it more precise, forget chimps typing up a sonnet, it must be chimps who throw the intert chemicals into a vacuum, and chimps who randomly choose the chemicals. If scientists think about it ahead of time, and calculate, and decide what chemcials to use, you have what? An author. There must be no author to our science experiment as atheists accept ON FAITH that there is not author to the universe.

Colin L wrote: "It is a great intellectual exercise, but ultimately irrelevant..." AND "True believers...say that life would be pointless and miserable without a God.... My life is worth living without faith...because I know love already."

Officeman: Two responses. First, I said yesterday that there is no more important question for anyone on earth than whether there is a God and an eternal life. If there is, then the next question is: does he/she/it require anything of me? If there is one thing I have grown absolutely certain of in this life, it's that everything here is temporary. There is no comparison to eternity. Everyone who is able to understand the question, needs to decide for themselves whether the joys or pains of this life mean anything compared to eternity.

Second, and I do not mean to offend you by this. Please take it for what it's worth. You are closer to the love of God than you know. Pope JPII identified hidden in the Book of Genesis something he called the "Theology of the Body." It is primarily, though not entirely about sex (and it makes more sense out of, and draws more beauty out of the man-woman relationship than anything I've ever read). But it's premise is that God speaks to us eternal truths through our bodies. God loves us through other persons. That means I am charged with the responsibility (obligation) to show my wife and children, and people like you, the love God has for them. Although you may not see it, because you may not desire the gift of faith at this time, but the love and joy you experience through your family is a reflection of God's love for you. That is true of atheists as well as theists and polytheists. (And that is precisely what Mother Theresa understood so well.) Now human free will interferes with, sometimes to a great degree, the communication of God's love through other people. But "free will" is meaningless if God takes it away from evil people.

GERRY: Thanks for writing back. Good stuff you said. If my computer were working faster, I would re-write it. Instead I need to paraphrase. Forgive me if I do not do you justice.

Gerry said: Nothing is really predictable, because if you maintain this concept, then human beings are mere puppets and that refutes the dignity religionists attribute to all humanlife.

Office responds: I didn't say that humans were predictable. I refrained from mentioning them to make my initial point. But the fact is that predictability exists everywhere (physics, math, biology, chemisrty, even in animals for the most part, if we get to know them well enough), except fundamentally in human beings.

Gerry: "I am really disappointed nobody evet looked up my fractal link."

Officeman: I did. It was aesthetically pleasing, and cool. Thank you for the site. But it doesn't change the fact that form follows substance. Even it depends upon the organization, order etc., that so impresses me. Please see my answer to Colin L in this same post.

Gerry: The likeliness of an idea has nothing to do with its truth.

Officeman: I agree, though I wonder why an atheist would point that out. In any event, whatever word I may have put into a sentence, I'm not fundamentally talking about "likeness" as I am about "implications." In the criminal law, implications (or inferences) can convict someone, if there are enough of them. And I think my monkey as a scientist analogy to Colin L in this post above covers that.

CATHOLICDAD:

Welcome my friend. I have felt alone at times. You dare to tread where I have feared to go (except for my reference to TOB): to theology. I am not nearly as naturally intelligent as you, I can see that (and the same goes for some of my ahtiest friends here), but I'm afraid folks can't run until they can walk. Alas, sometimes the beauty of a thing (theology) strikes a spark.

Sorry, that previous Anonymous was mine.

I think this discussion thread has reached critical mass for postings. It's getting very cumbersome.

"On what does logic rest? How do we know we can trust logic? On what basis do you appeal to laws of logic."

Logic is a useful tool for sorting out various types of information, but logic in the absence of evidence leads to all sorts of crazy ideas. I may devise some sort of logical argument that the world is 6000 years old, but if all the evidence indicates that I'm not even close to being right, I need to revisit my path to this conclusion. A logical conclusion can only stand up if the evidence I based it on is correct, and the subseuqnet information that is collected also fits this logical model.

Logic is not material in the sense you use it, unless we can someday identify the specific neural pathways by which we generate logical thinking. That may come. But neither is faith. The difference between rational thinking and faith-based thinking is the evidence at hand.

BTW, I do not have faith in my wife. That would be an insult since it implies I have a position about her motives without really knowing her. She is a real person about whom I have a lot of information. Therefore, I trust her. Trust is based on evidence.

Sorry, I didn't page down on pablo's post. Hey, that just proves that our empirical evidence was true then, since it was observed, and we have links! Thank you for helping our cause of truth. We have emperical evidence, you do not.

Pablo:

Define empirical evidence.

Give me an example and prove empirical evidence is empirical evidence.

Jay S-
Well said!

CatholicDad said:

"Can you prove that God does not exist, any more than I can prove that He does?"

The short answer is no, but that does not disprove anything I stated. Were you trying to make a point?

As a side,I find it interesting that you state "to say that one cannot experience God is a bold, indefensible claim". Since you state that you cannot prove god exists you cannot prove that any experience came from god, so it would seem rational and defensible to me.

To Jay S.

YES! (I am just catching up to 11 am posts in my reading.) Please keep going, my fingers are getting tired typing the same thing over and over. First someone says there is NO PROOF that evolution has ever occurred, since we did not "see it" in person - so I show the article where people actually did see evolution. It happened. In front of them. His answer was, a butterfly is still a butterfly. Then I am told we are so different from monkeys because no way do they have feelings or have dialogs like we are right here! Again, I referred to an actual dialog that a person had with a gorilla! MANY dialogs! When the kitten died, Coco expressed extreme sadness and loneliness. So again, their argument was refuted exactly, and they are sidestepping that comment. They are not looking at it - hey guys, if we have now seen evolution in person, how can you still deny it?

Also, to the others that are saying "faith in science is the same as faith in religion" you really aren't looking at facts are you. They are two totally different camps of ideas. I will try to give examples to clarify what I mean. In religion, you might have "faith" that god will keep you safe on a trip - because you prayed. No, that's not good enough - ok, you have faith that you will go to heaven. Now this topic, heaven, is not one we can look at, see, talk to people who have been there and back and say yes, it has 20 rooms, its over there by orion, whatever. Now a scientist, with their thought (which you are calling faith also) might say hey, I want to link up all these carbon atoms together. It is not a thinking exercise, it is not a picture we draw. It is something that is done, then looked at under a microscope. When there is evidence (and the person next to them also sees EXACTLY the same thing) then they say hey, I did it. That is called science. (For you scientists, sorry for the simplification) It was not faith (a belief in something not provable) but a fact, something provable. You do not have your definitions correct.

"Ape" is a term that could be used for the common ancestor of modern apes and humans. Not the same species of ape, but it's a general term so no one should get hung up on it.

I know Pablo is not convinced that genetic similarity says anything about ancestry (without providing an iota of evidence as to why this should be), but here's an interesting outcome of the genetic revolution in biology: chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. That means that biologists now classify humans and modern Great Apes in the same family (Hominidae). In short, humans aren't just descended from a species of ape, we ARE apes.

BTW, it would seem that the assertion of Pablo's that the degree of genetic similarity between two organisms does not denote the distance to a common ancestor would also pretty much invalidate all the evidence used in modern forensic science for figuring out who your daddy is, eh?

G,

You are dodging the issue at hand. The Naturalist asserts that the only things that we can know are those things which can be observed or measured within the closed system on the universe. That nature is all that there is. My point is that laws of logic cannot be observed or measured because logic is not material. Laws of logic are universal but not material.

On what does logic rest? How do we know we can trust logic? On what basis do you appeal to laws of logic.

Pablo,

a snow flake has no creator: It creates itself by the innate qualities of nature, here the form of the crystals. Nobody created them.

Funny you teaching me about logic!

It has been claimed that apes and homo erectus, homo sapiens and other (extinct) forms (Neanderthal) have a common ancestor, and for scientists who use nothing but observation and logic it seems to be beyond doubt.

The sun revolves around the earth, everybody can see this twice a day.

"You do not know the meaning of faith based on the definition below."

Actually, a quick re-read of both of your postings seems to skip between multiple definitions of the word 'faith'.

Probably the best definition that attempts to reconcile this is 'complete confidence in something that is open to question'.

With that definition in mind, I know very few scientists that have faith in evolutionary theory [nor do Gerry's post seem to indicate that he has this type of faith]. Given that evolutionary theory has been investigated and found consistent with our core understandings of biology, chemistry and physics [as well as other related studies], it is reasonable to include it in one's world view. This is not a matter of faith, and my guess is that Gerry and others would be perfectly willing to refine their understanding of the theory should new evidence point a different direction.

[Similarly, my guess is that while you may believe that your wife is not having an affair based on your years of a committed relationship, you would likely be willing to modify that belief if you found her in a compromising position that suggested otherwise.]

Belief in scientific theories that are consistent with current knowledge does not constitute a 'complete confidence in something open to question' and thus does not demonstrate faith.

Pablo said:

"Can you see the laws of logic?"

Define "see". If you are trying to state that belief in logic is the same as belief in god, or equates to faith in god, you are just wrong. Lets do an experiment, logic says you are either an atheist or a theist and that you can't be both at the same time. If you can't prove that wrong then you are proof of the proof of logic. Now you could apply that to god, either he exists or he doesn't, it doesn't matter which is true, the logical argument remains valid. Now, can you see the logic?

Those of us who view the world through our naturalistic lenses, especially those of us who are scientists, tend NOT to point out an aspect of our worldview that may be obvious to us but not to others. But it's worth pointing out here, for clarification.

I am an evolutionist, but I'm a provisional evolutionist. That means if better evidence comes along to show that evolution (the current neo-Darwinian model) is incorrect and that there is a better model of evolution, or maybe some model other than evolution, then I will accept the new model. But it would have to explain the evidence better than the current model does. And the current model is very good.

Same for my naturalist view of the universe as a whole. I'm a provisional naturalist in that, if evidence comes along to show that supernaturalism is real and can better explain the way the universe operates than any purely natural model, I'll change my viewpoint.

I know, some of you religious folks are probably thinking that these atheists will change their tune at the drop of a hat; they have no confidence in what they think know. Not true. We admit that we don't know everything and are more than willing to adapt our thinking and revise our understanding as new information becomes available. But it must be strong evidence and it must explain a whole set of observations about the universe better than the existing model does. It's a high bar that must be cleared to result in a paradigm shift.

Catholicdad, you wrote:
**You can make a rather convincing empirical argument that Santa doesn't actually exist, so no, there is no need for faith to believe it. Such is the case with your other mythical creatures.**

To steal a line from Pablo- you still didn't prove that leprechauns don't exist. I know I'm being flippant, but aren't you just writing off someone else's belief because it doesn't jive with yours. Lots of people believe in lots of things that you probably think are ridiculous. Let's go to Haiti, Africa, Asia, or Native America. People have belief systems that you 'know' aren't true. That doesn't stop them. And they have faith in their beliefs- they experience that faith every day- they center their lives around it- and you may be very quick to discount every notion they have. You can't disprove it, but you don't center your life around their belief. You certainly don't believe in their gods, and probably actively disagree with them.

So, prove that mythical creatures don't exist- because many people think that your god is mythical.

Regards,
Scott

Gerry,

You said,
"Nobody claims that apes are our ancestors."

This has been claimed on this thread.

Your knowledge is stalled in 1925, when Mr. Scopes was tried in Tennessee for teaching evolution. The rest of the world is still laughing about that process, and I remember the exciting movie with Spencer Tracy. Take a look at it, if you get a chance.

Name calling proves nothing.

Gerry,

You do not know the meaning of faith based on the definition below.

“Pablo, your screaming about proof doesn't produce any proof from your side: Faith is believing something someone doesn't know, if words have any semantic meaning to you. That means that you have already firmly admitted to having no proof whatsoever for your belief: The two propositions (faith vs. knowledge or proof thereof) are mutually exclusive.”

People exercise faith everyday that is based on evidence. For example I have faith that my wife will love me tomorrow because I know her character and I know she loves me today. I have not seen tomorrow yet but I believe she will still love me tomorrow based on the relationship we now have and the commitment we made to each other.

I know that designed things are not created by chance + nature because everything that I have seen that has been designed has a designer. You cannot have one without the other. For example I can look at an ancient pyramid and know that it had a designer. I do not need to see the designer of the pyramid but know that the pyramid is the evidence of the designer. I believe this by faith even though I have never seen the plans for the pyramid or met the designer of the pyramid. You are simply setting up a straw man and then kicking it over with your inaccurate definition of faith. Then in the next breath you are proudly concluding that you have proved evolution when you have not given one shred of empirical evidence for evolution. You believe it by faith.

I have no problem with believing things and learning things by faith. One of the points I am trying to make is that the empirical method is limited and that all knowing is not restricted to the scientific method. Right now in the case I am making I am appealing to the laws of logic. They are universal but I have never seen, smelled, or eat a law of logic yet I know they exist. I presuppose them every time I enter the on faith debates as do you. If all knowing is based on empirical proof then you should not think that there are such things as laws of logic and should stop trying to use them to make your case. In which case the debate is over and I win. The same holds true for laws of morality. We cannot see laws of morality be we all know they exist no matter how much one tries to deny they exist.

Catholicdad,

Some of your statements start with "being a Christian", then you make a statement of belief etc.

That shows, that you make the statement because you are a Christian, not that you are a Christian because of the opinion in your statement.

Again proof of the old brainwashing system.

Atheism is no system. There is no "not-collecting-stamps"-system.

Pablo- You want me to write a book with an annotated bibliography, siting every example of every discovery and every study- and you then want me to post that here, on this forum? You've done little yourself but insist that everyone that disagrees with you needs to repent. Crack a book, why don't you.

Catholicdad-
I see what you are trying point out by saying that I have to actively choose to be an atheist. The fact of the matter is that I don't know one way or another what is or isn't out there. I don't have 100% certainty (many atheists will tell you this), but I don't live my life assuming that there is a personal god. Considering what we believe has had an almost direct correlation with what we didn't know, it seems to me that our concept of a deity is highly unlikely. Do I know for certain? Of course not, but in the absence of such likelihood aside from prehistoric conjecture, I am going to call myself a practicing atheist. I have no belief in a deity. If someone has no morals we say 'amoral' - I have no god, so I am 'atheist' (I like to pronounce it 'a-theist').

Regards,
Scott

Catholic dad

Atheism takes the position that there are no gods.
It is a belief,but not a belief system.

As a child growing up in Wales, religion never touched me
because my family were indifferent to it,
and most people where we lived never bothered with it either.
I did not believe in a god because no one had planted that idea in my little head?
Years later,discussing philosophy with friends,
it surprised me to hear one or two of them claim to believe
a god responsible for this wonderful world we live in.
To my ears that sounded..well silly.
I refused to believe it,and soon after,I realized that the word
"atheist" fitted me well. And it still does.

Atheism is a natural position for an unidoctrinated individual.
It is a belief,of course,but not a system.
Agnostics are not persuaded that gods exist.
While not as neutral as agnostics,
atheists also are not persuaded that gods exist,
but go a little further and believe they do not exist.
And see no reason to believe they do.

Scott G,

What part of evolution did you prove in your last post? Where did you prove that we were linked to monkeys? Ignoring the issue and pretending as if you gave proof does not change reality. Stating that we cannot see molecules to man evolution because it takes billions of years does not prove anything except that you have a faith commitment to the theory of evolution.

Gerry - BTW, there is a movement to push the coined meme "Bright" as a name for those who are naturalists, secular humanists, or even agnostics. Personally I despise that name. It sounds too New Agey and a touch arrogant.

It's interesting that there are so few terms for those who have philosophies that don't include a god. Might say something about their unified belief system, since it is mainly science-based (and there are no demoninations among scientists, only competing theories in some cases). Compare the theistic diversity with the lack of diversity among those who are atheistic. It shows the power of evidence to winnow out ideas that just don't work.

(Of course, those who are atheistic vary considerably in their other beliefs, such as political orientation, just as theists do.)

The one thing this thread demonstrates is the uselessness of trying to be reasonable in the face of unreason. The same old tired arguments in favor of a god theory are once again put on display. The posters seem, in many cases to perceive that the arguments are circular and self defeating. Poor Meg, I feel that you are wasting your time trying to stem the tide of of this unreason. Pablo's insistence on proof is almost laughable, given that his "faith" absolutely precludes his acceptance of any such proof. This statement applies to the majority of the religious ad hominem attacks made against Mr. Harris and other posters on this forum. These folks are like someone who has his eyes firmly shut and covered by his hands screaming - "prove to me there is a sunset." Almost pointless in the end. Reading many of these comments almost makes be despair for humanity.

I have a laminated version of the Hubble's ultra deep field view to remind myself of the hypocrisiy of religion. It is indeed the most important image ever taken by man when you consider the probabilities and possibilities.

Thousands of galaxies in view, each galaxy with billions of stars. Why is the Third Rock from the Sun important?

Gerry,

Gee, I don't recall saying that I "hate" Harris. I don't agree with the hatred that he stands for, but I didn't say that I hate him. I think he's pretty sad.

I was pointing out how completely unqualified he is to be considered an "expert" on this topic. I'll also point out that instead of spurring constructive discussion, he merely spews hatred, something he readily accuses his detractors of. He will not win over anyone with these rants, and is simply "preaching to the choir".

"Well, being a Christian, I take it on *faith* that God was, is, and always will be---therefore, there is no creator of the Creator."

Ok -- just noted that this is another assumption for your model -- that of an eternal deity. [It reduces your ability to criticize other models that make this assumption since you include the same in your model.]

"Again, being Christian, I do believe God to have these properties."

Ok, so now some inconsistencies creep into your model [as even first year logic students are willing to point out]. Can God create a boulder that he cannot lift? Can God create a place he cannot be? Does God know the future? Trying to answer these and all of the associated omni-related questions brings immediate inconsistencies into the model. I'm not aware of any theological model that is capable of incorporating these three omni-properties without opening itself up to internal inconsistencies [and would be genuinely interested in a serious model that is able to do so].

"Suffice it to say that to cannibalize is to literally tear into the physical flesh of one of the same species (i.e. if one of Jesus' disciples decided to gnaw on His arm), not to eat of the Body and Blood of Christ (the "substance') under the appearance (or "form") of bread and wine."

Unfortunately Mr. Webster disagrees - he states that cannibalism is a (1) a human who eats human flesh or (2) any animal that eats the flesh of its own kind. No requirement for tearing or gnawing -- just consumption is needed. I actually have a reasonable understanding of the Catholic teaching -- and I fail to see how describing this as cannibalistic is inaccurate [impolitic, perhaps, but certainly not inaccurate].

"It's not surprising at all, especially in a forum like this. Even Catholics have a difficult time with the Trinity, the Eucharist, Mary's virginity, etc."

And here I thought I was the one with a gift for understatement :-)

Jay S.

you are right: Even if strictly in terms of semantics "a-theist" is correct, we should use a positive option.

I am both a naturalist and a secular humanist.

Feels good!

"You can make a rather convincing empirical argument that Santa doesn't actually exist, so no, there is no need for faith to believe it. Such is the case with your other mythical creatures."

Just to be clear - do you count Allah as a mythical creature? Jehovah? Vishnu? What about Adam and Eve? Satan? The Hidden Imam? The Wandering Jew? Witches? Angels? Demons?

"In retrospect, however, it wasn't fruitful to base my claim on the notion of "proof vs. disproof", and I apologize, and hope that the remaining discussion is at least marginally more enlightened. :-)"

Agreed and no apology needed -- was a reasonable course to take -- just hit an unfortunate dead-end.

"Your example is flawed because it compares action to inaction, not action to action. Atheism, like Christianity, is a belief system (see below), not a "lack of belief" system."

Here is where I think Jay S's subsequent point may be relevant. You are talking of 'belief systems' and I am talking about 'beliefs'. Not believing in a supernatural force is one belief of many within my belief system [which is probably akin the the 'naturalist' description Jay S describes as I read back through the posts].

My disbelief in a supernatural force certainly has implications on behavior -- but I would argue that disbelief in witches, warlocks and dragons also has implications regarding my behavior.

"Atheism is clearly a belief system."

As above, I must disagree. Atheism categorizes a single belief that may be prevalent in numerous belief systems.

A Skeptic,

> But to 'prove' something doesn't exist? I don't even know how to really begin.

Point taken, and as I mentioned in my last post, I should not have gone down this road to make my claim.

> 'Who created the creator?'

Well, being a Christian, I take it on *faith* that God was, is, and always will be---therefore, there is no creator of the Creator. If you believe that the universe had a beginning, then how did it begin? On the other hand, the belief that the universe has always been is no less consistent than my belief that God has always been.

> 'Is the creator omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient?'

Again, being Christian, I do believe God to have these properties.

It is not clear to me where you are going with these questions, though, since they are not scientific and have really no bearing on a consistent view of the universe. Belief in the omni* characteristics of God do not preclude acceptance of the prevailing scientific theories of the universe's creation, except perhaps to Christians who take the Bible wooden-literally.

> If drinking blood and eating human flesh isn't cannibalism, then what exactly is?

Here you are getting into the nuts and bolts of Catholic belief, which seems inappropriate for this particular forum. Suffice it to say that to cannibalize is to literally tear into the physical flesh of one of the same species (i.e. if one of Jesus' disciples decided to gnaw on His arm), not to eat of the Body and Blood of Christ (the "substance') under the appearance (or "form") of bread and wine.

In the interest of time, I'll have to skip answering the other comments (Trinity and the virginity of Mary).

> ... it shouldn't come as a surprise when others point out these pretty glaring oddities.

It's not surprising at all, especially in a forum like this. Even Catholics have a difficult time with the Trinity, the Eucharist, Mary's virginity, etc.

Peace.

I too, as a child used to raise my head to the heavens and talk with God. What I got back was my own sense of what I needed to do in the moment. With deep feelings of my own suffering, my own shadow, I feel compassion for myself and for all others. We are in this human community together holding hands with all that nature embraces This is possibly an answer from the heavens, from the universe. It is all here for us, Now.

I too, as a child used to raise my head to the heavens and talk with God. What I got back was my own sense of what I needed to do in the moment. With deep feelings of my own suffering, my own shadow, I feel compassion for myself and for all others. We are in this human community together holding hands with all that nature embraces This is possibly an answer from the heavens, from the universe. It is all here for us, Now.

I too, as a child used to raise my head to the heavens and talk with God. What I got back was my own sense of what I needed to do in the moment. With deep feelings of my own suffering, my own shadow, I feel compassion for myself and for all others. We are in this human community together holding hands with all that nature embraces This is possibly an answer from the heavens, from the universe. It is all here for us, Now.

Philosophical naturalism is a belief system. So is secular humanism. Atheism is just a poor term for describing something other than theism.

I suggest those who have philosophies that are atheistic stop using the term atheist for themselves ... you didn't choose it; why keep using it?

Would any believer describe himself simply as a theist? Don't you folks have terms for your specific belief systems (like Christian)?

Should non-Jews and non-Mormons call themselves gentiles? Then why should someone who is not a theist but a naturalist use the term atheist?

Scott and Anonymous,

[Scott] > Do you then need faith to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist, as Yoyo stated?

You can make a rather convincing empirical argument that Santa doesn't actually exist, so no, there is no need for faith to believe it. Such is the case with your other mythical creatures.

In retrospect, however, it wasn't fruitful to base my claim on the notion of "proof vs. disproof", and I apologize, and hope that the remaining discussion is at least marginally more enlightened. :-)

[Anon] > It takes action to collect stamps, it takes action not to collect stamps...

Your example is flawed because it compares action to inaction, not action to action. Atheism, like Christianity, is a belief system (see below), not a "lack of belief" system.

You have to actively believe that God does not exist to be atheist. Not believing in anything is *not* the same as being atheist, any more than believing in Santa Clasus is the same as being religious.

[Scott] > And in so doing, is that a belief system?

Atheism is clearly a belief system. One does not form moral or ethical values based upon belief or disbelief in the Loch Ness monster, but an atheist would form his value system based upon the belief that the human, not God, is the primary author of right and wrong.

You must *actively* choose this way of thinking to be atheist---if you choose not to believe one way or the other, then that's agnosticism, not atheism.

Peace.

"I must point out that the Catholic belief of transubstantiation (that Christ's Body and Blood is truly present in the Eucharist) was rejected by the Jews of his day (See John 6) as cannibalism, and more specifically reviled as the consumption of the blood of another creature. History is apparently doomed to repeat itself, since this article (incorrectly) likens the Eucharist to a cannibalistic ritual, and so many commenters here seem to appreciate this analysis."

Ok, so I think the idea that the wine and wafer actually physically become blood and body is just silly -- so I don't in any way view it as cannibalism.

But if you really, really do believe that they become blood and body, what exactly is your disagreement with the statement on cannibalism? If drinking blood and eating human flesh isn't cannibalism, then what exactly is?

It's the same problem with the Trinity -- separate but of one essence, etc -- to say that the Trinity represents a polytheistic structure is accurate -- it's not meant as an insult.

And the whole attempt to say that somehow Mary remained a virgin even though the gospels refer to multiple siblings of Jesus [and to try to square this somehow by saying that she wasn't born with original sin] -- it's just hokey.

Your certainly welcome to a set of pretty inconsistent writings by a conglomeration of peasants edited through the ages by a religious hierarchy intent on power acquisition and preservation, but it shouldn't come as a surprise when others point out these pretty glaring oddities.

"It's fun to think up possible deities to build a religion on ... give it a try."

And if you get lucky [think John Smith] it just might hold up!

Personally, I am hoping that Pastafarianism and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is someday discovered by future archaeologists who believe that it was a serious set of religious beliefs from our time [I can just imagine the academic papers discussing the volcano of beer].

D,

you hate Harris. Could you contribute something else?

Liam -- Sure, there are all types of in-between beliefs, from deism and pantheism to theistic evolution to non-theistic reincarnation to scriptural literalism. It's not even a continuum, more like a tinker-toy set of ideas you can piece together, some more elaborate than others. When you're working without evidence, any assemblage will work. Take your pick.

All of the varieties, however, have a supernatural component ... it just depends on how much evidence from a naturalistic perspective you are willing to accept/reject. Deism may be the least difficult to reconcile with naturalism since it seems to rely only a "starter motor" god who does not have much to do after kick-starting the universe and letting nature do the driving. I have no problem with deism since it doesn't really conflict with the evidence, but it does not give much to a believer to worship. Maybe the deistic god isn't even sentient, just a natural energy source that lies outside the universe we inhabit. In that case, we are almost back to straight naturalism.

It's fun to think up possible deities to build a religion on ... give it a try.

Harris is hardly the learned, authoritative source one should go to for solid discussion and debate on the topic of the validity of religion. He is nothing more than a spoiled little boy who didn't want to have a bar mitzvah, who ended up having a "mind-altering experience" while whacked out on ecstasy who then dropped out of college to travel around the world on mommy's money for 11 years meditating and going on "retreats". That was 11 years of mommy's money wasted. Yeah, we should all listen to him.

"Can you prove that God does not exist, any more than I can prove that He does?"

No, but we can come up with a fairly robust and consistent model of the universe that doesn't include any supernatural creature. Are we still working to refine the model? Of course! But to date we have been able to do pretty well sticking to purely natural explanations.

But to 'prove' something doesn't exist? I don't even know how to really begin. As others have noted, it's not even possible to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

I would actually like to hear your consistent model that *does* include a supernatural god. Obviously you have thought through the basic questions that could lead to an inconsistent theory, yes? For example, you have answers to 'Who created the creator?' as well as the 'Is the creator omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient?' [Please don't just refer to some sacred text en toto -- as can be fairly easily demonstrated, none are even remotely internally consistent.]

Where is it written that to believe in God that one must not think that evolutionary biology is a valid theory of “creation” of biological creatures. Where is it written that one must believe in God to think that there may be an “afterlife”. The limiting nature of Christian mythology and allegorical storytelling is not the only manner in which to look at theism. Theism is not the only way to look at eternal life. Maybe, there are explanations of an “eternity” that don’t include a God. Maybe there is a God, but no eternal life. Does anyone have a theory that could be put in a middle ground? Or is everyone on this blog stuck in an extremist position?

As I've said before, my belief system is based on naturalism. Atheism is just a byproduct of my naturalistic belief system (or philosphy if you prefer). Is my naturalistic perspective just as valid as any religious belief system? I'd say it's significantly better ... it has fewer assumptions, no reliance on supernatural entities or phenomena (which lack evidence), and naturalism is well suported by evidence.

For those who embrace supernaturalism as part of their worldview, the burden of evidence is on you. It's not my burdern to disprove your god, it's your burden to show us why we should include it in our view. The view that god and no-god are too equally valid sides to an argument just does not hold up logically, anymore than tooth fairy and no-tooth fairy (not to be confused with toothless fairy).

Charles Brough;
You say the human race always had religion.
Yeah. Actually it has had countless religions,
of very different kinds;and they were not necessarily
in agreement with each other,some claiming one thing,
while others claimed something else.
The Carvaka people of 600BCE,were quite religious,
but had no God,and no belief in the supernatural.
In fact they thought that those who believed in
a god were ridiculous,and enjoyed making fun of them.
That religions of one kind or another have always existed,
in no way suggests the veracity of any of them.
In the distant past,we were incredibly ignorant and unable
to tell the difference between what was real and what was not real.
To believe in a skygod was no stretch at all for
our confused and scared ancestors.
In fact,many worshiped anything that moved;the trees,
the clouds,the moon,the sun.So positing a "being"
who was in charge of everything,made a kind of sense
to primitive minds.
But that was then. Now we should know better.
But superstition,and belief in magic continue on.
That's why the WTC was destroyed on 9/11,
by those who continue to believe in nonsense.

"The point is that atheism is as much a belief system as Christianity, and requires just as much faith that there is no God as Christians have faith that there is. This should be obvious, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven---it therefore requires faith to hold either position."

Umm, no -- much the same reason my initial analogy holds. It takes action to collect stamps, it takes action not to collect stamps -- therefore, if both belief in a god and the non-belief in a god are considered religions, then collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both hobbies.

I take it not collecting stamps is one of your hobbies, yes?

Catholicdad, you wrote:

** The point is that atheism is as much a belief system as Christianity, and requires just as much faith that there is no God as Christians have faith that there is. This should be obvious, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven---it therefore requires faith to hold either position.**

Do you then need faith to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist, as Yoyo stated? Both Santa and God would require evidence to prove or disprove. Or leprechauns, even- how do we KNOW that tiny and magical people, in fact, don't live inside the green, rolling terrain of Ireland? Does it take faith or a belief system to not incorporate them into your everyday life and philosophy? Do you wake up every day and ponder the existence of leprechauns and take the folk lore seriously, just in case they're real? Or do you instead carry on with your life, assuming they do not exist because you have no reason to believe that they do? And in so doing, is that a belief system? And do you have a belief system for everything for which you have an absence of belief? And do you categorize them? "Let me tell you about my Yeti belief system- now here is my 'Little Green Men from Mars' belief system..." Militant again, I'm sure, but you have to realize that for those with no belief, you might as well fill in the blank with about anything.

Regards,
Scott

Anonymous,

Your comparison is flawed and misses the point; see any set theory reference for the technicalities of why.

The point is that atheism is as much a belief system as Christianity, and requires just as much faith that there is no God as Christians have faith that there is. This should be obvious, since the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven---it therefore requires faith to hold either position.

Peace.

MARY/MAUREEN

How many names do you need?
Its typical of the religious to use deception
to add "credibility? to meaningless comments.
Do you have other names too? Like Thomas Baum,or
Pablum?
We'll never know will we?

This is just another diatribe against religion which fails to even raise the question---much less answers it---as to what function religion has served, except to whine about how "bad" it is.

The human race has always had religion because it serves to bind us into societies. Otherwise, we would still be living in hunting/gathering groups! From our distant past to modern times, religions have evolved and old ones have given way to more advanced ones. Our understanding of the world has had to grow; so it is foolish to criticize our past, our always RELIGIOUS past.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

This is just another diatribe against religion which fails to even raise the question---much less answers it---as to what function religion has served, except to whine about how "bad" it is.

The human race has always had religion because it serves to bind us into societies. Otherwise, we would still be living in hunting/gathering groups! From our distant past to modern times, religions have evolved and old ones have given way to more advanced ones. Our understanding of the world has had to grow; so it is foolish to criticize our past, our always RELIGIOUS past.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

What do they call people who don't believe in astrology?
What do they call people who don't believe in Santa?
And why do the religiously deluded demand scientific proof
from nonbelievers,when they accept the skygod
without proof,without,in fact,a single scap of evidence.
Because of fear of dying,and becoming dust,which is
our inevitable end.
There is no magic.Only reality.
There is no Santa Claus. But I don't think I could prove it,
anymore than I could prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Pablo wrote:
**God calls you a sinner and you know it is true. The conscience He gave you has convicted you of this truth. You will stand before God and give an account for your suppression of His truth unless you repent.**

And it's the atheists on this thread that are militant?

Also, Pablo, humans don't come from monkeys- we can trace similar ancestors, but that branch split millions and millions of years ago. Even though our fossil record is incomplete and our understanding is still growing as new theories combine with old, there is no reason to suggest that the fundamental explanation of evolution is incorrect. It may not be a comforting idea to you, but that doesn't make it less true- just like the application of quantum physics: it's got really freaky concepts, but it brought us computers, cell phones and this internet forum. Reject the basic science behind evolution and you might as well start questioning the technology that you rely on every minute of every day. Like Jay S. basically stated, the application of various branches of science end up buttressing each other. You don't accept radio carbon dating? Fine, then there is no possible way you can accept nuclear weapons as being real- the science is too inextricably linked. Same goes for measuring the age of the universe and the distances between stars. We easily accept the goodies that science brings us, but balk and it's fundamentals as soon as it conflicts with our crayon drawn image of how we think things should be. Sorry if that sounded militant- but at least I didn't tell you that you're going to hell.

Regards,
scott

Pablo, your screaming about proof doesn't produce any proof from your side: Faith is believing something someone doesn't know, if words have any semantic meaning to you. That means that you have already firmly admitted to having no proof whatsoever for your belief: The two propositions (faith vs. knowledge or proof thereof) are mutually exclusive.

Reason is open to correcting any scientific finding if falsified (that is actually the core point of honest science, even of honesty in general). I am completely open to correcting my point if falsified. This, to me, is also the difference between modesty and conceit. All major disasters, religious or other, were committed by people who thought they were in the possession of truth ("faith"). The crusaders, the Inquisition, the America "explorers" had "faith" in the superiority of their brand of religion. Hitler had "faith" in the superiority of the Germanic race, Stalin had "faith" in the possible realization of Marxism.

Funny how the pious side fantasizes about the "despair", the "darkness" of people who don't believe in a particular god scheme. They desperately need this idea of the atheists' torment. It reminds me of the wonderful assertion of Thomas of Aquinas, that the highest joy of those in heaven are the screams of torture and despair from those downstairs in hell. And you want any self-respecting individual to believe such Brueder-Grimm entertainment?

Thanks, Dr. Fill, I certainly don't feel any saintly, it just makes me mad to be regarded as "hell-bound", as being doomed to eternal torture for not discarding the wit bestowed on me by nature, by my forefathers, my education and my own intellectual and spiritual, yes spiritual development.

Meg has patiently tried to just state the fact about the closeness of the genes (Somebody tried to split hairs about if the closeness was 95% or 98 %, what a joke!). Pablo, you should inform yourself a little more: Nobody claims that apes are our ancestors.

Your knowledge is stalled in 1925, when Mr. Scopes was tried in Tennessee for teaching evolution. The rest of the world is still laughing about that process, and I remember the exciting movie with Spencer Tracy. Take a look at it, if you get a chance.

"Atheism is as much a "religion" as any other."

Much the way that *not* collecting stamps is as much a hobby as any other.

Wow, there are as many inaccuracies in this article as there are vowels. Trying to address them in this forum would simply be impossible considering the number of closed-minded responses I have read. Suggestion for Mr. Harris: The next time you want to write an article about Catholicism, try to behave like a good writer and set your hatred and personal agenda aside. And it wouldn't hurt to turn your brain on while you're at it.

Wow, there are as many inaccuracies in this article as there are vowels. Trying to address them in this forum would simply be impossible considering the number of closed-minded responses I have read. Suggestion for Mr. Harris: The next time you want to write an article about Catholicism, try to behave like a good writer and set your hatred and personal agenda aside. And it wouldn't hurt to turn your brain on while you're at it.

"Give us some evidence for molecules to man evolution without looking at the universe through the lenses of naturalism and uniformatarinism. You are just another member of the evolutionary congregation who make statements that are not supported by empirical evidence."

Oh, I see, I can't use naturalism (methodological?) to provide evidence for something that is naturalistic? Yes, the naturalistic perspective in trying to understand the universe just has not panned out in science, has it? (BTW, that's sarcasm).

Next time you visit your doctor with an ailment, be sure to ask him NOT to use a naturalistic perspective in diagnosing and treating your illness.

Evidence for evolution within biology comes from genetics (similarities and differences in genomes of organisms and populations; changes in genetic coding over time), comparative morphology (looking at anatomical similarities and differences among organisms that are closely and not so closely related), paleontology (fossil record of extinct life forms), biogeography (patterns of distribution of organisms on earth), ecology (relationships among organisms and their environment), systematics and taxonomy (similarities and differences among recognized species based on all of the above). There are too many specific examples to provide in a post like this, and it would not convince you anyway, so I'll refer you to a website such as talkorigins.org if you are really interested.

Science has an excellent model to explain the diversity of life on earth which fits very well with other fields of science. If anti-evolutionists don't like, let's see your data for an alternative explanation. That's how science works ... competing theories based on evidence. I'd love to see your competing creation model with a comparable body of evidence (be sure to plug in the specifics of where god did this or that, and where the natural processes and events happened) ... but then so-called creation scientists don't spend much time in the lab or field doing science, but rather in the media doing propaganda.

Wow, there are as many inaccuracies in this article as there are vowels. Trying to address them in this forum would simply be impossible considering the number of closed-minded responses I have read. Suggestion for Mr. Harris: The next time you want to write an article about Catholicism, try to behave like a good writer and set your hatred and personal agenda aside. And it wouldn't hurt to turn your brain on while you're at it.

GAD,

Can you prove that God does not exist, any more than I can prove that He does? Can you see "infinity" (I mean the mathematical concept) any more than I can see God?

And to say that one cannot experience God is a bold, indefensible claim---many converts from atheism to Christianity (including me) would disagree with you.

Peace.

Meg,

Regarding the monkey-man connection: in actuality, most mammals have DNA structures that match human genes by at least 90 percent. And the most recent study completed indicates that chimp DNA is only 95% similar to human DNA, not the 98-99% that was previously quoted by over-zealous scientists, which is in agreement with multiple studies that have taken place over the last 3 to 4 years. The "direct descendant of apes" theory is starting to wear thin.

jay S,

Give us some evidence for molecules to man evolution without looking at the universe through the lenses of naturalism and uniformatarinism. You are just another member of the evolutionary congregation who make statements that are not supported by empirical evidence.

Meaning of the Empirical Method:

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

Imagine that the World was really big on astrology.
Imagine that there were different churches for different astrological signs.
Imagine that we taught our kids that the time of their birth was crucial to the kind of people they will become.
Imagine that these columns were all about astrology instead of religion,and that 80%of Americans believed deeply in the significance of astrology.
Imagine the pope in his Aquarian Hat blessing the Aquarians of this world,and the archbishop of Canterbury blessing the Leos.
Millions would buy into this,because they will have been raised to believe it.
Non believers would no doubt try to argue that there was no sense in our dependence on astrology,and the believers would strike back with arguments and insults,and would hate anyone trying to deny their faith.
I see no difference between astrology and religion
They are equally irrational.
When are we going to get it?

Tommy Baum

I disagree with the guy who said you were borderline psychotic.
Why borderline? I would say you are quite psychotic,
believing,as you do in a magic man and a magic universe.
Meds wont even help you Tommy boy.
If you aint psychotic,then what the hell does psychotic mean,if it doesn't apply to you and Pablum,who does it apply to?

The question is whether religion is _true_. The nice Christians butchered millions of people over 1,500 years, solely for their refusal to accept religious authority, or for their refusal to accept each particular jot of the hermeneutics of the various Christian sects, particularly the Roman Catholic one (and American Roman Catholics just cannot seem to understand why Europeans are not so hot on the pope). The fact that religion "changes with the times" -- and it most assuredly does -- results from the fact that it is _man_made_. The only reason why it stopped butchering people is that religious leaders have been stripped of secular power, by secular radical reformers; and Sam Harris is in their mold. There are plenty of authoritarian clowns today (not at all a reference to Bill Donohue of the American Catholic League) who would cheerfully re-establish the reign of terror. No, there are no blood sacrifices today, thanks to the increasing realization that religion is a pack of lies.

colin:

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God By Einstein

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

I'm fascinated when folks like Pablo claim "you have no proof" of some particular claim provided by evolutionists. Proof is a strong word in science (it actually has more application in mathematics) and is different from evidence. Evidence of a scientific claim that is considered very good has to be accumulated from multiple studies and multiple lines of inquiry, over time, and has to fit well with evidence from related fields of study. For example, if geologists did not have evidence for an earth that is over 4 billion years old and for plate tectonics, evolution would be in trouble, even if the evidence from within biology was very good (which it is). As it is, the evidence from many fields of science all lend support to evolution.

How much evidence has to pile up before you can accept where it is pointing? I know ... it does not matter how much evidence is available, with religious blinders on, no amount is sufficient.

I would hate to serve on a jury with someone like Pablo. Critical, objective analysis of evidence seems to be a foreign concept to him.

GAD,

Can you see the laws of logic?

Thomas Baum,meet Pablo.Your mirror image.

Pablo
You sick puppy.
Put that silly bible away and read books on reality.
You have no idea what a fool you make of yourself with your infantile belief in magic.
You are typical of the indoctrinated among us.
You are unable to break out of the bubble you're in.
Could be that you are just a child playing with dads computer.You have so much growing up to do,you just aint gonna make it.

To MEG and the rest of the world: By militant, I mean people trying to cram their beliefs down other people's throats, whether that is believing that there is a God, or higher power, or something bigger than us so to speak or believing that there isn't anything beyond our physical understanding. By saying that you are more christian than some people that know God's Name what I mean is what Jesus actually taught which is Love and a lot of the people that think they are speaking in His Name are spewing out pure venom. A lot of people that call themselves christians give christianity a bad name and that is not a new phenomenum. Like I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. When you say it is from hearsay, not factual, well whether people believe it or not, God the Father came into my heart and He did not say a word, He did not have to, God the Holy Spirit came into my body and spoke not to me but thru me, I had to actually open my mouth. I have also had some dreams that I know were from God. I have also met satan and he is not nice at all but can come across as mister nice guy. On another response to what I wrote someone said that I was a borderline psychotic, well I disagreed with that, and the reason I gave was that either these things and others have happened to me or I am a full blown psychotic. I am not asking anyone to believe me or not, actually it doesn't even matter, I just have a job to do and God will see me thru, I did not ask to be me but I have said YES. God is actually PURE LOVE and we do have free will and whether people believe it or not, He does have a Plan, we are all in this together. You have said that it is human nature to help other people, well we are made in the image and likeness of God, but would you reflect on the, to say the least, terrible carnage of the 20th Century, could that possibly point to us having a fallen nature, think about it. And by the way not just the 20th Century but throughout human history. It seems to me that with a lot of science, maybe all, the main question that they ask is "How?", I personally think the question "Why?" is much more interesting, is there a reason for all of this or is it ultimately meaningless. I refer to God a lot of times with the He pronoun but God is not a male or a female or an it, such as the god of pure energy, God Incarnate was a guy though and what He taught and accomplished has been so distorted, I can see why a lot of people would never believe in what they might think He is by the venomous garbage of some who think they are speaking in His Name. I really enjoy learning, it is interesting, and I remember in an astronomy course I took in the late 70's they said with computer models they could go to within seconds of the big bang, I thought that was interesting at the time and that was before I met God. Actually I do not believe in the Big Bang theory but I do believe in the Big Wow theory, I am not saying it is true because I don't know, but I do stake my eternal and everlasting destiny on the mysterious Plan of God. Take care, see you all in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I like Dr Dawkins response to did man create the cosmos?
Well if he didn't then it must have been a woman.

"Atheism is as much a "religion" as any other; it requires "blind faith" that there is no God, and the firm conviction that what we can experience is all we can hope to know."

No Atheism is not a "religion" in any context such as Christianity, that is a theist invention that has no merit. There is no "blind faith"
in atheism, we can look around and see there is no god, "blind faith" is only necessary when you claim that the god you can't see is still there. "and the firm conviction that what we can experience is all we can hope to know" Vs knowing what we can't experience?

All these ideas are misused, out of context, and/or are incoherent.

Columbia MD - You’re right - If a Doctor taught and advocated a procedure without revealing his deep personal doubts on its effectiveness, we would not celebrate him, instead, he would probably lose his medical license. Actually a procedure would not be advocated in the first place if medical research had not been done on it. And there are plenty of medical treatments that are stopped when further research shows they are ineffective or harmful.

Dr Fill - Thanks - and especially for reposting the link to "Kissing Hank's Butt" - it's perfect for this conversation

Meg,

I have read your posts but have not founf any proof. Again, making statements that monkey DNA is linked to human DNA is not proof.

As for me quoting the Bible I do because I accept what it says by faith just like you believe your text books and evolutionary magazines by faith. You still have given no proof for molecules to man evolution just observed changes within specific organisms that still retain their identities of being what they are created to be. Please come out of denial and admit your faith commitment. Evolution is a religious philosophy cloaked with scientific language. There is no proof for particles to people evolution.

So a monkey processes some traits similar to people again the differences are profound. You see some similarities and so you speculate that people are descendants to monkeys. That is not proof but speculation. You imagine it to be true and believe what you have been told. You believe non thinking nature created the universe and I believe a creative all knowing genius known as God created us. I think my faith makes more sense.

I love empirical science because it causes me to praise God in all His creative genius. I just reject evolution because it is not science but a false belief system. Your Bible is Evolutionary writings and mine is the Holy Scripture. Mr. Fill is right you make a good saint for the Theory of Evolution.

Atheism is as much a "religion" as any other; it requires "blind faith" that there is no God, and the firm conviction that what we can experience is all we can hope to know. It amazes me that the same atheists who bang on the table for so-called tolerance become hostile when their belief system is challenged. Of course it also amazes me that so many of my Christian brothers and sisters become just as hostile when their belief in Christ is challenged.

It is the extremes of *either* way of belief that one should fear and retaliate against. And I don't mean extreme relative to human or worldly standards---which would suggest, for example, that pro-life is anti-woman, or that God has selected only a handful of humans to be saved. I mean extreme relative to the standards of Christ which anyone, Christian or atheist, can find in the living Bible.

I must point out that the Catholic belief of transubstantiation (that Christ's Body and Blood is truly present in the Eucharist) was rejected by the Jews of his day (See John 6) as cannibalism, and more specifically reviled as the consumption of the blood of another creature. History is apparently doomed to repeat itself, since this article (incorrectly) likens the Eucharist to a cannibalistic ritual, and so many commenters here seem to appreciate this analysis.

Anyway, to my Christian brothers and sisters, noone can take your faith from you---only *you* have the ability to lose it. To my atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters, I can only pray that your eyes and heart are opened to the grace and splendor of God. And I hope that we all someday understand that "science can purify religion from error and superstition; [and] religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes" (Pope John Paul II).

Peace to all.

Gerry,

Thanks for the unqualified statements. Prove that humans are traced from monkeys. Since you have given no support for your statement I would have to conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. I keep hearing that we are related to monkeys on this thread but have seen no proof offered just statements. So come off your high horse and give us all some proof. Speculation does not count since you are relying on empirical science. You are a true believer just like the other evolutionists on this thread.

While I hate to quibble with an overall very well-written analysis, I believe the following closing doesn't quite capture the thought:

"Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?"

Describing Mother Teresa as an 'expert' on her faith is probably accurate as far as that goes, but she was much more. She was also a strong advocate, teacher, purveyor, and transmitter of her faith. She behaved as a public representative of that faith and refused to express any of these personal doubts in public.

If a doctor taught and advocated a procedure without revealing his deep personal doubts on its effectiveness, we would probably not be celebrating him in the way Mother Teresa is celebrated.

Meg, E Favorite, Gerry, Et Al:

If non-believers had saints I'd nominate y'all. LOL

As a parent who has tried to convince a child that there is no boogyman in the closet I can relate and I truly admire you for your patient persistence. Keep up the good work.

David, You’re right – I’m getting impatient – on my own accord, no assistance needed. The more I think and write about this stuff and hear religious arguments, the more incredible it seems that I ever could have been religious. But it wouldn’t hurt for me to tone down a bit if I want to be listened to.

Regarding repentance – what I described is exactly what I learned as a Catholic child – one mortal sin unrepented, unconfessed and unforgiven and off to hell with you, for eternity. Maybe your brand of Christianity or even Catholicism taught something else, but there’s the puzzle – how can one basically good, compassionate, sincere Christian go to hell for eternity for a sin they would have confessed if they’d had the opportunity, while other one, who commits the same sin, does not?

Wonderful article.

thank you sam harris,
this shouldn't distract from the fact that mother theresa was a lover of Papa Doc duvalier, charles keating, enver hoxha, and thought poverty to be "beautiful"

doubting the existence of god doesn't put her in good company with the real heroes of modern times who believe in human freedom and enlightenment ideals

Ok, Pablo, I will try this again, and then this must be my last post to you. I am losing money by not being at work right now. But you obviously didn’t read or understand all of my posts. I will answer only a few – not all, due to time.

You say “Monkeys do not care about the things we care about.” Again my comment to officeman I think about staying up with science articles and what is going on in the world – not as “beliefs” but as facts that they are finding every day (they don’t find new drugs and cures by “wishing and praying, or by having faith” they find cures by science, and yes even using DNA.) The monkey comment – oh you have never seen coco!! She (I think it was a she – or he, I forget now) was great. (A gorilla I believe.) Had a great language base using sign language. Yes, coco got sad, coco was lonely, coco had a pet kitten. They even tried to find a mate for coco, and sent videos from other zoos – coco would watch them and said which one she liked or didn’t like. She also would talk about things in the past (memory) and things in the future – like tomorrow lets go camping. So that is completely wrong.

You are correct – just because large amounts of people believe in something, doesn’t make it true. But, if every single heart doctor says one thing, and someone who is not a heart dr. says no, you can cure your disease by drinking chocolate milk, I base my knowledge on the fact that the heart doctors are doing the real research, and have looked a bit further into the truth. You are not an archaeologist, you have not spent millions of hours measuring skull sizes of early hominids, you have not measured the differences just in the chin bone alone.

The dictionary I got the definition in was in Merriam Webster, and www.m-w.com online.

As far as you quoting the bible for proof, you are taking words from people who didn’t have a clue. They had no idea was disease was, physics, astronomy, I could go on and on. Dawkins makes a great argument for the fact on why we do not look to really old, unimproved papers. He says even scientists don’t reference back to Einstein’s work – most college students understand relativity better than his papers. It is the new research and information that we look at. Be careful about quoting the bible and using that as a reasonable statement. If you do that, then you have to do that with all statements. And if you wife was not a virgin you are to kill her? I understand that is in the bible. Also, you are a sinner and will go to hell if you don’t bury your meat for a set number of days, and do some sort of prayer. There is all kinds of old, odd things written by “people” who were superstitious. Not enlightened people. I must go to work now.

oh, and yes the scientists can proof the assertion that our DNA and monkey's DNA are linked, and do prove a common ancestor. It has to do with the branching of certain markers in the DNA strand. Like I did earlier, with finding evolution in the lab, if you are afraid to read the science I will find the web site for you and post what you guys aren't paying attention to.

It's obsurd that you would listen to someone without any knowledge standing behind a pulpit on how the world works, but not listen to a scientist who is actually studying life and how it works. The person behind the pulpit is a great resouce on biblical history - but not how we got here - he has not studied it.

Science (empiricism) and religion ( our connection) are coming closer and closer as quantum physics begins to understand that we really are wandering in a maze of investigation and classification of the temporal and illusionary parts of nature when we try and break down the universe into smaller and smaller pieces.
This column has provoked more disagreement than any I've ever read and it makes it obvious how far apart we, as a race, we are in our thinking. My question is this, why, if we all live in the same reality can we see it in so many different ways?
The difference between knowledge and belief is perception and there is where the disagreement comes. Logic ( the doctrine of fallacies) can not prove anything, neither can faith. So we are left with on giant question, how will we ever agree on anything ?

The mystery of this world is not the invisible but the visible.

Officeman,

one more comment:

The "likelyness" of an idea or a conclusion (your religion vs. science) has nothing to do with its truth. A completely invalid argument. It is much more "likely" that the sun revolves around the earth than the other way around. And it was deadly "truth" for centuries.

Pablo,

"I would disagree that scientists have traced monkey DNA to man. Can you prove that assertion?"
You can read it in any scientific publication, but of course, you will call it "speculation" again.

Funny how people argue with "science" without even knowing what they are talking about, just in a desperate try to save their untenable world view, which was implanted into them by power hungry priests through the ages.

btw: Even monkeys are "emotional" creatures, no serious zoologist would doubt this, only Pablo.

We are made in the image of god? How do you know what he looks like? Like us? Then of course, god is made in the image of man - QED.

Officeman,

I give it another try:

Couldn't we both agree on the fact that neither you nor I know how the universe began (IF it began!)? We both say we don't know, in your semantics: God did it. God is a joker for: I don't know. You cannot describe god, I cannot describe Big Bang or any other conceivable origin. So, please, logically we both say the same in this regard. I will not dwell on this subject any more.

It is revealing that you speak of the "measurability" and "predictability" caused by "random chance". All three concepts are false:
Measurability: Heisenberg: Things change as you try to measure them.
Predictability: Nothing is really predictable. If you maintain this concept, you might throw your religion and any accountability in the dustbin, human dignity with it: We are not god's puppets! Funny that an atheist has to explain this to a religionist!

I never said "random chance" of the beginning (which we both really don't know). Of course scientifically speaking many events can only be described statistically. This is the window of our free will, of our responsibility. There is a "scientific MAYBE".

I am a little disappointed that nobody ever looked up my fractal link, which shows that a mathematical formula (algorithm) can create the most miraculous forms. I know, this does not prove or disprove the existence of god. It disproves, however, the opinion often offered by the religionists that every form has to have a creator. That is not the case. There are self-generating forms.

I appreciate Meg's and others' friendly persistence to explain the obvious to the intelligent, but alas dogmatically wired regressive minds! Wired: They have LEARNED their dogmas from others. Their innate intelligence probably would never have invented such a preposterous thought system, which has the only advantage, if followed meticulously, of conveying a cozy feeling of security, which in reality does not exist.

With this notion, you can "prove" anything possible ("god's will") together with its contrary.

If you have a philosophy which proves something together with its contrary, the philosophy is invalid.

I don't comment any more on bible quotations: You cannot prove a system from within that system (Kurt Goedel).

Meg,

As for the popularity of the theory of evolution are you asserting that popularity is proof of what is true and not true? I could give you endless examples of now falsified one time popular ideas that where taught as truth. One example is the idea that African people were inferior to white people. This idea was propagated by Charles Darwin. He said:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”

No popularity is not proof of what is true and not true we all know that statements like the one above is based in ignorance and not truth. But the majority of Europeans once believed it to be true.

I did not say that science is speculation I said that scientists and people who believe in the theory of evolution are speculating because there is no proof of molecules to man evolution. (There are scientists who do not believe in the theory of evolution). You have not given me on shred of proof.

You said
“If you accept all this (all other scientists do, that is why I question your knowledge into scientific fact – not as a belief system) then you must also be knowledgeable to know how they traced the DNA of moneys and linked it to ours – and find branching out of other species – if you research the DNA knowledge that is fact and found by “empirical evidence” then it will totally discount any argument you make above.”

I would disagree that scientists have traced monkey DNA to man. Can you prove that assertion? They are very similar but what makes them different is profound. Monkeys do not care about the things we care about. They do not have conversations like we are having on this thread. We are made in the image of God. We have relational qualities that monkeys do not process. We are emotional, self reflecting, volitional creatures.

God loves you and made for a specific purpose. He will give you life if you will turn from your own way and believe in His Son.

Meg,

Give me some proof. Where is the missing link?

The definition of faith is not “a belief in something without proof.” What dictionary did you find that definition in?

Try this definition:

Hebrews 11:1-3
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

I have faith that my father would rescue me if I was in need of saving even though I have not seen that reality yet. Why do I believe this? The nature of my father and His love for me assures me that he would do so.

The empirical method is not the only way that people can know things. For example you have been trying to reason with me based on the laws of logic but can you prove to me that logic exists empirically. The scientific method has limitations. I learned about the limitations of science when one of my family members was on his death bed. The doctor came to me and said there is nothing else I can do for him he will be dead within a few hours. The scientist could do no more, the philosopher could not help. The comedian could not give him another minute. The only one who could help is God the author of life. I will see my relative again because he is in heaven. He had faith in His Heavenly Father and trusted in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

Dear Officeman,

I am really enjoying your posts, although I have come to a completely opposite conclusion from you. I look at the old philosophical statement "if you give a chimp a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, eventually he will create a Shakespearean sonnet". Please don't mistake that I am comparing your idea of God to a chimp. What I am saying is that maybe one day a human WILL be able to throw inert chemicals and proteins into a vacuum and create life. Its not doable now, but the idea of flying was farfetched just a little over a century ago.

This brings me to a second point. What if you are correct and there was an intelligent creator. My question is: "so what?". What proof do you have that we should worship this scientist, who may not even be aware of our existence, considering the vast scale and reach of the universe. If he or she is real, then I'd be happy to thank them if they ever come around my neck of the woods. But I don't think worship is necessary.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't seek to prove or disprove the existence of a God. It is a great intellectual exercise, but ultimately irrelevant. I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well as something I said in my earlier post.

"True believers (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.), including some well meaning folks on this thread, say that life would be pointless and miserable without a God and the promise of eternal life. They should hear my wife's laugh, see my son's bright smile, or dip their toes in the cool blue waters of the Pacific Ocean.

Some may call these things proof of God, and they are welcome to do so. I call them proof of my own growing humanity. My life is worth living without faith in an unprovable God because I know love already. It is right here, right now, and it calls me home for dinner every day."

Best Regards,
Colin L

religion is a freakin scam.the sooner religion is destroyed the faster mankind will be saved.

religion is a freakin scam.the sooner religion is destroyed the faster mankind will be saved.

Sam has my chit. I vote to keep him and his "rationalist" crew of light bearers in the media spotlight. However, all of us "rationalist" promoters live by the grace of religious tolerance, and as soon as the religionists have the power they are forever seeking, we will once again become the flames of their intolerance; literally.
Those who are the most recognizably “rationalist” will become the first candles.
So the question is; can rational thought reach a critical mass before the kindling starts to burn? It’s never happened before, each age of enlightenment that has challenged church, faith and dogma has had their own candles.
I am hopeful of a new age of enlightenment, where rational man reacts rationally to the world around him…..but I’m buying fire insurance just in case…. In closing; a prayer for the many, like Sam, who seek the end of destructive, superstitious, repressive, bigotry that has destroyed men, women, and children in the millions… “God protect us from your followers”.

Bryant

Pablo,

I will try this again. You did not hear me. I do not have a faith commitment to naturalistic evolution. The definition of faith, in the dictionary, is a belief in something without proof. If evolution did not have proof, it would not be taught in every high school in the US. Europe has no problem with evolution – you seem to be a minority here. I am not speculating. Science is not about speculating. If you agree that DNA code can be observed in the person to whom it belonged. They also know what things are happening on different DNA strands – for example they can find the mutation for downs syndrome. If you accept all this (all other scientists do, that is why I question your knowledge into scientific fact – not as a belief system) then you must also be knowledgeable to know how they traced the DNA of moneys and linked it to ours – and find branching out of other species – if you research the DNA knowledge that is fact and found by “empirical evidence” then it will totally discount any argument you make above.

Scott G,

God calls you a sinner and you know it is true. The conscience He gave you has convicted you of this truth. You will stand before God and give an account for your suppression of His truth unless you repent.

The God of the Bible is the only God revealed in His creation which includes you. He spoke of all the false gods that man creates like Posiden in His word.

Romans 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

I posted to the Iowa State Daily identical remarks as Sam Harris writes in his first 3 paragraphs above, the inherent evil of crucifix symbolism.
Because of their hatred for my words, I've been villified & called a mental patient by closeted "atheists" & xians alike.
This is the refuge of the xian & paranoids.
To declare American Atheism a disease or sociopathology. Because we tell the simple truth about their religious loyalties to evil icons, their vicious defense of a monstrous lie is more violence directed at those who call a spade a spade.
Teresa of Calcutta has been fully exposed by Christopher Hitchens. She was a wealthy cultist. She did little good & FAR MORE HARM FOR THE UNWASHED POOR & often caused needless death & suffering.
It remains fitting & proper for us to condemn the KKK for burning a cross.
When will it be just as acceptable to expose other xians for what they stand for?
Keep going Sam Harris.
American Atheists remain best citizens & great patriots. Xians should be ashamed to suggest otherwise. Daddy Bush & boy Bush need to repudiate McCarthyism & theocracy.

E-Fav,

Dude you used to be nice. what's up, bad day?? or is it the militant attitude from sam harris and co. that's affecting you too?

anyway, i'll respond to something really quick.

"Also, how can you be sure you won’t end up in hell? You might be coveting another man’s wife one second (you know its wrong, but you can’t help it, she’s so hot) and get hit by a car the next. Straight to hell with you, buddy, for eternity."

You really have no idea about the Christian religion do you?? Do you really think it's all about repenting for every single sin I ever did and will do? If that were the case, I better go because I have a lot to remember and a lot that I will do, I have some repenting to do? Once again, this shows the ignorance in assumption concerning Christian theology. You think it's all about if you sin, then die without repenting it, your in hell. That's not it and not even close. So you might want to quit with the assumptions. You are not helping you case any. And why assume I would covet someones neighbor? C'mon man!

In what way is anything I explained to Bill illogical. Again you are quite insulting with no apparent substance. Is it illogical for God to give enough evidence to believe in Him and have faith without affecting freewill of choice? I believe the Bible is enough evidence for me and I've never physically seen God. How is this illogical? Or are you just in your ignorance like the rest of the militant atheists on this thread.

E-fav, I've had some good conversations with you in the past. You may or may not remember me. But for some reason you get on this hostile post and you become hostile as well. I must say I appreciated your posts and comments a lot better without the outter influence of your militant peers. Especially in light of Sam Harris' hateful ranting. Maybe you can be the old you and we can have a nice conversation. Maybe not. Maybe you've gone to the dark side..... :0 Whaaa haaa haa! (evil laugh).

Good evening to you. Cheer up E-Fav....Jesus love you!! Hee hee.

to garyc4
I am just getting to earlier posts that I saved for a reply. you say
"I'm really sorry that I can't take God out of my pocket and show him to you, but the constantly empty feeling you have in your heart when you are alone should tell you something"
--I have heard others comment on this. I myself do not feel alone either. Why would I have a constant empty feeling in my heart?? I feel great actually when I am alone. I am comfortable being alone. I know pretty soon my great family will come back home again soon, and they will either give me a hug, or yell at me as usual, as children do. Without being rude, it sounds like you have a constant empty feeling in your heart, which why you (and many others)have felt the need to fill it with religion and other mystisism. Maybe that is how most of us get to being an atheist and question the obsurdity of blind faith into something that has no substance - we are comfortable with being alone - we are comfortable being in our own skin, and do not need to look elsewhere for comfort. I do not mean that as an insult, but it sounds like you have mirrored your loneliness onto others, and can't understand how we can be alone and happy. I for one LOVE being alone - it is peaceful.

Jihadist - The number of heads are proof of their battle prowess, manliness and virility to impress both men and women. So, if a Dyak fellow brings you 20 heads and another 5 heads, a Dyak woman would naturally pick the fellow with 20 heads for her mate.

My my my, you are becoming an evolutionary biologist. Bringing many heads is an honest signal to all of potentially superior genes. It is honest because it is almost impossible to cheat. I guess a head hunter could pay someone for their heads, but he would quickly be found out. The only way to come by heads is to win. Losers get their heads served to someone else's wives.

Pablo- You wrote:
**God made us for Him not so we could be focused on ourselves (anthropocentric). It is ungrateful and evil for finite, God dependent, sinful humankind to breath God's air, see His glorious attributes in what He has made, and experience the life He gave them and not return love to Him. He made us to know Him, experience His love, and love Him. My parents love me and it would be ungrateful and unjust for me to withhold my love in return.**

I don't believe that. Simple as that. Just like, I'm assuming, you don't believe in Thor, Apollo, Poseidon or leprechauns. Anyway, you don't need faith in order to convince yourself that you have parents. So for me your argument makes no sense- I told you from where I believe our moral compass is derived. So, we disagree- just don't call me immoral.

Regards,
Scott

Scott G – Nice to see you too. Thanks for handling that “Pascal’s Wager” issue. All I would have said is, “Do you really think God would fall for a cheap trick like that?”

David – interesting that you can’t imagine “chance” or “just happening” but you can imagine (if you’re Christian) the whole ancient and intricate stories of Moses and Jesus, written in a book that hasn’t been updated for 2,000 years. Also, how can you be sure you won’t end up in hell? You might be coveting another man’s wife one second (you know its wrong, but you can’t help it, she’s so hot) and get hit by a car the next. Straight to hell with you, buddy, for eternity. Also, in answer to your question – I don’t care if everyone’s an atheist, I’d just like everyone to have the opportunity to avoid religious indoctrination as a child and I’d like Christians to stop telling me I’m going to hell. It’s not nice.

Anonymous – what’s the citation for your “true story” about Einstein? Oops – thanks Dr Fill, for finding the citation – that it’s a hoax. It sounded like a hoax, didn’t it? but then, so does religion.

Bill – yes David can have it both ways. If he wants to believe, he’ll find a way. Logic is not the issue, remember, it’s all about faith.

Syed K Mirza, you say, “He's not just the invisible skygod, he's the deaf,dumb and blind invisible skygod” but occasionally, when a believer prays and gets what he prays for he’s convinced God did it. Somehow, though, when payers are not answered, God is off the hook. God knows best, I guess.

Good night, all. Sweet Dreams and remember, they're just dreams - if you think God is talking to you, don't answer, please go straight to the emergency room. Mother Teresa would have been a lot better off if she had done that.

Meg,

I am not confused but am thinking with absolute clearity. Your words below demonstrate your faith commitment to naturalistic evolution. You are speculating as do all evolutionists who say things like we do not see change from one organism to another (hence the term the missing link) because it takes to long to see those kind of changes.

Organisms have built into them the potential to change according to changing environments so that they can survive (example: Speckled Moth, note: they were still speckled moths). These organisms still retain the identity of what they were created to be. We have observed these kinds of changes and thus we have access to empirical evidence.

The millions and millions of years of minute changes (or some actually were quicker changes, some happened in "jumps") makes so much sense, especially since it is based in reality, (and we can trace it by geological aging of the different fossils - plus lets not all forget DNA) so in probability terms it really has a chance to have happened.

DNA on a crime scene is observed by scientific experiment. The same DNA code can be observed in the person to whom it belonged. That is empirical proof so your argument does not hold water.

yoyo-
back to an earlier comment you made to me. Thanks. Actually, I got one degree years ago. I just take more classes every now and then whenever my job gets less technical. I like to try and push my brain when I can - I am not great at math, so jumping in and taking quantum physics is always a fun challenge.

As far as arm wrestling - I'm lifting weights - lets go for it! (Well, I lifted some last week...)
I am at mynameisunavailable1@yahoo.com if I leave this blog. This is not normally what I waste my time doing, but it has been a good lesson in bettering my debating skills, and has helped to thicken my skin. The name calling was hurtful two days ago, and now I really don't care! Quite liberating. Thanks.
Meg

Hi David- Seriously, I don't care one way or another what someone believes- I may question it, but your believe its your personal decision. As long as public policy isn't determined by that belief, I don't have a problem. We can come to a moral common ground (don't kill, lie, cheat...) without invoking that.

Do I want to evangelize my atheism? I would love for our sense of spirituality to catch up with our current understanding of the universe- at least enough to question old notions like: he knows when you've been sleeping/ he knows when you're awake/ he knows when you've been bad or good... But I don't want to persecute people for their lifestyle- it, after all, has no impact on me. Believe what you like.

Regards,
scott

David - you say
"Are you freakin kidding me?? As a believer I do not fear death because I have hope in the afterlife, something you do not have. I know that I will not go to hell. To be a believer ensures this!"

It is amazing the childish smugness of that comment. You actually DON'T know if you are going to hell - perhaps you did one of the sins in the bible that god cannot forgive you for? You actually do not know - you can only hope and pray. Every day. Every day until you die. That is the waste of time we are talking about. And yes, the smugness - what about jewish people? Not one of them fits into your rules of getting it right - by your rules, they will NOT make it into heaven. So by your rules 2/3 of all major religions are going to hell - all except you. What if you are wrong, and only the jewish are going to heaven. Didn't they invent it in the first place anyway? The only way you would actually know for sure is if god came down and said yup - you made it - you can come to heaven when you die. Since he didn't tell you that, you don't know. And he could change his mind too... didn't he do that in the bible a few times? Again, I hear everyone saying what they want to believe, not a unified ruling of what god is actually doing.

David,

Why do you call me militant? I'm just trying to make what I consider to be logical arguments. I have no personal stake in trying to convince you or anybody else - just sharing my own personal thoughts. I've explained previously here why I'm interested in this debate (as evidently a lot of other people are), but a lot of folks may consider my particular reason loony for all I know.

As for how I would imagine a secular world - there would be one less major reason for people to kill each other. At this particular time in history it turns out that all the wars in the world have a religious component. I think it is logical that there would be more respect for life - given the finality of death. I think the useless killings of thousands in a war would be seen as intolerable. The crucial component for success here is to maintain a questioning approach. If a Lenin and Stalin come along and try to raise up a Karl Marx as a god with the Communist Manifesto as an inerrant bible, with its prophecies and all - it wouldn't work.

There would be an increase in appreciation for our world - instead of wanting to be good stewards of the planet merely so that God would reward us, we would realize that we have to take care of the only place that we and our children can exist. We'd also know that there is no chance that God would step in and rescue us if we screw up. Nor would we believe that the fact that we are not God means we are too puny to actually screw the planet up.

Scott G,

You said
"The idea that if a god created such a vast, extraordinary universe as ours, that it would be so easily offended if just one of the staggering profusion of life forms on just one planet of a possible billion trillion didn't 'believe' in its' existence. I don't get it.

The above words caused me to ask you about morality and justice. True morality and justice can only be known through the author of morality and justice. Why is it such a big deal if one of His life forms suppresses His truth clearly revealed and pretends not to believe in Him? Because it is treason. It is little man trying to play God. God made us for Him not so we could be focused on ourselves (anthropocentric). It is ungrateful and evil for finite, God dependent, sinful humankind to breath God's air, see His glorious attributes in what He has made, and experience the life He gave them and not return love to Him. He made us to know Him, experience His love, and love Him. My parents love me and it would be ungrateful and unjust for me to withhold my love in return.

The big lie is that life is found in being man centered. Mankind is dying and faith is only as good as the object of faith. The only solution is to be Theocentric. God lives in eternity. He is the life giver and I have eternal life in Him. I love Him and and as much as I can I want to return the love he has lavished upon me.

"Einstein"
Not sure who you are, and I couldn't quite figure out your position in your email. Actually, in most searches Einstein shows up as an athiest.

One correction - you say
"Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available."
Actually einstein hated quantum theory, didn't like it, couldn't disprove it but from what I understand spend most of his last years trying to disprove quantum theory. It didn't fit well with his other theories. It is neither here nor there. But interestingly, a good point on the word "theory". Quantum physics is not a theory that is something that only some people might believe in. It is not a belief - it is a description of what is, like the theory of gravity is a description of the laws of gravity. Same with evolution. From what I understand, the transistor radio wasn't possible until they understood quantum mechanics - same with the scanning electon microscope - it has to do with the electron and infinite well potential. So please, if someone says something is a theory, like evolution, theory means fact in science. Something that people are just trying to figure out is more like a hypothesis - I forget the exact words. But AAAS has a great definition of what science and science theory is.

On the subject of the Ten Commandments:

The commandment "thou shall not kill" has to be taken in context, reading the bible it is clear that the context is Jew is not to kill Jew, except when ordered by god, everyone else is fair game for all manner of horror and genocide.

Case in point, right after bringing down (and breaking) the tablets with the Ten commandments, Moses, on order of God, has 3000 people killed..... So much for thou shall not kill........

Exd 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Exd 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

BTW the commandments are only 10 of over 600 laws, but no one ever seems to romanticizes over any of the others, like how to rape your slave, how to beat your slave, how to sell your slave, how to kill your daughter if she is not a virgin etc. etc..

More reading for those who are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
http://www.flamewarrior.com/tencomm.htm

wow pablo,

There was evolution actually witnessed in a lab, and you still don't get evolution, and are trying to discount it. You are correct, I do not know your educational background. I was not implying intelligence or lack of intelligence. But since I have followed the studies of many species' fossils and different evolutionary traits, it is clear that you are not familiar with the wealth of information out there. The millions and millions of years of minute changes (or some actually were quicker changes, some happened in "jumps") makes so much sense, especially since it is based in reality, (and we can trace it by geological aging of the different fossils - plus lets not all forget DNA) so in probability terms it really has a chance to have happened. For example yellow birds vs. green ones - the yellow ones are seen, get eaten, so the gene pool tends to get larger with green birds - hence a general shift over the years towards a certain color. The other option would be, "poof" god put us here? Since it is not based on facts, any evidence, or an incident that actually can be possible, I find that option much harder to try to believe in. That is why educated people in biology don't look for that as a way to why we are here. By the way then, if you think evolution is just a faith based thing, then how do you explain DNA analysis? (And if a murderer killed a family member, and DNA evidence would prove that he was at the site, would you tell the judge forget it? You don't believe in DNA as a science?) You state there is no emperical evidence. Well I think I just mentioned two - the article I first posted, and DNA.

The reason for the capitals is because you tried to put down my comment that i suggested you read science articles to further your knowledge about this subject, that you seem not to know about (or are trying very hard to close your ears to) and you tried so hard to prove evolution didn't exist because no one had seen it - and in 1 1/2 minutes of searching I found an article stating quite the opposite! I know they have done a lot of work with viruses and such - just even the aids virus they have talked greatly about how it evolves so quickly to change every time they try a new medicine - it tends to work for only a few months before the virus can change-EVOLVE- into something that the medicine can't fight. This is nothing new. So yes, reading science magazines to keep up with new science discoveries might be helpful so you don't say things that aren't true.

Saying the butterfly is still a butterfly - sure, today it is. At 9 pm I was watching scientists talk about early earth (not just a few odd balls here, mind you, but scientists that are talking about stuff that ALL the scientists agree on - whether they are in california, or boston.) One was trying out his cute little phrase on how we all owe our life to scum - that we are from the scum of the earth. Since life first was from the water, and single celled organisms. This should be nothing new. Europe has no problem with this. Anyway, the butterfly eventually came from that and I REALLY don't have the time to try and spell it out how it came from that and it's lineage. And your other option is what - that it was just put here? How does that happen? I have never had anyone in a college or education position try to tell others that that is how things are created. Not one high school teaches that. Not even the catholic high school. They all teach evolution. So I really am not sure what you are confused about.

Pablo,

The argument that a fungus is a fungus and a butterfly a butterfly is based on a flawed concept of time. A human lifespan is much too short to observe speciation in most cases. Evolution of species has in fact been observed in organisms with very short intervals between generations. Species typically evolve over periods much too long for us to observe in our short lifetimes. You might as well ask an insect that lives for a week if they believe that a tree can grow from a seed when they've never seen it happen.

The only other argument commonly used is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Despite the fact that it is rare for fossilization to occur in the first place, a large number of transitional forms have in fact been found, with more being found all the time - another weak reed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Bill,

What do you mean by have it both ways?

What I said was that God keeps Himself hidden as to not shout out in the sky "Hi, I'm God!" But He does give us enough evidence to have a faith with reason. You may or may not agree with those reasons, but millions if not billions of people disagree with you, so what is the problem then?

So God is hidden enough to give us faith, but yet evident enough to establish a justifiable faith. This isn't having it both ways, this is God's way of enabling us skeptical human beings to be able to accept Him with some evidence at the same time not over doing the evidence as to contradict freewill. Trust me, God could MAKE you love Him, but then we all would be just some robotic humans loving God, not freewilled humans who CHOOSE to love God. If you were God how would you do it any different? This could be the only way to true love. Love by freewill.

"Finally, while an atheist has more love of life than a believer, since they don't think it's just a short introduction to eternal life in a better place, they have no reason to fear death. It is the believer that has to worry about going to hell. "

Are you freakin kidding me?? As a believer I do not fear death because I have hope in the afterlife, something you do not have. I know that I will not go to hell. To be a believer ensures this! I think you would logically need to fear going to hell more than I simply because you really do not know if it exists or not. If it does and I believe it does, I know I'm headed in the other direction. Please tell me how being a believer would make anyone worry about hell? Do you know anything about theology?

You may not fear death, but it kinda sucks believing that you are just a state of consciousness that will soon cease to exist. That doesn't frighten you?? And please tell me how an agnostic (since there is no such thing as atheist) has more love for life than a believer? This could very well be #1 on the "Most Ignorant Statement in 2007" billboard.

I swear, atheism is getting more and more militant by the hour. If you don't believe in God, then why even argue about Him? How is my faith in God hurting anyone here? If anything I found my faith to make me a better loving person. Even if God was not real, that's a positive thing for believing in a falsehood, right? So really, what's the problem with being a Christian?

I do have a question for atheists. Seriously.

Would you really want everyone in the world to be atheist and why?

From my point of view, I wish everyone in the world were Christians. I just want to hear what you have to say and why you would want everyone to be atheists?

Another stellar, biting article by Harris; well done.

Albert Einstein

Get back in your grave Albert,people don't care what you think. You are D.E.D.dead.
The religious think their priest is smarter,
and prefer magic to reality.
So do go away with your damned rationalism.

Albert Einstein

Awesome, Albert! Totally awesome!
You nailed it good.

yoyo

Meg Says,

"That is very much proof to me that each individual makes up what he wants god to be - otherwise if god really did talk to all of you, wouldn't you all be saying exactly the same thing to us as to god's plan??"

You're right. If God does exist, then it would be obvious. There wouldn't be the need for the torturous logic required to somehow conjure Him from nothing.

And as for the idea that the beauty and order of the cosmos proves God's existence - This idea was very powerful in the past - Officeman, it was obvious to everyone - and why not when they didn't know anything different -

But a funny thing has happened: Every corner of the world that we have examined has turned out to have a natural explanation. Do we know everything? Of course not! But everything we can investigate has a natural explanation, absolutely without exception. The creation of earth and the solar system - we see it happening now in other parts of the galaxy. The creation of all species through evolution - millions of hours of research reported in thousands of peer reviewed papers by thousands of scientists - some who have spent their whole careers - have found nothing to contradict this - but overwhelming amounts of interlocking evidence supporting it in many fields. And this is all wiped away in a second as "pseudoscientific" by someone whose "proof" is contained in iron age writings.

God may exist - and science certainly can't disprove His existence, but He'll have to be found elsewhere than in the teleological argument. Nature is trying to tell us something and we refuse to listen.

Pablo- Where did I mention morality, and where you read in my post anything concerning justice and injustice? You didn't- you didn't address the content of my post- which was how self important we have imagined ourselves to be in context with the rest of the universe. But as long as you bring up morality, I'll give you the same answer that I gave for another thread on this forum:

*I'll submit that there are no absolute notions of good or evil- aside from that relative to personal existence- but nothing in a cosmological sense. I believe that much of what humans perceive as good and evil has to do with suffering. I believe that we are empathetic enough not to wish suffering on anything we deem "innocent". The fact of the matter is that nothing in nature, aside from humans, makes such distinction when it comes to hostility befalling an individual. Hurricanes don't- neither does the ravenous black hole at the center of or galaxy. Evil? There are all sorts of horrors that occur all the time that garner little attention for their lack of impact on the human population. For many there is a uniquely anthropocentric definition to "good" and "evil" (homosexuality occurs rather frequently throughout the animal kingdom- I wonder if those species are worried about the consequences of their actions).
What does it say of you if you don't have enough empathy for your fellow living beings to answer questions of morality without weighing the consequential impact to those around you? Am I to accuse you of being deficient in moral fiber because you need a metaphoric shock collar to keep you in the metaphoric back yard?*

David:
As far as atheists being nihilistic about the "meaning of life"- that gets my dander up too. As if without an invisible god, or more to the point-an afterlife- I can't enjoy the love, beauty and relationships in my life; that I can't pause to contemplate the nature of my existence without pain for it's lack of perpetual existence. It's almost like going to a party and not being able to have fun unless the host gives everyone a brand new Lexus, lifetime service, gasoline and a guarantee that it will never crash.

As far as randomness- what we are learning of the universe rather complicated, and not easily expressed by espousing "mere randomness" . Anyway, I like the way that people have a problem with the notion that the universe may have "just happened", but somehow have no problem explaining that God "just happened". By the way, I never mentioned randomness or chance in my original post- nor my problem with people believing in a god-my post addressed the assertion that God is going to "git ya" if you don't believe in 'him', and how self important in an idea this is given the scope of our current understanding of the universe.

Regards,
Scott

Did someone say EINSTEIN?

A quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

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

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...

Syed K Mirza

I agree with every word you wrote. I think you have it exactly right.
One would expect a REAL God to get involved.
Why would a God allow the birth of Siamese twins joined at the head,
where one must die?
Why would he allow a tsunami
to wash away thousands of his worshippers,most of
whom were women and children?
Why have a God if he never does anything?
The religiously deluded have to argue themselves
inside out,trying to explain and justify God's
permanent absence,while telling us how sweet and loving he is,and all that kinda crap.
(as Holden Caulfield might put it).
He's not just the invisible skygod,he's the deaf,dumb and blind invisible skygod,
who reacts to no situation,no holocaust,no famine,no crisis,and no prayer.
So why on earth do we insist he's up there somewhere?
You don't have to be an Einstein to figure it out.
We are not his creatures.It's the other way around.
He is our creature,a creature of our imaginations.

Meg,

You have not addressed one thing I have said. As far as calling me uneducated you do not know my educational background. You are speculating again.

The butterfly is still a butterfly. The fungus is still fungus. You are speculating that they will become something else.

By the way what is up with your explosion into capital letters? I feel like you are shouting incoherently. We are only having a discussion. Do you think if you make the same unsupported points louder that they will become truth. I do not think so. Prove that one organism like a simple fruit fly was something other than a fruit fly in the past. Millions of dollars have been spent on reproducing fruit flies trying to make them evolve before the eyes of the world and what do we have? All kinds of different fruit flies. Only fruit flies.

Yes you are a believer in the theory of evolution which posits that nature created the universe with absolutely no empirical evidence. This is your faith commitment.

Well stated as always Sam. I'm a former Christian fundamentalist that had 24 prime adult years of the only life I'll ever have stolen by Christianity. I hope you and others like you don't get discouraged in your fight against life robbing superstition. The fight is worth it.

Well stated as always Sam. I'm a former Christian fundamentalist that had 24 prime adult years of the only life I'll ever have stolen by Christianity. I hope you and others like you don't get discouraged in your fight against life robbing superstition. The fight is worth it.

David,

You can't have it both ways! First you say

"If God showed His mighty self to us, we would have no choice but to worship Him. It would be a forced love"

Then you say

"The Bible is the only religious set of documents that have some kind of supernatural proof in prophecy and miracles recorded"

Evidently, back in Biblical days God didn't care if he forced people to love, fear, and worship Him - he just does now.

The truth is, if you take a way all the miracles of the Bible, and based a religion on it, then nobody would be a believer. That is the main thing that they actually have faith in - that these things really happened. So much for the free will argument.

And as far as your discussion on the one true religion, I am completely convinced that if by accident of birth you had grown up in Egypt, that you would be a fervent Muslim, and all your arguments would be reversed.

Finally, while an atheist has more love of life than a believer, since they don't think it's just a short introduction to eternal life in a better place, they have no reason to fear death. It is the believer that has to worry about going to hell.

MEG:

Please see my post of 1:34 pm. That explains it all. Having gone through your posts, to include transfering them to WORD, you did not address my primary point made in that post. That said, I did not mean to make you tired of me. My apologies. I will write you no more.

GERRY:

You wrote: "there is actually no difference between a god who creates something out of nothing and an otherwise unknown event by which "substance" (which in reality is energy) might have appeared. No difference at all."

Officeman: Of course there is. In the case of an “unknown event” your talking about random chance producing all that is predictable and measurable and all that we will ever learn through science. In the case of an intelligent creator, we have a far more likely explanation.

E-FAVORITE:

I agree with you that doubt does not always make sense. But it makes sense when it comes to the ultimate questions of life. There is no more significant question for anyone than whether there is a God and an eternal life. All of us ought to re-examine that issue periodically. If you are unwilling to do so now, then there is no use our discussing the matter any further.

With regard to the unreasonableness of my asking Meg to recognize that theism can be a reasonable position, your point is well-taken.

ON SUFFERING AND IMPERFECTION:

If one concludes that there is a God who grants us genuine free will, it's not a leap to understand that God will let us live with the consequences of our decisions.

Good night all.

Sorry cut and paste error on last post.

On the subject of why doesn't show himself. The Non-Belief argument (see below) is very powerful, I personally don't think it can be broken, at least in the sense of an all loving and/or all powerful god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_hiddenness#Introduction_to_the_problem_of_divine_hiddenness

1. If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe he exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe he exists before they die;
3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as his desire for all humans to believe he exist before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what he most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

If want to go deeper on this subject:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_hiddenness#Introduction_to_the_problem_of_divine_hiddenness

1. If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe he exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe he exists before they die;
3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as his desire for all humans to believe he exist before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what he most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

If want to go deeper on this subject:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html

Anon: The list of gods are extensive. If Sam actually had to mention all of the worlds religions it would be quite a large multiple choice exam. I'm sure he chose those 3, because they are western religions. In fact, God has to make a choice (according to the religious), and that's what I think Sam meant, either way they can't ALL be right.

It's just convenient for the majority of believers to believe in the God they coincidentally grew up with, and they ignore the fact that there are other people in the same situation as they are on the other side of the globe, yet those people believe in another god.

And I'm not going to pull a Pascal's Wager to make myself feel better when I die. We are here for a very natural reason, and we are no better than other species on this planet. It's elitist to think that there's some divine purpose to our being here.

Keep it unreal...

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." - David Brooks from The Necessity of Atheism

Meg
You are really something else.So much uncommon
common sense,and you communicate it with such clarity!
Go take some more courses,you'll pass no problem.
I have faith in you.And that faith is based on
the scrappy challenges you can't resist taking on,
down here in the bowels of the Washington Post.
I wouldn't dare arm wrestle you.

Reminiscence,

That is one great point you make. I believe it's only by examining the other two can you find out what's truth or not.

I believe Judaism and Christianity are somewhat linked. It's kind of like Judaism gave birth to Christianity. Of course they do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah, even though He fulfilled all of their prophecies. But Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. I don't want to sound anti-semitic as well, but I see how it would be hard to accept Christ as God in flesh knowing that your own people killed God in flesh. Maybe better for them to feel better about themselves to deny Christ than admit to killing Him. Even the Torah prophecies that the Messiah would be despised by His own people. Another reason being that is they expected Christ to come save them from the Roman enemies. That wasn't the case. He was to save them from sin.

Concerning Islam. Nothing in the Koran is convincing of truth. Comparing the Koran to the Bible one can see that the Koran is a mere statement as saying that Allah is the only God. Of course the Bible says this as well, but the difference being one thing. Prophecy. Of course many of you have different beliefs in prophecy and I've heard all the arguments. But the fact is that it is 100% correct and when studying eschotology (end times) it's pretty amazing how Biblical prophecy is like reading the newspaper. The Koran doesn't have anything prophetical or any miracles recorded. Nothing supernatural to even give some proof of a supernatural God. Also, a big difference is the Bible was written in some 1600 year span by 40 different authors who all have the same message. The Koran...just some dude in a cave who claims to have seen an angel. More witnesses in the Bible over such a long period of time all with the same God.

So Judaism is incomplete Christianity. Islam is the false religion the Bible prophecies about. Also, the Bible warns of false prophets who are visited by angels. These angels could be satan's homies. Why trust Mohammed when it was only his word. Sounds like a Joseph Smith kinda guy to me.

And if Buddha is right, then I get to start life all over again and over and over until I get it right I guess. But that's kind of lame and pointless.

Anyway, as I see it, the Bible is the only religious set of documents that have some kind of supernatural proof in prophecy and miracles recorded. If you want to claim anyone to have blind faith, talk to Muslims. At least (no matter how argumentative it may be) prophecy gives Christians some proof about the supernatural working of an omniscient God. Just as an example, the one that never ceases to amaze me concerning our generation is the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and having their own nation in 1948. That really amazes me every time I think of it because of how dispersed the Jews were around the world and how they flocked in mass numbers just like the Bible said they would, to return to their home land after centuries of being exiled. It's hard to deny that prophecies concerning Israel are so 100% accurate in our day.

This is how I know I have the right God.

that last anon was me, opps.

Got news for you, Reminiscence...that multiple choice selection of various religions all worship the same God, they simply have different ways/interpretations of doing so.

It is like someone asking an atheist, "are you sure you picked the right god not to worship?"

Ha!

Puhleese Anonymous September 3, 2007 8:11 PM
Don't believe all your junk email.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Excellelnt article by Sam harris. This should open eyes of those blind-faith belivers to unseen and un-proven fictional God who never responded to anybody's calls. Mother teressa tried her best for 60 long years, serving earnestly millions of gutter-humans but this imaginary God never responded to her call. Actually, humans made God (not God made humans)only to divide mankind which caused untold misery and blood-sheds throughout the human history. Time has come to open our eyes and seek the truth.

SKM

But David what if you're believing in the wrong god? Then your lifelong held belief would've been futile...

As Sam Harris rightly pointed out not so long ago:

“They (religions) can’t all be true, given the sheer diversity of the religions on offer, even if we knew that one of them was absolutely true, that this was God’s multiple choice exam: A) Christianity, B) Islam, C) Judaism, every believer should expect to wind up in hell purely as a matter of probability”.

David,
you say
"God did reveal Himself. He even spelled it out for you like you wanted it. It's called the Bible." If he spelled it out in the bible, then why are many, many books not put into the bible? You do realize that people wrote the bible - well, wrote letters and documents, and then people also chose which ones to put together.

"If God showed His mighty self to us, we would have no choice but to worship Him. It would be a forced love. God doesn't want that. He wants true love from us." -----It always amazes me when people tell me they know god's purpose, or what he wants. Then when someone dies, they say, oh, we don't know god's plan, we just have to trust him. David, why are you saying that god doesn't want forced love? how in the world would you know? Why is everyone who is religious tell me something different from the previous person? That is very much proof to me that each individual makes up what he wants god to be - otherwise if god really did talk to all of you, wouldn't you all be saying exactly the same thing to us as to god's plan??

Guess what, Einstein?

Einstein was not a theologian so who really cares what he had to say on the subject?

Might as well bring up a thousand other geniuses, humanists and writers that have something to say on the subject.

Dostoevsky or Tolstoy or Graham Greene are a couple that come to mind who would support faith and the beauty, art, reason etc that faith brings to the world.

Honestly, people...

PABLO:

I am not speculating. I do not believe in ANYTHING by faith anymore. Well, except that perhaps if I want to take another college course, that I can pass it. That though is determination, not blind faith. And by now, that is also based on experience. But I could still fail.

THE REASON WHY I WANTED YOU TO READ SCIENCE MAGAZINES IS BECAUSE YOU ARE UNEDUCATED IN THE SCIENCE. LIKE SOMEONE ELSE SAID, JUST BECAUSE WE DID NOT SEE A MURDER HAPPEN, DOES NOT MEAN IT DID NOT HAPPEN. DETECTIVES USE EVIDENCE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED. THAT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE - OTHERWISE ALL MURDERS AND CRIMES WOULD BE EXCUSED BY YOUR STANDARDS. OK, SO I WENT AHEAD AND DID YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU - PLEASE READ BELOW FOR EVOLUTION IN PERSON:
Researchers on the island of Samoa have witnessed evolution in action, as the population of male "Blue Moon" butterflies has returned from the brink of extinction. The researchers, from Berkeley University, put the resurgence of the species down to an evolutionary arms race, in which the butterflies' latest weapon is a gene that fights off a parasite.http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/13/butterfly_evolving/
just everyone learn first what is going on before trying to refute it. I would never try to refute heart transplant skills - I don't have a clue which is the best tool to perform the surgery. Now I really must get back to my chores.

Ahh a little Einstein for some flavor around here. Here's a good story about Einstein. It's actually a true story.

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical definition.. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

Of course that young man would be Albert Einstein.

Have a good day.

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God By Einstein

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

Scott,

Yep I said it. I'll have nothing to regret come the end of my life. I think I'll expand on my point. If you are totally fulfilled in being an atheist then great for ya buddy. I'm happy that your living a good life and have obtained a happiness in this life that you wanted. Guess what, I have to. And not only have I found happiness, but I believe in God as well and that belief makes me happy too. So what's the problem then?

If your right then any reality ends at death and who cares what I believed as long as I was happy and did well because of my faith. If I'm right, then great you were happy and did well for mankind as well. But you have eternity to regret not believing in God.

We both are happy and have fulfilling lives. But only one of us can lose in the end or both of us can gain nothing. I can't lose either way. You can. I wish you luck.

So what's the problem then? If I'm happy believing in God, why such harsh comments as to think that I'm not a "freethinker" as well. I've thought it over several times. I just can't imagine "chance" or "just happening" being a possible scenario for life. Maybe you can. If your happy being an agnostic/atheist then good for you. Maybe you can imagine a world of "chance" or "it just happened". Maybe you can explain to your kids that they are just some random colocation of atoms that just appeared. Somehow that fulfills you, then great! For me, it doesn't. It's quite depressing and leaves no room for hope or meaning. And to tell me the same old science garbage argument that we just happened is not a great way to insinuate that we believers are close minded non-thinkers. Because to believe it just happened or some random chance theory, is the farthest from being a "freethinker". Sounds more like an "I'll settle for that instead of God" theory.

Wish you happiness. Good luck in the end.

What has the Religion Naturalistic Evolution given us?

Free Love

The Dehumanization of the unborn

The Murder of the unborn

HITLER: Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler (1889–1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

MARX: interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm

TROTSKY: Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918–20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State.

STALIN: Darwin's “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin's approach to society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin's evolutionary theories.

The loss of value for our Fellow Man

Murder in our schools (no 10 commandments no accountability to God)

Scot G,

Do you love watching the news and hearing about all the injustice? Do you think that injustice should be winked at?

Do you ever sin? Do you like it when you are treated unjustly? If so why?

Where did your conscience come from? Where did morality come from?

nothing compares to the officially atheist communist killing machine and the 100 million dead in the last hundred years.

all part of progress, I would suppose you would say...the atheist "final solution" for faithful, eh?

I love it when Christians try and bash Atheists for our supposed 'godless' behaviour, while forgetting that there are loads of other religions in our world today (and loads more from our past), so they're just as godless as we are in the eyes of those believers. And they also forget that their silly meme has only gone this far because of the fact that the Catholic Church has choked the western world with an iron fist for over 1600 years. Can I hear inquisition and crusades?

Yet they persist quoting from their sadistic nonsensical irrelevant doctrine (just shows you how naive they are) trying to tell us their WORD is 'awe-inspiring'.

Well let me tell you Christians, it's not awe-inspiring, it's actually mind-numbingly dull and doesn't say anything other than for example what Muslims can paraphrase out of the Koran as well.

So two thumbs up at Sam Harris and other freethinkers, and *yawn* at delusional religious folk thinking they have a leg to stand on paraphrasing from their silly doctrines...

Hi E Fav- Nice to see you plugging away on these posts, still. I always enjoy reading your stuff- it's usually exactly what I would have said. Some times I get a little burned out addressing the same, tired comments. Here's one that I am tired of reading:
**If I'm wrong in the end...oh well....I lived a happy and meaningfull life and don't regret anything in between, even if that involves believing in God. But if I didn't and found out that God is real.....who would regret then? Atheists maybe??**

I'm sure the person who wrote that is very nice, and that we would get along really well, all else being equal- but the idea behind the comment? What conceit! Has no one paid attention to even fundamental science- the kind of thing you see on the Discovery Channel. The idea that if a god created such a vast, extraordinary universe as ours, that it would be so easily offended if just one of the staggering profusion of life forms on just one planet of a possible billion trillion didn't 'believe' in its' existence. I don't get it. Anthropocentric- I say it in almost all of my posts. Anyway, E Fav- nice to see you out here.

Regards,
Scott

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good (Psalm 53:1).

efav,

The point I am making is that you believe by faith that nature created the maple seed because you have never observed the creation of the first maple seed. The complexity of life encapsulated in the maple seed has not been reproduced by man and yet you assert to us all that nature which cannot think created the maple seed. Faith is only as good as the object of faith. You have faith in the creation I have faith in the creator of the creation. The creator is transcendent the creation is dependent.

Its called individualism, yoyo.

Einstein was great but also flawed and biased like the rest of us; he is one among many - not the single decider of human flourishing.

Z-Bob;

Great stuff,appreciated.
Later Z-Bob.gotta go.

Cheers pal.

Anon,

God did reveal Himself. He even spelled it out for you like you wanted it. It's called the Bible.

Why does He keep Himself hidden?

You want God to show Himself to you personally. You want Him to show His actual face and say "Hey, here I am, now you can't doubt me". Right? If we saw God face to face with physical proof then there is no need for faith. Faith is important. Faith is what gives us true love for God. If God showed His mighty self to us, we would have no choice but to worship Him. It would be a forced love. God doesn't want that. He wants true love from us. If God showed Himself in person in the sky with a big "Hello" there would be no such thing as atheists. And no such thing as freewill. And no such thing as true love.

The atheists might be right. Or maybe the believers might be right. I can't put God in a test tube and prove Him by scientific means. Why do you think it's called faith and not proof? But vice versa, atheists can't prove there is no God either. So, I guess you can look at it in which way you are most fulfilled. I will also include Pascals wager. If you are not familiar with that it's a guy who once said that believing in God has no consequences. Because if you die and find out there is no God then really it makes no difference. But if you don't believe and find out there is a God, then you have eternity to regret it. I believe taking that it's important to ask a question. Are you fulfilled in being a believer or non-believer. Most believers would say yes and I'm sure most atheists would say yes as well. So me as a believer being totally happy and having a life of meaning and fulfillment have nothing to regret in case there really is a God. On the other hand, the atheists who could have a life of meaning and fulfillments like mine will have a lot to regret after death if they are wrong. I think I'll place my faith in that which passes both tests. I may not be right, but in the end it won't matter unless I'm right.

Of course this sound like I believe in God for "just in case" reasons. To be honest that's not the case at all, but I do have a personal relationship with God that I can't explain to anyone who does not believe in Jesus. I truly do love God and have hope in Him. If I'm wrong in the end...oh well....I lived a happy and meaningfull life and don't regret anything in between, even if that involves believing in God. But if I didn't and found out that God is real.....who would regret then? Atheists maybe??

It's really amazing and depressing that no matter what an intellectual giant as great as Einstein says,folks still prefer the pastors opinion on matters of major importance.
It's a funny old world,as Maggie Thatcher used to say.
goodnight all.

YOYO,

I hate to repeat an earlier post but here are more great quotes by Albert Einstein in case you missed them:

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.(Albert Einstein)

When considering the actual living conditions of present day civilised humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men. This competitive spirit prevails even in the school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that the religious teachings are utopian ideals and are unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. (Albert Einstein, 1948)

meg,

I did not say naturalism had a presupposition I said that naturalism is the presupposition for the theory of evolution. The fossil record only exhibits distinct kinds of organisms you are looking at the fossil record through the glasses of the theory of evolution. You are speculating that fossilized organisms were something else before they were fossilized in a specific point in time. You are speculating that they became something else. No scientist has observed one of those organisms changing into another kind of organism. You believe by faith that we evolved. Refute that instead of telling me to read scientific magazines.

To add to the very insightful post by Craig McLaughlin, look up the recent sociology book called "Who Really Cares" by Aurthur Brooks.

In this scientific look at charity and giving it is the members of society who associate themselves with any faith that, by far, give the majority of time and resources to the poor/disasters/hunger relief etc.

Atheists are cheap (perhaps selfish?) and here is your scientific proof (that you love) in recording that fact:

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/

As posted on the bulletin board in our church's Youth Fellowship Room, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." The sermon of Mother Teresa's life speaks loud and clear. Mr. Harris has words, words, words; but what is that in comparison to a life of such compassion, kindness, and selflessness? Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits." Take an honest look at the Third World and tell me who are the vast majority of those doing the thankless, selfless acts of mercy and kindness in the midst of crushing poverty. The followers of Jesus, that's who. Mr. Harris asks if doubt can't disconfirm a doctrine, what possibly can. What disconfirms the truth of a doctrine is the lack of fruit of that doctrine. Where are the tens of thousands of atheistic or agnostic orphanages? Where are the atheistic or agnostic homes for the dying, the elderly, the homeless? Mr. Harris, I can't hear you. I can hear the magnificent, Jesus-inspired life of Mother Teresa.

Ponder the words of Einstein...perhaps the clearest mind of the 20th century;

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

As posted on the bulletin board in our church's Youth Fellowship Room, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." The sermon of Mother Teresa's life speaks loud and clear. Mr. Harris has words, words, words; but what is that in comparison to a life of such comparassion, kindness, and selflessness? Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits." Take an honest look at the Third World and tell me who are the vast majority of those doing the thankless, selfless acts of mercy and kindness in the midst of crushing poverty. The followers of Jesus, that's who. Mr. Harris asks if doubt can't disconfirm a doctrine, what possibly can. What disconfirms the truth of a doctrine is the lack of fruit of that doctrine. Where are the tens of thousands of atheistic or agnostic orphanages? Where are the atheistic or agnostic homes for the dying, the elderly, the homeless? Mr. Harris, I can't hear you. I can hear the magnificent, Jesus-inspired life of Mother Teresa.

Meg blathers:

"I see people who haven't been taught the information of what a condom is."

What an simplistic and ethnocentric statement - typical for an imperial atheist/moralist like yourself.

Worked out will with communism didn't it?

State sponsored atheism and rational, scientific methods to control population/politics (e.g. starving 10 million in the Ukraine, as just one of thousands of examples)

I posted this earlier, but don't see it. Please excuse if double-posted.

PAUL C – Sam Harris has actually had spiritual experiences, which he has described in one of his essays here. Regarding him “making a good living from his ‘scoffing.’” What about all those mega-church pastors? And the guy who wrote the “Left-Behind” series? Is it OK to be make a good living if you advance religion?

You say that for you, understanding God's will “has led to more peace and joy.” For me, understanding that Christianity had little basis in fact and that this is my only life has led me to peace and joy, and I’m not scoffing – I’m celebrating.

You end with this: “I believe that those that choose to distance themselves from God in this life, will be destined to do that for eternity.” I know that – no need to restate it – it’s the standard Christian belief. I do like the subtle way you put it, though. A lot of Christians just tell me I’m going to straight to hell.

OFFICEMAN – I’ll leave the science to Meg and others. Meanwhile, your expectation for Meg to agree that your position is reasonable is unreasonable. An honest person should only agree with something if they in fact agree.

Regarding “doubt” - it CAN be healthy – but I can’t think of why it would always be. For instance, I can’t see what would be wrong with knowing you have enough money to buy dinner and pay the rent this month. I don’t see how doubt would help in that situation. I agree, though, that the concept of doubt being healthy helps in religion, since it keeps the religious enterprise going irrespective of the numerous legitimate doubts people have about it.

If God wanted to talk to us he could line up the stars one twinkly night and spell out something like "Hello Folks,its me God.Just wanted you to know that I really am here,in case anybody had any DOUBT about that.Keep the faith.Love ya!Bye..stay in touch"
That would take an awful lot of stars but I'm sure God could do it,if he really wanted too.
Or he could write a message across the blue sky using clouds. Or he could come on TV and surprise us all.Or phone.
Why does he keep himself hidden?Why do we have to die before we can see him? yeah.Why does he just hang out with dead people? Its all very suspicious if you ask me.I wouldn't be surprised if it was all made up anyway.What kind of god never shows up anywhere anytime ever.Except maybe 2000 years ago when magic and miracles were happening and nobody had a camera to record it all.Pity.
I really wonder about this stuff sometimes.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense.It's like maybe athiests are right.

Officeman,

there is actually no difference between a god who creates something out of nothing and an otherwise unknown event by which "substance" (which in reality is energy) might have appeared. No difference at all.

Since we both don't know anything really about the beginning, we might discuss the more human-related part of a god belief:

If god "created" everything (it is sometimes helpful to just try to imagine the dimension of "everything", the closest star of our "home" galaxy, the milky way, being 4 light years away, roughly one million times the distance earth-sun), I find it utterly infantile, and, besides, a completely different subject, to imagine this "creator" to bother about my diet or otherwise good or bad behavior. My good or bad behavior is connected with the fact that I am a social being, deriving even my self-esteem from this net I am woven into. The reward and punishment part of religion to me is an absolute proof of the man-made origin of all religions: Punishment and reward stem from social considerations which people have projected to their anthropomorphic ideas of gods.

And I would like to add another thought: I think the discussion of the "ethical" value of religion vs. atheism is desingenious: The usefulness or damage of an idea may be important to us, but says nothing at all about its intellectual truth or lack thereof.

I find it silly, meanwhile, even to compare Hitler and Stalin with the inquisition etc. The atrocities may or may not have been connected to religion or any other philosophy. The usefulness of a religion, of a belief in gods is no proof neither in favor nor against the existence of gods.

sorry anonymous - I am just reading through the posts now as I also post new ones, and I just came to yours about god phoning us - I was not trying to repeat or steal your comment in my post - I am just behind in my reading.

SUSAN, you say “It’s a great, grand time to be a Christian theologian!” Are you a Christian theologian? You sound like one. I have difficulty understanding you. You sure are enthusiastic, though.

You also say, “Our theologies are emerging sturdier, our anthropologies have higher predictive value and therefore our christologies are enhanced, and our soteriologies are transmogriphying into gossamer webs that seem to be connecting a truly great variety of religious experiences across many cultures.”

Maybe so, but there is a little problem with archeology, isn’t there? So much in the Bible hasn’t been found, after centuries of looking – no walls of Jericho to come tumbling down, no first temple, no Jewish slavery in Egypt (though plenty of evidence of Jews living in Israel during that same period), no parting of the red sea, no pursuing Egyptian army, no Ten Commandments, no first century Nazareth and no one mentioning any of this in Church. Why is that? Shouldn’t people who have been taught that faith is more important than facts be able to handle this information?

BILL – I did not accuse you of including “do unto others” in the 10 commandments – I just commented that something I considered so fundamental wasn’t included. Glad you agree that it’s better than some of the ten. Wonder why God didn’t include it? After all that stuff upfront about worshipping him, you’d think he might mention a little something about being nice to each other. Especially since Buddha and others said the same thing centuries before to people in other lands – which supposedly God would have known about, right?

But you said God didn't write the Bible, people did (I agree). So then how does God communicate with us and how do we know it's God? For believers in God, if his last message was conveyed 2,000 years ago, by people with a primitive understanding of the world, isn't it time for an update?

officeman:
you say
"She thus far refuses to do so. I do not mean to disrespect her when I say this, but her refusal to do so may be dogmatic."

I have run out of time - I don't answer you because I have bills to pay that I should have done Friday, and I have been sitting here instead. I must go upstairs and get some work done. My refusal means that I am tired of you, and don't have time to look back to your question. Thanks gerry, yoyo - there are others that can take over to officeman if you want. officeman, I have sent you many posts - re-read them. I do not agree with any of your statements - that should have been clear.

Thanks yoyo for answering to officeman. I really don't have the time - I've let everything slip these past few days for this post and I will never do that again!

Officeman, I don't have the time right now to answer every question posted - reason itself answers most. But I would like to say one thing - and I am not trying to be rude, and I am not trying to belittle religion (but as Dawkins says, why can we debate politics, but religion we are afraid to hurt feelings?) You say that if there is a god, and he was so powerful to be able to suspend the laws of physics, such that he could part the red sea - if he could do that, don't you think he could at the very least just give us a call on our cell phone? And say hey stupid, I am real, get your butt to church? Us lowly life forms have figured out radiowaves - if he can part a whole sea, he could surely tap into cable. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but how can such amazing powers we attributed to a power, then have thousands and thousands die such a terrible death of starvation in africa? Just a little "poof" and make food appear, would be great. To have a 3 year old die of starvation is awful. Then to have a million of them do that, is unforgivable. I do not see religion or no religion in that - I see people who haven't been taught the information of what a condom is. Or we can try to invent food that grows with less water (which is currently being worked on, I am sure) that is much more helpful then praying. Sorry, but your arguments don't hold water, and they aren't fact, and I can't base my life on it because it serves no real purpose. I'd rather base my purpose and time on something real.

Meg:

I have no problem with your belief system as long as it makes you happy. I am sorry that (^_^) faces make you unhappy.

Peace,
(^_^)

Officeman

I think I agree with much of what you seem to be saying,
its the "intelligent author" bit that troubles me,
the "intelligent designer" in other words.

I think Meg and others have commented elsewhere
on the non-believers' point of view in this regard,
and I doubt I can improve on it,but here's
what I think. On creation...and evolution,
first of all I haven't the faintest idea how it all began,
or whatever any of it means.And I never will know.
It's interesting to speculate,and to read up
on the possibilities offered by different thinkers,
early philosophers,and current scientists.
I'm inclined to believe the Big Bang theory,
knowing that any day now it could be discredited and
replaced by a different theory,as
science moves on,one step at a time,
forever learning and changing and adjusting to newer
knowledge; which it must.
I think others have said that,if our world
was any different,we wouldn't be here to chat about it.
Like the dandelion,we come with the turf.
And like the puddle in the hole we thank
the great designer for such a snug fit.
Because,amazingly,we are here,and its the perfect place to be;for us.
Einstein was entranced by the wonder and mystery
of it all,and spent his life trying to figure it all out.
But even to him,positing a god as the creator was unhelpful,
totally complicating matters by introducing the supernatural,along with question,
who created god?
I too,see no reason to think that a god is responsible for "all this".
While on the other hand,I note our tendency as human beings
to invent imaginary characters all
the time,like Santa for instance,or Yogi Bear.
As I've said elsewhere,its what we do.
After all,we have this imagination of ours;
and we have to do something with it.
'bout the best I can do 4 now Officeman.
Cheers.

Bill in Colorado says:
"The Bible was written by men. Flawed men, some men with an agenda, men who sometimes erred in translating it from one ancient language to another.
After millenia go by, what's perfect?
So why are the secularists in this discussion taking every word and story in it as literal- As the religious extremists do?"

Ah Bill, I think the secularists are funnin' ya. I hope you're gonna tell us which parts of the bible are the TRUE words of god.

GERRY:

Thanks for your reply. This is an enjoyable discussion, so much so that I've delayed cooking dinner for it.

If I understand you correctly, you are adopting a form of deductive reasoning (a priori) to say that because order of form does not always require intelligence, that order of substance may not also always require intelligence. I like that argument. However, I need to see order of substance developing randomly before I even consider jumping off the theistic cliff. Furthermore, given the incredible, incomprehensible complexity involved with the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics, and simply the fact that we can measure and interpret them, that’s just far too many coincidences for me. (I can’t even write the word “laws” without imagining an author.)

This is not the sum of my argument, which I think stands on its own. But I will use it as an illustration. If scientists were to randomly (no intelligent thought involved) throw some stuff into a vacuum, and then come back in 16 Billion years, how likely is it we would open the vacuum seal to find laws of physics along with concomitant stars, planets, etc., as well as living beings with cells that manage a thousand chemical reactions a second, and larger beings that produce anti-bodies that predictably attack invaders, let alone beings that are self-aware? If not the organization we know, than any kind of organization at all. And remember that all of this started randomly. “It just happened."

The fact that such an experiment can never be conducted indicates that science will never be able to disprove my theory. Accordingly, atheists must take it on faith that such a thing would “just happen.” OK, but I think that position is less attractive and less reasonable than my own.

Mr. Harris,

Thank you for the beautifully stated and precisely thought-out essay.

The Bible was written by men. Flawed men, some men with an agenda, men who sometimes erred in translating it from one ancient language to another.

After millenia go by, what's perfect?

So why are the secularists in this discussion taking every word and story in it as literal- As the religious extremists do?

What strange bedfellows you are!

"Bill – have you read the ten commandments lately? Can you name them without looking them up?"

Yup.

"A lot of people who think the 10 commandants are great, don’t really know what they all are. The ones you name are fine, but some of the others are not very important in everyday life– for example – no graven images, no gods before me, honor the Sabbath."

So what? Like a modern legal contract incorporates the concept of severability. The fact that some provisions are more relevant than the others doesn't dismiss the entire document.

"PS – “do unto others” is not one of the commandments. "

I didn't state that, did I? So why are you accusing me of doing so?

"Personally, I think that’s much more important than the ones I’ve mentioned "

I agree.

FWIW, according to the Bible, one of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?". Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments".

So, see, you and Jesus almost agree!

It was misguided men that chose to kill and torture infidels in the Middle Ages; it's misguided and evil men who engage in ethnic cleansing in the name of religion today.

God said, "Don't do that!" Without caveat.
It's mankind that chooses the exceptions, isn't it?

"And too bad Moses broke the tablets on the way down from the mountain and they've never been seen by anyone."

Sh!t happens. It did thousands of years ago and it still happens today. And it will always happen. God never promised you wouldn't be involved in a fender-bender, either, with or without a statue of Jesus on the dashboard.

Great article Sam! I love your fury.

For those of you who want the facts about the "good works" of MT, read Hitchens on MT.
Personally, I think that, instead of depression, she was feeling guilty.

I know, Hitch, is wrong in his opinions on the war. But the FACTS about what went on in Calcutta and in the NY banks may give you pause in your glorification of MT.

For those of you who believe in god, religion, the bible, etc. start with James Breasted's "The Dawn of Conscience". You may have some questions about what you've gotten yourselves into.

atheists are an angry, reactive bunch! meg, timmy etc.

dare I say that they fascist tendencies?

...or, even better, Bolshevik totalistic tendencies!

makes for fun reading....even if it is the blind leading the blind.

PS - I love the irony of Harris and Hitchens etc. how preach reason and humanism and then cheerlead and still support the Iraq war.

Ha! What hypocrites! What neo cons!

Forgive me, Sir, for my ignorance of your other work. I shall rectify that soon. In the meantime, I’ll respond to this work on its face value. (There’s a temptation to call my response “The Reason of Sacrifice” but that would have to be a longer essay, with citations and stuff.)

It just delights me that you begin your essay with blood sacrifice and cannibalism; few people make that connection. As you’ve indicated, these are very ancient liturgies. They well up urgently from within the darkest fears of the unknown, fears that lie within our lizard brains. Surely you can see it everywhere there is chaos, change, and disorientation: the less predictive our knowledge, the more fearful we become. The more fearful we are, the more elaborate and numerous become the constructs to ‘save’ us from those dark things and the more urgent the search for a powerful leader to follow, to tell us what to do next. Have you not seen that, too? Therefore it is well and good that our religion should embrace these primordial ingredients as the heart of our soteriological imaginings; how else dare we claim to be catholic if we are not so rooted deep within all - ancient, modern, and future - human experience?

Indeed, we are talking about blood sacrifice and cannibalism! About liturgies expressive of briskly bleeding victims and of gory consumption of one another! of terror and incomprehensible power sufficient to twirl the cosmos and bang the black hole shut! expressive, too, of such mundanities as gathering round for supper, and of the magical thinking that has consoled us with a false sense of power and control since the remotest of antiquity.

Our Christian religion, however, most certainly is not *merely* so, not *merely* archetype and apocrypha, anthropology and Stone Age ceremony all dressed up in polysyllabic finery. No, not at all. Rather it is better to understand that these things are in service of understanding the religion - understanding by deconstructing it intellectually - they are not the religion itself and the believer does not need to understand the religion to experience Godde. This is important, for if we cannot include folks and their experience who are, say, microcephalic in our fellowship, how can we claim to be catholic?

See, or rather hear your language as you close in on your conclusion?
"the unfalsifiable" "doubts of 'experts' are thought to 'confirm a doctrine', what could possibly disconfirm it?" This is the language of scientific enquiry which treats of the knowledge of measurable things. None of religion’s premises - postulations, presuppositions, axioms - are measurable. We start in midair, so to speak.

And so, unfortunately, in the end, this entire piece is a straw man argument. Christian believing does not claim to be empirical yet you speak of it in the vocabulary of empirical science, and it's conundrum, the question at the end, asks for the application of empiricism's tools to faith's contents. It's asking us to catch wind in a paper bag, while keeping itself all ready-set to pounce upon us with its own clever solution: A paper fan! Of course this ancient tale solves the conundrum by ignoring it and producing something else entirely.

Scientific truths have empirical bases - Science's substrate is that part of the universe that can be measured and its truths are always stated in the open-ended Aristotelian formulation: "This hypothesis has yet to be falsified."

Religious truth, by definition, has no empirical basis and thus cannot be measured. The substrate of religious enquiry is the realm of human experience that is not mutually verifiable and is, therefore, neither falsifiable nor 'unfalsifiable.' There can be no 'expert' on my experience of myself, other than myself.

Again by definition, a doctrine is the collected belief of numbers of persons which is taught to the group and to those who would join the group. Doctrine is articulated as a position on some sort of continuum occupied by folks of other beliefs. As a belief, it (at least) contains non-empirical claims that can be neither confirmed nor disconfirmed, neither falsified nor 'unfalsified.'

Therefore the question posed is simply an amusement contrived by mixing apples and oranges, empirical science and metaphor of subjective experience. The business of faith has naught to do with the empirical. Rather it treats with the attempt to 'eff' the ineffable, to invoke - envoice - a particular kind of subjective human experience in metaphor 'close enough' for many folks to recognize and claim it as their own.

The sacred texts of Christian believing are at least the record of human beings struggling to understand and to articulate experiences which they attribute to their relationship with their god, gods, God, G-d, Godde.

As the G-d-given gifts of scientific enquiry expand our base of empirical knowledge, much of the ineffable of yesterday is revealed to be the empirical of today proclaiming in word and song "Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand..." which itself reveals an ever expanding realm of enquiry and ineffability, thanks be to G-d!

The soteriologies, the Doctrines of Atonement, and other theologies of sacrifice are just some of the constructs which have been set forth as possible solutions to the very difficult problem located where the empirical hits the ineffable subjective: Reconciling the crucifixion of the Christ and the suffering of so many people (the empirical) with the collected experience of so many believers in a passionately loving G-d (the ineffable subjective).

But for Pete's sake, y'all. When you're looking for X and don't find it, the appropriate conclusion is not "X does not exist" rather it is "X has yet to be found!" We have yet to find that which will adequately ‘eff’ the ineffable for us; it is a great grand time to be a Christian theologian!

Thanks to improved communication and the proliferation and promulgation of scientific and other knowledge, the religious undertaking is more exciting than ever. Our theologies are emerging sturdier, our anthropologies have higher predictive value and therefore our christologies are enhanced, and our soteriologies are transmogriphying into gossamer webs that seem to be connecting a truly great variety of religious experiences across many cultures.

It's tragic that Mo. Theresa suffered as she did - it does sound rather like classic clinical depression, doesn’t it? Like any victim, she was very angry about her suffering and (appropriately) directed her anger at G-d.

Yet she also offered her decades of painful depression and anger up to G-d for redemption when she did not believe, and that is the ultimate expression of faith. By that act she enhanced and enhances the lives of the world around her, she particularized the very nature of the Church which is Christ’s Body and, therefore, the extension of the Incarnation, given for the life of the world. Thanks be to Godde. Amen.

Best regards,
Susan,
marked as Christ’s own forever

I keep seeing this comment about how China and Russia did away with God and look what happened to them.

Did away with God?
How is that possible?
God either exists or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, then there is no one to do away with.
If he does exist, there is nothing that humans could do to "do way with him".

These kind of nonsensical arguments show how confused believers are about their own god.
It's hilarious.

We're not out to do away with god.
we're out to raise awareness.
And that is what we are accomplishing (4 atheist books on the best sellers list)

This whining we see on these threads from the believers are the beautiful noises of taboo being lifted.
You've been dishing it out for 3000 years monotheism.
Now it is your turn to take it.
Buckle up. It's going to be a long and bumpy ride.

Paul C is a typical scoffer. History is filled with those who scoff at non belief because they are jealous of our freedom to think for ourselves. They have to go to church every week and pray to an invisible overlord and we get to go to the race track or have pre-marital sex.

Paul C is jealous, so he scoffs.
lol

Paul C is a typical scoffer. History is filled with those who scoff at non belief because they are jealous of our freedom to think for ourselves. They have to go to church every week and pray to an invisible overlord and we get to go to the race track or have pre-marital sex.

Paul C is jealous, so he scoffs.
lol

In religion, personal or community decisions (that subsequently lead to actions that can effect people of all orientations and the rest of nature as well) are based on having a strong faith into something or praying that the choice is the right one. This takes the responsibility for a decision away from the person.

On the other side, without faith and prayers, a good decision depends on clear thought and inquiry. There might still be intuition involved, but supported by knowledge, not faith or "signs"- which is an important distinction.

Of course with the wrong intention both can result in bad decisions and with the right intention both can result in good decisions. BUT: Since the first scenario is based on faith and prayer, it is much more likely, based on pure probability, even with the best intention to result in the wrong decision. And this is the scary part about religions that is hard to accept for people of faith and seems obvious to everyone else.

We live in a globally connected planet where it is increasingly easy to access destructive tools and spread their use and therefore it is crucial for everyone that positive decisions are made, based on clear thought and 21st century knowledge and not on unquestionable convictions that one is right because of an intuitive and passionate dialog with ones personal god. Or where people see floods and global disasters or wars and deaths as prophecies that we deserve as test or punishments.

If God wanted to talk to us he could line up the stars one twinkly night and spell out something like "Hello Folks,its me God.Just wanted you to know that I really am here,in case anybody had any DOUBT about that.Keep the faith.Love ya!Bye..stay in touch"
That would take an awful lot of stars but I'm sure God could do it,if he really wanted too.
Or he could write a message across the blue sky using clouds. Or he could come on TV and surprise us all.Or phone.
Why does he keep himself hidden?Why do we have to die before we can see him? yeah.Why does he just hang out with dead people? Its all very suspicious if you ask me.I wouldn't be surprised if it was all made up anyway.What kind of god never shows up anywhere anytime ever.Except maybe 2000 years ago when magic and miracles were happening and nobody had a camera to record it all.Pity.
I really wonder about this stuff sometimes.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense.It's like maybe athiests are right.

to (^_^):

Because, frankly, it's a pain in the ass to type. And I just find it annoying. (Like people winking with smiley faces) I believe I did answer some of your questions and asked some of my own as to religion - feel free to actually answer my post.

yoyo-

I get it. (in reference to your post that we should all get it.) We should all get together and have conversations of reality. Oh yeah, I forgot. They ARE getting together and having a conference of like minded people of reality. Interesting, how quickly it sold out, huh?

YOYO:

Thank you for your polite and respectful response to my post to Meg.

I hope I am not stepping in doodoo here and I reserve the right to rephrase or rethink this, but logic exists and it is not a "material" thing as far as I know. Yet both of us accept logic. I think my position is logical: the organization that exists in the universe leads to an implication, or an inference, in favor of an intelligent author. To conclude otherwise, one must reject that inference. I'm not saying that would be an entirely unreasonable position. I know intelligent and reasonable people who do (as I know intelligent and reasonable people who follow that inference.)

(I have not gotten into first causes yet, but think about what came before the Big Bang. That is the critical time. After the Big Bang, all the laws of physics that we understand went into play to give us Black holes and life, with all their incredible complexity. Some combination of these ideas is what led Antony Flew to theism a couple of years ago. See: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html)

If you follow the discussion between Meg and I, I asked her sometime ago to agree that my position is reasonable. She thus far refuses to do so. I do not mean to disrespect her when I say this, but her refusal to do so may be dogmatic. (Now I respect dogma because it can serve as an anchor when we're otherwise drifting about.) On second thought, maybe that's not fair of me to say, just as it's not fair for her to mischaracterize my position as: "I don't know therefore God."

Once all of us admit that atheism, theism, and even polytheism can be reasonably defended intellectually, it opens the door to a little doubt (like Mother Thersa's), which I think is a healthy thing. Doubt opens us to new ideas and ultimately strenghtens those worth keeping.

I wish you the best.

Officeman,

jump out finally of your fuzzy logic: Organization of form does NOT imply any conscious personal creator. Snowflakes just generate themselves in the hexagonal crystals for the "innate" natural laws that forces this form. God does not create each snowflake. Each is different, but they are all hexagonal.

And again, do yourself the favor of clicking the above-mentioned link, to find out that forms can result, self-generated, by mathematical formulas, no consciousness required, let alone any "supernatural" being:

http://www.errare.de/fraktale/index_e.html

Even if this will not convince you, as I am afraid, it will give you some nice aesthetic surprises.

The equation 2+2=4 does not require any god, not even if you believe in the bible etc.
Do you know what "a priori" means?

Just like Hitchens and Jacoby, Harris is a "atheistic" Jew who hates Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism with a flaming passion.

This is no impartial observer and his essay betrays this animus and intellectual dishonesty.

Is it any wonder that Hitches' hero is the atheist Jew Trotsky - persecutor and killer of hundreds of thousands of Russian Orthodox Christians.

This was also done in the name of science, reason, and the true will of the people.

Ruth wrote:

". . . before all you atheists stick your noses in the air and proclaim how much superior 'science' is, remember, it wasn't all that long ago that bloodletting with leeches was considered to be a viable medical treatment."

Bloodletting with leeches is a viable medical treatment. It is widely used to prevent blood clotting, for example when body parts such as ears are re-attached after accidents.

I do not know why Ruth put the word science in quotes, but next time she is sick, I invite her to try prayer instead of modern medicine for a cure. That's what "Mother" Teresa favored, after all.

Officeman

Your post to Meg will hopefully be answered by Meg better than I am able to do,but I'd like to respond,if
you don't mind.

A bunch of events came together resulting in the correct chemistry to allow for life forms to develop, and eventually,over eons of time,to evolve into us.
If you looked these things up in an encyclopedia,the science would be to some extent explained,
everything from the Big Bang to Darwinian evolution.
A creator would not be considered.
In fact positing a creator really complicates things,and I think it was Hume who became an atheist
because of that very point;that if there is a creator then who created the creator? That's much more problematic than trying to figure out how it all began.
This is why Dawkins says that the existence of a god is a scientific question.If he doesn't exist,scientifically,then he doesn't exist period.
Because there is only the natural world,where only the natural ha