Feed on Posts or Comments 18 April 2014

Christianity Thomas on 27 May 2010 12:08 am

Is there any evidence that Jesus actually existed? No.

Think about it – is there any real, tangible evidence that Jesus ever existed? Most Christians would answer instantly with, “The Bible!” Yes, there is the Bible, but the Bible is a work of fiction rather than fact. It turns out that, in the same way that there is no evidence for Noah’s worldwide flood, and no evidence for the exodus, there is no actual evidence for Jesus while he was supposed to be living:

Did a historical Jesus exist?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness’ own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Any normal, rational person would take this at face value. Jesus, like God, is imaginary.

198 Responses to “Is there any evidence that Jesus actually existed? No.”

  1. on 27 May 2010 at 5:53 pm 1.Eliyahu Konn said …

    You are correct about no physical evidence of a man named Jzeus of the 1st century. However, there was a Jewish Ribi, which means both a judge and teacher of the 1st century named Yehoshua ben Yoseph. The tomb where his bones were likely found is in Talpiot, Jerusalem, Israel. You may want to Google “Talpiot Tomb.” There is objective historical and archeological evidence for this man who was 180 degrees opposite of Jzeus. http://www.netzarim.co.il

  2. on 27 May 2010 at 7:16 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Thanks. This clears it up. The Talpiot Tomb is very highly improbably the tomb of the historical Jesus’ family. See the link to Duke’s religion department below on the topic held at Princeton conference.

    http://dukereligion.blogspot.com/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html

    Our boy Elijah up there is schnooking Christians looking for Holy Land Tours. On the plus side, an Israeli fulfilling folks desire to maintain Jesus fantasies is less criminal than the vastly more odious and common practice of brazenly stealing farms from Palestinian peasants.

  3. on 27 May 2010 at 7:17 pm 3.Observer said …

    The number 2 post was from Observer

  4. on 28 May 2010 at 9:45 pm 4.adi said …

    fine and gorgeous

  5. on 28 May 2010 at 10:18 pm 5.Biff said …

    How about the Bible, the Koran and the writings of 1/2 dozen early church followers. That is just the start.

    He dies 2000 yrs ago so I doubt you can find an eyewitness but the writings are plenty proof. The writings in the Bible are even from numerous authors. I’m not much on conspiracy theories myself especially one of this magnitude.

    I assume you guys are not sure about any human beings actually living 2000 yrs ago huh?

    Desperate times boys….

  6. on 29 May 2010 at 7:37 pm 6.Observer said …

    Biffy- Thanks again for the incisive insight. 2000 years ago folks were earnestly writing about Zeus. Folks are still writing about Shiva. What is your point? Unlike Plato, and his student Aristotle, what we now call Jesus, and his merry troop of conspicuously unmarried guy pals (don’t ask don’t tell?), didn’t write anything.

    Don’t you in your heart of hearts think that the whole Jesus story is a load of bollocks? Hence the need for so much faith? There was not doubt a bunch of Joshua ben Josephs (although the NT says Jesus was a bastard) running around back then. Sort of like John Smith. Do you really think some of them could fly and raise the dead yet f-up so badly they let themselves be crucified? Aren’t you getting rather bored with this nonsense? If Jesus loves you, and even if your life is great, why isn’t your life better?

    Religions is the best crowd control ever found. That is why it is still around.

  7. on 29 May 2010 at 9:56 pm 7.Biff said …

    “why isn’t your life better?”

    I don’t see how it could be better. My life is as close to perfect as possible. Jesus has made this life full and the one to come is even better.

    Pulling up other beliefs in no way disproves Jesus. You will not be able to do so I would advise going back to “man is shoddy workmanship” or stick to your homosexual blasts.

    BTW, one of the disciples WAS married. I’ll let you look into that one. Jesus also is responsible for Mat 19 which further blows away your gay theory.

    Do you hate gays too?

  8. on 30 May 2010 at 7:06 am 8.Severin said …

    5 Biff
    I will not try to disprove existance of a man called Jesus. There are some indications that many tramps and idlers walked around at that time to „preach“ about benefits of different variations of new religion.
    It is possible that the name of one or more of them was Jesus, or a variant of it.

    WHAT makes the biblical Jesus different from other tramps (preachers, “prophets”) of that time? He was crucuified the same way as thousands were crucified at that time. It was COMMON penalty then.
    Weren’t two pickpockets crucified too, together with biblical Jesus?

    The ugly part of the story that makes him different from other tramps is:
    christian church misused the death of poor guy to glorify „mercy“, „love“ „care for humans“ … you name it… of their god.
    As many other things, christian church did it very clumsy!
    Counterproductive!
    Let’s see what happened there, according to Bible:
    First, the poor guy was „honoured“ to be proclaimed the son of christian god.
    God saw humans were doing sins aginst him. To forgive them their sins, and to “save” them – of what? of his own anger?, he sacrificed “his own son”, condemning him to cruel death, to induce mercy in HIMSELF to pardon humans for their sins.
    VERY logical and extremely moral! To kill your own son to induce mercy for humans in yourself!
    But, as an allmighty and all knowing creature god KNEW people will continue doing sins, so he sacrificed the poor guy for NOTHING.
    Except, maybe, if you have in mind his „taste“ from other biblical stories, to enjoy the performance!

    Didn’t he give detailed instructions how to prepare animal burnt offerings for him, because he liked the smell of burnt meet?
    Maybe he also liked the smell of fresh blood of “his own son” and enjoyed seeng him on the cross.

  9. on 30 May 2010 at 4:18 pm 9.Observer said …

    Biff- The only people I hold animosity toward are those willingly ignorant. It is one thing to be stupid, that is forgivable, but to remain willingly ignorant is not. I admit there is a gray area where people are too stupid to realize they themselves are quite ignorant. Unfortunately, that is where most the theists on this blog seem to fall. Regardless…

    From my previous post, how can you possibly construe it as something along hating gay folk? Are you stupid? Probably, but your actually reveal your own feelings and beliefs. Your inference, actually reaction better describes your slimy slug of Christian “thought” to the crystalline salt of reason, is a reflection of your painfully obvious not-too-clear thinking due to lack of ability and/or practice; you latched onto the intentionally baited provocative phrase “conspicuously unmarried guy pals” and by extrapolating to me “hate(ing) gays too” manage to reveal your own mental framework, not mine.

    Nothing better could be expected of you.

  10. on 30 May 2010 at 9:27 pm 10.Horatio said …

    Biff

    O only hates those who reside in our southern portion of the nation. Don’t expect much thinking, tolerance or common sense from our pal aka Buster.

    Buster’s entire purpose for bringing up the possibility of gay disciples was, of course, an attempt to smear Jesus and his disciples thereby implicating himself as a homophobe. One who perceives himself as the ultimate males would likely be a bit uneasy with those of the gay persuasion.

  11. on 30 May 2010 at 10:53 pm 11.Observer said …

    Hor- Perfect. You must be as dull as Biff. You see, you are the one who makes the connection that being gay is something which is worthy of a smear. You took the bait too. I am surprised. My best hope was just to be offensive to conservative Christians. I did not think someone, let alone two of you, would run with it. You do not realize when you are being mocked. There is another joker who was posting who took my mocking Southerners as proof positive that I was an anti-Semite. Then he started claiming to be a Jew which given other things he had said made that pretty unlikely.

    I will grant you that as a rule I find Southerners awful. Sherman did a half-assed job. Every officer who wore a gray uniform in the War of Southern Liberation should have been executed as the traitor he was. The country would be a much better place today if that had been done.

    As for being uncomfortable with gays, what do I care? I am not wired that way. But I do appreciate erotic attention from just about anyone. Bi for now Hor.

    Anyone read Prigogine yet?

    Cory, have you gotten fluent in first semester freshman Physics yet?

  12. on 31 May 2010 at 12:42 am 12.Horatio said …

    He even admits hating southerners! 10-1 he is a Truther as well. What a complete mess and yet he has the chutzpah to offer reading material to fellow blogger. “How to hate others and justify it” by Buster. A catchy title yes?

  13. on 31 May 2010 at 7:05 am 13.Severin said …

    Horatio&Co

    As expected, and as all the time happens on these pages when theists can not find arguments for further discussion, they turn discussion to:
    a) poltics
    b) personal offending

    so avoiding to say their real personal opinions (if any!).

    Ladies and gentlemen!
    We are atheists!
    We do not believe there is god.
    We do not believe god created universe or life.
    We believe (supported with scientific arguments) that universe started with the BB, the life started spontaniously here on earth, and most probably on many other planets in the universe.
    That is our standpoint and the base for discussion.

    In one thing I can not speak for other atheists, although I think they would agree with me: I personally have no complaints if someone thinks there is a “major force” which somehow “triggered” the BB.
    I do not think so, but if someone does, we can continue to discuss THAT matter.

    WHAT are we discussing here and now, and all the time?
    HOW to put arguments on the table if yoy, gentlemen do not show your positions as clearly as we do?

    What the hell are you?
    In which god do you trust?
    Can you finally tell us something about your real orientation as clearly as we (atheists) did:

    Is earth 6000 years old?
    Did biblical god create it, and made man from mud/dust/dirt, or some other superior being triggered life here?

    THAT are essential data for further discussion. If you do not express your opinion about such important topic, all your discussion here is just a junk – WHAT are you defending?
    WHAT is your BASICAL opinion, your BASE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION?
    Shall we ever hear it from you, or will you all the time keep your opinion hidden, and attack from comfortable position: “we did not say anything, and you are idiots for what yoy said”.

  14. on 31 May 2010 at 7:56 am 14.Severin said …

    Horatio & Co (Lou, Xenon, Merlin…)

    To see the difference: unlike you guys, Corey is an honest person.
    He (she?) showed us what position is he starting his discussion from.
    Of course he could clearly see our position, and if something was unclear, we explained it.
    He NEVER offended anyone, and no one ever offended him.
    He (unlike you) defended his opinion with arguments he thought to be the right ones.
    Corey never mocked to anyone, and no one mocked to him ever.

    Many honest people believing in god took part in this discussion, and none of atheists offended them ever.
    We ONLY exchanged our opinions and arguments, but we knew WHAT to discuss.

    With you, there is no chance to guess what the right topic of the discussion is, at all: you hide your position and wait people around corners to hit their heads, like thieves.
    You provoke and hit without sayin anything concrete from your side.
    You are demasked demagogues (you, Lou, Xenon, Merlin, etc).

  15. on 31 May 2010 at 2:50 pm 15.Ken Browning said …

    I’m not much on conspiracy theories myself especially one of this magnitude.

    One of the remarkably consistent aspects of human cognition is the ability of large groups in every generation to swallow the latest flavored kool-aide. You know, the Mormons have eye witnesses to the golden plates. Joseph Smith and many others died for the cause and still they flourished. That’s historical testimony! Are you converting?

    Fortunately, we are not dependent on historical information provided only by the LDS.

  16. on 31 May 2010 at 2:59 pm 16.Observer said …

    Severin- You have a clear head and are faultlessly earnest. Keep up the good work.

    Hor old boy… Thankfully there is Wikipedia and the Urban Dictionary. I had no idea what you meant by Truther. I thought it might mean a rationalist as opposed to a theist, but alas it is someone who believes the 9/11 attacks were a US conspiracy, which is of course nonsense. It is a splendid non sequitur, but I am not sure it works. Are you a fan of Zippy comics? I am.

    Cory- Keep reading things that are written by people who want to expand knowledge and understanding, namely scientists, versus those who aim is to contain and limit knowledge and understanding to the confines of dogma- theists are historically the best examples of this.

    Remember, the primary goal of religion throughout history has been to control people.

  17. on 31 May 2010 at 4:40 pm 17.Horatio said …

    I thought it just followed Buster. Truthers are made up of those who consider themselves to be the more intelligent of our species. They typically have two-three letters behind their names. These are the guys I’m sure you find to be your peers.

    You probably would find many Truthers among the “red necks” of our species. Alas, they refer to themselves as Truthers. My apologies if the title throws you.

    I see frustration expressed. When one’s worldview does not follow their own set of guidelines (proof at every turn) in order to divert attention one would rather pick a part the opponents worldview. It can be disconcerting when logic is turned on your upon your own beliefs.

    Zippy comics Buster? I pictured you more a fan of Archie Bunker.

  18. on 31 May 2010 at 8:40 pm 18.Severin said …

    17 Horatio
    Wouldn’t it be much easier for you to just tell us WHAT ARE YOU BELIEVENG IN, instead of doing pathetic tirades?

    WHY is it SO complicated for you to just tell us:

    DO YOU BELIEVE IN BIBLICAL GOD?
    DO YOU BELIEVE BIBLICAL GOD MADE UNIVERSE?
    DO YOU BELIEVE BIBLICAL GOD MADE MAN?

    HOW can we talk with you if we do not know WHAT are YOU talking about?

    What is it with you to hide your opinion: fear, ignorance, complexes…

  19. on 31 May 2010 at 9:13 pm 19.MrQ said …

    “What is it with you to hide your opinion: fear, ignorance, complexes…”

    Maybe it’s shame that keeps them (Xenon, Horatio, Merlin, etc) from professing an allegiance to a particular deity. Comes out better after the wash if it’s just some generic christian god, unlike the one that Corey believe in. As was pointed out earlier, at least Corey is up front and honest about his beliefs, good on him. Horatio will only go so far out on a limb to say he’s a Libertarian.

    So, -X,H,M, etc- care to expand a little on your beliefs? 6000 YO Earth? Noah’s Ark, did the boat float? I think it’s apparent that you all take ID over evolution.

  20. on 01 Jun 2010 at 2:03 am 20.Xenon said …

    “I think it’s apparent that you all take ID over evolution.”

    What does this mean? DO you really believe a choice must be made here? This is probably why you don’t understand theism and nobody desires to keep spelling it out for you.

    I am a theist who believes a deity designed and sustains creation. The same deity guided the process of evolution and maintains a presences in the universe today. I don’t know anything about the deity other than His work. Sorry to disappoint. Where you pissed at Antony Flew as well?

    Pretty simple. Hope you are able to follow the thinking there.

  21. on 01 Jun 2010 at 2:44 am 21.MrQ said …

    Xenon, Xenon,

    Just pointing out that there is a difference between the gods and beliefs of the scientists (including Flew) and yours. What was it that Flew said about the afterlife? Oh yeah…He hoped it wouldn’t happened. How about you Xenon, does this piss you off?

    Still no comment on the other common christian beliefs. Do you agree with Corey that Noah’s Ark is a true account or that the age of the Earth is 6000 years? There is a huge range of delusion here. Where on the spectrum do you fall? Easy answer might be to say what branch of religious beliefs most resembles your position. Scientology, Mormon, Rael, Phelps Baptist, ….Don’t be ashamed, Corey isn’t.

  22. on 01 Jun 2010 at 6:38 pm 22.Marcus said …

    I’m still waiting for Corey and Xenon to offer up a single shred of evidence that a sky fairy actually exists.

    Still, we live in hope.

    Maybe on the next thread, eh.

  23. on 01 Jun 2010 at 8:41 pm 23.Xenon said …

    “Oh yeah…He hoped it wouldn’t happened. How about you Xenon, does this piss you off?”

    Nope, why should it? You desire me to comment on Christian beliefs? Ok.

    The flood? yes, I believe there was a flood of great magnitude at one time. People groups from around the world have written records in their ancient documents.

    Which branch of religion resembles my own? Your concern is breath taking but why do you care? Well lets see, I do not know since I am not a member of one. I gave you the brief synopsis so why don’t you attempt to pigeon-hole my beliefs and save me the trouble. Does theism not work for you – it does for me. It is quite amusing to see how frustrated you guys get when you just cannot pigeon-hole all human beings.

    Sorry Marcus. I have no proof of a Sky fairy. I hope you don’t believe in fairies as well. Proof of a Creator is in creation. I know you, of course, will refuse to look at what is so obvious but you just can’t see the forest for the trees. Timber!!!!!

    Got proof of life jumping out of the the ancient Chicken Noodle soup there Marcus?

  24. on 01 Jun 2010 at 9:28 pm 24.Marcus said …

    Xenon,

    No, of course I don’t have proof of “…life jumping out of the the ancient Chicken Noodle soup.’” No one does. Yet.

    And those of us of a rational disposition would never have the temerity to make such a claim until we have the proof. (Which, like it or not, keeps on building up. Relentlessly. Day by day.)

    And that is, of course the difference between us, isn’t it. While there are thousands of highly reliable sources that can educate you about the feasible origins of the universe, based upon scientific evidence that has been researched and corroborated, you choose to rely on blind faith. Blind faith in something for which you haven’t the merest shred of evidence. Blind faith that is based on the writings of iron-age goat-herders who couldn’t explain rainfall, let alone where all this came from and what it all means. Blind faith in an invisible sky fairy who refuses to talk to us.

    I can’t disprove that there isn’t some terrible, unseen, uncommunicative god up there in the clouds who made everything, who sees everything, who knows everything. But quite frankly, I’d be worried about my mental health if I did.

  25. on 01 Jun 2010 at 9:39 pm 25.Xenon said …

    “you choose to rely on blind faith”

    I keep hearing not yet! Thats not how a ratiionale atheist should think. You ONLY believe what is proven!

    Oh well, I see you are still completely clueless. That would include the chicken noodle soup theory, yes? Blind faith is believing life just sprang into existence without the assistance of an intelligent creator. We believe the same facts, you just believe natural causes are that intelligent to bring the theories about. You do not even realize the large number of these scientist who believe in a creator!

    No cracker jack, you are the one running around on a wing and a prayer. The difference between us is that I know these scientific theories, if true, cannot come about by blind chance. You, well you probably are ready to buy my bridge in London.

    I cannot disprove life springs into existence through pure chance, but I’d be worried about my mental health if I did.

  26. on 01 Jun 2010 at 10:54 pm 26.MrQ said …

    Xenon
    “Which branch of religion resembles my own? Your concern is breath taking but why do you care?”

    Basically it establishes a starting point of what to discuss and what does not need to be discussed. For instance, the flood is something which you believe in but you fail to make mention of the ark. Unlike Corey who buys the flood/ark/2x animals version as well as a 6000 year old earth. At least with him I know that light duty science has next to no meaning. With you, who knows? No need to be ashamed about your beliefs, they are what they are.

    “I don’t know anything about the deity other than His work. Sorry to disappoint. Where you pissed at Antony Flew as well?”

    And I should be pissed at Flew because……? Not pissed at Ken Miller or Francis Collins either. Good on them for enlightening the world with good ole’ science.

    For the faithful, no matter what the evidence shows there will always be room for a creator working behind the scenes. Just how that translates to “Jesus is king” or “Allah Akbar” or whatever is for the believer to justify to their self. Personally, I’ll just stick with the facts.

  27. on 02 Jun 2010 at 3:11 am 27.Xenon said …

    “Good on them for enlightening the world with good ole’ science.”

    And they have enough sense to realize there is a creator. You mention these guys with reverence but fail to mention they believe in a Creator.

    There is always room for a Creator because without one none of it makes sense. You should do like the scientist you mention and follow where the evidence leads.

    You claim to stick with facts but I bet you still follow the soup theory. Your “facts” don’t match up with your beliefs. That’s is where the atheist becomes hypocritical.

    LOL, and as you keep mentioning I have NO shame in my beliefs. I am quite set and comfortable with them. They match up well with anything else out there.

  28. on 02 Jun 2010 at 4:35 am 28.MrQ said …

    Xenon
    “You should do like the scientist you mention and follow where the evidence leads.”
    But wouldn’t that just make me a puppet? Much like following Dawkins to where his evidence leads. Isn’t that something you and your ilk continuously complain about; that we atheists are just following someone else’s ideas? And now it’s OK since it generally meshes with your ideas of god. No thanks, I will keep my mind open. If the evidence irrefutably leads to god or gods or pink unicorns as the creator(s) of the universe, then so be it. Why put the cart before the horse like you have?

    “You claim to stick with facts but I bet you still follow the soup theory. Your “facts” don’t match up with your beliefs.”

    The only difference is you say life rose out of the soup because god breathed into it? Or are you a young Earther (6000 years, isn’t it?)
    I say the rise of life was a natural event. If life is found on Mars or Europa or elsewhere in our galaxy, it should serve as evidence to back me up. But you can always say goddidit, as I am sure you would.

  29. on 02 Jun 2010 at 7:43 am 29.Marcus said …

    Xenon

    “The difference between us is that I know these scientific theories, if true, cannot come about by blind chance.”

    Let me see if I can follow that torturous piece of logic: You know (somehow) that even if scientific theories can explain life, the universe and everything, god must have made the scientific theories?

    Is that really what you are trying to say?

    Do you even know what it is you are trying to say?

    And you have the nerve to call me clueless! (falls about laughing)

  30. on 02 Jun 2010 at 11:22 am 30.Xenon said …

    “The only difference is you say life rose out of the soup because god breathed into it? Or are you a young Earther (6000 years, isn’t it?)”

    Let me help you out once again. You are believing in something with absolutely no proof which has never been observed to take place. Do you have pictures of the soup monster? Is this not the reason you believe in no God? Scientist believe in God so why not believe that?

    I admit my worldview is somewhat based on faith/common sense. If proved wrong, I will adjust. You claim you use no faith in your own worldview.

    Well, I know you do maybe it is time to admit you do as well.

  31. on 02 Jun 2010 at 2:59 pm 31.3D said …

    30.Xenon said …

    Let me help you out once again. You are believing in something with absolutely no proof which has never been observed to take place. Do you have pictures of the soup monster?

    Do you have pictures of the inside of a star? No, but we know what’s inside by examining the evidence, how they behave, etc. We don’t have to send a manned spaceship inside on a suicide mission to snap Polaroids.

    Anyway, this is a good example why people are asking you what specific creation story you believe in, the one you’re still apparently ashamed to talk about (all we know is you think a flood happened).

    Because if you believe in the ‘God created everything and doesn’t interfere’ model, then you probably WOULD believe in the first cell being initiated by a confluence of certain chemicals (just with the small twist that it was initiated by God, rather than right-place, right-time chemical reactions). Most likely, you would not be mocking it.

    And that’s fine, that’s the religious model that many scientists believe in, and, like Severin, I’m not really one to argue. If you want to call the forces that got the universe going “God”, that’s fine by me.

    But if you believe in Adam and Eve and a 6,000 year old world, and that God guides all of the universe’s events along and judges our behavior, then you would be more likely to have the position we are seeing here — hostility to the ‘chemical reaction’ theory of the first cell. Because it contradicts what the Bible says.

    So my hunch is that you are a full-on young Earther. But we just want to clarify what YOU think happened, so we can either agree or argue against you; rather than have a vague argument assuming points that you may or may not believe in because you’re still too afraid to say exactly what your belief system is.

    Is this not the reason you believe in no God? Scientist believe in God so why not believe that?
    I admit my worldview is somewhat based on faith/common sense.

    Your worldview (what little we know of it, since you’re still not admitting to it) is not based on common sense. It is based on bad logic.

    You infer that there is a creator, because the world is complex. That’s OK, if you follow it all the way down the line and assume an infinite regress of creators. Like the old lady in the lecture hall who had the courage of her convictions: “It’s turtles all the way down.” But then you abandon that logic and say that the creator didn’t have a creator.

    Why? Why stop at 1 creator? If the universe is complex enough to infer a creator, then surely God must be even more complex, and he had a creator too. Who knows, maybe it’s just more convenient for you to wrap your brain around it when you stop at 1.

    I actually stop at 0 — matter has always existed and nothing set it in motion. I’ll re-evaluate if new evidence comes to light, but in the meantime, that makes the most sense to me.

  32. on 02 Jun 2010 at 3:43 pm 32.Xenon said …

    Do you have pictures of the inside of a star?

    No, but they exit and are 3D therefore the inside follows. Where is the soup creature? Show me one shred of evidence that causes you to believe? You are working on faith, like the rest of us.

    “Anyway, this is a good example why people are asking you what specific creation story”

    A Creator created the universe through the BB. How much more clear can it be. I wasn’t here so his methodology is not available. Again, I know you would like to pigeon-hole everyone but theism really seems to allude you. Please look the word up so you can understand.

    “You infer that there is a creator, because the world is complex.”

    I see no need to go past one intelligent creator but if you would like to assume more, go ahead. I see no need to add redundancy following Occam’s razor.

    I actually stop at 0 — matter has always existed and nothing set it in motion.

    You don’t even see how humorous that statement is for one who suppose to be rationale. You work on no faith, correct? Where is the proof? Remember, you only believe what can be proven. Even with all that, you still don’t follow your own standard. Do you believe the pyramids just built themselves as well?

  33. on 02 Jun 2010 at 3:54 pm 33.Anonymous said …

    20 Xenon
    “I am a theist who believes a deity designed and sustains creation. The same deity guided the process of evolution and maintains a presences in the universe today. I don’t know anything about the deity other than His work.”

    If you recognize a deity which sustained creation and guided evolution, why do you have problems with “chicken noodle soup”?
    Was your deity able to move elements and compounds together in the “soup”, to make the first living cell, or not?

    So we have a common “deity”, you and I, we just call them different names: you call it “god” (“deity”), I call it mathematical necessity.
    Because, whatever you might say to it, mathematical probability DOES say: if something is possible to happen according to natural (deity’s) laws, IT WILL HAPPEN, sooner or later, if you just have enough time for trials. No chance NOT to happen, if it only was possible to happen, and enough trials were made. Finlly, the probability law itself is “his” law!? We know it, we understand it, and we are not going to just neglect it, are we?

    We should also agree in another important point (I do not see any obstacles for our agreement about this point): our deity DID NOT leave written traces of his work! He did not leave ANY sort of SPECIAL traces, for humans, except the universe itself (“…his work”, as YOU said!)
    He never talked to anyone, he did not “create” A+E from dirt, he did not write or dictate Bible…..Bible is NOT a “word” of THIS deity!
    Do we agree?

    THIS deity DID not ask anyone to worship him, ever! He did his job, and never gave a sound from himself. Maybebe he is still doing something, but how could we know it?
    There is also some probability that he is doing nothing, and did nothing ever, in the past, but nature and natural laws did the job.
    You and I will never know it!

  34. on 02 Jun 2010 at 3:55 pm 34.severin said …

    Sorry, the last one was I, Severin

  35. on 02 Jun 2010 at 7:05 pm 35.Marcus said …

    Xenon

    As usual you are spouting disingenuous nonsense by claiming that evolution is all well and good, but actually god started it and ‘guides’ it. Isn’t that just a bit like saying that while we might be able to state that carbon dating unequivocally proves that fossils are millions of years old, that’s really just god joshing with us because in reality there’s nothing In the universe older than 6,000 years? He just makes it look like it’s SO much older because he ‘guides’ it that way.

    At the risk of being rude, you talk nothing but complete and utter shite, mate.

  36. on 02 Jun 2010 at 8:05 pm 36.Xenon said …

    “disingenuous nonsense by claiming that evolution is all well and good, but actually god started it and ‘guides’ it.”

    No, as I follow the theory of many other scientist. It is quite obvious – but if you can show a common sense approach to self-creation be glad to entertain the idea.

    “fossils are millions of years old, that’s really just god joshing with us”

    LOL, What? Uh, no because a Creator is obvious, well at least to the more sensible of us. R U dragging fossils into this to muddy the primordial waters?

    I expect you to be rude. You are out of ideas.

  37. on 02 Jun 2010 at 8:48 pm 37.3D said …

    32.Xenon said …

    Do you have pictures of the inside of a star?
    No, but they exit and are 3D therefore the inside follows.

    No, I didn’t mean “whether they exist”. I meant what the the insides are made of. We know how stars work. “Not having a picture” of it is irrelevant. There are other ways to figure thins out other than having a snapshot of it.

    Where is the soup creature? Show me one shred of evidence that causes you to believe? You are working on faith, like the rest of us.

    The evidence is that the amino acids, which make up the basic building blocks of life, can synthesize themselves in nature. We haven’t observed this to happen in a way that makes a living organism, but given enough time and the right conditions and environment, it’s easy to envision how it could happen, especially in atmospheric conditions that differ from that of current Earth.

    So no, it’s not faith, it’s logical assumptions based on what we observe. If more evidence is discovered and another logical picture comes forth and eclipses that, then I’ll change my POV. That’s not faith, that’s being rational.

    Faith is what you do — having a preconceived notion and ignoring any evidence to the contrary, cherry-picking facts and figures to fit your worldview.

    A Creator created the universe through the BB. How much more clear can it be. I wasn’t here so his methodology is not available. Again, I know you would like to pigeon-hole everyone but theism really seems to allude you. Please look the word up so you can understand.

    You should get the word right before telling me to look it up. You mean “elude”.

    Anyway, I’m glad we have established that you believe the Big Bang happened — that’s a good start.

    But I also wanted to know, what else do you think God did? Did he create the Universe through BB, create life a few billion years later? And after that, what else does he do? Answer prayers and stuff? Or just sit back and watch?

    I see no need to go past one intelligent creator but if you would like to assume more, go ahead. I see no need to add redundancy following Occam’s razor.

    This seems like a major point you are blowing off, so I will ask again. Is there 1 creator, or did something create the creator? You don’t seem to have a very strong opinion on it, which is weird.

    You don’t even see how humorous that statement is for one who suppose to be rationale. You work on no faith, correct? Where is the proof? Remember, you only believe what can be proven. Even with all that, you still don’t follow your own standard.

    No, you’re wrong — remember, I don’t argue with the idea that a god set the universe in motion and then stayed passive throughout. So I’m not opposed to a creator in that sense.

    There is absolutely no proof of anything happening before the BB, or even if “before the BB” has any meaning that makes sense at all in the first place. So, since we have no clue about it, I see no reason to stick a God before the BB and say he set it in motion. Because all that does is open up more questions, like how did he get there?

    The mysterious existence of matter is “god” enough for me. I don’t need a parading line of turtle gods behind it. Your mileage may vary.

  38. on 02 Jun 2010 at 9:37 pm 38.Ralph said …

    THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION
    “The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then.” (“Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence,” Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)

    “Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)

    “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) The Cambrian period (thought to have started 540 million years ago) is a huge evolutionary enigma. Scientists at one time postulated that evolution of phyla took more than 75 million years. Even that period of time was vastly insufficient for this major evolutionary step. Now Darwinists believe that this happened in a few million years. Supposedly nothing but blue-green algae and bacteria lived for billions of years and then in a geologic instant all of the major types of animals sprung into existence! This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

    “The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising…. The introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple. Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? …If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” (Kay, Marshall, and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History, 1965, 736 pp.102-103, as cited in Morris, 1974)

    “Before the Cambrian period, almost all life was microscopic, except for some enigmatic soft-bodied organisms. At the start of the Cambrian, about 544 million years ago, animals burst forth in a rash of evolutionary activity never since equaled. Ocean creatures acquired the ability to grow hard shells, and a broad range of new body plans emerged within the geologically short span of 10 million years. Paleontologists have proposed many theories to explain this revolution but have agreed on none.” (Monastersky, R., “When Earth Tipped, Life Went Wild,” Science News, vol. 152, 1997, p. 52.) The problem has become more acute as recent studies in developmental biology make clear that mutations expressed early in development typically have severely deleterious effects, including mutations in crucially important “master regulator” or hox genes. The problem has led to what geneticist John F. MacDonald has called “a great Darwinian paradox.” He notes that genes that vary within a populations affect only minor aspects of form and function, while genes that govern major changes – the very stuff of macroevolution – apparently do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism. (McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaption: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observations,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1983 14:93)

    “Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).

    While many of scientists have commented about the “missing links” in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, “Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.” (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)

    Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”

    Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days. “Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. …The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.) Today, Gould writes, “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness… Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Evolution of Life,” in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)

  39. on 02 Jun 2010 at 9:43 pm 39.Marcus said …

    Xenon

    I’m sorry for being ‘rude’.

    However, I’m sure you think that by coming onto forums like this and wasting the time of the people who disagree with you by obfuscating and distracting with your inane conjectures is really terribly clever. And I’m equally sure that you think it is actually a worthwhile exercise because it just kind of gets in the way, and stops people like you from ever having to really intellectualise any of your pre-historic beliefs.

    But, you know what, when I read things like the following I just despair for humanity. This isn’t an adult debate, it’s like trying to have a conversation with a feckin’ house brick. I mean, read it and be ashamed:

    “…I follow the theory of many other scientist. It is quite obvious – but if you can show a common sense approach to self-creation be glad to entertain the idea. “fossils are millions of years old, that’s really just god joshing with us” LOL, What? Uh, no because a Creator is obvious, well at least to the more sensible of us. R U dragging fossils into this to muddy the primordial waters?”

    Seriously. What the feck does that mean?

    Much as I disagree with everything you believe in, I do worry about you.

  40. on 03 Jun 2010 at 1:07 am 40.Observer said …

    Ralph- What is your point? There are things to learn in the world? Astonishing.

    Anyway, for all the Christians who are unwilling to delve into Prigogine, this might be more up your alley (Xenon, Lou, Hor, and cohorts)…

    http://www.fixedearth.com/

    One of the recent video links got me to some shorts of Feynman. I had forgotten what a great spirit and mind he was. It is too bad he died so young. His “Lectures” are great.

  41. on 03 Jun 2010 at 5:44 am 41.Jesuslover said …

    One thing I’d like to say for those who believe or not… God is a God.. He is not a man.. He thinks like a God.. not a man… obviously we, human can’t fathom how great He is.. because we cannot contain Him.. He is God… Many people can’t understand that simply because they won’t allow the Holy Ghost to come into their lives.. that’s why they are lost.. Do not be so stubborn not to believe on Jesus. You know that you yourself can testify that there is really God. Have you aver felt the longingness in your heart even when you already have everything you had? possessions, relationships and everything but still you felt empty.. It’s because only God can satisfy us. Jesus is coming… do not be fooled by the false beliefs or no beliefs at all. Remember we cannot save our own selves. Only Jesus can save us from the fires of Hell.

  42. on 03 Jun 2010 at 10:42 am 42.Xenon said …

    “I don’t argue with the idea that a god set the universe in motion and then stayed passive throughout”

    Hey, we are making progress. You are a theist!

    Now, why would you think a god who created would stay passive? If God is that powerful why would he sit back and observe. If he was active early it follows he would active after the fact.

  43. on 03 Jun 2010 at 11:19 am 43.Severin said …

    42 Xenon
    “Hey, we are making progress. You are a theist!”

    So am I, and my deity calls “mathematical necessity”. When I compared my deity to your deity, I did not see any differences, axcept in name.
    Hey, we are making prodgress. You are an atheist!

  44. on 03 Jun 2010 at 1:49 pm 44.3D said …

    42.Xenon said …

    “I don’t argue with the idea that a god set the universe in motion and then stayed passive throughout”
    Hey, we are making progress. You are a theist!

    No, I said I don’t argue with it. That doesn’t mean I BELIEVE it.

    I just don’t argue because there’s no point to it. If you and I agree that the universe has no beginning, and that the scientific processes we observe all happened without any interference from supernatural beings, then it doesn’t matter what you call the First Cause of it. It can be Big Bang, or God, or Buddha, or whatever else, because we don’t know.

    So up to that point, we can find some common ground, even if we don’t totally agree on terminology.

    The problem comes in when you assume that the thing that is the First Cause is actually an anthropomorphized, superpowerful version of a human being who endorses animal sacrifices and gets really mad at you if you jerk off. As you are about to do below:

    Now, why would you think a god who created would stay passive? If God is that powerful why would he sit back and observe. If he was active early it follows he would active after the fact.

    No, actually, that doesn’t follow, at all. For two reasons:

    1. If a god actually did initiate the BB, as you claimed, then it’s obvious that he DOES stay passive. Either that, or he loves him some human suffering!

    2. You’re putting anthropomorphic Disney-esque human qualities onto a god. How do you know what a god would do after creating the universe? Maybe the universe was created for a purpose that we can’t even begin to wrap our brains around, and we are a by-product of it, and so whatever created it is not concerned about our tsunamis, earthquakes, or Holocausts, and doesn’t bother with them, because to it, we are nothing more than mildew on bathroom tile.

    The point is, we don’t know, and it’s arrogant to assume that humans are the focal point. You’re making wild logical leaps in order to back up your preconceived worldview (from the Bible) that God created the universe for us li’l ol’ humans.

  45. on 03 Jun 2010 at 2:34 pm 45.Xenon said …

    “First Cause is actually an anthropomorphized, superpowerful version of a human being who endorses animal sacrifices and gets really mad at you if you jerk off.”

    Why would you assume he is a type of human being? I doubt it seriously and if you need to slap the monkey go ahead. Not sure why you feel the need to bring up your habits.

    “If a god actually did initiate the BB, as you claimed, then it’s obvious that he DOES stay passive. Either that, or he loves him some human suffering”

    Lets face it, you and I are not too upset with human suffering or we would be in Africa eliminating it! I don’t pretend to know God’s motivation considering I cannot even leave the planet. God is more involved with big picture, but it is only my opinion.

    “God created the universe for us li’l ol’ humans”

    Where do you find in the Bible that God created the universe for us? I doubt it since we are such a small part of the universe. He probably created it for himself. As a believer in time and chance why did time create the universe?

    “How do you know what a god would do after creating the universe?”

    I think that is my point. The fact life and evolution took place pretty well proves God was involved. I am not on this “time diddit” school of thought. Time is not that intelligent.

  46. on 04 Jun 2010 at 5:29 am 46.Anonymous said …

    45 Xenon
    “Where do you find in the Bible that God created the universe for us? I doubt it since we are such a small part of the universe.”

    Why should you read the Bible at all? Why is that book, written billions of years after beginning of the universe, relevant for a deity hich created universe, caused life to occure, suprevised evolution….
    Pls. do not tell me you aplyu biblical bullshits to such a deity!?

    Beside being totally illogical, that is blasphemy! My deity would probably be offended if I connected it with the Bible. I say probably, because it never gives any sound from itself (except when you calculate something).

  47. on 04 Jun 2010 at 5:30 am 47.Severin said …

    46 Anonimous = Severin, sorry again

  48. on 04 Jun 2010 at 11:48 am 48.Xenon said …

    “Why should you read the Bible at all?”

    Sev this i why I rarely reply to you. I mentioned the Bible because 3D did to me. Ask him why he reads it.

    Your fear of the Bible has been noted hundreds of times on the blog to the point it is now a phobia with you. Get some help.

    It is 66 books written by many different authors. I find some good life applications in there from the Proverbs to the beatitudes to the teachings of Jesus. If you don’t like the books of history don’t read them slick! But saying the same thing time and time again is monotonous, boring and really unnecessary. There is no books I agree with 100%.

    Literature, like people all has some good if you look for it.

  49. on 04 Jun 2010 at 1:16 pm 49.Corey said …

    Well said!!

  50. on 05 Jun 2010 at 3:45 pm 50.Corey said …

    Our solar system is filled with amazing planets, but none are perfect for life except the earth.

    Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. It gets very hot and very cold. It has a very slow spin. The side facing the sun is heated to 800 (F) while the side away from the sun is cooled to –298 degrees (F).

    Venus is hotter than Mercury, yet farther away from the sun. Venus has an atmosphere 90 times thicker than earth’s. Heat is trapped in the clouds and heats the entire planet to 931 degrees (F).

    Mars is similar to earth in many ways. A day on Mars is 24.7 hours. It is tilted 25 degrees, just two more degrees than earth. At its warmest, it can get to be a comfortable 67 degrees (F). It has two small moons. But Mars is smaller than earth. The gravity on Mars is only a third of the earth’s. Without enough gravity, Mars is unable to hold a larger atmosphere. What atmosphere it has is made of the gases we cannot breathe. Without much of an atmosphere, many meteoroids hit Mars. It also gets very cold at night.

    Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. It is ten times smaller than the sun and ten times larger than the earth. Jupiter spins faster than any other planet, with a day of 9 hours and 55.5 minutes. Its fast spin causes tremendous storms. The big red spot on Jupiter is a huge hurricane.

    Saturn is the second-largest planet in our solar system and has the largest set of rings. It is almost twice as far away from the sun as Jupiter is. Saturn is a gas giant. As one descends into the atmosphere, the pressure, temperature, and gravity greatly increase. The core of the planet is boiling hot and radiates more heat out into space than it receives from the sun.

    Uranus is tilted on its side with its axis pointed at the sun. If the earth’s axis was pointed at the sun, one hemisphere would always be boiling hot and the other would be freezing cold. Uranus is four times as far from the sun as Jupiter and twice as far from the sun as Saturn.
    Neptune is the farthest gas giant from the sun. It is almost four times larger than the earth. Its strong gravity traps harmful gases in its atmosphere.

    The utter lifelessness of other planets in our solar system illustrates the fact that earth is unique and specially created for life.
    Our planet was created for life.

    A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

    A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.

    Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.

    Clouds function as earth’s curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

    Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth’s surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

    Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

    The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

    The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

    Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

    As a liquid, water’s temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth’s climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

    Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

  51. on 05 Jun 2010 at 6:03 pm 51.3D said …

    Corey, please stop cutting and pasting propaganda here. Argue your own points yourself, or if you can’t, don’t try to debate.

  52. on 05 Jun 2010 at 6:28 pm 52.Corey said …

    Why should I argue my own points when the institute I’ve been accepted to sums everything up that I could ever say perfectly. If you can’t accept the fact that what I put down is my argument, then go argue with the institute. They will pick you apart piece by piece.

  53. on 05 Jun 2010 at 9:06 pm 53.Severin said …

    Corey
    I am really sorry for you!

  54. on 05 Jun 2010 at 9:49 pm 54.Horatio said …

    Corey,

    LOL, don’t take it personally. 3D & Sev never argue a point on their own merit and literally 50% of the time Sev just makes up information.

    Origins is beyond the realm of science imho. Science can’t answer a huge number of unknowns in the here and now therefore I am always quite skeptical when scientist attempt to tell me what happened billions of years or ago or even thousands of years ago. Its opinion and I have no problem with opinion. Unfortunately, most do not realize that theories and hypothesis do necessarily equal truth

  55. on 06 Jun 2010 at 1:05 am 55.Corey said …

    Thank you, I appreciate it.

  56. on 06 Jun 2010 at 1:21 am 56.3D said …

    54.Horatio said …

    3D & Sev never argue a point on their own merit

    Example?

    and literally 50% of the time Sev just makes up information.

    Example?

  57. on 06 Jun 2010 at 6:49 am 57.Severin said …

    Horatio
    Yes, it would be nice to show some examples for your claims. Otherwiswe it is not jus “making up things”, but a manipulative lie, inteded to make me a lier, but makes YOU a lier instead.

    I HAVE a few examples of YOUR making up things (“30,000 new believers in China each day”), also some other, now it is your turn!

  58. on 06 Jun 2010 at 6:15 pm 58.Horatio said …

    So 3D

    When you argue your positions on origins, evolution and atheism this is all of your own scientific research, statistics and work? Is this your claim? Your answer will either prove you to be a liar or you do what Corey does.

    Sev,

    Example of where I claim 30.000 new believers in China please? I remeber the post and again another instance of a lie.

    Severin you have been called out on this blog for phony numbers so many times which have been proven to be lies I will not even justify your question with an answer. Don’t you even wonder why few even respond to your posts? To be fair, a great deal of the time I don’t know what you are attempting to claim so 50% could be high. Who knows. Maybe you could give us those % of christians vs atheist in all those nations again!

    Now go ahead with your predictable rant on the Bible or priests.

  59. on 06 Jun 2010 at 8:50 pm 59.Severin said …

    58 Horatio
    “Severin you have been called out on this blog for phony numbers so many times which have been proven to be lies I will not even justify your question with an answer.”

    Sad and miserable, as always!

    Why don’t you expose my lies? Let people see them!
    I insist!

    If you don’t, WHAT ARE YOU?

    I will not call you a frauder as you did call me (see above!), because it seems that your need to be a deamgogue and a lier, and your need to be „the main one“, the „most clever one“ comes from some sickness you can not control yourself.

    I tried to communicate with you several times at a decent level, but it seems to be impossible. Your sickness wins all the time and does not permit you to be decent.
    I am sorry, but it is your problem to solve, not mine! Seek help!

  60. on 07 Jun 2010 at 1:50 am 60.Lou said …

    May I second that severin has been caught just making up numbers of which he is has been found to be less than honest. I remember some false numbers thrown out about atheism/religion in other nations that went on for awhile. More times than not I ignore the false arguments.

    I don’t know if it is due to his desire to lie, it seems more with his passion to prove some ridiculous point and the truth to him is irrelevant.

  61. on 07 Jun 2010 at 3:03 am 61.Observer said …

    Corey- Are you going to read a book about planetary origins written by someone who has some actual background on the subject? I have given you a citation and source for a great book written by wonderfully educated and intelligent people. You know the old adage, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” might sadly apply here.

    Of course, there is the ever delightful
    http://www.fixedearth.com/ .

    Will someone at least look at the fixed earth?

  62. on 07 Jun 2010 at 5:40 am 62.Severin said …

    60 Lou
    “I remember some false numbers thrown out about atheism/religion in other nations that went on for awhile.”

    So you two decided to try to make me a lier!

    Is it because you like to show yourself right, but do not know how?
    Of course it is!
    I will tell you: arguments, gentlemen!
    To call someone a lier is not an argument!

    It would be kind of you to show people my lies, and your righteous responses in which you “caught” me lying!

  63. on 07 Jun 2010 at 5:51 am 63.Severin said …

    30 xenon
    “You are believing in something with absolutely no proof which has never been observed to take place.”

    Please, Xenon, read your own words several times, then tell us WHAT ARE YOU BELIEVING IN with PROOFS which have ever been observed to take place?!

    Enlighten us!

  64. on 07 Jun 2010 at 6:23 am 64.Severin said …

    56 3D
    Your request for examples is futile.
    I am debating on this blog for a pretty long time (not longer than Horatio, Lou, Xenon, Burebista…), but they never gave any arguments or evidences for their claims of any sort.

    It is typical for them not to appear for some time here, then they usually interfear some polemic with their provocative remarks, all the time with elements of personal insults, no exception, and of course lies. When THEY need infomation to support their claims, they easyly make them up, no shame („30,000 new believers in China every day“, faked statistics…but there are other examples too).

    It is also typical for them not to address directly to one they are trying to sling mud at, but either to each other, or to “general public“, sometimes also to a person of their inclination involved in debate (see: 54 Horatio, 56 Horatio, 60 Lou, but there are many of such examples in previous debate).

    They are just babbling their insults in attempt to make people angry, probably to try remove them out from these pages.

    Maybe some dark organisation pays them some small money to fight atheism that way, who knows?

  65. on 07 Jun 2010 at 3:22 pm 65.3D said …

    64.Severin said …

    56 3D
    Your request for examples is futile.
    I am debating on this blog for a pretty long time (not longer than Horatio, Lou, Xenon, Burebista…), but they never gave any arguments or evidences for their claims of any sort.
    It is typical for them not to appear for some time here, then they usually interfear some polemic with their provocative remarks, all the time with elements of personal insults, no exception, and of course lies. When THEY need infomation to support their claims, they easyly make them up, no shame („30,000 new believers in China every day“, faked statistics…but there are other examples too).
    It is also typical for them not to address directly to one they are trying to sling mud at, but either to each other, or to “general public“, sometimes also to a person of their inclination involved in debate (see: 54 Horatio, 56 Horatio, 60 Lou, but there are many of such examples in previous debate).
    They are just babbling their insults in attempt to make people angry, probably to try remove them out from these pages.
    Maybe some dark organisation pays them some small money to fight atheism that way, who knows?

    That was supposed to be “fighting atheism”?!

    Wow. I hope whatever dark organization paid them to do it will get their 20 dollars back in small claims court =)

  66. on 07 Jun 2010 at 7:53 pm 66.Lou said …

    “It is typical for them not to appear for some time here,”

    It might be because these guys have a life. I understand you have a lot of time to hang out here and balbber about whatever. Many of us are busy.

    I certainly hope the AA is not paying you to defend whatever it is you called atheism. Give them back their quarter.

    I thought I actually defended you by giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are welcome.

  67. on 09 Jun 2010 at 12:49 am 67.Z1 guy said …

    Eating, loving, singing and digesting are, in actuality, the four acts of the mirthful opera known as freshness, and they pass like bubbles of a grit of champagne. Whoever lets them break without having enjoyed them is a entire fool.

    Sent from my iPhone 4G

  68. on 13 Jun 2010 at 3:26 am 68.Gary Sellars said …

    You’re just a blatant liar and your stupid question doesn’t deserve the time to give a reasonable answer since anyone with half a brain knows you’re lying.

  69. on 13 Jun 2010 at 3:50 am 69.Gary Sellars said …

    56. You asked for an example that Severin “just makes up information.”

    46. Anonymous aka Severn:

    Why is that book, written billions of years after beginning of the universe,

    Severin neither knows nor has any evidence of when the Universe was begun and science cannot answer that. If you don’t know that’s a fact, then you’re just ignorant. The date of the creation of the universe is only authoritatively answered in the Bible.

    Philosophers, aka religious fools whose god is evolution, pretend that science shows us the “billions of years ago theory” but anyone with a slight amount of effort will find that there is no science that can demonstrate that “religious opinion” and the evidence for its absurdity is a simple examination of the history books over the last hundred years. The *opinions* that state a date of creation had ranged from a few million years to billions of years and the facts haven’t changed.

    Furthermore, an honest examination of the facts show the evolutions aren’t examining the evidence with any sort of integrous reasoning as is evidenced by the dishonesty in their circular reasoning that the “rocks show the age of the fossils” and then in another conversation say, the “fossils show the age of the rocks.”

    And you gullible fools parrot them and call your idiotic and baseless religious opinions, “science” and mock Christians for believing God’s Word which has NEVER been… listen carefully and you’ll learn FACTS… found to be in error by ANY archeological discovery.

    That fact alone SHOULD and WOULD SHUT

  70. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:00 am 70.Gary Sellars said …

    56. You asked for an example that Severin “just makes up information.”

    46. Anonymous aka Severn:

    Why is that book, written billions of years after beginning of the universe,

    Severin neither knows nor has any evidence of when the Universe was begun and science cannot answer that. If you don’t know that’s a fact, then you’re just ignorant. The date of the creation of the universe is only authoritatively answered in the Bible.

    Philosophers, aka religious fools whose god is evolution, pretend that science shows us the “billions of years ago theory” but anyone with a slight amount of effort will find that there is no science that can demonstrate that “religious opinion” and the evidence for its absurdity is a simple examination of the history books over the last hundred years. The *opinions* that state a date of creation had ranged from a few million years to billions of years and the facts haven’t changed.

    Furthermore, an honest examination of the facts show the evolutions aren’t examining the evidence with any sort of integrous reasoning as is evidenced by the dishonesty in their circular reasoning that the “rocks show the age of the fossils” and then in another conversation say, the “fossils show the age of the rocks.”

    And you gullible fools parrot them and call your idiotic and baseless religious opinions, “science” and mock Christians for believing God’s Word which has NEVER been… listen carefully and you’ll learn FACTS… found to be in error by ANY archeological discovery.

    That fact alone SHOULD and WOULD SHUT the mouth of ANY MAN with the slightest bit of integrity, but what it really does, is demonstrate that you God-haters actually do not have integrity… or honor… or character because if you did, you’d admit the truth of what I just said, which has been verified by not only EVERY ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY but also by the leading archeologist in the world. Yet, you liars pretend the Bible is “made up fairy stories.”

    Made up fairy stories don’t have the luxury of ALWAYS AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES being validated by archeological facts, as the Bible does.

    If you liars would quit telling yourselves how smart you are and get off your blaspheming butts and do your homework, you’d find that only fools dispute the accuracy and veracity of Scripture.

    And btw, the Dead Sea Scrolls provided inexplicable evidence of the reliability of the Jewish scribes to faithfully transcribe God’s Word — another fact that SHOULD AND WOULD SHUT your mouths… again… IF you had any integrity, which you don’t.

    (I was typing so fast that I hit the wrong key and that’s why this post appears in part, above. My apologies for the mistake.)

  71. on 13 Jun 2010 at 4:09 am 71.Gary Sellars said …

    BTW, my last post was also evidence that the question that started this thread is a blatant lie, as are virtually all the opinions stated by the blasphemers that love this site.

    Oh, would you blasphemers like to know the Scripture that tells why you like this site and like to blaspheme God and His Word?

    It’s John 3:16-20

    Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    Joh 3:17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.
    Joh 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    Joh 3:19 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
    Joh 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

    OUCH.

    It’s pretty damning, isn’t it.

    Your love for sin has so hardened your heart against God that you mock Him instead of appreciate His sacrifice for you.

    That’s the proof that you’re fools.

  72. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:12 am 72.Severin said …

    Dearest Gary,
    I would never call you a lier if your lies would not be direct and delibarately said.

    So, if I told that universe was billions of years old, I did not tell a lie, but my opinion about it.

    From my point of view, your believing in god is a big bullshit, but I would NEVER call your claims a lie!
    Delusion, yes! Not lies!

    The primitive “argument” like this: “you claim god exists, so you are talking lies”
    I NEVER used in my debates! I never think you are lying! Just talking bullshits, thinking they are right.

    So, calm down and try to debate on an intellectual level!

    And, of course, give us some arguments for your claim that god created universe!
    Arguments about age of univers are available by Einstein, Howging, etc.

  73. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:17 am 73.Severin said …

    Gary,
    “If you don’t know that’s a fact, then you’re just ignorant.”
    You, of course, KNOW facts!
    Do you have some evidences for your “facts”, please?

    The whole science is behind my claims, + logic AND reality, with its phones, computers, plains, space travelings, vaccines…. what do you have to offer?

  74. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:32 am 74.Severin said …

    70 Gary
    “The *opinions* that state a date of creation had ranged from a few million years to billions of years and the facts haven’t changed.”

    THAT is the beauty and greatness of science!
    It CHANGES!
    Ingenious people are painstakingly “digging” to understan and to explain something. Then they give their explanations. Then other, more ingenious people find them incomplete, in some cases even wrong. Etc…
    Ingenious people POSE QUESTONS and try to answer them. Yes, they are wrong or incomplete in many cases, but without such a process we would never go ahaed. We would stay on branches.

    Only religions keep their idiocy unchanged for ever and ever!
    They never pose questions. What was said, was said, once for ever!
    WHAT if it does not fit reality?
    Shall we start to change reality to make it fit stupid religions?
    No, we will not! Dark middle age passed and will hopefully not return!

  75. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:51 am 75.Severin said …

    71 Gary
    “Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.“

    Beside being totally stupid and unfitting realty, your Bible is also totally immoral!

    Imagine the situation described in the Bible:
    God decides what to do with people who are doing sins. No one else is able or authorized to do something with people.
    He thinks, and thinks, and after he tryed to expel the „sin“ by killing the entire population of earth (the big flood) and DID NOT succeed in his effort, he slaps his forehead and says: I know what to do! I will sacrifice my son to make myself pleased and willing to save the people from sin!

    The most ugly, the most immoral story under the sky!

    An allmighty god sacrifices his own son to please himself to do something!

    Please do not go further with such brutal, immoral, ugly stories, to „prove“ your god a “good guy”!
    You can only make him more repulsive by such stroies (if possible to make him more repulsive after stories of baby masacring he ordered many times).

    WHAT parent sacrifice their children for ANY reason?
    Monsters?!
    Lucky we such a god never existed!

  76. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:54 am 76.Severin said …

    71 Gary
    “Joh 3:20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

    Your god’s deeds are well exposed in the Bible! Did you read it all, or only tha parts you liked?

  77. on 13 Jun 2010 at 11:49 am 77.Curmudgeon said …

    @ Gary
    ”but anyone with a slight amount of effort will find that there is no science that can demonstrate that”

    very true – science can not observe the past (ironic considering that is a staple of science) therefore it can only make assumptions about the past and make some guesses on what took place. They become amateur historians.

    Atheist hate to believe they use faith, but they do. We all do regardless what we believe.

  78. on 13 Jun 2010 at 1:40 pm 78.Severin said …

    77 Curmudgeon
    Here we are again on the same place: Science can not observe past!
    Wow!
    It would be nice of you to stop such nonsense claims, for your sake, not to make people laugh at you!
    There are 2 basic ways to observe past:
    a) on the level of entiere universe, we observe past DIRECTLY, observing what we see at the moment we look at the object. Depending on the distance of objects we observe, we are DIRECTLY looking in the sooner or later past of the object. I think any child older than 8 or 9 is aware of that possibility. I mean here, in Europe, I do not know about children in other parts of the world.
    b) by exploring the consequences of events. If police officers are able to reconstruct a crime or a car accident, by exploring its consequences, just WHY would scientists not be able to reconstruct the past of events they are interested in? They know a little bit more than police officers! They have more sofisticated tools!

  79. on 13 Jun 2010 at 1:43 pm 79.Severin said …

    77 Curmudgeon
    I will give you 2 very simple examples:
    1.
    You find a meteorite you saw by your own eyes fell somewhere. You analyze it and see it contains a lot of iridium, in a crystal form unknown on earth. You analyze many such meteorites and see all of them (of the same type!) contain iridium in the same form.
    Then you find traces of iridium in Mexican Gulf. ONLY traces, spread in almost regular circle around a spot. NO iridium in ground thousands of kilometers around the spot, except those traces, to say it comes from earth.
    WHAT to conclude, but: some time ago a meteorite fell here!
    Of course, scientists have their exact tools to MEASURE also other consequences of fall of that meteorite. They can calculate precisely WHEN its fall occured. By measuring some parameters, they can precisely say what was its mass, its velocity at the moment of collision, the angle of collision….
    2.
    By analyzing the tissue of mummies scientist are able to find what was the food a man used to eat 3000 years ago. They can find what was the cause of his/her death. They can analyze their cloths, paints used to decoarte his coffin, and reconstruct many aspects of life of people 3000 years ago.

    Isn’t it observing of past?
    Yes, it is, and I gave you only 2 simple example, among thousands of them.

  80. on 13 Jun 2010 at 1:58 pm 80.Severin said …

    70 gary
    “And you gullible fools parrot them and call your idiotic and baseless religious opinions, “science” and mock Christians for believing God’s Word…”

    Cool down! I could call you an idiot because of your claims I take as idiotic, but I will not, because I am polite.
    I hoped you could learn something from this blog, but helpless rage does not help in learning.
    Mind does!

  81. on 13 Jun 2010 at 2:17 pm 81.Rostam said …

    Geez Severin,

    Do you not even realize you are strengthening Cur’s own argument? I mean seriously if that is the intent great, if not, you had better do some scrambling!

  82. on 13 Jun 2010 at 2:38 pm 82.MrQ said …

    What exactly is Cur’s argument?

    That we can’t see into the past because there are no eyewitnesses?
    That it’s useless to try to analyze anything that occurred over 500 years ago and we should stop trying?
    That there are better methods for looking into the past such as____________(please fill in the blank)?
    Maybe technology will allow us one day to more accurately look into the past?

    We can only directly look into the past when we look at the stars, planets, and other entities in the universe. When we “look” into the past on our little blue marble we often see a convergence of evidence by using different scientific dating methods, and this is an indirect method.

  83. on 13 Jun 2010 at 3:23 pm 83.Severin said …

    81 Rostam
    Please look at #77 again!

    I see only (empty) claims.
    No arguments!

  84. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:13 pm 84.Curmudgeon said …

    It is encouraging to see not everyone is clueless. Congratulations to Rostam.

    MrQ I’ll give you a chance of proving anything that occurred a millions years or longer that uses established scientific methods of observation, testing, analysis and retesting. Remember, no faith should be required.

    Here is your chance!

  85. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:13 pm 85.state of ..? said …

    “b) by exploring the consequences of events. If police officers are able to reconstruct a crime or a car accident, by exploring its consequences, just WHY would scientists not be able to reconstruct the past of events they are interested in? They know a little bit more than police officers! They have more sofisticated tools”

    Police officers have an advantage. The first thing they look for in a car accident/ murder scene is “witnesses” Also, Police officers collect evidence based on a day or two.

    Scientist do not have the asset on their side. Scientist have reconstruct based on limited evidence and develop theories based on those elements.

    “2.
    By analyzing the tissue of mummies scientist are able to find what was the food a man used to eat 3000 years ago. They can find what was the cause of his/her death. They can analyze their cloths, paints used to decoarte his coffin, and reconstruct many aspects of life of people 3000 years ago.”

    Please explain how accurate it is and please provide sources. Many aspects? can be argued.. some aspects of people is better fitted for the statement you are trying to prove. People? I believe the only “people” that had coffins were Pharoahs and high superiors in that era? correct me if i’m wrong.

  86. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:54 pm 86.MrQ said …

    To begin, why not try to look at:

    http://161.58.115.79/education/publications/tnl/56/ancient3.html

    And then tell me that the past cannot be observed. Here I go, holding your hand. Don’t waste this glorious opportunity to go beyond the talking points you and “the others” continuously parrot.

    You could also investigate “hubble space telescope” and find out where the research is going.

    So, what exactly is your point? That the past is and always will be mysterious? And, as a bonus, let me know how far we can indirectly look into the past? 50 years? 250 years? 1500 years? 10,000 years? Where do you draw that line?

  87. on 13 Jun 2010 at 7:56 pm 87.Curmudgeon said …

    “Yhat the past is and always will be mysterious?”

    It is difficult to communicate with you dues to the fact you cannot read. One more time. We do not observer the past. We gather data, make assumptions then develop theories based on our presuppositions. The past has already taken place. Did you read your link? Try renting “The Time machine” to illustrate the point.

    It is base on faith that our assumptions are correct. You see MrQ, this is why science changes and why historical science is based in faith. Oops, there is that bad word again.

    Any time someone must post a link to make a simple point I realize I am wasting my time.

  88. on 13 Jun 2010 at 8:21 pm 88.MrQ said …

    Cur,

    Right you are. Yesterday is history and the future is a mystery. So, by your world view (whatever that may be), any moment in the past is unobservable because it is beyond the present moment, correct? Because we can’t observe the past it is subject to presupposition? Did you read the link? What presupposition is required when you are looking at a distant star? The light from the star originated at some time in our past.

    “It is base on faith that our assumptions are correct. You see MrQ, this is why science changes and why historical science is based in faith. Oops, there is that bad word again.”

    What assumption are you talking about? The speed of light? Are you trying to say that I have faith in the calculation of the speed of light?

    You fail to see that science is continually building on itself. Always gather information and data. Always refining. Always asking questions. Always looking for answers. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Where is the faith in that.

    According to you, how far back in time are we able to reliably “look”? Ooops, there’s that question again.

    BTW, I post links when you seem so lost. You may indulge me with some of your own information, please.

  89. on 13 Jun 2010 at 8:51 pm 89.Rostam said …

    cur,

    I think the boys do not understand that when a star exploded 2, 3 billion years ago, the incident is past history. They somehow cannot come to grips with the fact that the light is data from something that happened before we humans were even on earth. They look at the light as observing the past.

    There presupposition is they understand science more fully because they are atheist.

  90. on 13 Jun 2010 at 9:02 pm 90.MrQ said …

    “when a star exploded 2, 3 billion years ago, the incident is past history”

    “They look at the light as (directly) observing the past.”

    You’re completely brilliant, give yourself a star. You seem to be catching on.

    But then you throw in:
    “They somehow cannot come to grips with the fact that the light is data from something that happened before we humans were even on earth.”

    I don’t have any problems with the fact the light could have originated before humans, or even the Earth, existed. What are you trying to say exactly?

  91. on 13 Jun 2010 at 9:46 pm 91.Curmudgeon said …

    Its my fault. I let MrQ carry on with the red herring. My initial comment is correct and he obviously cannot think for himself. He just cuts & paste without questioning. Its just like the religious sects. Maybe I need to post some creationist or ID blogs and call scoreboard?

    Origins is faith based because we cannot observe and test the past. I don’t care if you are creationist, ID, atheist or alien worshiper it is a true statement. Mr.Q. this is why there are so many theories and religions!

    Data left over from the past is not observing the events, unless Mr.Q brings us a time machine. A guy like Q doesn’t like to hear science doesn’t have an answer for all questions. Its scary for him.

    Time is up. I got traveling to do. Chop Chop!

  92. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:16 pm 92.MrQ said …

    Cur,

    once again you dodged a simple question. How far back can we reliably observe past?

    Maybe you don’t remember what you had for dinner yesterday and that past meal is now a fading fragment of your addled brain.

    “Data left over from the past is not observing the events”

    Wow, did you come to that conclusion all by yourself? I don’t know of anyone that would argue against that sort of air tight logic.

    “A guy like Q doesn’t like to hear science doesn’t have an answer for all questions. Its scary for him.”

    Really? That’s exactly what I love – we are continually exploring and discovering. That we don’t know an answer is exciting; it’s what propels the research and understanding. Well, OK, understanding for most people, yourself excluded. Pull your head out from between your buttcheeks, suck in some oxygen, and get some of those brain cells firing.

    “Time is up. I got traveling to do. Chop Chop!”

    No kidding. Do some time travel and join us here in the year 2010. Keep chopping, you’re looking like one mighty numbskull.

  93. on 13 Jun 2010 at 11:34 pm 93.Rostam said …

    “Wow, did you come to that conclusion all by yourself? I don’t know of anyone that would argue against that sort of air tight logic.”

    LOL, he hasn’t met himself yet. He must of crossed photon phases during his time travel. Q just likes to argue. He realizes he is wrong, he just can’t admit it. Just call him Time Bandit.

  94. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:49 am 94.MrQ said …

    Rostam,

    I wrongfully made the assumption that when numbskull (aka cur) communicated (in post 91) “Data left over from the past is not observing the events” he was referring to events such as those which left fossils on our planet Earth. My bad!!
    I won’t argue the point after you show me a time machine that will allow you to go back in time and feed a dinosaur (don’t forget to take a picture).

    But as both you and I know, we can view the stars and see past events unfolding before our eyes. As we both agreed above (in post 89 and 90.)

    Bottom line: Events in the Earths past are, of course, not directly observable. Dinosaurs, crusades, or what was served and eaten for breakfast all happened and are forever in the past- never to be directly viewed again. Evidence of the dinosaurs, crusades, or breakfast exists but you have to be smart enough to decipher the information.
    However, in the example of stars in the night sky; they have been shining since some time in our past history and, therefore, provide a direct observation of the past. Do the math.

    sigh!!! I’ll try to keep things real simple – I feel like I am communicating with my 1 year old.

  95. on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:34 am 95.Severin said …

    89 Rostam
    “I think the boys do not understand that when a star exploded 2, 3 billion years ago, the incident is past history.”
    It is past history FOR THE STAR, and at the moment we finally see it, it is the present moment FOR US (OBSERVERS).
    We see it EXACTLY as it happend, because information needed time to come to us. During the traveling of information “past history” occured on the exploded star, but what we see when information come to us is “new event”, although we KNOW it actually happened millions of years ago.

    I really can not understand what is controversional here.
    Do you have problems with logic?

  96. on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:44 am 96.Severin said …

    87 Curmudgeon
    “We do not observer the past.”

    Except when we observig stars. In that case we DO DIRECTLY LOOK THE PAST, BEFORE OUR EYES.
    It is past for both us AND he star, but the information are fresh, and we see them exactly they occured. No changes, no need to reconstruct them.

    About the past on earth and near earth, who cares would our job be called “observing” or “reconstructing”, if we are able to reconstruct the past very precisely.
    And we are!

  97. on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:50 am 97.Severin said …

    87 Curmudgeon
    “It is base on faith that our assumptions are correct.”

    When talking scientists, the right word is “hope”, or still better: “expectations”, not “faith”!

    Unlike churches and believers, they DO NOT JUST TRUST!
    They HOPE (expect) to be right, then, WHEN THEY SEE THEY ARE NOT, UNLIKE CHURCHES AND BELIEVERS, they honestly say so!
    They say: we were not right.

    When did you hear any church to say something like that?

  98. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:03 pm 98.Anonymous said …

    I am sorry for those who know of Jesus, but do not know Jesus. I can only speak for myself, I believe in the Bible, the unseen, and the power of prayer. I read the word {Bible}, trust the word {of Jesus}, and try to obey the commandments. I am not perfect, I do not parade around as if I am; I am not better than anyone else because I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe because my prayers have been answered, unexplainable things exist, and what is unseen can be seen by the heart {soul.}
    I am sorry for you who lack this great and amazing Love/Truth in your life. I wish you would not let those who claim to be Christians clutter, confuse, and mangle your understanding of who Jesus Chris is. I question though, if all you do not believe than why do so many of you waste your time to proclaim he is not real? why not do something that is real and productive. What is productive about not admitting That Jesus Christ is alive?

  99. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:16 pm 99.Horatio said …

    When a star explodes, what took place was a past event. When the light makes it way to us, we are not observing the past, we are experiencing light generated in the past. We interpret the light as data to determine distance, size, etc but it is not observing the past any more than a fossil is observing the past.

    Sev, can’t post without going to the church card? You lie again. ALL scientist don’t make any of your claims. Some scientist go to church. Some scientist lie about their data until they are hopefully busted.

    Now go on another God tirade.

  100. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:40 pm 100.MrQ said …

    “When the light makes it way to us, we are not observing the past, we are experiencing light generated in the past”

    and, thereby, observing the star as it was at some time in THE PAST. The present state of the star would be unknown to us, that information will arrive at some time in THE FUTURE.

  101. on 14 Jun 2010 at 5:36 pm 101.state of mind ..? said …

    “About the past on earth and near earth, who cares would our job be called “observing” or “reconstructing”, if we are able to reconstruct the past very precisely.
    And we are!”

    Observing and reconstruction can not be done precisely in this situation. When a star explodes, the reconstruction of the star exploding can be done based on observation, but the affected surroundings of the star can not be done so precisely. Even with video footage, the star’s calculations and data recorded varies.

  102. on 14 Jun 2010 at 6:04 pm 102.Severin said …

    101 state of mind
    “…but the affected surroundings of the star can not be done so precisely.”

    How pecisely can god be detected?

  103. on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:02 pm 103.James said …

    This is a bit lengthy but I do have a point so please bear with me.

    In response to the original post:

    A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called “the greatest historian of ancient Rome”. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero’s death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).

    Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

    “But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonement’s which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition (in regards to the mystery of the resurrection), repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.” (Annals XV, 44).

    The ministry of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was birthed in extremely tremulous times. The Jewish people especially, suffered from the difficulties and oppression that originated from Rome rule. Believers of the Way (this is what they called themselves before the term Christianity was utlized) not only were going against Jewish beliefs and traditions but they were in direct opposition of the belief systems of Rome. In response to this the followers of the Way were subjected to torture, prison, ridicule, stoning, death etc. by fellow Jews and citizens of Rome including the Caesars. And YET it kept growing and spreading from small communities in the deserts of Judea to the largest Roman cities in the Empire.

    The spreading of this unusual belief system, even through they were being heavily persecuted, seemed to have warranted an even greater response of faith among the people of the time. The well recorded Colosseum blood sports involving Christian men and women (starting with Nero in 68 AD) should have halted the spread of Christianity in the throes of its inception. Instead, it seems the opposite happened.

    Believing in something wholeheartedly goes against human nature. Our natural minds are not prone to blind faith. Therefore, their must be reasons for strong personal conviction. Following the Way led many to believe in it so powerfully, that even the threat of death could not stop their voice.

  104. on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:27 pm 104.Martin said …

    103.James, it is widely accepted that the passage from Tacitus is too vague to be of any real value in the argument for an historical Jesus. While it is good for proof of an early Christian religion, it does little to apply any scientific proof to Jesus’s powers or divinity.

    Atheists have never doubted the validity of the Christian faith, and I for one don’t really dispute that a historical Jesus MAY have lived. I do not believe he had powers or that he was the “son of god” or that he was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and resurected three days later. Why? Because there were at least four or five pre-Christian deities who were born of a virgin, had wise men visit them, were born in either a cave or a manger, were given gifts of spices, left their birth site for some years to return at the age of 30, had at least or mainly 12 disciples, and were crucified, died, and resurected. This isn’t coincidence you know, it is historically correct.

    I believe that most of Jesus life is MYTH, there is NO god, and Christianity is nothing more than a reworking of earlier Pagan beliefs. Look at Christmas, do you know how many deities mentioned above were born at the winter solstice? All.

    The Bible even mentions, and I could find the passage if I weren’t so lazy, that reads it is against god’s law to bring in a cut tree and decorate it with silver. A clear reference to the paga ritual of the solstice.

    In the fourth century, when the Nicean Council met, there were perhaps 100 different christianities out there, and it was decided that there should only be ONE. So, every sect brought their bible and their rituals and voted on which ones to keep and which ones to toss out. Some of the sects wanted the Virgin Mary to be more prominant, but it was decided to relegate women to roles of subservience in the Christian religion.

    There is so much evidence against the existence of a god, even the claim of ONE god is proof that he can not exist. The whole claim of creationism proves that god isn’t real, why, because creationist claim that ever effect has a cause, therefore god has to have had a cause. Who created god? Man created god, that’s who created him.

    Consider this, and I’ll shut up. The ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and the Aztecs all had gods they were certain existed. And yet, today we know they were wrong. All of the great structured built for their gods are now nothing more than tourist attractions, and there they were sacrificing for their gods (Aztecs), mummifying for the afterlife, building pyramids, and the great structures in Greece and Rome, and today – NOTHING. I believe that science and reason will one day replace the need for a god, and we will abandon him or he will simply vanish, just as Zeus, Aten, Thor, and all the others did from ancient times.

  105. on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:36 pm 105.Martin said …

    I didn’t have the patients to read all the posts, but I did read enough… WOW, that so many people still buy into the whole God Myth. I think the reason is pretty clear it is two fold. One: Men need to have some assurance that there is life after death, otherwise they feel stress, so creating an afterlife gives them a sense of peace. Two: I forget the exact wording and again I could look it up if I was so inclined, I’m not, but it boils down to simply, “I believe because it comforts me.” A Catholic Priest once wrote that there are more priests who doubt the existence of god than one would imagine, but they continue to believe because of the comfort factor. I can understand both reasons for the need for religion and gods, until you grow up and realize this is the ONE life you get, make the most of it.

    PS: I’m not that lazy, really.. OK, maybe I am, but at least I’m not having to waste energy and time trying to please some mythical entity.

  106. on 14 Jun 2010 at 11:55 pm 106.state of ..? said …

    “How pecisely can god be detected?”

    Your best comeback is to strive away from the issue you and others talk about? You sounded very smart with proving points and statements. Now, you are simply acting like a child. Alright, we shall strive. Which God are you talking about?

  107. on 15 Jun 2010 at 12:05 am 107.state of ..? said …

    “One: Men need to have some assurance that there is life after death, otherwise they feel stress, so creating an afterlife gives them a sense of peace.”

    Allow me to ask.. Do you believe there is life in another universe or on a another planet?

    “until you grow up and realize this is the ONE life you get, make the most of it.”

    Christians do make the most of it. However, your way of living life, is probably not a Christian way of living. Please try to understand I am not trying to argue with you, I am just trying to protect a God that I have chosen to worship.

  108. on 15 Jun 2010 at 12:07 am 108.Burebista said …

    “it is widely accepted that the passage from Tacitus is too vague to be of any real value in the argument for an historical Jesus.”

    Right off the bat a lie. Sorry Martin, no need to read his post any further.

    “WOW, that so many people still buy into the whole God Myth.”

    Really Martin? The majority of the world believes in some sort of God and you are surprised? Are you like 3 yrs old? Not only today but throughout the history of man. When so many cultures perpetuate the belief in some sort of Creator, chances are great there is something to it.

    But I’m willing to hear arguments against the science of God. Some great work going on in this arena.

  109. on 15 Jun 2010 at 12:10 am 109.state of ..? said …

    “..and Christianity is nothing more than a reworking of earlier Pagan beliefs.”

    Some of Christian denominations don’t have Pagan idols.

  110. on 15 Jun 2010 at 6:24 am 110.James said …

    First of all,

    People who have genuine beliefs that are contrary to our own are not children. This does not make them stupid or unintelligent. It means that people come to serious conclusions based on personal beliefs. Also,(state of mind) if God is Almighty, He does not need protecting.

    That being said, Jesus was indeed born during the month of December around 4 B.C. This conclusion was not reached because of pagan ritual or beliefs. Its actually based from astronomy. The star which the wise men (wise men were of the East, possibly southern Arabia, were part of a group of extremely knowledgeable men who intently studied astronomy) saw was “The Son of the Virgin”. Its a distinctly bright star that is between Coma (the constellation of a woman with child) and Virgo (the virgin hold a branch and an ear of corn). It rises from the East during winter and is believed to have been directly over Bethlehem by the time the Wise men appeared there. Compounding this was the conjunction of Jupiter Saturn Mars. A conjunction is an alignment of planetary paths around the Sun. Triple conjunctions among planets is not uncommon but for these three specifically, it does not happen often. Traditionally in the ancient world, planetary conjunctions between two planets pointed to a special birth taking place. However, a tri-planetary conjunction signaled an illustrious conception.

    Kepler was the first modern scientist who traced back the pattern of planetary movements. His conclusion is that the conjunction happened around 6 B.C.

    In another topic: The Council of Nicea addressed two and only two things: The divinity of Christ and the establishment of the Trinity.

  111. on 15 Jun 2010 at 1:49 pm 111.state of ..? said …

    “That being said, Jesus was indeed born during the month of December around 4 B.C.”

    Those calculations may be wrong. Scientic research varies when talking about “a star in the north”. The most compeeling evidence dates back around that time but in the month of June or July. The star was most likely, Jupiter, which was the closest it’s ever been to the planet Earth. Regardless, the statement is invalid as “was indeed”.

    “Also,(state of mind) if God is Almighty, He does not need protecting”

    State of mind? the name I have chosen for this website is not State of mind. Consider revising. Also, He does not need protecting, I am simply defending my beliefs, which consists of His teachings.

    ” The star which the wise men (wise men were of the East, possibly southern Arabia, were part of a group of extremely knowledgeable men who intently studied astronomy) saw was “The Son of the Virgin”. Its a distinctly bright star that is between Coma (the constellation of a woman with child) and Virgo (the virgin hold a branch and an ear of corn).”

    Please provide resources of which I can read from.. Also, I beleive those facts belong to Astrology, not Astronomy. Both are related, but different in many ways. I also believe that the star led the way to “the Son of the Virgin”, if that how the story goes. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

  112. on 15 Jun 2010 at 2:09 pm 112.Severin said …

    108 Burebista
    “Really Martin? The majority of the world believes in some sort of God and you are surprised? Are you like 3 yrs old?”

    Really, Burebista? 6 centuries ago mayority of the world believed earth was center of the universe.
    Were they right?

    200 years ago people did not wash hands before meals because they believed diseases come from god’s will.
    Were they right?

    Are you 600 years old?

  113. on 15 Jun 2010 at 2:28 pm 113.Burebista said …

    “Really, Burebista? 6 centuries ago mayority of the world believed earth was center of the universe”

    The fallacy of digression. Do you have a genuine argument?

    “200 years ago people did not wash hands before meals because they believed diseases come from god’s will.”

    Another unsubstantiated lie. Going back further, the Hebraic law was very much into to hand washing. What a ridiculous claim.
    Can you provide support that 200 yrs ago people did not what their hands in attempt to get diseases because God us to get diseases?

  114. on 15 Jun 2010 at 3:12 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    113 Burebista
    Christian church burnt a man who stated sun is not orbiting earth, some time ago.
    Mayority of people were christians at that time
    = mayority of people believed sun was orbiting earth, what is unclear there?
    Poore guys who dared not to believe what church “teached” were either burnt or maltreated other ways.

    About washing hands, I would like to see some cites. Not that I am calling you a lier, but I prefere to see WHEN people connected diseases with dirty hands/microorganisms.

  115. on 15 Jun 2010 at 3:18 pm 115.Severin said …

    114 Anonimous = Severin

  116. on 15 Jun 2010 at 3:26 pm 116.Anonymous said …

    107 State of
    ” … I am just trying to protect a God that I have chosen to worship.”

    I did not know there were many of god’s available and you can make your choice which one to chose!?

    106 State of of..
    ” Which God are you talking about?”
    Try (to prove existance of) any!

  117. on 15 Jun 2010 at 3:33 pm 117.Burebista said …

    “I would like to see some cites. Not that I am calling you a lier”

    You made the claim now prove it. I really want to see supporting evidence that people did not wash their hands because God wanted them to get diseases. Back up your bold statements.

    Lastly, look up the fallacy of digression. Your first statement shows us you do not understand this fallacy. Probably the most irritating one.

  118. on 15 Jun 2010 at 4:00 pm 118.state of ..? said …

    “I did not know there were many of god’s available and you can make your choice which one to chose!? ”

    I stated “.. of my choosing”, why must u know? what difference will it make? and why will it matter?, do u not try to disprove any religion or system of beliefs besides yours?

    Also, there are many Islamic temples, churches, chapels, synagoues, places of worship, etc.. These places listed and many more can prove the presence of a diety. It is really up to your choosing of much information you are willing to tolerate.

    “Christian church burnt a man who stated sun is not orbiting earth, some time ago.
    Mayority of people were christians at that time
    = mayority of people believed sun was orbiting earth, what is unclear there?”

    Catholic priests burnt a man, not a Christian church. Majority of the civilians also beleived that the sun orbited, too. Also, Catholics persecuted Christians for their beliefs.

  119. on 15 Jun 2010 at 4:26 pm 119.3D said …

    110.James said …

    That being said, Jesus was indeed born during the month of December around 4 B.C. This conclusion was not reached because of pagan ritual or beliefs. Its actually based from astronomy. The star which the wise men (wise men were of the East, possibly southern Arabia, were part of a group of extremely knowledgeable men who intently studied astronomy) saw was “The Son of the Virgin”. Its a distinctly bright star that is between Coma (the constellation of a woman with child) and Virgo (the virgin hold a branch and an ear of corn). It rises from the East during winter and is believed to have been directly over Bethlehem by the time the Wise men appeared there. Compounding this was the conjunction of Jupiter Saturn Mars. A conjunction is an alignment of planetary paths around the Sun. Triple conjunctions among planets is not uncommon but for these three specifically, it does not happen often. Traditionally in the ancient world, planetary conjunctions between two planets pointed to a special birth taking place. However, a tri-planetary conjunction signaled an illustrious conception. Kepler was the first modern scientist who traced back the pattern of planetary movements. His conclusion is that the conjunction happened around 6 B.C.

    This is a fascinating argument. Can you use similar techniques to figure out when the Tooth Fairy was born?

  120. on 15 Jun 2010 at 6:53 pm 120.James said …

    My apologies to state of…. It was not my intention to…misrepresent your ‘name’. If you have questions about my postings please feel free to investigate. I may be incorrect in my findings (my apologies for any mistakes in my writing) however, its up to the individual reader to discover that for themselves.

    To 3D: I could go into climate patterns, history of that time which is also written in the gospels (such as when King Herod reigned, the calling of Roman Censor for the Jewish people, the establishment of his son Herod Antipas), and fulfillment of the prophetic word from Isaiah. I chose Isaiah for the solidity and accuracy of his writings in regards to not only the Messiah but the destruction that felled Jerusalem.

    Let me make something absolutely clear. I am not here to convince anyone what to believe. That would be a fruitless endeavor and I know time and energy is better spent. I am here to ascertain why people believe what they do and what conclusions they’ve drawn in their quests for answers. Plus, sharing knowledge is a sharping of the mind. A expanding of ones limited horizons.

    Anyone heard of LAMININ?

    Its a cell adhesion protein molecule. Their are about fifteen kinds and they are part of a family of glycoproteins (proteins found in nearly everything that lives. Their are a variety of types all functioning to bring about essential development and sustainability in a living organism) They are necessary for our bodies to function because they form a matrix within our cells that glues them together. What’s the big deal? Find an image.

  121. on 15 Jun 2010 at 8:52 pm 121.Xenon said …

    Lames,

    James you are a fan of Louie? I am as well. Did you check out the one in the Whirlpool galaxy?

  122. on 16 Jun 2010 at 8:51 am 122.Anonymous said …

    117 Burebista
    “You made the claim now prove it. I really want to see supporting evidence that people did not wash their hands because God wanted them to get diseases.”

    Now I will call you a manipulative lier, because you are deliberately lying/faking.
    1.
    I did NOT say anything like “god wanted them to get diseases”.
    See #112 for what I really said. NOTHIN like you imputed me!
    I made a general statement that people had no idea about diseases come from dirty hands, but thought they come from god’s will. I have no need to prove the well known, general fact: people REALLY had no idea about how diseases are spreading around, and that dirty hands might be involved in spreading of diseases. They DID NOT KNOW IT only a few centuries ago, and they DID think diseases were god’s deed.
    2.
    You DID make a claim about “Going back further, the Hebraic law was very much into to hand washing.”, see #113.
    Evidences, please!

    A manipulative lier you are!
    In lack of arguments you deliberately lie and fake someone’s claims to cover your ignorance and make yourself clever.

  123. on 16 Jun 2010 at 8:54 am 123.Severin said …

    Not to think I am hiding: #122 was I, Severin, just forgot to write it.

  124. on 16 Jun 2010 at 9:01 am 124.Severin said …

    118 State of…
    “These places listed and many more can prove the presence of a diety.”

    How? THAT is what I am VERY interestd in! HOW can anyone prove the presence of any god?

    All the time, all believers debating here are avoiding to give any evidences about existing of god(s), and are asking us atheists to prove god does not exist.

    You are the first one claiming existance of god is (easyly?) provable, so please, go ahaed!

  125. on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:22 am 125.Horatio said …

    “I really want to see supporting evidence that people did not wash their hands because God wanted them to get diseases. Back up your bold statements.”

    lol, don’t hold your breath Bure.

  126. on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:52 am 126.state of ..? said …

    “You are the first one claiming existance of god is (easyly?) provable, so please, go ahaed!”

    You go ahead.. Do your research go to as many as you like. Allow me to ask you, on a scale from one to ten, how sure are you that there is not a God?

  127. on 16 Jun 2010 at 2:43 pm 127.Severin said …

    http://www.hygenius.com/history.htm
    “During the 19th century, women in childbirth were dying at alarming rates in Europe and the United States. Up to 25% of women who delivered their babies in hospitals died from childbed fever (puerperal sepsis), later found to be caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria.

    As early as 1843, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes (whose son became the well known US Supreme Court Justice) advocated hand-washing to prevent childbed fever. Holmes was horrified by the prevalence in American hospitals of the fever, which he believed to be an infectious disease passed to pregnant women by the hands of doctors”

    Why would people wash hands if they were seemed to be “clean”?
    They DID NOT, except if they had some shit or dirt directly visible on thewir hands. THEY DID NOT WASH HANDS, and that is the fact you can not change.

  128. on 16 Jun 2010 at 3:22 pm 128.Burebista said …

    I didn’t see anything about God’s will for people to die in any of that or even God’s judgment. All the exclamation points will not change that fact. We ALL have known about hand washing since the 5th grade and that was not the issue. You like to embellish fact with lies that have no basis in truth.

    Stick with the truth, don’t let you anal pettiness of God, theist and faith cause you to say things that are lies. You are such a Costanza.

    Let me show you how it is done. I only claim what was true. Wiki is pretty accurate on this topic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism

    See, no made up pettiness.

  129. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:38 am 129.James said …

    Gentlemen and ladies of this fine blog,

    Earnest opinions and passionate beliefs are essential when conversationating with a worthy opponent. However, their is something to be said of respectful and level headed arguements.

    I have a facinating find I wish share: With all of the technology we have available scientist have not discovered what transpires between conception and the 3rd day of pregnancy. They know the fertilized egg travels into the uterus from the fallopian tube. However, they do not know what causes the intial splitting of cells. As far as I understand, they are also unsure of how each of those cells knows which part of the fetus to develop i.e, brain vs. digestive vs. heart etc etc. In addition, the fetus has a heartbeat the third week of development.

  130. on 17 Jun 2010 at 1:37 pm 130.Martin said …

    To the poster who asked if I was three: Well, there you go, you prove that Christians use the “LOVE” of there god to attack non-believers. I confess that some of “my” thoughts are those of others as well, I just didn’t give them credit because we came to the same conclusion, independently.

    The argument that so many people believe is evidence of a god is just silly, and this time I will PROVE it. How many ancient Egyptians believed in Aten? How man ancient Romans believed in Zeus? How many ancient Greeks and Aztecs believed in their gods? How many remarkable structures were erected in those gods’ name, how many died in ritual sacrifices? And, today we KNOW for certain that those gods were nothing more than myths. What about ALL those people who believed in their gods, did all that faith make them any more real? IS it possible that god did not make man, but man made god? THERE is your proof.

  131. on 17 Jun 2010 at 1:41 pm 131.Martin said …

    Here is another thought. IF religions could PROVE god, they would not need faith. All the arguments for and against god would be over, if it is that easy WHY doesn’t your god just show some proof. Apparently, he trusted the ancients more than modern man. At least in the old testament he showed up as a burning bush, and showed himself to some people, but wait then it was said no man could look upon him, and yet some did, I am soooo confused…

  132. on 17 Jun 2010 at 1:51 pm 132.Martin said …

    I do find it amusing that the religious groups pick and choose which arguments they want to respond to and address. And to the poster who made the point that throughout history man has believed in a god, that argument MAKES my point. Man has made a god up to worship throughout history, mainly to “explain” what he could not understand. Science and Reason have eliminated the need for these kinds of gods, wouldn’t you agree?

    I’m sorry if I sometimes seem like I am talking down to people, but I am AMAZED that in today’s society, with all the evidence against a god, with all the obvious ties to hocus pocus religion, there are people who so dogmatically hold on to a god. I mean I do understand the psychology of it, don’t get me wrong, I just don’t get the logic of it.

  133. on 17 Jun 2010 at 1:59 pm 133.Martin said …

    And to the person who used Wikki for their “proof”, as a college professor let me say if you used that as a proof in my class I’d fail you. Sorry, that is not a recognized source in academia.

    And to all who use names and such to “emphasize” some point, that causes you to lose credibility instantly in most debates. When I used the term “grow up” I didn’t mean people were childish, just childlike in their belief system. As one of my professors, who was an ordained minister, said, “Most people stopped growing in their faith when they were in kindergarten, when they accepted the stories of Noah, Adam and Eve, and Jesus walking on water.”

  134. on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:29 pm 134.Burebista said …

    “Sorry, that is not a recognized source in academia.”

    This is not a college class it is a blog. Learn the difference. I happen to know the wiki source this time is accurate. If I ever attend you Tech school automotive class, I’ll keep it in mind.

    “Science and Reason have eliminated the need for these kinds of gods, wouldn’t you agree?”

    Well, no. Explain origins providing scientific proof and arguments. Always willing to learn from a college professor. As one, you should recognize that science claims nothing, it is man who adds his own interpretation. Science does not have one piece of evidence disproving God. You should also recognize the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

    Is it not more likely God has proven his existence through creation? Explain the evolution of morality, logic, information and design from natural causes?

  135. on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:31 pm 135.Burebista said …

    “ALL those people who believed in their gods, did all that faith make them any more real?”

    Here is a quiz for the college professor. Which fallacy did he just use in an attempt to disprove the Christian God?

    He obvious does not teach logic.

  136. on 17 Jun 2010 at 3:01 pm 136.state of ..? said …

    “Science and Reason have eliminated the need for these kinds of gods, wouldn’t you agree?”

    I do not.. Unfortunately, Science does not have all the answers. Science does provide certain outputs of what could have happened and will happen.

  137. on 17 Jun 2010 at 3:15 pm 137.state of ..? said …

    “Most people stopped growing in their faith when they were in kindergarten, when they accepted the stories of Noah, Adam and Eve, and Jesus walking on water.”

    I would like to read more of this, please can you show me the link.

    “..with all the evidence against a god, with all the obvious ties to hocus pocus religion, there are people who so dogmatically hold on to a god.”

    One’s belief system should not judged on by others, I believe. When people hold on to something or someone is usually because they trust, care, and believe it it/them. All the evidence against God are usually invalid, due to lack of “proof”.

  138. on 17 Jun 2010 at 4:55 pm 138.Martin said …

    “This is not a college class it is a blog. Learn the difference. I happen to know the wiki source this time is accurate. If I ever attend you Tech school automotive class, I’ll keep it in mind.”

    This statement alone proves my point, exactly. You make claims and when they are clearly disputed you resort to name-calling and circular reasoning. Good show, and when I do teach an auto class, I’ll send you a post so you can sign up, ok. You need a vocation, after all.

    Again, you avoid the QUESTION, Christians use the fact that with so many believers, god MUST be real. But I ask you, again, what makes the Christian god more real than the gods of the ancients? What is YOUR proof? They were as convinced as you are, there were volumes of “bibles” for each religion, and yet they were proven to be false. What makes you certain that this god is REAL? And, there is one fact that you all should understand this is an ATHEIST blog, you are on our turf, so accept it.

    Further, we do not deny you the “right” to believe, what I deny is the right to push your deity on society, through education and politics. I have no beef with religion for religion’s sake at all. I do like to debate the existence of god with those who have a rational approach, NOT name calling and silliness. If we are to teach the theory of creation, the we should teach the Muslim theory of creation, and where do we stop, Hindu, ancient Egyptians? Come come. Oh, and I do not claim to teach logic, but I can see illogic a mile away.

  139. on 17 Jun 2010 at 4:57 pm 139.Martin said …

    “Most people stopped growing in their faith when they were in kindergarten, when they accepted the stories of Noah, Adam and Eve, and Jesus walking on water.”

    This, as I stated in my writings, was a direct quote from a professor of mine. I think the proof, however, is in the pews every Sunday morning.

  140. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:05 pm 140.Martin said …

    Here is another thought for you. You do realize that you are a product of the Christian faith simply because of where you were born, right? If you had been born in, say Iran, you would be a card carrying Muslim.

    This should be at least a good argument against a purely Christian god. What if you were born in the jungles of Brazil, would you be a Christian? Wouldn’t it be nice if god would just appear on Oprah or the evening news, make some really awesome miracle, and all this would go away.

    Try this, go into a children’s ward, watch the parents of the children pray for their lives, and then watch those children die. Now, either your god hears the prayers, does nothing, and is therefore weak and not a omnipotent; or he is omnipotent and very cruel and heartless; or he is a myth. You pick.

    Jesus said, “Ask and ye shall receive.” NOTHING asked in the his name will be denied, note he said NOTHING. He goes on to say something about if you truly believe or ask with faith. Funny, I bet EVERY one of those parents is praying his or her ass off, in some hope that god will spare their child. NEXT…

  141. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:11 pm 141.Burebista said …

    “You make claims and when they are clearly disputed you resort to name-calling and circular reasoning.”

    First you made a claim, utilizing a fallacy. Back up your claim with logic that ancient disproven relgions somehow leads to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist.

    Second, What name where you called? You came to the blog attempting to throw out you college class rules into a blog! Do you look down on teachers who lead the automotive sciences?

    Third, all reasoning is circular. The question is how large is your circle?

    Fourth, why must the Christian God be proven to exist using science? Science cannot prove many things that it accepts as assumptions and hypothesis. The complex information patterns alone found within DNA is enough to make the hypothesis that a God DOES exist. See Francis Collins for more details. He too has been a highly regarded professor.

  142. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:11 pm 142.Martin said …

    “One’s belief system should not judged on by others, I believe. When people hold on to something or someone is usually because they trust, care, and believe it it/them.”

    This is a GREAT post, unfortunately, it usually only applies to Christians. Christians are the ones “hating” on atheists, on gays, on other religions. There was a funny story of a Christian who actually asked a gay person why they were judging them. The Christian said his “way of life” was to hate gays, so he had as much a right to his way of life as did the gay person. The gay quickly retored by saying, “I’ll come to your church so you can hate me, if you’ll come in my bedroom so I can fuck you in the ass.”

  143. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:17 pm 143.Martin said …

    “If I ever attend you Tech school automotive class, I’ll keep it in mind.”

    That comment was intended as an insult to me, if it wasn’t then why say it? You, Burbesta, made that statement did you not?

    You ask why must the Christian god be proved by science, well, because YOU are making the claim, therefore, it is YOUR burden of proof, not mine. In a debate, the one making the positive claim is burdened with proof, not the one taking the negative. If you ask me to believe based on faith, what is faith, does it prove god’s existence?

    I have nothing but respect for auto shop teachers, but I assure you I am not one and to call me one is an INSULT… is that hard to realize?

  144. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:23 pm 144.Martin said …

    Using the DNA argument is just silly, there are so many flaws to DNA, diseases and deformities.

    Let’s use some logic then. Let’s assume there are two sets, in relation to the big bang. Set A is all thing before the big bang, and set B is all things after the big bang. We know what is in set B, but according to Christians the only thing in set A is GOD, but then if that is the case set A can’t be a set because one item does not a set make. Then if we follow the Christian argument that all effects have a cause, therefor, god has a cause – what is that cause?

  145. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:27 pm 145.Martin said …

    “You came to the blog attempting to throw out you college class rules into a blog!”

    Forgive me, I assumed I was debating with intelligent beings, not just bloggers. I’ll keep that in mind when you are throwing around your unproven, simplistic claims in the future. Thank you for setting me straight there.

  146. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:31 pm 146.Martin said …

    When you put out information in a form that is NOT recognized in an academic setting, then you weaken your position, it’s simple as that. I was simply stating that if someone uses Wikki as a scientific “Proof” it is not recognized. I’ll end my attempt to debate with you now. Have a nice day.

  147. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:34 pm 147.Martin said …

    All reasoning is NOT circular.

  148. on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:38 pm 148.Martin said …

    “First you made a claim, utilizing a fallacy. Back up your claim with logic that ancient disproven relgions somehow leads to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. ”

    I’m sorry, I just saw this statement and had to respond. Here you go. It’s the old Einstein’s “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” How many gods must be disproved for mankind to disprove all gods? If man continues to worship deities that are proven false, and yet continue to find deities to worship, isn’t that the definition of insanity?

  149. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:00 pm 149.Martin said …

    I made some comments on Jesus’ quotes for prayer, thought I would post them since I made mention.

    “”Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it, and it will be yours.”

    “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:13-14).

  150. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:02 pm 150.Martin said …

    I prayed today to Jesus that he not do anything for me, but that he end hunger among the children of the world. I didn’t see anything online or on CNN or Fox that said manna was falling from heaven in Africa or that the 20 percent of American children living in poverty and going to bed hungry, suddenly won the lottery or had food delivered to them. Guess all that praying in his name doesn’t work. FAIL!

  151. on 17 Jun 2010 at 6:54 pm 151.Martin said …

    I am forced here to talk a little about the flood. Scientists throughout the world have searched the fossil records and the earth stratta record for the proof of a world wide flood. To date, no evidence has surfaced, nor do I expect it to.

    One “blogger” tried to explain the number of animals that Noah would have had to have on the Ark as being babies. Really? Babies require more attention than adults do, they are much more liable to succumb to illness and predation. What of the diets of these animals? I wonder, not only about things like Koalas, but how Noah, with NO means of global transport, would have been able to feed and collect all the species of the planet. The insect population alone would have been nearly impossible, not to mention that males and females of some species only interact during breeding and what of the insects that breed quickly, some would have been able to nearly repopulate the planet in forty days.

    This doesn’t even get into the salt water versus fresh water animals, the vast expanses of land that would have made collection impossible, even with today’s technology, no such act is possible.

    IF I were to give any ounce of credibility to the Noah flood Fable, it would probably represent a regional or even very limited flood. Most of the history of the time was oral, and any fifth grader will tell you that a story told over and over will gain and lose much of its facts, time and again.

    The flood is again something that we have to take on “faith” alone. Men, much more educated than I am or any of us, agree that faith and god can not be explained with logic. Anything else would not be faith but would be logic or fact. Those who will believe, will do so regardless of the amount of science, evidence, or logic that we provide. While I admire that sense of faith, I do not share it, though I once did. I spoke earlier of kindergarten faith, the bible speaks of faith this way.

    Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Apparently there has NEVER been a person who had this much faith, because we know that NO mountain has ever been simply moved from here to there. Do you believers not have the faith of a mustard seed?

    Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Very interesting, isn’t it? Now this can be applied to science as well, I know.

    2 Corinthians 5:7 “We live by faith, not by sight.” Believe because I tell you to, so it would seem.

    Hebrews 11:6
    “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Otherwise, he’ll toss us in a pit of dispair and burn for all enternity.

  152. on 17 Jun 2010 at 7:46 pm 152.Burebista said …

    “If man continues to worship deities that are proven false, and yet continue to find deities to worship, isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

    Sorry, not going through all your post. You seem to have a lot of time for a guy with students. This statement above will do. Do you understand fallacies? From your statements it is obvious you do not. Check into it.

    If we find the wrong Big Bang theory do we stop? If Edison failed to find the right methodology to to produce the light bulb you would still be teaching under a candle. He failed about 100 times. Man’s failures do not necessarily logically lead to no God. If we ignore God’s obvious involvement in creation is that not the definition of ignorance?

    Again, your logic fails and the complex DNA information systems still points to God. You failed to show how evolution can produce information or any other process I mentioned earlier. You did not even comment on them. Why is that? A question I ask all atheist but fail to receive a good answer. What would scientific proof of God look like? Look to the cell professor!

    In addition to Francis Collins look into Antony Flew.

  153. on 17 Jun 2010 at 7:55 pm 153.Martin said …

    And again, you act as if being a professor is a bad thing, I would begin to think there is some jealousy here. Since you asked, I will tell you that I am on leave from university to care for a dying wife, whom god has refused to heal. Ever sit and watch someone die? Ever have to reconcile some “love of god” when supposedly he has the power to save her? Ever try to explain to children why their mother is dying? Ever watched a vibrant 40 year old woman, dry up to 80 pounds, lose her hair and teeth, and beg you to let her die? Have you ever done any of this? Have you longed for someone to die so she can be at peace?

    So spread your DNA theory all day long, and then come and explain why my wife’s DNA allowed her to have a gene for breast cancer. Come show me your god’s love, his mercy, his grand plan. Am I pissed, yes, you bet your ass I am, and my pissed is at people who have the audacity to come to my home and tell me it’s all god’s plan. To add her to their prayer lists, to send me a prayer shawl, to send me cards and letters of “hope” but not ONE has come to offer to sit with her for an hour or two so I can go for a walk, or take my son to a baseball game. YOU seem to have the answers, could you get god to give me a little break here?

  154. on 17 Jun 2010 at 8:00 pm 154.Martin said …

    You ask what scientific proof we could have. OK, here are several. How about we find one scrap of physical evidence of an historical Jesus? How about if god were to answer ONE prayer, that we could scientificaly show it came from him and not coincidence? What do you say we have a day of prayer and we have control groups, one group we pray for and the other we do not. Now, god, in his great power, could heal those in our prayer group at say 51% as apposed to the control groups rate of probably less than 20%. Do that and I will bow down to your god.

  155. on 17 Jun 2010 at 8:09 pm 155.Martin said …

    And you seem to say that my statements are falacies, but you can not ignore the statement that billions of people’s faith have been dismissed as products of culture. You recogize that their creation was based on desire, need or fear. If this is true, then why can’t your god be the same? You keep saying my reasoning is faulty, but you supply nothing in the way of a rebuttal, except to say I am faulty. Classic.

    You are obviously attempting to use the Kalam Theorem to “explain” your position, but that is faulty logic in itself. Your DNA dogma simply masks the fact that saying

    Everything that exists has a cause

    The universe began to exist

    Therefore the universe has a cause (god)

    FAIL!

  156. on 17 Jun 2010 at 8:10 pm 156.Martin said …

    By the way, even if I wasn’t home taking care of Ann, I’d be home anyway it’s SUMMER where I live and I don’t teach summer school. Smile.

  157. on 17 Jun 2010 at 8:26 pm 157.Martin said …

    So you asked me a question, now I ask only this one. Why doesn’t god answer prayer.

    Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

    This is a fallacy of the most major proportion.

  158. on 17 Jun 2010 at 8:53 pm 158.Daniel said …

    Can science prove God? No, it can’t and even if science can reach to its absolute degree of knowledge(which is impossible due to the Law of Uncertainty) but why? Because science as we know it is about the question “How”, it’s not there to answer the question “Why” or “Who”. All those out there who says that just because there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of God means that God doesn’t exist. That statement is wrong with 2 regards:
    _ Science can’t answer that, it’s out of the realm of real science, it’s like telling a professional violinist to engage in a wine tasting contest.
    _ Even if science can prove God, we cannot say that science doesn’t prove God therefore God is not there because science is not like a book that just stand there throughout centuries. Science is something that keep updating and will keep evolving, there’s no way to know if science can prove God or not. How can you be so sure that maybe in the future science will be able to prove God? Remember just in 10 years how many new knowledge that we have gained yet we’re still claiming that our knowledge of the universe is still like a particle of sand compared to Sahara itself.

    Can God heal people, of course He could, but I see some people like to see Him as a personal Genie more than a loving God who is there to govern us. Jesus said: ” ‘Don’t try to test the Lord your God!’ “, no wonder why God doesn’t answer prayers, because He knows you’re testing Him. One more objection, how do you know that prayer can’t be answered, I myself alone had been answered by God hundreds of time, let say we make a group like that to experiment, can you actually prove that it’s coincidence and not God? Since the position of the Atheist is to prove that it’s not from God, then based on the proof of contradiction Atheists should also be able to disprove miracles as just mere coincidence, this burden of proof is upon the Atheist shoulder. There are some historians that should help you with the Historicity of Jesus: Julius Africanu(Extant Writings, 18), Pliny the Younger(Letters 10:96), The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, Pliny the Younger, and also have great influence to Islam as well as Judaism, Gnostic and even to some Buddhist sect. Note that “scientifically” speaking no one can find real evidence for Buddha, Muhammad, and even Julius Ceasar either(Much of Caesar’s life is known from his own Commentaries (Commentarii) on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo, just like the New Testament isn’t it?)

    I am so sorry for your loss, but overall, why do human grieve about death? Surely it’s a tragedy, sure nobody want it to happen neither you or me. But to be true the goal of Christianity is not about trying to live as long as you can, it’s about what goes at the end, what’s on the other side. Ask any Christians, they don’t fear death, they don’t fear breast cancer. 10/10 people will die, so what’s the point of now and later? Christianity is not about that, it’s not about living a comfortable life, Christianity is about anticipation and preparation. We’re not on this earth for peace, but earth itself is a place for purification for the next life. That’s the difference between a Christian and an Atheist, the Christian will always feel more peaceful when they’re near their death.

    When I study Biology my teacher always told me to “get out of the human thing”, it’s time for you to stop look and think like a human because it will never let you be able to understand God. Instead of challenge people, look back at yourself again, and see clearly and maybe say a prayer. Maybe you’ll feel better but the most important is maybe you might be able to see God.

  159. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:44 pm 159.Martin said …

    Thank you for your reply, it is NOT very comforting however, it’s just the same mumbo jumbo that all Christians spew. If life is not to live as long as we can, then why have doctors, why not live life to the fullest and engage in activities that might kill us, so we can reach god faster?

    Your arguments for or against prayer are circular. The “do not test god” is nothing more than a cop out so we don’t question why prayer doesn’t work. You are right, my prayers will never be answered by god, but what about the prayers of true believers. YOUR bible states that Jesus said, ask and it shall be given, he states that in his name NOTHING shall be impossible, but we know that things are impossible. Jesus lied to us, he said NOTHING will be denied, and yet it is.

    All those you contend prove the histocricy of Jesus, came decades, even centuries after his supposed life. When Jesus pulled off the “miracles” why didn’t he do something that would have stayed relevant forever? Move a mountain, do something that eternity would know.

    The burden of proof does NOT belong to the Atheist, it belongs to those who make the claim. You claim there is a god, therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to prove god. Most of your arguments simply stand to prove there is no god, you stand on the normal Christian arguments well.

    I do not deny your god, I claim your god is no more real or relevant than the gods of the ancients, Mithra, Zeus, Aten, or the literally thousands of other gods that man has created. Why is it so hard to accept that the god of Christians is no different. Those ancient gods performed miracles that were written down, some were born of a virgin, many were crucified, many of them had similarities to Jesus. No, god did not create man, man created god in HIS image.

  160. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:47 pm 160.Martin said …

    One fallacy that Christians have is that science seeks to prove or disprove god, it does neither, the fact that it disproves god is simply a by-product of science. With science, we do not need god, except for a good fantasy read.

  161. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:51 pm 161.Martin said …

    I also have one other question, you say we are not on this earth to have comfort or peace. What the hell kind of statement is that? Why would anyone want to live then, if not to have peace and comfort? That is my biggest beef with a lot of Christians, wasting your life waiting on something that’s never been proven and never will be.

    History is full of groups of people who are waiting for the death, even Jesus’ early followers thought the end of time was near, if 2000 years is near, I’ll live this life my way thank you and take my chances with the afterlife.

  162. on 17 Jun 2010 at 9:54 pm 162.Martin said …

    Oh, and finally, then I’m going to grill ribs, but science does indeed seek to answer the questions “Why” In fact that may well be the greatest question in all of science. Why does it work, why does it work that way, why is it reacting with one thing and not another… Why is key to science. Now, who is another story, science doesn’t need to ask who, especially in physics, because there is no who in that field of study, if there were it would be god, and god isn’t real.

  163. on 17 Jun 2010 at 10:04 pm 163.Burebista said …

    “Ever sit and watch someone die? Ever have to reconcile some “love of god” when supposedly he has the power to save her? Ever try to explain to children why their mother is dying?”

    As a matter of fact many times in my family and the families of others. You might say it is a part of my job. You are not the first to deal with death but how will you deal with it?

    I suggested reading Francis Collins, sounds at the moment his story could help you more than ever could know. You are young and so is your wife. As harsh as it may sound, death is what makes life so precious. Don’t ignore the obvious evidence God has put right in front of you.

    Again you claim Science disproves God as a byproduct? Please share this byproduct with me and the head of the Human Genome project. I see just the opposite. How about those questions I posed? Easier to ignore them?

    If you think life is about comfort and peace, you will be sadly disappointed more times than not. Life is about making a difference and that rarely includes comfort. Peace? Absolutely.

  164. on 17 Jun 2010 at 11:54 pm 164.Martin said …

    Why would I answer your questions when you have not answered mine?

    I understand your need to convert me, it won’t work. I have no desire for your god any more than you will ever have the desire to see the obvious evidence against your god. It is a standstill which will never go away. I have no intent on believing in a myth, any more than I will believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

    I find it amazing the complete disregard for compassion that you show, but why should you show compassion for a heathen? I really didn’t say what I did looking for compassion, but to make a point, one that you walked over without so much as a sigh.

    Please don’t try and turn my wife’s death into some lesson on god, that manages little more than to piss me off. God does not comfort anyone, the story made up of god maybe, but nothing about god is comforting to me, and it never has.

    We shall just agree to disagree, besides this is just a blog remember?

  165. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:10 am 165.Martin said …

    “The majority of the world believes in some sort of God and you are surprised? Are you like 3 yrs old? Not only today but throughout the history of man. When so many cultures perpetuate the belief in some sort of Creator, chances are great there is something to it.”

    You answered your own question about the evidence of ancient deities falacies being a strong argument against today’s gods. Just because people believe in something does not make it so. If that were the case, the world would be flat, the earth would be the center of the universe, because billions believed it at one time in history. Just saying…

  166. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:12 am 166.I am GOD said …

    Hello A/all, God here. I’ve been reading these posts and I am here to tell you I am real, I am here, and I want you all to believe in me. You do believe I am God, right?

  167. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:23 am 167.Martin said …

    On another topic, could someone break down this next passage and explain it to me since I am a dumb atheist and know nothing. Thank you.

    Matthew 6:25-34. Jesus says:

    Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.

    Why do I need health insurance or worry about a job?

  168. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:42 am 168.Martin said …

    I have another set of questions, as Christians what do you think of the story of the Mormon Church, the story of the Muslim religion, and the story of the Scientologists? Do you believe in these stories as fact or fiction? I would like to know.

  169. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:04 am 169.Severin said …

    108 Burebista
    “Really Martin? The majority of the world believes in some sort of God and you are surprised?“
    „When so many cultures perpetuate the belief in some sort of Creator, chances are great there is something to it.“

    Fallacy of appealing to majority.

    You can not start a debate with a falacious argument, then call people names when they rationally answer it, llike I did, for example:
    6 centuries ago mayority of the world believed earth was center of the universe.
    THEY DID BELIEVE IT, no matter what you say, but it did not make sun orbiting earth, as CHRISTIAN CHURCH stated (and burnt people who stated oposite!).
    What majority of people believed did not make their believes right!
    Believing of many people to god does not make god real.

    Do you have some unfallacious arguments to prove your god?

  170. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:42 am 170.Severin said …

    128 Burebista
    “We ALL have known about hand washing since the 5th grade and that was not the issue.”

    The issue was making wrong conclusions based on majority, as you tried to swindle:
    “When so many cultures perpetuate the belief in some sort of Creator, chances are great there is something to it.”
    Or, in short, if so many people believe in god, chances are great that god exists.

    It does not work that way!

    Do not let your anal way of making conclusions (i.e. “majority must be right”) prevail, otherwise you will probably become a muslim soon.

    And, yes, I am washing my hands myself since I was 2 years old. I was very proud when I did it alone, without help of my mother.
    You started at the 5th grade?

  171. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:50 am 171.Severin said …

    118 Ste of…
    “Catholic priests burnt a man, not a Christian church.”

    1. Are you saying Catholic church was not a christian church?

  172. on 18 Jun 2010 at 11:02 am 172.Martin said …

    “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian God may exist; so may the Gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”
    — Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), What I Believe,1925

  173. on 18 Jun 2010 at 11:07 am 173.Martin said …

    Thank you Severin for your rational insertion there.

  174. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:22 pm 174.Horatio said …

    “Or, in short, if so many people believe in god, chances are great that god exists.

    It does not work that way!”
    ___________________
    You mean since most people believed we landed on the moon we did not in reality?

    Severin, please don’t attempt to be intellectual. The fact is that many cultures embraced god or gods of some sort. This does not make the idea wrong. What it implies is that cultures who had no contact with one another embraced the idea of gods, not atheism. This pattern of behavior implies that the idea of God has merit. Bur never claimed because the majority believed the idea that made it true.

    (SIGH)

  175. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:35 pm 175.Martin said …

    “This pattern of behavior implies that the idea of God has merit.”

    Merit, yes, proof, NO. There is evidence that many different cultures believe in dragons, elves, monsters, and many other mythical creatures, does that give merit to the existence of these creatures? It gives no more merit to them than it does to the existence of god. God, like many other “mythical” creatures was created to “explain” the natural world around them that could not be explained in any other way. IF something happened that they could NOT explain it had to come from a greater being. THIS is more of the relational thinking that connects cultures than the evidence of the existence of gods.

    Nothing proves this more than the fact that we are able to disprove so many of the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and the Aztecs – all cultures who were considered “advanced” for their times. If we can disprove their gods so easily, why can’t Christians admit that the POSSIBILITY of their god being in the same set.

  176. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:41 pm 176.Martin said …

    To me it is like the mother of a young man who wanted to transfer into my program at the University where I worked. He was at the University of Miami and had failed miserably, his mother then wanted him to transfer to the University of South Carolina. When we explained that we had standards and he did not meet them, she actually said to us, “I understand that USC has standards, but why can’t you accept my son?” This woman, by the way, holds a PhD and is supposed to be a pretty intelligent person.

    Christians are like that when they claim to understand that all other gods are false, “but our god is real.” This is an example of flawed logic, or a failure to accept logic, instead basing your claims on faith.

  177. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:44 pm 177.Burebista said …

    “Why would I answer your questions when you have not answered mine?”

    Actually I did. As well. I never expected you to answer the questions. They don’t have an answer.

    “I understand your need to convert me, it won’t work.”

    Convert you? I only speak the truth. I never expected you to “convert” and I cannot convert anyone. That is between you and God. I only challenge you.

    “I find it amazing the complete disregard for compassion that you show, but why should you show compassion for a heathen?”

    You will need to be more specific? In what way was I not compassionate? Do you know my heart? Did you see my reactions? If you are telling the truth I feel great empathy for you and some very close friends losing a loved in the next few days. I feel for the teenager at our HS who lost his life just before graduation. Great kid.

    “Please don’t try and turn my wife’s death into some lesson on god”

    Again, you wail about my lack of compassion and then claim I turn your situation into a lesson on God. You are a confused young man. Laying out the truth about life is the greatest compassion I can offer you. Being told what you WANT to hear does you no favors. I apologize if that pisses you off.

    I must say, i do not see how you find comfort here. I hope this is not all you have. Atheism offers nothing of value, comfort or hope. I truly hope you discover the truth. He will never come or comfort unless he is humbly invited.

    Thank you hor.

  178. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:44 pm 178.Martin said …

    “You mean since most people believed we landed on the moon we did not in reality?”

    Perfect example of Christian logic, comparing apples to oranges. The belief in god is based soley on FAITH, the belief in the moon landing is based on evidence and fact. Provide me with pictures, god rocks, etc, and then you can make this observation. Using faith and a bible won’t cut it.

  179. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:53 pm 179.Martin said …

    Bure,

    YOu claim I am a confused young man like you know what is in my heart or mind. I’m sorry, but your comebacks are fraught with little more than Christian ideologies and same old same old. I tire of this banter with an idiot, I’m sorry but you speak in circles, you claim NOTHING, you provide NO evidence, you seek to belittle people who don’t agree with you, and then you take offense when you are called on it.

    I have debated many Christians like you, who do little more than repeat what is said to them and then try and confuse the issues and turn the conversation into some blame game. You will never accept responsibility for anything you say, you will never see that some of you words are hurtful because you are always right. I do not seek to HEAR what I want to hear, but I do not expect to be treated like a child and then have you seem incredulous that I would take offense.

    You called me a three year old, you insulted my teaching, you inferred that I may not be telling the truth about my wife, you called me a confused young man, shall I go on? I will debate with you no longer, and you can insult me all you want, I assure you that YOUR validation means NOTHING to me. Peace.

  180. on 18 Jun 2010 at 12:55 pm 180.Martin said …

    And you did NOT answer my questions, any of them. What you did was step over them and continue to shove your “proof” on me, even telling me that I needed to read some author because it would make me feel better. Ok, this is stupid, I’m done.

  181. on 18 Jun 2010 at 1:39 pm 181.Anonymous said …

    174 Horatio
    “You mean since most people believed we landed on the moon we did not in reality?“

    No, I did not say it and did not mean it.
    I meant EXACTLY what I said: something is not automatically right if many believe it.
    Like earth being a plate.

    Your twisting of my words does not make you intellectual, but a forger trying to profit on misinterpreting.

    „What it implies is that cultures who had no contact with one another embraced the idea of gods, not atheism.’

    That IS an argument! Finally one!
    Unfortunatelly a very weak one.
    The argumetn was frequently debated here and very good explanations were offered for that fact.
    Maybe you did not notice that you wrote „gods“, not „god“!

    It automatically calls for a question: why GODS/religions, and why VERY DIFFERENT ones? Why many of religions just dissapeared?
    Why not THE GOD?
    Which religion/god was the right one?
    WHY would christianity be the right religion, among tens of thousands of them, existing and past?
    Why not “Zeusism” or “Qetzalcoatlism”?
    Or Islam?

  182. on 18 Jun 2010 at 2:01 pm 182.Anonymous said …

    Horatio,
    I will remind you to period of “unconditional obedience” all youngs of higher animals and humans (mammals) have from birth to some stage of growing.
    Without that “tool” nature (evolution) has built in our brains, someone would eat us/animal youngs, so young and unexperianced.
    When mother/father make specific noice, run, or hide, if you do not want to be someone’s meal!
    Do not “think”, just TRUST!

    Most probably THAT tool of the nature is responsible for down of religions.

  183. on 18 Jun 2010 at 2:19 pm 183.MrQ said …

    Daniel (post 158)
    “the goal of Christianity is not about trying to live as long as you can, it’s about what goes at the end, what’s on the other side. Ask any Christians, they don’t fear death, they don’t fear breast cancer”

    Not true, the things you are claiming for christians and death. I guess gut feelings often come up short though, don’t they? See below:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/18/religious_dying_patients_more_likely_to_get_aggressive_care/

    As for biblical mention of a flat Earth, there are inferences of a flat Earth in the bible. The four corners of the biblical Earth become compass directions (N-S-W-E) to the revisionist. The circle of Earth transforms into a sphere. See below for more examples:

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

  184. on 18 Jun 2010 at 4:19 pm 184.Martin said …

    MrQ, thank you for sharing that with us. I appreciate when others have the ability to see the obvious without being clouded by religious fervor.

    So many people just look to attack those without their so called Faith, when in fact they should be trying to find factual information. This whole gnome project argument, somehow trying to claim that because of the complexity of DNA, god is presented. HOW? Complexity from simplicity is normal, creating things that are greater than the creator is common today, maybe not fifty years ago.

  185. on 18 Jun 2010 at 4:50 pm 185.Rostam said …

    Martin

    Why don’t you quit you whining like some big baby. Nobody asked you to come in here and nobody needs to tip toe around you because you have problems. You make accusations with no supporting evidence and you insult anyone who happens to be a theist.

    Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. Get off the blog for awhile and go read something that doesn’t support your worldview. This is how adults learn. I feel for any students that may be in a class like yours.

    Don’t bother answering me because I will not be replying to someone who is so anal.

  186. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:27 pm 186.Severin said …

    Sorry, I have just noticed I did not fill in my name again!

    Anonimous 181 and 182 was Severin.

  187. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:45 pm 187.Martin said …

    Hey Rostam, thank you for your comments. Fully expected from a religious man, thank you for proving my point. Also, I am HAPPY you are not going to respond to me, you are obviously a pious and brilliant scholar, and to answer me would be well beneath a man of your learned status. I am sure you walk through life with a big old chip on your shoulders and I’m certain that you have read all the non-theist books. I am sure that a man of your intellect has opened his mind to all possibilities and perhaps you even communicate with your god. As for asking me to come to this blog, unless you own this blog, then I give you the same advice… leave for a while until you can understand that this is an ATHEIST blog, and from what I can tell open to anyone who wishes to post.

    Further, I wish you well as you go through life so wonderfully intelligent and well rounded. I applaud your holiness, and your security in god’s love. I wish you peace and happiness, as you traverse the globe spreading your wonderful words of love and peace to the world through your infinte understanding of human nature and man’s place in the cosmos.

    Oh, and my so called accusations with NO supporting evidence, since you won’t respond I don’t suppose I’ll ever know what your highness, grown-up self meant by that. I also assure you if you came into a classroom of mine with the highmindedness you show here, I’d pitch you out on your ASS before you were there five minutes. You may feel sorry for my students, but my 26 years in higher ed and tenure are pretty sweet. Peace, my pious and perfect friend.

  188. on 18 Jun 2010 at 6:48 pm 188.Severin said …

    185 Rostam
    “Don’t bother answering me because I will not be replying to someone who is so anal.”

    How can you be such an excrement?
    Who asked YOU to come in here! Do you think someone can not wait for your shit comments full of hate here?
    Why don’t YOU get lost from this blog?
    Most of us would be happy not to see your sick/poisonous babbling here.

    Seek help!

  189. on 18 Jun 2010 at 7:04 pm 189.Severin said …

    141 Burebista
    “Back up your claim with logic that ancient disproven relgions somehow leads to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist.”

    Not “somehow”, but DIRECTLY!

    As you indirectly claimed here that, unlike ancient gods, christian god DOES exist, share with us HOW did you conclude it!?
    If all ancient gods (AND all today’s gods, like Muslim…) were false, WHAT MAKES CHRISTIAN GOD REAL?

    How is christianity “proven”?

  190. on 18 Jun 2010 at 7:12 pm 190.Severin said …

    148 Martin
    “How many gods must be disproved for mankind to disprove all gods?”

    Excellent point!

  191. on 18 Jun 2010 at 7:36 pm 191.Severin said …

    152 Burebista
    „If we find the wrong Big Bang theory do we stop?“
    We do not.

    We CHANGE theories to fit facts. We investigate, we “dig”, we LEARN, to make theories better and better.

    Religions do NOT change anything. They expect us to believe all the time the same BS which do not correspond to science/logic/reality.
    Rligions except us to change reality to fit religious „teachings“.

    CHANGE something in that shit, maybe someone will catch himself to „renewed“ Bible/christianity.

    „If we ignore God’s obvious involvement in creation is that not the definition of ignorance?“
    Obvious? You expect us to take the biblical genesis for granted? Is biblical manfacturing man from mud some „evidence“ that god was involved in „creation“?

  192. on 19 Jun 2010 at 12:40 am 192.Martin said …

    Severin, thank you for being a voice of reason in the hell hole that has become this blog. I was asked a question about why I felt religion and prayer do not work. I gave perfect examples, and was attacked for my responses. It is perfectly normal and even acceptable to Christians to feel empowered to speak to us Freethinkers anyway they want to because they are in the “majority” for now.

  193. on 19 Jun 2010 at 1:57 am 193.Xenon said …

    lol, you atheist are all alike. You attack, claim there is no God , offer no proof and cry when you get called out.

    Get a backbone and quite crying when you get called out. Offer some constructive arguments for the major questions about life and then maybe you will be taken seriously. Until then, as a group you are just a blip.

    Marin, I doubt seriously you are a professor. I have never see a professor react to questions as you do. Be glad you are an atheist. Observer would eat you for lunch.

    Nobody called you “NAMES” so calm down and stop being silly.

  194. on 19 Jun 2010 at 11:45 am 194.Martin said …

    Xenon, YOU are so typical of Christians. YOU make wild claims about this god of yours who has done NOTHING for 2000 years, then you attack those who do not believe. It doesn’t matter what we say, what proof we offer, and trust me the proof is there but you will NEVER see it, and you just walk right past it. The reason is because you have faith, and with faith, ALL things are possible, including an Omnipotent god who does NOTHING.

    As for your doubt of my profession, frankly I do not care what you think, it will not change anything in my life. I am quiet happy that I am an atheist, thank you.

    So calling someone an idiot, a three year old, and such isn’t calling anyone a name? Wow, what universe do you live in, oh right you live in the Christian universe where name calling, talking down to others who do not believe as you do, and the sense of EMPOWERMENT rules. Please do not talk to me as if I am five, and telling me to calm down and stop being silly is just plain STUPID! Please don’t respond to my posts, if they offend you, you do have that option, you do know that right?

  195. on 03 Jul 2010 at 9:22 am 195.Sister Chromatid said …

    Biff et. al.

    We have proof that our ancestors existed 2000 years ago… we don’t have any evidence that any magical people ever lived. Despite eons of belief in all sorts of gods and other invisible beings, we have no evidence that AND such beings existed (and lots of evidence that people are readily fooled when it comes to such beliefs).

    In fact, there is no evidence that consciousness of ANY sort can exist absent a material brain. IF there was such evidence, scientists would be refining and honing that information for their own benefit as well as humanity’s. So despite eons of beliefs in ghosts, souls, demons, gods, etc., there isn’t a scrap of evidence that such things CAN exist– much less that anyone could “KNOW” about such undetectable beings.

    Believing in the supernatural is indistinguishable than believing in magic. It’s also indistinguishable from believing in a delusion. It might make you feel good, but that doesn’t make it true.

    There is no more evidence for a god or demigod named Jesus than there is for a god name Thor. There is no more evidence for Jesus than there is for the magical gold plates of Mormonism that are said to have floated off into space.

    Be suspicious of anyone who tells you you need to believe in a certain invisible being or a certain unbelievable story in order to be saved.

  196. on 03 Jul 2010 at 9:29 am 196.Sister Chromatid said …

    Xenon, I don’t think you’d recognize a constructive argument if you tripped over it.

    How do you have a constructive conversation with someone who believes they are “saved” for believing a lie? What Christian has ever even presented a valid argument for belief. And if it was valid, why does religiosity go down as education and I.Q. go up?

    I guess you have no clue as to what a poor advertisement you are for theism. I don’t think anybody reading your words sees you as the role model you imagine yourself. Theists seem to think much more of themselves than anyone else thinks of them. And I guess each sect imagines that people of their particularly sect are the “bestest”.

  197. on 03 Jul 2010 at 9:39 am 197.Sister Chromatid said …

    Rostam,

    Reason and faith ARE mutually exclusive… or rather faith and facts are.

    Faith is belief without or despite the evidence.

    Faith is not a means of knowing anything objectively true. It is, however, a good way to manipulate others and a great way to fool yourself.

    The truth, as any criminal court will tell you, is best discovered by following the evidence. When, it comes to the truth that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe (like the fact that the earth orbits the sun), then science trumps faith and feelings again and again. It works.

    For eons humans thought the earth was flat because it FEELS flat. The facts lead us to conclude otherwise. No scripture writer seemed to have access to these facts, or any of the other great discoveries of science, even though they imagined themselves to be translating the words of some invisible omniscient being.

    Color me unimpressed by believers and the assorted magical things they’ve been indoctrinated to believe in.

  198. on 03 Jul 2010 at 2:57 pm 198.Martin said …

    To borrow a Christian word, but “AMEN” Sister. Well put, as you probably have seen from my “discussions” with theists on here, there is never a proof argument from them, as you said, IF Christians had proof these kinds of arguments would never take place, because those of us who are rationalists would accept the proof and god would be worshiped by all.

    I recently read Dawkins book, The God Delusion, and I challenge ALL, theists and non-theists alike, to read it. We are often challenged by Christians to read the bible, and yet it’s proven that most theists do NOT read any works written by atheists. If you do not have your faith challenged by Dawkins works, you are indeed destined to be a faith-head for life.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply