God Is Not...Well, He's Just Not

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

my girl crazy, man!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

давайте займемся этим!

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

I not understend what U want

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

U need antivirus?

Susan,

Do you realize how elitist you always make yourself seem? And who the heck did you keep sticking your tongue at during the Colbert interview? Maybe you hate religion so much because you are scared by the fact that a greater being made you, and you are accordingly accountable to him. By the way, I have read through Genesis multiple times, both in NIV and KJV. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four gospels, followed by the book about the early church, Acts, and the epistles of Paul, I + II Corinthians, etc. DNA is the corkscrew code of our being. I think it is telling that you judge America's intelligence on what they know of the Bible, when the Bible is intentionally ignored in public schools, in favor of Atheist rhetoric.

oh yeah, one more thing Do you understand what this means? anyway thanks for the post.

http://buy-viagera.allsexchat.info/viagera/site_map.html >viagera womens

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Think about it… Here’s more… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/pravachol/index.html >pravachol on line

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... I'd like to tell you more about… anyway thanks for the post.http://pressure.hostingweb.us/tenormin/index.html >tenormin cheap usa

Hmmm... Now, here's the next step: Great job!http://vaigra.infinites.net/vaigra/index.html >vaigra cheap usa

pPUtgB U cool ))

pPUtgB U cool ))

pPUtgB U cool ))

A good way eh? Here is why:
http://a-cash.info/vigra/vigra-discount-buy-online.html >vigra discount buy online Great job!

I read some of the posts and I think it is a great site. I'll bet
you can guess what happened next. http://maraments.hostinplace.com/zelnorm/zelnorm-medication.html >zelnorm medication I have to agree. Good article.

As you probably know . . . Thanks a lot!
http://vigra.idoo.com/cialles/ >cialles cheap online

Here are some examples... More about that later. http://viagara.biblehound.info/vaigra/vaigra-usa.html > vaigra usa

Sounds intersting.. I’m really interested to follow some articles. thanks for posting this. http://buyvigra.biblehound.info/viagera/index.html >viagera buy online

Heh. Nice. But I must let you in on a secret... I have to agree. Good article. http://buy-vigra.allsexchat.info/viagara/site_map
.html >viagara womens

Eh.. I just don't have much to say lately. So it goes. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I guess it doesn't bother me. More about that later.


buy vaigra in Canada

For instance

http://viagra.casinoplaydirect.info/cialles/site_map.html >cialles
cheap online vigra


viagara

However, wait until you see http://tramedol.150m.com/viagera/site_map.html ">alternative viagera
http://tramedol.150m.com/viaggra/index.html ">generic viaggra

But what if you could... http://loan.casinoplaydirect.info/student-loan-consolidation/site_map.html ">advice consolidation loan student student

Can this be true? http://nowhow.150m.com/vaigra/index.html ">order vaigra

Basically nothing seems worth doing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I just don't have anything to say right now, but oh well.
adult friend finder

Hello all. i need
http://presskot.isuisse.com/refiance/site_map.html ">payday loans over 1500- fast

Hi!не могу понять
http://a-cash.info/caronline/agent-broker-carrier-insuranceonline ">.agent broker carrier insurance

Misquotations

Dead cat bounce

Sloane Ranger

Below the salt

Point to point

Neither here nor there

Neither here nor there

Zig-zag

A drop in the bucket

Namby-pamby

Your money or your life

Your money or your life

Beck and call

Make a virtue of necessity

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler End of story

http://besting.itrello.com >aaa insurance traveler End of story

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >cash instant loan till Tinker's dam

we now you are just satan using his develish words to trap us in sin. you can laugh all you like at religios beleivers but we have the true word and God will punish you for your blasfeming.

Jesus died even for retards like you and their are now words to discribe how you are hated by good decent Christians.

Were are your morales? we just dont want to live in your communist sewer as slaves of chinese mafia.

We are taught to forgive but God has a special place for all atheists; it is called Hell. The devil will use red hot pokers to gouge out the eyeballs of atheists and make them drink hot lead and razor blads.

it is all you deserve, their is now were in this world you can hide from the eyes of God.

Just so the poor atheist Gerry can't say vinny didn't answer, here is Vinny's answer to who made God:

THE SECOND TIME NOW.

PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, WITH READING GLASSES JERRY.

ARE YOU READY?

HERE IT COMES....

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Quite simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer. FACT OF LIFE!

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God, THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has tremendous experimental support, standing the test of time many decades later, states that "time" is linked to matter and space. The way that man keeps track of time, for example is based on the physical universe. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years are all related to the earth's rotation around the sun. Time itself then, it is believed, would have begun along with matter and space with the beginning of the universe. Hence, *If* an Intelligent Designer Created the universe, he would also be the creator of time? Being the Creator of time, he would NOT be limited to the time "dimension" that HE himself created.

He is thus outside of time. He would not be limited by time or space (dimensions again both of which he created) and thus once again, not requiring a cause for his very own existence. . Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it can be impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end. He, simply put, ALWAYS EXISTED.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning.

The ONLY ONE that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to complain, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this".

And for those that do feel this way, I disagree.

There is EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today.

Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed.

Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist.

And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that PROCESS in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself.

This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION. In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

Now atheists, Please tell those following this thread just how these very complicated systems in the universe and the earth, along with all life forms upon the earth ORIGINATED. Just how did they START? If Science cannot create life, from non-living matter, in a controlled, scientific environment, nor give life BACK to a dead person or animal (though having all the parts needed right in front of them), then how could all these very things come to exist without ANY intellectual force behind them at all? Just FELL into place?

BWAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH

It has never been done ANYWHERE. Yet you want to just chalk up all these complex, massive, amazing features surrounding us today, up to just blind series of chances?

Sure, there is a red corvette just sitting in North Dakota somewhere too..

Sorry. But I am Not buying what you are selling ATHEISTS.

YOU ARE DEAD IN WATER ATHEISTS.

ONCE AGAIN.

NOTHING NEW.

****** THERE, MEMORY REFRESHED GERRY?

GOOD!

Spanktime for Jerry!

Gerry says: Hi, kindergarten Vinny with the red Chevy, you deftly avoided the question who caused the cause, while screaming about the necessity of causes.

***** Poor Gerry, must have forgot to find his READING GLASSES. Because the question was answered in detail.

And sorry gerry, but there was no screaming here. Plenty of laughing though.

You know why there is plenty nof laughing, Gerry?

Because atheist teachings that all things arose from nothing by nobody into complex and amazing things IS LAUGHABLE AND BORING NONSENSE.

Poor Gerry, calls Vinny a kindergardner, but Gerry has no answers to vinny the kindergardner's many arguments that are plastered all over this thread.

: ))

Gerry says:..."I am a VERY happy atheist, laughing mao about stomping children like you."

**** The only thing stomped on this thread were those sorry, lame atheist teachings. Ducky was buried so deep he could not be found with shovels and bull dozers.

Mr Mark did the three step need to play with my kids out the door shuffle the first chance he had.

Suzie Jacoby was a NO-SHOW ON HER OWN THREAD.

And Gerry has no content posted ANYWHERE ON THIS THREAD.

Gerry, you are just blowing smoke like all the other atheists here that skipped town.

That would be because they have no explanations as to just how complex things arise from nothing BY NOBODY.

And we all know why.

Because all things from nothing are embarrassments that always bury the poor little atheists.

Sorry Gerry, but you are one very lame debater here.

Saying that you are a happy atheist, with no content at all, just does not cut it here.

Which is why every now and then I show back up just to give the little atheists a large dose of reality.

And then the same thing happens every single time.

And just what is that Gerry, that happens every single time?

When the going gets tough, the atheists run and HIDE...

Poor little atheists.

Folks you just gotta love the poor little atheists like Gerry with no content and no answers to any questions.

This has just been too easy.

The ride has been fun though.

Guess I will have to find other threads to play "lets bury the atheists".

And watch how fast they GET OUT OF DODGE ONCE VINNY SHOWS UP.

Folks, you just gotta love the poor little atheists.

Hi, kindergarten Vinny with the red Chevy,

you deftly avoided the question who caused the cause, while screaming about the necessity of causes. Ridiculous. God, the sorry proxy for your ignorance. Stomped your foot, screamed and shouted insults. Exactly what you would expect from a small, superstitious boy.

I am a VERY happy atheist, laughing mao about stomping children like you.

You should read a book once in a while. Dennett is too difficult for you, though.

I see this thread is still kicking... though barely....

Gerry the sorry, desperate atheist says:.Can something come from nothing? No? Is god nothing? No? If nothing can come from nothing, there are two options?

1. Somebody made god. But who made "somebody"? Who made the "somebody"-maker?

2. God is nothing. He doesn't exist outside our imagination, as a proxy for our (your) ignorance.

I doubt, though, that you can follow this argument...

**** This is such an old, sophomoric argument from the little atheists.

First of all, it is my personal belief that:

1- Everything which has a beginning has a cause. This an understood and accepted principle in human civilizations throughout the earth. If it had a beginning, then somebody or something made it. Fairly simple. The computers each of us are using at this moment had to be made by somebody. Mine was made by Apple, for example. But if there were no name mentioned at all, we still know that somebody had to make it. Design begets a designer.

2- The Universe, including our earth (and all life upon the earth) had a beginning. Most scientists believe in the 'Big Bang" theory. While omitting God altogether, the common belief is that it did have a definite beginning and is still developing and expanding.

3- Therefore, the Universe, that had a beginning, must also have a Cause. That Cause, in my opinion is God.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has tremendous experimental support, standing the test of time many decades later, states that "time" is linked to matter and space. The way that man keeps track of time, for example is based on the physical universe. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years are all related to the earth's rotation around the sun. Time itself then, it is believed, would have begun along with matter and space with the beginning of the universe. Hence, *If* an Intelligent Designer Created the universe, he would also be the creator of time? Being the Creator of time, he would NOT be limited to the time "dimension" that HE himself created.

He is thus outside of time. He would not be limited by time or space (dimensions again both of which he created) and thus once again, not requiring a cause for his very own existence. . Because all of us personally live in the dimension of time, it can be impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning or an end. He, simply put, always existed.

No human beings were there in the beginning of the universe to witness what exactly happened. Brilliant minds today can only guess and try to formulate theories. The bible says pointedly: "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth". There is sound and reasonable reasons to believe, as many (including some of the most intellectual minds ever born) in Creation. That all life as we know it today was deigned by the only one who is not subject to time, the only one that never had a beginning.

The only one that is not confined by space and bound by physical laws. Laws in which he created and therefore would not be subject to. None of which here is a stretch to either grasp, believe or understand. It makes sense to me. It is believable, logical and reasonable.

Some like to suggest, "well you cannot prove this, so you really cannot say with any certainty that you believe this". And for those that do feel this way, I disagree.

There is EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today.

Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. There are numerous court cases that have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps no body has been found. Still, today's technology now allows trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed.

Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively. Likewise then, there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

As Einstein astutely stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God, we can see EVIDENCE that he does indeed exist. Just as we cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. For myself then, evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The evidence supports this belief for me.

After an examination of much evidence, I am 100 percent certain that these things surrounding us are the result of a Superior Designer. In my mind and in my sincere opinion God DOES exist.

And He is responsible for my being here right now. I owe him the gratitude he so deserves. I thank him for letting me live and exist. Sure I am also here because my mother and father married, had intimate relations and I was born. But that PROCESS in itself is so complex, such an outstanding system of design that, for me, the credit rightfully goes to the Creator himself.

This is why HE deserves the credit; my parents had me because a masterful designer created this process called REPRODUCTION. In fact there was very little on their part, to be truthful. He is worthy of worship in my mind. My questions as to how life arose are answered.

Now atheists, Please tell those following this thread just how these very complicated systems in the universe and the earth, along with all life forms upon the earth ORIGINATED. Just how did they START? If Science cannot create life, from non-living matter, in a controlled, scientific environment, nor give life BACK to a dead person or animal (though having all the parts needed right in front of them), then how could all these very things come to exist without ANY intellectual force behind them at all? Just FELL into place?

BWAAAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH

It has never been done ANYWHERE. Yet you want to just chalk up all these complex, massive, amazing features surrounding us today, up to just blind series of chances?

Sure, there is a red corvette just sitting in North Dakota somewhere too..

Sorry. But I am Not buying what you are selling ATHEISTS.

YOU ARE DEAD IN WATER ATHEISTS.

ONCE AGAIN.

NOTHING NEW.

Vinny, it looks like ye musta missed the post last week that was especially for your benefit and wherein you were informed that intelligent men, (not to say fly men) have, oh for years 'n years, been doing that very thing on a daily basis with millions participating, which is tae say, turnin' inanimate matter (a wee bit starch and supermarket wine) intae yer actual livin' flesh 'n blood and all for you tae indulge in a wee bit cannabilism.
If ye have the slightest doubt on this kinda sorcery, even got a name, transubstantiation, then you arnae a proper Christian accordin' tae the highest authority on earth, none other than Pope Benny!
Now what have ye got tae say tae that eh?

Can something come from nothing? No?

Is god nothing? No?

If nothing can come from nothing, there are two options?

1. Somebody made god. But who made "somebody"? Who made the "somebody"-maker?

2. God is nothing. He doesn't exist outside our imagination, as a proxy for our (your) ignorance.

I doubt, though, that you can follow this argument...

Why do I even bother coming back to read this lame thread ??

MRS E.LANGLY says: ..."Maria is Vinnie.Vinnie is Richmond Stalgis, plus dozens of other names,like The Moderate.
He comments on his own comments as he fights for the Lord. The Lord of his imagination.
Poor guy thinks he's getting Brownie points for spreading the word of God,when actually he makes even Christians wince.
Vinny whatever your name is,you give religion a bad name. People will think we are all like you.
Please stop.Read some real books.You are totally ridiculous and a disgrace to your religion.
Your behavior on these threads is deceitful and dishonest;not exactly the behavior God would approve of."

******* You are only lost and clueless with zero contribution.

Why are you even here?

No arguments, no content, just whining about Vinny.

I am none of these people you accuse me of being. Just more laughable (((paranoia))) here once again...

Where did Vinny say he fights for the Lord? Where did Vinny say anything about organized religion aside from my first post where I said, "forget organized religion for this argument, that's fine with me". This thread is about sorry atheist beliefs, and that is what I posted about, sorry atheist beliefs.

You are completely confused and lost and have no idea what you are even doing here.

E FAVORITE whines: "Vinnie - I'm so glad to see you here, but so disappointed you didn't mention me in that stellar line up of atheist posters whom you made look so foolish.
I was hoping you'd answer my questions. Here's my post again, in case you just accidently skipped over it:

**** Folks, e-fav keeps following vinny around like a dog wanting a bone. Does E-Fav have any kind of answers to my many questions already posted above? Nope. ZERO ANSWERS FROM E BOY.

Does E-Fav have any contributions defending his laughable atheist beliefs? Nope. ZERO ANSWERS FROM E-BOY!

So lets see what E-Fav keeps following and whining to vinny about.

"Hey Vinnie- let’s say you’re right about God being the original super-intelligent designer. Why do you suppose he waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?"

***** You see folks, with sorry atheists like this, there is no hope for atheism.

E-Fav wants to know why God waited so long for electricity and to make antibiotics?? What does any of this have to do with sorry atheist beliefs? What does any of this have to do with explaining how complex things arise from nothing, all on their own?

In case you have not noticed E-Fav, I am not God. It is humorous that you appear to think I can go right up and ask Him.

Should I call God or e-mail your boring question? What you think? Should I make an appointment to see him in person to ask your poor excuse of a question?

The fact is, that God has allowed mankind to do many things on his very OWN.

God has allowed intelligent men to make many kinds of advancements on his very OWN.

Are there antibiotics today? Yep. Is there electricity? Yep. Can man go to the moon? Yep. Map the human genome? Yep. Harness atomic energy? Yep. Computer chips? Yep.

There are many things intelligent men can do today. The Creator has simply ALLOWED intelligent men to govern themselves for now.

And though intelligent men can do all these impressive things, they still CANNOT MAKE LIFE FROM DEAD MATTER.

Which is why believing all amazing things from nothing at all, by nobody at all is foolish embarassing laughable atheist teachings.

Thems the facts folks!

Aye Bernie,

Ye have yer way with words me lad. Ye make much good sense, and with a fine style at that.

Here is the situation as I see it. Israel is sitting on a nice pile of nukes, 150 to 200 or so. Pakistan has god knows how many, as ye say, and is about to go to a theocratic Islamic government, with bin Laden and the Taliban whispering in their ear. North Korea is helping Iran and Syria to get nukes. The Saudis have Chinese ballistic missile technology, and who knows if they have nukes. So we are headed for a sure fire nuclear holocaust, and the only question is how much time do we have.

They are not so much a threat to us, but Israel is toast. We have to pull them out of their illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine at the point of a gun and evacuate them to Texas. It’s payback time for Texas for giving us our Dear Leader. We must declare a no fly zone over the entire region and shoot down anything that moves. If the Israelis don’t cooperate, and for sure they won’t, we will destroy every plane, ship and tank that we have foolishly invested a fortune in helping them acquire.

It ain’t pretty, but it’s time to admit what a disastrous mistake we’ve made, and make amends.

We also must stop talking about banning all nuclear weapons and get the job done, totally, every single warhead on god’s green earth, including ours.

Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate that has a clue, and I like his plan to achieve energy independence within the next decade. Hilary will be the next president of course, but hopefully she will catch on and steal his idea.

Being such a bright young lad, I’m certain ye will agree and give yer full support to the plan that I have outlined here

My goodness Rick, I never thought for a minit anybody would hammer me again in the way auld Uncle Fergus did and I do regret now giving you the means to frizzle me to burnt toast as of yore!

All the same, what d’ye mean, wee countries such as Iran and Iraq, when the mad mullahs will soon be sweeping away Mushariff in Pakistan where they’ll have plenty nuclear bombs to play with!

You might believe the Iranian government, once it has nuclear weapons of its own, will act rationally, but that wee Mamoud Amadinnerjacket’s jihad cries against Israel contradicts such beliefs. And bear in mind there is a Koranic injunction that bars any reconciliation with Jewish folk.

It is undeniable that Islam is a totalitarian, fascist, ideology based on an imagined expectation of inevitable victory over all non-Islamic alternatives. This is what drives the mullah-induced, brain-washed, suicide bombers. Nuclear destruction of Israel would be an extension of that same strategy even if it brought annihilation to parts of the Islamic world.
Just one wee boat, a tug fr’instance, parked in the waters off New York or London with a crude, dirty Hbomb aboard set to go off if us infidels don’t get down on our knees with head on floor and arses in the air, five times a day at that, then the button will be pressed and off we go!

Twice blest is he who knows his cause is just
But thrice blest is he who gets his knock in fust!

We're straying off topic a bit. Let's see if this post from another thread can bring us back on.

Daniel makes a good point.

We are straying off topic, but not entirely. We are discussing religious beliefs after all. And religion is often co-opted by politicians for their own greedy, nefarious ends. After all, didn’t our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House march us into Iraq as instructed by God?

Hello Daniel,

I always enjoy your posts on these threads. You are a Christian, but are thoughtful, and recognize the foolishness of trying to convince others to acquire your beliefs.

Now, in response to my following question to Susan on another thread: ‘I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that God exists?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline, from negative infinity to the present time, is greater than the likelihood that God exists?’

You respond that such questions are inherently absurd, because if I understand you correctly, this information is forever locked away from humans, just as is similar information about the nature of God.

You may be right. I certainly never expect to have the answer to these questions in my life time, and perhaps no human will ever acquire this information. But we know that there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being to seek answers to these questions: who are we, where did we come from, what are we doing here, etc.

It is no wonder that Susan did not respond. How could she? All we can say as atheists/agnostics is that I don’t know; but based on the evidence available to me, I don’t believe that God exists.

Just as you, I believe, have decided that you don’t know either, but you have always lived in a Christian family, and see no reason to change your beliefs.

I really don’t believe that we are that far apart.

You seem to have some ideas about atheists/agnostics attributing our, and the universe’s, existence to chance, that I don’t believe are correct. We believe that we and the universe are evolving according to laws of natural selection and other physical laws of nature; e.g. gravity, momentum, etc., that are understandable to a certain degree.

You look deeper and conclude that we do not truly understand the underlying cause of these laws; e.g. ‘force at a distance’ (gravity and electromagnetism) and never will. This knowledge is forever locked away from us. I am not ready to accept this. You, being a physicist, know that our greatest minds (astrophysicists and others) are striving mightily to answer these questions and are making progress with new theories such as String Theory and M-Theory. We will see what they find out, unfortunately probably not in our life time.

And also, since it is my expectation that this is the only life we will ever have (no afterlife and no reincarnation), I will probably never know the answer to these wonders. But as Susan says on another thread, I will just have to make the most of the knowledge that I can acquire and things that I can experience during this ever so brief lifetime.

It’s not all that bad a life is it?

Bernie Bee,

Shame be upon ye! Yer dear Uncle Fergus would tell ye “If ye send a turnip round every country in the world ten times it will still come back a turnip. Well-travelled, aye—but as thick and unenlightened as ever!”

Now which of these wee Muslim countries are ye so afraid of that might conquer the world and convert it to Islam? Iran? Iraq?

Nonsense! That’s just a bogus scare tactic propagated by the Neocons to justify their lust for Muslim land and oil fields.

There are worse, a lot worse, motivations than greed for oil for attacking other countries and people. How about subjecting the whole world to sharia law for the greater glory o' Allah fr'instance!

Bernie Bee,

That’s right; the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that accelerated the illegal and immoral immigration of the Zionist Jews into Palestine was the most dreadful decision of the last century.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The UN partition of 1947 that enabled the establishment of the ‘State of Israel’ was the next disastrous decision. Truman new better but caved in to pressure in an election year to public opinion and the political attacks from the Republican candidate Dewey. So much for: “The buck stops here”.

These dreadful decisions are only rivaled by the disastrous decision of this century to invade and occupy Iraq. All for our unquenchable thirst for Middle East oil, and the Neocon Israeli lobby pulling the strings of our government.

Can you imagine how much better off would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on these dastardly deeds, on our infrastructure and alternative energy sources instead?

Grammar: For 'done' in above post read, 'shown'

Get away with you Rick! It is the stated aim of the brutal and barbarous Islamic hordes to wipe Israel from the map. Are you saying the world would be a better place in that event?
The view from here is that Israel is the outpost of the Civilised world and should unstintedly be given all the help that's needed.

If it was the Muslim world that had the power of America do you think there would be more or less consideration of using that power than America has done so far?

"YOU LOVE LIFE-WE LOVE DEATH"

Should it indeed come to it then give em what they love sez I!

Islamaphobes,

Here is a good article that highlights what should be the focus of the Islamaphobes: the Israeli Lobby that is pushing us over the edge of the abyss. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26308§ionid=3510302

‘In my analysis, which is shared, for example, by Ilan Pappe, Israel's leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian, the answer is that it's mainly the Zionist tail that wags the American dog. As I demonstrate in my epic, two-volume book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of The Jews, it is a fact that, with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson, every American President, including the idiot in the White House at present, tried to draw red lines that Israel should not cross; and on most occasions Israel put two fingers up and crossed them. There is no mystery about why the Zionist lobby (AIPAC plus) has such power. What passes for democracy in America is for sale to the highest bidder, and one of the highest bidders, and certainly the best organized and the most effective, is the Zionist lobby, now in association with Christian evangelical fundamentalism and parts if not all of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). The Zionist lobby has three main weapons of influence:

- money, apparently unlimited, to fund election campaigns (candidates who offend Zionism can be and are destroyed - outspent);

- the organized Jewish vote in close election races (in half a dozen critical constituencies); and

- the use of the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust as a blackmail card to silence criticism of Israel and suppress informed and honest debate. (On this front the Zionist lobby is assisted by the fact that, out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media in America and throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world is complicit in Zionism's suppression of the truth of history. What, really, does the media fear? Punishment by the withdrawal of advertising revenue).’

David and many others,
IN ANSWER TO PROOF OF GOD, muslims point of view!!
I haven't read all the posts but David in reply of your post to me dated:10/02/07.

I understand your point of few David when you refer to spirit. I suggest you to further study the meaning and concept.

To all fella's no offense and with all due respect, in Bible word trinity is not even mentioned. Even name Bible is not mentioned inside book. In Roman latin language Bible means book. The closest explaination saying that Holly Ghost, Spirit and Father is one is taken out/removed from the Bible in its latest versions/new additions explained by more than 50 High Preists of Church that it was not mentioned in the most ancient scripts and was a concoction, addition, fabrication in the translations.

More than 50% of the Bible is written by Paul who heardly met once to Jesus in his life time. Then written by Luke, Methew and John. And very small part of it is said by Jesus(A.S.) him self. (You can refer to red Bible).
Where Qur'an is the word only that Mohammud(P.B.U.H.)heard and not every thing he said.(refer to my previous mail Jesus in Islam).
- What Mohammud(PBUH)said other than what he hear is called HADITH. and is not part of Quran(muslim Bible). And we also found concoctions in hadith but thousands are preserved and orignal.
-And what deciples of Mohammud(PBUH) said is not even considered as religious scripture or part of it unlike Cristian Bible. It is kept totally separate for other references.
And to see the Proof of God, please read my next post!

Doomed to failure... .. .

Daniel says:

'So, there may be no God, but even more, there may be no natural law.'

Congratulations Daniel. Welcome aboard the atheist/agnostic team.

* *** ** * DOOMED * ** *** *

I made the comment a couple of times, questioning the laws of physics and the laws of nature, and Gerry gave a sort of dismissive reply.

I did not invent these ideas. These philosophical ideas are presented in high level physics classes for the students who seek further understanding behind the curious principles of quantum and relativistic physics. These ideas are not presented as science, but as philosophical ways of dealing with, what appear to be, physical paradoxes.

In fact, the laws of nature have very little to do with nature. They are, rather, the rules that govern imaginary models chosen to simulate certain specific aspects of the physical world. They have, ultimately, no meaning outside of our heads. Even so, the 18th century phylosophy of natural law, derived from the emergence of science, is something that many relgious people believe in and most atheists believe. But this basis for their conception for reality, is in fact, not real at all, but imaginary.

So, there may be no God, but even more, there may be no natural law. Certinly belief in natural law is the basis for the emergence of the doctrines of "intelligent design" and a God who is the "intelligent designer." But if you do not believe in natural law, then that avenue for the proof of God is sealed off.

Belief in God must come from some other way of thinking and from some other source.

If you have a hard time accepting the unreality of something that seems so real, try this: what about the continents of the world? Are they real? They seem very real, do they not? But they are not real. They have no existence outside of our own minds, for the definition of a continent is that part of the world not covered in water, and the boundary of a continent is where the water meets the dry land. On one side, water; one the other side, dry land. What we think of as fixed and real things may be radiaclly altered if the Greenland glaciers melt and raise the level of the sea, and re-draw the continents.

Think of this: is Wednesday real? Is Friday real? Is Sunday real? They sure seem real, but they are not real at all, but just our accounting markers, existing only in our minds.

These are some simple examples, of a much more complex thought.

To Susan Jacoby, please, won't you put a block on this thread, before one of us posts again?

*** ** * ALL DOOMED * ** ***

Thanks Chip for the helping to scare off the demons.

It’s amazing what you can learn on this site.

Anthropomorphism: The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena, or to God. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it.

Rick, agreed, but it's truly not something I worry about or ever expect to know the answer to. I feel that the idea of a creator is simply anthropomorphism and without any evidence to lend it merit it's at the bottom of my list of possibilities. That would change if such evidence ever did emerge. It's also entirely possible that our idea of eternity and infinity are limitations of our human brains which didn't evolve to easily handle such things (theoretical physicists excluded), and there are possibilities we simply can't conceptualize at all.

Chip,

Yep, but positing the M-Theory just moves the goal posts back a little further. Now where did the loaf of bread come from with the slices that represent the membranes? We are still stuck with either: (1) the eternal universe without a beginning that Alan Guth finds unsatisfactory, because ‘a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’ and (2) the universe that magically sprang from nothing.

Rick, glad to hear that you enjoyed "The Elegant Universe." I think it does an excellent job of presenting the current (when it was produced) state of theoretical physics in a way that non-scientists can understand, and manages to be thoroughly entertaining at the same time.

The bleeding edge of science fills me with far more awe and wonder than all the holy books ever written. I also don't particularly care for the idea of the universe spontaneously being created from nothing, which is why I find Membrane theory so fascinating because it posits a cause of the big bang. I'm in no way qualified to judge scientific theories for their plausibility or merit, but they're fascinating to contemplate, and far more intellectually satisfying than simply saying "god did it" and calling it a day. If by some chance there actually is a creator god, and it created the universe simply to fill it full of people so that they could fear and worship and grovel before it, such a being doesn't need me. It's needs a smack upside the head and a good therapist.

* ** *** WE ALL BE DOOMED *** ** *

Caesar,

You are in a mood most foul today. Take the rest of the day off, get a good night's sleep, and report back for duty bright and early tomorrow AM.

It be certain this chapter of human development be brought to an abrupt end.For foul play,it be ref holding up the red card,this case it be all humanity in disgrace,being sent off the planet. It should be understood (human beings) have an spiritual account,which remains open till all fulfill spiritual development,such its ultimate being in *spiritual enlightenment*.With climate change, message to loved one's,it not the end of story,but end of a chapter,in human development.(next chapter we being much the wiser)...

Don't worry Caesar! We are not going to commit Harry Carry just because we don't believe in god.

I agree; it is scary though. We have to stop invading and occupying Muslim holy land, just because of our unquenchable thirst for oil. And we must get the Neocon Israeli lobby’s hands off the strings controlling our government, and find a just solution to the Palestinian crisis. I vote for bringing the 6 million Israeli Jews to Texas. At least Texas is ours to give. Palestine most definitely was not.

Wake up people! We must get independent of Middle East oil. Think what the trillion dollars squandered on the occupations of Palestine and Iraq could have done for our economy and national security if invested in our infrastructure and alternative energy development.

PS, here’s a piece of trivia: It’s not Harry Carry; it’s Hara-kiri, Seppuku, (Sape-puu-kuu) the Japanese formal language term for ritual suicide (Hara-kiri (Har-rah-kee-ree) is the common language term.), was an intregal aspect of feudal Japan (1192-1868). It developed as an intregal part of the code of bushido and the discipline of the samurai warrior class.

Humanity in partnership with God being solution. Without God,humanity be as Romeo missing Juliet. Both in total dependence on other for existance. The problem being with no strong spiritual code that all agree on,we have acts committed that of appalling brutality,as destruction.Must be an balance struck betwixt all nations all people's founded on spiritual understanding, experience. A contract drawn which all people's can refer. Such of course requiring more depth in spiritual development.The present situation for humanity dire,we reach appalling heights of injustice, acts of barbaric horror destruction committed. Situation now such that God having little choice but bring present chapter in human development to an end.Humanity being an car without brakes, hurtling but headlong into a brick wall.The Lack of brakes as be lack in spiritual development,it vital balance struck betwixt spiritual material.

From another thread:

Kavon,

Thanks for your delightful and thoughtful post. I must gently disagree with only a couple of your comments:

1. You say: ‘God? proof of God is reading this text right now...
you already know, but you can deny it to yourself....’

I must respectfully disagree. There are only two possibilities: (1) god exists, and (2) it does not. I place this probability at 50/50, and believe me I do know my own mind. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. There is absolutely zero evidence to support either contention.

It is obviously comforting to humans to believe that god does exist, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of us (80-90 percent?) do believe this, or claim to. I have had supposedly devout believers tell me that you may as well believe in god. It costs nothing to do that. However, if you do not believe in god, you may (however unlikely) roast in hell, the river of fire. This hardly sounds like true belief to me.

I am glad at least that you are a Muslim who has given up faith in the hateful god of the OT/NT and Qur’an who wants to cast all nonbelievers who search for truth into hell, or the river of fire.

2. You say: ‘Great? how about dont bother wasting your time trying to understand it completely now and focus your efforts on improving humanity.’

Of course we should focus our efforts on improving humanity, but don’t ask us to give up our search for truth about the universe that we live in. This is futile, for there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being, to strive mightily to discover who we are and what we are doing here.

Sorry, that last post was mine.

Chip,

Thanks for the great link to Eternal Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

As you said, it is a great show. In Chapter 6 of 8 in hour 3 of 3, the eggheads get into discussing the Big Bang and origin of the universe. Their discussion parallels ours remarkably well.

David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara, notes that as we run the Big Bang backwards, we reach a point near time zero where the laws of physics completely break down.

Alan Guth says that ‘the classic Big Bang theory says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang’.

Ed Witten says that ‘most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning; that the universe emerged into somethingness from nothingness’.

Ed Ovrut, University of Pennsylvania, says ‘I don’t like nothing; do I really believe that the universe emerged from nothing? I’m not a philosopher, but I imagine that to a philosopher, that would be a problem. To a physicist, that also is a problem’.

Alan Guth says ‘I actually find it rather unattractive to think of a universe without a beginning. I find that a universe without a beginning is also a universe without an explanation’.

So we are in good company. No one has a clue how we got here.

However, one thing that we can be absolutely sure of, and take comfort from, is the fact that Maria’s hateful god of the OT and the Qur’an (sorry Victoria and Moody), that wants all of us nonbelievers who are honestly searching for truth, to roast in everlasting hell, the river of fire, does not exist. The likelihood of existence for this god is obviously vanishingly small.

Bernie Bee and Caesar,

Ye are most wise. More power te ye.

BERNIE BEE.....The combined forces of Dragon as the Beast having taken to the field,at such time your humour not go amiss,as greatly appreceated. I need not inform remind you of your duty.Others of lesser noble birth,tremble as leave the field. The Devil as Satan,standing together with as many legions,such strike fear into the heart, t'will prove to be the mother of all battles....Allah be Praised God is Great ... .. .

Hail Caesar! Your commentaries are (as always) of great interest but yer scribe's translations from the Latin, although pretty good, can be a wee bit garbled here 'n there.
Hope this wee note doesn't pess ye off to where you're considering another invasion! Don't forget ye never managed tae defeat us Scots the first time ye tried that!
Like they say, keep em coming, the missives that is, not yer sojers!

The most interesting of curves into the equation be of the human form,sustaining spiritual essence for thousands of years.Spiritual intellegence ? seemingly an natural element which lays dormant, till set conditions meet, bringing it into play.

Well Rick, I’m no scientist either but Duckphup’s laconic, ‘the Universe just ‘is’ seems to me, in our present state of knowledge, to be the most that can be said on the origin let alone the meaning of the Universe.
The great Russian dramatist, Anton Chekhov, said much the same as Duck when just before his death wrote to his wife, “You ask me what life is? It’s like asking what a carrot is. A carrot is a carrot, and nothing more is known.”

As for the puzzle of ‘time’, some scientist or other, whose name escapes me, said it was that which prevents everything happening at once! Which seems a good enough explanation to me.

"Of course, that probably implies the existence of SOMETHING outside the bounds of our universe... although 'outside' may not be an applicable concept. We have to stay aware of the limitations of our language, when trying to grapple with these kinds of concepts. The REAL language for this sort of thing is mathematics."

What really boggles my mind is with all that the universe is, and encompasses, what might be left outside? it's something I can't get my brain around.. but the possibilities are endless. Wow!

You're absolutely right about needing mathematics. It's why I'm not a scientist. I guess I just like words too much. What frustrates me is that someone can point to a book or a person and say that they or anyone can really describe with any certainty something so indescribable.

Priver wrote: "What if the universe or whatever energy there may have been before the Big Bang created itself? Somehow started the whole thing in motion on its own, without an outside guiding hand?"

That's what I was alluding to earlier, when I wrote: "In the quantum world, though, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... with NO intent... a completely random process that can (presently) only be dealt with on a statistical basis. If such an event occurs near the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can get 'sucked in' to the singularity... and the other one continues to 'exist' outside the singularity. (See Hawkins re: black holes have hair.) So... it is considered to be within the realm of possibility that some sort of comparable event might account for the existence of the universe."

Of course, that probably implies the existence of SOMETHING outside the bounds of our universe... although 'outside' may not be an applicable concept. We have to stay aware of the limitations of our language, when trying to grapple with these kinds of concepts. The REAL language for this sort of thing is mathematics.

I've been following your discussion as best as my puny mind will let me. :) This is the first really interesting discussion i've seen on these threads. Great job! Can I throw a curve in here?

What if the universe or whatever energy there may have been before the Big Bang created itself? Somehow started the whole thing in motion on its own, without an outside guiding hand? Sort of like the replication of a blastocyst's cells in a mother's womb?

This is just for discussion purposes.. and I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what caused the 'beginning', if in fact there is one, and enjoy learning about science.. and will certainly never claim to have the 'one truth'. Just a different point of view. :)

DUCKPHUP:your reply,generious as be considerate, despite,the overwhelming strength,power of mind. Determination, maintaining humility, be praised.

Mr. Mark,

You say:

Rick -

‘I'm hung up here. Maybe it's semantics.

When you say the universe was "created," are you implying there was a creator?’

Yes, there was a sentient creator in Option (1).

‘If so, then you're leaving out the Big Bang theory as one possibility. Or, do you allow that the Big Bang could have "created" the universe without the aid of a creator (god)?’

I think that some form of matter/energy must have existed prior to the Big Bang, although it is (and may always be) invisible to us in Option (2). I think that either the universe existed eternally before the Big Bang, Option (2); or the creator created it, either some time before the Big Bang, or at the instant of the Big Bang, Option (1).

Thanks for trying to help me out here.

Gerry,

Thanks for attempting to clarify the issue of the ‘time’ dimension of the space-time continuum or fabric, but I’m afraid that you lost me. There may be no help for it, because I’m not a trained astrophysicist. Did everyone else follow Gerry’s discussion: Duck, Mr. Mark, Chip and Bernie Bee?

Things I find troubling:

‘Time, thus is just an element, a dimension of what "is", and the question what was before and what comes after would be inadmissible. Time is subject to the universe, and not: the universe is subject to time.’

I thought that the properties of the space-time continuum were well behaved, understood and quantitatively described by Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.

‘…the universe just "is", time being one of its qualities. That would save us from the insoluble question of "what was before the Big Bang" and of the question of eternity.’

Why? I think that the idea of eternity in the temporal dimension is just as difficult (if not impossible) for the human mind to grasp as the idea of plus or minus infinity in the spatial dimensions. But I don’t see how this saves us from wondering what happened before and caused the Big Bang.

Don't worry about it David, and I'm glad to hear you got something out of the deal. Hopefully you also learned some of the flaws in the argument that you cited. Thanks for the exchange.

No Chip,

I have taken out a lot of useful information from this discussion. Most importantly a lesson learned on how to have an ethical conversation.

I just hope that you all can realize that what I did was not intentionally harmful. I know now that I should think about stuff like that before doing it. But if I was the only one in this world guilty of that, then why is George Bush still president?

Thanks Chip

"Well, if I've brought anything into this conversation besides hypocrisy and plagiarism I hope that it stimulated some minds to improve brain circulation in hopes of a decrease in the likelihood of brain tumors in the future."

David, I think you succeeded with that just fine. What I find unfortunate is that you seem to be taking nothing away from the conversation.

caesar... I think that your contention that the purpose of the universe is focused on humanity... the inhabitants this one little planet among hundreds of trillions of others... is... well... I'll just say 'naive'. (Other adjectives come to mind... but I'm trying to be nice.)

It's a pretty good bet that within the next 20 - to- 30 years, we will have firmly established that life is only a few of orders of magintude less common than dirt, in the universe... and perhaps even that intelligent life more-or-less common.

The purpose of the universe that it sustain the human form...the purpose of human form that via heart as brain cometh understanding experience. That we may be knowing the essence of creation. The journey already covered in human development being great having reached as passed independent stage of human form making us mobile not rooted to the earth.The brains development per'aps slow but it vital it not overloaded with experience as understanding that we not prepared for,such would be fatal,hence,those wishing an strong experience to convince there being an god,such experience if given would have direst effects,its damage to the brain taking years to heal,one must develop at a balanced pace,such vital.As the equal message in understanding there be those seeking answers for that which they be not prepared to hear,again if given,for such individuals the result being dire.

Gerry... as I pointed out in another thread... a 'law' is just a consistent (persistent?) mathematical relationship that we have happened to 'notice', in nature.

Ok, I get the hint. "Leave David, you heathen Xianist!"

You got it. While I'm gone, I'm gonna try to figure out how man can formulate a way of thinking to decide what is truth or not and call it "logic" by not using logic that did not exist until he thought of it. It might take me awhile....

Well, if I've brought anything into this conversation besides hypocrisy and plagiarism I hope that it stimulated some minds to improve brain circulation in hopes of a decrease in the likelihood of brain tumors in the future.

Good luck all.

P.S.

God exists!!

Hee Hee...

I understand the atheist's point of view. No one needs to prove a negative. No one needs to prove why they are not French, nor a Republican, nor a Christian; and no one needs to prove why they do not believe in God. That is why the insistence that atheists bow down to a belief in God to be a very curious thing. It is not really a sincere argument about anything real; it is an inner psychological struggle.

I also say that I am a Christian and belive in God. But I am not like David. I have inherited my beliefs and I have sought to broaden what was handed down to me. Most church institutions promote religious doctrines, which have been passed down for centuries; they have become fossilized, ossified, calcified, and not particulary valid or useful, in this state.

But we have new knowledge, and new ways of looking at things. Being a Christian does not mean that you have to be stuck in a creaky old ramshackle political institution of yesteryear.

Daniel,

you are confused about the word "law". A "natural law" is not a juridic convention, but a quality of everything existing: The speed of light follows, obviously, a natural "law", or rule, just like the speed of sound through air, or different, through water. Gravity accelerates a "falling" object according to an exactly measurable "law", all over the observable cosmos.

We should try to stay on a level of discussion and not shift into another level according to convenience.

At our present state of affairs in scientific conjecture, which is fascinating and exciting, I would like to chime in with the idea. that since "time" is one of many dimensions, within the concept of branes or other fantastic concepts that still might pop up, the universe just "is", time being one of its qualities. That would save us from the insoluble question of "what was before the Big Bang" and of the question of eternity. Time, thus is just an element, a dimension of what "is", and the question what was before and what comes after would be inadmissible. Time is subject to the universe, and not: the universe is subject to time.

It could even give us some philosophical guide as to the limit of our life: Our life, including its time, just "is", as a process (math.: 1st derivative) from conception to death, as a part of the universe which somehow "created" a consciousness to contemplate itself. (Excuse the word "create", don't get me wrong! I am not implicating any teleology here.) The time relativity would fit well into the general relativity. The idea "eternity is now" would easily fit in here, too.

The natural law that appeals to atheists also includes quantum physics and relativity, which turns out to be an immensely complex and and seemingly bizarre characterizaiton of the fundamental physical existence of all things. Appealing to specific quantum phenomena is not particulary relavant to the discussion of the existence or non-existence of God.

But the very existence of quantum physics, as a way of thinking, and visualizing existence, transforms how we see things. Through quantum physics and relativity, we infer that the physical world extends far beyond the perceptions of our mere senses, and that natural phenomena operate outside of the constraints of mere "common sense." This gives alot of room to speculate on God, and the soul, and makes atheism seem, not a sure and necessary thing, but, also, to me, more speculation.

And I have said earlier, even the term "natural law" is not quite valid; it is a speculative philosophical characterization, seeking to make some order out of the findings of science, but there is no scientific basis for supposing that there is really any such metaphysical existence of any such thing as natural law. We just say that because of the convention of our speech, which makes these words easy to understand, by way of metaphor, or comparision, to functions that are much simpler, than "what makes the universe work."

For Christ's sake David! It wasn't because of just one cut and paste job that you brought shame not only on yerself but on the very Christ ye claim tae follow! Ye kept on and on and would still be at it but for Duck haulin' the carpet from under yer feet! Where Duck and Mr Mark were genuinely trying to explain for you and the rest of us to the best of their ability what they've learned in this life, you kept on trying to undermine them with deceit and subterfuge. I find that totally inexcusable. As my auld hypocrital Uncle Gus would say, "Ye should think black burnin' shame o' yersel'!"

Duck,

Yes, but it seems that the idea of an infinite eternal universe is not very likely either; vanishingly small, I don’t know. Maybe each of the only two possibilities is vanishingly small. Do we really exist? Maybe this is just a dream.

Rick... it just seemed to me that with your (1) and (2), you were setting up a 'False Dichotomy'. I guess you were not doing that... and I certainly don't want to tune you out. I just happen to think that all the varied possibilities are very exciting, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware of them.

I just hope I'm around long enough to see the focus sharpen a little bit more. Do you understand why I regard the 'created' option (implies intent... a 'creator') to have a very low probability?... vanishingly small, as they say?

Thanks Duck,

I think that any, or all, or some combination of your many ‘universes’ can fit within my ‘the universe’. If it is an infinite sequence of cascading black holes (or a multi-verse), the sum total is what I refer to as ‘the universe’.

I think that you are concerned that I am trying to make a case for this god: ‘an infinitely complex, invisible, magical sky-fairy who always existed and always will exist suddenly decided to poof a universe into existence so that he could create life on one small planet among trillions of others, in order to torment the inhabitants and become intimately concerned about their sex-lives.’

Relax, that’s not the case. For now, I’m just trying to establish the relative likelihood that either: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever.

Let me change my description of the creator to be sentient, just to make things more interesting. The idea that the universe spontaneously materialized from nothing does not seem likely enough to merit consideration. I don’t consider your spontaneous particles appearing near a black whole to be a valid case, because the presence of the black hole can hardly be considered nothing. The big band doesn’t qualify, because something must have existed prior to the big bang, although we have no information on it.

Thanks for your patience; this is helping me immensely to sort things out in my own mind. If I get on your nerves, just tune me out.

Rick wrote: "I postulate that there only two possibilities: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever. The first possibility is what I call a god concept, saying nothing about the nature of the creator, sentient or otherwise. It would be rather odd if it was some non-sentient creator; and might be considered the same as the universe spontaneously springing into existence from nothing."

Your choice of the word 'created' implies intent... and thus 'intelligence'. In the quantum world, though, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... with NO intent... a completely random process that can (presently) only be dealt with on a statistical basis. If such an event occurs near the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can get 'sucked in' to the singularity... and the other one continues to 'exist' outside the singularity. (See Hawkins re: black holes have hair.) So... it is considered to be within the realm of possibility that some sort of comparable occurrence might account for the existencs the universe.

It is also within the realm of possibility that OUR universe is the contents of a black hole in ANOTHER universe... and that each and every black hole in OUR universe contains ANOTHER universe.

It is also within the realm of possibility that (as you said) the universe has existed (in some form or another) forever... although 'forever' might not even be a valid concept in that context.

It is also within the realm of possibility that the universe came into existence as a consequence of a collision of 'branes' (membranes) in some other 'super-dimension'.

It is also within the realm of possibility that there are an infinite number of universes, which describes the 'ultimate' reality.

It is also within the realm of possibility that some combination of the above provide the explanation.

It is also within the realm of possibility that there are other possible explanations (maybe dozens) that I am not aware of or able to think of at the moment (probable), or that nobody has managed to think of yet, at all (probable).

It is also a possibility that an infinitely complex, invisible, magical sky-fairy who always existed and always will exist suddenly decided to poof a universe into existence so that he could create life on one small planet among trillions of others, in order to torment the inhabitants and become intimately concerned about their sex-lives. (I rank this as extremely low on the probability list.)

It is possible that somebody will figure this out some day.

It is possible that nobody will EVER figure this out some day.

WHATEVER the outcome... unless IT drops by and explicitly reveals ITself to us, it is HIGHLY unlikely that an evidence-based, intellectally honest, justifiable reason for invoking the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy' hypothesis will arise. The 'existence' of such an entity would require a MORE powerful explanation than does the universe itself... PARTICULARLY in the context of a universe in which everything we see tells us that complexity arises from simplicity.

Does it STILL seem like a 50/50 proposition?

David: "Anyway, if I'm forced to site the source of every amount of knowledge that I have, then I hope you have all day."

That one source would have been fine - then it wouldn't have been plagiarism - and that goes for in life as well as in the classroom. Plagiarism is lying. Ask your pastor.

Here's the deal, David. In the future, if I see you on another thread starting a similar discussion with other people, I'll say "For an example of David's communication style, go to___" Then I'll refer them this link so they can see for themselves how you operate and make an informed decision about continuing the conversation.

For David

I don't think anyone hates you, and this is not a question of forgiveness. It is just a small thing. It is just that, going round and round with the argument, "yes, but" is tedious, and makes everyone a little tired. I do not think it is sincere.

For the time being, why not give up on trying to compell, by way of your logic, for everyone to see that God must exist, and concentrate on other aspects of Christianity. There are other aspects, you know, and I don't mean join a "stamp-out-the-gays" committee.

I think the question "how to be a Christian without being a jerk" would be a good thing to contemplate or discuss, not that you are a jerk, necessarily, but I think most everyone knows what I am getting at.

Chip,

You say: ‘I'd consider myself someone who puts the likelihood of there being a god as vanishingly small, but I would add to that statement "vanishingly small for all practical purposes."...As to your two possibilities I would say that there may be many more possibilities than that. We're simply limited by the linear way in which we experience time, and by the information we have available to extrapolate from. We have no idea if the universe is all that there is or if it exists inside of some larger framework.’

I think that your ‘many more possibilities’ can be placed in one of my postulated two possibilities: (1) either the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever; hence my 50/50 coin toss.

Please note that I make no attempt to describe the creator, sentient or otherwise.

Thanks for the link to ‘The Elegant Universe’. I will enjoy viewing that this weekend.

Rick -

I'm hung up here. Maybe it's semantics.

When you say the universe was "created," are you implying there was a creator? If so, then you're leaving out the Big Bang theory as one possibility. Or, do you allow that the Big Bang could have "created" the universe without the aid of a creator (god)?

You need to define what you mean by created for me. Sorry I'm not understanding this basic point.

Mr Mark,

You say: ‘As far as how the universe got started, I don't know and I'm quite sure that I'll never know. I do know that the idea of the universe springing "from nothing" is a limited way of looking at what constitutes "nothing." I also know that if one embraces the idea the universe is infinite and has always been here has nothing to do with whether or not a god was/is involved.’

I postulate that there only two possibilities: (1) the universe was created, or (2) it has existed forever. The first possibility is what I call a god concept, saying nothing about the nature of the creator, sentient or otherwise. It would be rather odd if it was some non-sentient creator; and might be considered the same as the universe spontaneously springing into existence from nothing.

You say: ‘I'm puzzled as to why you give the god idea a 50/50 chance of being viable. You seem to hold some special pleading for god despite a total lack of evidence for his existence.’

No, I really have no preference. As I said, I postulate that there are only two possibilities; hence 50/50 coin toss.

E Fav,

Sorry I forgot we are in "Atheism 101". Sorry my mistake, I guess this IS a college classroom.

Ok, I already asked for forgiveness and have not recieved it and understand that I do not deserve it. Amazingly enough, that is exactly how I accepted Christ. Anyway, if I'm forced to site the source of every amount of knowledge that I have, then I hope you have all day. I guess I'll just give you one. I've cited before that making the absolute statement that "God does not exist" pre-supposes infinite knowledge. I learned that from Dr. Ravi Zacharias and in those exact words. Are you really that upset that I learned from someone else? When you were in college didn't you? I'm sure we are all guilty of repeat statements from the sources of our knowledge and quite possibly mine was more deliberate. But nonetheless I still understand the statement but for some reason am presumed that I do not understand the discussion at hand. If that's the case how do I know you do not understand the theory of evolution. You learned it from someone else, right?

So, of course as I expect, I expect several atheists to begin the name calling. So, I guess it's not in your moral code to "take the high road", huh? Instaed being labeled an "idiot" somehow makes you more intelligent, right, Duck? By the way, Duck, I've never used the name "The Moderate" before, so bad assumption. I've always used the name "David" and even that doesn't narrow me down because I've seen a few David's on here and they were not me. Maybe after this discussion I'll change my name to David T. Sound good? I'd give my full last name, but I don't want you to find me. You scare me a little. :)

Chip,

Thanks for not hating me. I know I am frustrating. You should try living with me. :) My wife will tell you....lol.

Gerry,

You made a great point. I'm putting logic into a material category. Of course naturally this is how we think of things as "existing". So I guess the only way a conversation like this can go further is if we can agree that things non-material can exist. And again, maybe I'm thinking way too far into this, but hear me out for a minute. Would you say that conceptual ideas exist? For example: does communism exist. It's not material, but an ideaology. It exists in our concept of an ideaology and by nature is conceptual. It's a conceptual idea, not a material item, but of course is not absolute. My point is that ideas, logic, and the thought process in general exists in our minds. Some of these thought processes are absolute, such as the logical absolute I posted before. Our minds are not absolute, but the conceptual idea of a logical absolute has existed before our minds were even created (or came to be as you would say). Otherwise, that logical absolute would not be absolute. So do you define absolutes as only something that can exist from a specific point in time when our minds existed? Here is something else to confuse us all with. Before man existed let's go to a specific point in time. Let's say post Big Bang, pre-humanity. Did the universe exist and not exist at the same time? So did conceptual thoughts exist before our thoughts existed? Do you get where I'm going with this?

You said,

"Things and their interactions exist without (and before and after) anybody observing them. Or do you really adhere to this rather "juvenile" notion that things exist only as far as we observe them?"

This statement is what applies to the naturalist, not me. Of course depending on if conceptual absolutes can be defined as "existing". The logical absolutes posted before existed but could not be observed until our minds were created. Therefore, it is "juvenile" to believe that something does not exist because we could not observe it? Maybe like God? Or maybe something more simple like conceptual absolutes?

Thanks,

David

david: "I merely assumed that establishing a starting point off of someone elses statement was not abusive or harmful whatsoever. Unfortunately I guess it was."

This suggests to me that you've never written a term paper, or you've had very negligent teachers, who didn't tell you the rules about citing your sources, and who did notice when you didn't cite your sources and/or perhaps you missed that class and didn't get the notes from a classmate, or you're dishonest.

Duckphup, et al - you are real troopers.

I think we have met David before...

... as 'The Moderate': newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/cult_plus_time_equals_religion/all_comments.html

... as 'Vinny': newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/09/blank_for_now/all_comments.html (Note that the DuckPhup 'surrender' post [dope-slapping] went right over Vinny's head. Remind you of anything?)

Possibly a few others. I think that the distinguishing characteristics are an absolute immunity to actual knowledge. logic, reason and critical thinking... a peculiar, indomitable affinity for willful ignorance... and is generally oblivious to the obvious.

I think that the MOST troubling aspect of all this is that the 'quality' of this person's 'thinking' is 'genuine'... what you see is what you get. What I mean is that this person THINKS he is being logical... THINKS that the arguments are valid... THINKS that he is thinking critically. And then, there is this... he is typical. The only 'unique' aspect is that he has decided to 'contribute' to these forums. That is what we are REALLY up against... 250 million+ Moderate/Vinnie/Davids.

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience." ~ Dilbert

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." ~ Jonathan Swift

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert Heinlein

Daniel,

your example of the "logical" assumption in former times that the earth is flat is not logically valid.

An observation is an observation is an observation... It is not a logical conclusion, and it can be incomplete. The observation of the earth was incomplete, erroneous, misleading, but it was not "logical". It was an assumption, based on a later debunked probability. (The resulting religious "certainty" and its historical implications are a different topic)

David,

as someone only half involved in the discussion, I don't understand that you try to put a logical observation into the same category as a material fact. Duckphup has exhaustively described that (man-made) logic is only a "method" to assess if something is true or false. You fall into one of those many semantic traps. Things and their interactions exist without (and before and after) anybody observing them. Or do you really adhere to this rather "juvenile" notion that things exist only as far as we observe them?

Thus, your assertion that (by using a common box for things and their "logical" observation) you have dismantled a contradiction is - false.

David, also, I'm sure someone could come up with an example of where that statement isn't true. You'd have to define exactly what you mean by "exist" and in what context you mean it.

For example, if the context is, say, on the table as opposed to on the floor, and you're talking about an object that can only be in one place at one time, then that object would both exist on the table and not exist on the floor at the same time.

David, I don't hate you at all. I just find you frustrating.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. But then if it's forever true, how was it not true before man realized that it was true?"

Obviously it had to be true before man could realize it was true, right? Our realizing it was true didn't suddenly cause it's trueness to spring into being. What do you think that proves? I'm still not clear on that.

Hi,

Remember me? You guys still hate me? Or did you sleep it off? Ok, you still hate me. I may not be that "impressive young man" that you wanted me to be, but for some reason I probably never was to any of you simply because I have concluded that God exists.

I totally understand why you might not want to talk to me but hey I thought I would give it a shot. I'm not convinced that something as simple as one cut and paste paragraph is your reasoning for ending this discussion. So let me put it in my own words and if no response, then hey, I gave it my all and let's move on.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time"

This statement is FOREVER true. It can never be falsified. So this statement is a logical absolute that has existed forever.

You tell me that man made this statement at some point in his mind.

But then if it's forever true, how was it not true before man realized that it was true?

What you are telling me goes against the very logical absolute that is posted above. That that absolute "existed and not existed at the same time". But of course only existed when man thought of it.

A FOREVER true conceptual idea that cannot be explained in a naturalistic worldview. I never said I had proof of God. I keep reading how "David tries to prove God", but I even told Mr. Mark that I have no proof, only evidence. I even said that this may not be sufficient evidence for him to believe in God, but nevertheless it is evidence. And most importantly it is evidence that the naturalistic point of view cannot answer without positing some kind of infinite being or of course resorting to the "infinite universe" theory which is in direct contradiction to scientific findings.

But anyway, I best be on. I can see the natives are restless and I feel the arrows pointed my way. Say good-bye to the evil Xianist! Bwaaa haa haa haa!

"You reap what you sow" I like that Mr. Mark. A little taste of my own medicine, huh?

"He who has not sinned, cast the first stone".

David

David, your borrowed questions have been answered over and over again. Since you still don't seem to think they have been I can only draw one of two conclusions... either you're not terribly bright or you're engaged in what's known as trolling, which is to be purposely contrarian just for the sake of creating an argument rather than an honest discussion. I too feel cheated for having taken so much time to try and patiently address your questions. At least the discussion may have been interesting to other readers.

It still boggles my mind that you can't see the logical fallacy of your borrowed argument, which is, in fact, affirming the consequent.

"Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time." True

"Logical absolutes exist" True

"Man made logical absolutes at one point in time." The statement is true, but the way you're using it is false. Man simply described something that already existed using the language of logic. So?

"Before man made logical absolutes, man did not exist." True

Your argument is akin to being amazed that rocks existed before man came along and decided to call them rocks, and then acting as if that somehow proves something related to god. If you can't see the foolishness of that argument then I have to wonder how it is you manage to feed yourself or use anything pointy without accidentally putting your eyes out.

-----------------------

Rick,

I'd consider myself someone who puts the likelihood of there being a god as vanishingly small, but I would add to that statement "vanishingly small for all practical purposes." I have to use some objective measure for determining what's likely and what isn't, so I go by what can and can't be deduced from the available evidence. Since there is no evidence that points to a god or gods then for all practical purposes there's no compelling reason to consider that possibility or assign it any likelihood at all.

As to your two possibilities I would say that there may be many more possibilities than that. We're simply limited by the linear way in which we experience time, and by the information we have available to extrapolate from. We have no idea if the universe is all that there is or if it exists inside of some larger framework. I think if we ever come close to a definitive answer it will probably be hundreds or thousands or years from now, if ever. It's fun to contemplate, but I don't really try to draw any metaphysical conclusions from what little we know.

Have you ever seen the PBS Nova documentary "The Elegant Universe"? It's great. I was a liberal arts major, so my understanding of theoretical physics is rudimentary at best, but I find the subject fascinating. You can watch the whole thing online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
It's well worth the time.

----------------------

Duckphup, thanks for the detailed description of how agnosticism and atheism are essentially the same thing. I've been arguing that with people (agnostics who claim that they're not atheists) for years (and quite a bit on this forum recently), and I'm always amazed at how outraged some self-described agnostics get at being called atheists. I think many people claim that position for emotional rather than logical reasons. I like to call it the "I'm not with those people" position.

RICK wrote (OCTOBER 5, 2007 8:54 AM): "Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist."

Actually, I do not deem that to be a correct statement. There are some subtleties involved which escape the notice of most people. These subtleties involve the nature of 'belief', 'knowledge', context-based distinctions in the meaning of words, and the implications of those distinctions. Consider the following sentences:

(1) I BELIEVE that gods DO exist. (Theist. Asserts a 'truth' value... and thus carries a burden of proof.)

(2) I DO NOT believe that gods DO exist. (defines 'atheist' - negates 'theist'. Makes NO assertion of a 'truth value'... essentially just calls 'bullsh*t' on the 'truth' assertion of theist. There is no burden of proof associated with this position.)

(3) I BELIEVE that gods DO NOT exist. ('Strong atheist' position. Asserts a 'truth' value, and thus carries a burden of proof. HOWEVER... since this position asserts the non-existence of gods, that means that such an individual DOES NOT believe that gods DO exist. So... this position falls UNDER the defining statement of atheist (2)... but DOES NOT 'define' atheist.) (Think of a Venn diagram.) So... all 'STRONG atheists' are atheists... but NOT all atheists are 'STRONG atheists'.

(4) "I do not (can not) KNOW whether god DOES or DOES NOT exist. (Agnostic. But notice that since the agnostic does not KNOW whether gods do or do not exist, the agnostic individual DOES NOT believe that gods DO exist. Like the 'STRONG atheist' position, agnostic falls UNDER the defining statement of atheist (2)... but DOES NOT 'define' atheist. So... ALL agnostics are atheists... but NOT all atheists are agnostics.

(2) DEFINES 'atheist'... a LACK of belief in the existence of gods. But even though this DEFINES 'atheist', it is sometimes referred to as the 'weak' atheist position... also known as the 'atheist-agnostic' position...

(3) is sometimes referred to as the 'strong' atheist position.

Notice that (2) (weak atheist position) is also TRUE for both (3) and (4). Also, pay particular attention to the qualitative difference between (2) and (3)... then you should be able to appreciate that there is NOTHING about (2) which is 'faith-based'... but (3) MIGHT be called 'faith-based'.

If you don't 'know' whether or not god exists (4), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).

If you 'believe' that god DOES NOT exist (3), then you do not 'believe' that god exists (2).

So, the common denominator between 'agnostic' and 'atheist' is that neither position harbors a 'belief' in god... and thus, both are 'non-believers'. So... again... all agnostics are atheists... but not all atheists are agnostics.

This also seems to be the only position that makes sense, since for someone to say that they 'believe' that there is no god implies a logical proposition that 'god DOES NOT exist = true'. THAT implies that there must be some kind of logical 'proof' for that assertion... and, of course, since it is impossible to prove such a thing in the absence of infinite knowledge. Further... if you possessed the infinite knowledge necessary to 'prove' such a logical proposition, then you would fulfill the definition of a god yourself, and end up in a 'Divine Paradox'. Thus, position (3) is logically untenable... just the same as religious 'belief' (1) is logically untenable.

The weak atheist position (2) is characterized by an ABSENSE of belief, brought about by the lack of evidence that would be necessary to initiate or sustain such a 'belief'. In this sense, the absence of belief in god is equivalent to an absence of belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Thor, Garden Gnomes, Bridge Trolls and a china teapot in orbit around the sun (Bertrand Russell). The weak atheist (agnostic) position bears no burden of proof, since it is not asserting anything to be 'true'. This position merely finds that there is no compelling evidence to support the idea that invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairies (gods) exist.

As always, it should be understood that when I say 'belief', I am referring to an internalized (part of one's self-description) certainty that one knows the 'TRUTH' pertaining to matters regarding fundamental aspects of existence and/or reality... that your ideas correlate to reality. Scientists know that all such ;knowledge' is 'provisional'... faith-based 'belief' is NOT regarded as 'provisional'... it is regarded as a certainty. Such convictions do not represent knowledge... they represent the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., self-delusion. And I am not referring to 'trivial' belief... every-day 'belief', that we talk about in ordinary conversation.

RICK wrote: "Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic."

I think that the real distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist calls 'bullsh*t' and the agnostic says 'I don't know'... but that gets them to the same intellectual space... "I DO NOT believe that gods DO exist (2)." Within that intellectual 'phase space', I think that it is useless to try to draw a distinction as to what percentage of probability one might assign to the question of whether gods do or do not exist, based upon how one happened to enter that phase space.

I agree that most atheists and most agnostics are, in fact, what you have referred to as 'atheist/agnostics'. Like I said, the key thing that differentiates the atheist from the agnostic is that the atheist calls 'bullsh*t', and the agnostic says "I don't know'. BUT... if you sit down with the atheist, and quiz him on the REASONS why he called 'bullsh*t' on the idea that gods exist, we will (usually) come to find out that it is because the other side is asserting the 'truth' of a proposition for which there is no compelling evidence in support... and so there is no valid way to 'know' (gnosis) whether the proposition is true, or not... and that sounds an awful lot like 'agnostic', to me.

In other words... this atheist/agnostic distinction is... at its core... trivial horsesh*t.

RICK wrote: "If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present."

Well, it just so happens that I DO rate the likelihood of god's existence as vanishingly small... and here's the key to understanding why. Darwin's greatest contribution to science was NOT the TOE... it was the shocking IDEA that complexity could arise from simplicity. And as this idea permeated throughout the OTHER scientific disciplines (it took a long time), it turned out that EVERYWHERE we look in the universe... everything we look AT in the universe... tells us EXACTLY the same thing... that complexity arises from simplicity. (Look up: 'Self-organizing complex systems') (Look up: 'emergence')

BEFORE Darwin, after 1,200 years or so of Christian-enforced ignorance and dogma, the idea of a universe WITHOUT a creator was unthinkable. The entire history of science (before that, 'natural philosophy') had been devoted to trying to look behind the curtain and figure out what tricks god was using to keep his automated tinker-toy set running. But gradually, after Darwin, a new paradigm began to emerge... a new and useful way of looking at things, and thinking about things. It tells us that things can be explained... the universe can be explained... WITHOUT resort to the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy hypothesis'.

By the way... I am not even going to try to address your (1) and (2)... they present a 'False Dichotomy'... "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle'.

RICK wrote: "The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite."

There is no compelling reason to think that 'time' even 'exists', apart from human consciousness. In other words, it is much more likely that we do not 'experience' time, so much as we 'create' it.

I think that the only thing that is likely to result from trying to 'get your mind around' the things that you brought up here is having your head explode. There is a very good reason for why you have not been able to get your head around these ideas... you CAN'T. NOBODY can... not even the astrophysicists, the theorists, that are WORKING on this stuff. Why?... Because our brains aren't WIRED for it. Are brains are wired for interacting in a Cartesian/Newtonian phase-space. We can deal easily with 3-dimensions... we can 'experience (although not fully comprehend) a 4th dimension... but beyond that, our brains go into la-la land... scrambled in confusion. The ONLY way to deal with these ideas is through an entirely different language than the ones we use in our everyday existence... the languages that we THINK in... and that language is mathematics. These theorists are NOT understanding the concepts... they are understanding the MATH that DESCRIBES the concepts. Big difference.

RICK wrote: "These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god."

That is because you don't understand. But there is no reason to feel special about that... NOBODY does. Just keep up with what is happening at the cutting edge... Lisa Randall, for example. Every now and then, one of these egg-heads comes out of the lab and tries to give us an idea of where the current thinking is, in words that we can (sort of) understand. Just keep on the lookout for that.

Thanks for that, Rick... after David, that was really refreshing and enjoyable. I hope that my ramblings might provide you with some useful insights.

To all the guys:

In all of this back-and-fourth, I sense that is some degree of enjoyment in the argument. And that is fine.

But, there can be no logical proof in the existence of God. Mere logic is not enough. Logic can be used to spin all kinds of fanciful arguments and beliefs. In fact, for most of human history, people believed that the world was flat; and why did they believe this? Because it seemed logical. And, it does, if you don't have the proper perspective. Just standing in a single spot, and looking around, with no other information than your visual perception, why wouldn't anybody think the world is flat? But, it is not.

Belief in God is an assumption. If person A makes the assumption that God exists, and person B does not make that assumption, then they will maintain permanently divergent belief systems, and it is futile and pointless to argue from a logical point of view.

The assumption that God exists derives from personal, inner feelings. Delving into those feeling would be more fruitful in the discussion of the existence of God.

I am not sure that many people are able to determine, freely their own beliefs. They accept their inheritance of beliefs without question. You cannot blame people for this; they cannot help it. But even for people who realize that their heritage of beliefs may not be right, and seek to explore beyond this heritabe, even these people only have limited freedom in determing their own beliefs, since the coninuing contingencies of existence are limited for each of us, and what else can we base our belief on, but our own experiences?

But if you believe in a sort of existential experience sealed from human knowledge, which might fall under the category of "supernatural" but which really cannot be characterized by such a word, since it is specifically conceptual, then how would you convey this "feeling" to someone else? Not by logic or scientific proof.

Would you use the word "mystical?" That is not quite right. Would you use the word "transcendental?" Still not quite right. Certainly, magic, and astrology are not right. I couldn't say how to describe this belief. These words which are our tools for thinking, are not really good enough to convey such a feeling.

When people like David try to prove the existence of God to non-believers, he is not really trying to convince you; he is trying to convince himself. He is struggling with his inherited beliefs, which you are punching holes in, and he is trying to maintain them. So, he is not such a lost cause after all; he seemed aware that his point of view is not quite right, even though he did not affirmatively admit it.

Rick -

I thought that I had answered your "vanishingly small chance of god" question above.

As far as how the universe got started, I don't know and I'm quite sure that I'll never know. I do know that the idea of the universe springing "from nothing" is a limited way of looking at what constitutes "nothing." I also know that if one embraces the idea the the universe is infinite and has always been here has nothing to do with whether or not a god was/is involved.

What I do know is that there's not much chance of the god of the Bible - who didn't have the power to help defeat the chariots of iron in Judges - could hardly have had the power necessary to create the universe or the multiverse.

I'm puzzled as to why you give the god idea a 50/50 chance of being viable. You seem to hold some special pleading for god despite a total lack of evidence for his existence.

Well done Duck and Mr Mark. Sadly I will remove David from my list of impressive young men.

Now, back to business, here is a question that I just posed to WP. Maybe you can help me with the answer; we have already lain some of the initial groundwork:

Atheists/agnostics believe that god does not exist, although they are very careful to leave open the possibility that it does exist. Most atheists put the likelihood of existence at near 0, or vanishingly small as they say. Agnostics (like myself) may tend to rate the likelihood of existence higher, say 50/50. Actually this is a fine distinction, and many consider there to be no difference between atheists and agnostics. Thus I say that I am atheist/agnostic.

If you are an atheist, please explain why you rate the likelihood of god’s existence as vanishingly small. Keep in mind that the only two alternatives are also not compelling: either (1) that the universe that we can all see around us sprang into existence from nothing, or (2) that it has existed forever, from negative infinity to the present. The negative infinity point on the timeline is also hard to get ones mind around. And if infinite time exists, the other dimensions of the space-time fabric are also probably infinite. These assertions of an eternal and infinite universe seem to be no more likely than the existence of god.

Mr. Mark,

All I did was cut and paste one paragraph to establish a starting point for this discussion. I am by far no literary genius and thought that that paragraph was the best description to get a start in establishing what the conversation would detail. The rest I have responded on my own. I did do some of my own studies in logical fallacies and absolutes prior to this discussion. What I did not like in the carm.org article was the fact that the guy who wrote it said that the naturalistic worldview had no response. I wanted to hear a response from an actual naturalist to conclude if this discussion can be held as logical evidence for the existence of God. I hope that you would find that I did not intentionally mean any harm and if what you would like is an apology, please forgive me. I take no credit for that paragraph, but I do take credit for the rest of the responses in which I still deem logical and have yet to hear a response. I do not feel though that it was dishonest at all to establish a starting point for this discussion based on another writers paragraph, but what I do regret is not telling you that it was another writers paragraph. And for some reason I still do not understand how that automatically makes it so that I must not understand the paragraph or the argument proposed.

So if you would like you of course can discontinue our conversation. I have given my honest and hard working thoughts into this discussion after a simple cut and paste of a starting point for the discussion. I was expecting a refutation of some sort, but here's what I got.

Logical absolutes exist
Man created logical absolutes over an extended period of time

But what I do not see as logical is how can they be absolutes (meaning forever true) if they did not exist until they were created by man?

Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time.

Logical absolutes exist

Man made logical absolutes at one point in time.

Before man made logical absolutes, man did not exist.

Please tell me how I do not understand this, by a simple cut and paste to establish an argument?

Again, forgive me if that was offensive on my part. It was not intentional at all. I merely assumed that establishing a starting point off of someone elses statement was not abusive or harmful whatsoever. Unfortunately I guess it was.

I guess if you do not reply I understand. I will use this argument again in the future. I will use that paragraph again in the future to establish a starting point in the debate. Next time I will make sure to include that I copied it from carm.org and would like to expand on that paragraph. I hope that would sound better and in the end maybe end with a result.

Good luck to you.

Dear David -

I've just read Duckphup's post wherein he lays bare the cut-n-paste job you undertook in this conversation. Your response to him is an admission by you that this is, in fact, what you have been doing.

I must say that I am gravely disappointed in you. I think your actions are the height of dishonesty and a real slap in the face to those of us who have naively engaged you in what we believed was an honest discussion.

Duckphup is correct in saying that you don't even comprehend the arguments you're trying to make. It also accounts for your not being able to understand the detailed responses you've received. While you were busy cutting and pasting, the rest of us were answering you HONESTLY while providing SOURCES and links to sources to back up our arguments. We were not taking the thoughts and words of someone else and claiming they were our own, but that's what you were doing. I take it as a personal insult that you would sit at your keyboard - perhaps giggling the whole time - while we naive atheists busted our humps to present you with arguments from every angle to help you understand our arguments. The truth is, you didn't have any interest whatsoever in digesting our answers and formulating a response. How could you? You didn't even bother understanding the argument you put forth. Rather, you were simply regurgitating Xianist talking points with the same facility as the right-wing media wh*res who regurgitate the daily talking points from the White House.

This leads me to a conclusion that I am sad to say I hold, and that is that you are acting in very much a Christian way. That is to say, your behavior is TYPICAL of the Xians that I meet in every day life and, in particular, on this blog. The level of dishonesty and ignorance is matched only by the laissez-faire attitude that such behavior is acceptable as long as you're carrying the ball for Jesus. Well, David, that may be acceptable in the circles of dishonest religionists with which you run, but it isn't acceptable to me and I would gainsay it isn't acceptable to those on both sides of the argument who make their best HONEST effort to debate these issues.

So, this is my last post to you, David. Not so much hard feelings as disappointment, a disappointment fueled as much by my getting suckered by yet another dishonest Xian as it is by your dishonesty throughout this debate.

As they say, you reap what you sow.

Later...not.

Duck,

I'm not sure what the problem is. You still haven't answered the question. Does it matter where or whom I recieve my information from? Does that make everything I have said less true or are you just upset? I've read that a long time ago. I've never used this argument in a discussion before and thought, hey what the heck, let's try it out. It is on the CARM.ORG website if you want to see it fully. I have frequented that site for probably a couple of years to find out some information about mormonism. I happened to read the "logical absolute argument" one day and thought that eventually I'll try it out in the real world to see what I get. So far so good. If you want more logical absolutes, I can give you some.

So because I learned about logical absolutes on a website and because I used the conversation in that website to establish some absolute truths what does that prove? You make a logical fallacy by claiming that I do not understand what they mean because I copied what was written? So if you learned biology from a college and copied a description from your textbook about...let's say....evolution...does that make evolution any less true? Or does that make your understanding of evolution less true or reliable? Not really.

So then, you tell me "the universe IS". Is what? It just "IS"? Am I supposed to believe the universe is...maybe what your saying.....eternal? Infinite?? But naturalistic worldviews oppose this idea. What is it you are trying to tell me?

So it's a poor conclusion on your part to establish that I have no idea what the conversation is about simply because I started the conversation off by a repeat of one paragraph. If I have no idea what we are talking about, then why can't I get an answer on how a logical absolute can be absolute if you are putting it in a time frame of existence?? Is that proof that I know what I'm talking about? I thought of that all on my own, like a big boy.

So copying a paragraph to establish some absolutes and to establish the argument at hand automatically makes me a fraud, huh? And you assume that I have no idea what the arguments are about because of the fact that I copied one paragraph. Well, Chip, posted something about "affirming the consequent". Isn't that a copy and paste? And if so can I conclude he has no idea what it means. No! So why do you do that with me? I guess I'm gonna make a logical fallacy of my own and conclude that you call me a cheat, a liar and a fraud because you cannot win this argument based on your inability to understand absolutes in their nature and especially in your naturalistic worldview. Oh how the fallacousness feels so good sometimes, even when it's illogical, huh?

Anyway, still waiting.......................

Absolutes cannot be restricted by time. Any other answers??

David... here is the key piece of this puzzle... or your puzzle, I guess I should say. It doesn't seem to be a puzzle to anyone else that's involved in this.

The universe just IS. In order to try to understand the universe, we ask questions about it. 'Logic' is a system of rigorous language-based rules which was devised by humans to provide a consistent means of making sense out of the answers we get to those questions... to construct 'valid' arguments... and to communicate with each other about those questions and answers.

A 'logical absolute' is a proposition that always evaluates to 'true'. Using the (stolen) example that you gave...that something cannot exist and NOT exist at the same time. If A = TRUE then NOT A = FALSE. That is ALWAYS true. But there is absolutely NOTHING mystical or supernatural about that... in fact, we can also call that a 'truism', or a 'tautology'. It is no more mystifying than asserting that 1 = 1. (Next, I suppose your going to ask us WHY 1 = 1.)

Logic is not a FEATURE of the universe... it is merely CONTINGENT on the universe. In other words, logic 'exists' (abstractly) ONLY when we call it into play. And then, it 'exists' only in the minds of those who are 'playing' with it. And the RULES of logic 'exist' only because we (humans) have taken the time to write them down, after we invented them.

Think of this as a potentiality/actuality sort of thing... if there is no one present to ask the questions, there are no answers. The questions that we ask are not innate properties of the universe... they are constructs from our minds. The answers that we get are contingent on both the questions that we ask and the current state of the universe when we ask them. That is all. If there is no mind involved in evaluating and processing the answers, then there is no 'logic'. 'Logic' is not an intrinsic feature or property of matter, or of the universe... it is a rule-based process that takes place in our minds.

Interesting thing though... I did a Google search to make sure that my memory was serving me correctly... that I had not missed something, or forgotten something about 'logical absolutes'. What I discovered was that you have not had one original thought through all of this back-and-forth process... that your entire bogus and fallacious argument was cockroached from a web page... http://theseedsower.org/pMach/more.php?id=A1722_0_1_0_M

Anyway... the 'logic' of your source is bogus... and you are a fraud and a cheat and a liar.

Web site: "For example, I asked if it was a logical absolute that something could exist and also not exist at the same time."

David: "For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?

Web site: "Another example is that something cannot bring itself into existence."

David: "Something cannot bring itself into existence"

Web site: "I then asked him to explain how logical absolutes can exist if there is no God. I questioned him further by asking him to tell me how in a purely physical universe logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, can exist. I said, they cannot be measured, put in the test tube, weighed, nor captured; yet, they exist."

David: "So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic worldview without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist."

Web site: "I then went on to say that these conceptual absolutes logically must exist in the mind of an absolute God because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

David: "My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

Of course, this explains why you have not been able to understand the lucid counters to your arguments... that being that you don't even understand the arguments that you are making... you have stolen them... and you were not able to see that they were bogus BEFORE you stole them... all you saw was that they seemed to serve your purpose. You type "My conclusion is "... and then you paste somebody else's words.

There is plenty more... anyone who is interested can just go to that web page and simply search the page for 'logical absolute'.

Again, David... you are a fraud and a cheat and a liar... and I am done with you. Bugger off.

Mr. Mark,

I posted a response and I see it didn't make it. I guess sometimes this site doesn't work too well. So, I'll try to repeat what I posted beforehand.

I do appreciate the nice response Mr. Mark. I want to establish something that is off the subject since you have seemed to indicate you once had a faith in God. In being a former Christian, I'm sure you are aware of the Great Commission. My intent on being here is not self-motivated. In other words, I'm not here to win arguments for the sake of winning arguments so I can go back to all my buddies and say "Look what I did". Like I mentioned before, if the hearts do not come to Christ, then no one wins regardless if I have proved something or not. With that in mind I would also like to reassure you that my intentions here are to defend Christ and try to win hearts, not for me, but for the God that I have faith in. Because you know personally what it means to be saved and how that is applied to faith, I would hope that you see my intentions as an act of love for you so that you can recieve the reward that I believe to be true. Because you know my faith by experience I hope you can understand that I am not here for me, but for you and that this discussion is not so that I can be lifted on my "high horse" per se, but because I care for my fellow man in hopes of him recieving what I have faith in. An act of love, if you can believe that. I know you do not believe in my faith, but I would hope you understand because of that faith is how you can know I care about you and those who I'm having this discussion with. Thanks.

On to the subject.

""...my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take."

So the logical absolutes that we established, according to you, did not exist prior to the evolutionary process by humans to establish that they exist. Hmmm....hold up...I'm thinking...

Ok, that is an answer, but I still stand where I left off before in response to that answer. By definition logical absolutes mean they are not confined by time or space but are always true no matter what. So what you are telling me is that these "humaniods" did not exist until they realized they existed. Logical absolute: something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is an absolute that is always true, correct? So how come it only became true when man's knowledge was able to comprehend it? And again, didn't man have to have some form of logical absolutes to even make these logical absolutes? How do you come to a logical position by not using logic? So, the logical absolute that something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time was not true until man finally realized that? Isn't this going back to my analogy of how dinosaurs did not exist until man found dinosaur bones? If the logical absolute that something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time was not true until man figured it out, then did man exist or not exist? Are you seeing my point yet? I do believe you are making an absolute into a relative even though it's absolutely absolute.

So, you asked if you answered the question. Yes, you did, but it is illogical to put an absolute in a time frame of an evolutionary process. That would mean it's not absolute, right?

Chip,

you said,

"David, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and then tell us how your argument isn't guilty of it, that is if you ever choose to actually present a cogent argument rather than trying to cajole us into whatever "gotcha!" you think it is you're setting up."

So, I was told that I hold the "burden of proof" for God since I claimed to have some evidence. But now you claim to have some evidence that my argument is illogical and are asking me to point out my own illogic? Well, that's not fair is it? I do think you are now the Mr. "burden of proof" to prove my arguments fall under the "affirming the consequent" illogic. So if you can please show me my error. If it is conclusive that I have been erroneous, no problem. I never said I was perfect. Actually, I'm quite illogical at times, like the most of us, just ask my wife. And I'm not setting up anything, Chip. The setup is already done. I'm still wondering how a logical absolute can still be absolute when put in a specific time frame, since according to the argument at hand, that is what I've been proposed with.

Oh by the way, Mr. Mark,

Don't worry about me being in the "lion's den". We do know how that story turned out, right?

Hee Hee!

Good day to you all.

David, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
and then tell us how your argument isn't guilty of it, that is if you ever choose to actually present a cogent argument rather than trying to cajole us into whatever "gotcha!" you think it is you're setting up.

Dear David -

I don't mean to be rude, but you keep posing questions that have been answered and answered in some depth. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining how you can possibly think your questions haven't been answered, because they have. Posing the question "again...and again...and again" (to use your phraseology) will only elicit the same reasoned responses or variations thereof.

On the other side, asserting that you "have shown the illogic in the assumption that the mind of man created logical absolutes because then that would require the mind to already possess logical absolutes," doesn't mean you have shown any such thing. Assertations are not evidences. More directly, your statement completely ignores my direct response to your question on logic when I wrote: "...my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take."

Do you feel that is not answering the question? If not, how so?

You've also decided to engage in turning the argument back at those you call the "naturalists" by averring that our arguments are made from a "limited" perspective. That's like saying a brain surgeon is "limiting" himself when he refuses to avail himself of the jar of pixie dust offered by the religionist as an alternative to the surgery about to be performed.

David, I used to be a religionist myself. Quite a fervent one, to tell the truth, and I recall how I saw it almost as a mission from god to walk into the "lion's den" of conversations like the one happening here. I'd throw my religious non-sequitor bombs into the conversation and assume that no one was buying my arguments because they just didn't have the holy spirit inside them. Then, I'd head back to by circle of religionists who would pat me on the back for preachin' the Lord's word to them naturalists. It was almost a rite of passage, truth be told.

In retrospect, I realize that faith-bolstered and -encouraged ignorance gave me the fortitude to do these things, even as it failed to provide me with a cogent response or counter response. So much for the Lord's shield.

I mention this because I hope that you're not caught in this particular web of self delusion. It's a strange mix of the squeaky wheel hoping to get the grease and the authoritarian parent whose kids better get used to taking "because I said so" as an answer.

I look forward to your response.

Duck,

By the way your ranting about Jesus and the Bible does nothing to help your case. You are still unable to answer any of my question logically.

I do suggest you stay on subject otherwise your unuseful ranting and raving over what's written in the Bible is just a way for you to avoid the topic at hand and somehow just try to make me look foolish. If that's the way you want to go, I understand, but in a debate it is a sign of struggle on your part and really your waving the white flag at me right now with nothing else to say than to attack Christianity.

So calling an infinite being or God, a fairy or a divine piece of cheese, or ranting on about Biblical writings, is just your way of crawling out from behind your rock to throw a little something in my face.

I guess what I can tell you is that when you throw mud in peoples face, you not only lose ground, but your hands get dirty as well.

Duck,

You almost got it. Except you still haven't answered the question. You admittedly cannot say logic does not exist. (And by the way when I wrote 'absolute logic' I meant logical absolutes, I thought we cleared that up. Just a mental error my friend.) Anyway, you cannot say logical absolutes do not exist, but at the same time you cannot explain how they exist in a purely physical universe. And the best thing I've heard was that logical absolutes did not exist until man thought of them in which I replied: How did he think of them? With logic? Still no answer. So where am I stuck at? If you do not believe logical absolutes exist in a naturalistic worldview, then how did a naturalistic worldview become a logical explanation? If they do exist then how?? No answer yet. So, you proposed an answer that logic is a conceptual idea that could not have existed until man thought of the word "logic". Again....how did he come up with that system of thought, by using that system of thought which did not exist until man thought of that system of thought?

I do understand a naturalistic worldview limits your thinking to just a physical universe. Logic is not matter but yet it exists. It did not bring itself into existence though because then it would have needed to already exist. And again what you are telling me which is illogical is that dinosaurs never existed until man found dinosaur fossils. Of course that is a physical description so that maybe in your worldview you can understand what I'm saying.

So it seems science and logic go hand in hand. Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation is not true. Therefore something cannot bring itself into existence. Like the universe? Matter is not eternal or infinite, therefore only something infinite could have created matter. Then you have the infinite regression argument, but even that is illogical. Because if something infinite had to create the finite, then how is it logical for something else infinite to create the infinite? If the infinite could be created then it would not be infinite. Get it?

So again....and again...and again....do logical absolutes exist in a naturalistic worldview? Obviously I have shown the illogic in the assumption that the mind of man created logical absolutes because then that would require the mind to already possess logical absolutes. Can I just get an honest answer? Please just tell me no, logical absolutes do not exist in a naturalistic worldview. Then we are done. Or please, just tell me they exist and the only logical explanation is an infinite being, but yet because you are stuck in a naturalistic worldview you cannot admit to an infinite being or else you would no longer possess a naturalistic worldview.

And by the way, please don't let me go into the illogic of making an absolute statement that God does not exist. And by the way, claiming that an infinite being called "divine cheese" is exactly what I expect from a naturalistic worldview because the only way for you to comprehend an infinite being is if you create Him to be finite material, such as "spoiled milk in your fridge that sings Hamlet". This obviously shows that the naturalists thinking can only take them so far and sure does not help your case. Calling an infinite being something that is finite by nature is self refuting and shows the illogic.

What I have presented is the fact that there is evidence for God. That the only logical solution for the existence of logical absolutes is an infinite being. This still has yet to be refuted. Now, I am not saying that this is proof of God or a specific God, but evidence for the existence of such a being.

I'm sure I will not get a logical explanation. That's fine, because I am realizing how the thinking of a naturalist works now and how it is limited to the physical universe even though somehow the non-physical existence of logical absolutes are used to form this hypothesis. Anywho, have a great day everyone. No offense meant in our little arguments. I know when we challenge each other's beliefs sometimes it can seem harsh or offensive, but just to let you know, I am only challenging the ideaology of your beliefs and I expect the same. This is why pluralism is a good thing. It keeps every ideaology on an even plane.

Good day

David

Mr Mark,

Thanks kid, I’m glad we all agree at least that we don’t have a clue what the *#% we’re doing here.

Reply to Duckphup

Oh, well, when you put it that way...

There are many and varied strains of Christianity. Most Christians do not even know what they believe, so it is not necessarily correct to attribute to all Christians politically derived doctrines which church organization may maintain, but which individual congregants have never given much thought to. Many Christians cannot even name the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, even though they are repeated and repeated in church and are still very commonly known names.

I was born into a Christian family, and we went to church every Sunday. I was taught all those Bible stories from birth, including the story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. But, I was also taught from birth, that the story of Adam and Eve was an allegorical story. I was taught this under the supervision of Sunday School teachers in a mainline church. Literal belief in the Bible is not a characteristic of Christianity, just certain strains. If they claim to be the "true" Christians, so what else is new?

Of course you can't believe it was an allegorical story if you don't know what an allegory is. Most people don't. When I was very little, I was taught what an allegory was. Just like Mr. Rogers, the adults said, "can you say allegory?"

Mostly, I don't argue about it with people, except really aggressive people, which co-incidentally happens to be born-again-fundamentalis-christian-evangelicals, and almost never, atheists.

David's Argument...

ARGUMENT FROM SOPHISTRY AND OBFUSCATION

1) I can get atheists to admit that 'logic' exists, even though they insist that it is just an abstraction; i.e., a set of formalized language-based tools for evaluating and establishing the 'truth' value of propositions, and building these into 'arguments'. But that is just a semantic quibble, so I can choose to overlook it.

2) Having gotten the atheists to admit that logic 'exists' (although I take that to mean that 'logic' has some form of corporeal manifestation in the physical universe, and they don't), I now introduce the term 'logical absolute', and try to get them to agree that IT 'exists'.

3) Having been told that 'logical absolute' simply refers to a logical proposition that is always 'true', I conveniently ignore that, and deftly turn 'logical absolute' around so that it becomes 'absolute logic', and then declare that they have agreed to that... and now, by me having declared that they 'agree' (because I have said so) that 'absolute 'logic' actually 'exists' (has some form of independent corporeal existence in the physical universe), I am now in a position to demand they they explain where it comes from.

4) Since one of the definitions of the word 'absolute' means something that has an independent form of existence in reality, I can declare that 'logic' is a feature of the universe, and that it would 'exist' whether humans had ever thought of it or not... conveniently ignoring the fact that 'logic' is a facet of abstract human thought processes and language... and that it was 'invented'.

5) Since I am incapable of understanding the atheists' explanations for why my entire mode of thinking is fallacious, and my arguments are not 'valid', and would not recognize an actual 'logical' argument if it jumped out of the bushes and bit me on the arse, I am now in a position to declare that 'logic' has a corporeal form of existence in the physical universe, and it would exist even if humans had never thunk it up; so the only 'logical' explanation for that is that 'logic' was made a feature of reality by (or already existed in the mind of) an invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy... (petito principii)

6) Therefore, god exists.

Is that about right, David?

Before you reply, please give some consideration to this... you believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

You DO know that's insane... right?

Dear Rick -

Like Chip, I also admit that I don't know how it all began. In fact, I have a pretty good idea that I'll never know.

I disagree with you that there are only "2 or 3 possibile equally likely solutions" for how the universe got started. Mankind is at the dawn of thinking about such things. For most of our historic existence, there was only one solution imaginable - "god did it!"

Thank...well...er, god we've grown up a bit since then.

Ergo, it stands to REASON - at least to me - that "god" would be the least-likely solution for how it all started, and I say that based on the little we understand now about the universe here in 2007. I can't see how god-as-solution could have a 50/50 or even a 30% chance of being a viable solution, even with the poor science we have today as yardstick (I use the word "poor" in the sense of what knowledge we'll have in 20, 50 or 100 years, considering how scientific knowledge increases exponentially, in contrast to religious "knowledge" whose "possible solution" gaps are ever-shrinking).

Usually, I defer to my elders, but not on this one. :)

Mr Mark,

Thanks for the reply; you still rate the likelihood of the existence of god as vanishingly small. But how do rate the likelihood that the universe sprang into existence from nothing, or has been here forever?

As to my disproving your contention, that the probability that god exists is vanishingly small; I say that it is no less likely than the probability that the universe sprang into existence from nothing, or exists on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time.

If there only 2 or 3 possibile equally likely solutions; all 2 or 3 liklihoods must be much greater than vanishingly small.

I like Chip's honest answer: 'I don't know'. I don't either, that's why I rated the liklihood at 50/50.

BTW I am 64, so there you go, back to being an incredibly impressive young man again.

Dear Rick -

Two other things: I'm 53 years old, so I don't think I qualify for inclusion in the "incredibly impressive YOUNG men" club.

Second point: you said, "I don't believe you have reason to believe it's true" that "the probability that God exists [is] ‘vanishingly small." Perhaps you can tell me why you think I'm wrong? I'd ask you to present evidence - not opinion - to support a contrary position.

Thanks.

Rick, re "But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?"

The only intellectually honest thing I can say about that question is "I don't know." I can also say that the only viable way we're ever going to get closer to a legitimate answer to how the universe came to be is through observation and science. There are plenty of interesting theories. My current favorite is membrane theory. I don't take any answer on faith, but I definitely prefer those that are based on observation, evidence, and the scientific method. A wild guess based on nothing (god) is not in any way a satisfactory or useful answer. If it was then anything meeting that same standard of evidence (none) would be an equally valid answer. That's the main point I've been trying to make. It's no more logical to posit god as creator of the universe than it is to posit that the universe was created by omnipotent cheese. Something completely unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence might be fun to think about but it's certainly nothing to base an intellectual framework on, or devote one's life to. I may as well sit next to my fridge and concentrate really hard on my gallon of milk, hoping it will start reciting Hamlet in a way that I can hear.

David writes, "So all I've heard is that I cannot win this argument and that positing an infinite being is useless and pointless. To you it is because you've already made up your mind."

Then you've missed the point. I haven't made up my mind at all. I don't take things on faith. I'll wait and see where the evidence leads without making an unwarranted leap into the supernatural. I can do that precisely because I'm NOT trying to justify any preconceived notions.

Dear David -

I think that Chip gave you a very good explanation of things. No need for me to add.

An observation: you seem to be moving to a "god of the gaps" explanation. I say that because you seem to be viewing everything through the lens of, "and, POOF, it suddenly happened." Well, that's always the Bible version of things, but it isn't the way things happen in a natural universe.

I say this because you use phrases like, "when did man COME UP WITH logic?". You're saying that is akin to, "so, when did Steve Jobs come up with the iPod?" Again, this exhibits thinking in the "and suddenly, poof, it appeared" manner.

Perhaps I should take some blame for this as I used the phrase "logic was devised by men." Such wording elicits visions of a few cavemen getting together and saying, "OK, guys. Today's agenda: devise logic," when my meaning was that logic was devised over tens of thousands of years of humanoids learning by experience (often tragically), forming family and tribal groups (and an attendant set of ethics and morals to build and preserve the same) to eventually being able to think abstractly about the benefits and consequences of actions they had yet to take.

Rick sez:

"Mr Mark et al, you take a huge advantage by noting that our atheist/agnostic lack of belief is not a matter of absolute faith, thus placing the burden of proof on David. However, I get the feeling that you consider the probability that God exists to be ‘vanishingly small’ to use Gerry’s term. I don’t think you have reason to believe this is true. If I am wrong, please make your case."

I have reason to believe this is true because there is no reason - or shall we say, evidence - to believe otherwise. In fact, the "evidence" of god's existence as outlined in the world's so-called holy books is having the lie put to it on a daily basis by science and enlightenment. I don't see a reversal of that trend. What I see is - to borrow a phrase from the unctuous Grover Norquist - is a time when religion has gotten so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. That's already happened in the civilized world (outside of the USA and a few of the Catholic-dominated countries), and it WILL eventually happen in the USA.

By definition, the only way to make a case for god is to enter the realm of fantasy. There is no REAL proof for god. None at all. It's a philosophical concept that is, unfortunately, encumbered with a ton of baggage from the Bronze-Age zeitgeist when man's collective knowledge was in its infancy. Religion - as Christopher Hitchens has said - was man's first and worst attempt at a scientific explanation for things not understood. Well, we've moved on in the past 4,000 years.

I believe that there is not a single thing in this world (and universe, for that matter) that can't be explained by rational and natural means. As LaPlace told Napoleon when asked why god didn't appear in LaPlace's calculations that postulated black holes, "Je n'ai besoin de cette hypothèse."

Those words rang true then, and they ring true now.

And, at the end of the day, it's not up to me to prove non-existence - ie: a negative - anyway, is it?

Thanks for the chat. Back at ya.

Bernie Bee,

Hey buddy. When did I call you a knucklehead? If I did I meant it sarcastically. What I really meant is that you are a knucklebrain! :) just kidding...

I don't get that transbubstantiation thing either. In fact I believe it's not even real. You would think that if the bread turned to the actual flesh of Jesus then maybe it would look different or taste different. Same thing with the wine. I happen to think it's a hoax.

So all I've heard is that I cannot win this argument and that positing an infinite being is useless and pointless. To you it is because you've already made up your mind.

But here's what I got so far. We all acknowledge the existence of logical absolutes. I've proved my point that logical absolutes could not have been created by man but are pre-existant. What I'm waiting to hear is an admittance from the naturalists that their worldview cannot explain this phenomena and just maybe the possibility of an absolute, infinite being is possible (and I will accept 'unlikely' if you want to add that). But in reality, this is an argument neither one of us can win. Even if you do admit to the truth that logical absolutes cannot fit into a naturalistic worldview I still lose. Why you may ask? Because by my faith I feel like I didn't win until you accept Christ. No matter what the outcome of a "logical absolute" argument, I lose.

But yet again, I hear that absolutes do not give evidence for an absolute being, but of course with no explanation. Just a statement with no meaning I guess.

So, I guess I've done my part. Even if you admit to the logical fallacy in arguing that logical absolutes are man-made, I still lose, or maybe if there is a God, you are the one losing in the end.

Chip said "I'm hopeless". I'm not sure how Chip. I do have a lot of hope. A hope in Jesus and eternal life with Him, no matter how crazy that may sound to you, but it is still hope. Now, if the only way I can be hopeful is to abandon my faith then my hope lies in the only end of becoming worm food with a life with no meaning, just being me....a random colocation of atoms that got lucky to be here somehow by chance. Yeah, that's uplifting! That sure is hopeful! Hate to pull out the Pascal's wager bit on ya, but if for some reason I'm wrong, in the end I regret nothing. My life is fulfilling. Yours may be too, but if you are wrong......

All in all, it's been a good conversation. Thank you all. If I did not have faith, I could not imagine how my life could be more fulfilling. Without faith, I'm stuck hopeless and meaningless. "Just a random colocation of atoms". There are many question that great atheistic philosophers have asked themselves and I see how atheism gives no hope or meaning, even if for some random chance it is true.

1. Living brings a risk of pain. Emotional and physical. You live and possibly see the death of loved one, maybe a child or parent. Why go through that? What is stopping me from killing myself if we are just meaningless creatures destined to struggle and feel some kind of pain or emotional struggle? Why not end it all and cease to exist and not worry anymore? Why not commit suicide?

2. If there is no God, then when you hear bombs blasting, sniper kills ten, looters go looting, that is merely the sound of man worshipping his maker.

And last but not least as a Christian I feel compelled to bring in the Gospel. You can stop reading from this point if you want to. I know you hate "faith talk". I believe in absolutes, logical and moral. God gave us these absolutes to live by. And naturalistically as I've proven they cannot be accounted for in that worldview. Morally we could not keep those absolutes. No matter how hard we try we can never be perfect. Therefore we are disobeying our Creator. God sent His Son to die for us that by faith in Him we can be forgiven by our Creator. Christianity has become a religion which is what I know you all hate. I don't care too much for religion as well as it can be corrupted since "religion" itself is man-made. Christianity is and always has been meant to be a relationship. A relationship with the Creator of all. Nothing more than an I love you, I love you back relationship. That simple. But of course that requires faith. The same faith that your husbands and wives love you and in how that cannot be forced but taken faithfully. That simple and no need to make it more complicated as religion itself has done.

Wishing you all the best. Opposing belief systems can still mean friendships are possible. I hope that we can be called friends in light of our differences. Take care everyone.

David

Susan,

Do you still read the responses to your essay?

I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline from negative infinity to the present time is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Chip,

You say: ‘Since we know milk, Hamlet, and sentience all exist, it's far more likely that my milk is reciting Hamlet than it is that there's a god.’

But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that there’s a god?

Oops, that last post (11:17am) was mine.

David "So what you were telling me was that language was a pre-supposition to having logic. In other words, if you cannot describe something with language then you cannot make a logical conclusion."

What I was saying was that the fact that we can only convey and evaluate information through human devised systems does not change the nature of the information being conveyed or evaluated. That does not, in any way, make the god hypothesis more likely. You are arguing the god of the gaps, based on the belief that there could be no absolutes without god. That's simply a wild assumption that isn't based on any evidence.

Think of the sum of human knowledge as a map with the streets comprised of what we've been able to observe and connect together. Your argument is like saying that once we get beyond the edge of the map we must be in another world entirely. That's a silly way to look at it, because the more we learn, observe, and deduce, we're always eventually able to connect that new information to our existing map to further describe the natural world we inhabit. There's no honest, logical, or supportable way to get to god by following the map of our knowledge. The only honest place you can get to is "we don't know where this is, yet." God is like the "here be dragons" that was noted in uncharted territories of the incomplete maps of ancient mariners*. Their dragons, like god, could only exist in the gaps. Gaps that eventually closed. There weren't any dragons.

Rick, Re "I think this is not a fair example. The nature of milk is much more familiar and known to us than either the unknowable postulated omniscient God or the unknowable extent of the universe."

You're right. Since we know milk, Hamlet, and sentience all exist, it's far more likely that my milk is reciting Hamlet than it is that there's a god.

*just as an interesting side note, the "here be dragons" thing is a popular myth which isn't actually true. There aren't any maps on which it appears. I used it as an example because it makes an excellent allegory for god of the gaps reasoning. More info can be found here: http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html

Thanks Randall, for the uplifting thoughts.

Thanks Bernie Bee and Caesar for the laughs; we all can use more of that.

I will serve as the Village Idiot in search of the Holy Grail of enlightenment. Directions please, to my first wicket?

One can put the case for as against GOD to fellow beings such then being praised,ridiculed,as with advice that one should consult family doctor,as dependent on the insight,as experiences,of each individuals understanding.Seemingly, one starts the spiritual journey being of sound mind,where one then be teased gradually enticed as charmed seduced as captured in their captivation of GOD. Proud outstanding fully erect independent mature adults, reduced to that of, drivelling imbeciles whom give incoherent statements,finding,as having drunk from the holy grail.The solution,to solving this problem be that an imbecile be sent on the spiritual journey thus the experience of GOD in having "reversed syndrome effect" Where the hoped result,that produced,be a complete human being in a state of enlightenment.Theory such will work be based on quantum physics,in acordance to relative atomic organisms,if experiment a success then the imbecile will return from spiritual journey being of sound mind,fully enabled, more than capable of explaining all mysteries,which at present remain unanswered,unknown to humanity... .

Ms Jacoby – As a Christian I want to say two things: I do not hate you or any other atheist. And my understanding of God suggests that He does not either. In fact, I believe He accepts you and other atheists just the way you are.

I would also like to say thanks for coming to our defense. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris can be pretty rough, though no rougher than some who share my faith I guess.

If you step back and look at theists and atheists we share more than one may think. Both groups are part of the same world and share the same history. Both groups are made up of people of "faith". Theists look at the physical world and the history of mankind and believe there is a purpose to it all and that it has a Creator. Atheists believe just the opposite. Neither group knows for sure. And within each group are those who take their “faith” to oppressive extremes.

It is certainly disingenuous (I am trying to be polite) to suggest that religion is responsible for all the evil done by mankind. Our faith teaches that when faced with accusations of our human sinfulness we should remind our accusers that they should look at themselves, in this case their own, before casting the first stone. Likewise the same can be said about how we Christians treat nonbelievers or others whose faith is different from ours.

Suffice it to say that mankind at his worst has been despicable. But mankind at his best has been “totally awesome.” That is life as it was created to be. There is a purpose to all of creation but I digress.

My appreciation of my Christian faith at this point in my life suggests that theists and atheists can truly benefit from a frank and open dialogue with each other. Faith is a process, much like evolution. It begins with disbelief. That process is part of what some call the wisdom of creation. Personally I find that reading what you, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens have written has led me to a better understanding of what I believe and why.

Socrates once said that we "shall be better, braver, and more active (human beings) if we believe it right to look for what we don't know than if we believe there is no point in looking because what we don't know we can never discover."

The history of man and faith suggests he was right.

David, Mr Mark, Chip, Duckphop, Gerry,

Did I miss anyone? Thanks for the show. Wow! You guys are incredibly impressive young men who have striven mightily to prove the unprovable.

David, though I am a recent convert to the atheist/agnostic camp, I admire your passion. Don’t be dismayed, as I am sure you are not, that you cannot win this debate. As I said, you are valiantly trying to prove the unprovable.

Mr Mark et al, you take a huge advantage by noting that our atheist/agnostic lack of belief is not a matter of absolute faith, thus placing the burden of proof on David. However, I get the feeling that you consider the probability that God exists to be ‘vanishingly small’ to use Gerry’s term. I don’t think you have reason to believe this is true. If I am wrong, please make your case.

In my view, there are two equally likely unprovable possibilities: (1) David’s view of an absolute, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being; and (2) the view of an infinite, eternal universe that has always been here and will always be here with no creator required. There is absolutely no evidence to support either conclusion, and probably will not be in our lifetime. So I place the odds at 50/50.

Chip, I like your hilarious example of claiming without supporting evidence that you have sentient milk reciting Hamlet in your refrigerator in a pitch of voice beyond our hearing range. Then you say, ‘I can’t provide evidence that this is true, and you can’t provide evidence that it is not. Does this mean the odds are 50/50?’

I think this is not a fair example. The nature of milk is much more familiar and known to us than either the unknowable postulated omniscient God or the unknowable extent of the universe.

David has marked me down as a knucklehead, and well, I can’t deny there have been occasions when I’ve been called worse than that. Now here we have David taken on a wonderful journey of enlightenment by such as Duckphup and Mr Mark but still no wiser than when he set out. And in a way, that reminded of my own self when I couldn’t grasp what my dear auld Uncle Fergus had patiently explained for me more than once the rudiments of ‘transubstantiation’ only to end up dismissing me with “If ye send a turnip round every country in the world ten times it will still come back a turnip. Well-travelled, aye—but as thick and unenlightened as ever!”

Even so, I’m still not too sure about this transubstantiation thing.

Chip,

Why give up? Are you that hard up to not give in to the possibility of an infinite being?

What you just told me was illogical. I'm sure you get that already. I guess I will expand even more.

So what you were telling me was that language was a pre-supposition to having logic. In other words, if you cannot describe something with language then you cannot make a logical conclusion. Ok...let's try this shall we?

Mr. Caveman cannot speak. He does not know what language is. He has no way of communicating to anyone else what he wants to say because words are non-existant at this point due to a lack of knowledge in language. So far logic does not exist. Let's suppose Mr. Caveman made found a fire created by lightening in the forest (of course since he does not have the logic to make one yet). He puts his hand in the fire. RRRR...he doesn't know what hurt or burn means but I'm sure he came to a logical conclusion that he could not put his hand in the fire because it gives him a feeling that he does not like. It doesn't take language to make a logical conclusion that fire hurts. But quite possibly the first cuss word was invented. :)

So, again why quit? Is it because I am making a logical assesment?

Best to you, Chip. Thanks for the dialogue. Have a good night.

I give up. You're hopeless.

Chip,

Ok, let me get this straight. It's all in agreement for the non-believers that logic itself was created by man in his own mind one day to be able to discern what is true and false. Therefore logic did not exist prior to this "enlightenment", I should call it, I guess.

So I have a question. How did man come up with logic? By using logic? If so, then logic did exist prior to man's "enlightenment" and therefore negating the whole "man-made" theory. If not, then the only explanation would be some divine revelation which would require an infinite being. So man created a system of thought..... by using the same system of thought.... that did not exist prior to using this system of thought.

So are you to tell me that dinosaurs did not exist until man found dinosaur fossils?

:)

David, let's simplify this a bit, okay? "The Earth is not flat" is a true statement. I've just used language to convey that information. Language is a system invented by men to deal with information, specifically to facilitate the exchange of information. By using language to convey information I do not change the reality of whatever it is I'm trying to convey. So your argument is like saying "But wait?! If language was created by man, and you used language to state that the earth is not flat, and it's an absolute that the earth is not flat, how could the earth not be flat without god?!" Huh? *head explodes*

Logic, like language, is a system for dealing with information. Where language is used to convey it, logic is used to evaluate it. You could say that "the earth is not flat" is a logical absolute because we know that it's always true within a specific context (like anything related to the shape of the earth since the time of its formation until now). If you were to hear someone claim something that couldn't be true unless the earth was flat, you can deduce logically that what they've said is untrue, because you already know that it isn't flat. That's all logic is. It's simply comparing new information against what we know to be true to determine whether it's true or false, and to build relationships between pieces of information. Now when a logical person gets to the end of that chain to where there's not enough information to deduce anything useful, they'll say honestly "Not enough information. I can't deduce anything more." When you get to that same point you say "Aha! God!" and leap off into wild assumption.

Try a little thought experiment. Substitute god with the sentient milk in my refrigerator that recites hamlet that I mentioned earlier. Now pretend that for your entire life you were told that my sentient milk is the source of morality, creator of the universe, and everything else you attribute to god. You would be trying just as hard to rationalize that as you are trying to rationalize god, and it would be equally logically sound, which is to say, not at all. There exists no information to allow a logical progression that ends with milk reciting Hamlet. The only way you could end up there is because other people have told you that my sentient milk is the source of all absolute truths. The only difference between that and your concept of god is that it's funnier (but not by much).

Mr. Mark,

Sorry my friend, that just will not do.

Logic is a way of thinking devised by men....hmmm...smells fishy.

So let me get this straight. You are telling me that logic does not exist and there are no logical absolutes? That logical absolutes were man-made, but if they were man-made (at some point, God knows...) then how are they absolute? Isn't that like telling me that this earth was man-made at some point only because man found out that this is earth?

I do believe you cannot admit that logical absolutes exist. Here is why. Because if they do exist as an absolute, then the naturalistic worldview has no explanation for their existence because it cannot explain that conceptual ideas in an absolute sense are real unless positing an absolute being. So, if logical absolutes are not real or exist, what you have been saying to me is illogical and of course not true. In fact if there were no logical absolutes, nothing is true and we do not exist as well. Our existence is man-made......some how.....I guess.....I think I'm confusing myself now. LOL!

So how bout it.

Again...

Does logic exist. And do logical absolutes exist?

If you say yes they exist then please tell me how they exist in a naturalistic worldview. If they do not exist, then tell me why I should believe one word you are saying or even understand anything to be true or real?

C'mon guys, stop avoiding the question. It's an easy one. Exist or no. Logical absolutes anyone? And how so by nature alone? Please.....????

Dear David -

Thanks for staying in the conversation. I fear Duckphup and I have been tag-teaming on you.

As to logic - as Duck so cogent said, logic is "an abstract language-based intellectual tool-kit that was invented by men?... sure. As something that has some kind of corporeal existence in the physical universe? No. Logic is a 'paradigm'... a useful way of thinking about things. A system of intellectual 'rules' for establishing the 'truth' value of propositions."

I think the short answer is that logic is a way of thinking devised by men, not a system devised by god to order "his" universe.

David, I appreciate the fact that you are searching for answers, at least I hope you are. My suggestion - read some of the books suggested by Duckphup, or explore the aspects of science that are very, very busy seeking the EXPLANATIONS for your questions, rather than accepting religious answers that aren't answers at all, but -as David pointed out - absolutes lacking any basis in fact, parading around as pre-determined results looking for evidence - any evidence - that will add a veneer of truth to the supposition.

Keep looking, my friend.

Ok fellas I admit, I'm thinking very very deeply here, but I think that is the point. Instead of arguing over what nature God is and what does eternal and all the other little catch phrases mean specifically, I'm still awaiting the answer to the question at hand.

Logic exists. We know this to be true. There are logical absolutes (sorry Duck for doing the reverse earlier, you know what I meant). Therefore since we know logic exists in a conceptual nature in an absolute sense, how does a naturalistic worldview explain for this existence? Again, you cannot use scientific means to prove the existence of such logic, but yet logic is existant. How does the naturalistic worldview account for this existence?

By the way Mr. Mark, I'm not arguing over which "God" and the such right now. We're not talking theology right now, but if you would like I present "God" as an absolute infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being. You can argue over Biblical reasoning later if you want, but I'm stating that this descriptive God is the one responsible for logical absolutes. But please, I'm still awaiting an answer to the above.

By the way "common sense" is an ad populum right? Just because it is common does not make it true. I do think I know a little bit about logic. Maybe not..... :(

Thanks fellas.

DAVID wrote (OCTOBER 3, 2007 4:43 PM): "Ok, I will assume that you agree with me that logic exists."

As an abstract language-based intellectual tool-kit that was invented by men?... sure. As something that has some kind of corporeal existence in the physical universe? No. Logic is a 'paradigm'... a useful way of thinking about things. A system of intellectual 'rules' for establishing the 'truth' value of propositions.

Later (much later), logic was incorporated into mathematics, and the requisite mathematical rules were derived.

DAVID wrote: "I asked if you agree with me that there are logical absolutes. I will give you two logical absolutes to prove my point and ASSUME again that you agree that they are logical absolutes."

Yes... logical absolutes are propositions that are always true... a standard of rationality.

DAVID wrote: "1. Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is a logical absolute, correct?"

With 'thing' meaning some object that has (or CAN have) a corporeal form of existence in the physical universe... yes. It is possible, though, to hold two different propositions as 'true' at the same time, without experiencing 'cognitive dissonance'; that is called 'doublethink'... and it is one of the symptoms of christian mental-conditioning.

DAVID wrote: "2. Something cannot bring itself into existence."

That is true... in our ordinary day-to-day world... the phase-space in which we 'operate'. I am troubled, though, by the way that you have constructed that assertion. It implies 'intent'... i.e., something bringing itself into existence concomitant with an act of will. If some 'thing' does not exist, then the requisite equipment to form the intent which would bring it into existence is absent... the 'intent' cannot be formed. Therefore, the 'thing' cannot 'will' itself into existence.

But here... since you have IMPLIED that, without having come out and SAID it... I expect the onset of sophistry related to this non-point, later on.

Anyway... at the QUANTUM level, things (particle/anti-particle pairs) pop in-and-out of existence all the time... no intent... no cause. If this occurs at the event horizon of a singularity, the particles may become separated before they can mutually annihilate one another. So... while something cannot (willfully, I suppose you mean) bring itself into existence, simple 'things' popping into existence randomly is a routine occurrence in the universe. (Look up: zero-point energy)

DAVID wrote: "The illogic in that is that it would have to exist beforehand to be able to bring itself into existence therefore the statement is illogical and deeming itself an absolute logical statement that something cannot bring itself into existence."

Again... you are implying intent. You are not making a point here... you are expressing a truism. In other words, you are getting yourself all tangled up in the obvious, and beating it to death. But what is it that you are implying is 'bringing itself into existence', as an act of will? The universe? An idea? Are you trying to imply (or setting an 'atheist trap') that atheists (or scientists) assert that the universe has willed itself into existence from an initial state of non-being? I sure hope not, because... well... never mind. I am trying to be kind.

DAVID wrote: "So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic world-view without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist."

OK... here you have flown out the window, and entered la-la-land. How did 'logical absolute' get turned around into 'absolute logic'? Again... logic is not a 'thing'... please go back to the top. And all that 'logical absolute' means is a logical proposition that is 'always true'.

DAVID wrote: "My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe."

Your conclusion is totally whacked. They are merely ideas... abstractions... they are not intrinsic 'properties' of matter. And 'logical absolute' has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of invisible, magical sky-fairies.

DAVID wrote: "And since logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent being."

It is ridiculous to think that it is logical 'of necessity' that a 'transcendent, omnipresent being' exist, in order for humans to conceptualize ideas.

DAVID wrote: "To this I also add that if there is a an absolute God with an absolute mind, then he is the standard of all things as well as morals."

I would add that if you keep up with this line of thought much longer, we're going to start thinking that you are hallucinating.

DAVID wrote: "Therefore I can conclude that morals, being conceptual as well, are absolute too. I know morals is a different subject that if you would like we can later talk about, but right now in this discussion, I'm wondering if you can give me evidence on how absolute logic can exist in a purely physical universe."

The 'idea' that some things (ideas) are 'always true' (logical absolute) can exist within the human mind. That is quite enough. In this context, the word 'absolute' has nothing to do with existence, reality or anything 'beyond' reality... it merely has to do with human-invented, formalized, language-based 'rules' for evaluating the 'truth' value of ideas. That is all.

Question... how can you 'think' like that, without having your head explode? Whoops... sorry... I forgot. I'm trying to be nice.

Oops... I see that there is more...

David wrote (OCTOBER 3, 2007 6:03 PM): "The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own."

Yep... it sure is.

David wrote "I find that God is incomprehensible by nature but at the same time the only plausible answer for logical absolutes."

God is the only possible reason for why some logical propositions are always true? LOL. I don't think so.

David wrote "As I've stated that a logical absolute is that something cannot bring itself into existence OF COURSE does not apply to the notion of an infinite being, a Creator of time itself, no matter how illogical the position may be to you, I find it to be the only way that absolute logic can exist."

Again... you have twisted 'logical absolute' (a logical proposition that is always true) into 'absolute logic'. And I am getting the impression that you are equating 'thinking' with 'logic'. Big mistake. You seem to have a very limited understanding or familiarity with formal logic... you have learned a few terms and buzzwords... you misunderstand them... you apply them inappropriately... draw invalid conclusions... and then go off on some tangent, thinking that you are being 'logical'... and you are not.

David wrote: "Of course I've heard the argument about what brought God into existence and I'm sure you've heard the same response that God has always existed. But has time always existed?"

Actually, there is no compelling reason to think that time even 'exists', apart from human consciousness. In other words, we do not 'experience' time... we 'create' it.

Anyway I just can't go on with the rest of this. David... sorry... it is just nonsense. I feel like MY head is going to explode. I can't think of a kind way to say that. You really need to read some books. Try 'Quantum Reality'... I can't remember who wrote that. Anyway... good luck. It is good that you are thinking about this kind of stuff... but I think you are exerting WAY too much effort trying to stuff the universe into a conceptual box that YOU have constructed... one that involves an invisible, magical sky-fairy. Better you should expend your energy trying to come up to speed in familiarizing yourself with current scientific thought. Those guys know what they are doing. You, my friend, do not. Science is doing just fine WITHOUT having to resort to the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis'. Also... you should LEARN logic before you try to use it. Many naive people equate 'logic' with 'common sense'. Sorry... NOT the same thing.

I’ve lost my bearings more than once attempting to keep up with the to and fro in the way logic (or otherwise) is expounded and the speedy rate at which the exchanges arrive.
However, I became completely lost with David claiming: “So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal.”

As far as I’m aware, time is a human construct that doesn’t really exist at all. So am I being logical (or otherwise) to conclude that as God does not exist in time, and as time does not exist then….Oh help!

Dear David -

You write: "Like I said, it's evidence for me, maybe not you. But I hope you can agree that it is reasonable evidence."

No, your explanation is not at all reasonable and it doesn't constitute evidence.

You say, "The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own." Yes, it is. So how does your explanation earn the title of "reasonable" when it is based on what you call illogic (check the dictionary for the root word of reasonable)?

You also write, "But has time always existed?" Time only exists in the sense that men have created the concept of time to add order to our lives. It is a convenient concept for us which - for some reason - seems to move forward as do our own lives. Why do you think that is?

You write: "So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal."

No, the MOST LOGICAL explanation is that god doesn't exist at all. In fact, the BIG questions are much bigger than the concept of god.

But again, your definition of god as "[the] Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal" really says nothing that would make a case for any god that man has ever come up with, including Yahweh. Even if I were to stipulate your concept (which I won't), there's nothing in there that says your particular god is the right god. After all, it's possible that the explanation for the Big Bang may end up being, "and then, nothingness farted."

Finally, I don't mean this to sound mean, but there are no "specifics" in your version of an infinite regression. I would point you to Einstein's theories of relativity and special relativity for your answers, especially concerning gravitational time dilation.

Thanks for the chat.

Mr. Mark,

No, not rude at all. Very pleasant and so so appreciative that someone can finally have an intellectual debate.

Yes, you are right about God. The notion of an infinite being is illogical in it's own. I find that God is incomprehensible by nature but at the same time the only plausible answer for logical absolutes. As I've stated that a logical absolute is that something cannot bring itself into existence OF COURSE does not apply to the notion of an infinite being, a Creator of time itself, no matter how illogical the position may be to you, I find it to be the only way that absolute logic can exist. Of course I've heard the argument about what brought God into existence and I'm sure you've heard the same response that God has always existed. But has time always existed? Of course the only way to know that is to find convincing evidence that matter is infinite which is illogical as well. Therefore a Creator of matter is the only plausible answer for me as well. Like I said, it's evidence for me, maybe not you. But I hope you can agree that it is reasonable evidence.

So it all boils down to the BIG question. What created God? The only logical explanation for that is that God does not exist in time but is Creator of time and cannot be created but is eternal. An eternal being that exists outside of the laws of logic is the only explanation for logical absolutes to exist. If God is eternal then the word "eternal" does not apply to the logical absolute statement that "something cannot bring itself into existence" because that pre-supposes a time for creation. Something "eternal" cannot be subject to time.

So, yes it is an infinite regression argument, but it deals with specifics, such as conceptual realities that exist in an absolute sense. Things that exist absolutely but not in the context of scientific, verifiable matter.

I want to ask again. How do you account for logical absolutes to exist in a naturalistic worldview? I'm hoping you can deal with the subject of absolute logic for now. I know about Big Bang and all that. But Big Bang does not solve where absolute logic came from because Big Bang is subject to the confinement of scientific knowledge or theory in which absolute logic cannot be verified...however we have absolute knowledge that absolute logic exists, correct? So please again, how can a naturalistic worldview account for the existence of absolute logic.

Thanks Mr.Mark

David -

Thanks for your explanation which amounts to your version of an infinite regression. The short version of an infinite regression based on what you wrote above is this: if something (you could have said "anything") cannot bring itself into existence, then how did God come into existence?

In other words, who or what created god?

Your argument is therefore hoisted on its own petard, so to speak.

Based on your previous writings in this thread, I have a feeling that you will have an answer for me, and that answer will be what you have stated before, "but God is different." But, you see, using YOUR OWN LOGIC, God cannot be different. The only hope for your argument is to say that "the rules of logic don't apply to God because he is God"...at which point the supposed "logic" of your Points #1 & #2 above cease to support your argument for God's existence.

Because of this, you can't even posit that your particular definition of God is whoever or whatever happens to be the first step before logic reared its head and illogic ruled everything else. Besides, we already have an explanation for that, and it's called the Big Bang, ie: we have a pretty good idea of when and how the Big Bang occurred, but we still have no idea of what happened before then, even though multiple hypotheses exist for that as well.

So, your evidence is an "infinite regression" that stops being infinite at whatever point one wishes to inject a concept of god into the regression...until we ask who created god.

Got it.

BTW - your explanation works the other way as well. Try this test: tell me the absolute highest number that exists. The fallacy to this argument is what I call the "plus one" argument. In other word, you name the absolute highest number that exists and I'll add one to it.

Thanks again.

I hope that my explanation wasn't too rude.

Ouch, So harsh!!

I'm not playing any games here fellas. I was just hoping that we can agree on a few things first before I present what evidence I have that is satisfactory for me. No need to be mean guys, I'm just trying to establish a few things first.

Ok, I guess I will ASSUME a few things first. Sound better? First I will assume from what I've read from both you Mr. Mark and you Duckphup that you both are intellectually sound and can understand what I am presenting to you. Unfortunately that did not bode too well on the other post. I was just called names and presented will a bunch of illogical statements. I assume that you both are logically sound and will understand what I'm trying to portray to you. Again, this is evidence for God, that may or may not suit your epistomological needs, but for me it gives me more the reason to believe in God.

Here goes......drum roll please.....ooooo...so nervous....

:)

Ok, I will assume that you agree with me that logic exists. I asked if you agree with me that there are logical absolutes. I will give you two logical absolutes to prove my point and ASSUME again that you agree that they are logical absolutes.

1. Something cannot, exist and not exist at the same time. This is a logical absolute, correct?

2. Something cannot bring itself into existence. The illogic in that is that it would have to exist beforehand to be able to bring itself into existence therefore the statement is illogical and deeming itself an absolute logical statement that something cannot bring itself into existence.

Hope you all are with me so far. Deep breaths everyone...

So, since logic exists and absolute logic exists how does it exist in a purely naturalistic worldview without the existence of God? So how can logical absolutes, which are by nature conceptual, exist? They cannot be measured, put in a test tube, weighed nor captured, but yet they exist.

My conclusion is that they logically must exist in the mind of an absolute being (God, if you will) because they cannot merely reside in the properties of matter in a purely naturalistic universe. And since logical absolutes are true everywhere all the time and they are conceptual, it would seem logical that they exist within a transcendent, omnipresent being. To this I also add that if there is a an absolute God with an absolute mind, then he is the standard of all things as well as morals. Therefore I can conclude that morals, being conceptual as well, are absolute too. I know morals is a different subject that if you would like we can later talk about, but right now in this discussion, I'm wondering if you can give me evidence on how absolute logic can exist in a purely physical universe.

Whew...hope you got that. So just a reminder fellas, let's play nice, ok? No name calling and sarcastic offenses please. It's a discussion ruiner and it ended a discussion on another post with someone I was talking to because of the disrespect. I will give you the upmost respect at all times as you deserve it more than I do. I do enjoy these intellectual conversations but of course only if we can be civil. No matter the outcome, I love you all and wish you the best.

Good day and I'll check up on ya later.

David

Dear Duckphup -

Thanks for the kind comments.

If I might offer a metaphor:

You and I are both witnesses to the religious version of the HMS Titanic. We know the ship is sinking and that its loss is inevitable, and that those who wish to survive with their logic, rationality and humanity in hand better get to the lifeboat with the name "reality" painted on its side.

The passengers on that Titanic are the religionists on this blog. I tend to meet them just after the ship has hit the iceberg. One has time to wonder what happened. Something isn't right. Let's discuss what may have happened and what options are available.

On the other hand, you meet them at the point where there's one lifeboat remaining and Leonardo & Kate are riding the liner into the deep. Yours is a "cut the BS and get in the lifeboat or you're dead" approach to divesting them of their religious beliefs. Mine is a bit more leisurely.

Whatever approach one takes, I can't help but feel that many of the religious who participate on this blog walk away with a smidgen of doubt in their minds about what they've been told and not told about their faith, about the piss-poor arguments for god's existence they've had shoved down their throats for years and to realize that there are many, many people in this country and world for whom their fantasies hold no reward nor terror.

That's all to the good, methinks, for while religious belief often starts with some grand "miracle" of conversion, non-belief often arises from those tiny seeds of doubt that get planted in the mind and grow into something over time. It's evolutionary.

Good chatting.

Sorry... last sentence should say 'venue'... not 'venus'. I guess the spirit-world is trying to inform me that it is again time to go out in the back yard and sacrifice a goat to 'Typos'... Greek god of the keyboard. Is the moon still full?

Mr. Mark... clearly, your patience exceeds my own by a remarkable degree... I believe we have exchanged notes on that before. I have found, over the years, that repeated and prolonged exposure to gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity... besides tending to make me want to puke... have had an abrasive, sand-paper-like effect on my ability to tolerate those dubious 'qualities'. I congratulate you on your ability to persevere with grace. My own grace has become nearly exhausted. I can still summon it if I have to... but here, in this venus, I think it is best to preserve what little I have left.

Dear David -

You said you have evidence to show that god exists, present your evidence. I'll answer no more questions before you respond to the challenge you set out yourself.

As Duckphup pointed out above, you're moving the goal posts with this game you're playing. If there's evidence of god you should be able to put it forward without trying to rope me into an answer that you will use in an attempt to back me into some fallacious "truth" that you'll wrap in some addition fallacies.

REAL evidence for god must exist independent of whatever I or you or the mailman thinks about anything. I don't need to ask what you think of the Big Bang to present evidence that it occurred, do I?

Your reply to my accepting your offer smacks of the street magician who claims that he can really make things disappear...but first, he'll need everybody to turn around, close their eyes and count to 10. It's a classic bait and switch.

Have on with it, man. Present your "evidence" - or desert the field.

David wrote (to Mr. Mark): :To further my evidence I will need to ask you a few questions. First, does logic exist? And are there logical absolutes? For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?"

Mr. Mark... please excuse me for butting in... but this sort of nonsense really gets my knickers in a knot.

David... that's a bunch of crap. What are you doing? Playing "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours?"

You are playing the game of the informal fallacy 'moving the goalpost'... except that you are trying to get a sense of where you should set up the goalpost in advance, so that you can set up your OTHER logical fallacies in advance, and reduce the risk of getting caught moving the goalposts later on, once 'play' has begun.

It is plain for everyone to see that 'sophistry' is the only arrow that you've got in your quiver. If you've got something to say... why don't you just bloody-well say it?

Hi Mr. Mark,

No I never said I will give proof for God's existence, merely evidence. If I had proof then I wouldn't have faith it would be knowledge. In all honesty I do not want absolute knowledge that God exists based on the fact that that would take away the free love I have for Him. Only by faith can I love God truly, but that's besides the point so let me present some evidence that is satisfactory to me. I'm actually having this same conversation with someone else on another post, so we'll see how it ends up. Here goes. To further my evidence I will need to ask you a few questions.

First, does logic exist? And are there logical absolutes?

For example would you say that something can exist and not exist at the same time. If no, then that is a logical absolute right?

From another thread:

Victoria said,

‘to me it beggars the question, well, if atheism is so intellectually superior, what alternatives, social solutions etc have they come up with?’

Speaking for myself, I don’t claim to be intellectually superior, and don’t think others have said that either.

As for social solutions, atheists are no better at this than anyone else. But I will offer a few suggestions at the risk of setting myself up for attack:

1. Get serious about energy independence from Mid East oil. This is the root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

2. Get the Neo-Con Israeli lobbyists’ hands off the strings of power in our government. This is the 2nd root cause of our disastrous invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

3. Can you imagine how much better would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on Palestine and Iraq on infrastructure and alternate energy sources instead?

4. Get control of our worldwide population growth (I can hear the howls already). We are already overpopulated by about a factor of two.

I’m sure I can think of more, but that should be enough for now.

Sorry, David, But god is NOT different. The evidence for his existence is on par with that for unicorns, fairies and succubi.

You say you can prove his existence without using the Bible (argument from authority) or science (argument from evidence - it's a given you can't do this). OK, I'm game.

Present your evidence. I'm sure on of us will chime in to let you know which discredited argument you're using (ontological or a priori, personal experience, some version of Bayes' Theorum - probably that of Stephen Unwin , the argument from beauty, a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle, another version of something Pascal uttered, the god-of-the-gaps chimera, or the old 747 delusion).

OR, perhaps something new and inventive.

Thanks for the dialogue. I look forward to your proof.

Anthony - I agree wholeheartedly. Verbalizing is tedious and lots or work ... I'd personally prefer using the Vulcan Mind Meld like I ordinarily do, but unfortunately it's a 'hands-on' kind of thing. Computers are such low technology anyway......

Gerry, I agree to a point, but atheist and agnosticism aren't different ends of a sliding scale. I can understand why people who place the odds near to 50/50 might choose to use the word agnostic instead of atheist, but they do so based on a misuse of the word atheist and they are still an atheist. The person who places the odds at .000000001% but doesn't claim to "know" is still an agnostic.

If a majority of people didn't wrongly believe that atheism is a claim of knowledge I wouldn't feel compelled to keep arguing the point with people, but that misconception is largely caused by people using the word agnostic as if it represented something other than atheism, and that's a misuse of the word.

Chip,

I think we could make a difference between a logical impossibility (a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time). We cannot logically assert either position. In this sense we are agnostics.

But then, there is the case when something whose probability tends toward zero, like Russell's teapot - or a god, in my opinion. The probability is as small as to be negligible. In this sense we are atheists.

Davis wrote (October 3, 2007 3:25 AM): "David: "I still believe atheism is a faith."

You seem to be having a REALLY hard time with this simple concept... so I'm going to try to make this as easy as possible for you. Please try to keep up.

A 'theist' BELIEVES that deities EXIST... in particular, the kind of deity that creates things and then, from time-to-time, fiddles with his 'creation'. In Latin, the letter 'a' negates what it is stuck in front of... so 'atheist' specifically means 'NOT a theist'... i.e., does NOT 'believe' that god(s) exist. Now here is where it gets really tricky... because it requires that you have the intellectual chops to be able to discern that there is a HUGE difference between NOT believing that gods exist... and BELIEVING that god's DO NOT exist. The difference is huge both qualitatively and with respect to its implications.

In general, atheists do not 'believe' simply because the reasons or so-called 'evidence' purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'. The notion that there is some kind of 'choice' involved in this seems silly to me. One does not 'choose' NOT to believe.

Let me try to explain this in another way. You guys come around here telling fantastic stories about this wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous... loving... did I already say loving?... supernatural entity who poofed the universe into existence, fabricated humans from a dust bunny and a rib... while we KNOW (because the evidence tells us) that 6,000 years ago... here in the REAL universe... just outside of the 'gates' of the Garden where he was doing all this, the Mesopotamians were making beer. And you have no credible evidence... none... at all... zilch... nada. And your story is suspiciously similar to OTHER, older stories which even YOU acknowledge to be myths. You tell us that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

OK... here's the thing... we DON'T BELIEVE YOUR STORY. That's it... that's what an 'atheist' is. Somebody who DOESN'T BELIEVE your story, and does not believe OTHER stories which are essentially just variations of the same thing... invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairies.

Simple, huh?

The reasons and evidence that you present, for WHY I should believe your story are either 'good', or 'NOT good'. If they're NOT good, then my 'bullsh*t alarm' goes off. One does not CHOOSE to have one's bullsh*t alarm go off... it just goes off.

So... your story makes my bullsh*t alarm go off... and that means that I think your story is bullsh*t. I do not have to PROVE it is bullsh*t... I don't have to BELIEVE that it's bullsh*t... I don't have to have FAITH that it is bullsh*t... I just have to THINK that it is bullsh*t. In other words, I am simply NOT IMPRESSED with your bullsh*t story.

In common parlance, that makes me an 'atheist'... simply because I am not gullible and droolingly stupid enough to 'believe' such outlandish bullsh*t.

Personally, I just think that it just makes me 'sane'... and that no other labels beyond that need be applied.

Are you still with me here?... good... so... by YOUR way of 'thinking' (notice the absence of the word 'logic'), if you came around telling us that there is a herd of invisible, magical pink unicorns that prances around in your back yard under the light of a full moon... but you had no proof, or credible evidence... I just have to take this on 'faith'... I just have to 'believe'... and I was not persuaded by your arguments... I DECLINED to 'believe'... that would make me 'religious'... a 'believer' in the 'no pink unicorns in your back yard' cult... someone who had 'faith' that such creatures did not exist... an 'aunicornist'.

I don't think so. I think that it would just be an indication that I might actually be sane. Just like the fact that I don't believe your god story is an indication that I might actually be sane.

All that you demonstrate here is that along with being baffled by the simple concept of 'NOT believing' in something, you are also unable to distinguish between facts and delusions. You are unable to discern the qualitative differences in the meaning of words like 'faith', as they are dictated by the context of the discourse. How do I know this? You have just TOLD us... by the quality and content of your assertions and your questions... you have TOLD us.

Religious people seem to not have been blessed with the ABILITY to make critical distinctions. For example, probably 95 out of 100 christians will tell you that having 'faith' that your mate is not screwing around on you, having 'faith' that the chair you are sitting in is not going to collapse, and having 'faith' that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) EXIST pretty-much amount to the same thing. They are simply incapable of discerning the context-based qualitative differences in the meaning of 'faith'... and they are not capable of appreciating the implications of those differences. And really, the differences are not subtle AT ALL... to the critical thinker. To the NON-critical thinker, though... well, the phrase 'oblivious to the obvious' comes to mind.

In other words, it does not matter HOW precisely we try to define terms or draw our distinctions, if the people we are trying to converse with are incapable of making those kinds of distinctions. The problem has NOTHING to do with distinctions and definitions... it has to do with the fact that (my unscientific estimate) less than around 10% of the population of the USA possesses critical thinking skills.

Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief'... or a 'religion'... or 'faith'... ONLY in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'. In other words... it CAN'T.

Are you getting it yet?

In fact, atheists ARE open to the idea that 'gods' exist; intellectual honesty REQUIRES that. All we need is some compelling evidence. But mythology isn't evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence. A self-referential document with no contemporaneous external corroboration is not evidence... by THOSE standards, we would be obliged to conclude that 'Moby Dick' is 'true'. So, while we are OPEN to the idea that god(s) exist(s)... the idea does not carry much weight with sane, rational people... the ones who recognize that all the CREDIBLE evidence points to a universe that arose from simple beginnings... that complexity arises from simplicity, over time, as a consequence of the natural interactions of matter and energy. You know... the REAL universe is really a much more interesting, exciting and amazing place than the petty terrarium-universe that 'god' created in Genesis. In other words, at this point in our scientific quest for knowledge, the 'invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis' does NOT seem to be necessary.

It is 'belief' itself that is the problem. Belief has no 'truth' value. Belief is not 'knowledge'... it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... which happens to pretty much correspond with the definition of 'delusion'.

Then there is that pesky 'burden of proof' thing.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist view'... or 'atheist beliefs' or anything like that. Again... we just don't believe your story. That is what defines an atheist... and that is ALL that defines an atheist. Apart from that, atheists are all over the map... and this accounts for why atheists can't seem to get themselves effectively organized (yet). It has been suggested that getting atheists organized is like "... trying to herd cats."

But let's pretend, for a moment, that there IS an 'atheist view'... and say that the 'view' is simply the recognition that you cannot meet your 'burden of proof'. If you were to manage to do THAT, then the atheist 'view' would change in a heartbeat. You've heard of 'burden of proof'... right? Well... just in case... here's what that means. If YOU want ME to believe YOUR story, then it is UP TO YOU to present your story to me in such a way that my bullsh*t alarm does NOT go off... and THAT means that you must accompany your story with credible, compelling evidence... WHICH, by the way, nobody has been able to do for nearly 2,000 years... so I'm not gonna be holding my breath, waiting for that to happen.

Here's WHY you don't understand...

* You cannot differentiate between knowledge and the ILLUSION of knowledge.

* You cannot make distinctions relating to the qualitative difference in the meaning of words, based on 'context', and thus cannot appreciate the difference in the implications of such distinctions. The fact that these kinds of distinctions are NOT subtle to the perception of a rational, critically-thinking person should ALARM you.

* You cannot determine what qualifies as evidence.

* You think that things are 'facts' that are NOT facts.

* You are not 'intellectually honest'... i.e., willing to question and doubt your own assumptions.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence'.

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to vital aspects of existence and reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge.

Faith + belief ---> Self-deception, self-delusion and willful ignorance.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

David "So I still believe atheism in an absolute sense is illogical. I believe agnosticism is the only logical position to hold if you hold a naturalistic worldview, therefore leaving atheism as a faith."

Agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Atheists don't claim to know there is no god, they simply don't believe one exists. As you rightly stated in your reply to the unicorns example, the only way to prove a negative is by being omniscient. Atheism is not a claim of omniscience. It's simply a lack of belief. It is, for the vast majority of atheists, an agnostic position. A useful distinction to make is that atheist describes "what" and agnostic describes "why." The only atheists that are not agnostics are those that claim to know there is no god. You're correct that that isn't a logical position, which is probably why I've never met an atheist who holds it.

Good Daniel,

I'm glad that we are able to reach a sort of meeting of the minds. I find that quite rare on these boards.

Rick

As a Christian, I have to say that I agree alot with you. You may be suprised, because many people assoicate "Christianity" with right-wing-born-again-Christian-evangelicals. They have very big and loud mouths and get all the press. But I am not one of them; I am just a "plain" Christian. As far as my faith and belief go, I have more in common with Mother Teresa than with them.

I agree with you, it is kinda scary. I also have a tip for you: most religious fantatics have a great deal of doubt, which they work feverishly to suppress, instead of allowing themselves to experience. That is what makes them so testy. So, don't think too bad of them.

From another thread:

Hi Victoria,

You said:

‘actually im not even one tiny bit interested in a definition of atheism- that seems elementary- but what do atheists believe in a more existential sense.’

Not speaking for all atheists of course, just for myself, existentially, I don’t have a clue what we are doing here if that’s what you mean, and neither does anyone else. Kind of scary isn’t it. I just want to get up in the morning, go to work, have three squares a day, enjoy life with my loved ones, etc, etc, etc...

Whether there is a God or not, or whether there is divine moral code or not, after you have passedd those decisions, the central point of Christianity is how to live on earth, and how to regard your fellow man. Alot of Christians are lost, on this point, and fail.

We know very little; even the words which we use to discuss these things are coarse and inadequate tools, from which to build meaning.

In order to be a good Christian, Christians need to get off of this anti-atheistic crusade, which is totally and completely irrelevant to the pursuit of a Christian life. If a person does not believe in God, then let them be. A persistent but futile insistence on your point of view over all others merely indicates an inner turmoil and uncertainty, and undermines your claims of being Christian.

Many people who post here on the "side" of Christianity are not very dedicated Christians. It takes alot more than bashing atheists on a computer website.

For a group of people who say they don't believe in something you sure do spend an enormous amount of time talking about what doesn't supposedly exist.

From another thread:

Prof. Stone:

I would also ask believers this question: "if someone did prove to you today that God did not exist, would you behave any differently? Would you start to mug old ladies in the street? Would you walk along the corridor and shoot the colleague you have hated for the last 10 years? Would you begin a string of affairs with other men/women?" I think the answer would be no. There is something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behaviour, and what is excessive or inappropriate. And it does not depend on reward or fear.

October 3, 2007 2:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 02:32
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

Bravo Prof. Stone,

Well done. Of course the believers will say that ‘something in the human psyche that gives us all a limit on what is reasonable behavior, and what is excessive or inappropriate’ was placed there by God and is proof of God. Atheists (like me) will say that it was placed there by evolution.

I believe that the Golden Rule is the driving force of evolution’s law of natural selection at the higher levels of development that is responsible for that ‘something in the human psyche’. The cave man learned early on that if he did harm to his neighbor, his neighbor was likely to do harm to him in return.

October 3, 2007 7:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments

ATHEISM,had, has its place,its chapter in human development,as being much respected, it having added much to the whole in human development. However,it be a chapter in an ongoing story,its vital the atheist,( not )as christian get stuck in a chapter of human development,lost in folly of singing self praise.Those that having rightly opposed christian folly,be in danger of making same error,gettting too comfortable in a chapter, as be an old chair,unwilling to move on,yet must. Let us learn from christian folly,not repeating a an familiar mistake,we be facing new frontiers,in Spiritual Development,turning to a new chapter in human development,be material as spiritual.Yet it the spiritual that some thrive,turning to it as moth to flame,in such prepare a path that others may follow.SEEKING THE HOLY GRAIL,THAT ONE DRINK, QUENCHING THIRST,one starting journey as master, only becoming the most humbled of servants. .

"But God is different". That is the huge umbrella you use starting your argument to prove that God is different. Circular, no matter around how many additional decorative curves you drive it.
Since god is different, he is different. With or without the bible. It comes down to the same "reasoning".

Chip,

You are absolutely right. That is illogical and evidently I'm going against my own beliefs of truth not being relative. Of course us religious folks believe in absolute truths, so assigning a specific ratio to the truth that God does or does not exist is illogical. Thanks for the catch.

Mr. Mark,

I still believe atheism is a faith. I'll answer what you asked me and explain why and give a logical reason for doing so.

"Here's an easy test for you: do you, David, have faith that unicorns exist in the world today and that they possess magical powers? If not, does it require faith on your part to believe unicorns don't exist? If it requires faith on your part to not believe unicorns exist, then what, exactly, does that faith entail?"

I have faith that unicorns do NOT exist in the universe (not just the world). I cannot say I know for sure in an absolute sense because that would require me to have infinite knowledge of this whole universe. The same goes for you. You cannot make an absolute statement that God does not exist without pre-supposing infinite knowledge. And if you do pre-suppose infinite knowledge then you are positing an infinite being which is exactly what you are trying to deny, therefore that would be illogical. I have faith in God but cannot measure Him, see Him, put Him in a test tube, weigh Him. But I do have evidence that I find is substantial for me. I will be glad to share that with you if you like. But with unicorns with magical powers, I find no evidence to conclude that they exist, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Maybe they do on some distant planet, who knows? So I have faith they do not exist based on the evidence. But God is different and if you would like, I can give you an example of evidence that is substantial to me, not even using a Bible.....how 'bout that?? And by the way, it has nothing to do with science either...how 'bout that agian? :) I know we are all sick of the science debate and origin of life debate. So I'm not saying that that is evidence for me, (even though it partially is) I am talking about a different kind of evidence.

So I still believe atheism in an absolute sense is illogical. I believe agnosticism is the only logical position to hold if you hold a naturalistic worldview, therefore leaving atheism as a faith. Is that agreeable or do you have a response? Keep in mind, many "atheists" these days are resorting to taking on the title agnostic/atheist for this very purpose of not wanting to be labeled as illogical by means of the same argument I have proposed. I don't mean any offense by it whatsoever, and your beliefs are no different, just labeled different, at least logically. Have a good evening. I hope to hear from you tomorrow.

David, to add to what Mr. Mark said... Going by your logic there would have to be a 50/50 chance that any claim for which there's no supporting evidence is true. You're equating lack of proof with proof and assigning them equal weight, and that's a rather silly thing to do. For example, if I claim that the milk in my refrigerator is sentient and can recite all the works of Shakespeare from memory, but in a voice beyond our ability to hear or measure, I can't give you any evidence that it's true, and you can't give any evidence that it's not. Do you think there's a 50/50 chance that the milk in my fridge is reciting Hamlet?

David writes:

"believing in God is a faith and not believing in God is a faith as well."

I'm sorry, David, but no matter how often you religionists say that atheism is a faith it isn't. It is non-belief.

Here's an easy test for you: do you, David, have faith that unicorns exist in the world today and that they possess magical powers? If not, does it require faith on your part to believe unicorns don't exist? If it requires faith on your part to not believe unicorns exist, then what, exactly, does that faith entail?

Awaiting your response.

One sees the power of ( god ) everywhere in the material...(the material realm, which being the essence of creation diluted,the human form be as part of the material...yet through the human form brain as heart,be the design that such we grow be as given understanding as experience,that we may then understand experience the very (essence of creation)....we simply are in the inital stages of grasping the purpose of life,etc,etc, etc,it be as our understanding experience grows we then able see why things had to be as they were as for individual as its nations....it be important in our development that understanding as experience remain balanced,understanding as lacking balance in experience,the result, a raving lunatic.When experience goes beyond understanding then it be the prospect of an lunatic.Hence the unreveiling that we are in a state to cope with it.Putting it another way, example... if you are going to jump out of a plane it helps your survival greatly not forgetting your parachute...Hence it be balanced understanding as experience,being the parachute in Spiritual Development... .. .

Rick,

Both are a faith position, you are correct. So when Hitchens and Co. say that me, a believer, has no reason and is irrational, then is that the truth? Especially in light of it being "50/50"? Wouldn't that make us both irrational and unreasonable? Or do we both have reason? I like the latter. But I feel that there are certain things in life that are absolutes that could not come from a purely naturalistic worldview. My only explanation for these absolutes could be from the mind of an absolute being, namely God. But maybe we'll get into that another time.

Thanks for the comments Rick.

I come down on the Atheist/Agnostic side. The odds are 50/50, either an infinite and eternal god exists, who creates and destroys universes to pass the time; or the universe itself is infinite and eternal, having always been here and always will be here, no creator required. Yea verily!

What do you think? There is absolutely no evidence to support either conclusion.

I feel ya Daniel. Of course dialogue from both sides hasn't been very "nice" I should say.

Of course, since believing in God is a faith and not believing in God is a faith as well, then we are all irrational idiots, no matter what you believe.

It feels good to be a part of this human race and we are all equally knuckleheaded....especially Bernie Bee....yeah buddy YOU....put that is ye pipeth and smoketh that! Just kidding man. Luv ya.

And who needs a petri dish to create life when
you've got a guy, a gal, soft music and a bottle of your best red?? .... that's how it used to be done before God got involved.

I have not looked at this thread since Friday. Wow, it has really devolved since then.

After reading Vinnie's several comments, I can only so, "fine, but what's your point?"

And here is MY comment:

When I read Duckphup's comments, I believe in Creaation; but when I read Vinnie's comments, I believe in Evolution.

Too true Terry! To be afflicted by religion to the degree we observe in so many, even here in the 21st century, is disquieting to say the least!

AS far as it goes though I'd say it is close run thing who is the craziest; Vinnie or Moody!

And hey Vinnie you keep sneerin' at us non-believers because of man's inability to produce life from inanimate matter when it is being done times without number everyday with millions participating!

Haven't ye heard o' transubstantiation? Anyways, if ye don't believe a wee bit o' starch and a goblet o' wine can be turned intae the actual flesh 'n blood and the implications that has for participants, then accordin' tae Pope Benny you ain't a Christian!
So put that in yer pipe 'n smoke it!

Bernie Bee - indeed....but you'll notice Moody's Muslim rant is exceeded by a margin of about
20-1 if you care to count all the Christian rants on just this particular blog thread.

What's the difference??

Moody,

You mentioned John 14 and claim by muslim scholars that Jesus was talking about mohammed. But of course it's taken out of context. Look at the following verse please...

17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.

Was mohammed seen? Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit, Moody. The third person in the Trinity of God. I'm sorry but they lied to you, my friend. If muslim scholars came up with this from John 14, I must say they are not very educated in their scholarship and quite decietful to leave out the following verses especially with the only excuse that early Christians changed the Bible. 24,000 NT documents are in possesion as of today and can verify that that is a lie.

I want you to know as well that the Book of Revelation talks about your Mahdi. Your Mahdi is our anti-Christ. A false prophet will precede the anti-Christ and confirm the worship of the anti-Christ. In your texts it is Jesus (false Jesus to us) that will return and claim to not be God but give glory to another, the Mahdi.The Mahdi will rule the world and kill all non-muslims, correct? The Book of Revelation talks about this 500 years before Mohammed ever existed. The only difference being that the anti-Christ written about in the Bible is evil, but the Mahdi in Islam is good, a saviour of sorts. Do you see yet? Mohammed writes about the same events 500 years after it was already written about except he changes what is evil to good! Do I believe the former or latter? It would seem the latter written by mohammed was a rip off of the former with the exception of making the evil out to be good, no?

May Jesus guide all to the truth which is Him, the one and only Lord and Saviour. Amen. I pray for that for you too Moody.

How scary Moody's rant is as an example of a human mind dislocated by the insanity of religion!
And to think there are millions on the loose suffering from similarly damaged minds!
What a frightful world this is!

I'm coming into this thread late but want to thank Susan Jacoby for moving the conversation forward. She recognizes that there is in fact a meaningful difference between fundamentalist and "moderate" religion. I would argue with her about many things, but I'm glad for this area of agreement.

Ms. Jacoby
Messrs.Hitchens, Harris and you are wrong, By a country mile.
Where they employ “Religion” and you supplement “fundamentalist” the keyword should in all honesty be MAN.

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

Neal, thanks, and to anyone else who gave me a nod, or engaged and sparred with me. I too am saddened when a really good thread winds down, but at least we know there'll be more good ones to look forward to. Lots of excellent, intelligent, spirited (and often funny) debate on this forum.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby. Anyone pricking religion has my admiration, especially if its origins in tribalism and ignorance are mentioned in one sentence. Going beyond your thesis, roots of Christianity are found in solar worship and probably in the dimly remembered practice of child sacrifice. Further, a non-historic Jesus Christ hypothesis best fits the puzzle of missing documentation from the time during which he supposedly lived.

Concepts Are Not a Reality - George couldn't have said it better....thinking is the problem, not the solution. Who would believe it??

Duckphup:

Thanks for the input re: "Maria". Thanks also to you, Mr. Mark, Chip and others, of all persuasions, for your participations in this forum. Though I spend much of my time rereading what's been written and referenced, I'm always stimulated by the exchange and disappointed when a good thread dies.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby.

God is a concept. The only way to experience true reality is to experience life without concepts.
As George Harrison wrote:

Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream,
It is not dying, it is not dying

Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void,
It is shining, it is shining.

That you may see the meaning of within
It is being, it is being

Love is all and love is everyone
It is knowing, it is knowing

Let ignorance and hate claim all the dead
It is believing, it is believing

But listen to the colour of your dreams
It is not leaving, it is not leaving

Or play the game "Existence" to the end
Of the beginning, of the beginning

Vinnie - please don't let me down. I'm patiently waiting for the answer to this: "Why do you suppose God waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?

David -

Thanks for the civil discourse. I also enjoyed our exchange.

We may never learn the transitional steps involved in life getting its start here on Earth. At best, we'll have some pretty convincing theories that have the strength of science behind them.

I guess the point of my citing Miller to Vinnie was a simple counter to his creationist/poof, there's an elephant view of the world. MU gives a plausible explanation for life's "origins." It comes down to what one considers to be "the origins." Is a fetus to be considered a "human being" at the moment of conception (à la the Xian fundies) or is a fetus only a "potential life" until the baby's head emerges from the birth canal (à la Jewish law)? Is the "origin of life" for that baby the act of procreation or the precursers for life that reside respectively in the male & female awaiting combination (sperm & egg)?

To our friend Vinnie, it's all strawmen and moving goal posts, so there's never an answer.

Again, good chat.

Just for your info, I'm far from a scientist, but science does intrigue me. I've done a little homework I guess you can say. Coincidentally enough I read that same article you posted. I do hope that can be some information to benefit mankind. I'm sure it will.

I guess you are right, we do agree more than I thought. I do think my point in all this was simpler than initially expected though. Maybe my assumptions were wrong or maybe I just mis-interpreted when you directed this experiment at Vinny for some proof on the non-living to living matter issue. I'm sure we can both agree that proof is still far away. Sure, progress has been made. A little trial and error and then some and quite possibly one day the answer may come. Maybe not. I find it statistically more plausible that I will win the lottery every week for the next 20 years, but hey, even that's a possibility, right?

Thanks for the discussion Mr. Mark. I do appreciate the exchange of ideas and of course new knowledge is great knowledge and the more we have the better we can be. If I can learn something from you whether in the sciences or in a philosophy of life, I do appreciate it and of course hope for a nicer exchange in dialogue than what seems to occur so frequently on here. THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO VINNY!

Good day to you.

David -

Thanks again for your comments.

I think we agree on more here than you let on. Again, no one can prove definitively that the MU atmosphere was "wrong" or "off." But science wouldn't be science if it insisted that MU was gospel and couldn't be challenged or revised or tossed aside altogether.

My point is that the MU call on the field is under review, but it has yet to have been reversed. Perhaps a new camera angle will give us a better idea some day. I don't know if you heard, but last week, scientists at ASU released a study that posits that oxygen was present in Earth's atmosphere 50 to 100-million years earlier than previously believed (see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927145226.htm ).

In short, nothing has been "proven" or disproven here. The jury is out and new evidence is constantly flooding in.

And, yes, I am aware of the "hard part," but that's not the part MU was all about. You'll agree with that, won't you?

Mr. Mark,

Thanks for the insight. I do agree and disagree at some point. Not for theological reasons but for logical reasons. Yes amino acids were created. But the electricity was off. The chemicals used were off. Metaphorically speaking, Miller used too much sugar in his recipe and the cookies seemed sweeter than they really are. Too bad the recipe called for less sugar and cooking time. Now he has a cake when he was looking for cookies.

I know what science is used for Mark. I'm not asking that Miller or any scientist create an elephant in a lab from non-living matter. These are the facts. If you choose to disagree with them, then go ahead. He made amino acids from a lab that was later found to be inconsistent with the earth's early atmosphere. Even so, he made amino acids. Great! Amino acids are not living matter. Building blocks yes! But not living. There are many other factors in the creation of a living cell. L and D seperation, a repetitive creation of many more amino acids and a nucleus. Ok amino acids were created. But that would be the easy part. (I know that is debateable), but the hard part is yet to come. I'm sure you are aware of the hard part, right? But anyway, my point being is that you cited the Miller/Urey experiment to be a possibility for an answer of origin of life. With a tainted atmosphere and the creation of many more amino acids necessary, along with the seperation of the necessary L's and D's, I would say that is no answer at all. What the evidence is telling me is that science is not even close. And really, to use the Miller/Urey experiment as proof of the possibility of an answer to the origin of life is really no proof at all. Sorry, kid, maybe in a couple of decades you'll have an answer. Maybe not. Till then, us ignorant Christians will still be here. :)

Take care

Dear David -

Thanks for your comment on Miller/Urey.

You are simply reiterating what I said in my last post on the subject, that 1) the atmospheric conditions set up for the experiment were - at the time - thought to be very close to early Earth conditions, but that that atmospheric model is now questioned by some, and 2) that Miller's use of a constant electrical current within that atmosphere may not have represented lightening strikes on early Earth which were probably intermittent and not constant.

The experiments created 2% amino acids. Yes - they are the building blocks of life, ie: precursers. As I said, the important fact is that the amino acids were created AT ALL.

To the best of our knowledge, life needs certain elements to get started. Miller/Urey took gases and by passing electricity through an atmosphere created amino acids, ie: the building blocks of life. The intellectually challenged seem to want a Biblical result from the experiment for it to be valid, ie: if the Miller/Urey experiment didn't create a fully developed elephant, then it didn't create life, ergo the experiment was a failure. I sometimes get the idea that for the ID-ists, "life" means animal life, not trees or bugs or microbes, at least when they phrase their assaults on science in infantile terms as does our friend Vinnie.

Such a fully formed result is what Biblical creationism demands. That is NOT what science demands or expects. The simple fact is that elephants evolved over billions of years, probably starting with some amino acids that generated proteins. That's the scientific theory. Elephants weren't created in a "poof." which is the religious illusion.

Miller/Urey was NOT intended to explain how life developed from A to Z. It tried to provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for step B or maybe C. Any scientist realizes that Miller/Urey does NOT give us THE explanation for how life got started on Earth. It provides only one PLAUSIBLE explanation for how life got started.

To put it in terms that the willfully ignorant might understand, let's use Vinnie's red corvette example. In such an analogy, Miller/Urey's experiments proved that the internal combustion engine could work. They didn't build a working model of an internal combustion engine, nor did they prove that other engines wouldn't work (an electrical engine, for example). They just ran a few experiments based on gasoline being exploded in a contained atmosphere that showed that it COULD work. Their experiments proved that an internal combustion engine would work, and they didn't even have to turn the ignition key on the corvette to prove it.

Beyond the science behind the engine itself, Miller/Urey did NOT set out to prove whether the corvette body shell was aerodynamically designed, whether the seats were comfortable, or whether anyone but a person with small genitals feels the need to buy one. Those attributes of the car itself EVOLVED from the history of the internal combustion engine being developed, to the basic machines developed to use the engine (vehicles, air compressors, etc), to specific vehicles evolving (cars and trucks) to specific cars (sports cars) to brands of cars (Chevies) to make and model of cars (Corvette).

I think we're arguing over how closely we agree on this one.

BTW - I know the evidence on Miller/Urey quite well, but thank you for citing scientific evidence to back up your point.

DAVID wrote (OCTOBER 1, 2007 2:08 PM): "If your still around, you asked for evidence regarding Miller's experimnet. I suggest you find the evidence yourself. What I do know is the atmosphere that he used consisted of ammonia and methane and from what I've read the early atmosphere did not consist of these elements or were less evident than what he used in his experiment. Also, a thing to mention would be the amount of electricity he used is not consistent with the early atmosphere as well. Please feel free to find the evidence yourself. Even for some reason if he had the correct mixture, it's a long way from producing living matter from non. Creating amino acids does not create living matter. Simply the building blocks to do so. And please trust me, I didn't read this off of any creationist websites like the answersingenesis.com garbage."

You just don't understand what this is all about, or what's been going on... do you? Miller and Urey were trying to create the conditions under which organic chemicals might have formed... a precursor to the spontaneous arising of 'life. The succeeded in creating some or the requisite organic chemicals. Big whoop. This is REALLY old news. Now, here you are, quibbling about whether they used the right kind of gasses, and whether they were justified in the voltage they selected for the electrical charge. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... astronomical observations over the past decade or so have detected immense clouds of organic chemicals (the 'building blocks of life'... amino acids... sugars) 10s of light years in size, in the vicinity of 'stellar nurseries'. Over 200 species of organic chemicals have been identified so-far. Current speculation includes the idea that simple life forms might have actually originated in space, given that organic chemicals, water and energy are abundant.

It may be that "When and how did life originate on earth?" is not even the right question to be asking. It could be that 'life' rained down on earth during the entire time that it was being formed. It could be that the right question (far-fetched... but possible) is "When did conditions on earth stabilize to the point where life was able to take hold?" In any event, there is no question but that the 'building blocks of life' rained down upon the earth during the entire period that it was being formed... and for tens of millions of years thereafter. Also... the same would be true for ALL of the tens of millions of sun-like solar systems in our own little galaxy... and the trillions of sun-like solar systems throughout the universe.

Personally... I think that life is probably obly a couple orders of magnitude less common than DIRT, throughout the universe... an inevitable consequence of the simple, natural organic-chemical processes that (our observations tell us) seem to be ubiquitous in the universe... the RULE, rather than the exception... just like PLANETS are now understood to be the RULE, rather than the exception.

I get the impression that you don't WANT for there to be a natural explanation for life. Why might that be? Anyway... if you look at these in order, they will give you a pretty good sequential overview of what's been going on, and what the current thinking is, since the turn of the century...

June 17, 2000: www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=163

March 27, 2002: astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

March, 2005: www.europhysicsnews.com/full/32/article4.pdf

September 08, 2005: www.physorg.com/news6305.html

DECEMBER 31, 2006: scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2006/12/clues-to-origins-of-life.html

For a more complete picture of what has been going on, Google for: space organic chemical cloud amino acid sugar

Gerry, "What else do religionists hope that there 'is', in addition to what 'is'"

They want someplace to park their truth claims where reality can't intrude.

Duckphup, Chip, E fav:

The sheer notion of "supernatural" is already a contradiction within the word itself. Nature is, what is. What else do religionists hope that there "is", in addition to what "is"?

Nobody has an overview over "what is", but to extend the meaning of the word "is" to an entity that is NOT, contradicts "is". So lets try to find out what "is".

And to repeat myself: It is pretty awesome what "is"! Religion tries to defend what "is not" in the above sense, belittling what "is".

My "religious genes" and the corresponding neurons are quite satisfied imagining what "is", especially considering all of what "is" which I don't know!

Mr. Mark,

If your still around, you asked for evidence regarding Miller's experimnet. I suggest you find the evidence yourself. What I do know is the atmosphere that he used consisted of ammonia and methane and from what I've read the early atmosphere did not consist of these elements or were less evident than what he used in his experiment. Also, a thing to mention would be the amount of electricity he used is not consistent with the early atmosphere as well. Please feel free to find the evidence yourself. Even for some reason if he had the correct mixture, it's a long way from producing living matter from non. Creating amino acids does not create living matter. Simply the building blocks to do so. And please trust me, I didn't read this off of any creationist websites like the answersingenesis.com garbage.

Have a good day.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "The problem with most of the discussion on the topic of faith in this series is that sweeping statements are made-- vast generalizations of the either-or type-- that ignore or obscure the complexity of the subject."

It's not 'complex' at all. (I'm presuming that you are using the scientifically-naive definition for 'complex' here, and that you really mean 'complicated'.) All that is really necessary is that one have the ability differentiate between 'knowledge' and the ILLUSION of knowledge. One of the primary tasks and objectives of 'religion' is to obfuscate that simple truth in the minds of as many people as possible.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Many distinctions and careful definitions are needed to do justice to a topic on which everybody seems to be an expert."

That is why we have 'books', in addition to essays and articles. But the REAL problem lies in the fact that religious people seem to not have been blessed with the ABILITY to make critical distinctions. For example, probably 95 out of 100 christians will tell you that having 'faith' that your mate is not screwing around on you, having 'faith' that the chair you are sitting in is not going to collapse, and having 'faith' that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) EXIST pretty-much amount to the same thing. They are simply incapable of discerning the context-based qualitative differences in the meaning of 'faith'... and they are not capable of appreciating the implications of those differences. And really, the differences are not subtle AT ALL... to the critical thinker. To the NON-critical thinker, though... well, the phrase 'oblivious to the obvious' comes to mind.

In other words, it does not matter HOW precisely to try to define your terms or draw your distinctions, if the people you are trying to converse with are incapable of making those kinds of distinctions. The problem has NOTHING to do with distinctions and definitions... it has to do with the fact that (my unscientific estimate) less than around 10% of the population of the USA possesses critical thinking skills.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "I am a religious person, but I do not recognize myself in Christopher Hitchens latest outburst. Neither do I demean atheists or question their integrity or morality or rationality. I just disagree with them. I am as offended by many of the mean comments about atheism and atheists as is Susan Jacoby."

Good.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "But now she comes along in the midst of her insightful analysis and declares dogmatically: "All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition."

Yep... belief is the ILLUSION of knowledge. The CERTAINTY that we KNOW that 'somehing' exists... something that we have absolutely no evidence for... something that exists outside of 'existence' itself... is rational... HOW, exactly?

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "It wold take much space to unravel all that is said, implied, or assumed in that blunt declaration."

No, it wouldn't. See above.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "I would just like for her to tell me how she considers her charge to apply, e. g., to Alfred North Whitehead -- a distinguished philosopher of science who believed in God."

It is not surprising that Whitehead should have believed in god... his whole life and family were steeped in religion... some of his relatives were church-men. But his 'god' was nothing like the 'revealed' god of the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism... it was more like 'nature' itself... ever changing... ever evolving. Anyway... being smart and famous does not convey an immunity to self-deception, self-delusion, compartmentalization or making mistakes. And his metaphysics and philosophy of science... while interesting... have had no profound or lasting influence on the progress of science through the 20th century... or now. Even now there are brilliant men who believe in god... Francis Collins comes to mind. Critical-thinker in the laboratory... checks in his brains at the church door. I cannot explain this, except as an example of 'compartmentalization'. But consider... when you get up into the rarified atmosphere where people like Collins operate... less than 5% of them subscribe to the existence of 'dieties', or the 'supernatural'. Why do you think that is? People like Collins are best accounted for as a statistical abberation. Could he be 'right? Sure he could. (Search this page for: 'SURE there is'.) Is there any compelling reason to THINK that he is right? No.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Why should I bother to engage in further discussion with her when she declares at the outset that my thought is irrational by definition before she has even heard my case or my definitions."

Well... maybe you could come away from the experience with a better understanding of what kinds of thought processes are 'rational'. But... if your case depends upon the 'supernatural'... then it is NOT rational. The details of your case then become irrelevant.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Just for starters I might suggest that belief in God does not necessarily involve, require, or imply reference to anything that violates the laws of nature, i. e., the supernatural in her sense of the term. Of course, before we could even get that far, we would need to hear her definition of nature -- and mine."

"Ahhh... zee old 'moving zee goal-posts' ploy." ~ Inspector Clouseau

OK... now we are entering the world of sophistry. when you have a 'natural' explanation for people walking on water, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven... get back to us... OK?

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Finally, I can't resist asking her is she regards the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or 'secular knowledge'."

Sophistry, again. You do not consider zeitgeist. You do not consider context. Here we have a guy who existed at the DAWN of the time when people were just STARTING to try to deal with abstract thought in a formal and organized manner. A time when a world that did NOT involve the 'divine' was inconceiveable. A guy who had the peculiar notion that all that could be 'known' could be figured out by the human mind... by human thought. He was wrong. Your question about whether "...the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or 'secular knowledge'" is nothing more than a 'red herring', which need only be taken note of... and dismissed. Also to be taken note of... you need to do some reading, and learn about what 'knowledge' is. You might want to start with some articles on 'epistemology'.

KENNETH CAUTHEN wrote: "Is she not aware the the question of faith and reason, religion and secular knowledge, is a highly complex subject in itself not resolvable by a simple dichotomy between the two?"

Aware of WHAT?

Science: "We don't know... we're workin' on it. Go away and quit botherin' us with your damned fairy-tales... we're busy."

Religion: WE know... it was 'revealed' to us... God did it."

Not that complex, is it? See?... it IS a simple dichotomy... I just resolved it.

E FAVORITE writes:
"Kacco: “Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand.” See Duckphup and Chip above. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s supernatural."

The scientist doesn't understand something and says, "there's got to be a natural explanation for this. Let's get to work and find that explanation."

The religionist doesn't understand something and says, "God did it. Looking for an explanation is blasphemy."

And there you have it.

One question the religious faithful should ask themselves with an open mind - will religion play the same role in explaining the mysteries of the cosmos and reality in general, in say, 100 years??

Given that religions tend to change very little (are really entropic) while the frontiers of science continually move forward - it may well be that we'll one day have perfectly valid explanations for physical phenomena that would appear both miraculous and quite 'super-natural' today.

See Inflation Theory - The field of cosmology and physics is expanding at warp speed - we may one day soon have not only proof of a continually re-newing multi-verse (and infinity of universes), but an actual grand unified theory that reconciles the macro-world with the micro or quantum world.

The concept of infinity just doesn't have a mathematical nitch currently, so new math will need to be invented to deal with, well, endlessness....this is not mythology, but could well be a looming reality.

It may be that some religions were prescient in regard to conceiving a much larger universe than was ever imagined ' in the day' of religious primacy. As one Muslim poster pointed out, the Koran may have been more futuristic than we in the Christian world ever knew - certainly the Hindus and Buddhists imagined a much larger Cosmos. But nevertheless.......

Orthodox religion is really getting to be too small, too curiously mundane and earth-centered (not necessarily in a good way) to explain much of anything to the truly curious seeker of real knowledge.

Religion provides emotional comfort but little else to those that are looking at religion from the outside in, so to speak - are these the
un-faithful?? Perhaps so....

Anyway, a question worth asking for those committed religionists that wonder about
'atheists lost along the way'. They may know something you don't know.

Thank you for stateing the obvious( though it seems unobvious to most)about atheists( or in my case agnostic). I believe that most fanatic relgions would benefit greatly from a little sound reasoning from secularists. But, GOD forbid, they listen to anything that doesn't fall into there very small parameters of what they consider "true " belief. How could God( either theirs or mine, if I had one) be so intolerant of others veiws or beliefs?Of others passions?Of others morals? As long as any of these passions, morals ,or beliefs don't harm, destroy, or interfer with "social morals" , where is the harm? and as long as these promote strong relationships between individuals and societies , again, what's the harm?
I believe in a spirit that guides me and all that surrounds me( all inclusive) based on right and wrong, good and bad....but that is not black or white. So many times in the past I have had christians try to convert me. Yet when they hear what I believe, they are astounded that I don't believe in Christ. I tell them, much to their horror, that I am guided by a higher power.
Again, thank you for your statemnet

Kacoo: “Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand.” See Duckphup and Chip above. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.

Susan, Dear Lady, you are my HERO :-) Thank you for speaking on our behalf with such skill. I have to endure so much living in TN, that I no longer have the energy, and am looking to leave the US, ASAP.

Susan, Dear Lady, you are my HERO :-) Thank you for speaking on our behalf with such skill. I have to endure so much living in TN, that I no longer have the energy, and am looking to leave the US, ASAP.

The problem with most of the discussion on the topic of faith in this series is that sweeping statements are made-- vast generalizations of the either-or type-- that ignore or obscure the complexity of the subject. Many distinctions and careful definitions are needed to do justice to a topic on which everybody seems to be an expert. I am a religious person, but I do not recognize myself in Christopher Hitchens latest outburst. Neither do I demean atheists or question their integrity or morality or rationality. I just disagree with them. I am as offended by many of the mean comments about atheism and atheists as is Susan Jacoby. But now she comes along in the midst of her insightful analysis and declares dogmatically: "All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition." It wold take much space to unravel all that is said, implied, or assumed in that blunt declaration. I would just like for her to tell me how she considers her charge to apply, e. g., to Alfred North Whitehead -- a distinguished philosopher of science who believed in God. Why should I bother to engage in further discussion with her when she declares at the outset that my thought is irrational by definition before she has even heard my case or my definitions. Just for starters I might suggest that belief in God does not necessarily involve, require, or imply reference to anything that violates the laws of nature, i. e., the supernatural in her sense of the term. Of course, before we could even get that far, we would need to hear her definition of nature -- and mine.

Finally, I can't resist asking her is she regards the claim of Aristotle that slavery is justified by the laws of nature is religion or "secular knowledge." Is she not aware the the question of faith and reason, religion and secular k nowledge, is a highly complex subject in itself not resolvable by a simple dichotomy between the two?

no one has mentioned Popper here, which is too bad because it would clarify a lot of the error being spouted about science and religion. Popper proposed a simple test for thinking through the difference between a scientific claim and a piece of dogma (whether that dogma be political, philosophical or religious). A scientific claim is falsifiable - it can (and often is) found to have error and is changed by testing. Religious dogma, however, is not falsifiable - no matter what is found, said, or seen, religious people (and communists - popper's initial target) always explain it.

That;s why ignorance is so important - no scientist ever claims the Truth. That's why spouting nonsense like How Come you Cannot Explain That???? - has nothing to do with science as it is practiced.

What religious dogmatists do is explain away all discrepant behavior; what scientists do is worry about it and test it out again.

Nor has anyone mentioned Kant's argument - if science is just god at work then there is no science as we understand that term. Because the system of laws and consistent phenomena can only exist apart from belief or they are merely another belief. But science is not merely another belief. It is a process that reveals facts completely independent of the believer or the belief system - that's why christians and muslims and jews can all be scientists.

The claim for Intelligent Design, like the claim for god guarantees morality is simply not an argument but a ratioanlization - I can imagine it no other way, so it must be so. Science proceeds quite differently - the data say this and not that. The theory must yield if the data contradict it.

Consider it factually: there are fewer violent crimes in France than in the US. But most French people are non-believers. Those are the facts; Christians who are dogmatists have to explain it away with some insult. It's also a fact that America is one of the most ardently believing and Christian nation on the face of the earth - but legally and morally comitted to tolerance.

Has anyone read the Mormon history? The facts: it is based on myth and utterly implausible accounts. But, fact: most Mormons are god-fearing and upright people now. Thus, the irrational basis of Mormonism is no more the issue that Newton's obsession with astrology or the early christian's irrational belief in a virgin birth that was based on a mistranslation.

In short, the rational or irrational basis of belief has little to do with what makes so many people posting here resort to ad hominen attacks. Belief is not Faith. Faith exists in spite of the fact that the beliefs are flawed and uncertain. Dogma has no place in either true Faith or true science.

process for making sense out of the physical world

no one has mentioned Popper here, which is too bad because it would clarify a lot of the error being spouted about science and religion. Popper proposed a simple test for thinking through the difference between a scientific claim and a piece of dogma (whether that dogma be political, philosophical or religious). A scientific claim is falsifiable - it can (and often is) found to have error and is changed by testing. Religious dogma, however, is not falsifiable - no matter what is found, said, or seen, religious people (and communists - popper's initial target) always explain it.

That;s why ignorance is so important - no scientist ever claims the Truth. That's why spouting nonsense like How Come you Cannot Explain That???? - has nothing to do with science as it is practiced.

What religious dogmatists do is explain away all discrepant behavior; what scientists do is worry about it and test it out again.

Nor has anyone mentioned Kant's argument - if science is just god at work then there is no science as we understand that term. Because the system of laws and consistent phenomena can only exist apart from belief or they are merely another belief. But science is not merely another belief. It is a process that reveals facts completely independent of the believer or the belief system - that's why christians and muslims and jews can all be scientists.

The claim for Intelligent Design, like the claim for god guarantees morality is simply not an argument but a ratioanlization - I can imagine it no other way, so it must be so. Science proceeds quite differently - the data say this and not that. The theory must yield if the data contradict it.

Consider it factually: there are fewer violent crimes in France than in the US. But most French people are non-believers. Those are the facts; Christians who are dogmatists have to explain it away with some insult. It's also a fact that America is one of the most ardently believing and Christian nation on the face of the earth - but legally and morally comitted to tolerance.

Has anyone read the Mormon history? The facts: it is based on myth and utterly implausible accounts. But, fact: most Mormons are god-fearing and upright people now. Thus, the irrational basis of Mormonism is no more the issue that Newton's obsession with astrology or the early christian's irrational belief in a virgin birth that was based on a mistranslation.

In short, the rational or irrational basis of belief has little to do with what makes so many people posting here resort to ad hominen attacks. Belief is not Faith. Faith exists in spite of the fact that the beliefs are flawed and uncertain. Dogma has no place in either true Faith or true science.

process for making sense out of the physical world

If you think about it, fundamentalist christians (akin to their radical islamic bretheran) cannot accept freedom and democracy on principle.

I agreed with this most of the way through. Towards the end though it seems to lose the ability to understand the beliefs of the people being critiqued (something problematic if they are the subject of her next book).

Many of what she calls the "religious fanatics" believe that things are good and bad because God declares them so. On such a view of ethics, atheism is directly incompatible with there being such a thing as ethics. So an atheist could presumably be ethical by chance (that is while not understanding what it is to be ethical happening to do the behaviors that are ethical).

And if it is true that ethics is what God declares right and wrong, then convincing people that this is not what ethics is could certainly be damaging the souls of those convinced. It is silly to think that people cannot be swayed to incorrect (and even dangerous incorrect) views by what appear to be rational arguments.

I am an atheist, so obviously I think this views above are mistaken, but it is a mistake to think they are not coherent arguments, or beliefs that a reasonable person could hold.

Jacoby did a good job of distancing herself from the unreason of Hitchens and Harris, but she falls into it a bit in the end.

G. Night, "'belief in the supernatural is by definition irrational' This cannot be right. Suppose someone had good empirical evidence for psychic activity? would you want to rule out such evidence a priori?"

If there were good empirical evidence for psychic activity then it wouldn't be supernatural. The current limits of our knowledge don't define the limits of the natural world. Things either exist or they don't. The so-called supernatural world exists so that people can posit things that supposedly exist outside of existence. That is irrational by definition. It's a way of saying that we can pretend to know all there is to know about something because it's unknowable. It's a get out of reason free card.

The error people make is in jumping straight from "we don't know" or "we're not certain" to "it exists and it's magic." That's "god of the gaps" reasoning, and no, it isn't rational. There may well be extra sensory perception, but would it be supernatural? No, it would exist in the natural world or we wouldn't be able to experience it. It could be something related to entanglement or other quantum effects, perhaps. We don't know, and that's okay. What isn't okay is pretending we do - filling up the gaps in our knowledge with fantastical claims and wild leaps of assumption and calling them supernatural.

Michael wrote (October 1, 2007 7:20 AM): "What are the laws of nature ? Are you talking physics here ? or just your perception that no one can walk on water or raise the dead ?"

Oh, come on. It is common speech. And you don't 'get it'? OK... try this... everything that can exist and everything that can occur in the universe is, by definition, 'natural'... THAT meaning that agents operating from outside of nature precluded... because 'nature' is all that there is. There is no innate requirement that we have to UNDERSTAND nature... or freak out and scream "Supernatural... god did it" when we don't.

Also... there are no compelling reasons to think that STORIES about people walking on water or 'rising from the dead' are credible... PARTICULARLY when we take 'zeitgeist' into account. And when we realize that the only WITNESSES that are asserted to exist, exist ONLY as a part of the STORY. There ARE NO witnesses APART from the story. The STORY is no more credible, and the 'witnesses' are no more credible than the story and the 'witnesses' in a Superman comic book.

Michael wrote "Take the virgin birth for example, there are many cases of this phenom in history, Pythagoras and Zoraster are a couple of them.

That statement makes it necessary for me to ask if you know what the difference, or are able to TELL the difference, between 'cases' of a 'phenomenon' and a 'claim'. Also... the way that you have constructed your sentence implies that you regard the alleged virgin births of Pythagorus and Zoraster as actual historical events... that they are actually 'true'... that they REALLY HAPPENED. Do you REALLY believe that Pythagorus and Zoraster were born of virgins?... or are we just erroneously led to THINK that you believe that, as a consequence of sloppy sentence structure?

Michael wrote "The difference between belief and knowledge is perception and yours seems to be rather limited in scope."

Well... OK... that sure clears up a lot.... you just don't know what you're talking about. OK... let me help. 'Knowledge' is what is 'known'... and in science, all knowledge is understood to be 'provisional'. 'Belief' (in the context that we are discussing) is the ILLUSION of knowledge. Your assertion that "...the difference between belief and knowledge is perception" is fatuous, and fallacious.

'Faith' (magical, wishful thinking) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'evidence' (one of the things that leads to 'knowledge').

Faith-based 'belief' (the internalized certainty that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some vital aspect of existence and/or reality) is a lame and pathetic substitute for 'knowledge'... in fact, it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... or, in this context... self-delusion.

Faith + belief ---> self-deception, self-delusion and willful ignorance.

'Belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is NOT ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

Michael wrote "Have you ever had an oobe? out of body experience?"

I have. So what? It happens. We can't explain it... or, at least, we couldn't explain it BEFORE... it looks like they might be close to explaining it NOW, though. It might interest you to know that scientists have recently managed to INDUCE OBEs in the laboratory. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm

Michael wrote "Have you ever seen something that you couldn't explain?"

I have... lots of times. (search this page for 'Taipei') So what? When we encounter something that we cannot explain, all that 'tells' us is that there is something going on that we cannot explain. There are several things that might account for such occurrences:

* We are being deliberately tricked
* We are being lied to
* Our senses are fooling us
* Coincidence
* Self-deception
* Self-delusion
* Mental aberration or defect
* (a lot of other possibilities that I can't think of right now)
* ...
* ...
* There is something going on that we cannot explain... yet.
* ...
* An infinitely complex conscious entity... all-powerful... all-knowing... all-present... all loving... murderous... genocidal... compassionate... petty... capricious... jealous... forgiving... psychopathic... has no beginning... has no ending... has no cause... has/will exist forever... operates upon the universe from outside the confines of reality... did it.

The point is that ALL of these possibilities must be considered and eliminated... and even then, there is NOTHING that REQUIRES us to to give up and declare "Uh-oh... something we can't explain... God did it." (search this page for 'Barbrady'.) Really, we have only just BEGUN to try to explain things... or, rather, it is more accurate to say that we have only just recently RESUMED trying to explain things, following the (approximately) 1,200 year intermission that was imposed on us by Christianity. Give it a little time, why don't ya? Surely... the acts of the opera should be longer than the intermission? Huh? Right? Give it another 800 or 1,000 years... OK? How about it?

Is there a POSSIBILITY that some sort of invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) is operating things from behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz? SURE there is. (Be sure to take note of condescending, patronizing tone.) WHY is it possible? Well, logic requires us to SAY that it is possible, because we are not able to PROVE that it is NOT possible. WHY can't we PROVE that it is NOT possible? Well... because it is not 'falsifiable'. There is simply no WAY (that we know of) to PROVE that it is NOT possible.

But... while logic compels us to SAY that it is 'possible', it DOES NOT require us to BELIEVE that it is possible... just like logic does not require us to BELIEVE that Bertrand Russell's china teapot is orbiting the sun. SO... while logic compels us to SAY that it is 'possible', it does NOT compel us to take the idea seriously... it does not require us to 'respect' the idea... it does not even ask us not to LAUGH at the idea... PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that the accumulation of knowledge and insight over the past hundred years or so TELLS us... quite explicitly... that we have NO NEED of the invisible, magical, all-powerful sky-fairy hypothesis.

My main gripe with 'logic' is that it compels us to SAY that the ridiculous is 'possible'. Somebody REALLY ought to DO somehing about that.

Michael wrote "Open your mind and more importantly your heart and you will find that there is much more out there than you can imagine."

Having an open mind is a good thing. Having it SO open that (metaphorically) your brains fall out is NOT a good thing. That is why we have words like 'credulity' and 'gullibility'.

Michael wrote "Thinking that you know the truth about reality is naive at best and foolish at worse."

Now that's really funny... you have just provided us with a definition of 'belief'... although your description of it being "... naive at best and foolish at worse" seems sort of limiting... maybe even a 'false dichotomy'. Where do 'stupid', 'insane' and 'delusional' fit in there?... in the middle?... at the end?... never mind.

The whole thrust and purpose of science is based upon the premise that we DO NOT know the 'truth' about reality. Heck... we don't even know what reality IS. Your statement (a virtuoso exhibition of sophistry) is a 'red herring' of the worst sort. You take what are some of the WORST of the properties that defines 'religion'... self-delusion and willful ignorance... and then attempt to paint 'science' with the same brush. Sorry Bubba... that just ain't so.

Actually, I think the Constitution of 1787 guaranteed no established church for the state. In context, that meant that Jews and Catholics would not be taxed to fund the Anglican church of England's successor church in America.

Anyway, there's plenty of supernatural stuff still going on that we don't understand. For example, division by zero and how lightning chooses its path. I personally don't know how the unseen electricity paints colors onto the flat computer screen like the magic latern shows of centuries ago.

Those who denounce forces unseen and not understood as forces that do not exist are like the church leaders of yore who said the earth was flat.

One of my favorite idiocities is the beer story. The story goes that long ago people drank beer and wine rather than water because water was contamiated with bacteria that made people sick with cholera and other nasty things. Of course, people had no idea of bacteria in water until much later. They didn't know water was bad. They just knew beer and wine were healthy. A big stein of beer before work in the morning assured a productive day.

In fact, in the civil war, a gunshot wound was treated with whisky -- not in the wound to prevent gangrene, but down the hatch to manage the pain. People lost hands, feet, arms, legs, and who knows what else because they didn't know that the trick to preventing infection was to put the alcohol on the wound, not into the wounded.

Of course if some time traveler had told them about the magical power of antiseptic alcohol, then Hitchen and Dawkins would have denounced them as fools and gone back to sawing off legs.

Art M: “As a group, [atheists] are just like the Baptists or the Catholics or Muslims in that they have their neat little club with bylaws and regulations and traditions….”

Please tell us where and what these bylaws, regulations and traditions are. Could you provide an internet link? Thanks.

PAT COSTA: “I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?).”

Yes, try https://lightning.he.net/~atheists/catalogue/shop/prod3230.php for a start.

I’ve got the one that’s pictured in the upper left corner.

Also try http://outcampaign.org/ for red “A” pins and T-shirts.

By the way, atheists don’t proselytize. Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief.

Anonymous wrote: "Nonsense. That which is supernatural is "above nature", that is, it is outside of the 4 natural dimensions which we experience. It does not contradict nature. In the same way that 3 dimensional objects do not contradict 1 dimensional objects. They simply add to them. The supernatural is not the magical. But it is easy to think of it that way because then it is easier to reject."

Well, now... THAT is nonsense. The '4 natural dimensions' that we experience do NOT define or describe 'nature'... they are merely a reflection of the limitations that are IMPOSED upon us by 'nature'. Further... those '4 natural dimensions' of which you speak are not 'natural' at all... they do not actually 'exist'... they are an abstract concept that provides us with a way of relating to, communicating about, and describing our world (universe). And with regard to the '4th dimension'... time... there is no compelling reason to think that time 'exists' apart from human consciousness. In other words, we don't measure time... we create it... sort of... it is an illusion. ANY scalar quantity that we deem to be 'useful' for describing an event or a 'thing' in a perticular context can be regarded as a 'dimension'. Why? Because we say so. That is why dimensions (abstractly) 'exist' at all... because we say they do.

Here is a multi-dimensional description... 3, 4, 12, 5, 43, 156, 4, 6, 11, 6... a 10-dimensional world. Perfectly meaningless... until we provide a suitable context. 3rd floor of the library... 4th row of shelves... 12th section... 5th shelf from the bottom... 43rd book from the left... page 156... 4th paragraph... 6th line... 11th word... 6th letter.

Wow... that's supernatural.

Additional dimensions DO NOT take us outside the realm of 'nature'; to the contrary... they allow us to construct a more fine-grained DESCRIPTION of nature.

The 'supernatural'... specifically... by definition... describes something affecting 'nature' from without.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." ~ Groucho Marx

"I have seen the future. It is very much like the present... only longer." ~ Unknown

"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once." ~ Unknown

"belief in the supernatural is by definition irrational"
This cannot be right. Suppose someone had good empirical evidence for psychic activity? would you want to rule out such evidence a priori? on what grounds
There are tons of arguments for God's existence. Such arguments may or may not be sound. But it is surely cheating to suppose that just because they assert the existence of a supernatural entity they are bad arguments. That is question begging.

"All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition"

Nonsense. That which is supernatural is "above nature", that is, it is outside of the 4 natural dimensions which we experience. It does not contradict nature. In the same way that 3 dimensional objects do not contradict 1 dimensional objects. They simply add to them. The supernatural is not the magical. But it is easy to think of it that way because then it is easier to reject.

As a non-believer, a scientist, and a critical thinking human being, I constantly entertain the notion that I may be wrong, and that there may indeed be a God. Can any believers claim the same, but in the reverse?

...sound of crickets chirping fills the night...

No, I did not think so. And that is what will always separate the true believers from the rest. They are forced to believe (by definition) without evidence, while I require at least some type of proof. But at least I'm humble enough to admit that I do not know all the answers and I'm open to alternative viewpoints. If the religious could claim the same, then you might convert me.

"The atheist-bashers really hate freedom of speech. They would have preferred a Constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion but not the freedom to speak out against religion. They lost that battle when the Constitution was written in 1787, and they have never gotten over it."

Ms. Jacoby's article on the whole is an excellent commentary, but with the above words, she has hit the nail on the head in identifying what lies at the heart of the so-called Christian fundamentalist movement. It is precisely that core outlook that makes fundamentalism a clear and present danger to the American experiment in democracy; makes it the enemy of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all true Americans; and renders null and void any argument that the fundies are just another religious movement that the rest of us should benignly tolerate.

The fundies have a political, not a religious, agenda. It is to establish an American theocracy, and one based on the more narrow-minded, bigoted, blind, and anti-rational wing of Christianity. It must be opposed with vigor.

I wonder if Jehowa, Allah and the father of Jesus could get together on a deal that would save their subjects some suffering?

Susan,

Thanks for speaking-up regarding (and of course writing about) the hold that religion has on public life (as well as the way citizens are judged by their fellows.) For some time now, I've thought about the deists, and personally felt attracted to the Kurt Vonnegut invention of "The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent". It is frightening to me to see so much pressure applied in our society, but particularly against political candidates to show how their religious background makes them somehow better leaders.

It USED to be that a few topics were considered out of bounds for discussion in polite society, one's religion (except for the fact you believed in some way), politics, and sexual mores. It was much easier tNow, of course, it seems there are no such prohibitions, and in-fact the public seems to clamor for such discussion.

I am always uneasy around those declaring their belief systems; it seems too easy to capture the support of the public by doing so....I wish that more folks could be comfortable declaring their lack of a belief in the supernatural, but the same tired attacks regarding "then where did our beliefs of right and wrong come from ??" eventually are pulled out as "proof" of an all-powerful deity.....there is no debate from that point.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting article.

That was Gerry, sorry.

Michael,

"virgin" birth is based on a mistranslation. The greek word "Parthenos" (male ending "os" for a female meaning, btw!) means nothing else than "young woman".

I am firmly convinced that Susan Jacoby knows where the word "religion" comes from without looking it up and without consulting you.

You are a typical specimen of people who think they know the truth where the huge gaps of there knowledge are located and mistakenly allege others, far more educated and thinking fellow humans, to believe just that.

As to the laws of nature (observable cause and effect rules, not juridic laws!): Something is either possible or impossible. Can you stll follow? Would you agree? If it happens, it is possible, otherwise it wouldn't happen and thereby stay within those observable natural rules (they may not all have been observed yet). But to claim something impossible as possible is not religion, but logical nonsense.

The difference between knowledge and belief is not perception, it is evidence or lack thereof. The difference is fact vs. illusion. Perception: If you close your eyes, the things you don't see anymore are still there!

So instead of calling others insensitive, you might read a book or two. If you see something you can't explain, instead of positing a god into the void, you might try to find a method to explain it. That is what science is about. Without the existence of this "ungodly" method, you wouldn't even be able to tap the keys of your computer to voice such opinions, and I doubt, btw., that you can explain how and why it works! Not many years ago, such a computer would easily have served as a proof of god's existence...

What a bunch of 'fruit loops'!!!!

There are hundreds of religions, each believes in that their god (or gods) is the one true, all powerful being, supreme to any other god. That belief can lead to all sorts of mayhem committed in the name of, and under the aegis of, that god. Logically, they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong. The absence of a deity is more logical than its existence. Voltaire said we would have to invent god, if he didn’t exist; that is exactly what people have done. God exists, in the minds of the true believers, because they seem unable to trust their own moral compass without the presumption of external and divine intervention. Living as an atheist is more problematic because they cannot assuage a conscience, guilt ridden for an unsocial act, by convincing themselves that god wanted them to act that way. An atheist must do the right thing or accept the consequences. I do not feel compelled to proselytize atheism; I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?). I will admit to being one if asked, but, frankly, too many believers feel threatened by my opinion. Twain said it best, that there was an omission from the bible; “Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor’s religion is.” That single omission led to all manner of crimes against humanity in the past and continues, to this day, to foment unrest and strife around the world.

There are hundreds of religions, each believes in that their god (or gods) is the one true, all powerful being, supreme to any other god. That belief can lead to all sorts of mayhem committed in the name of, and under the aegis of, that god. Logically, they cannot all be correct, but they can all be wrong. The absence of a deity is more logical than its existence. Voltaire said we would have to invent god, if he didn’t exist; that is exactly what people have done. God exists, in the minds of the true believers, because they seem unable to trust their own moral compass without the presumption of external and divine intervention. Living as an atheist is more problematic because they cannot assuage a conscience, guilt ridden for an unsocial act, by convincing themselves that god wanted them to act that way. An atheist must do the right thing or accept the consequences. I do not feel compelled to proselytize atheism; I don’t wear an atheist lapel pin (does such a thing even exist?). I will admit to being one if asked, but, frankly, too many believers feel threatened by my opinion. Twain said it best, that there was an omission from the bible; “Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor’s religion is.” That single omission led to all manner of crimes against humanity in the past and continues, to this day, to foment unrest and strife around the world.

I agree with much of what Susan says. Having dealt personally with bewilderment or anger on the part of religious fundamentalists at my lack of belief, I generally find them amusing in their attempts to convert me. So many of them are firm in their belief that only they are the one true religion. I find the rigidity of belief to be roughly the same among the devout Christian, Muslim or Jew or any other religious denomination.
However, when those same groups, in any country, proclaim that anyone else not of their faith are infidels and that their code of conduct is the only one that should be used in the creation and interpretation of laws that govern all citizens of that country, regardless of faith or lack thereof, I draw the line. Within the US Bill of Rights, our founders got it wrong. The first amendment should have said freedom of and freedom from religion. You are welcome to your beliefs, but let me have my lack of belief. Don't assume your moral code from your religion has any more precedence than my moral code.

Susan, You are a fine writer but a lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. For example your belief that anything that contradicts the "laws" of nature is absurd. What are the laws of nature ? Are you talking physics here ? or just your perception that no one can walk on water or raise the dead ?
Having written much about not believing I would be willing to bet, without looking it up, you couldn't tell me the definition of the word religion from the Latin root. true or not ?
Take the virgin birth for example, there are many cases of this phenom in history, Pythagoras and Zoraster are a couple of them.
The difference between belief and knowledge is perception and yours seems to be rather limited in scope. Have you ever had an oobe ? out of body experience ? Have you ever seen something that you couldn't explain ?
Open your mind and more importantly your heart and you will find that there is much more out there than you can imagine. Thinking that you know the truth about reality is naive at best and foolish at worse.
Good luck

Be it understood humanities objection to severe religious brainwashing, is by no means insult to any of the prophets as sent to inspire,guide in Spiritual development.The objections be as to the way Spiritual teachings, abused in translation, by those whom seek Spiritual as political power over others,for good reason or bad, dependent on period of history,conflicts,nation at war within. Coming to terms with reality, freeing self from the trappings of illusion, material as Spiritual. Hence,to followers of JESUS as MUHAMMAD as to the MANY whom have given all in service to humanity. There be no intent of disrespect as disagreement that ever intended,the presence of JESUS be one's blessing, as to have walked with MUHAMMAD..yet it must human development continue,as progress unto further our experience,understanding than past masters gave,as imparted by JESUS MUHAMMAD. Yesterdays meal does not satisfy todays hunger, todays needs,we cannot live in the past rather face todays future.The brains capability ever in stages of further development,our understanding grows,matched by experience,ever more reveiled. Though we differ much in revalation our source be as the one,such more fully realized when nearing completion of journey,it being MUHAMMAD as JESUS having but changed human forms.As must we change in such our balanced understanding as experience. Allah be Praised God is GREAT.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

Susan Jacoby:

How I wish I could express myself as well as you. I spent 13 years in catholic schools and wasted that precious time biting my tongue in disbelief over what the nuns and priests were trying to cram into my head! You see, they do not like inquisitiveness. Rational thinking has no place there. My philosophy is my own private business, but since this world is full of salesmanship, there's no way to shut out the evangelicals.

sometimes I have a suspicion that these posters (Vinny, Maria, Matthew etc.) are just spoofing in order to intentionally disgrace their "pretended" religionists' positions, that in reality they are on the reason side and just with masquerade and impersonation tricks want to show to which degree of nonsense, superstition, bigotry and cabaret you can go and still find some backers. In this case, I seldom have encountered a more sophisticated degree of impersonating the concept of stupidity. Congratulations then!

Also the penetrant prayer mill question of Vinny that none of us ever comes with an "answer", instead we are "running for the hills" (I like that) points into this direction.

I may be wrong, of course. If they lead their life on this level of intelligence, an answer in their understanding could only be an affirmation of their stance, like Maria's story is an answer to Vinny's rambles. Any other answer then, however exhaustive and well-informed and educated and reasonable it may be (Duckphup, Chip. E fav) is simply a non-answer for him/them.

Since only the Matthewses and Marias seem to be able to give such an answer to Vinny, we can look forward to some more wasted bits and bytes by Vinny and his friends.

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

Greg writes:

"The fact is that none of you know if there is a God. You think there may not be, you may even be convinced there may not be. Well, how can you be so certain when you don't know."

Dear Greg -

Please consider:

1. If there is a god, there's no way that you can be sure he's the one you're worshipping. If Zeus, Odin or Allah happens to be the "real" god, you could be condemning yourself to a hellish eternity by picking the wrong horse to back.

2. You don't "know" that there is a god. You may believe there is a god, but you cannot know. Check the dictionary to learn the difference between believing and knowing.

3. In the course of human history - and most likely, all of history - an event has never occurred that needed the intervention of a god for that event to occur. I'm speaking of REAL events here - wars, weather, natural disasters - not myths and legends - virgin births, gods rising from the dead, etc.

4. There have been thousands of gods created by man over the course of human history. You believe in only one of them, and there's no way that you can prove that your god even exists in the first place. You are an atheist to about 999.99% of your being, that remaining .01% being the place where your "existence unprovable" god resides. Considering the odds, you're basically folding your hand to the atheists.

5. How can you be certain that there is a god when the only evidence for one are the words of scientifically illiterate sheep herders from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago? Would you go to a doctor who treated his patients with Bronze Age technology? Would you take your car to a mechanic who relied on miracles to fix your transmission? If not, then why would you rely on Bronze Aged writers for your view of the world?

David write: "So the books in the Bible that testify to the existence of Jesus are not considered to be historical records?"

Well... no. Oh, the early epistles of Paul are (not the later forgeries)... they tell of a Judaized version of the salvations cults that were a dime-a-dozen in that area, at that time. The thing is... if you read those epistles while pretenting that you know nothing of the 'historical' Jesus that is described in the gpspels, it wil quickly become apparent to you that Paul has not the faintest clue about the 'life' of Jesus. While you are PRETENDING not to know of the life of Jesus, you will see that Paul REALLY didn't know. The Christ that he talks about is a purely 'spiritual' Christ, that operated in 'heavenly' realms. The first time that the familiar 'Jesus' story pops up is AFTER 70 AD... in the gospel of Mark. And the gospel of Mark is NOT historical... it is fiction. In fact it is a series of vignettes, in the very famiiar 'suffering hero' archetype... Judaized with scriptural references to create the illusion of prophecies fulfilled. Matthew and Luke were written later... near or after the end of the 1st century... both using Mark as a template and adding 'sayings' of Jesus. The basic story-line is the same, because of the Mark link... and A LOT of the sayings are the same, because they came from the same source (the 'Q-document')... but the scenes in which the sayings are delivered are different... because those scenes are the independent inventions of the authors of Matthew and Luke. John was written near the middle of the 2nd century... and NONE of the gospels were widely known in the christian community until around the middle of the 3rd century. Oh... and if you add up all the 'Jesus-time' accounted for in the gospels (not counting the 40-days that he allegedly spent wandering in the desert)... well, it works out to no more than 3-weeks.

The authors of the gospels are unknown to scholars... except that they were most certainly NOT witnesses to the events that they describe. Christian apologists (they have a vested interest, you know. They call themselves apologists... I call them liars.) place the writing of the first gospel as early as 46 AD... but credible scholarship declares that to be nonsense.

David write: "There are many other extra-biblical writings that affirmed to His existence including some who were witnesses to His existence."

Well... that just ain't so. There are exactly ZERO contemporaneous extra-biblical writings that refer to Jesus. There are absolutely ZERO extra-biblical writings that bear witness to his existence. The ONLY writings which (allegedly) bear witness to his existence are the gospels... and I say 'allagedly' because they are (most likely) fiction.

The first reference to Christ in an account OUTSIDE of the bible is in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus... and he wasn't even BORN until 37 AD. Also, the reference to Jesus that DOES appear in his writings is regarded by MOST scholars and theologians as a forgery, perpetrated in the 4th century (maybe the 5th... I forget)... probably by the bishop Origen. (This is all extemporaneous writing here. I'm going from memory... so if my dates are off a little bit, please don't crucify me for it.) That case was thought to be closed in the beginning of the 1800s. Within the past few decades, though, a few scholars have been attempting to make the case that the Josephus account is not a TOTAL forgery, but rather an 'interpolation' by a 3rd century scribe. Also... it seems that the author of Luke cribbed some historical references from Josephus' history of the jews... which pretty much pegs the date of Luke's writing to about 96 AD, at the earliest.

The rest of the extra-biblical references came in the 2nd century and later... and they merely attest to the existence of christians. Tertulian... Justin Martyr... Pliny the Younger... and some later and lesser references.

David write: "Why is this not good enough evidence for at least His existence?"

Sorry... all of the so-called 'evidence' is 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best... and the best of the evidence is at least tampered with, if not a forgery in its entirety. The gospels' value as evidence depends upon their credibility. They tell fantastic tales of magical and miraculous events... they follow a well-known hero-story archetype... there is NO contemporaneous external corroboration... the book DECLARES that there were witnesses... but the book is self-serving and self-referential, with ABSOLUTELY NO external corroboration. A fiction declaring that the prophecies of a myth are fulfilled. Look... up in the sky... it's a bird... it's a plane... it's SUPERMAN! Yeah... witnesses.

The gospels include the story of a man physically ascending up into the air, into heaven... at a time when the sky was thought to be a solid crystalline dome... with heaven 'on the other side of the sky'. So... at a time when heaven was believed to be on the 'other side of the sky', the story was at least credible... if you believed in superstitious, miraculous BS... which everybody apparently did. But today... MOST of us know that the sky is NOT a solid crystalline dome... and that heaven is NOT on the other side of the sky. So... that kind of makes my BS alarm tingle a little bit. How about yours?

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell.
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read my below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

I'm a 54-year old white male who was a supporter of faith-based approaches to social issues in the 2000 election, chiefly because of the positive transformative influence I've seen religion exercise on individuals of violent, anti-social pasts, and because of the ineffectiveness of big-box liberal programs in addressing crime and other social problems. I also thought (and still think) that a case can be made for asserting that the development of individual and human rights in the 18th century is in part the result of transcendent values communicated to Europe by Christianity (even though that same Christianity also inspired appalling crimes against humanity), and thought that we needed to be more flexible in allowing private citizens to apply faith-based programs for the social good.

Now, however, seven years after helping put this president in the White House, I am ready to repent. For me, the turning point was the Terry Schiavo case, and seeing enraged monks, preachers and the truly frightening Randall Terry accuse the husband of murder. I realized that all that stood between that mob (and the president, governor and Congress who interceded for political gain) and a noose for Mr. Schiavo was the law, and that law had to be utterly and uncompromisingly secular in every respect, with no special dispensation or accomodation for religions, religious values or religious institutions. To me that means eliminating religion from all aspects of public life, from swearing on the Bible in courtrooms to tax breaks for religious institutions.

I think writers like Jacoby, Harris and Hitchens are providing a distinguished service to our country by engaging this debate. I'm not an atheist like they are, but their courageous rationalism is badly needed now, and is having a profound impact.

I'm a 54-year old white male who was a supporter of faith-based approaches to social issues in the 2000 election, chiefly because of the positive transformative influence I've seen religion exercise on individuals of violent, anti-social pasts, and because of the ineffectiveness of big-box liberal programs in addressing crime and other social problems. I also thought (and still think) that a case can be made for asserting that the development of individual and human rights in the 18th century is in part the result of transcendent values communicated to Europe by Christianity (even though that same Christianity also inspired appalling crimes against humanity), and thought that we needed to be more flexible in allowing private citizens to apply faith-based programs for the social good.

Now, however, seven years after helping put this president in the White House, I am ready to repent. For me, the turning point was the Terry Schiavo case, and seeing enraged monks, preachers and the truly frightening Randall Terry accuse the husband of murder. I realized that all that stood between that mob (and the president, governor and Congress who interceded for political gain) and a noose for Mr. Schiavo was the law, and that law had to be utterly and uncompromisingly secular in every respect, with no special dispensation or accomodation for religions, religious values or religious institutions. To me that means eliminating religion from all aspects of public life, from swearing on the Bible in courtrooms to tax breaks for religious institutions.

I think writers like Jacoby, Harris and Hitchens are providing a distinguished service to our country by engaging this debate. I'm not an atheist like they are, but their courageous rationalism is badly needed now, and is having a profound impact.

Well, short of the Book of Mormon, I don't believe I've read a more wordier piece than this one by Ms. Jacoby. Why is it that self-righteous atheists always seem to be as pompous as a Televangelist on a roll? Is it some sort of pre-requisite? Do atheists have one of those measuring sticks like at the amusement parks that say, "If your nose isn't this high in the air, you can't ride this ride"?

"It is fair to say that all religion originated in ignorance and tribalism" - How hyper-ironic this statement. In the long history of man certainly there must a statement more steeped in "ignorance" than this one, but it would probably take a while to figure out exactly which one it was. We can only assume , Ms. Jacoby, that you were actually there at the origin of "all religion", or perhaps you received a revelation from God?

"All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition." Excuse me Ms Pompous A$$ of the Year, but "laws of nature" as decided by precisely whom? The same bozos who were absolutely, positively certain that the universe revolved around the Earth? (And for those knee jerk reactors who will point at the Catholic Church and exclaim that it "was their idea!", you are wrong, the idea started with the Greeks and was part of the writings of Aristotle, who was hardly a Catholic.) Or perhaps those deep thinkers who knew for certain (this group includes such notables as Isaac Newton) that it was possible to turn lead into gold?
My point, Ms. Jacoby, is that your sentence is as bogus as most of the rest of your thinking. What you are really saying is that anyone who doesn't agree with the popular beliefs of the day are irrational, which sounds suspiciously like the religionists who used to burn folks at the stake. Those nut jobs justified lighting the fires based on the same reasonings, just different names; as they would ignorantly and self-righteously call it "God's Law", while you just change the term to "Natural Law".

The word ironic doesn't quite fit as a general descriptor in this case, but it is interesting how religious atheists are. As a group, they are just like the Baptists or the Catholics or Muslims in that they have their neat little club with bylaws and regulations and traditions, with various favorite mantras that are repeated ad nauseum, because the more repetition, the more (gosh, I guess 'holy' doesn't quite fit here) righteous they feel. As is often noted in detective work: No pattern is a pattern, and the principle can be applied to atheism. Atheism is a religion with a different God than anybody else has at the moment.

The fact is that for some strange reason, human beings are built with a NEED to worship something, anything. I wonder why that is? Without fail, a human being will worship something, be it a spiritual creature in the sky somewhere, or evolution, or science, or movie stars, or money, or sex, or (feel free to fill in the blank with whatEVER comes to mind). Please, Ms. Jacoby, explain that absolute need to worship something, anything, so obviously present in each and every person, from the basis of an atheist, and especially an atheist delivered into our midst by the grace of evolution. Please, explain how the need to worship something, anything, factors into the theory of "survival of the fittest".

No, Ms. Jacoby, I do not think of you as a "promoter" of atheism, because if you are you are one heck of a truck driver. Personally, if I were a religionist, I would make bunches of copies of your piece and hand it out as proof of the general emptiness of atheism.

As always, thanks for a well thought out piece, Susan.

There are many obvious reasons why humans would invent a god and try to convince other humans of the rules this god wanted us to obey. This has happened thousands of times in our short history.

But is there one good reason why a god would invent humans? I have seen no reasonable argument to suport homo sapiens being an "ultimate" species. No doubt tyrannosourus rex thought he was pretty cool too. In the same way, most religions seem to be about vanity and self-glorification, some more subtle than others (the chosen people, god loves me, my personal saviour, etc.) If god created life, then it seems pretty clear that we are little more than his work-in-progress, full of design flaws, saying and doing things that are mostly dumb.

As far as morals are concerned, I have generally found atheists and agnostics to be more fair, sharing, sympathetic, understanding and kind towards other people than those who hold strong religious convictions. If you have to believe in a reward in heaven or punishment in hell to motivate you to be good, then there is something fundamentally weak about your goodness.

There also seems to be a reverse correlation between a nation's well-being and the level of religious belief. Where there is an atmosphere of fear, there is strong religion. Where there is no fear, religion is less relevant. America today is pervaded and controlled by all kinds of fear. Contrast the situation in Scandinavia where life holds few fears, where the prison population is lower, where healthcare is freely available to all, and where life expectancy and the standard of living is much higher than here in the USA. Religion has little impact on life in Scandinavia today, but most Scandinavians are fundamentally decent and kind people.

Among the countries of the developed world, the USA is unique in the persistence of religion. The USA is fundamentally violent (with weapons to match), has little to no employment security and a healthcare system that perversely denies help to those who most need it (pre-exiting conditions!). I suspect there is a connection - the persistence of these problems cause religion to persist. I don't believe religion is the cause of violence; it's more the other way round. If we solved all these social problems the impact of religion would fade to a similar low level to that in other developed countries like Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, etc.

This would be true progress.

Greg - I for one think folks are entitled to believe whatever suits them as regards the origins of the universe, life, the life beyond, and so forth. I would think and hope that most bloggers interested in theistic religion, non-theistic religion, or atheism are well aware that metaphysical propositions are not typically subject to proofs for or against - on the other hand, the skeptic will seldom convince the believer, nor will the believer convert the non-believer. In my experience atheists are more aware of the limits of metaphysics than most.

Bringing science into the mix just muddies the waters altogether, since the domain of science remains in the physical/material realm whereas the true domain of religion is the invisible, super-physical/non-material/spiritual realm. These realms may well exist but are largely unknown to science at this time (lest they be the quantum realm). Naturally, scientific theorums need to hold up under rigorous methods of proof or they get tossed. By comparison, this is not at all the case with religious doctrines, as an example. I don't know if the twain shall ever meet, but it won't happen easily or conveniently by any measure.

The point is, not all people need religion in their lives, and many prefer a life without religion altogether - the reason being, it serves no useful purpose. Or, it might even be actively offensive to some (as you can plainly see, for many reasons). Or, there are better or more satisfactory (non-religious) explanations for life's mysteries to the non-devout.

In my view there's never any good reason to argue about these issues unless someone absolutely insists - which is often the case.
There are alot of learning opportunities on these blogs and that's by far the more entertaining reason to blog here.

Duckphuk,

So the books in the Bible that testify to the existence of Jesus are not considered to be historical records? There are many other extra-biblical writings that affirmed to His existence including some who were witnesses to His existence. Why is this not good enough evidence for at least His existence?

Greg,

I love the simplicity in your explanation in that it is not complicated being a Christian. I would like to add that we are all logically agnostics if you deem science as the only tool for finding truth. That is why it's called faith. You have faith too Duck! Faith God does not exist. You sure do not have knowledge of that. There is evidence for God in the Bible. You may or may not accept that evidence to be enough or even valid for you, but I do and therefore I believe in Jesus.

Peace

Susan,

Actually this page does a great job of serving as a platform for atheists. You are speaking to an audience which is mostly sympathetic to your position.

Greg... the simple response to all your comments about science is this: We have no need of that hypothesis (god). Science is doing just fine without it. You ought to read up on 'god of the gaps'... you will see that god has been sort of 'shrinking' for the past 400 years or so.

Regarding Jesus... modern biblical scholarship makes a VERY compelling case for the idea that Jesus never existed... that he was, in fact, entirely fictional. Richard Carrier's review of 'The Jesus Puzzle' is probably the best place to start, if you're at all interested in investigating this, and learning the 'truth'...
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml

The Jesus Puzzle
pages.ca.inter.net/%7Eoblio/jhcjp.htm
jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

I always took it for granted that Jesus was a historical character... it's hard NOT to think that in today's society... but I did not believe all the god stuff, though... miracles, etc. However... about 5 years ago i began to look into this very deeply... and the evidence is startling... and real. I came away absolutely convinced that Jesus was fictional... the gospels are fictional. If you look a the evidence with an open mind, you will come to realize that Christianity is nothing more than a fraud and a scam... and that you are a victim.

Terry,

Nice reply to the erratic pomposity of Vinny. He reminds me of what the Democrats said of Newt Gingrich. When the Newt got caught with his pants down and had to retire from his position as Speaker of the House, the Demos lamented! Reason? As one said, "He is so beat-uppable." So is Vinnie. An unending source of entertainment. Pontification on a soap opera level.

I have noted when believers post the nonbelievers reponse is full of the usual diversion from questions regarding science and God -- they are never answered by the nonbelievers here -- just comments about superstition, nonsense, and ignorance; quotes from long dead atheists, living atheists and others, but never direct answers to the questions. It is a great debate tool, but it is meaningless. The comments are usually along the lines of science doesn't have to prove, or science can't know everything, or science, blah, blah, blah --
The fact is that none of you know if there is a God. You think there may not be, you may even be convinced there may not be. Maybe you feel it to the bottom of your ... oh wait, not soul, to the bottom of your feet. Still, in the end, you may well not be right. Your absolute convinction that there is no God is exactly the kind of thought process you damn among believers. You know, the "how can you be so certain when you cannot see" statements I always read. The you cannot prove statements. Well, how can you be so certain when you don't know. Science clearly does not have the answer. In fact, good science is about looking for answers, and every scientist I know worth their salt admits that we are only scratching the surface of what we know -- what is real -- what are the natural laws. 100 years from now, much of what we "know" scientifically will turn out to be wrong. I was taught in 1974 that the atom was the smallest particle -- oops. My point, which I'll belabor, is that your so certain attitude about there being no God is inconsistent with you criticism of those who are so certain there is a God. You simply don't know for certain -- and I heard Mr. Hitchens state that emphatically -- he does not know if there is a God. So, even he doesn't agree with many of you who are so certain here.
Why do I believe. Well, there is some reason to support my opinion. (I'm certain you'll disagree, but here goes.) Around 30 A.D, many people met and followed this nice, quite, peaceful man. He asked some to follow Him, He had a mission for them. During their time with Him, they watched Him approach crippled people, and He made them walk. They saw Him make blind people see. They saw Him feed hundreds with a few fishes and bread. Then, He was executed. A few days later, after having buried Him, they saw Him again. After He returned, He told them to spread His word of peace and love. He did not promise worldly riches, nor an easy life. In fact, it was clear that life would be hard for those who followed. As a result of His direction, many left their only home, traveled the world, and spread His message of hope and love. Many who knew Him personally suffered and died. Oftentimes, they only needed to reject Him to save their skin. But they didn't. They went to their death. 2000 Years later, billions follow that man. Now, you can reject all that if you choose. To me, the actions of those who personally followed Jesus (not those who never met Him) suggest they knew something about Him. He was dead after all, so disavowing Him in a land hundreds of miles away from home would lead to no problems -- yet they chose not to, even in the face of death -- could it be because they knew something about Him based upon personal experience. Could it be that they have more information than you or I? I know, you will say there is no evidence any of those people lived -- to which I respond that rulers of Egypt have gone unknown to us for thousands of years -- and they ruled continents. In fact, there are many rulers of places in this world who lived of whom we know absolutely nothing -- so the absence of proof means little here. I know, I know, if He was such a big deal why then isn't there any historical proof -- could it be because to the powers that be He was nothing -- so why document Him. Maybe they feared His teaching, so they may have purposely sought to ignore Him. Of course, they did execute Christians for their beliefs. Maybe, just maybe the earthly powers feared what Jesus taught. It was also a known practice of Pharoahs to wipe out any mention of prior Pharoahs with whom the had issues. In taht way, they never existed. So,the lack of historical evidence is not proof. Oh, I know -- He was just a cult figure who convinced His followers -- He brain washed them, so to speak. Again, why go to death years after He died unless you saw something or knew something. In any event, here we are, 2000 years later, and billions of people follow Him. Based upon His life and His teachings,and what His followers saw and heard and told others. In the end, we who beleive have some reason to do so -- not just superstition or ignorance or triablaism -- Is it totally rational -- no; but it is based on more than just looking in the sky and wondering where it all came from. It is based on more than simply doing what daddy said, or needing a place to be needed. A man walked this earth, and His life speaks for itself -- and His followers spread His word -- and here we are. If you chose to disagree, OK. But you cannot be absolutely, 100% certain He was not who He professed to be. If you say you are, then you are guilty of irrational thinking -- and inconsistent application of your rule that certainty without proof is ignorance. Why, you would even be guilty of superstition, nonsense, ignorance. Accept the truth -- you cannot be certain, maybe mostly convinced, but not absolutely 100 % certain... Hitchens isn't, maybe you should let him enligthen you.
From an ignorant, superstitious tribalist who awaits your slings and arrows.

Take heart, Ms. Jacoby. The fanatics who attack you and would strip you of your free-speech rights are precisely those whom Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote his famous words against "tyranny over the mind of man" now engraved on the Jefferson Memorial by the Tidal Basin in Washington D.C. The leading Founders of this nation were Deists and they passed the Treaty of Tripoli which makes clear this is not a "Christian" nation. The un-Christian ferociousness of the anti-atheists today is just another piece of evidence that this nation remains not a Christian nation. They wouldn't act the way they do if it were.

Vinny:

I didn't ask what God's reason for intelligently designing the universe was, I asked what *you* thought the reason was. Surely someone so convinced of it's premeditated design must have an opinion as to the purpose of that design.

Maria:

The next time an entity in a nightgown approaches you from the bushes ask them for a dictionary.

Fred Corbello - I found Hitchen and Dawkins much easier to understand than your writing above.

Not sure I understand, but it sounds like you want science to fail and religion to survive. If I had to choose, I'd want the reverse.

When religion was first formed, people didn't know much about science. But now, I'd hate to give up modern technology for faith in God.

Vinnie - actually I'm sticking around because I enjoy watching you make a complete ass of yourself - however, here's my conjecture - I believe, but am not at all certain, that you are trumpeting your Intelligent Design idea because you've heard somewhere about the 'cosmological constants' - those critical factors that must be present in order for a cosmos to arise in the first place, and for humans and other life forms to arise in the second place - and how could all of this come about anyway without a divine engineer at the helm for all the fine tuning???

I'm optomistic that you're basing your theocracy on at least this much evidence and based on scientific reading. But let me expand your reading list of physicists as authors (real experts) and what they think about Intelligent Design:

The God Theory: universes, zero point fields, and what's behind it all (Haisch)...
God: The Failed Hypothesis (Stenger)...
The Mind of God (Paul Davis)...
The Probability of God (Unwin)...
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity (Lee Smolin) - this one so damned difficult it drives lesser men to Intelligent Design.
Wholeness and the Implicate Order (David Bohm)

.............the list goes on...........

And who said something came from nothing?? - you clearly haven't been reading up on Quantum Foam and Zero Point Fields.

If you want to find out what great physicists of the recent past thought about spirituality (they often did not oppose it) try reading - Quantum Questions (Ken Wilber)....

A favorite recent read: Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos - the rise of an integral vision of reality (Irvin Laszlo)...

Vinnie, in all your smugness and sense of superiority you're just one dimensional guy aren't you? As though the folks on this blog haven't been there and back umpteen times on these issues while you were just getting a handle on Intelligent Design. Assaulting folks with a hostile attitude of absolute certainty just makes you look like a horse's ass.... but you knew that.

PS - I'm still interested in the red '62 vette...now that's Intelligent Design!!

I see no reason why interminable noise shouldn't butter your bread, even when you're even-handed. I've only read snippets of the writings of Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens, and maybe I was put off from further inquiry by a perceived "predictableness." Recently among a gathering of scientists from many different nations at Cern, one spoke out to maintain what a fine and instructive example they [should] be, before a hopelessly recalcitrant world and that apparently in such dire need of reason, not to mention reasonable science. There must not be any petty rivalries at Cern, these like little sparks thrown off from the friction of intense competiton, but what there certainly is [is] shelter, food, and numerous other accoutrements supplied by people who get up every morning, and in lesser numbers these days, I'm afraid, because their sense of the ultimate mystery that life still is [is] properly contained or perhaps channeled. It wouldn't surprise me the least if someday science didn't find itself entranced in its own most hated aspect - that of staring at collider data until it was overcome by its own self-consciousness to "feel itself" the metaphor of Buddha contemplating his own navel. From far off, even now, most likely this aspect frightens them, hence their vociferous attacks upon religion, and at the height of hubris, their suggestion that a "bottleneck" is in the future that only the "right ones" will get through. An old trick of religion. So much do we become that which we most hate. What largesse will save science, when, as I predict, science too will need saving?

I see no reason why interminable noise shouldn't butter your bread, even when you're even-handed. I've only read snippets of the writings of Harris-Dawkins-Hitchens, and maybe I was put off from further inquiry by a perceived "predictableness." Recently among a gathering of scientists from many different nations at Cern, one spoke out to maintain what a fine and instructive example they [should] be, before a hopelessly recalcitrant world and that apparently in such dire need of reason, not to mention reasonable science. There must not be any petty rivalries at Cern, these like little sparks thrown off from the friction of intense competiton, but what there certainly is [is] shelter, food, and numerous other accoutrements supplied by people who get up every morning, and in lesser numbers these days, I'm afraid, because their sense of the ultimate mystery that life still is [is] properly contained or perhaps channeled. It wouldn't surprise me the least if someday science didn't find itself entranced in its own most hated aspect - that of staring at collider data until it was overcome by its own self-consciousness to "feel itself" the metaphor of Buddha contemplating his own navel. From far off, even now, most likely this aspect frightens them, hence their vociferous attacks upon religion, and at the height of hubris, their suggestion that a "bottleneck" is in the future that only the "right ones" will get through. An old trick of religion. So much do we become that which we most hate. What largesse will save science, when, as I predict, science too will need saving?

Canyon Shearer: You seem to be so sure of that which Susan cannot rationally conceive, even of what she knows to be true, when you claim that ""The Bible, while you inately (sic!) know it's true, was well ahead of psychology when it says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Who can know the true depth of the atrocities men can commit?""

To build your argument that we are condemned to sin but can be saved if only we repent and believe in the Gospel--I wonder how many times we can repent-- you have even gone as far as to suggest that the "weak minded" are being ushered into Hell by secular humanism represented by Susan...

Aren't the meek destined for a better fate than that?

I agree with you about the true depth of the atrocities men can commit, only you seem to have left out the more current ones the ones committed with the same self-assuredness you seem to possess. Perhaps a little modesty would help?

Vinnie - I'm so glad to see you here, but so disappointed you didn't mention me in that stellar line up of atheist posters whom you made look so foolish.

I was hoping you'd answer my questions. Here's my post again, in case you just accidently skipped over it:

"Hey Vinnie- let’s say you’re right about God being the original super-intelligent designer. Why do you suppose he waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?

Thank you Mr James.

BTW,loved Turn of The Screw.Very interesting.

thank you Mrs Langly

you have the voice of integrity and authority.

i doubt "vinny" will heed you, but you are our best hope.

Maria is Vinnie.Vinnie is Richmond Stalgis,plus dozens of other names,like The Moderate.
He comments on his own comments as he fights for the Lord. The Lord of his imagination.
Poor guy thinks he's getting Brownie points for spreading the word of God,when actually he makes even Christians wince.
Vinny whatever your name is,you give religion a bad name. People will think we are all like you.
Please stop.Read some real books.You are totally ridiculous and a disgrace to your religion.
Your behavior on these threads is deceitful and dishonest;not exactly the behavior God would approve of.

Thank you

*that should have read "time and eye strain"

Vinny, RE "CHIP stops back in:..."Gerry, "Vinny, couldn't you condense your nonsense into just a few lines, so that it will at least be read? In this inflated version you even take the pleasure of being amused away from your readers!" Vinny's having a vowel movement.

******* Folks, you just have to love all these poor atheists with no arguments and no content here. Just "horse manure" and "vowel movements" and then RUNNING FOR THE HILLS."

Vinny, your line of reasoning has been debunked in this thread already by several different people. Most eloquently by Duckphup. You simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp it. Every argument you've made boils down to this: If it's beyond your ability to conceive how the universe might have come about then it must have come about as the result of magic. If you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize the utter banality of that position then nothing I (or anyone else) can say is going to change that. While it's rather humorous to watch someone use so many words to say so little, and to be so smug while demonstrating your intellectual limitations, it's also rather boring and more than a little embarrassing.

Might I suggest that if you feel the need to keep making the same argument, you can save both yourself and everyone else a lot of time and I strain by just condensing it down to its essence... "Too complicated! Magic!" That's all the irreducible complexity argument amounts to, no matter how many words you use to make it.

(swoooosssshhhh...)

A few final atheist SPANKINGS.

TERRY SAID:..."Vinnie - you don't know diddly - or should I say, you don't know anymore than the guy next door. What exactly gives you the credentials to debunk anybody, anyway?? You're a victim of your own beliefs, just like the rest of us - your truckload of 'common sense' is just a truckload of horse manure to someone else. You ain't got the sweetest smelling horse manure Vinnie, but keep shoveling."

***** POOR, SORRY ATHEISTS like Terry have no contribution whatsoever in this debate aside from "horse manure". How nice.

Keeep up the great work Terry. Your horse manure is an inspiration. Folks, with losers like Terry showing up the poor atheists have lost before they ever began.

Terry chimes in again (I feel blessed):..."Vinnie - I love vintage Corvettes - can you supply me with a red '61 or '62?? These were among the finest cars ever designed by either God or Man - if you've got a pipeline, I'd appreciate a good word - and about a hundred grand. Is that something from nothing or what??"

**** Sorry Terry, I prefer the 68-69 version. But you get nothing. You have manure issues, so we see....

Mr Mark quotes Vinny:..."VINNY writes:"I have not been around for some time. If we did meet before, you had no answers then either..."Intelligent men can do many things. But creating life from lifeless aint one of them."

Mr Mark replies to Vinny:..."Ah, thank you for reminding me of our previous encounter. You made that same ridiculous statement about man not being able to create life from lifelessness, and I directed you to the Miller/Urey experiments from the 1950s and described their experiments in some detail. You ignored the evidence I presented and continued to prattle on that no one had offered any evidence to challenge your statements. Why would I believe that a new dialogue with you would result in a different scenario? You're one of those guys who asks for proof, and when the proof is given, you say that no one has provided any proof. Mind you, you DON'T acknowledge the reply and attempt to refute the proof offered, you just aver that no one came forward to offer any proof at all. I can't take you seriously.

****** Poor Markey the desperate atheist with no answers; the Miller/Urey experiments PROVED NOTHING. ((((LIFE)))) was never created from dead matter then, nor has ((((LIFE)))) from dead matter been created SINCE THEN. You are simply lost and clueless and have no idea what you are even talking about and are completely lost. You have no contribution to this thread anywhere. Why are you even here? You are a poor debater and nothing more than excess baggage to the already trounced atheists here.

At least put up SOMETHING OF CONTENT.

Folks with sorry atheists like Mr. Mark showing up, who needs Vinny?

Well lookey here, it'ss Mr. Mark again! Let's see what fine contributio he makes this time. Mr Markey says:

"Dear Duckphup - I will bet you a cadre of child-molesting priests that Vinny will never acknowledge your reply nor supply counter arguments of any substance."

****** Bwaaaahahahaahhaahahahaha

Sure aint some kind of a prophet are you Marky-boy!

Sure, Vinny never acknowledged Ducky's reply. Only Vinny BURIED DUCKY so that Ducky has done what Mr Mark did from his first comment.

And what did Mr Mark do with his first comment?

MR. MARK HEADED FOR THE HILLS. GOT OUT OF DODGE. PLAYED THE "NO MAS" CARD.

BWAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Here, let me quote Mr Mark directly.

Mr Mark said:..."Until then, there's no use bothering with you. I have kids at home with which to interact, and at age 10 & 14, they offer more of a challenge and a greater reward to me than does assuaging your ego by participating in a one-way exercise in fact, ration and reality! Enjoy yourself today!

****** Yep, the poor atheist called Mr Mark, with NO ARGUMENTS POSTED, sure drummed up some excuses to SKIP TOWN. What a hoot!

SO DID YOU INTERACT WITH YOUR KIDS YESTERDAY, MARKEY??

I sure hope so. Cause you were M.I.A. here. Though I see you did stop in a few times. Only with ZERO CONTRIBUTION.

FOLKS, YOU JUST GOTTA LOVE ATHEISTS LIKE MR. MARK!

R.FILL SAYS:.."HMMMMM, one Vinney supporter going by anonymous. Could it be............Vinney???? LOL
Mr. Mark and DuckPhup, you two are brilliant. Thank you for your perseverance.

******** Poor R. Fill, just another lame atheist with ZERO CONTRIBUTION HERE.

No sir DR Phil, that "Vinny supporter" was not me. Perhaps you can write the editors of this forum for verification. I do not need to create bogus accounts. As you can read above, SPANKING the little atheists is quite easy to do with just one account.

It is particularly amusing to watch the ***NO CONTENT*** FOLKS like R. FILL do the brown nosing to Ducky and Mr. Mark.

"Brilliant"

Ducky was so far buried he could not be found with shovels. (Maybe you can dig for Ducky, Dr Fill). And Mr. Mark made a point to tell us he had to spend time with his 10 and 14 year olds (right away) to get out of his own atheist TROUNCING.

What a bunch of COPOUTS.

DAVID SAYS: I must agree with Anon and Vinny. Mr. Mark you haven't been very kind to us believers on here. Of course I know your frustrated and all, but then just leave the discussion then!
And by the way the Miller/Urey experiments didn't prove anything. 16 out of the 20 necessary amino acids isn't even close. Especially in light of the need to seperate the L's from the R's and doing that several hundred times to form a protein molecule. Then come to find out the lab atmosphere he used was proven incorrect. Now with the knowledge of DNA, it would seem that the origin of life question is just getting harder and harder for ye people who lacketh of faith. :)

****** You are quite correct David. Mr Mark does not even know the facts. Mr Mark has no contribution here aside from telling us he needs to spend time with his two kids. Mr Mark is very good at HEADING FOR THE HILLS THOUGH...

JIMBO SAYS:..."Vinnie....aka Angry atheist...aka The Moderate..aka Therealmoderate...Your teenage style is only too recognizable. You come across as being a terrified christian;terrified somebody's gonna take away your teddy bear.

****** POOR SORRY ATHEISTS LIKE JIMBO, have no answers at all.

Cannot deal with the arguments themselves.

Says "Vinny is angry".

Says, "Vinny's teenager style is too recognizable".

Only poor Jimbo could not refute ONE SINGLE BIT OF IT.

Jimbo is just another sorry atheist here with no answers or contribution aside from some sorry needle job attempt that is totally useless.

COLIN NICHOLAS said:...": Vinny...aka David...etc.

******* No, Vinny is not David. No, David is not Vinny. You and R FIll sure are paranoid about Vinny being somebody else. Why not write the editors and ask them if Vinny is somebody else. Maybe Vinny is Ducky too....

NEAL says:..."Vinny: I'm confused.

***** Well, if you are atheist, I know why you'd be confused. Life with a Red Vette attached aint much of a good time.

Neal continues:..."Do you think the entire universe was intelligently designed just so humans could exist, or are there other reasons?"

***** I do not know. I am not God.

GERRY says:.."Vinny, couldn't you condense your nonsense into just a few lines, so that it will at least be read? In this inflated version you even take the pleasure of being amused away from your readers! You don't really believe that after three or four lines anybody continues reading your "educationally challenged" rants?

****** Gerry, you have NO CONTRIBUTION just like most of the poor atheists here. I replied to Ducky in great detail, therefore a lengthy post. If you have a problem reading/witnessing Ducky's burial, I am sorry.

But life is like this.

CHIP stops back in:..."Gerry, "Vinny, couldn't you condense your nonsense into just a few lines, so that it will at least be read? In this inflated version you even take the pleasure of being amused away from your readers!" Vinny's having a vowel movement.

******* Folks, you just have to love all these poor atheists with no arguments and no content here. Just "horse manure" and "vowel movements" and then RUNNING FOR THE HILLS.

HENRY JAMES says:..."Congratulations Vinny You have turned this discussion into a swamp."

Perhaps Henry could have added to this discussion. But like so many before you, you leave with ZERO CONTRIBUTION.

Tell us how complex things arise from nothing Henry?

Try dealing with the Red Vette problem all atheists have stuck on their foreheads.

Why not add SOMETHING??

DUCKPHUP FLIES BACK IN AND SAYS: "Well... I am rendered speechless."

******* THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT FROM YOUR LATEST CONTRIBUTION. SORRY TO SAY.

Ducky continues:..."There is, of course, nothing left for me to do but hang my head in shame, and beg for mercy. It should be clear to everyone that I have been thoroughly, resoundingly and emphatically trounced by Vinny. And now, in utter defeat and humiliation, I am obliged to congratuate him on his magnificant command of humanity's knowledge-base, science and the scientific method, history, sophistry, theology, philosophy, formal logic and critical thinking skills. They cannot be denied... they are on display for everyone to see... and Vinny says he's 'bookmarking' this page... so with that, there is obviously no way for me to weasel out of my devastating public mortification. Defeated by the 'Red Corvette'... how ignominous. From this day forward, I will undoubtedly feel ill, every time I encounter one of those on the road. I'm just grateful that there aren't that many of them around, comparitively speaking.
Vinnie... you win. It is apparent to the whole world that there is absolutely nothing that I could say to you that would have the slightest chance of overcoming your powerful, compelling and devastating arguments. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to the all of the people on my side of the argument... the sane people... for having let them down so abysmally. I am truly sorry.

(sniff)

******* Nothing like crying ducks on a debate forum, folks.

You do get a tip of the hat for at least attempting to answer. Is much more than the other atheists put up. But just putting up nonsense does not make it right. Your denying any possibility of a Supreme Designer is your complete undoing.

You have no explanations as to how life can arise from lifeless.

You have no rebuttal for the red vette fact of life.

You have no answers for the every beginning has a cause universal principle.

You have no rebuttal for the fact that science cannot even create simple life from lifeless today.

Yet you want to try selling us on the laughable thought that ALL THINGS, the universe, earth and all life forms thereon are the results of mindless, intelligenceless series of random events turning into organized, intricate, structured and very purposeful things.

Yes you have been buried Ducky.

Perhaps your atheist friends, with no arguments/answers know some people that own back hoes TO FIND YOU. Or atleast they can go get some shovels are start digging for you.... since they are just standing around doing nothing onh this forum.

: ))

TERRY chimes in again:..."Congratulations Vinnie - you may have managed to exceed Theodore Kaczynski's Unibomber Manifesto in sheer verbal tonnage - alas, your word salad creation has made exactly as much sense (I'll bet you're a math genius too). The family week-end pass should be over in a few hours. Your dad needs to hide the computer when you're home.

****** It doesn't mean much when the guy posting this has ZERO CONTENT/ARGUMENTS. Boring and lame Terry. Why are you even here?

BUT THIS IS HOW IT IS WITH THE POOR ATHEISTS ON THIS THREAD.

RAFAEL SAYS:..."Sorry, Duckphup, it was the BWAHAHA that convinced me that Vinny was on the path of sanity and logic. You need to improve your sound effects.

******* BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I READ LAME ATHEIST ARGUMENTS AND SORRY ATHEIST EXPLANATIONS AS TO HOW ALL THINGS ARISE FROM NOTHING BY NOBODY.

Just telling you how it is.

Has been a fun ride. But spanking the poor atheists gets old after a while. Which is why a rarely do this anymore.

At least you all have something to think about.

Atheism is a senseless, useless belief IMO.

Did the amazing variety of life on earth today simply ORIGINATE on its very own through a series of unguided chances? The same applies to the EARTH itself. Look at just how purposeful and harmonized the many processes and systems that make life possible really are.

All through an unguided, intelligence-less big BANG resulting in a spinning, revolving, atmosphere in place EARTH? And same applies to the far more impressive UNIVERSE. All of this power and precision and ORDER just happened by mere chances? What allowed those conditions to exist where such an event could take place? And what uncontrolled explosion ever results in amazing order and structure anywhere. The cosmos are a beauty to behold. And like I have said many times, the tides are predicted long before due to knowing precisely where the moon will be centuries from now.

All this by mere CHANCE?

When anybody really looks at these things, one usually realizes the foolishness of believing that these things could all just come together without the guiding hand of Intellect. Life is special. I often MARVEL at what I see around us. I love my pets... They can truly make life fun and enjoyable. Same goes with most food. Same with relationships, and seasonal changes, parenthood, beautiful sunsets, waterfalls, flowers, hummingbirds, turquoise waters and white sandy beaches, even sleep can be a pleasure, on and one we could go.

ALL of these things that we humans enjoy just happened by chance and unguided random events?

To most people, NO WAY. NOT A CHANCE.

Or were these things PUT THERE by somebody? The amazing order, purposefulness, usefulness, harmony, precision etc etcsurrounding us all gives powerful evidence that these things are the result of Intelligence. An Intelligent Designer, a God, a Supreme Being of some kind.

The alternative to this belief as to the source of these things leaves you with ATHEISM. That ALL these things and all this order, power, precision, harmony etc just happened through fat chances and lot's of luck, all from nothing.

Simply not logical, reasonable, rational or making any sense or worth trusting in. Never duplicated in even the simplest way by science. All beginnings have a cause.

Complex, organized and purposeful features and things do not arise from unguided, mindless events.

A simple fact of life that makes atheism impossible.

Have a good one!

All the best,

Vinny

Steve Holgate: " No doubt, as in all epochs, some of the things we currently call supernatural are anything but and some things we accept as rational fact are hooey."

I understand you're trying to be conciliatory - saying sometimes the supernatural turns out to be wrong and sometimes science turns out to be wrong - but I'm afraid you're a bit confused. The whole purpose of science is continued learning through experimentation, measurement and evidence. As we learn more through science, we learn the limitations of what we thought we knew. that doesn'tmean we were stupid ever to accept old science, just that new science supercedes it - and perhaps even newer science will supercede that. It's a continuous learning experience.
Supernatural phenomena require no evidence and and none exists. No new learning occurs or is even sought. It's a matter of faith.

Atheists see abundant evidence that we live in a natural universe and seek to understand it better through evidence-based investigation. Theists believe in the supernatural, for which only faith is needed and no evidence at all.

AJDELOSREYES, Read your post being in much agreement with it, yet must advise christian teaching having dimmed your natural ability of understanding.The human form gateway to paradise as heaven,keys be heart as brain.The heart imparting experience as be the brain in understanding.The importance of balanced understand as experience,in Spiritual development will become self explanetory in its progression. The power creation be awesome,it diluted many, many,times, before human contact as consumption, through creation, Mother Earth, the human form. Initial letting go releasing hold on the material reality, can be somewhat frightning as dependant on individual,experience of fear during initial process being not unusial,fear nought..

AJdelosReyes:

Occasionally - actually, ever so rarely - someone posts something that is kind, compassionate, and reaching out to all without bias or an agenda to push.

That is what you have done. I am with you, 100%.

Thank you, and God bless.

Dear Ms. Jacoby:

I am a believer and a Christian, and I find some of your comments rather "fundamentalist" in tone and intention. If you categorize any belief in God as irrational you are categorizing me as an irrational person, which I believe I am not. Perhaps you are referring to people that have no respect of others who do not share their beliefs and act irrationally against them in the name of religion, science, rationality, politics, or whatever. It seems to me your derogatory comments put you in the same position, even if you disguise it under the name of "reason".
Love is irrational, as hate also is.

Can I suggest that a little modesty on hte part of everyone might help establish some actual communication in these dialogues of the deaf. All of us need to acknowledge the limits to our evidence and our arguments.

Believers in God should acknowledge their lack of scientific proof. Disbelievers should acknowledge the limits of reason.

For example, while Ms. Jacoby's faith in rationality is touching, as far back as history will allow us to see, scientists have believed things as proven fact that later are found to be without foundation. Likewise, some things they have dismissed as impossible, irrational, have turned out to have perfectly natural explanations. No doubt, as in all epochs, some of the things we currently call supernatural are anything but and some things we accept as rational fact are hooey.

Men and women of faith have shown us the almost illimitable goodness that lies in our hearts. Those perusing rational and scientific thought have made our lives better in many, many ways.

At the same time, people have used the tenets of religious faith to massacre and oppress thier fellow humans. Others have used the tenets of science and reason to do the same. The great killers of the past century have not been religion and faith but nationalism and "scientifically proven truth," as the believers in Communism called thier theories. Let's go back a bit and add the depradations of the French Revolution, all done in the name of Reason.

The truth is that a substantial number of people will take any belief, no matter how noble or rational, and twist it into something destructive. The problem isn't necessarily with the ideas, but with human nature.

How much would it hurt us to start our dialogues, or at least end them, by saying, "but I could be wrong."

Thank you for a very thoughtful article.

I agree that a declaration of atheism, or even agnosticism, does tend to get a reaction akin to declaring your love for lightly roasted babies in a white wine puppy sauce. Mind you, I don't put out my beliefs until pushed to do so by clique-ish religious types who must find out whether I am worthy of their company. When I do allow them to drag out my most private of beliefs, the revulsion painting their faces contains a very discernible undertone of confusion.

After all, I'm the person who helped them move when all their church going friends claimed to be too busy. I'm the only one of our group of friends who isn't interested in whose spouse is running around, or indeed of any of the gossip making the rounds. I'm someone who supports charities of all sorts and in general, tries to live what they choose to label a " Christ-like life ".

How can that be when I don't have a belief system and a community to guilt me in to doing so? The thought that their church could have been wrong when it says that man at his nature is a sinner and needs to be fixed by means of a spiritual tune up at God's Garage is frightening. Why, if the church is wrong and mankind is essentially good at nature, then what else is it wrong about? Any belief system that claims perfection for its central figure, then threatens unimaginable torture for transgressions, is bound to produce followers who react like a dog that's been beaten, even when approached by something benign.

Although I'm not condoning it, I do understand the reactions of some heavily indoctrinated types. By the same token, I also understand the anger some atheists feel towards organized religion and its followers. Once again, I feel the beaten dog analogy applies. Certainly, I have found myself saying that the world would be far better off without religion. But I cannot go as far, when I'm honest with myself, as to say that all religion should be abolished. Unlike Christopher Hitchens, I have a hard time equating the Dalai Lama to the Ayatollah.

The difference is in their deeds. Mr.Hitchens' grievance with the Dalai Lama is that Mr.Hitchens says the Dalai Lama has claimed godhood for himself, which makes him worse than the Ayatollah. Practitioners of magickal traditions believe themselves to be an embodiment of God, too. Yet I have never known one take this as an excuse to act against those who do not believe as they do. The Ayatollah, though not claiming godhood, does use his considerable influence to incite misdeeds in the name of his belief system.

All I expect is that I will not face discrimination for my lack of religion, and that church and state will be kept separate as per the First Amendment. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr.Hitchens' slogan, " Mr.Jefferson, build up that wall,". But I also expect that one day civility will triumph and religious people will find a way to both practice their beliefs and live in peace with those who disagree with them. Evolution demands that this will happen, or we will cease as a race. Man, having proven himself a highly adaptable creature, will likely do just that.

I don't appreciate your comments - they are idiotic and make no sense whatsoever.

David writes:

"And by the way the Miller/Urey experiments didn't prove anything. 16 out of the 20 necessary amino acids isn't even close. Especially in light of the need to seperate the L's from the R's and doing that several hundred times to form a protein molecule. Then come to find out the lab atmosphere he used was proven incorrect."

As I understand the experiments, the lab atmosphere wasn't proven to be "incorrect." There was a debate over whether or not an early Earth atmosphere would have been as rich in predominantly reductant molecules as was the one used by Miller/Urey, and if the amount of energy needed to produce the amino acids could have existed (occasional lightening storms in an early Earth atmosphere vs the continuous electricity fueling Miller/Urey). If you have documentation showing that a majority of today's scientific community believes that the atmosphere was "incorrect," please provide it.

As far as the experiments forming "only 16 of the 20 necessary amino acids," that's not the point, is it? The point is that it could happen at all. The experiments proved that amino acids (organic compounds) can form from inorganic compounds, and that it COULD have happened on early Earth, not that it DID happen exactly in the way used in the experiments. The success of these experiments IN AND OF THEMSELVES put the lie to Vinnie's statement that life (organic substance) cannot arise from dead (inorganic) substances - unless Vinnie is claiming that methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water are "living" substances. Vinnie's ridiculous position is that science has NEVER created organic life from inorganic materials, *even in a lab setting.* Well, it has. End of argument.

Furthermore, Miller/Urey was but a starting point, and a starting point now 54 years in the past (the Juan Oro experiments spring to mind). OF COURSE science has moved forward since then, new theories have arisen and old methodologies have been questioned, but that's the way science works. The fact is that the Miller/Urey experiment remains a staple of educational science labs around the world...and has hardly been discredited as your post seems to so flippantly suggest. At least you're doing better than Vinnie who won't even acknowledge that such experiments took place and were successful in the first place.

Still, I appreciate your comments.

I've lost my Gay Agenda.

Does anyone have an extra one?

I've spent the last three days reading the posted articles, reviews and comments. This is my conclusion (that I am in no way foisting or pushing on anybody, OK?): The ultimate decisive test is: Does one's belief or non-belief leads one to be good to one's self, neighbor, environe, the world? Does it make one compassionate, tolerant, just, helpful, open-minded, courteous, bear one's responsibilities, cheerful, productive?

For how can one declare belief in God (as we understand what God means) and curse his neighbor? How can a believer in God do harm, kill!, his neighbor (meaning, humanity), and worse, say that he is doing so "in the name of" God?

How can one affirm his faith in a Divine Creator while laying waste, directly or indirectly, to His creation (and that, of course, includes, the environe, the earth)?

Conversely, how can one say "there is no need for god/God" for humanity if such a one is filled with animosity towards his neighbors, or unmindful ot the needs and dreams of others? Or careless of the nature and the environe?

There is a subversive undertow in the declaration: "Remember: we are human beings, not human doings". Though, of course, it was a much admired pastor wrote this quote.

I write this because I can perceive that the trend would be, finally, drawn to the conflict between believers and non-believers (and among theists, athiests, and anti-theists) on defining who we are. Thus at this juncture, let us agree that we are "not a finished project" but an "on-going" one; that we, in fine, are beings who have and are still becoming human--and thus so by our doings (the way we live individually and otherwise). Human doings are what make for human beings.

The "subversion" I referred to above is on assuming we have reached "our destined place" already and must merely re-re-affirm it with rites and rituals, with codexes, and the like. This subverts the whole concept of Creation (even so with the Old Testament's verses on how on the "seventh day, God rested" which should be read not as a point when creation stopped, things froze, etc., but as the beginning, hence Genesis, of may be called a never-ending story).

And so these debates amongst us, believers and non-believers. All these are part and parcel of our becoming. We all have our parts to play--let us not hate each other: in humility, recognize that not one of us has a monopoly of good arguments; each and all, we are only as "sure" as our present knowledge or enlightenment permits us to be. Who knows the future?

So, Peace and Love, brethrens.

I've spent the last three days reading the posted articles, reviews and comments. This is my conclusion (that I am in no way foisting or pushing on anybody, OK?): The ultimate decisive test is: Does one's belief or non-belief leads one to be good to one's self, neighbor, environe, the world? Does it make one compassionate, tolerant, just, helpful, open-minded, courteous, bear one's responsibilities, cheerful, productive?

For how can one declare belief in God (as we understand what God means) and curse his neighbor? How can a believer in God do harm, kill!, his neighbor (meaning, humanity), and worse, say that he is doing so "in the name of" God?

How can one affirm his faith in a Divine Creator while laying waste, directly or indirectly, to His creation (and that, of course, includes, the environe, the earth)?

Conversely, how can one say "there is no need for god/God" for humanity if such a one is filled with animosity towards his neighbors, or unmindful ot the needs and dreams of others? Or careless of the nature and the environe?

There is a subversive undertow in the declaration: "Remember: we are human beings, not human doings". Though, of course, it was a much admired pastor wrote this quote.

I write this because I can perceive that the trend would be, finally, drawn to the conflict between believers and non-believers (and among theists, athiests, and anti-theists) on defining who we are. Thus at this juncture, let us agree that we are "not a finished project" but an "on-going" one; that we, in fine, are beings who have and are still becoming human--and thus so by our doings (the way we live individually and otherwise). Human doings are what make for human beings.

The "subversion" I referred to above is on assuming we have reached "our destined place" already and must merely re-re-affirm it with rites and rituals, with codexes, and the like. This subverts the whole concept of Creation (even so with the Old Testament's verses on how on the "seventh day, God rested" which should be read not as a point when creation stopped, things froze, etc., but as the beginning, hence Genesis, of may be called a never-ending story).

And so these debates amongst us, believers and non-believers. All these are part and parcel of our becoming. We all have our parts to play--let us not hate each other: in humility, recognize that not one of us has a monopoly of good arguments; each and all, we are only as "sure" as our present knowledge or enlightenment permits us to be. Who knows the future?

So, Peace and Love, brethrens.

Religious Fundamentalists aren't satisfied unless theirs is the only agenda.

Neal,

didn't God show he loves me? And didn't he promise to sent all atheists to hell? No angel would have inflated the tire of the car of an atheist, I am sure about this!

What is so sadistic about me? It was thew other guy who drove into the ditch, not me!I take the word of God seriously,together with my brethren, like Vinny, Matthew, Canyon Shearer and Jan!

And to E.favorite: We are not spoofing!We will prevail! And then you will see what Jesus does with you and your ilk! God answered atheists already in the Old Testament, when he cleaned the Earth (it was flat then) of all the non-believers! Just remember Sodom and Gonorrha! You better watch out, and repent, if this is still possible!

I hope Matthew and Maria are spoofing. If not, I'll just hope they have no further influence than their fingers on the keyboard.

GREG - I saw Chris Hitchens in person several times over the last couple of days at the Atherist Alliance International conference. He had a smile on his face a lot of the time. Others there were wearing big smiles much of the time too. We were happy to be with each other and it showed.

You may not believe in Jesus, but believe me, He Hates You.
And cover your head!!!

VLP

Susan Jacoby = just another loser abortionist self-important pseudo-intellectual with irrelevant opinions. Just ignore her and leave her alone while she is doped up on her Prozac

thank you, you made me feel better. You are a wonderful person.

thank you, you made me feel better. You are a wonderful person.

Neal... I'm pretty sure it was a spoof.

Maria wrote: "Those stupid atheists won't even understand gods existance, idiots, they all will go to hell, I hope. I am going to enjoy their screams when they their skin starts burning!"

Assuming that this entire post isn't a goof... I've often suspected that for many believers it's simply not enough that they go to heaven, but that others fry like bacon in hell too. Most, however, are smart enough not to admit it lest potential converts (i.e. financial contributors) be offended.

I also suspect that this wish isn't reserved for just atheists, but for anyone who opposes them for any reason, or takes the last creme-filled donut, or fails to help them fix their flat tire.

Tell us Maria, how can centuries of exposure to a all-merciful, all-loving god leave a true believer, such as yourself, so completely hateful and sadistic?

Canyon Shearer, among other commenters, needs a course in logic. For examples: 1. He asks for a proof of a negative (says that atheists can't prove that a god does not exist)--ridiculously illogical, just as he can't "prove" that there is no tooth fairy.
2. He assumes that the Bible is the actual product and thought of a deity. How does he know that? It makes the rest of his rant an illogical circular argument (petitio principii, or begging the question)where, in forming his conclusions, he assumes as true the very thing that is in question.

It is the first time I read somebody like Matthew who obviously REALLY believes in "rapture". I didn't think such easter bunny infantilism was still possible. And people talk about the Inquisition, witch burning, exorcism and other PAST mental perversions: We have it right here before our eyes! Frightening.

"Taliban, Christian and others, unite!" So far I refused to acknowledge the idea of culture war. Here it is, but the frontiers are not Christianity vs. Islam, but reason vs. superstitious, learning resistent stupidity.

Matthew

You're kidding, right?

Thank you for the site, today's post, and your book.
I, too, was in disagreement with Harris's and Dawkins's views on moderate religion.

In addition to the points you raise, I think there is no reason to disrespect non-fanatical believers, for purely ethical reasons.

Also, politically, they share many core values with us, such as holding the dignity of all humans as the highest good. We and they are potentially allies in the long struggle for anti-fundamentalist,
prohuman structures.

I'm an atheist, totally uninterested in trying to convince believers.

I look forward to your second book.

You atheists and agnostics are offending the LORD with your blasphemous talk. You will be punished!

To those who disagreed with my earlier assertion that the founding fathers were born-again Christians, I will add this: the first amendment "freedom of religion" protection is there for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect Christians rights to proclaim and glorify God. By Christians I mean Bible-believing, confessing Christians. Not Catholics, not Mormons, not liberals, not atheists. The first amendment is for Chrsitians.

To those of you who spoke of culture war, we sing a hymn in our church about that "Onward Christian Soldiers." Jesus taught His disciples that many they would be hated by those who oppose the Lord.

Finally, to you who speak of so-called "dominionists", that sounds like a bunch of secularist propoganda. What I do know is that in Genesis, God gave man dominion over the earth. Since the Truth is found in the Bible and only the Bible, all this nonsense from environmentalists is a big secularist lie. The apocalypse shall be upon us soon when we Christians shall disappear during the rapture. God will decide what happens to the earth after that, and you left-behinf atheists and environmentalists will not like it at all.

Wow! I just happened to stumble upon this and your article was quite refreshing.
I hope to purchase your book soon; I am particularly interested in the founding "father's" views. I guess I tend to toward their 'deist' stance.
It's a shame we just can't respect each other, whatever our beliefs, leave each other alone and try to get along. So simple, but something humans I don't think have ever achieved.

Morality is the responsibility that accompanies one's level of consciousness.

God never talked to anyone or gave anything to anyone. This belief stifles honest debate, encouraging anger and conflict.

America's philosophy was defined by Jefferson and Franklin, perhaps the two most pro-science and academically-inclined individuals in the history of the planet.

If you believe something out of "faith", fine, but the next words out of your mouth better be "but I may be completely wrong."

No one is more reasonable than Ms. Jacoby, nor as brave to endure demoralizing attackers so generally irrational as to burn posters for citing some indisputable fact or another. Religion disarms reason for its own defense.

Dear Vinny,

thanks for your wonderful example of the red beautiful Corvette in the middle of nowhere. Those stupid atheists won't even understand gods existance, idiots, they all will go to hell, I hope. I am going to enjoy their screams when they their skin starts burning!

I know god exists, because something like your Corvette story really happened to me a few weeks ago in reality,although not in a red Corvette wit all the modern automatics but in my old grey Volkswagon (which btw I own, not like the guy in your story who just took it! How did he know it was standing there for him? Just curious)

Anyway, recently I was driving from Houston to Dallas late in the evening, and all of a sudden I noticed that I had a flat tire. I had no spare tire, and I wouldn't have known how to change it anyway.

So, the only thing I could do was pray. Alright, I went down on my knees, I even cried, and for at least ten minutes prayed to god, the holy trinuty and Jesus that somebody, at least some angel would come and help me. Even if you may be the only one on this thread to believe me:Belief me, there was an angel in a white nightgown coming out from behind a bush who asked me in some strange dielect if he could help me. I told him about the flat tire. So, the angel went down on his knees and, I swear, blew up this tire simply with his mouth all the way to 27 ppi, which I measured later at the next gas station!

I wanted to thank him, but it might have been awkward to offer money.There seemed to be a deep voice in the background which mumbled something like "your faith has helped you, and if you want to contribute some money give it to one of my favorites, like Pat Robertson." That is what I did later.

I am so happy that god really cares about his children! because, when I continued driving, I almost had an accident, because I was so tired. Another car swerved a few yards in front of me to avoid a head-on collision and drove into the ditch. Again, I thanked god with all my heart, who had done such wonderful miracles to me!

Vinny even if we never meet down here, I am looking forward to meeting you in heaven

Ms. Jacoby, you say that "Inflammatory generalization is an American disease," but this statement is itself an inflammatory generalization about Americans.

You seem not to be aware of your own contradictions.

Ms. Jacoby, you state that "Inflammatory generalization is an American disease," but this statement is itself a very inflammatory generalization about Americans.

You seem not to be aware of your own contradictions.

Dear Vinny,

thanks for your wonderful example of the red beautiful Corvette in the middle of nowhere. Those stupid atheists won't even understand gods existance, idiots, they all will go to hell, I hope. I am going to enjoy their screams when they their skin starts burning!

I know god exists, because something like your Corvette story really happened to me a few weeks ago in reality,although not in a red Corvette wit all the modern automatics but in my old grey Volkswagon (which btw I own, not like the guy in your story who just took it! How did he know it was standing there for him? Just curious)

Anyway, recently I was driving from Houston to Dallas late in the evening, and all of a sudden I noticed that I had a flat tire. I had no spare tire, and I wouldn't have known how to change it anyway.

So, the only thing I could do was pray. Alright, I went down on my knees, I even cried, and for at least ten minutes prayed to god, the holy trinuty and Jesus that somebody, at least some angel would come and help me. Even if you may be the only one on this thread to believe me:Belief me, there was an angel in a white nightgown coming out from behind a bush who asked me in some strange dielect if he could help me. I told him about the flat tire. So, the angel went down on his knees and, I swear, blew up this tire simply with his mouth all the way to 27 ppi, which I measured later at the next gas station!

I wanted to thank him, but it might have been awkward to offer money.There seemed to be a deep voice in the background which mumbled something like "your faith has helped you, and if you want to contribute some money give it to one of my favorites, like Pat Robertson." That is what I did later.

I am so happy that god really cares about his children! because, when I continued driving, I almost had an accident, because I was so tired. Another car swerved a few yards in front of me to avoid a head-on collision and drove into the ditch. Again, I thanked god with all my heart, who had done such wonderful miracles to me!

Vinny even if we never meet down here, I am looking forward to meeting you in heaven

Ms Jacoby's essay expresses my one views perfectly. I am a mild person who would not promote my skepticism of religion so much as deplore abandonment of reason among extremists of every sort. Unreason and reliance on spiritual notions which have no record of responsiveness to the human condition are causing us unnecessary pain in many resolveable aspects of real life on this earth. But Ms Jacoby says it all better than I.

"Sorry, Duckphup, it was the BWAHAHA that convinced me that Vinny was on the path of sanity and logic. You need to improve your sound effects"

Indeed. May I suggest you liberally sprinkle your posts with the word THWAP! to indicate patronizing smacks to the back of the head.

Sorry, Duckphup, it was the BWAHAHA that convinced me that Vinny was on the path of sanity and logic. You need to improve your sound effects.

Victoria, Moody, Mathew and Vinny,

I will now respectfully offer a few gentle comments and will patiently await your gentle response:

1. Roughly 1.5 billion people, one-sixth (21%), of the world’s population is Muslim. I interpret verses 003.085, 003.110 and 003.131 to imply that the 4.8 billion people (79%) of the world’s population are doomed to roast in everlasting hell, unless we convert to Islam. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

2. This is irrational in my humble opinion, but no more so than the 2.1 billion Christian believers who say that 67% of the world’s population will roast in everlasting hell, unless we convert to Christianity.

3. The 1.1 billion (17%) people who are Secular/Atheist/Agnostic, who say that they do not know if God exists (Agnostic), or lacking evidence to the contrary believe that God does not exist (Atheist), are more rational in my humble opinion, than either the Muslims or Christians who say that those who don’t agree with them are doomed to burn in the fire of everlasting hell.

What do you say?

Greg, you ask a reasonable question, but there are rather large differences between black holes and the god hypothesis. Black holes can be proven mathematically. We can observe the gravitational lensing they cause, the orbit of matter around them, and the jets of radiation they emit from their poles. Further, no one except astrophysicists devote their lives to black holes, and even they don't worship them.

No claim is made that morality stems from black holes and those who are unconvinced that black holes exist are amoral. Rituals haven't been created to demonstrate fealty to black holes. No one claims that they have a personal relationship with a black hole that speaks to them, and if they did make such a claim, even those convinced that black holes exist would think them thoroughly delusional. No one would even think it impolite to point that out to such a person. In short, black holes can be readily deduced by the wealth of empirical evidence that points to their existence. No such evidence exists for god.

Could there be a being like god? Sure. There could also be anything else that meets that same standard of evidence but can't be proven false, like unicorns, space faring turtles, self aware hat racks, omnipotent pan-dimensional peanuts, and anything else you care to posit. That doesn't mean believing any of those things exist, based solely on our inability to disprove their existence, would be rational or useful.

People believe in god for emotional reasons, or for the reasons Vinny does, because they can't conceive of how something might have come to be so there must be a magical being that's responsible. That's reinforced by millenia of social taboo that says not believing or refuting that belief is a horrible thing to do. Wouldn't it be just as logical for people to claim that self aware hat racks created the universe and will one day stand in judgment of us? So why don't people believe that as an alternate theory of creation? It would seem to me that from an evidential standpoint there's just as much going for that claim as there is for god, but no social taboo exists against pointing out that believing in self aware hat racks would be a rather silly thing to do. Perhaps the reason is that belief in god is a social phenomenon that has nothing to do with logic, rationality, or supporting evidence.

If you don't believe in self aware hat racks, or space faring turtles, or pan-dimensional peanuts, all of which meet the same standard of evidence as god, why do you believe in god or even give the idea serious consideration? Probably because millions of people believe it, not because the idea is any more sound than anything else for which there's no evidence but that can't be definitely proven false, because then you'd have to believe everything.

The desire to conform to societal expectations is a powerful force, especially when going along with it allows you to pretend to know the answer to things that no one actually knows. It's scary to go against the grain, and to violate social taboos, especially when millions of people claim that doing so makes you a horrible person and will cause you eternal torment. If a majority of people for thousands of years claimed that jealous judgmental pan-dimensional omnipotent peanuts would torment you for eternity if you didn't bring offerings of salt to special buildings erected for the purpose of placating them, most people would do it, for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with sound reasoning.

Congratulations Vinnie - you may have managed to exceed Theodore Kaczynski's Unibomber Manifesto in sheer verbal tonnage - alas, your word salad creation has made exactly as much sense (I'll bet you're a math genius too).

The family week-end pass should be over in a few hours. Your dad needs to hide the computer when you're home.

Victoria, Moody, Mathew and Vinny,

I will now respectfully offer a few gentle comments and will patiently await your gentle response:

1. Roughly 1.5 billion people, one-sixth (21%), of the world’s population is Muslim. I interpret verses 003.085, 003.110 and 003.131 to imply that the 4.8 billion people (79%) of the world’s population are doomed to roast in everlasting hell, unless we convert to Islam. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

2. This is irrational in my humble opinion, but no more so than the 2.1 billion Christian believers who say that 67% of the world’s population will roast in everlasting hell, unless we convert to Christianity.

3. The 1.1 billion (17%) people who are Secular/Atheist/Agnostic, who say that they do not know if God exists (Agnostic), or lacking evidence to the contrary believe that God does not exist (Atheist), are more rational in my humble opinion, than either the Muslims or Christians who say that those who don’t agree with them are doomed to burn in the fire of everlasting hell.

What do you say?

It is obvious Vinny is suffering from the Three B's of orthodox Christianity.

Hopefully, he will send $99.99 to National Geographic along with a spit sample to determine what atheist chimp tree he fell from. This should start his healing process.

Well... I am rendered speechless. There is, of course, nothing left for me to do but hang my head in shame, and beg for mercy. It should be clear to everyone that I have been thoroughly, resoundingly and emphatically trounced by Vinny. And now, in utter defeat and humiliation, I am obliged to congratuate him on his magnificant command of humanity's knowledge-base, science and the scientific method, history, sophistry, theology, philosophy, formal logic and critical thinking skills. They cannot be denied... they are on display for everyone to see... and Vinny says he's 'bookmarking' this page... so with that, there is obviously no way for me to weasel out of my devastating public mortification. Defeated by the 'Red Corvette'... how ignominous. From this day forward, I will undoubtedly feel ill, every time I encounter one of those on the road. I'm just grateful that there aren't that many of them around, comparitively speaking.

Vinnie... you win. It is apparent to the whole world that there is absolutely nothing that I could say to you that would have the slightest chance of overcoming your powerful, compelling and devastating arguments.

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to the all of the people on my side of the argument... the sane people... for having let them down so abysmally. I am truly sorry.

(sniff)

Greg,

There are an infinite number of things that might or might not exist, including an infinite number of gods. It's not the role or the goal of science to prove they all don't exist. If I claim that a two-headed, snake-like god rules the world, and I know it because it has revealed itself to me in my life and it says so in a book, would it seem to you an inadequacy of science not to be able to prove that I'm wrong?

Science tests both assumptions and predictions of theory. You don't need to take a picture of a black hole, or whatever you have in mind as definitive proof, to prove that it exists. You can also make predictions about what ought to happen if it did exist, like the bending of light under a particular set of conditions, and then test those predictions as evidence for the existence of a black hole.

If you really "believe in the scientific method" as you say, then you would believe in its power as a process for improving our understanding of the natural world, not as a promise to have already explained everything in the natural world, and not as a way for disproving the existence of the supernatural.

As for your comment about athiests being angry because Hitchens never smiled, it's like saying that all black men must be angry because you watched Tyson bite off Holyfield's ear. It's an ignorant generalization.

Congratulations Vinny

You have turned this discussion into a swamp.

Watched Mr. Hitchens on an interview on MSNBC last night. Intersting. I am certain that I heard him saw that he did not say there is no God, he said that no one could prove there was a God. I thought it interesting in light of many of the thoughts here. I also noted that he seemed kind of dour, never smiling. Goes back to what I said about atheists being an angry lot. Atheists use alot of words to argue their point. They quote alot of people. But they can't prove that God doesn't exist anymore than I can prove He does. They try to use science as proof, yet no one here has explained what happens at the singularity of a black hole (or if there is one, since we have never actually directly observed one -- we can only see the things indirectly)-- so I guess it doesn't exist. I am an amatuer astronomer and I love science. It brings much to the world. I believe in the scientific method. But I also know science can't prove and doesn't understand alot of things in our vast cosmos -- that doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means we can't measure them. Kinda like what Hitchens said -- he's not saying there is no God, he simply can't measure him -- and until he can, he won't believe. Do this -- I think black holes exist. Yet, we can't directly see them -- only indirectly. Prove a black hole exists, tell me if there is a singularity, what it is, and prove it exists. I think it is there. What I read tells me it is there. Yet, to date, we cann't directly measure it is there. So, if we can't prove it exists, then, it doesn't exist. Right? Even if it really is there.

Gerry, "Vinny, couldn't you condense your nonsense into just a few lines, so that it will at least be read? In this inflated version you even take the pleasure of being amused away from your readers!"

Vinny's having a vowel movement.

To get back to the original question, it's really very simple: Angry accusations beget angry responses, on all sides! D-U-H.

It is reassuring, however, to see that among all the nasty quips and endless rants there are some people of goodwill engaging in sincere discussion and rational debate ... because this is such a necessary debate.

What a shame that believers would ever claim that they have the monopoly on morality! Any such claims can readily be proven bogus.

They were, in fact, demonstrated as such by Jesus himself. "If your child asks for an egg, would you give him a scorpion? Even wicked people don't do that ... And if you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even the heathen do that." Q.E.D.

Believers who ignore the advances of science are missing half of the picture. Part of our human mandate is to increase our knowledge of our surroundings, from the minutest quark to the farthest "edge" of the cosmos. Even to this day, we strive to grasp the mysteries of black matter, black energy and unidirectional time.

Nonbelievers who scoff at anything spiritual are making an equally grave misstep. There is so much more to "human" than just carbon and water. I have yet to see a scientist synthesize love in a test tube!

Far from there being an inherent, irreconcilable conflict between spirit and science, there exists instead an Ouroboros-style synergy:

Spirit began in deepest mystery and ends in its application to the concrete moments of our everyday lives. Science began in our search for understanding of the concrete underpinnings of our everyday lives ... and ends in deepest mystery.

We must let neither the fossilized absurdities of ancient dogma spouted by religious "fundamentalists", nor the fulminating deprecations hurled by nonbelieving "rationalists", impede us in our search for both scientific and spiritual truth.

We sell ourselves, and the human race, woefully short when we succumb to this.

Moody -
Whose ignorance? Mine or yours? Now offense taken.

To M. Avina

After readying your comments all that comes to my mind is a saying, "Truely ignoranc is a bliss". Where in reality it is not, no offence my dear!

While I do like to read through these postings, I am often dismayed by the truly enormous lack of basic civility. Christopher Hitchens is regularly reduced to “Hitch” [almost as a pejorative] and the ever interesting Duckphup is “Ducky” or other less polite names [Bunky comes to mind]. I also find it interesting that the arguments presented by these folks are usually some of the worst examples of logical thinking imaginable. Vinny’s long and to some extent almost unreadable rant above is one of the worst of a generally bad set of responses. He is demeaning and offensive, and on top of it he is generally wrong. If he applied the same level of skepticism to religion that he [probably] applies to scam artists he would see right through the misconceptions he presents as the “TRUTH.” The basic issue as I see it is that there is no objective evidence for a god [or God, or goddess, etc]. Period. Subjective experiences of one religion can be set over against that of another, and what criteria can be used to separate the “true” from the “false?” Also the historical documents of all religions are full of contradictions and outright falsehoods. Do we accept the good and cast out the bad? If so, who decides? At least the Literal minded Fundamentalists display the faith of their convictions [horribly misguided in my opinion]. If there were empirical proof of the existence of god, then do any theists believe that science would not recognize it. Remember, it took years before a majority of legitimate scientists were able to accept Darwin – they preferred a Created universe. And even if it was somehow demonstrated clearly that the universe had a creator – how does that prove the existence of any particular religion’s god? It seems very odd to me that the god of the Bible demonstrated his presence on an almost daily basis until scientific minds had the tools [mental and physical] to test the claims of the theists [not meant as a pejorative – just want to be as neutral as possible]. Then, poof, he is no longer in the miracle business – except for “little” subjective miracles like answering prayers at sporting events and saving a some people in a natural disaster and somehow overlooking the rest [many of whom were just as devout and were praying just as fervently for salvation]. Here we have the “god’s ways are not man’s ways,” and the “mind of god is unknowable” two-step. This is merely a rhetorical trick to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion this god is at the very least capricious and does not care about the general suffering of his “creation.” It seems a far more reasonable conclusion [and consistent with observation and experience] that
”stuff” happens and that no god, goddess, or any other spiritual entity is either responsible for creating or preventing the “stuff.” While the possibility of such entities can probably never be conclusively disproved [how does one disprove the existence of the undetectable?], it makes more sense to act as if the invisible is nonexistent until this entity comes out of the closet. It is a very liberating position.

Vinny,

couldn't you condense your nonsense into just a few lines, so that it will at least be read? In this inflated version you even take the pleasure of being amused away from your readers!

You don't really believe that after three or four lines anybody continues reading your "educationally challenged" rants?

As it be christianity forced upon many nations over hundreds of years,individuals as groups that refused christian teaching,who unwilling accept Jesus as son of God,for such their defiance the punishment at times severe,yet despite threat of torture, death. Over centuries many individuals paid the ultimate cost,thus earning for (western nations) our freedom from religious brainwashing. Hence,one have some gratitude as praise for the atheist,it being well earned,through centuries as in many lifes have given the ultimate sacrifice, that having won freedom to voice an opinion that will not result in being stoned to death,or a variety of tortures,which once commonly used in maintaining authority of church over the people. It be for the atheist to understand,we having not freed ourselves from the religious halfbaked,only to follow those whom having no beliefs,whom with passing time sink into a pit of own their making. For the atheist freedom from christianity being the battle won,in truth such not the case,it be humanity has but scratched the surface,the human brain in very early stages of development,it not that depth of understanding as knowledge not made available,problem being brain still in infancy at present capable of little understanding,overload at present stage of development,then such an act be fatal.Hence it be not GOD not exist or GOD a fool,it we try to run having but learnt to walk. The universe created in truth for one purpose in supporting the human form,that through brain as heart come ever growing understanding,experience such in balance,( balance be important ) be all cautious in wordly as spiritual dealings, ideas, as beliefs, yet remaining open hearted willing to learn,thus giving peace a chance... .

The real question for humans being a tiny insignificant part of this universe is " What is the purporse of their life, what is it meant for??" And not to confuse our selves with what is beyond our comprehension. And even though with our limits in comprehension and understanding, still we are intellegent enough, not to be confused, if we don't want to!

The real question for humans being a tiny insignificant part of this universe is " What is the purporse of their life, what is it meant for??" And not to confuse our selves with which is beyond our comprehension. And even though with our limits in comprehension and understanding, still we are intellegent enough, not to be confused, if we don't want to!

The real question for humans being a tiny insignificant part of this universe is " What is the purporse of their life, what is it meant for??" And not to confuse our selves with which is beyond our comprehension. And even though with our limits in comprehension and understanding, still we are intellegent enough, not to be confused, if we don't want to!

Vinny:

I'm confused. Do you think the entire universe was intelligently designed just so humans could exist, or are there other reasons?

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. And as a fact Muslims know they were revealed before discovered and further on top of it that not a single verse of their holy book is in conflict with any logical/scientific approach (infect every time scientific discoveries providing proof in favor of the last revelations), make them more focused/practicing/fundamentalist or what ever others think about them and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...simply apply the scientific rule of Probability....What if it is 100% correct...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

Please comments are not necessary WITHOUT VARIFICATION/RESEARCH of the original text and authentic translations by ONLY Muslim scholars to avoid any twisting and deceptive techniques IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias

I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam

Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as God promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind, unlike sacred texts of other religions which have mulitple versions and are "revised" periodically. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.

What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:

They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)

Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,

If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and he also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall speak not of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)

Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.

The "person" whom Jesus (A.S.) prophecised will come after him, is called Pargaleeta in the Bible . This word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."

Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,

... and a little while and you shall not see me; and again a little while, you shall see me because I go to the Father.
(Bible, John 16:16)

... and the Holy Qur'an says,

And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)

As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."

May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

(For more information about Jesus A.S. in Islam, Click Here)

II. Hadhrat Isa's (A.S.) Descension The Physical Features of Hadhrat Isa (A.S.)

He will resemble the famous Sahabi (A.S.) Hadhrat Urwa bin Masoodi (R.A.). He will be of average height and red and white in colour. His hair spread to the shoulders, straight, neat and shining as after a bath. On bending his head, it will seem as if pearls are falling. He will have an armour on his body. He will be wearing two pieces of cloth light yellow in color.

His Descension

He will descend on a Jamaat (group) that will be righteous at the time and comprising of 800 men and 400 women. The people will be preparing for war at the time against Dajjal (the anti-Christ). It will be time for Fajr prayers, and Imam Mahdi will be the Amir (leader). From the darkness of the dawn, a sound will suddenly be heard that "one who listens to your pleas has come" -- the righteous people will look everywhere and their eyes will fall on Isa (A.S.). Briefly, at the time of Fajr, Isa (A.S.) will descend. When descending, Isa (A.S.)'s hands will be on the shoulders of two angels (according to another source (Kab Abrar), a cloud will carry him). On their insistence Hadhrat Isa will introduce himself. He will inquire about their enthusiasm and thoughts on Jihad against Dajjal. Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will descend on the eastern side near the Minaret in Damascus (or in Baitul-Muqaddus by Imam Mahdi). At the time Imam Mahdi will have proceeded forward to lead the Fajr Salaat. The Iqamat of the Salaat would have been said (already recited) and Imam Mahdi will call Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) for Imamat (to lead the prayer), but he (Hadhrat Isa (A.S.)) will instead tell Imam Mahdi to lead the prayer since the Iqamat of that Salaat has already been said for him. Thus Imam Mahdi will lead the prayer, and Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will follow him. After the ruku, he will make this statement: "Allah has killed Dajjal and the Muslims have appeared."

The Killing of Dajjal (anti-Christ) and the Victory of the Muslims

After the completion of Fajr Salaat (congregational dawn prayers), Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will open the door behind him where Dajjal accompanied by 70,000 Yahudis (Jews) will be. He will indicate with his hand to move away between him (Hadhrat Isa (A.S.)) and Dajjal. Dajjal will then see Hadhrat Isa (A.S.). At that time every Kafir on whom the breath of Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will reach, will die. His breath will reach up to the distance of his eyesight. The Muslims will then come down from the mountains and break loose on the army of Dajjal. There will be war, Dajjal will retreat, and Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will pursue Dajjal. Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will have two flexible swords and one shield with him and with these he will kill Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd. He willl show the Muslims the blood of Dajjal which will get on his shield. Eventually the Yahudis will be selected and killed. The swine will be killed and the cross broken. People will revert to Islam. Wars will end, and people will return to their respective countries. One Jamaat (group) of Muslims will remain in his service and companionship.

Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will go to Fajr Rawha and perform Haj or Umrah (or both) from there. He will also go to the grave of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and present his greetings and Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) will reply. People will live comfortable lives. The wall of Yajooj and Majooj (Gog and Magog) will then break.

III. The Blessings of Hadhrat Isa (Jesus) (A.S.)

1 Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will descend and stay on earth.
2 His descension will be in the last era of the Ummat.
3 He will be a just ruler and a fair judge.
4 His ummat will be the Khalifa (deputies) of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).
5 He will act himself and instruct others on the Qur'an and Hadith (Shariat/Tradition of Islam).
6 He will lead people in Salaat (Prayer).
7 He will stay on earth for a period of 40 years after descending. The will be the best era of the Ummat after the first era of Islam.
8 Allah will protect his companions from Jahannam.
9 Those who will save the Deen of Islam by associating themselves with Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will be amongst the most loved by Allah Ta'ala.
10 During this period all other religions and mazhabs besides Islam will perish, hence there will be no kuffaars (non-believers) in the world.
11 Jihad will be stopped.
12 No Khiraaj will be taken.
13 Nor Jizya (protection tax) money from the kafirs (non-believers)
14 Wealth and property will be in surplus to such an extent that there will be no one to accept the wealth of the other (everyone will be independent).
15 Receiving Zakaat (Alms-giving, Charity to poor) and Saadaqa will be discarded (as there will be no poor to receive them!).
16 The people will love the sajda (prostration to God) more than the world and what it consists of.
17 All types of Deeni (religious) and worldly blessings will descend on earth (many halaal (lawful) things will be created).
18 There will be peace, harmony and tranquility during the time of Hadhrat Isa (A.S.)'s stay in the world.
19 There will be no animosity for a period of seven years, even between two persons.
20 All hearts will be free from miserliness, envy, hatred, malice and jealousy.
21 For a period of forty years no one will fall ill or die.
22 Venom will be taken out of all venomous animals.
23 Snakes and scorpions will not harm anyone to the extent that if a child put his hand in its mouth, he will not be harmed.
24 Will animals will not harm anyone.
25 If a man will pass a lion, he will not be troubled or harmed, or even if any girl will open its mouth to test if it will do anything.
26 The camels will graze among lions, cheetahs with cattle and the jackals with goats.
27 The fertility of the land will increase to such an extent that even if a seed is planted in a hard rock, it will sprout.
28 A pomegranate will be so huge that a jamaat will be able to eat it and the people will use its peel as shade.
29 There will be so much barakaat (blessing) in milk that a camel will suffice for a huge jamaat, a cow for a tribe and a goat for a family.
30 In short, life will be most pleasant after the descension of Jesus (A.S.).

His Marriage, Death and Deputies

After his descension on earth, Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). (Tirmidhi)

from: Hadhrat Esa (Alaihis Salaam): The Truth Revealed
and Major Signs of Qiyamat
by Mufti Afzal Hoosein Elias (May Allah reward him for his work in producing these kitaabs, aameen.)
from the original (with references): "Aalalaat-e-Qiyyamat aur Nuzul-e-Eesa."

TROUNCETIME FOR DUCKY, PART 2:

Ducky continues:..."The appeal to god when considering these questions is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argument ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it.That does not represent a limitation of nature, or of science... it represents a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Additionally, it is intellectually dishonest... it does not ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge or intellect... it appeals a fanciful, imaginary, supernatural entity to create the ILLUSION that cognitive dissonance has been resolved."

**** Let's get a few things straight.

Intelligent men have NEVER been able to create life from lifeless matter. PERIOD!

Every beginning has a cause. Universally understood, proven and accepted.

The universe itself with its billions of galaxies; the earth with its numerous functional/purposeful systems, and the many forms of life upon the earth that are as unique as they are amazing are ALL COMPLEX FEATURES AND THINGS.

Yet atheists want to somehow, some way conclude that all of these things are the absolute result of spontaneous, intelligenceless, fortuitous series of COINCIDENCES.

Bwaahahahahahahahahahhah

AAAAhhahahhahahahahaha

Folks, if you expect intelligent men to buy into this laughable nonsense, then let me sell you some Mississippi swampland.

At the very least, the chances that some kind of Intelligent Designer is responsible for these outstanding features should be a possibility. Yet atheists say there is no God at all. There is no Intelligent Designer at all. This is why atheist beliefs are foolishness. This is why most people laugh at atheist beliefs and sorry attempts to explain these things.

That's just the way it is folks.

VINNY wrote: "This is why I believe in an Intelligent DESIGNER, a Creator rather than some abiogenesis/evolutionary/Big BANG series of processes resulting in all that we have today. It makes perfect sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened BY ITSELF is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion."

Ducky reply:..."Logical and rational? LOL... Intelligent Design isn't even a scientific 'idea', much less a 'theory'... it is a political scheme. First, they tried to get 'Creationism' into the science classroom... and failed. So, they took out the Adam and Eve part, and the 6-days, and the 'poofing' things into existence parts, re-named it 'Creation Science', and tried again... and got shown to the door. So, they went back to the shop, changed 'Creation Science' to 'Intelligent Design', replaced 'god' with 'unknown intelligent designer', and tried again... and got shown to the door again. The idea is NOT to meet science on its own terms... it is to appeal to their scientifically-ignorant constituency (people like you) with a plausible-sounding pseudo-scientific argument... and "teach the controversy." That means, convey the FALSE idea (i.e., a freakin' LIE) that there is a 'controversy' within the scientific community relating to the Theory of Evolution... except that, within the scientific community, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. (Look up: 'wedge strategy')"

****** Poor Ducky likes to bring in the bible (though this debate is not about the bible, but about sorry ATHEIST beliefs), he boasts about Creation Science being shown the door, but he has NO ANSWERS to how complex life arises from nothing by nobody. He has NO ANSWERS to the problem that although intelligent men cannot create even the simplest of life today, atheists like ducky believe the far FAR more complex features of this universe all arose without ANY intelligence whatsoever.

He cannot prove this. Cannot duplicate this (not even in a controlled setting). All he can do is flounder in the mud, just like all atheists do when confronted with these specific issues.

He has no answers to the questions presented. WHY NOT??

VINNY wrote: "Science cannot even feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their FULL TRUST in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced and do not buy any of what they are selling. It is actually laughable to believe all things originated from nothing, all on their very own, without any intelligence behind it."

DUCKY REPLY: "Again... science does not have anything to say about god. If you would like to put your FULL TRUST in god to feed the poor, cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fix global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues... be my guest. Pray in one hand... sh*t in the other... and see which one gets filled up first. Be sure to let us know how that turns out."

****** Science has PLENTY to say about God or the Intelligent Designer. People like you on this thread have said it all already; HE DOES NOT EXIST. He CANNOT exist, YOU ASSERT. If the possibility was there, you'd folks be agnostic. But that is impossible to most atheists that I have encountered. When you dig your heels in deep on this issue your legs get ripped off. Which is what's happened here.

This is why you cannot answer the questions Ducky. How does complex life arise from lifeless matter? Again, what science teaches (abiogenesis), is only a hypothesis. It has NEVER BEEN DUPLICATED. You atheists need to face the facts here.

There are NUMEROUS EVIDENCES that support the need for a Creator. All beginnings have a cause has been demonstrated many times. The order and harmony and precision of the universe has been demonstrated many times. The earth itself with amazing, purposeful features that allow life to exist has been demonstrated many times.

There IS also EVIDENCE, logical PROOF that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all features of life today. Complex, intelligent, purposeful systems that reflect the intellect of that designer himself. Court cases have gone to trial where all of the evidence is circumstantial. Today's technology allows even trace evidences and other signs to give very convincing testimony that a crime was committed. Juries have been thoroughly and unitedly and fully convinced to convict criminals based on such outside, circumstantial evidence exclusively.

Likewise there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer. The complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible.

The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents. Just some fortuitous combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune?

You still have to answer the question of how did all these amazingly complex things get here?

Only two answers: By some Intelligent Designer or all by themselves. No other option. Since nothing in my house just happend to create itself, but all were by people, that gives you some idea just what we might have to look for with things like earth, universe and life.

EVERYTHING has a maker. Every beginning has a CAUSE. Universally accepted. So then tell us just how all things today can arise from nothing at all, by no intelligence at all?

That is a laughable explanation. It makes no sense. Has never been duplicated.

This leaves you with the other option; AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER MADE ALL THINGS.

ALL OF THESE THINGS demand answers as to how they got here Ducky. By fat chances and lots o luck is NOT any kind of reasonable answer since even the simplest of life has not been created from lifeless matter by intelligent men, EVER. Anywhere at any time.

THAT is the reality here folks.

VINNY wrote: "When I look at the entire picture then, the fact that ANY kind of intelligent design around us today requires an intelligent designer. The simple truth that it would be absurd to try to explain a red corvette, a house or even a number 2 pencil (structured, purposeful things) as having just ARRIVED from out of nothingness. The facts that this earth, the universe and all upon them are very complex, very organized, highly structured and simply demanding in all reasonableness that an intelligent creator be the one responsible for such incredible, organized, purposeful DESIGN."

Duckie replies:..."I find it distressing to realize that so many people are incapable of recognizing the qualitative difference between biological systems and human artifacts... or between human artifacts and matter self-organizing under the influence of natural forces. Here ya go Vinny... here's an experiment that you (anyone) can perform right in your own kitchen. Get a container of Morton Salt. Slowly and carefully begin pouring it out on your table, until there is a little inverted cone of salt, and when you add more it just runs down the sides, and the pile does not get any higher. Then move on to start a new pile. Repeat until all the salt is gone. You will note that all the little piles of salt are the same height, and the angle of the sides of each pile is the same.

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

Also... the formation of stars and their accompanying solar systems is well understood... and it's about as mystical and supernatural as the little piles of salt that you (presumably) just made on your kitchen table. (Look up: 'planetary formation')"

****** Your sorry little salt experiment is the direct result of the simple fact that the Intelligent Designer designed PROCESSES to allow actions like these to take place. Gravity, photosynthesis, spontaneous combustion, reproduction, water cycles etc etc. These PROCESSES were designed and put into motion by some intelligent force. To assume that they all just happened through some rolling of the dice is irresponsible and laughable. Because God has not shown up and introduced himself to you does not mean He does not exist.

Wake up folks.

This is why your atheist arguments are always easy to refute. They have no legs. Their are silly and laughable. TELL US HOW THEN.

What's imaginary about humans having a moral conscience, an appreciation for spirituality, wanting to live endlessly? These things are real and demand answers. How'd they get there then? Why appreciate art? Why want to do good for others that we never met and do not know?

Step up duckey.

Show me the money atheists!

VINNY wrote: "That science itself cannot even create life out of non-living matter, nor from dead, former living matter and has far too many holes in its theories and is far from a source worth putting all trust in. Adding it all up for me then, I cannot get away from the inescapable conclusion that there IS A GOD responsible for all of the many features we see around us right now."

Ducky replies:.."That is because the foolishness which serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it. That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that you presume, for yourself, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it. Since I do NOT (can not) understand (or imagine) it... it logically follows that it is NOT understandable... by ANYONE. Since it is NOT understandable by anyone, it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.)"

******* Wrong, once again Ducky.

Convince me with persuasive arguments and I would change my opinions about anything. I have read many posts in this forum from the ATHEISTS and have just not been even remotely convinced that life and all which we see around us today is the result of some series of BIG BANG, ABIOGENESIS AND EVOLUTIONARY, MINDLESS processes. I find such theories embarrassingly, humorously inept and unacceptably foolish.

You'd have a better chance of actually persuading me that the Red Corvette in the wilderness with keys in the ignition just arrived by mere chance than the many more, far more complex features surrounding us today. And I would never buy into that Red Corvette happening by a similar evolutionary, abiogenesis, laughable non-scientifically provable explanation either.

Where are the fossils where the mammals are still in some evolutionary half-way-stages? Where is the giraffe fossil with a shorter neck? The half sized T-rex? Again, show me the money folks! What possible benefit does a peacock derive from carrying such a heavy and colorful tail through these different evolutionary stages? What possible evolutionary need is there for humans to appreciate art?

Why do humans have a conscience when animals clearly do not? Why do all races and tribes of humans throughout the earth have this built in desire to worship God? Whys is food pleasurable, why do we need to see in color? Why do we have a sense of humor? What evolutionary need does that serve? Perhaps somebody could step-up and give persuasive, reasonable in-depth answers to all of these questions.

But they AINT THERE! Look, read and see for yourself. Atheism is FOOLISHNESS.

I enjoyed the full moon rising just this week. Who would like to tell me with a straight face that THAT beautiful, purposeful, influential astronomical body is simply some accidental result, which just by the way, happens to have several necessary function towards this "other" astronomical body called the Earth?

And with a STRAIGHT FACE, tell me that his earth is just another one of those freak accidents that just happens to be at the precise distance from the sun, orbiting at just the right speed of 66,000 miles per hour, rotating at just the correct speed to sustain life (24 hours), with just the right amount of tilt for refreshing seasonal changes and filled with so many perfectly balanced, harmonized ecological systems that are also the result of MANY more of these needed mere "accidents".

That all LIFE that is found on this earth is just another series of blind chance "accidents" even though man has no capability whatsoever in a controlled scientific setting to re-create ANY life whatsoever from non-life non-accidents. Yet here we are, the result of intelligence-less evolutionary design, as atheists' like to say.

I am sorry to say that this does not impress me in the least. I am not convinced, though I do have an open mind. But hey, you God-Less folks have to come up with SOMETHING, even if that something is embarrassingly, amusingly deficient. It is not believable nor logical. But, I guess something is better than nothing. Right?

All things, from nothing, buy a lot of accidents and luck.

Get REAL!

Ducky said:..."But nobody is CLAIMING any of that, you see. You are being misled by the professional liars that are employed by 'christianity' to keep scientifically-ignorant people (like you) in a state of bamboozlement. They TELL you that scientists claim what you have just stated... but that is, quite simply, a lie.

******* BWAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

My little ducky friend with lots of words and NO ARGUMENTS OR EXPLANATIONS AS TO HOW COMPLEX THINGS ARISE FROM NOTHING BY NOBODY, (((((YOU))))) are the one who's been lied to and misled.

YOU are the one stuck in the mud with your sorry atheist beliefs. You are the one that has no answers to the questions.

All Vinny is doing is telling you how it really is. And burying you deep in the process. I am sorry to burst your fragile atheist bubble Ducky.

VINNY wrote: "I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins and Hutchins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant embarrassing stretch after another."

Ducki replies:..."Well, then... it is fair to state that if you actually read them (doubtful... I think that you're lying), you certainly did not understand them."

****** Poor little atheist is in denial here. I have examined and REJECTED the sorry atheist explanations. Now deal with it

Many extremely respected scientists also believe that life originated from the hand of some Intelligent Designer. Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and thousands of others scientists, philosophers, leaders every president ever elected as well millions of other intelligent people believe life is here due to the hand of some Intelligent Designer. I too believe for genuine reasons then, not simply because of emotional or other "convenient" reasons.

Every beginning has a cause. The features surrounding us have very specific purposes. It just makes the most sense for most people today, yesterday and probably forever to believe in Creationism.

Those of you that choose to believe differently, I say good for you. I hope you can remain satisfied with such flimsy arguments as all things from nothing by nobody. It's your life. We all have the freedom to believe what we choose to believe. Some today even believe that Elvis is still alive. So you God-less believers are certainly not alone today when it comes to people having some rather strange beliefs. I can respect your rights to those beliefs, but do not agree with them at all.

ATHEISTS ALWAYS LOSE HERE. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

VINNY wrote: "Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

Ducky reply: First cause' was blown away by William of Occam... about 700 years ago. So... your 'philosophy' is a little bit out-of-date... and your 'universal principle' does not exist. Finally... Quantum Mechanics tells us that 'cause' might be a somewhat vacuous concept. What eliminates god from the equation is NOT the perverse, contrary, atheistic nature of scientists... god is eliminated by 'Occam's Razor'. We are doing fine WITHOUT resort to invisible, magical sky-fairies. Again... simply... "We have no need of that hypothesis."

*******The problem for atheists like Ducky is that these things are here NOW. THEY GOT THERE SOMEHOW.

So then how did it get there Ducky? THAT IS the million dollar question for you and the poor atheists. Since every single thing in our own home was made by somebody--no exceptions--, and since every single beginning known to man has a cause, and since intelligent men cannot make life out of lifeless in a controlled setting, and since the tremendous variety of things have very specific purposes and uses, then how can anybody come to the conclusion that these things, elements and features arose from nothing, by nobody, all through accidents, chances, luck and exist today?

This is where atheism gets pummeled again and again endlessly. It makes zero sense. Sorry but this is really how it is.

So please tell us if everything that we use today was made by somebody, actually HAD to be made by somebody; then how can men now say these far more complex and purposeful things happened another way? Through a series of events that has never been duplicated by intelligent men at any time anywhere.

PLEASE REPLY TO THIS PROBLEM YOU ATHEISTS HAVE.

This is why the Red Vette in the wilderness with keys, gas, radio and leather seats, formed all by itself, though these same series of chances, accidents, luck etc (that is ascribed to how today's universe originated), is such a FALLACY.

There are only two options. Either all things exist due to some intellectual force, or they all happened by themselves, originating from nothing, by countless mindless series of events INTO complex, organized, purposeful things.

Which makes more sense to you? THe Red vette in the middle of the wilderness with everything in place, made by Chevrolet; or that red vette in wilderness with everything in place coming together on IT'S OWN??

The Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and entire Universe along with complex varieties of Life itself, made by an some Intelligent Designer; or The Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and entire Universe along with complex varieties of life itself, all just coming together by ITSELF?

Sounds rather simple to me.

VINNY wrote: "The poor atheists are stuck in the mud once again."

DUCK REPLY: "OK... if that's what you like to think."

**** Sorry Duckie, but that is HOW IT IS. YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS/ISSUES.

THAT DOES NOT CUT IT HERE!

VINNY wrote: "Their silly beliefs are nothing but sorry excuses to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer."

DUCKY REPLIES:..."Beliefs like what, exactly? Like the idea that when we DON'T know something, we can simply say that "We don't know"... and we DON'T have to toss our hands up our hands and declare "OK... we don't know... that must mean that it is done by an invisible, magical sky-fairy?"

****** It means that due to the complexities surrounding us; the every beginning has a cause universal FACT; the plain truth that intelligent men cannot create even SIMPLE LIFE from lifeless, that some intelligent force must be responsible for the array of amazing, complex and purposeful things we see today.

At the minimum it should be a probability. A possibility is mandatory. But being tagged as IMPOSSIBLE is why atheists get TROUNCED again and again and look inept and embarrassingly stupid when discussing these sorry beliefs as posted above.

VINNY wrote: "And most people aint buying what you are selling."

Ducky replies:..."Right. Instead, they are buying a universe in which all that exists are the earth and heaven, solid 'firmament' structure (the sky) separating the earth from heaven (terrarium earth), talking donkeys, shepherd staff turning into an asp, demons chased out of people and into pigs, woman turning into a pillar of salt, friendly spirits, evil spirits, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, food falling from the sky, people raising from the dead, the sun stopping in its tracks, parting the sea, people being bodily sucked up into heaven (which, by the way, lies on the 'other side' of the sky), world-wide flood that drowned the earth to a depth of 40 feet above the tallest mountain, creating people from dust bunnies and ribs, magical tree of knowledge, and an invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) speaking from a burning bush. Oh... except that as some of those 'inviolable, divine truths' were demonstrated to be pure horse excrement, some pious liar waved his hands and what was once 'truth' became magically transformed into 'metaphors' and 'allegory'. Look... in a sane world, anybody running around spouting ANY of that nonsense, would be locked up in the State Farm for the Funny. Apparently, though, mass insanity seems to convey some sort of free pass... and on TOP of all that, you would have us believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop."

******** Poor Ducky goes back to using the bible again. This is a debate about ATHEISM. BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

What I have said is that we have one amazing Universe out there RIGHT NOW.

What I have said is that we have one round, spinning, revolving, tilted earth with atmosphere, land, water cycles food, plants etc RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that we have all kinds of complex and amazing life forms on the earth RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that all beginnings have a cause is universally accepted RIGHT NOW.

What I said is that science cannot create even simplest of life from lifeless RIGHT NOW.

What I have said is that there are numerous "evidences" that all life arrived due to the hand of a Master Designer.

That the complexity and uniformity, the order and structure, the harmony of system after system, feature after feature, from the smallest molecules to the incredible living breathing life forces surrounding us all, to the incredibly complex earth where so many systems are just perfectly balanced all working together to allow life to exist are evidences to me that somebody surely must be responsible. The far more complex, far more powerful and awe inspiring universe with star after star, planet after planet solar system after solar system all beautifully organized, with inconceivable, unimaginable amounts of power and energy, give further testimony, in my mind, that these things did not just "happen" through some unguided series of accidents.

Just some LUCKY rolling of the dice combination of circumstances. A blind fluke of good fortune, eh Duckie?

What I have said is (just like Einstein stated): "God does not play dice with the universe". So though we cannot see God HIMSELF, we DO SEE "EVIDENCE" that he does indeed exist. We cannot see our own brains or gravity, or oxygen etc... the evidence that these things are nonetheless real is overwhelming. Evidence that God exists is even more powerful. The "evidence" supports this belief for me.

The EVIDENCE is why I reject atheistic beliefs.

AS DO MOST HUMANS TODAY, YESTERDAY AND WILL TOMORROW.

Where is your EVIDENCE then that all things can arise from nothing, by nobody, into harmonious, complex things? Never been done.

Technology is not yet advanced enough for Intelligent Men to make the Simplest of life, from dead matter. Never been done. If Intelligent Men and technology cannot even make SIMPLEST life from non-life, please tell me what kind of technology is required to make COMPLEX LIFE?

You know, things like the human body with human brain, with reproductive system, immune system, digestive system, circulatory system, nervous system, powerful, pumping heart with, the amazing eyeball, ears that hear, hands with thumb, you have feet, nose, teeth, tongue etc etc etc. What kind of human technology is needed to make a human being, that lives, from dead matter?

How about a hummingbird? What kind of technology is needed for Intelligent Men to make a hummingbird out of dead matter, eh Ducky? You see, it takes intelligence to make intelligence. Always have and always will.

Super-Blue is an amazing computer that beat Kasparov and other Grand Masters many times. But what made super blue so good? It was other "Intelligent humans" that "created" and "programmed" that computer.

The more complex the feature, the more complex the cause MUST BE. Every single time. That is how life is and how things work. But you just want to throw all of that out the window when it comes to all things around us.

What kind of technology do you atheists like Ducky think is needed to create an entire gargantuan universe, with billions of galaxies, with a spinning, rotating earth with its own moon, a sun (one million times larger than earth) and all the many forms of life upon the earth all from nothing.

Remember, my question is WHAT KIND OF *TECHNOLOGY* are we talking about here being needed for these things? Technology means Intelligent scientific MEN all with human brains getting together.

Science, with intelligent men, cannot even make polymers from dead matter, much less simple life, and even more IMPOSSIBLE, complex life.

But you porr, poor atheists want to say no technology is needed at all. NO INTELLIGENCE IS NEEDED AT ALL. That all these things just happened BY THEMSELVES with no technology needed anywhere, all from nothing at all.

This is why I have no choice but to do the Bwaaaaahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah

This is completely silly, laughable nonsense, which is what all atheists believe.

Liker I said in part 1 of Duckies Trouncetime, one day I do hope scientists do make life from non-life. You know what my next point will be don't you? Yep, INTELLIGENCE WAS **NEEDED** TO MAKE LIFE FROM NON-LIFE. Once again it KILLS ATHEIST BELIEFS. Atheists will always lose this one. Every single time they will lose.

Evolution is but one part of the atheists problem. Show me the mini T-Rex fossils.

Abiogenesis is another huge problem. Simple life cannot be made from dead matter by Intelligent Men in controlled settings.

Big Bang is another. Big Bangs into orderly, expanding universe with earth and many vital features, moon, sun all perfectly located is another huge problem for atheists. Explosions never result in order and precision such as exsits in our present universe. And for those that say universe is all chaotic, and not organized, then look at us right now. Here we are. Everything perfectly working and beautifully, harmoniously balanced. Life sure exists right now, TODAY.

I also like to go fishing when the tide is coming in when not working or taking care of silly atheist teachings. The big predatory fish go hunting then and action is definitely best. I can tell you exactly what the tide will be like in 30 years from today, based on the earth/moon/sun's EXACT positions. THAT is just how precise the cosmos really are. Science has seen photos of cosmic explosions recently, with photos. Oddly, these never result in new orbiting earth with moon and sun do they or anything else organized, do they?

ALL THREE THINGS, (Big BANG, Abiogenesis and Evolution) just resulting in a spinning, rotating, tilted earth with ozone, water, land, plants etc, inside of a very structured and organized solar system, inside of its own galaxy, inside of an entire tremendous universe, with life of all kinds on the earth in its many forms; ALL HAPPENING ON IT'S VERY OWN, ALL COMING FROM NOTHING, BY NOBODY, BY ACCIDENTS, FAT CHANCES AND LOTS O LUCK IS AN ATHEISM KILLER.

This belief is silly nonsense. All things from nothing is dead in the mud problem for atheists. They are STUCK in mud with no 4 wheel drive and not even any tires. This is why they all eventually leave the threads. They cannot defend such sad beliefs as this.

I'd say atheism sure don't sound too convincing to me Ducky. What about you?

This is all such a waste of time, and yet I just can’t resist putting my two cents in.

Theists, I don’t know whether there is or isn’t some kind of god(s) (although I strongly suspect there isn’t, and there is no good reason to think there is), and I’m sure you’re all decent people, but your “arguments” are exercises in self-deception. There are so many problems with the arguments theists have posted in the comments section of Sam Harris’s, Christopher Hitchens’s, and Susan Jacoby’s essays, I don’t know where to begin.

The reason for doing what one considers good is because ONE CONSIDERS IT GOOD. This is reason enough for most people. Whatever the origins of morality are (God, mindless evolution, a big rock) doesn’t matter in the least to me nor, I would guess, to Hitchens, Harris, or Jacoby. If I am morally outraged by government corruption, and someone comes along and demonstrates to me how my moral outrage is the result of a long, mindless process of evolution, how does that change the fact that I’m morally outraged? That moral outrage is a part of who I am. You might as well tell me to stop loving my nieces because that love is the result of evolution. I. DON’T. CARE. The fact remains that I love my nieces, whether or not God exists, and whether or not I have his stamp of approval.

Theists claim that if morals come from God then they are somehow more legitimate (for lack of a better word) than if they are the result of a mindless natural process. How does that follow? It doesn’t. Not in a logical sense, anyway; maybe it does in a PERSONAL sense to YOU, but in no other sense does it “follow” that if morals come from a person-like entity who is not the result of a mindless process, only then can they be “legitimate.” If fact, from my perspective, if there is a God, his moral sensibilities are no less subjective and random than my own or anyone else’s.

And, of course, there’s the whole question that goes back to Socrates: does God will things because they are good, or are things good because God wills them? If God wills things BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD, then morality does not come from God and he is not the “basis” (whatever that means) for morality as you claim. Morality in this case is independent of God, and he simply follows it. On the other hand, if things are “good” merely because God wills them, then all normative terms (moral, immoral, good, bad, ought, ought not, etc.) simply mean “God wills” or “God wills not,” and there would be no reason to be “moral” (i.e. to do what God wills) except pure self interest -- that is, because God happens to be more powerful than you and can dish out reward or punishment if he is so inclined. And in this case, God could say that rape and child porn and child abuse were “good” and, presto, these things would automatically, by definition, be “good.” And to say that God is “good” would mean ONLY that God acts according to his will, nothing more; it would be to say “God wills what he wills.” There would be none of the evaluative/normative appraisal that people normally imply when they call God “good” or terrorists “evil.” And to say that God was “morally perfect” would mean ONLY that God follows his will perfectly, nothing more.

Here’s something else theists never consider. If we are the result of godless evolution, there might still be a realm of moral truth that is not merely the creation of human beings. It’s possible that the realm of moral truth is similar to the realm of mathematical and logical truths, and billions of years of evolution simply produced minds that are advanced enough to apprehend this realm of moral truth. Who the f knows?! Who knows anything?

And even if what Hitchens and Harris consider “objective” moral truths are merely their own subjective moral sentiments, so what? So they are merely expressing their own subjective moral sentiments, and according to those moral sentiments, the Bible and the God of the three major monotheistic faiths are morally reprehensible in many respects. If you were honest with yourselves, you would admit that your own moral sentiments agree with Hitchens’ and Harris’s, and that certain parts of the Bible and certain aspects of the traditional concept of God are reprehensible to you, too. But instead of using Hitchens’ and Harris’s criticisms to rethink your own dogmatic beliefs, you dodge the issues they raise. For example, according to the Bible, slavery is acceptable to God. Is it acceptable to you? If not, you either have to disagree with the biblical God or deny that the Bible is the word of God and admit that the biblical God doesn’t exist. The Bible condones the stoning of adulteresses and disobedient children. (And Jesus apparently has no problem with these things either, since he believed the Old Testament was the word of God and said he did not come to abolish it and that not one bit of it shall perish.) Hitchens and Harris find such behavior morally repugnant. If you were honest, you would admit that you do, too, and that therefore the God of the Bible is either morally repugnant, or he doesn’t exist and these rules were simply the expressions of a primitive, morally backwards people.

And lastly, there is the biggest moral problem with traditional theism of all -- a contradiction at the very heart of Christianity (and Islam, as far as I can tell). God is morally perfect; absolutely, 100% flawless; he is pure love; his love is unconditional and never failing; he is merciful and loves humankind, who is the centerpiece of his creation. And yet this same God is going to torture the MAJORITY of humankind for eternity because of their moral shortcomings and because they don’t believe the right things about him. If Christians (and Muslims) were intellectually honest, they would admit two things about this: 1) This is contradictory. Period. There is no hair-splitting it away. If God is morally perfect, loving, and perfectly just and merciful, then there is simply no way he could EVER consign anyone to eternal torture for their flaws, certainly not the MAJORITY of the billions of people who have lived. If he is just, the punishment would HAVE to match the “crime.” If he is loving and merciful, he would lessen that deserved punishment or waive it altogether. And because this is contradictory, then such a God cannot – CANNOT, with mathematical certainty – exist and the Bible (and the Koran) cannot be the word of God since it contradicts itself in this way. And 2) If there is a God who is going to send the majority of humankind to hell for their moral shortcomings and errant beliefs about him, there is no way that normal, sentient human beings could ever worship, praise, or love him. He would be a moral monster that you would hate more, WAY MORE, than any Hitler, Stalin, or terrorist. Hitler, Stalin, and terrorists at least eventually killed their opponents; but according to traditional Christian doctrine (Protestant and Catholic) and, as far as I know, Islam, God is going to keep people who reject him alive just to torture them for not going along with his program. If you just stop and think honestly and vividly about that for one second without your dogmatic blinders and knee-jerk theological defenses, you would see that any being that would do this is beyond psychopathic, and you could never – NEVER – love, follow, or worship such a being.

And if you finally see that the Bible is not the word of God, then what possible basis could there be for believing in a God with the attributes ascribed to him in the Bible? Once you see that the Bible cannot be the word of God, for the above reasons and many others, then all we have to go on when we try to figure out the possible existence and nature of god(s) is what we can surmise from the natural world, reason, and our own moral sentiments. How far does that get you? Once you get rid of written revelation, there is no good reason left to believe in the traditional concept of God. There is no basis for thinking that whatever god(s) there might be out there is ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful, omni-present (what a ludicrous concept that is), can listen to and perfectly respond to the billions of prayers offered up to him around the world each day, knows the number of hairs on your head, has a special plan for each of us, etc., etc. etc. And there’s no basis for believing in the narratives of the Bible: Adam and Eve, the fall, the incarnation, salvation, etc.

I have never heard of Anon either.

You guys are truly paranoid atheists stuck deep in the mud with no explanations as to how complex things arise from nothing.

Folks, our little atheists believe that all LIVING THINGS on the earth today; all plants, all trees, all vegetables, fruit trees, every single creature on the earth, whether in the ocean, lakes rivers or streams, whether on land or in the air; that ALL **HUMAN BEINGS** with their outstandingly complex brain's, circulatory systems, nervous systems, digestive and lymphatic systems, immune systems along with the ability to procreate through a remarkable Reproductive system; yep EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING that we see out there today arose either from some self-replicating polymer, which arose from DEAD MATTER, from sosme PRIMORDIAL SOUP-like quagmire, all on it's own, without any guiding force WHATSOEVER.

Folks, our little atheists also believe that the entire UNIVERSE with all of it's PRECISION and ORDER and POWER just happened to result from some COSMIC EXPLOSION, without ANY INTELLECTUAL FORCE behind it at all, yet resulting in such precise alignment, that we humans (who came from that soup/dead-matter/polymer etc.) can tell exactly when and where planets, moons, comets, asteroids, stars etc. etc. will be located at any given moment in time.

Yep, our little atheists believe that in the middle of this intricate, expanding, gargantuan universe, our perfectly located, tilted, spinning and orbiting EARTH just happened to fall right into place (and stays in place) with atmosphere, ozone layer, water cycles, just the exact amount of oxygen and other delicately balanced systems due to some fortuitous series of LUCK. A continuous stream of "FAT CHANCES" that all just fell right into place so that all of this LIFE could then arise from those soup-like, dead matter conditions where a polymer can turn into the human brain and beyond.

Not only do our little atheists BELIEVE THIS HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE, even though it's only a scientific "hypothesis" (cause it's NEVER been duplicated in ANY CONTROLLED scientific setting, so ain't even a THEORY yet). But then, our little atheists go beyond just believing but now want to show up on this debate thread and CONVINCE OTHERS here to believe this same HILARIOUS LOAD OF GARBAGE.

Folks, like I said, this is why the web is so great today. It's all there in PRINT for everybody to read for many years to come. I will be BOOKMARKING this thread.

Sometimes atheists are accused of being arrogant and I have some sympathy with this complaint. However, when you are arguing with people like Vinny, who is clearly educationally subnormal, how could you not feel superior?

Vinny,

What you're doing is the equivalent of asserting that colds really are caused by cold weather, rather than by microbial infections, simply because you never read nor appreciated the insights of Louis Pasteur. You clearly don't understand Darwin's insight, which says that replicating units that replicate themselves better tend to leave more copies of themselves (by definition), and the heritable characteristics that make them better replicators are thereby spread in a population of such units. The insight is that no purpose is necessary to achieve structured, organized, successful beings if the ingredients are present (heritable variation among replicators and differential success of replicators) and given enough time.

Furthermore, there is reasonable theory and some strong tests of the assumptions of the theory for how early mechanisms of replication of inorganic molecules (the "nothing" you have in mind) could ultimately lead to the assembly and replication of organic molecules. Having synthesized only 16 of the 20 amino acids is hardly a falsification of the idea that organic molecules like amino acids can arise from a process that originally involved inorganic molecules.

If you were truly open to understanding how Darwinian principles of natural selection can lead to function, adaptation, and order, you would understand how your ideas are merely an attempt in vain to cling to a 2000 year old, antiquated worldview. Come join us in the modern age--allowing scientific discovery to inform your understanding of how the world actually works can be a beautiful thing. You do it in almost every other facet of your life--why exclude only those that threaten your religious views?

Do you think Mathew is for real? he's such a caricature. I do believe that Anon is Vinnie, though.

Hey Vinnie- let’s say you’re right about God being the original super-intelligent designer. Why do you suppose he waited so long to allow humans to harness electricity and develop antibiotics? And why hasn’t he updated the one set of instructions he gave us over 2,000 years ago?

No I am not the anonymous poster. No I am not David either. Never heard of either.

What a group of paranoid atheists here.

Paranoid atheists, with no answers to difficult questions.

IT'S TROUNCETIME FOR DUCKSOUP.

Notice folks:

NO arguments explaining just how life arises from nothing.

NO arguments dealing with science failing to create life from lifeless in controlled settings.

NO arguments explaining why science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK where it life once was hours before.

NO arguments dealing with the universal "every beginning has a cause" fact of life.

NO arguments explaining how big BANG results in orderly, intricate, powerful universe; a spinning, orbiting earth with atmosphere, water, ozone etc, with moon practically attached; and life all throughout that earth.

And dozens of other issues unanswered.

And you folks wonder why I laugh so much when I post here.

DUCKPHUP said:.."VINNY wrote (SEPTEMBER 29, 2007 4:05 PM): (a whole bunch of ridiculous drivel about a red Corvette)"

**** Let's see what ducky does to deal with the red vette that is attached to his forehead.

VINNY wrote: "If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a sorry and lame idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere; how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolutionary processes, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?"

Ducky replies:..."Well... you see... some people have the intellectual ability to tell the difference between a human artifact and natural systems... an ability that you seem to lack."

****** Well lookey here folks; our friend Ducky wants to try to take on red vette. And we know why too. Cause all atheists wearing red vettes aint too fun is it, eh ducky?

But that is how it is folks. Atheists like ducky who think all things arose from nothing by nobody own the red vette for good.

IT IS THEIR BABY FOR LIFE.

YOU SEE Ducky, That red corvette could have taken millenniums to come together, I don't care how long. Millenums, a Big Bang, one day, or whatever else you want it to take.

HOW did it get there WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE DUCKY??

THAT is the question that kills atheists like you.

They try to make it go away. But they CAN'T. No matter how much they hope, it is there, it is YOUR BABY FOR GOOD. Here is the problem you atheists have with red vette. When you EVEN TRY to deal with the red corvette "little problem" atheists have, by saying it could never happen, "could never reproduce", " ain't organics", "natural system" blah blah blah... you ALSO are arguing EXACTLY why atheism itself makes NO SENSE, and that the stars/moon/earth/life/atmosphere/etc etc also cannot happen AT THE VERY SAME TIME that you argue against red vette.

It's a lose lose situation for atheists. Which is why atheists keep losing here on this thread and all threads.

The only correct answer for you atheists is to say YES, that red corvette in the wilderness COULD HAVE happened on its own, through the course of time, with all the elements coming together to make one nice and shiny red corvette with gas, key and everything perfectly in place ready to go.

ONLY THEN does your argument in favor of atheism have any hope. The REASON though, why atheists never, EVER say Red Vette thing COULD happen (even though this is exactly what they teach and believe regarding universe, earth, features on earth, life on earth etc etc, that these things came to exist on their VERY OWN), is because when you break it down to something much closer to home and easier to understand and relate to, they THEN say "NO WAY", because deep down they really know that there IS NO WAY something like that could ever happen in life.

NOT A FAT CHANCE it could happen like that. And they KNOW this, which is why they look to rebut this problem they have on their hands. Yet, the VERY SAME PRINCIPLE, is how they want to tell you and I that the even MORE COMPLEX Earth, Universe, and Life came to exist.

Bwaaaahahaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha

This is why all atheists that you see today, anywhere, have a little red corvette stuck on their forehead. You cannot ignore it. It is always there. You have completely failed in dealing with this. It applies. It fits. IT WORKS. If you believe in atheism, then you believe that red vette COULD happen all on its own.

THAT IS WHAT KILLS YOU Ducky and turns your arguments into DUCK SOUP. HOW COULD IT ARRIVE ALL BY ITSELF, WITH NO INTELLIGENCE.

THE ANSWER: IT CAN'T!

It is just too much fun to watch some of you little atheists like ducky try to explain to me how the vette thing CAN'T HAPPEN.

Well, I KNOW IT CAN'T HAPPEN. Hello out there. But this is exactly what atheists BELIEVE happened to the far more precise and complex features surrounding us today. It's like some kind of TWO-STEP you atheists like to do. It can't happen with the vette, it can't happen with the vette... but it DID happen with sun, moon, stars, earth, animals, people etc.

BWAAAHAHAAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahah

This is why this WHOLE THREAD is a black eye for atheists beliefs. It shows how really stupid such beliefs that everything came into existence on its own from dead matter. And nobody ever answered just where that dead matter came from either.

You see folks, a perfectly spinning, tilted and orbiting earth cannot just happen by itself. Neither did the atmosphere including ozone layer on earth, the water cycles, nor did the moon, sun and stars just form themselves. Nor did many BILLIONS of other things similar.

Your argument, like I said, is LOSE LOSE for atheists. Again, this is why all atheists that you see today, anywhere, have a little red corvette stuck on their forehead. You cannot ignore it. It is always there.

How's the weather, how's your wife, the dog etc... Oh, I see you must be an atheist too, I see you have a red corvette STUCK on your forehead".... "yeah, I see it's there too...kind of obvious huh.." ....YES IT IS. : ))

My position has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOW THAT RED VETTE COULD ARISE ***FROM NOTHING**** BY NOBODY INTO RED VETTE WITH GAS KEYS AND RADIO.

For those of you (like DUCKY) that want to try wiggling off the hook because red vette aint living, breathing, self-replicating life form, you are then BURIED by the fact that neither is the earth, moon, sun, and stars or universe living, breathing, self-replicating life forms.

Neither is atmosphere, water cycles, photosynthesis, weather systems etc living, breathing self-replicating life forms.

You see folks, If through some cosmic "BIG BANG", ALL of the billions of stars in our own organized, orderly Milky Way Galaxy, as well as the BILLIONS of other organized and orderly Galaxies with their billions of stars came into existence. And if inside our very own organized and orderly galaxy, in what is known as our own orderly SOLAR SYSTEM, we have at just the right distance from our perfectly sized SUN, a perfectly located and sized planet EARTH, that also rotates at the perfect speed of 24 hours (needed to sustain life) as well as orbits around the sun at the perfect speed of 66,600 mph to keep it in that precise orbiting pattern and not sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun itself. And if this perfectly located, spinning and orbiting EARTH also has perfectly, purposeful and finely balanced SYSTEMS upon it (NEEDED TO SUSTAIN LIFE) such as different atmospheric layers, with protective ozone layer, with just the correct amount of gases needed to sustain life. (.Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2, argon, water vapor and other smaller trace gasses).

And if this same, orbiting, spinning, perfectly located EARTH with perfect atnosphere for life, located perfectly inside the universe with many billions of organized galaxies ALSO has a variety of unique, perfectly balanced SYSTEMS AND FEATURES such as water cycles, weather systems, eco systems, food chain systems, microbial systems, photosynthesis, tides due to a perfectly located and spinning and sized moon at the precisely needed location and too many others to list here.

And if UPON this perfectly located, spinning EARTH, with it's many perfectly balanced features and systems (found in the middle of an organized orderly universe), there also happens to be a variety of LIVING THINGS on this earth, with ITS OWN amazingly complex varieties of different systems such as digestive, circulatory, reproductive, elimination, immune, neurological etc etc, that just happened to originate from NOTHING AT ALL, through some BIG BANG, into an organized gargantuan UNIVERSE, with a perfectly located, spinning, orbiting EARTH located within that universe, that just so happened to come WITH the many FEATURES needed to support life, along with all these many varieties OF LIFE FORMS that supposedly arose from lifeless matter, primordial soup, to polymers, into complex living things including human BRAINS and beyond; then FOLKS if all this happened, ***ALL ON ITS VERY OWN***, without any INTELLECTUAL SOURCE anywhere, then THAT RED CORVETTE showing up in the wilderness with gas, keys and everything in place is a PIECE OF CAKE.

That Red Vette, all on it's own, is easy as counting 1,2,3 when compared to all THESE OTHER things arising from and existing because of a series of what can only be described as FAT-CHANCES, ALL ON THEIR VERY OWN.

NOW DEAL WITH IT ATHEISTS!

This is why you athesists like ducky are STUCK with red corvette on your foreheads for life. It applies, it fits, it works.

Is also why bomb-explosions never turn into a New York city with buildings, plumbing, door knobs and yellow cabs. This is just plain old, laughable nonsense, passed down to people that want to cut out the reality that there is a God.

VINNY wrote: "The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through these processes with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to form themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth."

Ducky replied: ..."And you would to be right about that... since statistics on religious belief lead us to conclude that about 85%+ of people are afflicted, to varying degrees, with gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. So, YES... you would have a FAR better chance of selling your car story than a story which requires knowledge, rationality, reason and critical-thinking skills."

****** The problem you have ducky is that you have not explained to the class just how complex life can originate from lifeless things. You can play your boring "pin the ignorance tail" on 85 percent of the population if that makes you smile and feel good. But you are still stuck with believing that all things in the universe, the entire earth with all it's array of life are the result of Big Bangs, abiogenesis and evolution into amazing, complex and purposeful things all by themselves without any guiding hand.

I have examined all sides of the issue thoroughly. I have listened to all atheists laughable silly nonsense here too. I have yet to see ONE ARGUMENT explaining how all things come from nothing. And certainly not from ducky here on this thread.

Science cannot make any life, even simple life, from dead matter. You have to face the music here atheists.

Yet atheists want to say all complex things, including Intelligent Men came from nothing by nobody into amazing things by themselves.

This is why atheists are stuck in mud every time.

The fact is that atheists are stuck with believing one red, shiny vette in the wilderness COULD HAPPEN all on its own in North Dakota somewhere if they also believe (and they do) that ALL things, the EARTH along with entire UNIVERSE, along with all LIFE FORMS upon earth happened ALL BY THEMSELVES, FROM NOTHING, BY NOBODY.

The only answer that makes sense for atheists is to say, yep, that red vette COULD just show up, just like it is through some series of big BANG, ABIOGENISIS and or EVOLUTION.

But they always deny this.

And we all know why.

Cause such beliefs as this are STUPID, FOOLISH NONSENSE.

Yet they try to sell this to people today

Sorry atheists, but most people say thanks but NO THANKS to silly atheist teachings.

NOW THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

VINNY wrote: "A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on."

Ducky replies:..."Well... part of the problem here seems to be that you are using a naive definition of the word 'complex'. It seems to me that you think it means the same thing as 'complicated'. But that is not at all what scientists and mathematicians mean when they speak of 'complexity'. 'Complicated is the opposite of 'simple'. 'Complex' is the opposite of 'independent'. Complex systems are typically self-organizing and self-adaptive (which certainly doesn't apply to red Corvettes), and they typically exhibit 'emergent' properties and behaviors (also does not apply to red Corvettes). So, when creationists/IDists say 'complex', they mean 'complicated'. But when scientists say things like "complexity arises from simplicity", they do NOT mean that "... things get more complicated."

***** Scientists cannot create EVEN SIMPLE LIFE from dead matter. Much less COMPLEX THINGS such as the human brain.

******* Sorry to have to keep TROUNCING your laughable arguments. But let's take a brief moment to look over the FACTS.

Neither scientists nor medical leaders have EVER created life from lifeless matter. Has never been done. That's just how it is. You have to face the facts here. Additionally, with all the parts sitting in front of them, with a drowned little kid, they have never been able to give life BACK even though every part needed FOR LIFE is right there in their controlled scientific setting.

Now, we have INTELLIGENT FORCES in these very carefully controlled settings, that cannot and have never created the simplest of life forms from dead matter. We also have a human body, with brain, heart, lungs blood etc already in place, but which has lost specific usage of vital parts and is no longer a living, breathing person, that these very same INTELLIGENT FORCES, in these carefully controlled settings, cannot and have never PUT LIFE BACK, WHERE LIFE ONCE WAS.

INTELLIGENT MEN CANNOT MAKE LIFE FROM LIFELESS IN CONTROLLED SETTINGS.

INTELLIGENT MEN CANNOT PUT LIFE BACK WHERE LIFE ONCE WAS.

And YOU want to try telling people that even though intelligent forces today CANNOT make life arise from lifeless matter (not even the simplest of life), nor put life back into what once was life just hours before, that these very same intelligent forces themselves, along with the all other things including the entire universe, with precision, power and growth; the perfectly located, spinning and orbiting earth with numerous systems needed for life, just so happened to exist as we see them now WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE -AT ALL-ANYWHERE ??

BWAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

This is flat out STUPID, IGNORANT, LAUGHABLY LAME, EMBARRASSINGLY FOOLISH IDIOCRACY AT ITS VERY WORST.

POOR DUCKY THE ATHEIST.

Do you really believe this? Then why can't science create anything living, from non-living matter? Tell the class DUCKY.

Once again ducky, you atheists can't get out of this HOLE. You are all stuck in this hole, WITH red vettes for good.

Why not also tell the class just how complex life forms on the earth, the entire orderly and gargantuan universe, a spinning and orbiting earth with atmosphere, water, etc etc originated out of NOTHING?

Please explain how this is even POSSIBLE.

If you think that all things such as the universe, earth and life on the earth happened to come about from a whole lot of NOTHING, (and you DO), and some how through series of "fat chances" and "lot's of luck", "big BANGS" turned into amazingly complex and purposeful, intricate things, then you my friend, have a red vette stuck right on your head. This is just the way it is.

This is really just the way it is for all atheists.

Sorry, but this is the bed that you have made for yourself.

VINNY wrote: "The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by CHANCE, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all? Some primordial evolutionary soup like process, which resulted from a big ole BANG?"

Ducky replies:(Sigh...)
Straw-man argument
Red Herring
False premise
Argument from Incredulity
Appeal to Ignorance

****** You really are getting buried pretty deep here ducky. I am feeling a little sorry for you now.

This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the reason why the universe is so precise and well arranged. This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the reason why all life exists with its many outstanding features. This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the reason why we humans have a conscience, appreciate scenery, plan ahead, and seek justice as well as love. This INTELLIGENT DESIGNER would be the answer to how all things came to exist.

Fortunately ATHEISTS NONSENSE does not fly for most people. Very few believe this kind of explanation for all of the many outstanding, complex, purposeful and organized features that exist today.

I understand why.

VINNY wrote: "We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here."

Ducky replies:..."Again... not by blind chance. (Look up: 'self-organizing complex systems') Here's something that I find to be very funny about what you just said. You seem to be implying that there is some kind of 'miracle' involved here. In other words, you seem to think that it is some kind of miracle that we find ourselves (life) on a planet that is capable of sustaining life. What a hoot. Yo... if we found ourselves on a planet that was NOT capable of sustaining life... now THAT would be a miracle. By the way... astronomers have recently determined that planets in orbit around stars are the RULE... NOT the exception. Current estimates hold that there are probably around ONE TRILLION planets in our little galaxy alone... with hundreds of millions of them capable of supporting life-as-we-know-it. Personally, I suspect that life is only a couple orders of magnitude less common than dirt, in the universe. We'll probably know, in the next 10 - to - 20 years.

******Poor duckey is really doing poorly. I never said anything about a miracle. Try reading again with glasses perhaps.

What I said was: "We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth, how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here."

Why not explain to this forum how all of these systems, all of which are needed for life to ever exist, just happned to come together without any guiding hand of intellect?

Go ahead ducky, put your money where your mouth is for a nice change.

VINNY wrote: "If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. ANYWHERE, EVER."

Ducky replies:.."Science is not TRYING to create life. What they are trying to do is to establish what conditions and ingredients are necessary in order for life to arise spontaneously as an emergent property of self-organizing complex systems. Question... when they succeed in doing that (probably in the next 10 - to - 20 years)... is your head going to explode?

****** No, my head will have a field day with all the little atheists like you. Do you know why? Because when Science creates life from lifeless you should have some clue as to what my next argument will be...

IT TAKES INTELLIGENCE TO CREATE LIFE FROM LIFELESS.

And then what will you have to say? There will be plenty of duck soup for all by then. Just as there is right now. Your comments are some of the lamest I have yet experienced. Think before you type the next time. It will save you much embarrassment.

VINNY wrote: "Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK to the BODY that just lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging?"

Duck replies:..."So? Neither can you. What's your point?

*****I think Ducky is getting tired folks. Has lost his ability for comprehension.

Not only can intelligent men NOT create life from dead matter, but with all the parts in front of them, such as drowned little 4 year old Joey, having died just minutes earlier, they cannot PUT LIFE BACK.

Yet YOU and the poor little atheists want to tell us that NO INTELLIGENCE is needed at all for the many varieties of life that exist on this earth today.

Yet INtelligent men, putting their heads together, in a controlled scientific setting, cannot create even the simplest of life from lifeless.

And then tell us Ducky, where did the lifeless matter come from?

You have much work to do.

VINNY wrote: "With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE exist. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that for you, IT'S NOT REASONABLE AT ALL."

Duck replies:..."Oh, this is really getting tedious. Look... astronomical observations over the past few years have detected immense clouds of organic chemicals (the 'building blocks of life'... amino acids... sugars) 10s of light years in size, in the vicinity of 'stellar nurseries'. Over 200 species of organic chemicals have been identified so far. Current speculation includes the idea that simple life forms might have actually ORIGINATED in space, given that organic chemicals, water and energy are abundant. It may be that "When and how did life originate on earth?" is not even the right question to be asking. It could be that 'life' rained down on earth during the entire time that it was being formed... it is pretty much a certainty that the 'ingredients' did. Anyway... it COULD be that the right question to be asking is "When did conditions on earth stabilize to the point where life was finally able to take hold?"

****** This is a real JOKE. It could, it might have, current speculation....blah blah blah...

If you want to tell us that there is NO GOD, then tell us how these things all got here. And also tell us how complex things with specific purposes arise from nothing? Show us where it has ever been duplicated?

You are just BLOWING SMOKE DUCKY and you know it.

Could have, might have current speculation....

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahah

The sad reality for all atheists here is that NOTHING HAS BEEN REFUTED. Not one single argument that I posted has been refuted.

On the other hand laughable silly atheists beliefs have been exposed and TROUNCED so many times it is just embarrassing to even read them for the poor little atheists.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to your claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided chances. When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow life on this earth to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and finely tuned with other systems. Again, by some accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence.

For me there is just no way these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect.

It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

Folks, this is one reason why the internet is so coooool, everything that is being said, is in PRINT. Just reading what our little atheists have to say is LAUGHABLE here. I feel sorry for them. Seriously. Poor little atheists. They are completely stuck in mud with their beliefs.

I have asked our little atheists to explain just how "DEAD MATTER" turns into "LIVING THINGS". Now read the thread, all of it folks. A lot of comments have been posted. After all of these written posts, THIS IS ALL that the little atheists could come up with in answer to how dead matter turns into living things:

.................

THIS THREAD SURE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS.

BAN NEWS FOR ATHEISTS.

EVERY TIME.

More later.

While I disagree theologically with Ms. Jacoby, I do share her concern that atheists are unfairly demonized--and that partially in response to this... militant, fundamentalist antitheism has developed. This is unfortunate. I would rather see positive voices of secular humanism more prominently as a contributor to the American public square. Simply negatively tearing others down (on both sides) helps no one. Passionate, articulate respectful secular humanists need to have space for their ideas and influences.

Maurie... I don't really think it matters whether Matthew is an imposter or not... 'dominionists' are real enough... and they scare the crap out of me.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

Vinny,

Check out https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/.

And go all the way back to when you were a single cell. Then proceed to the Big Bang which some believe repeats itself every ten trillion years. Big time recycling is what it is all !!!!

What if Matthew is just an imposter, trying to get us all riled up? Then again, if he's not, we're looking at a religious civil war.

The Dominionists are a scary bunch. Our own little Christian Taliban, eager to march us proudly back to the 14th century. Matthew could be their poster child. The ignorance of statements like "This is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles by born-again Christians" is truly astounding. He's probably never read a history book that wasn't written by David Barton.

To all who doubt by post of September 28, 2007 12:33 PM re: 'dominionism', just take a look at Matthews post, above. (Search page for 'dominionism')

The point with atheists is they are against the LORD. That makes them blasphemers and sinners. They will be judged and incur the wrath of God. They will spend an eternity in the fires of hell.

You say Christians "meddle in politics." As well we should. This is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles by born-again Christians. We will take back our country.

We are organizing in our churches to make sure our elected leaders are Biblical Christians. We need leaders who will oppose homosexuality, abortion, and who favor the death penalty. We need a strong national defense to protect ourselves from the satanic religions such as Islam.

We need our public schools to teach Christian principles and the Truth about God's creation instead of the lies of evolution. Our public-school teachers should also be committed Biblical Christians.

Here's the article in Skeptics magazine:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Here is an excerpt:

…Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, the author of several highly regarded books on evolution through natural selection, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker (to my mind, the very best explanation of evolution for the lay person), The Extended Phenotype, River out of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbable, and is constantly in demand as a public speaker, and by the media as an advocate for good science.

Given his position and his professional expertise, it is hardly surprising, then, that he is also a cogent and trenchant critic of the anti-scientific dogma that masquerades under the title "creation science"…

…Prof Dawkins then acquired a copy of the tape and became even more incensed as the details of what had been done to him became clearer. In correspondence to me (published here with his permission) he recounts what had happened:

As a preamble, I should explain that, following the advice of my colleague Stephen Jay Gould, I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity.

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.

The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty handed, after they had traveled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her, and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her, when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly…

Here is another version of the video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WFIVIQiTo

Here is a link to Dawkins website in which responds to the hoax:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255

Here is his reply:

New version of Australian Fake Film by Richard Dawkins on Wed May 09, 2007 7:58 pm

Some of our regulars may be aware of the Australian hoax film in which I am shown apparently flummoxed and unable to answer a question about 'information content' increasing in evolution. Somebody has just pointed me to a new version of the clip on YouTube…, which is interestingly different from the published version.

A full account of the hoax is given by Barry Williams, in the (Australian) Skeptic. I don't have the reference with me (I'm in Miami Airport, on my way to Galapagos) but it is given in the chapter of A Devil's Chaplain, called The Information Challenge. Briefly, the long pause occurred when I tumbled to the fact that the film-makers were creationists, and I had been tricked into allowing them an interview. I was trying to decide how to handle the difficult diplomatic situation. Should I throw them out immediately? Should I answer the question? Should I stop the interview and discuss their dishonesty with them before deciding whether to allow the interview to continue? I eventually took the third option. It later turned out that they used the long pause to make it look as though I was unable to answer the question. At the end of the long pause, they cut to a scene of me talking about something completely different (presumably the answer to another question which was cut), to make it look as though I was evading the question by changing the subject.

In the original film, 'From a Frog to a Prince', the 'information content' question is put to me by a MAN. We see him in a bare room, very obviously not the well-furnished room in which I am shown (not) answering the question. The new version on YouTube is different in at least two respects. First, the question is put to me by a WOMAN (we don't see her). And while she is speaking I am obviously not listening to anybody asking questions (I would be looking straight at the questioner if so) but I am clearly lost in thought, the same long train of thought that persists for a long time after the question ends (intended to look embarrassingly long, as if I am incapable of answering the question).

There is another difference. In this new version of the film, I ask them to stop the camera (and this really happened, for the reason given above). Then there is the cut to me answering the completely different question, as if trying to change the subject. In the original film, my request to stop the camera is missing.

I've got to go and board the plane, but it might be quite interesting for somebody to post both versions of the film together on our website, so they can be compared directly.

Must rush

Richard

42

Have any of you seen the Australian/American You Tube hoax perpetrated by the creationist nut jobs? Here is a link to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

…its only 3 minutes long

Vinny...aka David...etc.

Vinnie....aka Angry atheist...aka The Moderate..

aka Therealmoderate...Your teenage style is only too recognizable.

You come across as being a terrified christian;terrified somebody's gonna take away your teddy bear.

Ditto what Dr Fill said. Mr. Mark, you're one of my favorite posters and never fail to add substance and wit to the conversation. And DuckPhup, your posts in this thread have been fantastic. Thanks!

I must agree with Anon and Vinny. Mr. Mark you haven't been very kind to us believers on here. Of course I know your frustrated and all, but then just leave the discussion then!

And by the way the Miller/Urey experiments didn't prove anything. 16 out of the 20 necessary amino acids isn't even close. Especially in light of the need to seperate the L's from the R's and doing that several hundred times to form a protein molecule. Then come to find out the lab atmosphere he used was proven incorrect. Now with the knowledge of DNA, it would seem that the origin of life question is just getting harder and harder for ye people who lacketh of faith. :)

But Vinny (in all his glory) does have a point. I do believe the faith meter extends way higher on your side to still believe in Spontaneous Generation. Do you still believe maggots spontaneously appear on bad meat?

So you can call God an "imaginary friend" if you want. It's nothing new coming from the extreme atheists on this post. Or maybe you want to use the same insults as usual. That we believe in Santa and the such. It's getting quite old. What's imaginary is the scientific "theory" of "just happened". Not only do I have an answer to how all life came about, but I can answer any philisophical question possible by means of Jesus Christ. You on the other hand, have no answer to the origin of life and science cannot answer all the great questions, for example: meaning of life, logic, morals.

...And for some reason, atheists believe that we are not taught to think when it's people like you who live in a science box and can't step out. I really never understood that load of garbage....that believers are irrational and cannot think for themselves, especially in light of what type of individual these remarks come from. People stuck in a science box with no explanation for meaning and hope.

If you want to live in a science box and hope that one day mankind will give you answers by means of science, feel free. It seems kind of lame. But I promise you, that Jesus answers all the questions that life has thrown at me, no test tube needed....

Until your god (science) can answer the origin of life question and give me some philisophical reasoning, then I'll just stick with mine. Otherwise, good luck in your box.

Viva la Vinny!!

Another gutless Anonymous post - you jokers have no character....if you have a point of view, express it in your best English, give yourself a handle, and take responsibility for your post - otherwise fade into the woodwork where you belong. Even the people at work don't like you -
is it any wonder??

HMMMMM, one Vinney supporter going by anonymous. Could it be............Vinney???? LOL
Mr. Mark and DuckPhup, you two are brilliant. Thank you for your perseverance.

ANONYMOUS sez:

"Mr Mark has never been more than a joke on this website, if the atheists had their way and could kill the stupid people, Mr Mark would be first on that list."

Spoken like a TRUE Christian, albeit a blogger who doesn't even have the wherewithal to come up with a moniker for himself. Which Anonymous were you again?

As far as being stupid, we could compare IQ scores if you'd like. You go first.

As far as being a joke on this site, I'm OK with that if my words provide a bit of levity to the hapless and hopeless lives of the people here who entrust their lives to an imaginary friend. Lord knows they spend enough of their day in a state of abject self loathing.

Vinny won...long ago...you guys should just give up.

Mr Mark has never been more than a joke on this website, if the atheists had their way and could kill the stupid people, Mr Mark would be first on that list.

Keep up the good fight Vinny.

Dear Duckphup -

I will bet you a cadre of child-molesting priests that Vinny will never acknowledge your reply nor supply counter arguments of any substance.

And, I think you're right about his sources, Whether it's "answers in genesis" or some other cyberrag, it's a rag that offers straw man arguments and nothing else, as you pointed out in your dissection of V's pathetically embarrassing post.

VINNY writes:

"I have not been around for some time. If we did meet before, you had no answers then either...

"Intelligent men can do many things. But creating life from lifeless aint one of them."

Ah, thank you for reminding me of our previous encounter.

You made that same ridiculous statement about man not being able to create life from lifelessness, and I directed you to the Miller/Urey experiments from the 1950s and described their experiments in some detail. You ignored the evidence I presented and continued to prattle on that no one had offered any evidence to challenge your statements.

Why would I believe that a new dialogue with you would result in a different scenario? You're one of those guys who asks for proof, and when the proof is given, you say that no one has provided any proof. Mind you, you DON'T acknowledge the reply and attempt to refute the proof offered, you just aver that no one came forward to offer any proof at all.

I can't take you seriously.

As a practicing Christian, I have but one question for Vinnie: just what planet are you from?

Vinnie - I love vintage Corvettes - can you supply me with a red '61 or '62?? These were among the finest cars ever designed by either God or Man - if you've got a pipeline, I'd appreciate a good word - and about a hundred grand. Is that something from nothing or what??

Vinnie - you don't know diddly - or should I say, you don't know anymore than the guy next door. What exactly gives you the credentials to debunk anybody, anyway?? You're a victim of your own beliefs, just like the rest of us - your truckload of 'common sense' is just a truckload of horse manure to someone else.

You ain't got the sweetest smelling horse manure Vinnie, but keep shoveling.

VINNY wrote (SEPTEMBER 29, 2007 4:05 PM): (a whole bunch of ridiculous drivel about a red Corvette)

VINNY wrote: "If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a sorry and lame idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere; how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolutionary processes, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?"

Well... you see... some people have the intellectual ability to tell the difference between a human artifact and natural systems... an ability that you seem to lack.

VINNY wrote: "The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through these processes with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to form themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth."

And you would to be right about that... since statistics on religious belief lead us to conclude that about 85%+ of people are afflicted, to varying degrees, with gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. So, YES... you would have a FAR better chance of selling your car story than a story which requires knowledge, rationality, reason and critical-thinking skills.

VINNY wrote: "A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on."

Well... part of the problem here seems to be that you are using a naive definition of the word 'complex'. It seems to me that you think it means the same thing as 'complicated'. But that is not at all what scientists and mathematicians mean when they speak of 'complexity'. 'Complicated is the opposite of 'simple'. 'Complex' is the opposite of 'independent'. Complex systems are typically self-organizing and self-adaptive (which certainly doesn't apply to red Corvettes), and they typically exhibit 'emergent' properties and behaviors (also does not apply to red Corvettes). So, when creationists/IDists say 'complex', they mean 'complicated'. But when scientists say things like "complexity arises from simplicity", they do NOT mean that "... things get more complicated."

VINNY wrote: "The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by CHANCE, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all? Some primordial evolutionary soup like process, which resulted from a big ole BANG?"

(Sigh...)
Straw-man argument
Red Herring
False premise
Argument from Incredulity
Appeal to Ignorance

VINNY wrote: "We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here."

Again... not by blind chance. (Look up: 'self-organizing complex systems')

Here's something that I find to be very funny about what you just said. You seem to be implying that there is some kind of 'miracle' involved here. In other words, you seem to think that it is some kind of miracle that we find ourselves (life) on a planet that is capable of sustaining life. What a hoot. Yo... if we found ourselves on a planet that was NOT capable of sustaining life... now THAT would be a miracle.

By the way... astronomers have recently determined that planets in orbit around stars are the RULE... NOT the exception. Current estimates hold that there are probably around ONE TRILLION planets in our little galaxy alone... with hundreds of millions of them capable of supporting life-as-we-know-it.

Personally, I suspect that life is only a couple orders of magnitude less common than dirt, in the universe. We'll probably know, in the next 10 - to - 20 years.

VINNY wrote: "Lets talk about science for just a moment. The science where many get there beliefs that there is NO GOD, no maker because they cannot prove he exists."

Well, science really doesn't have ANYTHING to say about god... except in the context of what LaPlace told Napoleon, when the Emperor asked the scientist why his new book (mathematically describing and explaining the motion of the planets, using Newton's theory of gravitation, and Newton's new calculus) made no mention of god: "Sire... I nave not need of that hypothesis." So it was with LaPlace... so it is with science today... we have no need of that hypothesis (god).

VINNY wrote: "If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. ANYWHERE, EVER."

Science is not TRYING to create life. What they are trying to do is to establish what conditions and ingredients are necessary in order for life to arise spontaneously as an emergent property of self-organizing complex systems. Question... when they succeed in doing that (probably in the next 10 - to - 20 years)... is your head going to explode?

VINNY wrote: "Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK to the BODY that just lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging?"

So? Neither can you. What's your point?

VINNY wrote: "With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE exist. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that for you, IT'S NOT REASONABLE AT ALL."

Oh, this is really getting tedious. Look... astronomical observations over the past few years have detected immense clouds of organic chemicals (the 'building blocks of life'... amino acids... sugars) 10s of light years in size, in the vicinity of 'stellar nurseries'. Over 200 species of organic chemicals have been identified so far. Current speculation includes the idea that simple life forms might have actually ORIGINATED in space, given that organic chemicals, water and energy are abundant.

It may be that "When and how did life originate on earth?" is not even the right question to be asking. It could be that 'life' rained down on earth during the entire time that it was being formed... it is pretty much a certainty that the 'ingredients' did. Anyway... it COULD be that the right question to be asking is "When did conditions on earth stabilize to the point where life was finally able to take hold?"

The appeal to god when considering these questions is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argument ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not represent a limitation of nature, or of science... it represents a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Additionally, it is intellectually dishonest... it does not ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge or intellect... it appeals a fanciful, imaginary, supernatural entity to create the ILLUSION that cognitive dissonance has been resolved.

VINNY wrote: "This is why I believe in an Intelligent DESIGNER, a Creator rather than some abiogenesis/evolutionary/Big BANG series of processes resulting in all that we have today. It makes perfect sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened BY ITSELF is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion."

Logical and rational? LOL... Intelligent Design isn't even a scientific 'idea', much less a 'theory'... it is a political scheme. First, they tried to get 'Creationism' into the science classroom... and failed. So, they took out the Adam and Eve part, and the 6-days, and the 'poofing' things into existence parts, re-named it 'Creation Science', and tried again... and got shown to the door. So, they went back to the shop, changed 'Creation Science' to 'Intelligent Design', replaced 'god' with 'unknown intelligent designer', and tried again... and got shown to the door again. The idea is NOT to meet science on its own terms... it is to appeal to their scientifically-ignorant constituency (people like you) with a plausible-sounding pseudo-scientific argument... and "teach the controversy." That means, convey the FALSE idea (i.e., a freakin' LIE) that there is a 'controversy' within the scientific community relating to the Theory of Evolution... except that, within the scientific community, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. (Look up: 'wedge strategy')

VINNY wrote: "Science cannot even feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their FULL TRUST in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced and do not buy any of what they are selling. It is actually laughable to believe all things originated from nothing, all on their very own, without any intelligence behind it."

Again... science does not have anything to say about god. If you would like to put your FULL TRUST in god to feed the poor, cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fix global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues... be my guest. Pray in one hand... sh*t in the other... and see which one gets filled up first. Be sure to let us know how that turns out.

VINNY wrote: "When I look at the entire picture then, the fact that ANY kind of intelligent design around us today requires an intelligent designer. The simple truth that it would be absurd to try to explain a red corvette, a house or even a number 2 pencil (structured, purposeful things) as having just ARRIVED from out of nothingness. The facts that this earth, the universe and all upon them are very complex, very organized, highly structured and simply demanding in all reasonableness that an intelligent creator be the one responsible for such incredible, organized, purposeful DESIGN."

I find it distressing to realize that so many people are incapable of recognizing the qualitative difference between biological systems and human artifacts... or between human artifacts and matter self-organizing under the influence of natural forces.

Here ya go Vinny... here's an experiment that you (anyone) can perform right in your own kitchen. Get a container of Morton Salt. Slowly and carefully begin pouring it out on your table, until there is a little inverted cone of salt, and when you add more it just runs down the sides, and the pile does not get any higher. Then move on to start a new pile. Repeat until all the salt is gone. You will note that all the little piles of salt are the same height, and the angle of the sides of each pile is the same.

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

Also... the formation of stars and their accompanying solar systems is well understood... and it's about as mystical and supernatural as the little piles of salt that you (presumably) just made on your kitchen table. (Look up: 'planetary formation')

VINNY wrote: "That science itself cannot even create life out of non-living matter, nor from dead, former living matter and has far too many holes in its theories and is far from a source worth putting all trust in. Adding it all up for me then, I cannot get away from the inescapable conclusion that there IS A GOD responsible for all of the many features we see around us right now."

That is because the foolishness which serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that you presume, for yourself, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it. Since I do NOT (can not) understand (or imagine) it... it logically follows that it is NOT understandable... by ANYONE. Since it is NOT understandable by anyone, it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.)

VINNY wrote: "There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to atheist claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it."

Well, you see... there is no such thing as 'atheist claims'. Atheists simply are NOT theists. Theists believe in invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods)... atheists do NOT believe in invisible, magical sky-fairies. Really... that's all there is to it. Or... are you of the opinion that all scientists are atheists? Anyway... scientists do NOT claim that "... all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place." That is just another mischaracterization (lie) by the professional liars that you count on to tell you the truth.

VINNY wrote: "There is just no way that it is even remotely, plausibly even MINUTELY possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided CHANCES."

Straw-man argument
Red Herring
False premise
Argument from Incredulity
Appeal to Ignorance

VINNY wrote: "When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized, finely tuned and intricate. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY."

Straw-man argument
Red Herring
False premise
Argument from Incredulity
Appeal to Ignorance

VINNY wrote: "The many systems that allow LIFE ON EARTH to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and again are finely tuned with other systems. AGAIN, by some merely accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. There is just NOT A CHANCE these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect."

Straw-man argument
Red Herring
False premise
Argument from Incredulity
Appeal to Ignorance

P.S.: I do not believe for one instant that you have examined 'both sides of the evidence'. It is quite clear that you do not even have the faintest clue as to what actually CONSTITUTES evidence. Also, I get the impression that your source of 'scientific' information is not a scientific source at all... but, rather, one of the many 'LFJ' (Liars For Jesus) web sites. Which one might that be?... www.answersingenesis.com?... chick tracts (chick.com)?

But nobody is CLAIMING any of that, you see. You are being misled by the professional liars that are employed by 'christianity' to keep scientifically-ignorant people (like you) in a state of bamboozlement. They TELL you that scientists claim what you have just stated... but that is, quite simply, a lie.

VINNY wrote: "I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins and Hutchins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant embarrassing stretch after another."

Well, then... it is fair to state that if you actually read them (doubtful... I think that you're lying), you certainly did not understand them.

VINNY wrote: "Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well."

The argument for 'First Cause' is just a variation of the Argument from Incredulity, which I already explained. It is a product of Aristotle's idea that everything that could be known about existence and reality could be figured out by the human intellect. So, what 'first cause' means is you start thinking about something, work backwards until you can't think of anything else, and then toss up your hands and declare "OK... I can't think of anything else; therefore, 'God did it'."

'First cause' was blown away by William of Occam... about 700 years ago. So... your 'philosophy' is a little bit out-of-date... and your 'universal principle' does not exist. Finally... Quantum Mechanics tells us that 'cause' might be a somewhat vacuous concept.

What eliminates god from the equation is NOT the perverse, contrary, atheistic nature of scientists... god is eliminated by 'Occam's Razor'. We are doing fine WITHOUT resort to invisible, magical sky-fairies. Again... simply... "We have no need of that hypothesis."

VINNY wrote: "The poor atheists are stuck in the mud once again."

OK... if that's what you like to think.

VINNY wrote: "Their silly beliefs are nothing but sorry excuses to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer."

Beliefs like what, exactly? Like the idea that when we DON'T know something, we can simply say that "We don't know"... and we DON'T have to toss our hands up our hands and declare "OK... we don't know... that must mean that it is done by an invisible, magical sky-fairy?"

VINNY wrote: "And most people aint buying what you are selling."

Right. Instead, they are buying a universe in which all that exists are the earth and heaven, solid 'firmament' structure (the sky) separating the earth from heaven (terrarium earth), talking donkeys, shepherd staff turning into an asp, demons chased out of people and into pigs, woman turning into a pillar of salt, friendly spirits, evil spirits, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, food falling from the sky, people raising from the dead, the sun stopping in its tracks, parting the sea, people being bodily sucked up into heaven (which, by the way, lies on the 'other side' of the sky), world-wide flood that drowned the earth to a depth of 40 feet above the tallest mountain, creating people from dust bunnies and ribs, magical tree of knowledge, and an invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) speaking from a burning bush. Oh... except that as some of those 'inviolable, divine truths' were demonstrated to be pure horse excrement, some pious liar waved his hands and what was once 'truth' became magically transformed into 'metaphors' and 'allegory'.

Look... in a sane world, anybody running around spouting ANY of that nonsense, would be locked up in the State Farm for the Funny. Apparently, though, mass insanity seems to convey some sort of free pass... and on TOP of all that, you would have us believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.

Sorry... we're not buying what YOU are selling, either.

I'll check back in on Sunday. But I won't be holding my breath. Atheists have never been able to deal with the questions. They are all stuck wearing a red vette on their foreheads IMO. If you believe that the universe, earth and all life upon the earth are the result of mindless processes, then you are stuck believing that red vette in the woods with gas, keys and leather seats also happend the very same way. Everything is the result of FAT CHANCES AND LOTS O LUCK.

This always KILLS the poor atheists.

They are buried deep in the mud by their own sorry beliefs.

I'll be back!

Poor MR Mark. Likes to GET OUT OF DODGE WHILE HE CAN.

Good idea Markey.

I have not been around for some time. If we did meet before, you had no answers then either.

Just like no answers now.

So who are you trying to kid?

Sending me to some site don't cut it.

Intelligent men can do many things. But creating life from lifeless aint one of them.

Yet the poor atheists want to tell the class that this is how all things came into existence.

That my friend is called a sorry JOKE.

Enjoy your kids.

Chip said:..."You're so right, Vinny! If it can't yet be adequately explained then it must be magic! Thanks for gracing us with such a profound display of your intellectual prowess, delivered with such articulate verve and panache. I'm sure we're all deeply humbled by the experience".

***** Folks you just gotta love it when the poor atheists like Chip have no answers to any of my questions on how all things arise from nothing by nobody. But they love to try whining about vinny.

The reason why the atheists cannot answer this problem they have on their hands is because nobody has ever created life from lifeless. It has never been done. Not even in a controlled setting. Not even the simplest of life. That's how bad it is today.

And yet the poor atheists want to convince us that all things INCLUDING COMPLEX THINGS arose this same way.

Amazing things from the poor little atheists.

C-mon atheists it's TIME TO ANSWER UP!

Vinny writes:

"Go back beyond evolution Markey. How did it all BEGIN?"

Read about it here: http://www.talkorigins.org

Vinny, I've previously encountered you on this board where your posts have displayed an appalling lack of basic scientific knowledge. Worse, the "arguments" you present - regardless of their length - are the same easily destroyed arguments we've all encountered in the past from those who remain willfully ignorant of science and the scientific method. Putting forth seven strawmen arguments doesn't make your case seven times stronger than putting forth one strawman argument.

Because of that, I have you at a distinct disadvantage, because I am fairly well versed in things Biblical and so I know whereof the religionists speak. You, on the other hand, lack the basic knowledge of science necessary to understand the argument, let alone any level of expertise to offer a cogent counter argument.

Which is why I direct you to websites (like the evolution site at Berkeley) where I hope that you would begin to educate yourself in something beyond the wonders of fairy dust, at least if we are to have any kind of adult discussion.

Until then, there's no use bothering with you. I have kids at home with which to interact, and at age 10 & 14, they offer more of a challenge and a greater reward to me than does assuaging your ego by participating in a one-way exercise in fact, ration and reality.

Enjoy yourself today!

A RED VETTE FOR ATHEISTS:

Let's imagine that you are completely alone in the middle of North Dakota somewhere, surrounded by nothing but mountainous wilderness, no people, no buildings, just you alone and the wilderness for hundreds of miles. And right there in the middle of it all you suddenly walk up to a brand new looking Red Chevrolet Corvette, unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, a full tank of gas and one road taking you out. Now, it would in my opinion be nothing short of preposterous, actually INSANE to even entertain the mere possibility if someone were to try telling you that THAT brand new looking Red Corvette just happened to get there, on its own, without any intelligent designer behind it whatsoever. That somehow, some way it just happened to be some product of "blind chance" without any intellectual forces behind that ready-to-drive automobile.

That all the parts just "happened" to come together absolutely perfectly through some kind of Big BANG/Abiogenesis/Evolutionary etc etc.. series of mindless events. A cosmic primordial "soup" if you will that eventually turned into that beautiful automobile, ready to take off.

Now WHO of us out here would even consider such an outrageous, embarrassing suggestion such as this? Okay sure, these processes just happened to turn into eight perfectly designed and gapped spark plugs, placed precisely into their sockets, tightened down exactly as needed. The spark plug wires too just happened to fall into place connecting to all eight plugs, while coincidentally also connecting to a computer chip, a continuously self calibrating one (that happened to just come together o its own by the way), designed to tell it exactly how often to fire those eight perfectly placed spark plugs.

Of course, the steering wheel just by CHANCE happened to be in the right location, while also connecting the front-end with it's front axle, ball joints, tie rods and perfectly synchronizing the movement of the tires. The tires by the way also all happen to be perfectly sized, with identical tread, perfect air pressure (how did air pressure even get in there by the way??) made of just the right rubber material, while perfectly balanced and with perfect alignment all by itself. All along the way to turn those tires somehow a power steering pump made itself, with belt and fluid with it's case and cap filed just where it needs to go.

The doors (so one can get inside the car) are perfectly fitted and actually open with the lift of a handle. An armrest also somehow conveniently evolved, while still looking and smelling brand new (how bout that!).

Of course rather than just look at this beauty, it actually runs and will even automatically shift into different gears because low and behold there is a TRANSMISION too. One that somehow and some way just perfectly connected with the motor which somehow and some way has eight pistons, a crank shaft, fuel injectors, cam shaft, a perfectly sealed even (though removable) head so that the transmission actually has something to shift for.

Of course you need high octane, fresh, clean, combustable GASOLINE to run the entire thing, but low and behold it has a full tank of just that. How bout that again? (And how'd the gas TANK get there?) In fact believe it or not, the fuel tank has a fuel line as well, that just so happens to be connected to a fuel filter which leads it right to eight perfectly fitted and located fuel injectors, which somehow and some way are attached to the ENGINE itself that is still perfectly situated in the front of that automobile that just happened to be formed by itself through through blind CHANCE.

Bwaahahahahhahahhahahhhah

Unbelievable there is also a hood, with an outside and inside hood latch that allows you to look at the motor that evolved on its own. All the while fitting perfectly and symmetrically into perfect place.

In another incredible act of CHANCE, there is a gas pedal too that when pressed carefully lets that amazingly complex machine (that just happened by series chances) to move forward.

Of course once you did get in it and realized this amazing machine can actually take you wherever you wish to go, you have another serious problem; whoops, how do you STOP IT? Big problem!

Well lookey here!... there is a BRAKE PEDAL right next to the gas pedal that just so happens to connect to four disc brakes that also are perfectly hitched to brake rotors, and calipers that are coincidentally just perfectly hooked up with those perfectly rounded and symmetrical tires that we already discovered earlier. And through some act of evolutionary coincidence, this braking system has a MASTER CYLINDER that just also happens to have the perfectly positioned brake lines, filled with just the correct kind and correct amount of brake fluid. Of course if it were instead power steering fluid, or transmission fluid or gasoline in them there brake lines it would not work one bit, and may even catch on fire, but since it has the exact consistency needed for brake fluid, it works like a charm. Well How bout that Folks!

There just so happens to be several clear windows to look out from as well. Sure need those; glad they just happened to FALL INTO PLACE where they did too. Pretty amazing how the elements and other external forces just happened to get that red shiny paint job only where it is and not on the windows, would have a problem there for sure. And guess what else, inside it has heat and ac and rear defrost and windshield wiper blades, a fuel gauge, temp gauge, tachometer with speedometer, with perfectly located knobs that even say heat and ac and wiper speeds. How did that get here on it's own? Amazing aint it?

And for some strange reason it needs to have some little piece of metal to turn the thing on, I believe they call it a KEY. Low and behold THERE IS A KEY, with the exact correct notches already in the perfectly located steering wheel. How bout all that, what an amazing coincidence!

I could continue on with this for pages and pages folks. I am sure the poor atheists can see the point. (Try as you may to AVOID the point), It would be silly, foolish, absurd, outrageous, strange, weird and just impossibly IGNORANT to believe ALL of these things just happened by blind chance, without any intelligence at all, creating one single, ready-to drive Red Chevrolet Corvette.

If nobody on this board could be convinced of such a sorry and lame idea with one automobile in the middle of nowhere; how then could people POSSIBLY believe that a FAR, FAR MORE complex universe and earth, filled with far more complicated life (than that single corvette) could possibly just happen by itself, through some Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolutionary processes, with absolutely no help from an intelligent source anywhere?

The reality is, I would have a better chance of selling somebody on that car that just formed by itself, through these processes with all the perfect pieces fitting together, than on the UNIVERSE and EARTH itself just happening to form themselves as well as all life forms upon the earth.

A human being is far, far more complex that that car. With our immune systems, lymphatic systems, digestive systems, cardio systems with heart chambers and blood vessels, nervous systems, joints, muscles, tendons, brains with billions or neurons, eyes that see, ears that hear, nose that smells, fingers that feel, skin that sweats, mouth that tastes, chews and swallows. Feet, legs, knees that move and bend. Reproductive systems that can create new life etc etc on and on.

The complexity of one human being puts that new Corvette to shame. Millions of time more complex. You get a scratch on that new car and you will visiting the body shop. Scratch or hurt yourself, and the body has the ability to actually heal itself. And you really hope to convince me it happened all by CHANCE, with no designer, no intelligence behind it all? Some primordial evolutionary soup like process, which resulted from a big ole BANG?

We haven't even started discussing the complexity and incredible order of our UNIVERSE yet. Or the earth , how outstandingly complex yet perfectly harmonized it is. Photosynthesis, clouds and rain, the perfect tilt and rotational speed of the earth, perfect location of the sun, the moon, our orbit speed. The atmosphere, ozone layer, perfect amount of oxygen in the air. Gravity, food cycles, fire; all happened by blind chance? No intelligence required? Sorry atheists, but you are DEAD IN WATER here.

Lets talk about science for just a moment. The science where many get there beliefs that there is NO GOD, no maker because they cannot prove he exists.

If science is so smart and such a trustworthy source, why cannot science then create life from non living matter? It has not been done. ANYWHERE, EVER.

Not only can it not do such a thing as make life from non-living matter, even if all the parts are already there, in human form, animal form or any form, science cannot even PUT LIFE BACK to the BODY that just lost it prematurely through accidents, disease or any other disaster, or death through natural aging?

With all the parts ALREADY TOGETHER, in front of these scientists, they are still helpless and cannot make LIFE exist. Yet they insist that ALL life as we see it today, just happened by some series of chances, without ANY help from any intelligent source. How reasonable is this? Let me answer that for you, IT'S NOT REASONABLE AT ALL.

This is why I believe in an Intelligent DESIGNER, a Creator rather than some abiogenesis/evolutionary/Big BANG series of processes resulting in all that we have today. It makes perfect sense. It is reasonable, it is logical and rational. To believe everything we see just happened BY ITSELF is none of those things in my sincere and honest opinion.

Science cannot even feed the poor nor cure the worlds problems either. It has not even cured AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, fixed global warming, the ozone layer and tens of thousands of other issues. And people wish to put their FULL TRUST in science when it comes to believing in a God or not? Sorry, I am not convinced and do not buy any of what they are selling. It is actually laughable to believe all things originated from nothing, all on their very own, without any intelligence behind it

When I look at the entire picture then, the fact that ANY kind of intelligent design around us today requires an intelligent designer. The simple truth that it would be absurd to try to explain a red corvette, a house or even a number 2 pencil (structured, purposeful things) as having just ARRIVED from out of nothingness. The facts that this earth, the universe and all upon them are very complex, very organized, highly structured and simply demanding in all reasonableness that an intelligent creator be the one responsible for such incredible, organized, purposeful DESIGN.

That science itself cannot even create life out of non-living matter, nor from dead, former living matter and has far too many holes in its theories and is far from a source worth putting all trust in. Adding it all up for me then, I cannot get away from the inescapable conclusion that there IS A GOD responsible for all of the many features we see around us right now.

There is NO LOGIC and NO REASONABLENESS to atheist claims that all intelligent life and all organized systems and planets and stars galaxies just happened to fall into place without any intelligent force behind it.

There is just no way that it is even remotely, plausibly even MINUTELY possible that ALL of those marvelous features coming together at one time is due to a series of random, evolutionary, unguided CHANCES.

When I look at an incredible startlit sky, in my mind there is not a chance that these all happened to be formed by a similar series of just aimless, arbitrary, haphazard, hit-or-miss events; a rolling of the dice if you will. They are extremely organized, finely tuned and intricate. They have clearly been PUT there and brought into motion by SOMEBODY.

The many systems that allow LIFE ON EARTH to exist likewise are organized, they are purposeful, intricate and again are finely tuned with other systems. AGAIN, by some merely accidental, casual, fortuitous, stroke of luck? That simply is not reasonable or logical to myself nor most other people. I have examined both sides of the evidence. There is just NOT A CHANCE these things happened without the guiding hand of intellect.

I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins and Hutchins. I consider such attempts to use abiogenesis/evolution as the explanation to explain how life arose to be far, far-fetched, and one giant embarrassing stretch after another.

Nothing has ever been duplicated. It bypasses the "Every beginning has a Cause" universal principle. It seeks to eliminate God altogether and then build around that premise in what many consider to be embarassing, feeble attempts of explanation. It fails miserably in my opinion and the opinion of billions of others as well.

The poor atheists are stuck in the mud once again.

Their silly beliefs are nothing but sorry excuses to deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

And most people aint buying what you are selling.

Sorry.

You're so right, Vinny! If it can't yet be adequately explained then it must be magic! Thanks for gracing us with such a profound display of your intellectual prowess, delivered with such articulate verve and panache. I'm sure we're all deeply humbled by the experience.

Poor Mr Mark. He has not a CLUE. Sends me to some site on evolution and says "go read it".

Poor atheists like Mr Mark and Suzie Jacoby have no idea how complex, structured and purposeful things can originate on their own, all from nothing, by nobody. That is why they cannot explain how all things arise from nothing by nobody.

Go back beyond evolution Markey. How did it all BEGIN? Abiogenesis (the supposed origination of life from lifeless matter) is not even a theory yet, just one lame hypothesis because it has never been proven. Never been proven IN A SCIENTIFIC SETTING WITH ALL THE PARTS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THEM.

Yet the poor atheists want to tell us that all things, including those intelligent men themselves, just happen to be the result of blind chances and lots of lucky things, all on their own.

Bwaaaahahahahahahhahhahahhahh.

C-mon atheists, now tell the class how all things; universe, earth and all life theron arose from nothing, by nobody into amazing and purposeful things?

This should be really good.

VINNY:
"The problem for all you sorry atheists, is how do all things we see today, arise from nothing, by nobody, into structured, organized and purposeful things?...Who wants to tell the class just how that can possibly happen?"

Science has an answer to your question. Volumes and volumes of answers. Start here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Enjoy your day!

Susan, another great post.

Even though the kind-hearted christian panelists on this forum always seem to take pleasure verbally beating up on atheists, I just assume our side is making them seriously nervous.

Thank you for being the usual voice of rationality among the panelists. Keep up the good work.

Almond

The problem for all you sorry atheists, is how do all things we see today, arise from nothing, by nobody, into structured, organized and purposeful things?

Who wants to tell the class just how that can possibly happen?

I have no problems with agnostics. I have no qualms with throwing out organized religion. But when you throw out any possibility of an Intelligent Designer being responsible for the universe, earth and all life upon the earth, then you get to tell us how all things arise from nothing, by nobody, into amazing and purposeful things.

Intelligent men cannot even make life from dead matter today. Not even the simplest of life. Yet you poor atheists want to try selling us on the belief that all things, including these intelligent men (who cannot make simple life from dead matter) are the result of FAT CHANCES AND LOTS O LUCK?

BWAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHH

It's time to step up and teach the class.

Poor lil atheists.

: )

Dear Duckphup -

Let's just admit it to the On Faith readers: we're actually Harris and Dawkins sittin' in a room at the same computer!! Ha!

Yes, our styles are different. I believe that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar while at the same time realizing that to the religious, truth and science are vinegar-based commodities that are beyond the moderating influence of even the greatest dollop of honey.

I'm probably more naive than you. I actually hold out hope that the religious posters on this board are looking for honest, well-reasoned answers to their many questions, while I get the impression that you realize that it's all a shell game on their part, and that their index fingers promptly return to their assigned spots in their ears immediately after they've hit the "post" button.

I believe that logic and knowledge would have a chance with these types were we only fighting ignorance, but we are in fact fighting WILLFUL ignorance...and not only willful ignorance, but his two great partners in the business of religious belief, fear and guilt. One can be ignorant of, say, what is stated in our Constitution, but one doesn't fear learning about it or, having learned about it, feel guilt over having acquired the knowledge, even if that knowledge drastically changes what one previously believed about it. Yet, religion has an unique and specific carve-out when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge that dates back to - oh, let's see - the fable of Adam & Eve. Yes, knowledge is a BAD thing, unless that knowledge is concerned with gods...or wookies...or fairies.

Thanks for the comments.

Mr. Mark... your insights are always welcome. I see that we were both annoyed by the same load of blather... and everybody gets to see 'dueling styles'. I tend to regard this sort of thing as a public 'dope-slapping' exhibition. So, anybody who thinks that your take on this is 'mean-spirited' is likely to change their mind after they work their way down the page.

Anyway... prolonged exposure to gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity tend to make me sick. I think I'm gonna go throw up now.

TheRadicalModerate, "Am I a theist? No. Am I an atheist? No. I have faith in neither position.

Chip, you're proving my point for me. If you're going to force me to choose sides, I'm on yours. But why am I compelled to choose sides? What prevents a little nuance from creeping in every now and then? Are you prepared to label me a traitor to your cause because I won't espouse your orthodoxy?"

Why are you so afraid of a simple word? If you're not a theist then you're an atheist, by definition. The only orthodoxy involved is what you're ascribing to atheists, which is what my objection in the other thread was all about. That's what I find ironic about those who take your position. You attempt to avoid the stigma of atheism by pretending you hold a completely separate position, when in fact you hold exactly the same position as the majority of atheists. In doing that, you paint all atheists as gnostic atheists (aka strong atheism) when in fact they make up only a tiny minority. Most atheists are agnostic atheists (aka weak atheism) who don't believe for the same reasons you don't. Does that make you a traitor? No. It makes you either disingenuous or uninformed, and part of the problem.

GREG wrote (SEPTEMBER 29, 2007 11:09 AM): "Much of the hostility comes from the attacks of atheists calling believers ignorant."

I'll let Richard Dawkins answer this one. Take it, Professor...

"I once wrote in a New York Times book review, 'It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)'. That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know. I am completely ignorant of baseball, and I dare say that you are as completely ignorant of cricket. If I tell somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am paying him the compliment of assuming that he is not stupid, insane or wicked." ~ Richard Dawkins, to physicist Lawrence Krauss, in Scientific American, July 2007 issue.

GREG wrote: "My observation of this site over the last year is that many atheists are an angry lot, bent on name calling and degrading those who believe. You certainly act in that fashion."

OK... let's hear from Thomas Jefferson...

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson

... and Jonathan Swift...

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." ~ Jonathan Swift

GREG wrote: "Let me ask you something as regards your comment about the supernatural. Can you explain a black hole to me? What happens at the singularity? To suggest that whatever happens is just nature seems a bit absurd -- the rules of nature don't seem to apply."

Have you considered that it is NOT absurd... in fact it is 'intellectually honest'... to just admit that we do not know everything? That the rules of nature (whatever THAT's supposed to mean) do not seem to apply because we just don't understand them yet? And that maybe we will NEVER understand them all... but tht's OK? After all... we've only been working on this for a few hundred years... or... actually... it is MORE accurate to say that we have RESUMED working on it, following the 1,200 year-long intermission that was imposed upon us by Christianity.

OK... here are the essential differences...

*** At the bleeding edge of science... at the point where our knowledge-base bumps up against our ignorance... at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, SCIENCE says: "We don't know... OK, boys... let's roll up our sleeves, dig in and find out."

*** At the bleeding edge of science... at the point where our knowledge-base bumps up against our ignorance... at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, RELIGION (imagine South Park - Officer Barbrady) says: "OK... that's too complicated. God did it. Move along... move along... nothing to see here. Everyone return to your homes."

GREG wrote: "It seems that no one knows for sure, and what may happen may seem supernatural to us all. I don't know."

Well, the reason that it seems supernatural to YOU is that you do not know how to think critically, and your brain has been conditioned by years of Christian mind-manipulation techniques, which have been refined and perfected over the past 1,700 years or so. As a result, the foolishness which serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that you presume, for yourself, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it. Since I do NOT (can not) understand (or imagine) it... it logically follows that it is NOT understandable... by ANYONE. Since it is NOT understandable by anyone, it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.)

For people like you, when ignorance cannot be resolved via 'knowledge', you resolve it with the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., 'belief'... a.k.a. self-deception and self-delusion. Rather than ADMIT that you do not know, you TRICK yourself into thinking that you DO know. That is both intellectually DIShonest and... well... I hate to have to say it, but the word 'stupid' comes to mind. For you, ignorance is something to be covered up with a security blanket (think Linus) labeled "God did it." For the scientist, though, ignorance is valuable information... it defines his work-scope. And, for the scientist, there is joy in learning of something ELSE that he is ignorant of... it is both a source of wonder and job security.

GREG wrote: "What about physicists belief in multiple dimensions. Seems a bit ignorant to me."

Well... among all the OTHER things that you don't understand... including the definitions of the words 'belief' and 'ignorant', apparently... it seems that you don't under stand 'dimensions', either. You see... ALL dimensions are arbitrary. Time is not THE 4th dimension... time can be considered as A 4th dimension... but so can any OTHER scalar that is appropriate to the immediate context. Our three 'spatial' dimensions are arbitrary scalars that are designated as THE three dimensions as a matter of convention and convenience... because they are useful in describing our world. ANY scalar that is useful for describing something in a particular context... well... we have DECIDED to call those 'dimensions'.

Here are some dimensional coordinates... 3, 4, 12, 5, 43, 156, 4, 6, 11, 6... a 10-dimensional world. Perfectly meaningless... until we provide a suitable context. 3rd floor of the library... 4th row of shelves... 12th section... 5th shelf from the bottom... 43rd book from the left... page 156... 4th paragraph... 6th line... 11th word... 6th letter.

You disparage "...physicists belief in multiple dimensions." But the word 'belief' is inaccurate in this context. Scientists and mathematicians have found that additional scalars seem to be useful in providing a more accurate description of reality than the description to which we have become accustomed. Add to that the inconvenient fact that our brains have evolved over time to deal with a Newtonian/Cartesian world... a world that behaves in a manner which is consistent with the way our senses perceive it. In other words, our brains are WIRED and OPTIMIZED to perceive and interact with a 3D world... and with a little mind-stretch, we can PARTLY cope with the IDEA of 4-dimensions. (In the context of our ordinary daily existence, additional dimensions are entirely irrelevant... whether they 'exist', or not, simply does not matter.) But to try to get our brains wrapped around any MORE dimensions than that... we simply can't do it. Nobody can. The ONLY way we can relate to these ideas is through the invention of a new language... mathematics... and unless you SPEAK that language, you cannot grasp the concepts. Mathematical symbolism creates a conceptual 'abstraction' that provides us with a way in which these concepts can be thought about, diagrammed and communicated in a meaningful manner. Just 'thinking' about it is entirely useless. Now... we can get a SIMPLISTIC idea of what is going on by unfolding... 'normalizing'... an inter-dimensional vector path... like I just did with the 'library' analogy, above. Kind of like looking at a single frame of a motion picture... or, rather, make that the PICTURE that emerges from the overlapping of a single frame of 10 DIFFERENT movie films. But that is not really useful for anything other than giving a partial conceptual glimpse of what is going on. And YES... these concepts might very well involve the existence of an alternative physical reality... maybe LOTS of them. This is a part of the reason why science makes the universe SO much more interesting than 'God did it'.

The fact that you do not understand any of this simply means that you don't understand any of this... and that is ALL that it means. You just have to realize that there are people who DO understand this.

GREG wrote: "Come on, they can't prove multiple dimensions exist. Seems, what, supernatural?"

Already addressed, above.

GREG wrote: "I do know that we don't understand all this, and science can't explain it all, so those who believe must be tribalists, and ignorant."

This looks like it might be a good place to introduce the DuckPhup definition of 'metaphysics': "The blind leading the stupid into the unknown, on a quest for the unfathomable." That helps me keep things in perspective, and helps to keep me from taking myself too seriously. Likewise, my 'handle' (don't think 'quack'... think 'spoonerism').

Whenever I share that definition with someone who takes their metaphysics way too seriously, I am inevitably asked (huffily): “Well... which are you then?... blind or stupid?” My stock answer?... Since I consider myself to be both a teacher (unjustifiably) and a student (justifiably), honesty compels me to admit that I am BOTH blind AND stupid. In fact EVERYBODY is (metaphorically) blind and stupid. However... the fact that I KNOW that I am blind and stupid gives me something of an advantage.

"I am just an egg." ~ Michael Valentine Smith (Robert A. Heinlein, 'Stranger in a Strange Land')

You see Greg... we are ALL ignorant. The problem is that you and your ilk do not EMBARACE the idea that 'ignorance' reveals a universe full of wonderful things to explore, and to TRY to understand. Instead, you are like a 7-year old child, with his eyes screwed shut and his fingers in his ears, chanting "la-la-la-la... I can't hear you... la-la-la-la... god did it.... la-la-la-la..." (repeat). That is the nature of your 'belief'... and that makes you something much MORE than merely ignorant... it makes you WILFULLY ignorant... and that is disgraceful.

GREG wrote: "The problem with your entire argument (and those of most atheists) is that you attack the religious, and when they fight back, you allege they are the bad guys."

Would you like some cheese with that whine? You've got that backwards... the reason that we attack religion in the first place... particularly the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism... is because religion IS bad.

"A society without religion is like crazed psychopath without a loaded 45." ~ Unknown

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." ~ Bertrand Russell

OK... here's the way that I see this. I am opposed to gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. I find these things to be profoundly annoying, and a threat to the future of mankind. So, I see it as my ethical duty and moral responsibility... as a sane and rational human being... to confront each of those things whenever and wherever I encounter them. So... I find it to be a matter of great convenience that religion... and Christianity and Islam, in particular... encapsulates ALL of those dubious 'qualities' into one neat, tidy, easily identifiable package... with a bow on top. It permits me to confront them with greater efficiency than might otherwise be possible. I am a big fan of efficiency.

"The god who is reputed to have created fleas to keep dogs from moping over their situation must also have created fundamentalists to keep rationalists from getting flabby.  Let us be duly thankful for our blessings." ~ Garrett Hardin

GREG writes:
"Much of the hostility comes from the attacks of atheists calling believers ignorant. My observation of this site over the last year is that many atheists are an angry lot, bent on name calling and degrading those who believe. You certainly act in that fashion."

You say that like "ignorant" is a bad word. We're all ignorant about something. I know nothing about NASCAR. I couldn't name all of the NFL teams. I don't know what Tim McGraw's last hit record was. I admit my ignorance on these points and many more.

On the religious front, I don't have a clue as to the bylaws of the Methodist Church. My ignorance goes on and on, and I admit it.

Where you're getting hung up is your belief that atheists say that religionists are ignorant IN GENERAL. I have never said that. Maybe others have. No, where I find most religionists ignorant is in basic science, history and - possibly most disappointing - the tenets of their own faith. It would be one thing if religionists were ignorant of their faith IN SPITE OF their clergies' best efforts to give them a broad picture, but I often get the distinct impression that they are ignorant BECAUSE OF what they're hearing - and NOT hearing - from their pulpits.

"Let me ask you something as regards your comment about the supernatural. Can you explain a black hole to me? What happens at the singularity?"

Black holes are naturally occurring phenomenon that are observed in a natural world. There's nothing supernatural about a black hole.

"To suggest that whatever happens is just nature seems a bit absurd -- the rules of nature don't seem to apply."

On the contrary, the rules of nature apply to black holes. We just haven't discovered those natural rules...yet...just as scientists hadn't discovered certain rules before Einstein.

"It seems that no one knows for sure, and what may happen may seem supernatural to us all. I don't know. What about physicists belief in multiple dimensions. Seems a bit ignorant to me. Come on, they can't prove multiple dimensions exist. Seems, what, supernatural? I do know that we don't understand all this, and science can't explain it all, so those who believe must be tribalists, and ignorant."

Scientists will be the first to admit that they are ignorant on these things. THEIR IGNORANCE DRIVES THEIR PROFESSION! No, they can't PROVE that multiple dimensions exist...yet...just as they couldn't "prove" much that science has revealed UNTIL they proved it. They may never prove that multiple dimensions exist, if for no other reason that they may not exist.

The difference between science and religion is that science states a hypothesis, then sets about the business of proving or DISPROVING the hypothesis. In fact, there's an entire industry out there that concerns itself with attempting to falsify scientific results.

Compare that to religion which makes a hypothesis (god, virgin birth, resurrection, hell) and sticks to that hypothesis no matter how overwhelming the evidence disproving their hypothesis. Case in point: the virgin birth. How long have we known that the writer of Matthew depended on the sloppy Hebrew-to-Greek OT translation presented in the Septuagint where the Hebrew word " 'almah" or "young woman' in Isaiah 7:14 was MISTRANSLATED into the Greek "parthenos" which SOMETIMES means "virgin?" Yep, the whole virgin birth dogma is based on a mistranslation! Yet most Xians are ignorant of this fact or aren't told about it at all. They accept it as truth, rather than realizing that the virgin birth aspect of Jesus' life is simply a convention of godhood that was borrowed from earlier religions and grafted on to Jesus to give him a sense of godhood. Even Julius Caesar was said to have been born of a virgin!

Your calling scientists "ignorant" is an attempt to throw in their faces that which actually drives their profession. You use the word "ignorance" in a strictly pejorative way. It's along the lines of religionists who claim that "evolution is ONLY a theory," when the dictionary/SCIENTIFIC usage of the word "theory" describes a body of FACT, not conjecture.

I'm waiting for the religionist who will step forward and treat all words in the English language with equal contempt and willful ignorance. Imagine my saying "I can go to the store today" and the each-word-has-only-one-definition religionist translating that to mean, "I conical-shaped-tin-storage-unit go to the store today." Farcical, of course, but no more so than when a religionist asserts that "evolution is only a theory (ie: conjecture)," while the dictionary defines scientific theory as a "body of FACT."

"The problem with your entire argument (and those of most atheists) is that you attack the religious, and when they fight back, you allege they are the bad guys. Can't have it both ways darlin'."

No, not "bad," just IGNORANT of CERTAIN things, like science, logic, history and - occasionally - the basis of their own faith.

"My suggestion is simple -- live free and think free -- don't impose your belief system on another -- and don't denigrate those who believe differently."

I have no problem with you averring that you "believe" something. Kids believe in Santa. What I take exception to is the religionist saying that they "know" something. You cannot "know" a thing about supernatural beings or gods, as we call them. That is the nature of the supernatural. Once it is explained or proven, it ceases to be supernatural, for - by definition - any provable/testable explanation is a NATURAL explanation.

Conversely, it is illogical and ignorant to state that scientists can't "know" certain things but can only "believe that they know" certain things. The scale for science moves ever forward with the unknown being first defined, then tested, then eventually proven to a statistically insignificant degree of uncertainty. That is the direct OPPOSITE of religion which - because of the march of science - governs fewer and fewer aspects of human existence. Religion now finds itself reduced to refereeing the sectarian sparing matches that are found within its own ever-shrinking sphere of influence.

I hope that wasn't too mean-spirited for you.

Anon,

Hmmm, "I am the Truth" i.e. John 14:6. This passage was, according to many NT exegetes, not said by the historical Jesus but was wishful thinking and an embellishment by John to make Jesus more like the ancient and local gods of first century Palestine. 210-. Place of Life: (1) Dial. Sav. 27-30, (2) John 14:2-12; http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

And John 18:36-38, " I have come to bear witness to the Truth" has the same problem.

180-. Pilate's Question:(1a) Gos. Pet. pre-1:1 from later 3:6,9 (Son of God) & 3:7; 4:11 (King of Israel), (1b) Mark 15:1-5 = Matt 27:1-2,11-14 = Luke 23:1-5, (1c) John 18:28-38;19:4-16

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/180_Pilates_Questions

Greg,

there is no such thing as the supernatural: What is, is, and is possible, otherwise it would not be.

So nature has all the possible rules. We don't need an extra layer of god, since the next question would be who created god.

Nature is the sum of all existing possibilities. God is just a skewed metaphor for the huge amount of things in nature we don't know (yet, we might increase our knowledge.) and for the many unanswerable questions of our own existence. God is a proxy expression for ignorance.

And to suggest that we poor creatures who don't believe in any supernatural monster, spaghetti or otherwise, would go to hell (did you find "Hell" in Google Earth?) is either an insult or just a joke, possibly both.

TO KEITH CANTRELL: In your post, you wrote, "This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.", could this be called a conscience? Just wondering, take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Greg

Have you ever stopped to think about why *some* atheists might be angry (they aren't ALL angry).

Here are a couple of possible explanations:

1. They have been lied to about the existence of God since they were kids.
2. They have been lied to about the history of their own religions since they were kids.
3. When they announce in their town that they aren't sure God exists, they are ostracised and looked at with contempt.

I can think of about 200 other valid reasons right off.

Is anger always a bad thing?

TO ANONYMOUS: In your reply to my post of 9-28-2007 at 2:11 PM, you wrote, "As I mentioned to you before, in another forum... When you think that you're talking to god... that's prayer. When you think that god is talking to you... that's DSM-IV 295.7." In another posting I wrote that when God the Father came into my heart He did not say a word, He didn't have to, I also wrote that when God the Holy Spirit came into my body He didn't say a word either but He spoke to me by speaking thru me. Just because your mind is closed to the possibility that there is a reason for us to have reason, beyond the merely physical, doesn't mean that a Being of Pure Love does not exist and has a Plan which you don't believe in and some of the people that call themselves christian don't even want it to be all inclusive. As I wrote in my previous posting, "God is absolutely nothing like what a lot of people that call themselves christian say that He is", and I thank God for that. I am not here to be believed or not, I am just here to do what God has chosen me for, to tell the whole world that the gospel which means "GOOD NEWS" by the way is for ALL OF HUMANITY. As I also wrote, "There is so much hatred being spewed out from all sides that it doesn't seem to make much difference what label people put on themselves", the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God, Who is Pure Love, is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations of lack thereof. It is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know. God is not the egomaniac that a lot of "religious" people seem to think that He is. Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Despite being an atheist, I don't object at all to the religious beliefs of others. What I do find disturbing is the apparent inability of many Christians to write coherently, even to the point of not being able to use basic punctuation. This generally leads to incredible beliefs being expressed in sentences resembling train wrecks. The combination is not a good one.

Much of the hostility comes from the attacks of atheists calling believers ignorant. My observation of this site over the last year is that many atheists are an angry lot, bent on name calling and degrading those who believe. You certainly act in that fashion.
Let me ask you something as regards your comment about the supernatural. Can you explain a black hole to me? What happens at the singularity? To suggest that whatever happens is just nature seems a bit absurd -- the rules of nature don't seem to apply.It seems that no one knows for sure, and what may happen may seem supernatural to us all. I don't know. What about physicists belief in multiple dimensions. Seems a bit ignorant to me. Come on, they can't prove multiple dimensions exist. Seems, what, supernatural? I do know that we don't understand all this, and science can't explain it all, so those who believe must be tribalists, and ignorant.
The problem with your entire argument (and those of most atheists) is that you attack the religious, and when they fight back, you allege they are the bad guys. Can't have it both ways darlin'. My suggestion is simple -- live free and think free -- don't impose your belief system on another -- and don't denigrate those who believe differently. So, Susan -- stop calling believers names and maybe that could begin the process. You don't believe, but that doesn't make you right.

I enjoyed Susan Jacoby's article but disagree with her on one point. I think I have read most of Sam Harris's, Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' articles and books on the subject of religion and I really don't remember any of them claiming that moderate religion is more dangerous than Fundamentalist religion. They certainly say that the moderates represent a respectable shield for the fanatics to hide behind, but this is not the same as saying they present more of a danger. And if Ms. Jacoby admits that the existence of the majority of moderates makes the more extreme elements a harder target to hit, then there really is no disagreement at all between herself and Hitchens, Harris and Hawkins. I wonder if she isn't trying too hard to find some common ground between herself the faithful.

Tito

I believe there is a lot in what you say.

To explicitly underlline what is implicit in your comment: whan people are dazzled by uncertainty, one great antidote is to gather with their fellow men (huddling for warmth we used to call it).

And the church provides a gathering place where people are searching for meaning in the midst of uncertainly. Whether or not there *actually* is a God who parted the red sea.

Spencer: " I won't call you amoral if you don't call me stupid."

Sounds like a deal -- I won't even think of you as ignorant - I'll think of you as misinformed.

There be those,humanist,atheist,botanist,sexual perverts,drug dealers,porn dealers,drunk drivers. Whom through personal choice follow SATAN lord of darkness,such followers of SATAN be creatures of the night,such born through LUST of the FLESH it be their original parents ADAM as EVE, whom with vile wicked evil SATAN, pergutator of SIN were cast from heaven unto Planet Earth,as punishment guilty placing love of flesh above love of GOD. Yet GOD in mercy sent his son JESUS to Earth born to a virgin he be free of all sin all lust.Those whom accept JESUS as GOD'S son,as rightful heir to the universe, have the oppertunity of all sin being removed thus earn right of returning home. It will be the vile creatures of night whom lead by the Atheist whom will continuing,mock the son as they did the father,their preference be lust of flesh, the power of SATAN to live in sin....

I count myself a heathen, not because I 100% disavow the possibility of a Higher Being, but rather simply because I have no faith in religion.
Lots of religious people talk about the next life,
but seem fairly intent on manipulating people in
this one. A more heathen approach is to let
people do whatever they will, and not try to
force your morals and beliefs on others. Religious
groups on the other hand, typically and frequently
have a social agenda and their hand out for your
money. I don't care for that. I think at most,
the Churchies should be trying to maybe run
schools to help people gain literacy, and hospitals to treat the sick. Past that, keep your
hand away from my wallet, because other things
we've seen religious people do is send money for
guns to people in 3rd world countries, and I don't
care what branch or denomination or sect of what religion you belong to, or even if you don't belong or believe at all, that kind of garbage is
just flat wrong.

Like I said, though, respect for others' beliefs
is important, but I have questions for their
institutions that grow up around those beliefs...

The Vatican updated its exorcism prescriptions recently. They have a real department for exorcism. A couple of years ago, a German girl who suffered from epilepsy was killed by exorcists trying to "chase the evil spirit away".

The pope defends exorcism.

We live in the year 2007.

One of the last statements must be doubted.

Scott,

Have you considered that Jesus said, "I am the Truth" and "I am come to bear witness to the Truth"?

Also, the Bible says that if you hate Jesus (the Truth), then you love death?

Susan Jacoby is a God-hating, truth-hider.

'Nuf said.

Susan,
It is a shame that some theists respond with hostility to atheist literature and comments, on this site and elsewhere. In the case of Hitchens and other militant atheists like Dawkins, it is understandable. It is not hard to see why Hitchens' antagonistic approach elicits anger from those whose faith in God is so close to their heart and life.

But whether it is Hitchens or yourself, hostile responses from theists are conversation stoppers. They hinder our ability to discuss rationally in a way that leads us into truth, and they hinder our ability to at least come to a mutual understanding.

Believe it or not, there are actually some of us theists out there who consider themselves rationally-minded and truth seeking. I am an evangelical Christian who holds to the orthodox Christian faith as taught in the Bible, and I enjoy thinking about my faith and engaging with other opinions. Although I disagree with many of your positions on the various issues on this blog, I enjoy reading your posts and hearing your perspective. It helps me understand a different angle on things, and it challenges me to re-examine my own beliefs.

My hope is that more good, charitable dialogue can happen between people in a way that leads us into a better understanding of each other, of ourselves, and of the truth.

Scott

I am an atheist. And I am proud of my view but not self-congratulatory, as some of my more faith-minded friends are.

This essay is exceptional in its simplicity of message and force of reason.

Sometime, there is nothing left to say. Further comment is spurious.

I wonder if modern life, filled with technologies we do not understand, makes it easier to accept non-rationality and religion as a barrier between our ignorance and the need for certainty.
Modern man in America seems to be allergic to science and, as a result, overwhelmed by the uncertainties than are ever present in our lives.

Is it easier to believe in "ultimate truths" and explanations, dictated by someone else, than to attempt to make sense of the world thru the effort necessary to understand science and logic?

I listen constantly to the desperation caused from living in a world that we do not understand and all the uncertainty it generates. The easy antidote to that fear, anxiety and uncertainty is the acceptance of the certainty provided by religion rather than the effort to find answers that are rationally and scientifically based. People seem to prefer the easy answers rather than the rational even if it means accepting religious "truths" that beg credulity.

tito

if someone can find something to argue about in what you wrote DG- they are just trying way too hard to disagree.

TERRY- thanks for your sensible constructive post-

i dont thik most of us have a clear idea of what we are doing in this moment right now- let alone where we came from-
as far as evolution goes- i say let the headbangers bang-

heres your statement-
"On the other hand, as to getting a real education on evolution who could surpass the modern-day work of Dawkins?? (his atheist rant aside)."

which is fine by me-

im not posting this to incite disagreement-
just because i found it interesting but do not have enough scientific knowledge to figure it out exactly.

take a gander if you have a mind to-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

peace

I am a Christian, and because I am a Christian I will not attack non-believers with angry words. I will not hate them or attempt to persuade them to think as I do. I will live peacefully side by side with them and respect them. I will love them as my brothers and sisters. God's laws are made known to all through general revelation, so, yes, even an athiest can come to the same conclusions regarding morality. I don't believe that one must believe in God or Christ to live a moral life. Can I prove the existence of God, of course not. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me, which I cannot prove and will not attempt to. That would be the most absurd waste of my time and yours. What I do suggest, since non-believers and believers alike are concerned with peace and social justice, that we expend our energies working together to cure the ills of this world rather than spend endless hours in debate over things which CAN NEVER be proved or disproved. Let's end this senseless discussion here, and turn our attention to poverty, war, injustice, prejudice, education and the environment. Everyone get off this board right now and volunteer the hour a day you spend here to make this world a better place. Imagine what we can achieve together.

You go from "respectfully disagre[ing]" with Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, to declaring their very argument "nonsense". Which is it?

I think their points are within the bounds of resonable debate myself, while your bit anecdotal evidence to the contrary is thin to say the least.

You go from "respectfully disagre[ing]" with Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins, to declaring their very argument "nonsense". Which is it?

I think their points are within the bounds of resonable debate myself, while your bit anecdotal evidence to the contrary is thin to say the least.

If the religious had practiced their beliefs quietly, without insisting on imposing those beliefs on others, I think the evils of religion that Hitchens discusses in his book would not have happened.

Problems begin when a believer is unsure about what is God's will, and turns to another mortal for guidance. Instead of allowing God to judge men and women in His own way, the religious insist on judging and punishing them here on Earth.

According to the Koran, all previous messages from God to man (e.g., the Torah, the New Testament) have become corrupted over time. Unfortunately, we have no proof that the Koran has itself not been similarly corrupted in the time since the first Suras were recorded. But even if it is pure and true, the additional guidance that interprets it were written later by men without the benefit of revelation.

Sorry... last paragraph was cut off...

So far as I am concerned everybody is free... within the privacy of his own mind, his own church, and his home... to delude himself in whatever manner he deems fit. However... when somebody trots those delusions out in a public venue, asserting that they represent the ultimate cosmic 'truth' pertaining to existence and reality... well... that just has to be confronted. And we most certainly do not want such delusions infiltrating our schools and our government, and tainting our domestic and foreicn policy. So... you can have your beliefs... and I will call them stupid... the beliefs... not you. But if you have internalized your beliefs so deeply into your self-description that you trat criticism of your beliefs as a personal attack... well, I'd just have to say that is your problem... not mine. And you can call me amoral, if you want to... I'll just laugh at you... because I know better.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson

SPENCER wrote (SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 12:14 PM): "While the venom directed at atheists is not justifiable, neither is the smug dismissal of all religious people as irrational and ignorant."

Sure it is.

SPENCER wrote: "Sir Isaac Newton, an ignoramus by no one's estimation, was not only a brilliant scientist but also an avid student of the Bible. His scientific knowledge convinced him of the existence of a Creator, and his Bible study led him to challenge some doctrines that are still widely accepted today."

Oh, twaddle... his 'scientific knowledge' most certainly did NOT "... convince him of the existence of a creator." That is absolute rubbish. What you do not seem to realize is that in the time of Newton EVERYBODY was religious... as a result of (then) 1,200 years of christian-enforced ignorance. The universities were religious... ALL of them. Just 43 years before Newton was born, the church had locked Galileo away for his 'heritical' ideas about heliocentrism, and burned Giordanno Bruno at the stake for heresy... he had been promoting the idea that the stars were not actually little lights that god had stuck upon the firmament so we could fortell future events... that they were actually suns, just like our own, except very far away. The efforts of scientists, up until the time of Darwin, were focused exclusively on trying to understand what went on behind the scenes of god's creation... i.e., how god kept things chuggin' along. It was inconceivable to everybody, at that time, that there was any explanation OTHER than god.

People like Newton were not insane... they were simply not 'awake' yet. One must consider 'zeitgeist'... the 'spirit of the times'. The accumulation of human knowledge had not yet reached the tipping point where alternative paradigms became possible... where a universe without god even was concieveable, from the scientific perspective. And that is really the main contribution of Darwin... not 'evolution', but rather the startling idea that 'god' might be an unnecessary 'hypothesis'... that complexity arises from simplicity... in natural systems... through natural processes... along with the natural 'emergence' of unexpected properties, features and functionalities. And EVERYWHERE we look... in ALL branches of natural science... the universe is telling us EXACTLY that.

However... if Newton believed such nonsense TODAY... you bet your @$$ he'd be insane. Today, we KNOW better. But, as you say... Newton was no ignoramus. If he were alive TODAY, he would probably be trying to do the same job as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet... and Jacoby... and giving them a run for their money.

SPENCER wrote: "Particularly interesting is the assertion is that belief in the supernatural is, by definition, belief in that which contradicts the laws of nature. Such a statement assumes that there exists a complete understanding of natural laws, by which one may judge the validity of any and all claims of existence. Any scientist worth his salt would admit that we are striving for a better understanding of nature, but we have not (and maybe will not) understand everything."

That has go to be one of the most muddle-headed statements that I have ever read. How are you able to think like that, without having your head explode?

SPENCER wrote: "I would assert that the existence of a Creator may, in fact, be completely natural. Respected archaeologists have devised elaborate theories on the reasons for cave paintings, including one about Cro-Magnon shamans that perhaps fell into trances and painted their hallucinations on the walls of remote caves. If a rudimentary cave painting requires intelligence, and perhaps even a culture, how does it agree with the laws of nature that the universe, the earth and the things on it could spring into existence unbidden? Indeed how do "laws" of nature exist without a legislator?"

OK... I immediately find that I must correct myself. The previous was the SECOND most muddle-headed statement that I have ever read. Look... NOBODY is suggesting that "... the earth and the things on it could spring into existence unbidden." We KNOW how the earth got here. We're pretty sure we know how life got here... we're just trying to work out the details. But I am beginning to get the impression that you are suggesting that the earth and the things on it COULD 'spring into existence'... so long as they were 'bidden'. Would that be right? Bidden, perhaps, by some supernatural entity who is... 'natural'?

SPENCER wrote: "Furthermore, the Bible has been a victim of its stewards. The Bible holds its own quite well, scientifically speaking, without people mucking up things for their own purposes. For example, here are some things the Bible says:

- The universe had a beginning. (No problem there, according to the Big Bang)

Agreed... a 'natural' beginning... a simple beginning... just energy... about 14.5 billion years ago.

- Larger life forms on earth appeared in a particular order - plant life, marine animals and birds, land animals, then humans. (Still OK)

Oh, gimme a break. Birds emerged from the water?

- One woman is the mother of all humans on earth. (See mitochondrial DNA)

Uh... yup... a rib-woman, convinced by a talking snake (with legs) to eat a piece of fruit from a magical tree... yup... (check). Oh... wait a minute... you must be talking about the metaphorical 'Eve' that evolutionary biologists say that DNA points to... our primate ancestor.

- The earth is round (check) and is unsupported in space (double check).

'Round' is also 'flat'. The universe that god created in Genesis started out when he divided a pre-existing glob of water with the firmament... a solid crystalline structure which we now know as the 'sky'. Then he extracted dirt from one half of the water, 'poofed' plants and critters into existence, fabricated a couple of humans from a dust-bunny and a rib... and meanwhile... right outside the 'gates' of the garden where all of this was going on, 6,000 years ago... here in the REAL universe, the Mesopotamians were brewing beer. Yep... (check).

- Quarantine infectious disease carriers. And cover your poop. (Pretty sound advice for 3500 years ago.)

Yep... you sure don't want them evil spirits to get in ya.

As for the latter part... one might just as easily attribute this to the ancient observation that poop stinks, and (allegedly... I do not know this from personal culinary experience) doesn't taste so good. I don't really think that it qualifies as a divine revelation.

SPENCER wrote: "Not bad for a bunch of irrational, deluded simpletons, huh?

That is undeserving of comment.

SPENCER wrote: "There are religious people on earth today who feel that the Bible can be trusted. These same people believe that belief in a Creator makes the natural world all the more fascinating and worthy of study."

Really? LOL

SPENCER wrote: "Their religion promotes respect for their neighbors, respect for women, political neutrality, the repudiation of war, as well as racial and internation harmony."

Oh, good grief. So... you are just as ignorant of history as you are of science, huh? Now, don't get all huffy here... ignorant just means 'lacking in knowledge'. Here's what Richard Dawkins has to say about that. Take it, Professor...

"I once wrote in a New York Times book review, 'It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)'. That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know. I am completely ignorant of baseball, and I dare say that you are as completely ignorant of cricket. If I tell somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am paying him the compliment of assuming that he is not stupid, insane or wicked." ~ Richard Dawkins, to physicist Lawrence Krauss, in Scientific American, July 2007 issue.

Here's the thing... all of those things that you mentioned... NONE of them came from your religion. ALL of those are secular-humanist values that arose from the 'Enlightenment' and the 'Age of Reason', which was inspired by the recovery of SOME of the ancient knowledge... over 1,000 years worth... knowledge that had been wantonly DESTROYED by the early Christians... because it was deemed 'heretical' (non-Biblical). Fortunately, copies SOME of this knowledge (a small part) had been retained in Arab archives... and after it was translated and started to spread around Europe, people began to awaken to what had once been known. Most of the 'great discoveries' of this time were not really discoveries at all... they were REdiscoveries of the knowledge that had once existed... and then been destroyed by Christians.

All of those humanist values that you cited exist ONLY because the thrall of ignorance which had been imposed on humanity BY CHRISTIANITY was finally thrown off. Typically, though... christianity takes credit for releasing us from its OWN CRIMES against humanity.

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."~ Martin Luther (Works Vol. 12)

SPENCER wrote: "So, some of us believers are not so dumb after all. For free speech to be really free, everyone should be allowed the dignity of our own opinion, however ludicrous it may seem to others. So let's agree on one thing -- I won't call you amoral if you don't call me stupid."

So far as I am concerned everybody is free... within the privacy of his own mind, his own church, and his home... to delude himself in whatever manner he deems fit. However... when you trot those delusions

The ancient Greeks, with their panoply of fallible gods we now all consider fictitious, had a moral code not terribly different from our own. Murder was immoral. Theft was immoral. Elders were to be respected.

Much closer to our own time, on the other hand, the moral code of Medieval Catholicism was closer to "might makes right", than to the Biblical text they supposedly espoused. The lords of the lands had absolute power over their underlings and peasants.

So I am not convinced of the argument that religion is a necessary predicate to morality. I think religion (at least Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as we know it probably evolved from an effort to codify moral principles that existed in prehistoric ages.

Boomboom:

Not all of us 'believers' are non-science believers. Two paths to the truth.

Here's something to think about, from a folk song of the '60s:

And Jesus was a sailor
when He walked upon the water
And He spent a long time watching
from His lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
that only drowning men could see him
He said all men are sailors then
until the sea shall free them
But He himself was broken
long before the sky should open
Forsaken, almost human,
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone.

ok ... ok ... why is it significant that Jesus walked on water to the non-science believers?

Susan,it matters little life,OR SUCH TIMES IN its HISTORY,(your effect HAS on me)I'M OVERTAKEN BY A GREAT GREAT DESIRE THAT I PUT YOU OVER MY KNEE AS THEN PROCEED IN GIVING YOU A SOUND SPANKING.... PUTTING THAT ASIDE,atheists are the most advanced spiritual beings ...its not they dont believe in there being a God..its that they dont believe in anybody elses, beliefs teachings that there be a particular God....SUSAN,AT PRESENT THE AVERAGE ATHEIST,IS SO IN LOVE WITH SELF,LOOKING UPON ALL FROM THEIR IVORY TOWER, MOCKING HUMANITY, SELF INDUGENCE OF IN LOVE OF SELF,BE BUT THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ATHEIST,RATHER THAN GUIDE AS BEING PROTECTOR OF HUMANITY,THEY HAVING LONG LOST THE WAY,NOW BUT SPEND THERE TIME A LOOKING IN THE MIRROR GIVING MANY WORDS OF SELF PRAISE...their bloggs are but for FOOLS as those OF like mind..

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Keith Cantrell

I "fifth" your sentiments, which are insightful and, in the opinion of America's greatest literary critic, entirely correct.

Morality predates religion by Millenia. Religionist are like Politicians: they see where the Parade is going and Jump in front of it. Usually allied with the power of the state, to insure their continuing influence.

Thanks for telling us the truth again and again.

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Love defies Logic ... I Love Logic ... any questions?

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Susan Jacoby hit the nail right on the head, of course. It's the old problem of morality and it seems that people of faith cannot analyze the issue objectively anymore. To them it is supremely impossible to conceive of morality, ethics or meaning without a deity to impose some sort of moral or ethical standard.

This, of course, is arrogantly ridiculous. More and more scientists, philosophers and historians are demonstrating that morality, ethics and meaning are all things that were direct results of human behavior encoded in our genetic makeup over millions of years of evolution. The connections are by no means concrete but the evidence, avoided by the faithful, is udeniably leaning in that direction.

Thanks, Susan, for your thoughtful, reasonable and inherently logical outlook on this important issue.

Keith Cantrell

Ms Jacoby,

I am absolutely astonished at what you have written. Well done! Being a believer (on the liberal side), I don't agree with all of it by a long shot! But, dear Lord in heaven, you made sense and were understanding. No polemics or verbal fireworks. Please keep writing in that vein. Thanks.

And, Ken, I doubt your ability to think from OUTSIDE a consistent world view.

Any world view can be perfectly consistent from within. Religionists claim this, and it even can be regarded to be "consistent" to a certain loose degree, if you are willing to distort the genocides and other atrocities in the bible toward a just preventive measure by god, as some posters seriously proposed.

A friend of mine who was the head of a psychiatric institution (vulgo insane asylum) told me the story of an inmate with an astonishingly consistent world view of his castle at the bottom of the sea. There was not a single question he could not answer with perfectly consistent intelligence, all the way down to where the power plugs were located.

It is always impressive to hear the irrationalists ("god created reason", meaning it can be submitted to "faith") pretend they argue reasonably. Can't do both: Reason once discarded and substituted by faith cannot serve for any argument anymore (Luther only as one of many examples, declaring reason as the satanic arch-enemy of faith). Funny how some people here on a high horse even think they can descendingly demand that the atheists, please, start to think reasonably and believe the superstitions they have to offer.

And about right or wrong: Half of the US thinks it is right to kill Iraqis, the other half thinks it is wrong. USA, Iran and China cultivate the death penalty (an eye for an eye), most European countries have given up this barbarism. (As an aside, all statistics prove beyond any doubt that it does not have the slightest deterrent effect: During public executions in former times, there was the highest number of pocket picking thefts, because people were absorbed in observing the killing, giving an advantage to thieves.

I detest to have to admit that right or wrong is a matter of context, maybe with the exception of the basic golden rule principle which can claim an apriori value (Kant). Maniacs like Stalin and Hitler didn't kill for the killing, but for their ideology, like the faithful religionists in the 30 years' war. Stalin killed masses of what he suspected as opponents against what he thought would become the paradise of communist equality on earth, Hitler killed because he thought the Germanic race was superior to others, and regarded himself as one of the greatest German patriots. (For most Americans, patriotism is one of the noblest feelings, remember the tribal value of religion?). Bush thinks he fulfills god's will, getting more oil for American gas gobblers as a windfall profit, a noble cause, isn't it? He thinks it is good. Iraq and Iran think it is bad.

If all this senseless blather about the "absolute" religious benchmark of right or wrong were true, as many of the pious crowd here rave about, we would not have to have a huge justice system where the question is not IF you are right but if you WIN a right. And if it were true, the ratio between believers and atheists in prisons would reflect their ratio in the population. The number of atheist would have to be 50 (!) times greater to reflerct this proportion than it actually is.

The bible thinks it is right to stone a woman before marriage if she is not a virgin. We think it is wrong, because the US and others would fade away.

Lying sends a person straight to hell (Shearer, lol!). If the life of your family depends on a lie, for instance in a war or serious danger situation, lying is the only "moral" option. Even Luther favored lying in the service of faith.

I hope to be the first in line for, The Age of American Unreason. Though I've never read anything by Susan Jacoby, just by reading this article, I'm sure it'll be hard to put down once I start. In the last couple months I've read the god delusion, the end of faith, and I'm just about done with, god is not great and soon on to infidel. Keep'em coming! America needs more reality literature.

Daniel, perhaps I misread or misunderstood, but I thought you mentioned that you are christian.
In that case YOU are the one that believes in absolutes (unless your version of christianity is unfamiliar to me). It looks to me as though you are thinking of physical laws the way one thinks of christian laws, as written somewhere on some stone tablet and considered unchangable for all of time. Physical laws are probably effectively nothing like that (thank goodness, if they were like that and we finally figured them out, things would eventually get boring to people like me). And don't let those Sting Theory folks fool you. They are no closer than the rest of us to finding the absolute truth (but you couldn't tell THEM that, they seem to have created their own little religion).

We don't have to explain why science works. We just happen to live in a Universe where it does
(again, thank goodness). I agree it works amazingly well, so well that I personally see no need to add an additional (infinitely) complex structure (gods and the supernatural) to explain the things I don't yet understand (again, look up "Occam's Razor"-a logical principle that works extremely well). It does not surprise me that ancient humans did this, since they knew very little about why things occurred. Today we know much more, so at least in the case of those intellectually curious enough to inquire, we can find rational answers to those questions, or at least try to explain why an explanation is not forthcoming (we can understand which questions we have a shot of answering). It also does not surprise me when intellectually lazy individuals use the supernatural to "explain" things they don't understand. However, in a country where we have a relatively decent educational system (so far my kid's teachers have not insisted on teaching the so-called "debate" between evolution and - I have a hard time writing it - intelligent design), I find it sad that people have to resort to the supernatural. One explanation (and of course this is not true in all cases) is that people are taught that belief in "unknowable" things like gods is perfectly logical. There are people writing in this very forum (not too many, fortunatly, and it is obvious that you are NOT one of them; that FREESTINKER sure seems to be one of them) that seem to be allergic to logic.

All this would be irrelevant in my eyes if this unverifiable belief in gods were benign. It is not. We unbelievers have had that made painfully clear in the past few years (come on, a single cell being treated as a person with constitution rights? Give me a break! Start harvesting those stem cells!).

And what I gave you, the nickel tour of the scientific method, IS the philosophy of science.
I am afraid that looking for more is going to lead to a dead end (or the invention of some higher being, Oh Wait...). Of course, it's your time.

I like to ask myself WHY I believe something. Do I believe it because I have logical, verifiable reasons, or do I believe in something because I WANT it to be true? I believe in the scientific method because it has worked so well in the past. That is pretty much how humans lead their lives. Seems to me many people believe in their gods because that is the way they WISH the Universe to be. The Universe doesn't care what you or I believe, and it has a funny habit of sneaking up on you and smacking you in the face to emphasize the point.

Angela

A pedagogical hint (look it up)

Don't try arguing with people like Jay for the next 25 years.

Just TRY to understand what they are saying, if you don't ask for clarification,

and above all, realize that their understanding of everything in the world is infinitely greater than your own.

Sort of like God is supposed to be (if you don't read the book of Genesis).

Peace
Henry

Angela says:

"It's obvious that you believe, lying, stealing, adultery, being angry at someone for no reason is ok."

Uh ... no. How did you get that from my post?

"Doesn't all of these apply to the "Golden Rule" also. May I ask: where do you believe it comes from."

Humans learning to live together, over thousands of years. Certain common rules of behavior became ubiquitous because, in their absence, those societies did not survive. The bible wasn't the first to codify them, and other non-biblical societies have similar rules.

"The reason why atheists and non-believers believe in their own goodness is they love transgressing the law."

I got a speeding ticket once. Okay, twice. However, I didn't enjoy it. But that's about it in terms of transgressions.

"Also, I believe from your statement that the Bible upheld slavery you've never read the Holy Bible."

I've read the bible. Leviticus (as I recall) states how to treat your slaves, not that we should abandon slavery. The bible is silent on the matter of whether slavery is wrong or not, although you apparently couldn't enslave a member of your own tribe. Maybe that was revolutionary at the time.

"Do you believe you're an accident? Do you know of anyone who never evolved and they're still an ape. It's more ilogicial to believe in evolution than it is to believe in a "Sovreign" Creator."

Well, yes, it IS illogical to believe in evolution as you (mis)understand it. I wouldn't believe in your cartoon version of evolution either.

Proposed Presidential debate question: Senator Brownback... as President, what steps will you take to fulfill the 'dominionist' objective of repealing the Bill of Rights and turning the USA into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy based on Old Testament biblical law? Will you use the 'bully pulpit' to explain to the American people how this is all part of god's plan... to establish the conditions here on earth that are prophesied to be necessary precursors for the imminent return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Followup question: Considering that the return of our Lord is imminent, do you think that concerns over the burgeoning national debt, and the scientific community's alarm over the environment and global warming are really that important?

Some observations about Ms. Jacoby's flawed thinking:

"All belief in the supernatural; ie., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational by definition."

By whose definition? Apparently Ms. Jacoby seeks to avoid defending her position by defining away opposing arguments. Remarks such as "contradicitng the laws of nature" and " irrational" are conclusions that need to be supported by logical inferences drawn from sound premises. Ms Jacoby, either unwilling or unable to rise to that task, tries to import her prejudices under the radar by making naked declarations.

Reason and rationality are somewhat vague and nebulous, but relate to logic and the reasoning process. Logic is systematically rigorous thinking that constrains conclusions to necessary inferences. Thus logic is always methodological and instrumental; it is never foundational. Logic provides rules that relate the conclusions necessarily to the premises but it cannot supply the original premise. The presuppositions and other raw data are determinative of the conclusions. There is nothing as remoreless as the binary logic of a computer chip, yet garbage in, garbage out. Complete nonsense can be argued well. We call that sophistry. And great and noble positions can be poorly defended. We call that tragedy. The quality of the argument, although important, is the not the final arbiter of truth.

"The chief insulting comment about atheists, repeated ad nauseam on this thread and elsewhere, is that they are amoral or immoral."

An absolute strawman, a profound twisting and complete misunderstanding of atheism's greatest weakness and the arguments Christians make. No one is saying that atheists are immoral. Living and interacting within a moral universe, just as in a physical universe, requires no acknowledgement of anything that transcends that universe. One can exercise a careful and deeply thought moral calculus without understanding where it is derived. You simply cannot account for moral valuation from witin a world view that excludes anything but the material world. It is not possible to logically infer any shoulds from what merely is. Consistent and thoroughgoing materialism, the necesary foundation of atheism, reduces all perceived moral thought to the chance and impersonal collison of atoms.

The moralism of atheists, because it requires a transcendent order beyond materialism, falsifies their world view. I neither doubt nor impugn your morality, Susan. I doubt your ability to think from within a consistent world view.

What History and Archeology are teaching us and what Physics is not:

A synopsis of the flaws in the foundations of today's contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

Calvin R King

thank you for a lovely and human and wise story. it is people like you who have worked through a spiritual journey that will guide the world to a new paradigm, a new respect for life-giving energy.

"It is fair to say that all religion originated in ignorance and tribalism, but I don't think this has much to do with all of the peaceful Unitarians and Reform Jews who invite me to lecture to their congregations today."

Exactly. One of the things that bothers me about Dawkins is that he talks as though there are no good religions at all, that to be religious is to be hateful, bigoted, and anti-science. While it's certainly true that many religions (and especially the most powerful ones) are this way, there are many exceptions as well. I was raised Quaker and I was taught the importance of peace, social justice, and equality -- as well as science and rationalism. I'm now an atheist, but I see no problem with people belonging to a religion that promotes those values and doesn't rest on unchanging dogma. That's certainly a better alternative than fundamentalism, and it might even be a step towards atheism as it was for me.

Rob
Have you been brainwashed by someone?

Have you ever read a non religious book about morals.

It seems you haven't.

You might want to unless you enjoy exhibiting your ignorance. Start with Aristotle.

DR.R.P. writes:
"There is more to science than collecting information. There is predicting NEW phenomina from the currently held laws of physics. That is the real value and purpose of science."

You bring up a point that Dawkins makes over and over again in "The God Delusion," but a point that gets little to no play in the discussions on this blog. It is, indeed, THE beauty of the scientific method, and I thank you for reminding us of the same.

Perhaps the religionists don't mention it because they have no equivalent in their Bible-based fantasies. Oh, sure, they can trot out statistical "proofs" like the not-so-unusual Bible Code to aver that the Bible is some future-telling device, but that's all made-up, after-the-fact gobbeldigook, isn't it? No Bible Code enthusiast is using the supposed "code" to PREDICT future events.

For the Bible to equal the predictive power of science it would have to be littered with ideas and words that were incomprehensible to the people who wrote it. For example, if the Bible mentioned marsupials in some detail, their discovery would have proven that the Bible was astonishingly predictive in nature. Same for the micro-organisms. One wonders why the god of creation only bothered to mention his creations that dewlt within a few hundred miles of Jerusalem (though one must give him credit for including the unicorns and the fire-breathing dragons in his litany of Earth-dwelling animals).

Not even the man-god Jesus got it right, asserting that the mustard seed was the "smallest" of all seeds (apparently, he didn't know about the tropical orchids, even though he created them). Had Jesus said, "there are seeds even smaller than this of the mustard plant, but ye will not know them," I'd be impressed. And even with mustard plants to view, Jesus thought that their seeds grew into trees (there are no trees in the mustard family).

So, in Jesus' case, one can't even trust the empirical evidence, let alone the predictive evidence.

Duckphup

Awesome post to DPoView. A real learning experience.

Keep up the great work.You ARE being read.

Chip too.

You are not wasting your time.I believe you do make a difference.If your voices are absent from the discussion,the discussion suffers.

TheRadicalModerate asks:

"I can't but wonder what would happen if the atheists/agnostics represented 75% of the population. Would they be as dogmatic and coercive as Christians or Muslims?"

Probably not. In many European societies, atheists are common but they have made few efforts to coerce religious people. You might argue that the French government's attempt to ban Muslim headscarfs and other religious symbols was coercive, but this kind of sentiment is rare. I doubt the French public -- including atheists -- would allow anything more harsh than this. I am an atheist (borderline agnostic at times) and I think the ban was an appalling violation of religious people's rights.

Many religious people want to recruit others to their church, and they crave respect. (Sometimes they want "undue respect" as Dawkins calls it). Most atheists, on the other hand, do not care much whether others agree with them or not. They do not demand respect, only equality and the separation of church and state. I would appreciate respect from a Unitarian, but I would be creeped out if a fundamentalist or creationist expressed "respect" for my point of view.

I agree completely with Jacoby that Harris, Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins go too far. Religion is irrational and incorrect as far as I can tell. But mainstream religion does little harm, and much good. We all harbor irrational and mistaken notions, and most of the time they cause no harm.

We should also admit that at times we all have "faith," that is, an unfounded, intuitive sense that something is true, absent any objective proof. Everyone has faith in one thing or another, but a religious person thinks that faith is a good thing, and tries to cultivate it, whereas I am embarrassed when I realize that I have inadvertently accepted a (nontrivial) proposition without evidence. I try to root out this behavior in myself whenever I catch myself doing it.

Intuition and faith are wonderful for things like love, art, music and good cooking. Scientists make intuitive leaps of imagination to discover new things. But you want to keep faith out of things like philosophy, morality, scientific theory, politics, public policy, and so on.

Dear Dr. RP

You totally misunderstand every one of my points. I guess you are not used to thinking about these things.

You said, "I am fine living in a world without absolutes. (matter of fact, it makes thing much more interesting)..." as though I am the one who is asserting absolutes. But it is not I asserting absolutes; it is you.

You are the one who "believes" in the illusion of the laws of physics, when I am pointing out that I am not so sure that there are such things. I am pointing these things out, only because they have occurred to me, not to be difficult or contrarian.

Also, I did not ask you to explain to me the "scientific method." I asked you to explain to me why science works; but of course such an explanation would have to account for the existence of the universe, and the existence of our consious selves, who observe, it, and the nature of personality, perception, observation, inferrence, knowledge, certainty, and things like this. Of course, there has been a great deal written on all of these things, but it all gets very, very complex and deep, and wanders far afield. And while philosophers are trying to work all these pesky details out, science continues on, triumphantly; I am in agreement with you on that.

To me, one of the mysteries of science is that is so fabulously successful, yet so simple, and uncomplicated, with reason to be; there is no science of science. As I said before, the laws of science, are not themselves, scientific; they are in fact philosophical charcterizations of scientific findings.

And by the way, to clarify a possible misunderstanding, when I say I am not sure that the laws of physics exist, I am speaking of the existence of an actual "law;" I am not talking about the observable phenomenon.

To Jay S.

It's obvious that you believe, lying, stealing, adultery, being angry at someone for no reason is ok. Doesn't all of these apply to the "Golden Rule" also. May I ask: where do you believe it comes from. The reason why atheists and non-believers believe in their own goodness is they love transgressing the law. Also, I believe from your statement that the Bible upheld slavery you've never read the Holy Bible. Do you believe you're an accident? Do you know of anyone who never evolved and they're still an ape. It's more ilogicial to believe in evolution than it is to believe in a "Sovreign" Creator. I pray that people see themselves clearly as of course most don't believe in God because they believe their "God".

To Chip:

I do not claim to have proof that what I call universal truths exist. My only point was, in the absence of such truths, morality becomes meaningless, thus I say an atheistic belief system is inherently amoral. The "morals" which exist under such a system are nonsensical in the abstract.

Susan, after 30 years in the pastoral ministry, I have found freedom from believing in any diety. I no longer believe in gods as described by the writers of ancient scripture. I find the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to be repulsive in his jealousy, murderous in his actions toward non-followers, and totally inconsistent in his relationship to the world.

I no lonber believe in dieties who either punish or reward you for believing unprovable doctrines.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to follow the god of Abraham. And they all tell the story of this diety testing Abraham's commitment by asking him to kill for god. All these religions now kill for god and country and use god for their example. Afterall, he killed the whole damn world except for a boatload.

I am finishing a book on "Our Connection to the Cosmos, and the Redefinition of God." My conclusion is that the term god is no longer helpful. I prefer to speak of the "Creative Life-giving Energy that exists equally in the stars and in mankind.

I am in awe, that without my selecting to do so and against all odds, I exist as a part of the Creative Life-giving Energy of the Cosmos. This Energy does not require that I worship it. It does not judge me and it cares not whether I am theist or non-theist. It simply invites me to participate fully in this Energy we call life.

Of course, there are no absolutes.

That is the thing to be remembered always and always.

Canyon,

You said it perfectly. AMEN.

Yes JD, you do have a point about Delusion.

Dawkins probably does blur the line between everyday usage where it is a false belief
and psychiatric usage.

It is sorta like saying to someone
"you're insane"
and using the term in its colloquial sense.

So I will amend my characterization of the individual Azenda. She holds a false belief IMO. She is not (necessarily) psychiatrically delusional. I would still recommend that she go to college.

peace
j

Being overrated is highly rational.

being rational is highly overrated.

Oh, one other thing. In science one learns not to bother stewing over questions that don't have answers. There are way too many questions that DO have answers and life is short (although thanks to science quite a bit longer than it used to be)!

"Personally, I am fine living in a world without absolutes. (matter of fact, it makes thing much more interesting)."

"(matter of fact, it makes thing much more interesting"

Is that an absolute?

There is more to science than collecting information. There is predicting NEW phenomina from the currently held laws of physics. That is the real value and purpose of science. Anyone who says otherwise has never done it for a living. Predictions is something that is done quite often successfully. It is also done unsuccessfully (when something is predicted that happens not to be observed), but that again is is a victory for science, since sciencetists are very good at self correction.

I am not going to explain to you the philosophy behind the scientific method (a. observation, b. hypothesis creation, c. verification, d. prediction, e. ...) that is something 5th graders learn, and
certainly does not warrant a nobel prize. If you are looking for absolutes, there aren't any in science, and maybe that's why you turn to your gods. Whatever works for you. Personally, I am fine living in a world without absolutes. (matter of fact, it makes thing much more interesting).

Dr. R. P.,

Along with everthing else, god created science, so science can certainly prove god's existence if god wanted it to ... unless god placed a limitation on science because god doesn't want his existence to be proven by science. Either way, god proves science and science proves god. It's really that simple.

Do you get it now?

Duckphup, Daniel, E-fav,

about law of nature: I think we fall into a semantic trap. You are completely right that "law of nature" means an observed recurring proportion, an if-then relation which we formulate into a statement of maximal probability, bordering to certainty but not identical with "truth". Law in the juridic sense means that people have come together to discuss how a society should respond to a given behavior. The two meanings are completely different, almost exclusive of each other.

I am not even sure if the concept of "law" has exactly the same connotation in all languages. In German it is "Gesetz", admittedly for both meanings, but the word "Naturgesetz" does not imply any necessity for consense, as seems the case in English, from what I gather in some of the simpler contributions here. Instead one could substitute "observed fact" for it. Fact inaccessible to opinion.

All religious "laws" in this semantical meaning are of the former character. They are conventions, never facts, never "truth".

Conventions can be discussed, changed by a majority of more or less intelligent people and still be "laws". Gravity is something you observe or don't observe (you are aware or ignorant of) but can't discuss.

D.R.

"So although you are correct that Faith is irrational, being rational is highly overrated"

Thanks for the most hilarious comment on the thread.

Susan Jacoby

What secular moral force could equal the religious meaning develivered to the Burmese ruling junta by the upturned alms bowls held aloft by the Buddhist monks?

This is a nice little piece on moderation in all things, but we got that in Ben Franklin's autobiography. I didn't presume you made a lucrative living lecturing on atheism, any more than I presumed the people who post biblical quotations here are making a living at it. I'm glad you confirm there's no money in it because there's, frankly, no sense in it either. I presume you are ingenuous in setting yourself up as a reviled figure, rather than disingenuous--i.e. simply hoping to stir controversy so there will continue to be an audience for whatever non-issues you discuss on the under-paying atheist v. believer lecture circuit. Granted, since Reagan elevated Bible-belters within the GOP, there has been some atheist-bashing, but--let's try to at least glimpse the larger picture--nonbelief has been the norm since the time of Hume. Sure, food fights break out between new generations of self-styled Christians and self-styled atheists, and in each passing generation, representatives of each camp scramble to achieve status as public intellectuals, with each claiming their own vilification as a selling point. I don't take the pitch, or see the intellectuality in the public presence of either camp. In the long-outdated Age of Reason rhetoric you use, faith is always a special case of reason, and atheism is always a special case of faith. Academic study of cognition and ethics is a century beyond you, and pragmatism toward global issues of survival presses on, rightly oblivious to your needless food fight. Though your personal line is moderation, your opinions are no more useful than Hitchens's or Pat Robertson's. Journalists and other media personalities are always trying to turn a corner and become educators--when their own primary education is in non-disciplines such as journalism. (Don't worry; I noted that you're also an art history powerhouse.) Education by our public intellectuals would set us back to well before the Age of Reason. So, at some point, would you consider getting up from the keyboard and donut box at your work station and perhaps team up with your Christian faux-foes to go dig some needed irrigations canals in Sudan?

I'm a pretty secular guy. Having delved somewhat into the philosophy of science (one great source for that, by the way, is the Teaching Company audio course by Professor Jeffrey L. Kasser), I've been dragged kicking and screaming towards Daniel's point of view: the philosophical foundations of science are a whole lot weaker than I wish they were.

This doesn't make so-called "revealed religion" one iota more truthful. It just means that, to my regret, I've had to make my expectations for finding "THE truth" in science rather more modest than they used to be. I've concluded that understanding the underlying reality of our universe (metaverse? whatever?) is going to be a much slower and more painful slog forward than I had once hoped.

Henry James,

Me philosophically sophisticated! Calling one who believes a story about angels and metal plates philosophically sophisticated on the Jacoby thread is indeed magnanimous!

A few items of clarification:

1) A delusion according to the DSMIV is a bizarre, non evidential belief, that is not derived from one's culture or social group. So if I as a western Mormon suddenly believed I was being bewitched it's probably the result of a chemical imbalance rather than a unified system of rationality. If the Azande believe it, it's probably not the result of chemical imbalance. Being chemically balanced human beings, it's safe to assume they probably have some sort of rationality to back it up (I don't think it increases anyone's credibility when a term like "delusion" is applied so unscientifically).

2) Note the difference between secularism and secular provincialism, they are not the same thing.

I could go into it more, but I must sign off.

Thanks for the exchange my friend.

Best to you!

Jd1

Dr rp

If there is such a thing as "laws of physics," then tell me what they are. I do not mean, give me alist of them such as "conservation of angular momentum;" I mean explain to me the true nature of this concept that you call "law of physics." What just is it? what makes it a law? how do you know it is a law? and what do you mean, when you say "law?"

I am merely saying that we have impressions of order, that we notice recurrent relationships, and that we use this observations as an accounting tool, to keep track of "things." But when we say that we have discovered the laws of nature or physics, we are attributing characteristics that do not exist. In as far as we can perceive, and conceive, and regarding what we have noticed, we have discerned some order, and we have developed some techniques of thinking, which help us keep track of things. We call of this "the laws of physics." The existence of these laws is an illusion.

And if there is a scientific basis for science, and a philosophy of science, tell me what it is. I am sure that if you were to come up with a good, valid, and understandable philosophy of science, you would certainly be heralded as a brilliant fellow, and probably get some sort of Nobel Prize.

I am getting the impression that you think that I am anti-science. I sure am not. This is your mistaken impression. I am just trying to promote thought outside the box. Science works as it does, for a reason that is unknown, and unexplainable; it just does. There is no valid philosophy of science which explains it, or proves any of its findings. It is really just a general agreement on an organized method of observing, collecting, and organizing information.

Sorry... noticed a missing word, just as I posted...

*** But that does not mean that we WILL ALWAYS "not know."

Susan Jacoby

What secular moral force could equal the religious meaning delivered to the ruling Burmese junta by the upturned alms bowls held by the Buddhist monks?

A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW wrote (SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 10:37 AM ): "first, you say that belief of the supernatural, i.e., that which contradicts the laws of nature, is irrational. I think your statement creates a strawman through your definition. God does not have to be "supernatural" and contradictory to the laws of nature. The truth is that scientists don't fully understand the laws of nature yet. Therefore, it is difficult to prove that the laws of nature preclude a God."

'Supernatural' is a cop-out word. It is the basis for all religion: When something cannot be explained, then make up an answer based in the supernatural, and accept it as a matter of 'faith'.

This all arises from 'cognitive dissonance'... the quesy, uneasy feeling that people see two 'truths' about the same thing, which contradict each other... or encounters something which screams out for explanation, but cannot BE explained. Profound, deep questions, such as "Daddy... what holds the sky up?"

The ideal cure for cognitive dissonance is 'knowledge'. But an ALTERNATIVE cure for cognitive dissonance is the ILLUSION of knowledge... i.e., self-delusion... a.k.a 'belief'... "God did it." The thing is, the ALTERNATIVE cure is a lot easier to come by than is the ideal cure... and it has the added advantage that it does not have to be discovered, taught, and learned... it just has to be swollowed. And once the 'god pill' has been swollowed, it conveys immunity to cognitive dissonance... whenever cognitive dissonance starts to appear, one invocation of the mantra 'god did it' makes it go away.

ADPOV wrote: "Indeed, extensive research by Duke University in the 1930's provided strong scientific evidence in support of ESP, which could be lumped in with "supernatural" events, but which if valid must somehow be consistent with natural law."

The whole premise of science is that everything that can exist or occur in the universe is, by definition, 'natural'. So far, we have seen nothing that contradicts that view. Now... there are plenty of things that cannot presently be EXPLAINED... but SO WHAT? I have personally experienced things which cannot be explained. For example, during the Viet Nam war, I was sitting at the desk in a hotel room in Taipei. I suddenly had a very strange feeling come over me, grabbed a sheet of paper, wrote the time and the words "dad just died." Long story short... when I got home, consulted with my mom and figured out the time-zone differences, I found out that my dad had passed away at the exact time that was writing that note. So... what does that experience 'tell' me? Only that we seem to be connected in some way that operates independent of distance, and is unmediated by the senses... and we do not presently have any idea of how things like that might happen. But that is ALL that it 'tells' me. Well... no... it also tells me that there is still a lot more that we still need to figure out, too. But even with this, I do not see a necessity to invoke the 'supernatural', or a 'god'. We just don't get it yet... that is all. What 'IT' is... who knows? Nobody knows... yet.

ADPOV wrote: "While I am not a physicist, I have read papers by physicists who argue that there are problems with the Big Bang theory as stated. One is that after the Big Bang, the gravitational forces would be so powerful that the explosion of matter would be forced to implode back on itself, thus not creating the universe."

And where did you find that physicist?... at www.answersingenesis.com? The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, in the conventional sense... and 'matter' did not even exist for some time AFTER the initiation of the event. .. and hence, neither did gravity. Any credible physicist would know that... hence, your source is bogus. Pleas provide us with a referencs, so we can be on the lookout for his name, in the future. Or... here's a tip. Whenever you find a 'physicist' who says something like that, just go to Goocle and type in 'debunk: "physicist name".

ADPOV wrote: "Another estimates the probability of the resulting universe to be comparable to shooting an arrow and hitting a target on the other side of the universe. this argument may have some flaw to it as any resulting universe may have such low probability of occurring, yet one universe would arise and this just happens to be it."

Oh, twaddle. Look up the 'anthropic principle'. And Doogle-debunk this one, too.

ADPOV wrote: "Still, in the presence of serious doubt about conventional scientific wisdom, it does seem rational to explore other hypotheses about how the universe came to be."

Serious doubt by whom? The scientifically ignorant? Scientists ARE exploring alternative hypotheses about how the universe came into existence. In the past, the answer, essentially, was 'magic'. What science has revealed to us is that resort to 'magic' does not seem to be necessary... that everywhere we look in the universe, we see complexity arising from simplicity, as a result of natural interactions between matter and energy and the multi-dimensional 'shape (geometry) of the universe.

ADPOV wrote: "There is no a priori reason to argue that there is no such thing as a God (nor is there one to argue for a God). Therefore, it does seem rational that given that we cannot fully explain the hows and whys of existence (science doesn't explain how atoms give rise to consciousness or even life), it is not surprising that multiple trains of thought have arisen and would continue to be investigated until one such train of thought provides definitive answers or until the trains of thought merge into a unified framework, which is what I personally believe will ultimately happen."

The reason that these kinds of things seem rational to you is that you do not seem to know how to think rationally. Appeal to magic... supernatural... 'God did it'... etc.... is not 'rational'. The fact that "...we cannot fully explain the hows and whys of existence" only means that we cannot fully explain the hows and whys of existence. That is ALL that it means... and that is why we continue to work on it. The religious attempt to conceal their ignorance under a cloak of self-deception and self-delusion... belief... the ILLUSION of knowledge. For the scientist, though, ignorance is not a bad thing at all... it merely defines his work-scope. For the scientist, there is joy in finding MORE things that he is ignorant of.

ADPOV wrote: "But it doesn't seem irrational to me to explore many options to understanding big, mysterious phenomena. What does appear irrational is to categorically rule out bodies of thought that haven't been proven wrong. Therefore, it is irrational for scientists to rule out religion and for religious people to dismiss science."

When Napoleon asked Laplace why he did not mention god in his book (a mathematical description of the motion of the planets, derived from Newton's laws of motion), he replied: "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis."

There is nothing that requires that we HAVE TO know and/or understand. Sometimes, the only intellectually honest answer to a question is "We don't know." But that does not mean that we ALWAYS "not know."

Religion is a capitulation to ignorance.

Speed123,

"As for atheists, on here, you seem to be a seethingly spiteful group of narrow-minded, self-congratulating ideologues."

Thank you so much for the kind words.

Although I really don't care one bit about what you think (because I'm narrow-minded and spiteful), thanks for pointing out what I knew all along (that I am always right and deserve credit from myself for being so infallible).

Another gold star for me ... no, make that two!

Sorry FreeStinker, but science does not work that way. It is the responsability of the one who comes up with the theory to PROVE that it is corrent by showing VERIFIABLE evidence. Until then, it means nothing. Stop trying to use scientific methods you obviously don't understand to prove the existence of your gods.

You certainly "don't get it".

JD
Moral sense may or may not derive from inherent divinity. we don't know. we can't prove that gods like Zeus or Yahweh do or do not exist.

We have LOADS of evidence that Moral sense in humans evolved. No evidence of divinity.

Certainly Azende witchraft beliefs can have some positive social consequences. Does that make them metaphysically true? Of course not.

Do we hate the Azende for having such beliefs? I don't. Do I think they are delusional. Yes. Can I prove it? mmm

I wouldn't say I "denounce" their beliefs. Again, I think they are delusional beliefs, as I think those who believed the world is flat were delusional. Does that make me an elitist? Ok, then I am a knowledge elitist.

I don't think people who are religious are suppressing their intellectual faculties. What I said was that a person who DID NOT believe couldn't fool themselves into believing because they thought it would make them happier in a Haidt sense.

Secularism may not solve the world's problems, but there is lots of evidence that education and wealth help solve most of the problems like homicide, rape, abortion, crime, infant mortality.

Those european countries who are at the bottom of religiousity and at the top in education and wealth do much better on these objective measures, and are just as Moral if not more so than countries with low levels of education and wealth (which are usually highly religious).
Peace and Love
Henry

JD on your other points

It is *conceivable* that there might exist a being much more intelligent than I (though unlikely) who could figure out how to part the red sea.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't consider the book of Exodus extraordinary evidence. If you do...

So it is not rational/sane to believe that God parted the red sea based only on the testimony of the Bible. Fun, but not rational.

It is equivalent to believing that Zeus came down last week and stopped the flow of the Mississippi. Possible, but insane to believe it. And if one believes it, one is, in my mind and that of many, a fundamentalist. Maybe a logically adept in computers great person, but a fundy.

Daniel,

You can argue all you want that there are no such things as "laws of physics". But I can tell you that the assumption that such laws exist is the reason that technology has progressed to where it is today. You take advantage of those "non laws" every single time you make a call on your cellphone or sit down to make a posting on this forum.

One has to assume there are physical laws to make any technical progress.

Oh, and by the way, there are philosophical and scientific foundations for the methods of science. I use them every day!

Hi JD

Knowing how philosophically sophisticated you are, you must realize that when you say
“I come from a field that assumes a person's beliefs are rational to them, and that failure to see the rationality is the result of provincialism, not objectivity”
you are saying that a person who claims to be Napolean is rational, and my doubt of his claim is the result of provincialism.
In other words, your statement is deifes common usage and understanding.
I may believe I am being rational in believing i am Napolean, and I suppose I am, in the sense of being logically consistent. But I am certainly delusional.

I take rational to mean these two things from many dictionary definitions
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.

I as Napolean and "reasoning", but not reasoning WELL>
and i am certainly not of sound mind, sane.

Yes, Speed123, we did "discuss semantics." You said I was an idiot.

Your comments are childish and silly.

Your comments are not appreciated here by atheists or by Christians.

Unless you have something useful, constructive, intelligent, or humourous to say, go take your rude and mean-spirit and post somewhere else.

Chip--

Am I a theist? No. Am I an atheist? No. I have faith in neither position.

Chip, you're proving my point for me. If you're going to force me to choose sides, I'm on yours. But why am I compelled to choose sides? What prevents a little nuance from creeping in every now and then? Are you prepared to label me a traitor to your cause because I won't espouse your orthodoxy?

From a late night dorm room bull session standpoint, I'll split hairs with you 'til the cows come home. From a public policy perspective, this conversation ought to be irrelevant.

A Different Point of View,

The Bible is scientifically valid until proven otherwise. Even then, it's still scientifically valid because god's contradictions are not scientific contradictions because they came from god. It's really that simple.

You just don't get it, do you?

Thomas Baum wrote: "TO SUSAN JACOBY and the rest of humanity: I've met God, He is real and He is a Trinity, I have also met satan. Even though Jesus really is Who He said He is, God is absolutely nothing like what a lot of people that call themselves christian say that He is. There is so much hatred being spewed out from all sides that it doesn't seem to make much difference what label people put on themselves. Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum"

As I mentioned to you before, in another forum... When you think that you're talking to god... that's prayer. When you think that god is talking to you... that's DSM-IV 295.7.

Hello Henry James,

How are you doing? I have a few reactions.

1). I come from a field that assumes a person's beliefs are rational to them, and that failure to see the rationality is the result of provincialism, not objectivity. Whenever I hear a person tout their own rationality as opposed to groups that disagree with them, I just here the same old tribalistic gobly-gook I hear from every other us-vs.-them social group on the planet. There’s nothing new under the sun and neo-atheism proves that.

2). It doesn’t really matter to me how many Biblical stories are literal or to be taken metaphorically, but I don’t think it is irrational to believe that God caused the red sea to split. My goodness James, human beings could probably conjure up the technology for that, why couldn’t a presumably more powerful Deity do it? The results of divine action will never be scientifically verifiable because they depend on divine volition, which cannot be controlled for. But that does not make it irrational to think that divine ACTION from time to time causes an irregular REACTION, just like human action causes irregular reactions from time to time (flying metal anyone?).

3). I would never say atheists are less moral than religious people. I think we all have a moral sense which derives from our inherent divinity. I just think it would be important to appreciate the positives among those who differ from us. I can appreciate, for example, that belief in witchcraft among the Azande allows social tensions to be dealt with openly. I wouldn’t denounce such beliefs as (add every negative adjective you can think of here) just because I don’t ascribe to them.

4) People who are religious are not so because they suppress their intellectual faculties for some emotional benefit. As Susan Harding notes in her monograph on Christian Fundamentalism in America, believers are such because they believe it would be intellectually dishonest to see things otherwise. It is intellectual honesty that maintains them in the faith. Perhaps you should pick up her book, it’s a great read.

5). Provincial secularism will not solve the worlds problems any more than any other type of tribalism will. I don’t really know if anything will do that. Perhaps adhering to at least enough epistemological relativism to understand how one can be rational and think differently than us will do more to unit us than divide us. It seems to me at least a better way to win friends and influence people than the technique most often employed. But perhaps such acquiescence cannot be allowed in the middle of a war for discursive hegemony. Ah well!

Must get back to work,

Best to you!

John

I believe William James concluded that God is what man needs Him to be as a result of his inquiry into the variety and forms of religious experience. This implicates "faith" as being volitional in nature, ultimately a matter of choice for the individual.
A brief look at history reveals that once a belief system designates its God as the one and only God, its rules and mores the one and only true set of rules and mores then conflict is sure to ensue. Tolerance and religion are not natural allies. Neither are tolerance and totalitarianism.
For myself I am skeptical of clearly defined answers to questions about God and the existence of God. This is one area of human inquiry not susceptible to certainty. The number and nature of God myths show the power of man's conceptions of the divine and his desire for intervention from above in the struggle of living in the world. I choose to believe in something greater than what I can see or know. That's my choice. That exercise of choosing to believe is one that can change over time and experience and is therefore subject to criticism from true believers on both sides of the debate. God and certainty is a potent mix, imflammable and often dangerous.

Denial,

I happen to have a job....and therefore don't have all the time in the world to discuss semantics with the like of you. (I believe we have done so before)

As for posting, I can do so where and when I want...

As for atheists, on here, you seem to be a seethingly spiteful group of narrow-minded, self-congratulating ideologues.

You (generally) attack people of faith personally (via infantilization) and then expect to be applauded for your objectivity?

Give me a break.

TO SUSAN JACOBY and the rest of humanity: I've met God, He is real and He is a Trinity, I have also met satan. Even though Jesus really is Who He said He is, God is absolutely nothing like what a lot of people that call themselves christian say that He is. There is so much hatred being spewed out from all sides that it doesn't seem to make much difference what label people put on themselves. Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Spencer,

You cite some scientific evidence reported in the Bible that seems to hold up. What about the following:

the Bible defines the age of the universe to be about 6,000 years where scientists believe it on the order of 13 billion years. If you look at the lineage between Adam and Jesus reported in the Bible, it says that man has also been around for a few thousand years which contradicts the scientific evidence found.

The Bible ascribes illness to demonic possession, something no doctor trained scientifically takes seriously.

The Bible says that faith will heal you, yet we had a pope (John Paul II) with Parkinson's disease. Did he not have faith? Are all of the religious people who get sick without faith?

The Bible makes reference to a Garden of Eden that does not appear to exist anywhere on earth, an apple that gives ignorant people the ability to see good and evil, a talking serpent, an ark that can hold two of ever one of the millions of species of life on the planet including a man able to round all of those species up in a short period of time.

As for morality, the Bible commands us to stone to death those who don't follow strict religious practices that generally aren't observed today anyway, teaches the contradictory practices of an eye for an eye and turning the other cheek, and would have us believe that we're all born into original sin and billions go to hell all because two people ate an apple thousands of years ago.

So while I would agree that the Bible has a lot of truly wonderful things in it like love and forgiveness, it also has some things that seem downright silly and smacking of the superstitions of the times. Rather than blindly accepting or rejecting the entire Bible and religion, we need to critically think about religion is telling us and separate the good stuff from the bad stuff. Unfortunately, we seem to be polarized and view religion as an all or none proposition.

To me, that seems the silliest position of all.

Duckphup,

We're like a bunch of mindless frogs sitting in a pot of cool water on the stove with the burner set on low. If it happens slow enough, we'll be cooked to death before we even realize that the water is getting warmer!

Everybody out of the pool!

Nice article.

I think the lack of civility that we see on these boards from certain atheists (or self-proclaimed ones, anyway,) gives short shrift to a lot of real atheists and agnostics: the pointless flaming of folks who feel the need to inject 'This is all fairy tales' is very akin to those who say, 'Without my religion, you're fools/damned/immoral/whathaveyou. '

Essentially, there is an idea of a conflict between reason and faith that tends to try and shut down debate and understanding: if one treats science as a 'rival revealed religion' then one does neither religion nor science any service:

While religion claiming to be exclusive and perfect truth can obviously be criticized based on factual errors, to try and dismiss science on these bases fails to understand what science is *for,* and what it is... namely, it's a *process* of understanding the repeatably-observable, and accounting for a massive body of observed phenomena.

These things really reach loggerheads when they're *treated* as truly competing for the same niche: quite often, actually, it's religion that tries to make 'scientific' claims about reality, in violation of evidence: also in claims of some higher authority over others that in modern society, it's simply not granted. One may say here that religion is over-reaching, and that leads to both conflict and poor understandings of religion and science, both.

Certainly, it's annoying when either fundamentalists or atheist flamers feel the need to walk into conversations between religions and insult both sides, and start spouting the usual broad insistences.

When people claim that either being a person of faith or a disbeliever precludes the possibility of human morality, than this is truly *dehumanizing* and in fact *demonizing* of other people.

Frankly, though, when people of the dominant religion get paranoid about atheists wanting to oppress them, this is really just an excuse to try and claim the very kind of dominion that atheists get pissed off about in the first place, and which certain Christians and others want for themselves.

When it comes down to it, these discussions have to take place in an atmosphere that acknowledges freedom and human dignity at the start, or it will degenerate.

It's undeniable that in these times, certain forms of religion are being used as justifiers of violence and oppression and marginalization, and this is bound to create an atmosphere of conflict.

The idea that atheists are really such a threat to religion, even when speaking in extreme terms, is really more convenient to the would-be 'holy warriors' who have managed to all but exclude people of different beliefs from their own government and civic life, than it actually is to atheists, whether they enjoy flaming on the Net, or not.

Spencer:
The bible also says that bats are birds.
Is that, in your estimation, a smart thing to assert, or a stupid one?

"But in looking at things anew, I have a strong sense that beyond our impressions of order is something vast, and awesome; yet at the same time, closed off to us, and unknowable, whose knowlege is, in fact sealed from our discovery."

I would only change the word "order" to "morality" and wish I could have expressed the sentiment so eloquently myself.

The "laws of physics" are not laws. I did not make this up. This is a common and frequent speculation among high level scientists. However, this kind of speculation would fall more under the category of "philosophy" than science.

Science works without any philosophical or even scientific foundation, our underpinning. It is just, as Duckphup has said, things we are "noticing." In fact, there is no "science of science." There is no philosophy that tells us how to do it, nor what any of it means; the phrase, "laws of physics" is, in fact not a scientific term, but a philosophical term--a term that makes us feel better, that we know something, that we really do not know.

This label "laws of physics" and such a conception as "laws of physics" is not necessary for science to work. So, not only is the existence of God in question, so also are the very laws of physics; and to believe in one or the other is not necesarily obvious, nor easy.

Duckpup - Your political forebodings are shared by many, but as a collective they probably represent small numbers. There are blogs and bloggers that share these very concerns and yet the covert and secretive activities of this administration are Machievellian at the very least - sometimes it's like they emerged from the 13th century fullblown and ready for a war of hearts and minds for Jesus and The Promised Land. The rule of law means nothing to these people as they follow a 'higher' law. The Supreme Court has the 'faithful 5' ready and in place.

But nope, the masses don't get it, and the apologists for these Whitehouse maniacs don't get it either.

The truly disheartening part is that the entire government seems to be sharing in the conspiracy by a general lack of willingness to confront the insanity. One wonders if this is more of the
'groupthink' phenomenon that surfaced during the Cuban missile crisis of the 60's - the entire government marching to a nuclear confrontation with a will. We got lucky that time with a last-minute stand-down.

These days we generally don't know what's happening until it's already happened - unfortunatley the media also seems complicit in the madness.

Sorry things degenerated into a political diatribe but this is religion and the mis-use of religion at it's very worst....and it's global in nature (we can thank the Sons of Abraham).

daniel wrote: "I said that the laws of physics have no more reality than mental book-keeping techniques, that we use to keep track of things."

Often, these 'laws' result directly from from the way we 'decide' to look at things. Take 'Ohm's Law', for example. We might marvel at the fact of how neatly power = voltage x current... it's a miracle. Or, we might just realize that Ohm figured out that it would be 'useful' to multiply voltage x current, and call the result 'power'.

Also, context is important. If we ask velocity-questions, we get velocity answers. If we ask position-questions, we get position answers. We do not get position-answers by asking velocity-questions.

Most of the 'laws' that we have 'noticed' result directly from the kinds of questions that we asked of nature. If we had asked different questions, or asked those questions in a slightly different way, the LAWS (as we articulate them) would be different... but the RELATIONSHIPS would not.

Chip,

Thanks for answering Rob with such clarity. Your posts are thoughtful and well-reasoned. You have expressed my own thoughts on this point very elequently.

The bottom line is that all moral systems/codes are relative to the humans who espouse and act on them regardless of the origin of those ideas.

Rob, "Morality in the absence of some universal truth (God, or what have you) is of course subjective. In my view subjective morality is ultimately meaningless. It is amoral - the absence of any real morality."

What are those universal truths? If they derive from a supernatural and unknowable source, how do you know what they are so that you can practically utilize them? Unless god has appeared to you personally and told you what they are then you must have heard them second hand, from the mouths and pens of man. The church has a pretty loud voice, and through much of its history it tortured and executed those who questioned their professed truths.

"Society could have your espoused morality of treating everyone the same, except that that's a great stated goal, but one never fulfilled - that's just not how humans have proven themselves to work. More likely and repeated in history time and time again (by the relious and non-religious alike), is that a foundation for a society has wonderfully stated goals but incredibly poor execution."

Even if your universal god-derived truths exist, they can only be acted upon through the aspirations of man, and their success in living up to them will be every bit as fallible as if those truths were arrived at by reason. So please tell me of what practical use your universal truths really are. They must still be interpreted, taught, understood, and acted upon by men, which makes them equal to ideas derived any other way, except that they are subject to the pitfalls I listed earlier - that because they aren't based on reason alone they can be asserted to be whatever suits a particular selfish agenda best (such as killing those who refuse to convert to someone's arbitrary assertions about what those universal truths are). Individual equality isn't subject to that kind of subversion. It's a simple immutable and logical principle that needs no supernatural origin to anchor its efficacy.

Duckpup gets it; almost no one else here does.

He said that the laws of physics are consistent realtionships that we have "noticed." That is a good way of putting it.

I said that the laws of physics have no more reality than mental book-keeping techniques, that we use to keep track of things.

Many people, many atheists do believe in the laws of physics. But I am not sure they exist. Yet I cannot help but wonder, about these impressions of order, which cause us to suppose that there are laws of physics. I wonder that I can have any impressions at all, of anything, and I wonder that my impressions are or orderly phenomenon. Susan Jacoby says that belief in the supernatural is irrational.

There is tradiational or historical thinking of the supernatural that it has to do with God and angels, and mediums, and seances, and black magic. And there is traditional kind of relgious thinking which is bound up with large political instiutions, such as the Catholic Church, as well as its many Protestant children, and with Islam. These traditions give alot of people heart-burn.

But in looking at things anew, I have a strong sense that beyond our impressions of order is something vast, and awesome; yet at the same time, closed off to us, and unknowable, whose knowlege is, in fact sealed from our discovery.

That, of course, is not scientific, and I do not try to justify it with any scientific proof; it is just my feeling.

And once again, I would point out that we experience our beliefs more than we choose them. That is why each person's belief is so very different from the other's and that is why coercive arguments are not likely to change anyone's belief.

I consider myself a Christian, i.e. I believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God. But many, many times over my 38 years have I wondered to myself why that is so. As someone who tries to think for myself, I could not help but come across moments where I was unable to rationalize my belief. My belief system was instilled by my parents, my grandparents, the nuns, the priests, etc. Essentially, I am adhering to a belief because I was told to, taught to, instead of discovering it somewhere in my life. But, I can't let go of it all the same. Am I afraid to? Am I worried that I may be wrong? Of course, I am! But that's what makes me human, I suppose.

If you are an atheist, you do not scare me, offend me, or enrage me. Many people who consider themselves religious have had their doubts. I have read your arguments. They're valid points. As far as the fundamentalist Christians go, their insults and aspersions against atheists really degrade their arguments in my opinion.

Fundamentalists say if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell. But why must I? And if God exists, why isn't the whole world Christian? God could wipe out this whole discussion by coming down here and saying hello. Everyone would believe. He doesn't, so that's where faith comes in. Belief in a God whose existence we cannot definitively prove. And because some people have a hard time accepting that, they are damned.

God gave us the capacity to critically think, but we are not to use that ability on matters pertaining to Him??

Daniel,

If you don't believe in the laws of physics, how can you call yourself a physicist?

"Laws" in physics are a lot stronger than any law a govt. passes. When you break a legal law, you could go to jail. However, there is no way to break a physical law.

I would say that laws derived from the study of nature are the true "devine" laws. But of course the difference here is that the laws of nature can be modified if new data comes in that refutes them.

You can make the argument that we don't know the absolute physical laws (or if they even exist), and I would agree with that. However, to assume there is some supernatural being(s) to explain everything we can't currently explain with science is intellectual laziness at its worst. It also violates Occam's razor, something else all good physicists hold dear.

to Speed123

Your comments are silly and childish.

Your comments are not appreciated here by atheists or by Christians.

Go post somewhere else.

Hi, Susan. Good piece. I'd like to expound upon one part, though...

You wrote: "But I respecfully disagree with Harris, Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, who have all suggested that "moderate" religion is even more dangerous than fundamentalist religion because moderate religion is the stalking horse for the worst forms of religious fanaticism."

I don't think that 'stalking horse' is really an apt analogy here, because it does not really capture the whole essence of what is going on. The fact is that Christian 'Dominionists' (Reconstructionalists, Theonomists) have been engaged in ursurping the local level political apparatus of the Republican Party, and are furthering a sub rosa process to politically motivate moderate Christians under the false cover of religious issues, such as morality and family values, under cover of front organizations like the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association and the Promise Keepers. The goal is nothing less than the takeover of all elective offices in the USA... including the highest offices in our Federal Government. They have been working from the bottom-up. Their ranks include such luminaries as Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy (recently deceased), John Hagee, the authors of the 'Left Behind' series (also helped George Bush get elected as Governor of Texas)... Sen. Sam Brownback (presidential candidate)... the list goes on. Oh, yeah... and some might even include our President on this list... as well as quite a few members of his administration... and their staffs. (All of this can be verified with a little independent research... so I'll go on about it no longer.)

Their doctrine comes from the Bible, starting with the term 'dominion' at Genesis 1:28... “And God said unto them, [Adam and Eve] Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have DOMINION… over every living thing.” They interpret DOMINION as: “... a supremacy in determining and directing the actions of others or in governing politically, socially, or personally.” www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

They want to remake the USA as a theocracy... and they are succeeding.

Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children via home-schooling and in private Christian religious schools. See: JESUS CAMP www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/trailer/

... and by subverting science...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=

Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly 'explain it' to them... from the bully pulpit... when they think that all the right people are in place.

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. There are two conservative Christian (dominionist) pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans.

OK... so far, this all just sounds like typical alarmist, paranoid 'conspiracy theory' nut-case hogwash... I know that. But this is really a much bigger story than what it seems so far... a story that accounts for why we're not making any real progress with regard to the environment and global warming, and why our national debt is spiraling out of control. The story that explains why the people who actually HAVE the power to DO something about these problems do not think it matters... they simply DO NOT CARE. Every now and then, though, some blabbermouth lets something slip, which provides a critical insight:

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and... know nothing but the word of God." ~ Martin Luther (This blabbermouth included for historical perspective, only.)

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

"I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, to a Congressional committee in 1981, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

It is NOT that the people who are high up in our government DO NOT BELIEVE that the destruction of the environment, and global warming are immediate and dire threats... it is simply that they DO NOT CARE about the threat. They BELIEVE that the return of Jesus is imminent... that this world will be destroyed, and a ‘new earth’ will be created for the ‘faithful’. They BELIEVE that is their 'Christian duty' to establish the necessary conditions here on earth such that they can hasten the day of Jesus' return. So, it simply DOES NOT MATTER that the earth may soon be unfit to support human life. For this same reason, they are not concerned about the burgeoning national debt... they simply don’t think that anybody will be around to 'collect'. They are NOT CONCERNED about future generations for the simple reason that they do not think there will be more that one or two future generations.

Of course, our ‘leaders’ cannot admit to this... if they were to do so, a large part of their ‘Satanically-misled’ constituency (those very same moderate Christians who you say are not a 'stalking horse') would denounce them and repudiate them. So... they prevaricate... they obfuscate... they lie... they deceive... they misrepresent... they delay... they ignore and even discredit the basic science that calls our urgent attention to these concerns. To them, it is no more than a delaying-game... a ‘rear guard’ action in what is (to them) a very real ‘war’... a war against Satan and his minions (you and me... Al Gore... Hitchens... Dawkins... Harris... Dennett... scientists... rationalists... tree huggers... environmentalists... bleeding heart liberals... you know, SANE people, in general) ... and they think that they are the ‘good guys’. What a hoot... the 'good guys'... intentionally and gleefully paving the path toward the destruction of civilization and humanity, believing that they are helping God/Jesus to put one over on Satan... in accordance with prophecy. In short... most of our leaders are QUITE insane.

This is REALLY serious... and nobody really seems to be paying attention.

These people think that they are the most moral of men... working dedicatedly and tirelessly to further 'god’s plan'. And since they are are working on behalf of ‘god’, they see absolutely nothing wrong with lying, cheating... whatever it takes to thwart and delay those who would interfere with “god’s plan.” In other words, lying to those who (they think) are doing the work of Satan is not regarded as a sin. They think that god gave man ‘dominion’ over the earth (from Genesis)... and they view it as their god-given duty to claim the earth, subdue it and use it... physically and politically... for the glory of god... and anybody that opposes those aims is, of course, working directly for (or deceived by) Satan.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ~ Martin Luther, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

This is the REAL story here... and it is a BIG story... bigger than Watergate... bigger than global warming itself... real ‘Woodward and Bernstein’ stuff. It needs to be told... and these crazies need to be exposed... and stopped... but nobody is really telling it... just a few lonely voices in the wilderness.

By failing to openly confront this insidious agenda NOW, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction, while these religious wing-nuts are paving the way to Armageddon with gleeful anticipation.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder." ~ Arnold Toynbee

This endeavor has been underway for some years now, and guess what? It's working. In 2004, 'dominionist' congressmen made their first move, introducing the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" (HR 3799 IH). The following proposed law will be added to Sec. 1260 of Title 28, Chapter 81 of the U.S. Code: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
 
Implications: Because the judiciary is 'an element' of the federal, state and local governments, this wording, if it becomes law, may allow any judge to institute biblical punishments without being subject to review by the Supreme Court or the federal court system.

www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/7/232755/118
www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HistoryOfReconstructionMovement.html
www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Clarkson_RiseOfDomionism.html

In response to Susan Jacoby’s statement, “But I respectfully disagree with Harris, Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, who have all suggested that "moderate" religion is even more dangerous than fundamentalist religion because moderate religion is the stalking horse for the worst forms of religious fanaticism.” Generally speaking moderate people are usually less “something” then fanatical people, but that something doesn’t necessarily include less of a threat to an opposing view. For example, if I am moderately pro-life, I am still on the wrong side of the abortion issue from a pro-choice perspective and consequently a threat to policy favoring those with that view. Recently, the Democratic candidates for President had to go before the faithful and essentially “testify”. I heard no moderately religious person stand up to say this was silly nonsense. At the same time, it is noteworthy and no coincidence that none of the candidates expressed atheist views. Religion vs. Atheism is a black vs. white issue not because Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens say it is, but rather because we are either guided by the hand(s) of some supreme, intelligent, magical power or we are not. History repeatedly proves the moderately religious keep the ball of religious nonsense rolling up the field where the intolerant fanatics snatch it up from time to time and take it even farther beyond the bounds of reality. It is true the fanatics do the direct/current damage and sometimes destroy people and societies in the process. I don’t think it can be successfully argued that fanatics merely coexist with moderates. With religion, isn’t moderation antecedent to fundamentalism over the long haul? I think Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are correct in suggesting that a moderate religion may be more threatening than a fanatical one because moderation keeps the wheel of irrationality turning.

Zennist - the issue of consciousness has finally become a fit field of study for science recently,
although oddly overlooked or ignored until transpersonal psychology began leading the way 30-40 years ago.

Now there seems to be two schools of thought in the West - consciousness as a secondary or epiphenomenal result of brain function, and consciousness as primary and/or independent of brain function. Esoteric schools that I'm aware of tend toward the latter, while not denying the entangled relationship between consciousness and matter during a lifespan (incarnation).

Zen Buddhism is certainly one such school, while nevertheless denying the existence of an eternally existent individual soul (anatman) - an independent stream of consciousness does continue in an unbroken chain of incarnations over many lifetimes (until the point of permanently sustained Pure Awareness (the Buddha Mind)or full enlightenment is reached) - this is the point that for me is much the same as the famous conundrum - what existed before the Big Bang??

The Tibetan schools are more direct with their scheme of gross, subtle, and very subtle bodies. A certain level of consciousness inhabits each body and each sphere of life (but all are dependent on Primal Consciousness or Rigpa, residing in the very subtle body).

A tantilizing question - what exactly is it that has always existed, if not consciousness?! The Dzogchen master says that once "it" has been realized, one achieves a relaxed and peaceful outlook, realizing that everything has already been accomplished.

As you implied, many atheists may opt for a fundamentally materialistic orientation, with no esoteric interest whatsoever - still, a pre-cognitive glimpse of the science of 100 years hence would probably appear equally esoteric to the contemporary mind.

You are correct that faith is irrational, but I don't think that fact really matters. You state all "belief" in the supernatural is irrational by definition? I would agree that the supernatural is contrary to the natural laws, by defintion, but that is just restating the obvious. But to say that the belief in the supernatural is irrational presumes that rationale is equal to "Truth." Pursuing the Truth is not irrational, and that's the ultimate goal of Faith.

Now if you want to discuss what is irrational, let's talk about fear. Getting joy out of watching a horror movie, and then praying (no pun intended) that the same villian you just watched die 3 hours ago is not in your house is irrational. Yet, Hollywood makes millions based on this "irrational" behavior.

Is it rational to think that nothing existed, and then suddenly, an explosion occured and a highly complex living system of millions of varied life forms began and now grows based on . . . the original nothing? That defies the law of cause and effect. Where is the cause? Is there a difference in believing in a theory and a God?

My point? Attempting to rationalize Faith is a flawed approach because Faith is based on an experience that is beyond explanations.

It seems oversimplistic to state that you believe or you don't. But that is actually rational.

The bottom line is that everyone believes in something or someone. The question is really who or what?

In the case of an Atheist, by definition, she must believe she is her own god. If nobody is in charge, you are in charge. Which is problematic for a god to be dependent on other self-reliant gods, for 18 years or longer. What god needs permission? Most of the people I know are driven but confused about what what they really want in life. That would include me, depending on the day. What we want changes constantly and is often contradictory from what our one true passion was last year, or last week.

So although you are correct that Faith is irrational, being rational is highly overrated.

You are correct that faith is irrational, but I don't think that fact really matters. You state all "belief" in the supernatural is irrational by definition? I would agree that the supernatural is contrary to the natural laws, by defintion, but that is just restating the obvious. But to say that the belief in the supernatural is irrational presumes that rationale is equal to "Truth." Pursuing the Truth is not irrational, and that's what the ultimate goal of Faith.

Now if you want to discuss what is irrational, let's talk about fear. Getting joy out of watching a horror movie, and then praying (no pun intended) that the same villian you just watched die 3 hours ago is not in your house is irrational. Yet, Hollywood makes millions based on this "irrational" behavior.

Is it rational to think that nothing existed, and then suddenly, an explosion occured and a highly complex living system of millions of varied life forms began and now grows based on . . . the original nothing? That defies the law of cause and effect. Where is the cause? Is there a difference in believing in a theory and a God?

My point? Attempting to rationalize Faith is a flawed approach because Faith is based on an experience that is beyond explanations.

It seems oversimplistic to state that you believe or you don't. But that is actually rational.

The bottom line is that everyone believes in something or someone. The question is really who or what?

In the case of an Atheist, by definition, she must believe she is her own god. If nobody is in charge, you are in charge. Which is problematic for a god to be dependent on other self-reliant gods, for 18 years or longer. What god needs permission? Most of the people I know are driven but confused about what what they really want in life. That would include me, depending on the day. What we want changes constantly and is often contradictory from what our one true passion was last year, or last week.

So although you are correct that Faith is irrational, being rational is highly overrated.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberatedwrote: "One can only hope you are not involved with testing bridges or building atom smashers or designing hydrogen bombs!!!!!!"

Daniel is quite right. The so-called 'Laws' of Nature or of Physics are merely consistent mathematical relationships that we have 'noticed'. For example the 'Law of Gravity' tells us that a body in free-fall will accelerate at a rate of 32 feet-per-second in a 1G gravitational field. Newton's theory tells us that this happens because of an invisible gravitational force-field. Einstein tells us that it is a geometric effect of the curveature of space-time. The fact is, we really don't know... but the 'Law' is still 'useful'... whether we can completely explain it, or not. 'Belief' is not really a relevant concept in this context.

TheRadicalModerate, RE "Still, I got taken to task on another thread in this forum--by an atheist--for professing mere agnosticism, when in fact he asserted that I was as atheistic as he was. The need to build a consistent dogma and attract as many folks to our "side" as possible is wired up deep in our nature. I can't but wonder what would happen if the atheists/agnostics represented 75% of the population. Would they be as dogmatic and coercive as Christians or Muslims?"

That was me, and I notice you chose not to address any of the points I raised, preferring instead to continue your "I'm not with those people" line of reasoning. Allow me to ask you a simple yes or no question. Are you a theist? No hedging, obfuscation, or qualifying please. Just yes or no.

Another home run by Jacoby!

One reason atheists are demonized by so many religionists is because religionists need a (straw) boogey man in order to sell their irrational worldview to their ignorant followers.

If their arguments were more persuasive, they would be able to stand on their own merits without resorting to irrelevant fear mongering.

But they aren't and fear mongering works with scared, prejudiced, ignorant people so they use it just like our religionist in chief President Bush. It's just how they operate.

Jacob,

boo hooo....ha! You have to be kidding me.

Atheists spend most of their time claiming that religious people are infantile, non-thinking sheep etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps, it is your spiteful actions/words that others condemn not you personally?

Ever think of that? Of course not....you are an "oppressed minority" in more ways than one, according to you) and can never be in the wrong.

Susan,

While the venom directed at atheists is not justifiable, neither is the smug dismissal of all religious people as irrational and ignorant. Sir Isaac Newton, an ignoramus by no one's estimation, was not only a brilliant scientist but also an avid student of the Bible. His scientific knowledge convinced him of the existence of a Creator, and his Bible study led him to challenge some doctrines that are still widely accepted today.

Particularly interesting is the assertion is that belief in the supernatural is, by definition, belief in that which contradicts the laws of nature. Such a statement assumes that there exists a complete understanding of natural laws, by which one may judge the validity of any and all claims of existence. Any scientist worth his salt would admit that we are striving for a better understanding of nature, but we have not (and maybe will not) understand everything.

I would assert that the existence of a Creator may, in fact, be completely natural. Respected archaeologists have devised elaborate theories on the reasons for cave paintings, including one about Cro-Magnon shamans that perhaps fell into trances and painted their hallucinations on the walls of remote caves. If a rudimentary cave painting requires intelligence, and perhaps even a culture, how does it agree with the laws of nature that the universe, the earth and the things on it could spring into existence unbidden? Indeed how do "laws" of nature exist without a legislator?

Furthermore, the Bible has been a victim of its stewards. The Bible holds its own quite well, scientifically speaking, without people mucking up things for their own purposes. For example, here are some things the Bible says:

- The universe had a beginning. (No problem there, according to the Big Bang)
- Larger life forms on earth appeared in a particular order - plant life, marine animals and birds, land animals, then humans. (Still OK)
- One woman is the mother of all humans on earth. (See mitochondrial DNA)
- The earth is round (check) and is unsupported in space (double check).
- Quarantine infectious disease carriers. And cover your poop. (Pretty sound advice for 3500 years ago.)

Not bad for a bunch of irrational, deluded simpletons, huh?

There are religious people on earth today who feel that the Bible can be trusted. These same people believe that belief in a Creator makes the natural world all the more fascinating and worthy of study. Their religion promotes respect for their neighbors, respect for women, political neutrality, the repudiation of war, as well as racial and internation harmony. So, some of us believers are not so dumb after all. For free speech to be really free, everyone should be allowed the dignity of our own opinion, however ludicrous it may seem to others. So let's agree on one thing -- I won't call you amoral if you don't call me stupid.

Ms. Jacoby's writing shows that it is possible for an atheist to be every bit as pompous, absolutist, self-centered, and vitriolic as the most hostile of religious believers. Certainly, she's writing to fire up the like-minded, rather than persuade potential converts, but her relentlessly pedal-to-the-metal writing style shares the same downside as Hitchens'. Eventually it shades off into self-parody as the reader -- even a potentially sympathetic reader -- starts to beg for her to slow down and breathe.

Daniel,

You noted: "First of all, I do not believe in the laws of physics