All Comments (247)

every religion has its issues and those who believe what they believe are entitled to it, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS they and or their children DO NOT impose their beliefs on others claiming everything they say is right.... maybe everyone needs to take take a class on world religions and geography to fully underdstand why each religion is they way it is.... after being raised catholic and attending catholic schools- The Catholic Faith is way to sexist and doesnt believe in the personal decisions one makes concerning their own bodies... the leaders of the religion which just so happen to be all men state they know what is best for all females etc...

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
Circular Flow Diagram
http://www.angelfire.com/ltoeynly/4s5.html

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
How To Tell Your Relationship Is Over
http://www.angelfire.com/xuzxvrlg/1189.html

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: ‘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?

Rick said:

"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?"

Many modern thinking people base their concepts of reality on a belief in the laws of nature. But study of high level physics reveals that the laws of nature are not laws, and have little to do with nature. They are the rules that goverm models that we imagine to simulate specific aspects of the physical world. The laws of nature are not real at all, but only exist in our own minds.

This is not important, when you are strolling through your day, brushing your teeth, filling up your car with gas, going to work, checking email, having lunch, and going home.

It only matters when you wonder about God and the beginning of the universe, and things like that. The Australian aborigines have a concept called "dream time" which refers to time outside of time, the time before anything was, but also including the present and the future.

This is a good way to think. The nature which we reflect is not focused enough, ever to inform us of some things. We have questions, and we search for the answers, but these answers are permenantly and forever sealed from our knowledge.

The questions that you pose are inherently absurd. You are really asking to be admitted into this state of "dream time" which is not accessable to human beings. The words we use are not right for this kind of contemplation. They lead us astray and into traps. The imply, infer, and assume meaning which does not exist, which is false, and which gives us false impressions of reality, a reality which, is, just itself, which we know of by way of impressions of order, impressions transmitted and received; transmitted through reflection of the world, received by focussing into consciousness; all these things, unknowable, unfathamable.

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).’

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
know
http://www.angelfire.com/pblzuz/1.html

overdeeming ordonnance xerotes dietrichite say laryngofission dark polycarboxylic
26074
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/2.html

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.

From another thread:

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.

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.

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?

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.

OCTOBER 3, 2007 12:46 PM

Daniel:

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.

October 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on October 3, 2007 10:13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rick:

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.

October 3, 2007 10:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments

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...

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

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.

By the way, 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

Have any of you seen the Australian/American You Tube hoax perpetrated by the creationist nut jobs? Here is a link to it as passed to me by a good friend (and true believer) on another thread:

‘…Here is a 3 minute video from the same show that has Richard Dawkins stumped and speechless when asked a question about evolution

(He’s the king of evolution theory)

He’s also a panelist that posts on these boards - I only had peripheral knowledge of him before I came to these boards-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

…its only 3 minutes long’

Daniel, how well do you know the Word of God?

You said,

"The Christianity which you promote is purely political, and you conveniently never quote directly from any of the scriptures regarding the teachings of Christ. I will not point them out to you, because you ought to know them already, but even if you do not, you are as free as anyone to find them and read them. It is your choice, also, to ignore them."

"Whoever acknowledges Me before men, I will also acknowledge him before My Father in heaven. But whoever disowns Me before men, I will disown him before My Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:32-39)

"He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Matthew 12:30)

You said,

"However, I can assure you that you can read and read and read, but you will never find this quote, "Blessed are the warriors, for they shall inherit the Earth."

You do not have to assure me of that if you have Scripture in mind. You are not quoting Scripture. (Matthew 5:5)

Nevertheless, the Christian is in a battle against the ways of the world. It is a spiritual battle that wages war against the Word and truth of God. "Did God really say?" (1 Corinthians 3:18-21)

"Dear friend, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." (1 Peter)

"Be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, stand firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of suffering." (1 Peter 5:8, 9)

Now that is a battle, which I will admit the Lord has won, but many things are waging war against the Christian.

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 3)

That's a battle. There is only one Gospel of truth. (Galatians 1:6-8, 11, 12)

"Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is their shame. Their mind is on earthly things." (Philippians 3:17-19)

The battle continues.

Daniel, you need to take hold of God's Word and trust Him in what He says.

You said,

"Only the loud-mouthed, and immodest Peter Huff's of the world would post here, and claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, and claim the authority of God."

Daniel, what authority has God left us with in this world? Are you the authority that we should listen to? How do you know? I never claimed to speak on behalf of all Christians. Most Christians are shamefully ignorant of the Word of God, in what it teaches.

"Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You establish the earth, and it endures. Your laws endure to this day [and ours too], for all things serve You." (Psalm 119:89-91)

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." (Psalm 119:105)

"How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to Your word."

"Yet You are near, O LORD, and all Your commands are true. Long ago I learned from Your statutes that You established them to last forever." (Psalm 119:151-152)

I see a picture of Christ, the incarnate Man, in all the Psalms, and it is He who we are to fix our thoughts and eyes on! (Hebrews 3:1, 12:2)

The previous post was me. Yes, I am griped by simple-minded, politically motivated, mean-spiritied Christianity, which is selfish and destructive, and only serves, even more, to undermine Christianity, in general. To suppose that Christians are at war with atheists is absurd and rediculous.

I know many, many, many Christians who believe as I do, only you would never see them in a million years posting their thoughts on a forum such as this. Only the loud-mouthed, and immodest Peter Huff's of the world would post here, and claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, and claim the authority of God.

Peter Huff said:

"Daniel, you do not know me or my nature. I use sarcasm and irony, yes, because sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that shakes some people into examining their worldview more closely."

Yes, I do not know you; all I know is that part of yourself that you choose to reveal on this forum. If you would like us to know a better part of you, then it is your choice to show us that better part.

This is not an appropriate setting to issue forth your endless Bible quotes. It is ill-mannered and rude. If you want to be involved in a struggle, then join the army and go to Iraq and fight your war there. If you want to quote scripture, and then go to your church, one where everyone believes just as you do, and then volunteer to teach Sunday School.

The Christianity which you promote is purely political, and you convenently never quote directly from any of the scriptures regarding the teachings of Christ. I will not point them out to you, because you ought to know them already, but even if you do not, you are as free as anyone to find them and read them. It is your choice, also, to ignore them.

However, I can ssure you that you can read and read and read, but you will never find this quote, "Blessed are the warriors, for they shall inherit the Earth."

Hi Daniel,

You said,

"This is not true. If you have confidence in your beliefs, then there is no battle."

How did you come to that conclusion? Not by the Word of God, surely.

The Apostle Paul said,

"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, WAGING WAR against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members..." (Romans 7:21-23)

See also Galatians 5:17, 18 or 1 Peter 2:11 which says,

"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which WAR against your soul."

As I said before there is a battle going on for the heart and mind. There is a struggle for the Christian, not to live as the world does although the Lord has already won the victory for us. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against evil spiritual forces in dark places. (Eph. 6:12)

"I urge you brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me." (Romans 15:30; also 2 Corinthians 1:8-11)

"In your struggle against sin, you have not resisted to the point of shedding your blood..." (Hebrews 12:4)

"I don't see any battle going on. There is only a battle if you step in their way to obstruct them. Why do that? If you cannot convince them, then you cannot. Is that so hard to accept?"

There is a battle going on. You need to open your eyes. We wage war against the values of the world that are in opposition to the values of God. (1 John 1:15-17)We fight against the kingdom of darkness. Let's not serve two masters. (Matthew 6:24)

"I have never "professed" to be Peter Huff's brother. I said I was a Christian; it is Peter Huff's appeal to Christian authority that is in doubt, among the many people who post here, including myself."

Do you not recognize the authority of the Sovereign Lord and His Word of truth?

"Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates His brother is still in the darkness...We love because He first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 2:9, 4:19-21)

"Peter Huff has a mean spirit, which he spreads all of over this forum, for all to see, but then denies it. Even his greeting to me was a sarcastic demonstration of this mean spirit."

Daniel, you do not know me or my nature. I use sarcasm and irony, yes, because sometimes sarcasm is the only thing that shakes some people into examining their worldview more closely. The Lord Himself used it on numerous occasions during His earthly ministry. Proverbs 26:5 says,

"Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

To confront false ideas, sometimes you have to show how absurd and senseless they are because the person will not listen to reason. You have to dig deep and show the person that they are inconsistent in their thinking and that this inconsistency cannot explain why things are the way they are. Their worldview does not let them see the truth of God's Word. But whether they ever come to believe depends totally on the Sovereign Lord, not on what you or I say.

It is funny when you challenge someone in their thinking, often they come back with the only weapon they have available, to call you names and insinuate that you are mean spirited. But when you play that game, it can also show the hypocrisy in your own thinking. I just wanted to point that out, because I myself have fallen into that trap many times before and probably will continue to at times.

Blessings!

Daniel,

You are a very wise man!

I agree, Gerry!

I see my "God" in nature and the universe. That is what I call awe inspiring.

Not some old book written thousands of years ago by some pretty strange guys trying to make me believe in fairy tales and horror stories.

I think that if the bible were the word of God, he would have written it and it would be very clear cut. Instead you have a whole bunch of stories pieced together in mostly incomprehensible passages, that require "interpretation".

Kind of reminds me of the ambiguous language used in government manuals where you need to get clarification from the policy writers of what the intent of the author was.

Besides there are just too many Xian churches, cults and sects, in addition to all the other religions and/or philosophies, to make them believable. All of them claim their way is the "right" way. I ask the "right" way to what?

I don't appreciate being told that I will forever burn in hell if I don't follow their doctrine, nor would I like to be reincarnated as a worm.

Oh, well, to each their own.

Once again, Peter Huff said:

"You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ."

This is not true. If you have confidence in your beliefs, then there is no battle. Whatever anyone else might say, in expressing their opinion in the belief in God, or in not believing in God, that is their opinion; I don't see any battle going on. There is only a battle if you step in their way to obstruct them. Why do that? If you cannot convince them, then you cannot. Is that so hard to accept?

Peter Huff said,

"Daniel, my professed brother..."

I have never "professed" to be Peter Huff's brother. I said I was a Christian; it is Peter Huff's appeal to Christian authority that is in doubt, among the many people who post here, including myself. Peter Huff has a mean spirit, which he spreads all of over this forum, for all to see, but then denies it. Even his greeting to me was a sarcastic demonstration of this mean spirit.

He quotes many disconnected verses from all over the Bible to prove his arguments. But, we all have access to Bibles and we can all read them if we choose to. It is not necessary to quote to us, these many, varied, and disjointed verses. He asks me to argue with his Biblical quotes, but I will not. I am not a theologian, and, besides, this particular question was about the cults, not about the finer points of Christian theology.

To try and move the discussion to a more sophistocated level, I said:

"Do we really choose our beliefs? I don't think we do; more than choosing our beliefs, we experience them, as a heritage passed on to us, through a complex of contingencies. And then these inherited, modified beliefs, determine our personalities, and who we are, more than the other way around. So, it is utterly pointless for the anti-Christians to yell at the anti-atheisists, and vice-versa, as though this hostile forceful argument could ever get anyone to stop believing one way, and then start believing another way. It just doens't work that way. It never will."

He has no reaction to this, which was my main, and larger point. How can Peter Huff claim to be a Christian, when his central concerns and central arguments have to do with proof that God exists, and the enforcement of this belief on all others? He remains indifferent, even unaware of the central teachings of Christianity, and what it means to be a Christian, and does not even seem curious in the least, about how to be a Christian. Memorizing the Bible and quoting from it at every opportunity does not qualitfy a person as a Christian.

He says that I am still drinking milk and have not progessed to solid food yet. I have a feeling that he is a young fellow, all puffed up with his Christian goodness, whom he feels everyone must get to know. I am getting old. I can assure Peter Huff that I have thought about all of this stuff a great deal more than he has. And I have encountered many, many Christians llike him before. I am not at all intimidated by his claim to greater Christian authority than I. As I have said several times, already, he is a small human voice, and no matter how loudly he exhorts me, it remains a small and feeble voice and not the voice of God.

Peter "The Bible Thumper" Huff,

Let us "thump" some of the bible together.

First "Paul's" epistles to Titus and also Timothy were, as per most contemporary NT exegetes, not written by Paul so copying and pasting passages from these epistles is "thumping" something Paul did not say.

With respect to the Letter to the Hebrews, Father Raymond Brown in his book, An Introduction to the New Testament, p 684, notes "Authenticity: Author not identified: later church attribution to Paul now abandoned. "

So again by quoting from Hebrews, you are "thumping" something Paul did not say.

And what would Jesus say about your false thumping?? Hmmm!!!!

"My good friend Peter suffers from the three B's i.e. he was Bred, Born and Brainwashed in a Christianity that has significant flaws in its foundations". I do apologize and can only hope that someday he will come to understand the true historic me".

Religious zealots would make excellent secular humanists if they could just be convinced of the difference between believing and actually knowing the truth of a thing - such a conversion is generally unlikely, what with the huge emotional investment associated with religious belief.

And to think everyone was born without a single belief - emotion was all and everything. Later on, after we've sorted through the indoctrination process of becoming fully socialized humans, beliefs that support our emotional security have become the very personal 'doctrines' that we seem to hang on to as adults - proof is not at all necessary.

It must be said that these often peculiar myths & subjective 'truths' that pass for self-evident
explanations of life's mysteries do seem real for the true believer. Here we see a couple of self-declared christians battering their opposition with the bible - and yet not on one single occasion has a universally indisputable objective truth been uttered...a truth that transcends all religions in it's utter correctness.

In fact, this appears to be emotion and nothing but emotion in disguise - masquerading as well established fact. This is ultimately why science and religion should never be confused with one another....

Europe is finally catching up, and is now dealing with creationism and intelligent design passing as 'scientific fact' in the classroom - it's getting to be a real political hot button issue abroad.

At the college level (we're not talking about Bob Jones University) there's never any confusion between the two - there's hard science and there's soft science. Social science and social studies belong to the latter, and includes the comparative study of religion(s). Studied academically, many things can be postulated about the structure and function of religion in human society, but never are the doctrines, rituals and beliefs of any religion held up as true or false -
Why?? Because that's not the point and metphysical assertions are not subject to proof in the ordinary sense. Why this approach is not employed at the high school level as an educational tool is a pitiful commentary on the effects of 'the politicizing of religion' in the USA.

For fundamentalists, religious zealots and true believers, children shouldn't be taught the skills and value of critical thinking, but should instead be indoctrinated just as they were - in mythologies that arrest critical thought processes before they get started. The emotional risk that challenges parental beliefs are simply too great. We usually inherit our religion from our parents and/or from our culure - purely a chance occurance.

In the end, as one poster stated, nothing is ever accomplished in debating a true believer - the defense mechanisms and beliefs are iron-clad and are both confirmed & re-inforced by opposition - a real exercise in futility but sort of fun anyway!!

Gaby,

yes, I love Google Earth. Not many years ago it could have served as a proof for the existence of god (Gottesbeweis), lol!

To me imagining all these incredible natural, VISIBLE miracles amounts to more spiritual "rapture" than any Sunday church visit of the pious.

Just the measuring technique is already so fascinating. Professionally superstitious people, like Peter Huff, of course would say that the distances measured by astronomers are wrong, since god can make that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 179 or 181 degrees, because god invented trigonometry.

I don't read his diatribes anymore. The bible thumping, the quoting obsession, the lack of intellectual honesty really gets on my nerves.

To me, positing a "Super"-natural being without the slightest try at understanding nature in the first place amounts to arrogance, ignorance and megalomania. Nature, with its inscrutable miracles does not incite awe in these mentally challenged people. They regard it as insufficient, think they can look down on it condescendingly, not worthy of research: Instead they demand belief in some outdated, helpless, pitiful attempts to explain the world, dating thousands of years back.

Any candidate for a Ph.D. would flunk if his sources were not up to date. Here it is the contrary: The more outdated, the "truer"!

Desperate.

Hello again Daniel,

You said,

"In Christianity, we are instructed to love our neighbors and to treat our enemies well. This is really hard; almost impossible. Almost no Christians even seriously give it a try, because of the very nature of this impossible instruction. It always seems more important to focus on the difference in other people that make them so objectionabe, and the try and persuade them, or force them to be less objectionable, that is more "like me."

As Christians we are instructed to present the truth in love to unbelievers. What God does with the truth is up to Him. (Isaiah 55:8-11) If I am going to present the truth I am not going to cover it up with compromising words. I do not mean harm in telling others of the grace and mercy of God. For someone who is bent on their ways of suppressing the truth, all I can do is show them why, without God, they cannot make sense of this world. As someone once said, it is like one beggar telling another where he can find a loaf of bread.

Are you trying to prove God without the use of His Word of truth? (John 17:17)

I admit, I make many mistakes, just as you do, but to say I am being untrue to what the Bible says without offering the proof from the Bible is just confirming that you are still drinking milk and have not progressed to solid food yet. There are certain things that God has confirmed to me from His word and by His Spirit. Those things I take hold of as a firm foundation.

Well, it is time for bed. All God's blessings are in Christ Jesus! (2 Corinthians 1:20; Ephesians 1:3)

Daniel, my professed brother,

In response to my statement,

"You forget my friend that there is a battle going on here, and it is for the hearts and minds of people like you and I and everyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ."

You said,

"The only battle is the battle that is going inside of Peter Huff's head. As I said before, the authority that Peter Huff claims to speak in the name of God is not a true authority, it is just his small voice, one voice in a multitude of voices; why should I perk up and respond to his more than any of the others?"

My authority is the Word of God. Since you call yourself a Christian, why are you doubting that what He says is true? (Hebrews 6:17-19; Titus 1:2)

That just makes you look very ignorant of what the Bible teaches,

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand....Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6:10-13, 17)

"What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you?...You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God. Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:1, 4)

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses." (i Timothy 6:12)

That is good advice Daniel.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated, you asked. Is your only recourse now to call me names?

Freestinker said,

"Gerry,

Contrary to what many theists would like people to think, atheism does not imply absolute disbelief."

You are right there. To say that there is no or lack of evidence that God exists is to show that the person making the claim believes that what he sees and how he understands the world is not explained by God, but he has (from what he sees and observes through a myriad of things) a better explanation.

"Theists intentionally mis-represent our position to make atheism appear to require faith."

It takes a tremendous amount of faith. You are resting your suppositions on the fallible minds of mortal men in explaining such things as truth and morality, yourself being the judge and jury.

"Atheism merely asks for evidence before any particular belief is accepted."

Not true. Atheists are not neutral in their belief. They have made up their mind on the evidence that appeals to them.

"We do start from a tentative presumption (with a high probability) of non-existence but that is very different than a firm absolute conclusion of non-existence."

That is a belief. You assert certain things to be true, but as an atheist, by nature you are a skeptic. What evidence would you ever accept?

"Our minds are generally still open on the subject, we just ask for solid evidence before we believe."

Not according to the Bible. (Romans 1:18-2:1) It states that all men have a knowledge of God, it is just not the same kind of knowledge a Christian has - one of special as opposed to general revelation.

You are accusing me as a Christian of being wrong, and more specifically, the Word of God. That is a belief. It is made up of a network of beliefs that makes you arrive at your opinion.

"The burden of proof is on believers to support their positive claims. Atheists are just agnostics waiting for real evidence before we believe."

The burden of proof is upon both believers and non-believers. You are making a claim as well as I am.

I can use the same kind of logic I keep hearing atheists use. I am an A-atheist, or to clarify that statement, I do not believe there is such a thing as an atheist, just someone who is suppressing the knowledge of God. So I am making the claim that there is no such thing as an atheist. Since I have stated a negative claim, the burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise.

A lack of belief in one thing is a belief in something else, unless you are totally ignorant of any support for your own position. In that case you are more blind than you claim the Christian is. You are willing to bring up your opinions that the Bible is not reliable, that no God exists or there is a lack of evidence for God's existence. What evidence do you have for your claims that are contrary to the Christian position? Please make sense of this.

I know that the natural laws and uniformity of nature will remain the same today, and tomorrow, as they were yesterday because God knows the future and has revealed it in His Word.

"As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (Genesis 8:22)

Since He sustains "all things by His powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3) and since "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1 17)

I am certain of these things. How about you? I have already read the posts from atheists on this forum that say that they cannot be 100% certain about any thing. How certain are you that your position is true?

Peter "the Bible Thumper" Huff,

Dream on!! And my your "pwtfft" protect you from the demons of the demented.

Hello Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You said,

"You seem to meet God on a regular basis. How about inviting the rest of us? Please invite Moses also and the rest of the mythical characters of the OT."

"The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." (Revelation 22:17)

Now you have the invitation. May the Sovereign Lord have mercy on your soul. The Good News is that only Jesus Christ saves sinners from their sin. There is no other Savior.

Hello again Realist. Sorry, another long post. To continue your thoughts,

“He lies, he deceives, he changes his mind, he kills lots of babies; he advocates incest. What he does with Abraham and his son is despicable. He seems like a very nasty character. He certainly seems very confused or at least very hypocritical.”

There again, Realist, what you say definitely confirms that you do not know God or His decrees. You are ignorant, but very wise in your own eyes! This however, God has already confirmed in His Word. (Psalms 14:1)

About incest, how do you think Adam and Eve’s children populated the world?

There again the covenant changed with the Abrahamic and then the Mosaic law and economy as the people prepared to go into the Promised Land. They progressively learned more about God in His revelation to them. Jesus gives us some insight into the Mosaic economy as to divorce when He replied,

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8, 9)

Notice what Jesus confirms from the beginning,

“’Haven’t you read,’ He replied, “that AT THE BEGINNING the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the TWO will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (vs. 4-6)

So this business of more than one wife was not something God intended from the beginning. Man’s rebellion and disobedience is what causes division. That is the case in how men treat the captives and how they treat slaves too in times of war. But I do not believe God condones cruelty in slavery, regardless of the kind, or human sacrifices for that matter,

“You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fires of sacrifices to their gods.” (Deut. 12:29-31)

“If a man or a woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of His covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun, moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” (Deuteronomy 17:2-6)

So justice is to be established by two or more credible witnesses. There are similarities between the law practiced in Old Testament Israel and our law system of today. The witness must be proved reliable. (see Exodus 23:1, 2, 7, 9) You don’t just go out and stone someone to death as a vigilante group. God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Remember also that the Bible records many things that God does not approve of, and will judge according to His standard. What gives you, the Realist, the right as a creature to judge your Creator when you cannot even provide a good explanation for the existence of morals?

So although God allowed slavery in the Mosaic economy, it was not the kind that you give examples of. Slavery in the Old Testament, although historical, in one sense was a shadow and type of the Lord Jesus Christ, in submission to the Father on the behalf of those who would believe. In another, God used it to judge those in rebellion to Him. The term is again used in the New Testament by the apostles, in an act of love for their Master. You can read about Hebrew servants or slaves in the OT in Exodus 21:1-6. What more respect and love can you show to God but to recognize His majesty and worth and humbly bow before Him in service?

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Exodus/exodus_31.htm

You said,

“He certainly doesn't follow his own ten commandments. His prerogative I suppose, but it doesn't say much for the existence of absolute standards of morality.”

That is your assertion. You said,

“There were actually two sets of ten commandments and they are different. The first set (Exodus 20) that Moses smashed in a fit of rage and the second set (Exodus 34) where God apparently forgot what he wrote the first time.”

Here is what the first passage of that chapter says,

“The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”” (Exodus 34:1)

I don’t see anything that would tell me that the LORD forgot anything that He had written the first time. In fact the text explicitly states that the words written on them were the same as were written on the first tablets. There again, you show your ignorance of the Scriptures and how poorly you interpret the Bible. Plus you do this repeatedly in your allegations.

“The New Testament God is a much kinder gentler creature, except he's still got issues. The New Testament is an improvement on the old. Obviously the authors of the New Testament had learnt something from history.”

He is the same in every respect, just revealed more fully to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus said,

If you really knew Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him…Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:7, 9b)

He also said in John 10:30,

“I and the Father are one.”

That ties into the Old Testament, when Deuteronomy 6:4 says,

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

You continue,

“But the basis of New Testament morality makes little sense (the old "eye for an eye" stuff makes sense even if it is barbaric.) First God makes us all inherit Adam and Eve's sin, so we are all guilty of something that we didn't do.”

Yes, we have and we are guilty. You have broken God’s laws and rebelled against Him, as have I. We do what our ancestors have done, we call God a liar, we decide for ourselves what type of morality we will and will not accept by putting ourselves in the place that belongs to God alone, and we proudly display this knowledge before our fellow men as we ignore our Creator. (Genesis 3:1-6)

“The punishment is eternal torture (what a kind and loving God he is!).”

A just God who does what is right and who does not “wink” at evil; it will be judged either in the Person of Jesus Christ or in you.

“And then he sacrifices his son (who is supposedly completely innocent) to himself to convince himself to change his mind and forgive us for being the way he made us. It really makes no sense at all!”

God does what He has done to save His creatures without compromising His goodness and justice.

Again, you confirm what the Bible has already revealed,

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19)

And again,

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21)

I could continue, but there is no point, except to say that God calls all men everywhere to repent, for one day He will judge mankind. He has give proof of this by raising Jesus Christ from the dead. (Acts 17:24-31)

“Was it just for dramatic effect? It's all about punishing the innocent so that the guilty can be spared. I haven't even started on the nonsensical conditions on how we take advantage of God's "generous" offer.”

As a sober note, God cannot be mocked. One day, unless you repent of your sins, you will indeed be punished. But unless the Sovereign Lord changes your disposition I expect to hear more of the same.

“There are numerous books written by people who write much better than I do that you could read: e.g. The God Delusion" and "God is not Great" - both excellent books that go into this subject in some depth.”

Again, they are the writings of sinful men, with a certain disposition (for no one is neutral), who are puffed up in their pride and rebellion. My friendly atheist, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”

“Why should you accept my opinion about morality? You shouldn't accept my opinion just because I say so! You should listen to what arguments I present to justify my opinion and if you agree with them, you should accept my opinion.”

I don’t accept your opinion of morality. It does not make sense. I have listened to such opinions many times before and cannot find a way in which you can justify them as being right.

I said:
The God described in the Bible seems to change his mind about what is right and wrong.

Peter Huff replied:
"That is not true. Remember that God made covenants with people and nations. Different stipulations were revealed by these covenants."

OK, I see now. God has different rules for different people and nations. Thanks, that's much clearer now.

Peter Huff wrote:
"But the point I'm making is that there is a correct way of interpreting Scripture, otherwise God would be totally incomprehensible."

Yes, but every different (fundamentalist) sect will tell you that their way of interpreting Scripture is the correct way and everybody else's is wrong. But your particular one just happens to be the only correct way to "interpret" the Bible.

Do you still think that God communicates clearly? I don't think so. If the Bible was clear, there would be little need to "interpret" it.

I wrote:
"In the Old Testament, God seems to be all in favour of slaughtering your enemies without mercy and taking their women as slaves."

Peter Huff replied:
You presuppose that these peoples are innocent in their worship of false gods and that they have not broken God's commandments. God is judging these nations fo