Feed on Posts or Comments 18 December 2014

Christianity Thomas on 19 Apr 2011 12:40 am

Does Christianity Have a Future?

A look at the decline of Christianity in Britain. “It’s thought that two and a half thousand people stop going to church each week”. “Everything has militated against what we used to do and the way we used to do it”:

126 Responses to “Does Christianity Have a Future?”

  1. on 20 Apr 2011 at 3:25 pm 1.Joshua said …

    It has a future either as history like worship of Zeus, or will continue to change and mutate into something unrecognizable to today’s adherents.

    I think that the latter is more likely now, and will blend into the first over time. The information age plus the sheer number of Christians (ignoring denomination for a minute) probably means that it will continue to split and mutate for quite a while at least. Eventually something will replace “it” (whatever it looks like at the time). Look to history to figure why one religion replaces another to make guesses and predictions.

    Interesting question. What would a first century Christian think of today’s Christians? (there were several “Christianities” competing at the time) I think that they might conclude that “Christianity” was already dead.

  2. on 20 Apr 2011 at 6:32 pm 2.sonofapreacherman said …

    Christianity can’t die soon enough, but it would be foolish to underestimate the stubborn persistence of the faithful in clinging to their illogical beliefs and spreading them around like upper respiratory viruses.

  3. on 20 Apr 2011 at 7:34 pm 3.Samothec said …

    Most likely mutate. Religion is like a virus. You might want to read Darrel Ray’s “The God Virus” if you haven’t already. It discusses religious memes and how they spread.

  4. on 21 Apr 2011 at 12:44 am 4.Boz said …

    I hope so. Then we can get back to following Christ and not religions. There is a big movement taking place. Radical by David Platt is a great read. Keep the faith!

  5. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:46 am 5.Severin said …

    5 Boz
    “I hope so. Then we can get back to following Christ and not religions.”

    Sorry, I don’t get it.

    Religion = „the service and worship of God or the supernatural“ (Webster)

    Are you are saying that Christ is not supernatural?
    Are you suggesting Christians to abandon „general god“ (father + holy spirit) and only follow Jesus, NOT as the supernatural center of a religion, but as a human being.

    In that case, why would’t we follow Ghandi, or Budha…maybe Mother Theresa?

    Or, may I make my own choice and follow myself (refering to other people from time to time)?

    Not to forget: no religion, no god, no CREATION!
    Or,did Jesus create universe?

    You have to make some consensus with other Christians before you revolutionize Christianity that way.
    But, before that, you have to set up confusion in your own head.

  6. on 21 Apr 2011 at 12:08 pm 6.Severin said …

    5 Boz
    Or, when speaking about “get back”, why would’t we get back to Zeus, Baal…

    WHY Christ?

    Please elaborate!

  7. on 21 Apr 2011 at 4:09 pm 7.Joshua said …

    @ Boz 5

    Just to pile on.

    Sure we can “get back to Christ”. Once there is sufficient evidence to convince me there is something I should get back to. Until then no Christianity has been convincing.

  8. on 21 Apr 2011 at 4:31 pm 8.Lightning Boy said …

    I agree with Boz. Religion adds a lot of man-made necessitates and focuses on people rather than Christ. Jesus states for us to follow him, not a pope or a denomination.

  9. on 21 Apr 2011 at 5:24 pm 9.Lou said …

    8.Lightning Boy said …

    “I agree with Boz. Religion adds a lot of man-made necessitates and focuses on people rather than Christ. Jesus states for us to follow him, not a pope or a denomination.”

    Is English your native language?

  10. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:03 pm 10.Joshua said …

    Ugh. I hate that “Christianity is not Religion” crap.

    The definition of religion does not include “True” or “False”. If one day a religion presented enough evidence to convince me it would still be a religion!
    All forms of Christianity are religions.

    I hate rhetoric when there is nothing else.

  11. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:09 pm 11.Observer said …

    #4 Boz. Perfect. David Platt is a gutter church Southern Baptist. You never disappoint.

    Here is the usual wack-job tripe one would expect, but here it is from the parasite Platt

    http://www.brookhills.org/new/beliefs.html

    Filth.

  12. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:10 pm 12.Observer said …

    #4 Oh! I forgot, Southern White-Trash Filth is a better descriptor.

  13. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:13 pm 13.Observer said …

    OK. The bullshit on the David Platt website is too good to let go by. Here is a sample: “God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. ”

    Now given human history, it is something less than comforting that the son-of-a-bitch/whore/hairdresser, if you buy the God is Jesus bit, is responsible for it. Don’t you think?

  14. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:17 pm 14.Observer said …

    Don’t forget to celebrate the beginning of the wish-fulfilling-Jewish-zombie legend tomorrow, on the somewhat perplexingly named “Good Friday”. Maybe the “Good” Friday is a carry-over from the people who actually knew the guy and said “Good Riddance”? Does Riddance sound like Friday in Aramaic? Love you xtians.

  15. on 21 Apr 2011 at 6:21 pm 15.Observer said …

    #10 Joshua As far as the xtians are concerned- while one can compellingly argue they provide little to the world, one should never overlook the boundless reservoir of humor they provide.

  16. on 21 Apr 2011 at 7:14 pm 16.Joshua said …

    @ Oberver 15

    Absolutely. The alternative is crying. Sarcasm and long drawn-out dissections of terrible comments is more fun.

  17. on 21 Apr 2011 at 8:04 pm 17.Lightning Boy said …

    Observer!

    Calm down. I know you are feeling left out. I sense the Asperger’s kicking in during you time here. The anger, the bitterness the resentment.
    God back and take your medicine and then take a nap. :)

  18. on 22 Apr 2011 at 5:54 am 18.sonofapreacherman said …

    The whole “Jesus isn’t a religion” argument is really lame. It tries one’s patience, and I suspect that’s why so many Christians love to use it. It’s a juvenile diversion tactic aimed at muddying the issue in a pinch. I’m not impressed, Boz-O, and Boy, Jesus said a lot of crap, but lightning didn’t shoot out of his ass.

  19. on 23 Apr 2011 at 10:21 pm 19.Samothec said …

    Ah, in 17, Lightning Boy using “Asperger’s” as an epithet just like ignorant Truett did – and incorrectly at that.

    When you change names you might want to not make the same moronic mistakes – it defeats the point of running away and hiding.

    Observer, I think you’ll like this one: a Venn diagram about Jesus – zombie/Dracula/Frankenstein’s monster.

    http://quoteunquotenz.blogspot.com/2009/11/jesus-as-zombie-venn-diagram.html

  20. on 26 Apr 2011 at 8:26 pm 20.Observer said …

    19. Samothec. Brilliant link.

  21. on 26 Apr 2011 at 8:29 pm 21.Observer said …

    17. Lightweight Boy- How do a few pithy comments and acute observation sum to “anger”? (Good vintage) medication and a nap always sounds good to me.

  22. on 26 Apr 2011 at 8:30 pm 22.Observer said …

    #17 LB. How about a little proof-reading?

  23. on 15 Jul 2011 at 12:52 am 23.David Farlow said …

    The ignorance, rudeness and arrogance shown here is an excellent advert for truth of sinful proud man needing humbling by a greater and Just power – namely Jesus Christ.

    If God was not real you would not be giving this a second thought. Let alone having a website name that actually addresses the one you claim to have no belief in.

  24. on 15 Jul 2011 at 2:20 am 24.Lou said …

    23.David Farlow said …

    “The ignorance, rudeness and arrogance shown here is an excellent advert for truth of sinful proud man needing humbling by a greater and Just power -”

    Says the rude and arrogant xtian. Typical xtian hypocrite.

  25. on 16 Jul 2011 at 12:37 pm 25.Scott said …

    Looked at the studies (links) between Aspergers and Atheism and must say the data is compelling. We may have found the link that allows otherwise intelligent men and woman to look at the great complexity and design in creation and still claim there in no proof for God.

    I always expected it must be a disorder.

    David,

    Well said.

  26. on 17 Jul 2011 at 1:37 am 26.Observer said …

    This was a fine thread. I am glad it has come back to life. Thank you David Farlow, and then going farther and lower (from sanity, rationality, truth, etc.) Scott opines without the faintest understanding of what “proof” means, let alone how to construct one that, “otherwise intelligent men and woman(sic) (to) look at the great complexity and design in creation and still claim there in no proof for God.” Which gets us back to what an asshole “God” must be if he is in fact responsible for designing the human back, hemorrhoids, eczema, cleft palates, fistulas, and other half-assed designs worthy of a Chinese building contractor. The endless in-competencies of the so-called designer, “God”, certainly depicts one of the the biggest f*ck-ups in the history of the universe, or at best, a designer in over his ( using the Abrahamic gender) head.

  27. on 17 Jul 2011 at 1:44 am 27.Observer said …

    #23 Far and Low, The whole Asbergers thing has been getting much press of late. What I have taken away from what I have read is the Asbergers folks have an extraordinary bullshit filter. Their malady or strength, this is contextual, is that they lack “social IQ”. Why would they fall for the “go with the flow” bullshit that chiefly comprises religion? It is incomprehensible that it should be otherwise.

    Is being a savant pianist, or mathematician a malady? I would argue “no” in the same vein as finding religion nonsense.

  28. on 17 Jul 2011 at 11:50 am 28.nony mouse said …

    Fascinating, as it show many of the logical errors needed to maintain the religious mindset.

    First, what the study actually showed was the people with Asperger’s were less affected by social-conditioning and, so, tended not to make up excuses to explain events in their lives. This is a positive trait as they find it harder to believe that their lives are affected by invisible pink elephants or gods. The cherry picking and strawman interpretations of the actual paper indicate desperation on behalf of the theist community.

    Second, even if people with Asperger’s were atheists that doesn’t in any way, shape, or form, imply that all atheists would have Asperger’s. The theist argument here is that as all cats are mammals then all mammals are cats. Put another way, as correlation doesn’t imply causation, the statement that suffering from Asperger’s causes someone to be an atheist is nonsensical. Elementary logic fail here people.

    Finally. So what? How in any way, shape, or form, does trying to put a label on someone unwilling to believe in invisible pink elephants (sorry, I mean god) provide even the slightest piece of evidence for the existence of said invisible pink elephant?
    That’s right. It doesn’t.

    So, really. This is a truly intriguing glimpse in the mind of people so desperate to believe that they throw all logic out of the window and resort to playground taunts.

  29. on 17 Jul 2011 at 6:14 pm 29.DPK said …

    nony… well said.
    You are correct in remarking about the near desperation the faithful will sink to to try and rationalize their own delusions. Now it comes to redefining NOT believing in invisible, magical creatures that hear your thoughts and watch everything you do, all the time, as a mental illness!

    I suggested a while back that they look into the definition of psychosis… it seems to fit the pattern of believers WAY more than Asberger’s fits atheists.
    Are all theists psychotic? Well, I guess it would depend on how broad a definition you are willing to accept. Certainly all atheists don’t have Asberger’s, and many people with Asberger’s believe in god. But all theists do seem to fit the definition of psychosis…
    “Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, usually including false beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations).”
    “Psychotic symptoms may include:
    Disorganized thought and speech
    False beliefs that are not based in reality (delusions), especially unfounded fear or suspicion
    Hearing, seeing, or feeling things that are not there (hallucinations)
    Thoughts that “jump” between unrelated topics (disordered thinking)”
    Certainly seems to fit the majority of theists contributing here… curious.

  30. on 17 Jul 2011 at 9:17 pm 30.Truett said …

    “The whole Asbergers thing has been getting much press of late.”

    In order to discuss the topic one must know the topic. The syndrome in known as Asperger’s not Asberger’s. You may not like the fact that legitimate studies are taking place looking at Atheism and the link with Asperger’s syndrome but nonetheless they are indeed taking place. To further the point, those subscribing to Atheism have a much higher score linking them to this syndrome.

    When we look at those of note who subscribe to Atheism this really should not be a surprise.

  31. on 17 Jul 2011 at 9:19 pm 31.Truett said …

    A note of observation here:

    DPK and Observer must be the same individual. They are the only two who misspelled the syndrome and in like manner.

  32. on 17 Jul 2011 at 10:45 pm 32.DPK said …

    Sorry, I’m not Observer. I do admit I can’t spell very well. Blame it on a Catholic elementary education. I can spell delusion though.
    So your point is….???
    I spelled psychosis correctly… does that mean I’m right?
    I notice you also didn’t address any of nony’s actual points. So, the best you can do it criticize spelling errors. I understand, disordered thinking is a symptom of your “condition.”

  33. on 17 Jul 2011 at 10:50 pm 33.Lou said …

    31.Truett said …

    “A note of observation here:”

    Nobody subscribes to atheism. It’s not a philosophy, religion, or dogma.

    This Aspergers business is 100% irrelevant to atheism. It’s yet another theist diversion to their main problem – no evidence for god.

    “To further the point, those subscribing to Atheism have a much higher score linking them to this syndrome.”

    That is 100% bullshit produced by bullshitters such as yourself. Why can’t you simply produce some evidence for your god?

    Hint: there isn’t a god

    “DPK and Observer must be the same individual. They are the only two who misspelled the syndrome and in like manner.”

    You, Horatio, Biff, and Ben must be the same person because you all spout the same lies and bullshit, yet never have any evidence for god.

  34. on 18 Jul 2011 at 12:27 am 34.Horatiio said …

    “DPK and Observer must be the same individual. They are the only two who misspelled the syndrome and in like manner.”

    LOL Truett! Good catch but I doubt they are of the same cloth. It is more of monkey see monkey do for DPK. Nose Buster just is not familiar with the syndrome. The basement may have lost the T3 connection.

    I have gleaned from atheists that they only believe science when the science supports their already perceived conceptions. I posted an article linking Aspergers to Atheism from scientificamerican.com in the past. But obviously it paints atheists in a bad light therefore it must not be true LOL!

    Now we know why the new atheists are such an angry bunch.

  35. on 18 Jul 2011 at 12:35 am 35.Curmudgeon said …

    The Asperger’s syndrome would fully describe Sam Harris’s Reason Project. This syndrome does help explain the exasperating inability of atheists, particularly militant atheists such as the New Atheists, to understand the beliefs and intentions of the neurotypical religious majority of the people on the planet.

    The fact that a scientific non-entity such as Harris would think to publicly question the ability of a scientist like Francis Collins, whose scientific credentials are impeccable, to direct the National Institutes of Health on the sole basis of his unexceptional religious beliefs suggests the real possibility of a link between his atheism and a material brain handicap. Ironically, the theory of atheism as the manifestation of a physical phenomenon fits very well with Harris’s own neuroscientific perspective.

    It also helps explain the observable gap between the average atheist’s reliance on logic and his ability to make competent use of it.

  36. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:23 am 36.Lou said …

    35.Curmudgeon said …

    “It also helps explain the observable gap between the average atheist’s reliance on logic and his ability to make competent use of it.”

    Your A.S. diversion b.s. is getting tired and boring. When you quit playing with yourselves about it, please post your evidence for god.

  37. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:27 am 37.Lou said …

    34.Horatiio said …

    “But obviously it paints atheists in a bad light therefore it must not be true LOL!”

    35.Curmudgeon said …

    “It also helps explain the observable gap between the average atheist’s reliance on logic and his ability to make competent use of it.”

    Yet Crum can’t see Hor’s illogical thinking.

    Show us your evidence for god rather than your delusional, irrational, illogical thought process that produces your imaginary god. That’s ALL you have to do.

  38. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:31 am 38.DPK said …

    ” I posted an article linking Aspergers to Atheism from scientificamerican.com in the past. But obviously it paints atheists in a bad light therefore it must not be true LOL!”

    Says the person who believes he has a personal relationship with an invisible man who walked on water and turned water into wine after being born of a virgin, got murdered but came back to life and will grant him eternal life in a magical place if he believes in him and eats his body and drinks his blood. Oh, yeah, then he ascended bodily into heaven… and there’s a whole bunch of stuff about talking snakes, multiple genocides, a flood covering the whole earth, a talking burning bush, people being turned into salt, and on and on and on………

    Yeah. Ok. I’ll take Aspergers.

  39. on 18 Jul 2011 at 4:01 am 39.Believing Brain said …

    The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism – From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies — How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.
    Check out this book by Michael Shermer:

    Was President Barack Obama born in Hawaii? I find the question so absurd, not to mention possibly racist in its motivation, that when I am confronted with “birthers” who believe otherwise, I find it difficult to even focus on their arguments about the difference between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth. The reason is because once I formed an opinion on the subject, it became a belief, subject to a host of cognitive biases to ensure its verisimilitude. Am I being irrational? Possibly. In fact, this is how most belief systems work for most of us most of the time.

    We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large. After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow. In my new book The Believing Brain (Holt, 2011), I call this process, wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it, belief-dependent realism. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time.

    I patterned belief-dependent realism after model-dependent realism, presented by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design (Bantam Books, 2011). There they argue that because no one model is adequate to explain reality, “one cannot be said to be more real than the other.” When these models are coupled to theories, they form entire worldviews.

    Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts. Among them are:

    Anchoring Bias. Relying too heavily on one reference anchor or piece of information when making decisions.

    Authority Bias. Valuing the opinions of an authority, especially in the evaluation of something we know little about.

    Belief Bias. Evaluating the strength of an argument based on the believability of its conclusion.

    Confirmation Bias. Seeking and finding confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence.

    On top of all these biases, there is the in-group bias, in which we place more value on the beliefs of those whom we perceive to be fellow members of our group and less on the beliefs of those from different groups. This is a result of our evolved tribal brains leading us not only to place such value judgment on beliefs but also to demonize and dismiss them as nonsense or evil, or both.

    Belief-dependent realism is driven even deeper by a meta-bias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs. Even scientists are not immune, subject to experimenter-expectation bias, or the tendency for observers to notice, select and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment and to ignore, discard or disbelieve data that do not.

    This dependency on belief and its host of psychological biases is why, in science, we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the conditions during data collection. Collaboration with colleagues is vital. Results are vetted at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research is replicated in other laboratories. Disconfirming evidence and contradictory interpretations of data are included in the analysis. If you don’t seek data and arguments against your theory, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum. This is why skepticism is a sine qua non of science, the only escape we have from the belief-dependent realism trap created by our believing brains.

  40. on 18 Jul 2011 at 1:48 pm 40.nony mouse said …

    Once again, this Aperger’s paper is being misrepresented, theists are ignoring their errors, and willfully ignoring the fact that none of this commentary provides proof of any god.

    Very well, let’s investigate. Based upon work for a poster-session where a grad student interviewed 27 people with Asperger’s and 34 without, it was suggested that the folks with Asperger’s were less likely to engage in teleological thinking. That’s it.

    How does a one-off study of 61 people’s thinking style on cause and effect provide proof for god and how can that possibly be considered a basis for anything other than a further study?

    Again, what proof of god emerged from this student’s presentation? Enough with the excuses, what PROOF of god does this study provide?

    Further, that such a simplistic (no offense to the student) result would be so trumpeted as validation of someone’s self-identity and world-view simply reeks of desperation. Really, a sample size of 61 being representative of a population of billions? Really? That’s the level of significance that counts as proof in the world of theism. Really?

    But wait, what did the study author say about that point?

    ‘Heywood would like to test the hypothesis further by working with people who have schizophrenia or schizoid personalities. Some experts theorize that certain schizophrenia symptoms (for instance, paranoia) arise in part from a hyperactive sense of social reasoning. “I’d guess that they’d give lots of teleological answers; more than neurotypical people, and certainly far more than people with Asperger’s,” Heywood says.’

    So, yes, using the same source, and same argument, we can also argue that being paranoid and schizophrenic are correlated with religious-styles of thinking. That would certainly account for delusions of being persecuted, the inability to focus on facts, and a refusal to accept reality. Wouldn’t it?

    Remember, theists, this conclusion isn’t the result of an ‘atheist’ argument, it’s the result of yours.

  41. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:03 pm 41.Lou said …

    40.nony mouse said …

    “Once again, this Aperger’s paper is being misrepresented, theists are ignoring their errors, and willfully ignoring the fact that none of this commentary provides proof of any god.”

    So true. But if they believe in their imaginary god, then they’ll believe ANYTHING that they can use to somehow defend their delusion – even the A.S. b.s.

    As if “god spoke to be” or “I have a personal relationship with god” isn’t bat-shit craziness in and of itself.

  42. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:20 pm 42.DPK said …

    “40.nony mouse said …

    Once again, this Aperger’s paper is being misrepresented, theists are ignoring their errors, and willfully ignoring the fact that none of this commentary provides proof of any god.”

    Further, I went to some sites discussing this “study” and curiously, there were public comments from people with Asperger’s that stated they were devout believers… there were also several that commented that they lost faith after being rejected and made to feel unwelcome by the loving christians in the churches they attended. No surprise there.

  43. on 18 Jul 2011 at 2:48 pm 43.Lou said …

    41.Lou said …

    “As if “god spoke to be” or “I have a personal relationship with god” isn’t bat-shit craziness in and of itself.”

    Correction – “god spoke to me”

  44. on 18 Jul 2011 at 7:31 pm 44.Scott said …

    The fact that a scientific non-entity such as Harris would think to publicly question the ability of a scientist like Francis Collins”

    Cur

    A very astute observation. Who is Harris to make such a conclusion? The Aspergers could be causing Harris to reject logical conclusions. I quote from the study:

    “The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.”

  45. on 18 Jul 2011 at 7:49 pm 45.Lou said …

    44.Scott said …

    “The fact that a scientific non-entity such as Harris would think to publicly question the ability of a scientist like Francis Collins”

    Cur

    A very astute observation. Who is Harris to make such a conclusion? The Aspergers could be causing Harris to reject logical conclusions.”

    Really?! Are you REALLY that stupid or are you simply an out-right liar (most probably both)? Please provide the results of any examination and diagnosis that Harris has A.S.

  46. on 18 Jul 2011 at 8:14 pm 46.Lou said …

    What’s so idiotic about theists who use the A.S. and atheism study to attack atheists who don’t share their delusion is that the same study says:

    “As a result of this “theory of mind,” some experts figure, we also tend to see intention or purpose—a conscious mind—behind random or naturally occurring events.”

    This is much more damning for theists than any alleged A.S. – atheism correlation is for atheists. Yet theists ignore it.

  47. on 18 Jul 2011 at 10:33 pm 47.Biff said …

    “The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.”

    This makes a lot of sense. When the vast majority see design behind creation that is so obvious, the atheists just continue to reject this large body of evidence. The AS would certainly explain this insistence.

    However, nothing to be laughed at. I was reading a blog of a young lady with AS. It is truly sad and the sufferers need understanding.

  48. on 19 Jul 2011 at 3:37 am 48.Hell Yeah said …

    “the atheists just continue to reject this large body of evidence.”

    Large body of evidence? With all this evidence floating around, why did I ever go from believing to not believing if it is so obvious that I was right in the first place? I must have acquired Ass-burgers while eating all those burgers that tasted like ass while gaining a college education.

  49. on 19 Jul 2011 at 3:48 pm 49.DPK said …

    Let’s examine the reality of the “large body of evidence” as to what it really is:
    Christians look at the complexity and order found in natural laws and say, “We cannot comprehend how this could exist without an uncreated designer of even greater complexity to have created it.” When presented with scientific evidence that shows not only how such processes can occur, but that they are indeed occurring all the time, they say, “That can’t be… you still can’t explain how the first cell formed…”
    “Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, and only those that eat his body and drink his blood and worship him will receive eternal life in a magical place where everyone is happy all the time.”

    Yeah, that’s a “body of evidence” and a “logical conclusion”.

  50. on 19 Jul 2011 at 4:09 pm 50.Lou said …

    49.DPK said …

    “Yeah, that’s a “body of evidence” and a “logical conclusion”.

    But most importantly, it’s the most “popular.”

  51. on 19 Jul 2011 at 4:43 pm 51.DPK said …

    “But most importantly, it’s the most “popular.”

    And that, of course, proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt… just like 600 years ago, the earth was flat.
    How could literally everyone on the planet be absolutely, completely wrong about something so obvious? It’s inconceivable.
    D

  52. on 19 Jul 2011 at 5:12 pm 52.Horatiio said …

    “When presented with scientific evidence that shows not only how such processes can occur, but that they are indeed occurring all the time”

    Really? Is this true? LOL!

    Great!

    Share with us “the scientific evidence” of how the first cell, first DNA, first protein came into existence.

    This is exciting! We might be able to conclude this great divide.

    Let me see if I follow the rest of your argument. Since atheism is the vast minority, it must therefore be correct? I’m sure you will use your flat earth fallacy of which Atheist still maintain is some sort of religious argument.

    Would this be the basis of your sound reasoning?

  53. on 19 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Horatiio said …

    “Let me see if I follow the rest of your argument.”

    Obviously, you can’t.

    “Since atheism is the vast minority, it must therefore be correct?”

    Nobody wrote or even implied that. You are either an idiot or a liar. Which is it?

  54. on 19 Jul 2011 at 5:39 pm 54.Lou said …

    52.Horatiio said …

    “Really? Is this true? LOL!

    Yes, you idiot, it’s true that there is “complexity and order found in natural laws.”

    As usual, Hor trues to deflect theism’s single major flaw – lack of evidence for god, by arguing about how the first cell came to be, which has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to do with atheism or theism. Hor, I know that because you’re sitting so far in the outfield that you can’t keep up with the game, but at least try to understand the rules.

    Where is your evidence for god? How the first cell came to be is irrelevant to your claim of god.

  55. on 19 Jul 2011 at 7:28 pm 55.DPK said …

    “Nobody wrote or even implied that. You are either an idiot or a liar. Which is it?”

    My vote is idiot. His psychosis doesn’t allow him to think logically. No one said that theism is incorrect BECAUSE the majority of people believe it… where did you infer THAT from? No wonder you can’t believe in a world without invisible people, you simply can’t think straight.

    Hor, you deny that there is evidence that more ordered states arise from more disordered states under natural laws???? Really? You want to go there…. again??

  56. on 19 Jul 2011 at 8:06 pm 56.Horatiio said …

    “When presented with scientific evidence that shows not only how such processes can occur, but that they are indeed occurring all the time”

    Dodging? Deflecting? Delusional?

    Come on, explain to us just the first presence of a protein! Where is the process? Hmm? If you can’t explain the origin you have nothing. We all know natural laws came in to being that keep everything rolling Pee Wee. Everyone knows what God did!

    C’mon DPK these are your words or will we be denied again?

    “No one said that theism is incorrect BECAUSE the majority of people believe it”

    Yes I know. But it was fun since nobody claimed God was real due to a majority Pee Wee. I just followed your lead.

    But guess what Pee Wee. The fact a majority DO believe it doesn’t make it wrong either.

    LOL!!

  57. on 19 Jul 2011 at 8:38 pm 57.Observer said …

    No. While I would like to lay claim to the intelligent comments of Lou, we are in fact different mis-spellers.

  58. on 19 Jul 2011 at 8:40 pm 58.Observer said …

    nony mouse gets the salient point in the SA blurb; religion is quite possibly more appealing to those with a schizoid bias. When Biff or some other prig first touted that paper I made a point along those lines too.

  59. on 19 Jul 2011 at 8:53 pm 59.DPK said …

    “Come on, explain to us just the first presence of a protein! Where is the process? Hmm? If you can’t explain the origin you have nothing.”

    Really, so not knowing when the first shovel of dirt was removed to dig the foundation of the Empire State Building means the building doesn’t exist? What a stupid statement coming from someone who attributes everything to an uncreated god being.

    “But guess what Pee Wee. The fact a majority DO believe it doesn’t make it wrong either.
    LOL!!”

    Once again, no one ever said it did. Where do you pull this stuff from… lemme guess… your bible guide?
    The point is, majority belief has no bearing AT all on the truth or falsehood of a claim. You guys keep bringing up the point that the majority of people claim believe in a god. Not me.

    Once again, you are chasing your tail… poor Hor.. console yourself with a LOL… it will make you feel better.
    Pee Wee? How old are you??? 8?
    That’s what constitutes a rebuttal in Hor’s universe… Pee Wee… hahahahahahahahaha!

  60. on 19 Jul 2011 at 8:53 pm 60.Severin said …

    56 Horatio
    “Come on, explain to us just the first presence of a protein! Where is the process?“

    I am sorry for you!
    You ARE an idiot, but htat is nature, what can we do?

    Why don’t you just type „synthetic proteins“ to searching machine and see result?

    If MEN were able to synthesize proteins in last few decades, what was nature able to do in billions of years.

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/breakthrough-synthetic-proteins-enable-cell-growth/6103

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/synthetic-proteins-better-than-real-ones/484
    „Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and Yale University have built proteins which don’t exist in the natural world. They’ve constructed these proteins from beta-amino acids, which are distinct from the alpha-amino acids that compose natural proteins.”

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i06/8506notw1.html
    etc

    What idiotic comment can you offer to this?

  61. on 19 Jul 2011 at 11:13 pm 61.Swede said …

    “Come on, explain to us just the first presence of a protein! Where is the process? Hmm? If you can’t explain the origin you have nothing.”

    Actually that was an excellent rebuttal DPK. If you can’t explain this how do you know God did not create it? No process in place to get it started therefore your assertion is moot.

  62. on 19 Jul 2011 at 11:36 pm 62.DPK said …

    I know god did not create it for the exact same reason you know Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer didn’t create it. The same reason that if you can’t explain geothermal mechanics doesn’t mean there is a volcano god that causes eruptions and earthquakes. You can’t attribute every gap in scientific knowledge automatically to a god. I mean, well you CAN.. but then you’d be wrong.

    The well known Miller-Urey experimant from 1952 showed how simply amino acids can be created from simple chemicals in simple conditions is a very short time. (one week)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
    Again, Hor has claimed that it is not possible for simple compounds to form more complex compounds without some magical being getting involved. He is wrong. Simple as that.
    Now extrapolate the processes that we know are easy to prove by thousands of millions of years, and then factor in that the initial components of living cells may even have been created elsewhere in the galaxy under conditions we possibly can’t even imagine and brought here on meteorites or comets and it is not hard to imagine life originating from natural processes.
    This seems to be the last line in the sand that theists seem to be drawing. Every other natural process that has been initially credited to god has ultimately been explained by reason. WHEN (not if) science does succeed in creating living organisms, what will you have left? Be careful of staking your claim of the existence of god on biogenisis, because that will soon be taken from you too, and you will be left scrambling for other, smaller gaps to fill with your spirit man.
    http://reemsaied.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/man-creates-life/

  63. on 20 Jul 2011 at 2:46 am 63.Apollo said …

    “The well known Miller-Urey experimant from 1952 showed how simply amino acids can be created”

    The experiment actually supports ID and DPK is clearly leaving out the huge number of issues. Frankly it is amazing Atheists would go to this.

    There are so many problems with the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, though Miller admitted that perhaps the molecules in the early earth might not have reached the ocean in time to be preserved, science tells as that even if they had reached the ocean, they would have been destroyed there, as well. Of course, the amino acids produced were not those needed for life.

    Evolutionists argue amongst themselves about the contents of the early earth atmosphere. The evidence against a conducive atmosphere is so strong that some evolutionists actually propose that there is no other possible explanation for how organisms originally got here than that they came here on a meteor from some other place where they could have initially formed. We could talk also about L-form aminos and D-form sugars and how life consists almost completely of these, while outside of a living organism it is impossible to maintain 100% L-form amino acids or D-form sugars. The list goes on but lastly ID was need to set up this experiment in the first place.

  64. on 20 Jul 2011 at 3:01 am 64.Lou said …

    60.Swede said …

    “Come on, explain to us just the first presence of a protein! Where is the process? Hmm? If you can’t explain the origin you have nothing.”

    “Actually that was an excellent rebuttal DPK. ”

    Actually, no, it wasn’t. DPK didn’t claim to know or did he propose an such an explanation. However, Hor and the other ignorant theists continue to claim that god did it, in spite of not a shred of any evidence.

    But apparently so many of you theists who regularly post here can’t get this simple concept through your thick heads – the origin of the first cell has nothing to do with atheism or theism. All you theists have to do is present any evidence of god, but you don’t. All you can to do is continue to blather on like idiots about a subject about which you obviously know nothing, and that you proudly adorn with juvenile taunts and juvenile insults.

    Now, try to concentrate on this – please present your evidence for god.

    Hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the first cell or protein, or the lack of knowledge thereof. It’s very simple, even for you – show us your god.

    I understand that you can’t do it, and that’s why you continually try to dodge and deflect the issue with b.s. arguments about A.S. and the origin of proteins or cells, because of one simple explanation that perfectly fits your actions – you’re wrong.

  65. on 20 Jul 2011 at 3:06 am 65.Lou said …

    62.Apollo said …

    “The well known Miller-Urey experimant from 1952 showed how simply amino acids can be created”

    “The experiment actually supports ID and DPK is clearly leaving out the huge number of issues.”

    You made some excellent points about issues with the experiment, but to claim it “supports ID” is patently absurd.

  66. on 20 Jul 2011 at 3:34 am 66.DPK said …

    Apollo, I don’t recognize you, so perhaps you are new here, so I felt I should clarify my position. It is clear to Horatiio and many others, because we have been through it before. I do NOT claim to know how life originated on Earth. I have never claimed to “know” this, nor do I claim that the “primordial soup” theory, or the idea that complex amino acids and proteins where formed in interstellar space. I don’t know…. Unlike Hor and the others here, I do not claim to know things I don’t know.
    However, the point remains, that a gap in human understanding does not then default to magic. Gods have always been credited with being the cause of everything humans did not fully understand, from the sun, moon, and stars, to thunder and lightening, to disease, natural disasters, weather……. EVERYTHING.
    They have ALL been proven to have natural, rational, and non-supernatural explanations. Biogenesis is no different. It is just one more gap in human understanding that the religious mind automatically tries to claim for gods. This is such an old story and is so obvious, I find it laughable that otherwise intelligent people fail to see it.
    If you come to a pile of rocks blocking a road along a hill, you might conclude that perhaps a storm or earthquake dislodged the rocks from uphill and they rolled down the hill and blocked the road. Your friend might claim that invisible space monkeys from Pluto moved the rocks there with their tractor beam from their invisible spaceship. Neither of you knows for absolute certainty how the rocks got there, and the truth might be something completely different. But, as a normal intelligent person, you know that one scenario is very likely, and the other is bat-shit crazy.
    If you are going to make extraordinary claims that defy reason and rationality, you need to have some pretty strong evidence to back up your claim. This is why Lou is adamant about requesting you present your evidence for god’s existence. “It’s the only thing we can think of” doesn’t qualify. Neither does “we have a holy book”. There are lots of holy books and lots of gods to pick from, There is no evidence to support the idea that ANY of them actually exist.

  67. on 20 Jul 2011 at 5:09 am 67.Severin said …

    63 Appolo
    “Of course, the amino acids produced were not those needed for life.”

    Amino acids are not those needed for life?
    Which planet are you people from?

    Oh, yes, dirt (dust? mud?) was necessary for life!
    And a …something… blowing life to Adam’s nostrils.

    Man synthesizes proteins today! Hey! Wake up!

  68. on 20 Jul 2011 at 11:15 am 68.Truett said …

    “evolutionists actually propose that there is no other possible explanation for how organisms originally got here than that they came here on a meteor”

    Apollo is correct. Crick being one of the first. So what they are doing is pushing the question of how life formed to another part of the universe. The question remains.

    Any evidence for ETs. NO But this is science but the ID opponents argue God (ID) is not science.

    The presence of God is magic? Uh, no. Matter & energy popping into existence without God to put it here is magic.

    Miller-Urey has been debunked so many times I still am amazed DPK pulled this out. An intelligent being forming his experimental world and removing amino acids from his world to preserve them is indeed evidence for ID.

  69. on 20 Jul 2011 at 12:45 pm 69.Joe said …

    Why don’t you guys at least read this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    and then discuss things more adequately?

  70. on 20 Jul 2011 at 2:11 pm 70.Lou said …

    67.Truett said …

    “Miller-Urey has been debunked so many times I still am amazed DPK pulled this out.”

    Oh really? Please explain the purpose of the experiment and how it was “debunked.”

  71. on 20 Jul 2011 at 2:46 pm 71.Severin said …

    68 Truett
    “Any evidence for ETs.No..”
    WHO aksed for ETs?

    There are many logical (and porven) ways how something like a living cell, or its part, could pass all the way between Mars and Earth, Venus and Earth, and much further ways.
    And, of course, life could (and most probably did) start on earth.

    WHY are you ignoring the fact that MAN is synthesizing proteins TODAY?

    Any evidence for god?
    We can’t wait to hear them!

    “…but the ID opponents argue God (ID) is not science.”
    It is not:
    Science:
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

    Now we wait you to systematically arrange body of facts or truths, that will show us operation of general laws, OR to show us how to prove god by observation and experiments, OR …

    Please do not get lost among thousands og gods available!

  72. on 20 Jul 2011 at 2:57 pm 72.Severin said …

    Truett
    “Matter & energy popping into existence without God to put it here is magic.”

    No one ever said matter and energy “popped” into existance! Where did you see that?
    Or, are you lying, as most of your bodies theists do, just to prove yourself right?

    Was god “popped into existance”? Who/what “popped” it?
    He wasn’t? Then, how the hell he was there?

    He just WAS THERE?

    Well, matter/energy just was there, it was NOT created, it existed. No need for miracles, popping…no need for god. Matter/energy existed, exists and will exist, as simple as that.
    Give us one single reason WHY matter and energy should NECESSARILY have been created!?
    WHY?

    It sounds much more logical, beause we can observe and measure matter and energy.
    No way to observe or measure gods.
    We are waiting patiently for you to give us some solid evidences about existance of god, but you are all the time avoiding to give us ANYTHING but your empty claims.

  73. on 20 Jul 2011 at 3:18 pm 73.Severin said …

    68 Truett
    “Miller-Urey has been debunked so many times…”

    When? How? What did I miss?

    In ONLY a week, Miller and Urey got aminoacids, sugars, and many other complex molecules, that ARE parts (“brixes”) of living cell.
    Nature had in its “sleeve” some 182,000,000,000 weeks, or more.

  74. on 20 Jul 2011 at 4:07 pm 74.DPK said …

    As to Miller Urey. It has not been “debunked”. Substantiate your claim or retract it.

    “In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of “old” areas in “old” genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one.[24]

    Professor Jeffrey Bada, himself Miller’s student, inherited the original equipment from the experiment when Miller died in 2007. Based on sealed vials from the original experiment, scientists have been able to show that although successful, Miller was never able to find out with the equipment available to him the full extent of the experiment’s success. Later researchers have been able to isolate even more different amino acids, 25 altogether. Professor Bada has estimated that more accurate measurements could easily bring out 30 or 40 more amino acids in very low concentrations, but the researchers have since discontinued the testing. Miller’s experiment was therefore a remarkable success at synthesizing complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals, considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids.[7]

    In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller’s experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin’s envisioned “warm little pond”, Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. Interestingly, they found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides”

    Besides that, no one here claimed that Miller-Urey provided PROOF of how life actually originated. You are intentionally mis-stating my intent in order to make yourself sound correct. Miller-Urey was mentioned in response to Hor’s assertion that complexity in nature does not occur without a supernatural force to cause it. This is simply untrue… are you claiming that because after one week, Miller-Urey did not conclude with the production of a living cell, that that proves that Hor’s contention is correct? Matter cannot arrange itself into increasingly complex forms? Yes or No please.

  75. on 20 Jul 2011 at 5:11 pm 75.Lou said …

    “Besides that, no one here claimed that Miller-Urey provided PROOF of how life actually originated. You are intentionally mis-stating my intent in order to make yourself sound correct.”

    A clear sign of the inadequacy of a position can be found in the misrepresentation of the other side’s arguments.

    It’s the same old tiresome, ineffective tactic used by these guys.

  76. on 20 Jul 2011 at 10:09 pm 76.Horatiio said …

    “So what they are doing is pushing the question of how life formed to another part of the universe.”

    Thanks Truett. DPK admits he doesn’t know how life was created but still posts the Miller experiment? Why? It has been debunked for the huge number of assumptions and human interactions within the experiment. The atmospheric conditions he used are not even correct according to science. What did he prove?

    Truett mentioned Francis Crick who did propose alien origins for life on earth. OK. Then who created the aliens?

    Science will never prove God and they will never prove purely naturalistic origins unless they develop the ability to perform time travel. Until then, abiogenesis and the like are nothing more than good stories.

  77. on 20 Jul 2011 at 11:24 pm 77.Observer said …

    Why is it that the theist/gawddidit crowd are so eager for a neatly packaged answer to the origins of life that they will go for the god-of-the-gaps versus thought and hard work? Besides, aesthetically, what could be more ugly than the notion of an Abrahamic god? Why do you limit yourselves? IT really is too much.

    So anyway, the thing that is missing from all this is the whole hydrothermal vent environment. This was an unknown environment until the past 25-30 or so years. You have P&T, plus abiogenic methane, highly reactive sulfides, phosphorus, nitrogen compounds, and plenty of electrons.

  78. on 21 Jul 2011 at 12:22 am 78.Lou said …

    75.Horatiio said …

    “What did he prove?”

    Rather than waste anytime trying to explain it to you, I will make this simple observation – by asking that question you demonstrated what an incredibly ignorant person you are.

    Why don’t you simply stay in your cave or what ever rock you live under instead of announcing to the world that you’re an imbecile?

    “Until then, abiogenesis and the like are nothing more than good stories.”

    As if any belief in god is even a good story. Abiogenesis is infinitely more than a “good story”.

    But let’s hear a “good story” from you – what is your evidence for god? Don’t feel bad that you can’t produce it, because you are simply wrong – there is no god.

  79. on 21 Jul 2011 at 1:31 am 79.Burebista said …

    What is it with the time and chance crowd? They have no proof, no previous instances of this abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. The data is solidly against any of these possibilities. A lot of great stories filled with may, possibly, time, chance, etc.

    How long must they insist on some natural phenomenon and fail before they realize the truth?

    I don’t know if it is the cult way or the AS.

  80. on 21 Jul 2011 at 1:57 am 80.Lou said …

    78.Burebista said …

    “What is it with the time and chance crowd? They have no proof, no previous instances of this abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. The data is solidly against any of these possibilities.”

    Really? Show us the data against abiogenesis – some real, acceptable scientific data that exists in the scientific community

    “I don’t know if it is the cult way or the AS.”

    I don’t think you know much of anything. And if you think that you’re somehow being witty or clever with the continued reference to A.S. nonsense, you’re not. All you’re doing is demonstrating how foolishly desperate you are to defend what you perceive as an attack on your god delusion.

  81. on 21 Jul 2011 at 2:39 am 81.Lou said …

    75.Horatiio said …

    “Science will never prove God…”

    That goes without saying. Any other sparks of brilliance you want to share with us?

    “…and they will never prove purely naturalistic origins unless they develop the ability to perform time travel.”

    This is one of the most ludicrous comments you posted. And what do you mean by “prove?” If basic replicating life is created in the laboratory, that’s not proof to the extent that you define it in the context of seeing it happen by virtue of time travel. Such proof is simply not possible. By your standard of proof, that the continents once existed as one land mass can’t be proven unless we go back in time to see it. But do you dispute that they did?

    “Until then, abiogenesis and the like are nothing more than good stories.”

    Of course not. They’re infinitely much more than that.

    But let’s use your standards to examine your belief that god did it. Unless we go back in time to see the moment of creation, then it’s nothing but a good story that god did it – so it didn’t happen. At least with abiogenesis there’s some scientific hypothesis and supporting experimentation. God did it has nothing but some “good stories” in an ancient, demonstrably contradictory book of myths. Oh wait, there’s more than one of those books of good stories about another god that did it.

  82. on 21 Jul 2011 at 6:01 am 82.Severin said …

    79 Burebista
    “What is it with the time and chance crowd?“

    „Chance“? Again?
    Who mentioned „chance“, ever?

    Those idiots (and liars) persist on „chance“ all the time, to fog up the problem.
    Chemistry has nothing to do with „chance“!
    Chemical reactions occur according to laws of chemistry, NOT by chance.

    You don’t like the fact that MAN produces complex proteins today, and you ignore the fact, because you start to realize that we don’t need an old with long white beard blowing through someone’s nostrils, to have life.
    You are loosing ground under your feet, you are in panic, and as always, you use lies and dishonest constructions to keep yourself standing on your feet.

    When I understand I was wrong, I say it.
    I don’t use lies and constructions to prove myself right.
    Why don’t you, people, do the same?

  83. on 21 Jul 2011 at 11:31 am 83.nony mouse said …

    I’m not sure the theists actually care if man can or cannot produce proteins in the lab. It’s really about the diversion that until absolutely everything that is claimed for god is demonstrated to be a purely a natural phenomena, then their default answer is “god did it because you can’t prove (fill in the blanks)”.

    Hence the tactic of finding a gap in our current knowledge and attacking that as if, somehow, the whole edifice crumbles due to that one point. And, of course, when that gap is closed, they simply look around for another or, as likely, simply demand a greater level of detail. Detail, of course, that they themselves cannot provide. Look how most of the posts here on WWGHA end up back at the same point, no matter the initial topic.

    It’s not about proving that god exists – that they can’t do. It’s about denigrating the opposition and finding reasons to say – “well, that’s not a completely perfect description of everything – therefore god exists”.

    Hopefully those reading the blog can see that one side posts answers and explanations whilst another side posts LOLs, snide comments, and studiously avoids addressing their lack of evidence all whilst conveniently ignoring the inconsistent and contradictory nature of their evidence-less explanation.

  84. on 21 Jul 2011 at 2:21 pm 84.DPK said …

    But you forget that the majority of people profess a belief in some sort of god-being, and while they will begrudgingly admit that that fact, in itself, is not absolute proof of god, it also doesn’t prove they are wrong either… therefore, god must exist because a lot of people think so and you can’t prove they’re wrong.

    That’s the logical process we deal with here.

  85. on 21 Jul 2011 at 4:38 pm 85.DPK said …

    82.nony mouse said …

    I’m not sure the theists actually care if man can or cannot produce proteins in the lab. It’s really about the diversion that until absolutely everything that is claimed for god is demonstrated to be a purely a natural phenomena, then their default answer is “god did it because you can’t prove (fill in the blanks)”.

    Exactly. No different from the volcano god getting credit for the earthquake because caveman “A” can’t provide a better answer to caveman “B”.

    More to the point is that the ability to produce proteins in a lab by mimicking natural conditions was never presented as evidence for or against god… it was presented as evidence against the claim (that has been made here many times) that complexity does not arise in nature naturally. This has been the crux of the “god of the gap” argument… as least as it has been presented here. That order cannot arise from disorder without a supernatural force. This is simply, totally, flat out incorrect. But when this is pointed out, of course the point goes unchallenged except for the occasional “LOL” or “Pee Wee” comment, only to be asserted again further down the line. As if maybe someone, somewhere will be dumb enough to accept it unconditionally if you just continue to state it as fact, rather than what it actually is, complete bullshit.
    Same with the “time and chance” rebuttal. I have never heard anyone here claim that “chance” has anything to do with natural laws. There is no “chance” involved. Complex compounds will from from simpler compounds according to the laws of chemistry, no chance involved. No sometimes they will, sometimes they won’t. Yet, the theists continue to claim we attribute things to chance. No surprise really. These are the same folks who tried to convince us that black is a color, silence is a sound, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and atheism is a religion.
    D

  86. on 21 Jul 2011 at 7:24 pm 86.nony mouse said …

    Excellent points, DPK.

    It is indeed puzzling why theists need to parody scientific theory when their misunderstandings have been so patiently and thoroughly explained away.

    As for “chance”, that’s even stranger. On one hand we hear the like of “what are the odds of that!” yet that’s coming from the same people who believe that a supremely intelligent and powerful deity created an entire universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, themselves with planets, so that almost 14 billion years later he could be BFFs with a barely sentient (to him) life form on an obscure planet, orbiting a ho-hum star, found in a not-particularly prominent part of an otherwise average galaxy.

    And, to think, he did all that just so that he could have someone to talk to. Now, what are the odds of that.

  87. on 21 Jul 2011 at 9:49 pm 87.Duke said …

    I will take this opportunity to bust the chops of my atheist brethren a little bit. I purposely call myself agnostic because this is in reality the most logical position to take. I sick to my stomach every time I see some atheist claiming there is no god or no proof of a god. Then without fail they go to leprechauns, flat earth or some other ridiculous fallacy.

    Let me go the other way of which I see few theists going. At one time space flight, DNA and quarks also had no proof of existence. In facts many were even ridiculed for believing man would ever fly. The fact man did not have proof of these phenomena in no way made them less real.
    You do not know there is No God and the fact you do not see proof as you define proof does not mean god does not exist. As an Agnostic, I believe there is an even chance a god does exist.

    Stop acting like a religious fundamentalist, back away emotionally and show the maturity that makes our community rationale.

  88. on 21 Jul 2011 at 10:57 pm 88.DPK said …

    Good point Duke. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think most of the atheists here would agree with me on this. If you review my older posts here, I have NEVER claimed that I KNOW with 100% certainty, there is no god. That would be foolish, because to claim to know something that is unknowable is just silly.
    What I have said is that I do not see ANY convincing evidence of any gods that actually exist.
    Now YOU, make a proverbial leap when you jump from I don’t know if god exists to therefore it’s “an even chance”. It’s not an “even chance” anymore than there is an “even chance” leprechauns or some other “ridiculous fallacy” is real. On what do you base your claim that it is 50/50… and which of the hundreds of available gods to you give the 50% odds too?
    D

  89. on 22 Jul 2011 at 12:07 am 89.Lou said …

    86.Duke said …

    “Then without fail they go to leprechauns, flat earth or some other ridiculous fallacy.”

    “Leprechauns” isn’t a fallacy, and it’s not even remotely similar to “flat earth.” You’re simply rambling. By your reasoning, it’s possible there are leprechauns. Simply believing that everything is possible is a fallacy.

    “At one time space flight, DNA and quarks also had no proof of existence. In facts many were even ridiculed for believing man would ever fly. The fact man did not have proof of these phenomena in no way made them less real.”

    You example is flawed, (space) flight is an invention of man. It WAS impossible until man made it possible.

    As for natural phenomenon, that’s a different story. The fact that something is unknown is not the same thing as imagining it. God is imagined, DNA and quarks aren’t, even though they were at one time unknown. There is no “theory of god” that has any scientific basis or, for that matter, any other rational reasoning. That’s why belief in god is faith.

    “As an Agnostic, I believe there is an even chance a god does exist.”

    That is simply an irrational comment with no basis in fact or logic.

    Do you believe, as some theists claim, that they have a personal relationship with Jesus or that god speaks to them and answers their prayers?

  90. on 22 Jul 2011 at 12:44 am 90.nony mouse said …

    Duke, agreed on emotion and maturity.

    I’m going, though, to take DPK point one stage further. Not only does there appear to be no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god, as our knowledge accumulates at no time are we finding anything that would even suggest the need for a supernatural explanation. As Hawking put it, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

    I’m also intrigued as to why you would give the chance of god(s) to be 50/50. Perhaps you mean you can’t know either way though?

    For those that haven’t seen it, Lawrence Krauss’ “A Universe from Nothing” is one of the best hours you could spend. As he puts it “…every event that happens has small probability, but it happens…” and “..So the thing that physics tell us about the universe is that it’s big, rare event happens all the time — including life — and that doesn’t mean it’s special”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  91. on 22 Jul 2011 at 12:54 am 91.Horatiio said …

    Duke

    You are the most reasonable non-theist I have ever seen post on the blog. It gives me hope and if more had an attitude like yours there would be no need for these ridiculous arguments.

    I can actually agree that from you point of view God is a 50/50 proposition. These guys who claim there is No God get me laughing. I can’t imagine a more arrogant position to have living on this blue dot tucked away in a cul-de-sac of the universe.

    Watch the back tracking begin. It always does.

  92. on 22 Jul 2011 at 2:33 am 92.Lou said …

    90.Horatiio said …

    “It gives me hope and if more had an attitude like yours there would be no need for these ridiculous arguments.

    I can actually agree that from you point of view God is a 50/50 proposition.”

    So much for no need for ridiculous arguments such as yours. God is not a 50-50 proposition. Don’t like leprechauns or the tooth-fairy? Substitute any other imaginary creature for god and it’s obvious how absurd your proposition is. Without some evidence for god, or at least a logical requirement, he’s a 0% probability. And the real proposition isn’t god or no-god. More correctly, it’s god or something other than god. How many “other than god” options are there? So, you see, the odds for god are infinitely small, or 0%.

    “These guys who claim there is No God get me laughing.”

    And this is relevant how except to demonstrate your delusion of superiority? What get’s ME laughing is your continuous posting of irrelevant comments in lieu of your evidence for god.

    “I can’t imagine a more arrogant position to have living on this blue dot tucked away in a cul-de-sac of the universe.”

    And I can’t imagine a more arrogant (and laughable) position than to think than an omnipotent god created you. Cul-de-sac: dead-end, is that what you meant?

    “Watch the back tracking begin. It always does.”

    Once again, Hor lies. Something similar to back-tracking is what our resident theists all do – claim god, but can’t provide any evidence for god.

  93. on 22 Jul 2011 at 6:26 am 93.Severin said …

    87 Duke
    “As an Agnostic, I believe there is an even chance a god does exist.“

    Which god? „A god“, Christian god, Allah, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Vulcano god, Odin….?

    If you are trying to put some spiritus movens behind universe, there is no need to search for special gods.
    If „definition“ of god is that god is „something“ eternal and intelligent and „all mighty“ matter/energy itself perfectly fits this definition: it is eternal, intelligent (inherent intelligence in form of „built in“ laws, an electron, for example „knows“ what to „do“ in any given situation!), and allmighty.
    Like gods thought up by humans, this „god“ „made“ (produced) life, eventually also human beings, BUT he (it) is totally indifferent to his „creations“. The only „communication“ between this „god“ and everything are natural laws (physics, chemistry, math…), and it is absolutelly „non-personal“.
    This „god“ does everything according to „his“ laws, nothing can occur out of „his“ laws, but unlike with human-made gods, there is NO PURPOSE and NO INTENTION in „deeds“ of THIS „god“.
    There is ONLY endless cause-effect line of events that just happen, strictly according to laws that matter/energy follow. This cause – effect line is circular, has no beginning and no end (Big Bang, for example, did not „popped from nothing“, as theists are always trying to falsify the event. It „popped“ from a cluster of matter/energy that was there already, only in different form).

    We don’t have problem with gods, we have problem with religions.
    Searching for answers is most beautiful human characteristic, most positive one, and I have no problem with anyone developing his/her thoughts to try to reach even most intriguing answers imaginable.
    Now, please, name a religion that did not offer exclusive „truths“ and killed people who did not want to accept them.
    Name a religion that allowed its congregation to THINK, to DISCUSS, to OPOSE, to KNOW…
    Religions ARE the poison for open mind, they are retrogreesive, negative, DANGEROUS, beacuse they do not allow an individual to develop individual thoughts.
    Religions are lethal for human mind.

  94. on 22 Jul 2011 at 2:47 pm 94.DPK said …

    I think what Sev and others are trying to say here Duke, is that there is a serious problem with your “equal chance” point. You say you are agnostic, you don’t know, indeed, you can’t know, if “god” is real. Agreed. But then you say therfore god/no god = 50/50.
    But look at it this way… take your 50% odds that god is real and divide that between Yahweh and Allah… now the christian god is only 25%.. add in Krishna, now only 16%… how about Zeus, Apollo, Mithra… all the hundreds of other god that people have invented over the ages, and you can see that Yahweh’s probability quickly approaches 0%…fairly UN-certain.

    Now, I’ll bet you probably agree that Zeus, Neptune and the like, just like Leprechauns and fairies, certainly do NOT exist. They were purely imaginary, so they don’t really belong in the equation. But now you must ask yourself why Yahweh or Allah DO belong in the equation? What evidence do you have that they possibly exist, and all the others clearly do not?

    In order to do this, you must define what you call “god”. Natural laws certainly control the way matter and energy behave in the universe. If you want to call those “god” or the “creative force” I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you. Even Einstein, who was agnostic and said flat out that he did not believe in a personal god, referenced “the mind of god” when he spoke about the natural order of the universe. Have at it.

    But if you want to make that jump from the natural order of the universe to a intelligent being who intercedes in human affairs, answers prayers, performs miracles, judges you for sins, conceived a human son via a virgin, had him killed and resurrected from the dead, demands worship and adoration and will reward you with eternal life in some non-physical realm if you accept and love him and eat his body and blood……….. well, you need some evidence to show that is actually true any more than any other god myth that most will acknowledge are complete fabrications of the human imagination.
    If you are going to claim that THAT story is equally as likely as the fact that the universe exists as it is and we are just a small part of it, and no magical being is watching us every second of every day and listening to our every thought… you need to show some compelling argument.
    That is what this website really tries to do. Take a look at “the more or less standard definition” for god and compare it to what we really see and know about the nature of reality. If you think about the points presented here without an emotional bias connected to “faith” I think you need to agree that reality falls far, far short of what most people would accept as a definition for god.

  95. on 22 Jul 2011 at 4:54 pm 95.Apollo said …

    “But look at it this way… take your 50% odds that god is real and divide that between Yahweh and Allah… now the christian god is only 25%.. ”

    Exactly where does Duke say the proposition is for one particular God? He claims “God” not Allah, etc.
    Try reading before criticizing.

    The question does God exist is a yes/no proposition. That in turn is a 50/50 proposition.

  96. on 22 Jul 2011 at 5:20 pm 96.Lou said …

    94.Apollo said …

    “Exactly where does Duke say the proposition is for one particular God? He claims “God” not Allah, etc.”

    ?!

    “The question does God exist is a yes/no proposition. That in turn is a 50/50 proposition.”

    Not exactly. It may be a 50/50 “proposition,” but the chance is not 50/50. It’s like saying winning the lottery is a 50/50 proposition. You win or lose (50/50) right, despite what the true odds are? Of course not. Your will either be right or wrong about god – 50/50, but the odds that any god or God exists are not 50/50.

    Is it a 50/50 chance that I am god? Either I am or I’m not. Of course not. It’s a 0% chance that I am god.

    Only your choice is to believe or not believe is a 50/50 proposition. Duke wrote “I believe there is an even chance a god does exist.” That is false. There is not an even chance that god exists.

  97. on 22 Jul 2011 at 5:45 pm 97.DPK said …

    Lou jumped on this one before I had a chance to, and he is 100% correct. You can say there is a 50/50 chance that invisible flying elephants exists… they do or they don’t 50/50, but that does NOT make it equally likely that they are real as that they are not, now does it?

    And that was kind of my whole point… looks like Apollo missed it. You have to define god before you can even begin to discuss the possibility of its existence. If your concept of “god” is simply the creative force driven by natural laws… like gravity, that’s one thing. If your idea of “god” is a being who cares who you have sex with and answers your prayer to cure Aunt Mary of her hemorrhoids…. about as close to “0″ as you can get.

    So, anyone here who wants to define what their god is, and then proved actual evidence that such a thing exists… we are all waiting.

  98. on 22 Jul 2011 at 9:00 pm 98.Apollo said …

    “It’s like saying winning the lottery is a 50/50 proposition. You win or lose (50/50) right,”

    Wrong….. There is only ONE lottery winner yes. If God exists he exists for ALL of us. Does DNA only exist for one of us since its discovery?

    Lou you may benefit from a logic course. Anything you claim after that attempt is really quite pointless.

  99. on 22 Jul 2011 at 9:22 pm 99.Duke said …

    “You are the most reasonable non-theist I have ever seen post on the blog.

    Thank you Horatio. I have never considered Theist an enemy. I have never even minded one sharing their faith with me. The fact they care enough about me to share what they think is beneficial for me shows they care in my opinion. It has only happened a few times. There are the good and bad in every walk of life and to demonize a group of people of fools because they believe in God is asinine. Honestly I get criticized by atheist more than I do Christians.

    My 50-50 proposition of God stands because like DNA God exists or does not exist. DNA much like the late Antony Flew has led me to the 50-50 proposition. Its really that simple. I don’t pretend to know the nature and specifics.

  100. on 22 Jul 2011 at 9:42 pm 100.Severin said …

    95 Apollo
    “The question does God exist is a yes/no proposition. That in turn is a 50/50 proposition.”

    Can you please give us logical analysis for 50/50 yes/no for Santa?
    I mean, WHY would such a ratio be valid for god, and not valid for anything else, including pink teapot orbiting Jupiter, spaghetti monster, or Santa?

    Following that logic, there is 50% probability that universe get out from the asshole of a biiiiiiig horse.
    WHY would such a claim be less logical than the claim about 50% probability that god exists?

  101. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:12 pm 101.Lou said …

    97.Apollo said …

    “Wrong….. There is only ONE lottery winner yes.”

    NO!!!!!! There can be many lottery winners! But that’s irrelevant. Winning the lottery is a win/loose (50/50) proposition. But the chances of winning the lottery, or that god exists, are NOT 50/50.

    “If God exists he exists for ALL of us. Does DNA only exist for one of us since its discovery?”

    No, and nobody wrote any such thing implying otherwise.

    “Lou you may benefit from a logic course. Anything you claim after that attempt is really quite pointless.”

    A logic course?! You need a remedial THINKING course. You sir, are an idiot.

  102. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:15 pm 102.Lou said …

    99.Severin said …

    “I mean, WHY would such a ratio be valid for god, and not valid for anything else, including pink teapot orbiting Jupiter, spaghetti monster, or Santa?”

    Obviously, it’s not valid, as I explained earlier. But you must understand who you’re dealing with here – deluded, irrational, illogical, theists. What do you expect from them?

  103. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:20 pm 103.Lou said …

    98.Duke said …

    “My 50-50 proposition of God stands because like DNA God exists or does not exist. DNA much like the late Antony Flew has led me to the 50-50 proposition.”

    Now you’re changing your words. You first wrote “I believe there is an even chance a god does exist.” Not “50-50 proposition of God.”

    “Its really that simple. I don’t pretend to know the nature and specifics.”

    That explains your misunderstanding.

  104. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:31 pm 104.Horatiio said …

    Duke,

    It is a shame more don’t have the attitude you take toward such discussions. Logic without passions produces clear thinking. I contend Atheism is a religion due to the great passion held by the tenants. As a former atheist I can speak of such since I was in the know. I do apologize for the attacks you must endure. I get them from the atheists as well.

    I have read some of Antony Flew’s works and his quest from Atheism to Theism. Many of the young know-it-alls are unaware of his status even without the tool of the internet.

  105. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:41 pm 105.Lou said …

    103.Horatiio said …

    “I contend Atheism is a religion due to the great passion held by the tenants.”

    That you contend that atheism is a religion is irrelevant, except to the extent that it demonstrates your ignorance.

  106. on 23 Jul 2011 at 2:51 am 106.nony mouse said …

    103.Horatiio “I have read some of Antony Flew’s works and his quest from Atheism to Theism. Many of the young know-it-alls are unaware of his status even without the tool of the internet”.

    It’s not at all clear what you are trying to say here. You speak of people being unaware of Flew’s status and his quest for theism, but that wasn’t his quest and his outlook upon his death was that of a deist, not theist.

    In fact, as far as Christianity goes, what Flew said was that the God he had come to believe “probably” existed is “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam”. He further went on to describe the god of Christianity and Islam as “omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins” – hardly a ringing endorsement.

    So if you are bringing up Flew as an example to look up to, be clear that he also categorically rejected the god of the bible. Further, regarding his conversion, there is considerable debate regarding Flew’s mental acuity during his declining years and controversy regarding authorship of his last work.

    In all, the above backs up what DPK and Lou were saying about the so-called 50:50 option, as it’s assigning the Christian god zero probability.

  107. on 23 Jul 2011 at 3:40 am 107.DPK said …

    98.Duke said …”My 50-50 proposition of God stands because like DNA God exists or does not exist. ”

    Do you have an answer for the simple challenge? Zeus either exists or he does not. Would you contend that the the odds that Zeus is real or that he is imaginary are even? 50/50?

    If not, why not?

  108. on 23 Jul 2011 at 3:33 pm 108.MrQ said …

    Hor #103

    I have read some of Antony Flew’s works

    Good for you Hor. Are you now ready to drop the yoke of christianity and adopt a more rational stance, such as Flew’s, with respect to a god?
    nony mouse is correct…Flew despised the christian god which you cower to.
    Ahhh, my holidays have ended but, Hor, your stupidity continues.

  109. on 23 Jul 2011 at 4:03 pm 109.Ben said …

    “bringing up Flew as an example to look up to, be clear that he also categorically rejected the god of the bible.”

    He also categorically rejected atheism after being an adherent for decades. Quite a blow for atheist.

    Will you know categorically reject this irrational view of no God and admit God exists? This would be the 1st step in discovering the real and true God.

  110. on 23 Jul 2011 at 4:26 pm 110.Observer said …

    #86 Duke. Your post does not so much make an argument for agnosticism, as demonstrate sloppy thinking and a misunderstanding of science.

    First, “I sick to my stomach every time I see some atheist claiming there is no god or no proof of a god. Then without fail they go to leprechauns, flat earth or some other ridiculous fallacy.” is probably at best a stupid statement. The flat Earth problem is relatively easy to demonstrate, and the Greeks demonstrated the Earth was spheroid about the time the Romans were hitting their stride. Leprechauns though, are just as plausible as the Abrahamic God, and it would be stunning should you show otherwise. (I will avoid using “prove” as it is not particularly clear what it means. For example, without plagiarism, I doubt you could supply a proof that 1+1=2.) Your stomach problems are lamentable.

    Now, for the crux of your misunderstanding of science, you should first observe that the examples you use, space flight, DNA, quarks and what seem like other examples floating about in your head, are either extrapolations of previous human technology, or something predicted by either empirical or theoretical scientific research. Human flight in the atmosphere leading to human space flight is analogous to rafting across a pond, to building ocean going vessels. Analytical chemistry led to the isolation of DNA, and x-ray diffraction led to discovering its structure. Quarks were predicted BASED ON THEORY to explain PHYSICAL phenomena. The point here is that the discoveries you mention are extensions of human work that rest on a very deep foundation of knowledge created by Science ( if you are not clear on what science is, do a web search for Karl Popper ). There is nothing pointing to a “God” aside from a convenient explanation for human ignorance. This is diametrically opposed to the growth of knowledge, as distinct from finding out what is not known, which eliminates ignorance and removes the need for a “God”.

    I think most Atheists are critical thinkers, and if they were in fact ever confronted with a shred of evidence, mind you not an explanation for ignorance, that “God” existed, they would believe “God” exists in the same way they believe the Sun and gravity exists, and the Earth orbits the Sun.

    In the mean time you should sharpen your education and reasoning skills so that when you try to bust someone’s chops you do not make yourself look ill-informed and not-too-bright. At this point the only thing that separates you from Hor is the omission of “LOL” and “ROTFL” from your posts.

    I just read your other post. You don’t even have a clue as to what you don’t know. You seem more interested some sort of adulation and camaraderie than in learning. Lie with dogs (Hor) you will get fleas (stupidity). Try to find a group of free thinkers, or read a couple books a week instead of watching TV or playing video games. At this point, you are nothing if not preposterous.

  111. on 23 Jul 2011 at 4:31 pm 111.Observer said …

    Duke- You also run the risk of becoming like the impenetrably thick-skulled Ben in post #108. At his best he rises to taunts worthy of a seventh-grader, but is most comfortable at his true nature- the cretinous blow-hard.

  112. on 23 Jul 2011 at 4:50 pm 112.DPK said …

    108.Ben said …

    “bringing up Flew as an example to look up to, be clear that he also categorically rejected the god of the bible.”

    He also categorically rejected atheism after being an adherent for decades. Quite a blow for atheist. ”

    Not really. He reportedly converted to deism, and completely rejected the idea of an intercessory god who is involved in any way in human affairs, as well as the idea of an afterlife, and certainly rejected any notion of Jesus and sin and forgiveness and the need for worship. To a deist god you are no more significant than the bacteria living on the crumb of a donut lost in the corner of the men’s room in the basement of the library. You cool with that idea, Ben?

    As someone who claims to have a “personal relationship” with god, his ideas are completely opposed to yours. So, you have no problem accepting a god that doesn’t give the proverbial shit about you, as long as you can claim that some kind of god exists? Goodness, you are willing to grasp at anything now, aren’t you?

  113. on 23 Jul 2011 at 5:37 pm 113.Lou said …

    109.Observer said …

    “In the mean time you should sharpen your education and reasoning skills so that when you try to bust someone’s chops you do not make yourself look ill-informed and not-too-bright. At this point the only thing that separates you from Hor is the omission of “LOL” and “ROTFL” from your posts.

    I just read your other post. You don’t even have a clue as to what you don’t know. You seem more interested some sort of adulation and camaraderie than in learning.”

    Therein lies the problem. These guys are simply too dumb to know how dumb they are. It’s an exercise in futility to deal with them.

  114. on 23 Jul 2011 at 5:57 pm 114.MrQ said …

    Ben, #108,

    Will you know categorically reject this irrational view of no God and admit God exists? This would be the 1st step in discovering the real and true God.

    Yes, I think we can both meet in the middle and accept Flew’s idea. God = energy. God = unknown (at the moment) force. God does not equal jesus/buddah, allah/FSM/etc until proven.
    Are you with me Ben? Can we agree?
    Good to see christians examining Flew…now just drop the bible and try a new approach.

  115. on 23 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 115.Xenon said …

    “My 50-50 proposition of God stands because like DNA God exists or does not exist. DNA much like the late Antony Flew has led me to the 50-50 proposition.”

    Duke,

    Anytime I see the hatchet crew attacking (especially our in-house basement dweller) I immediately must see who is causing the commotion. Imagine my surprise when I see a agnostic who actually thinks and reasons with theists yet does it in a respectful manner.

    I do not agree God is a 50/50 proposition. God for me is a 100% reality. But maybe you will continue on the A. Flew path of discovery.

  116. on 24 Jul 2011 at 1:15 am 116.MrQ said …

    X, #114

    But maybe you will continue on the A. Flew path of discovery.

    It might even be your first step to abandoning the tired old xtian god of the bible. That god is just a re-hash of older preceding stories, myths, and fables.
    Keep going X-man, there is no afterlife, no caring god…just like Flew proposed. Now you can toss your bible into file 13 and get on with your life. Thank me later.

  117. on 24 Jul 2011 at 1:31 am 117.Lou said …

    114.Xenon said …

    “I do not agree God is a 50/50 proposition.”

    Good, because god isn’t “a 50/50 proposition.” You got that correct.

    “God for me is a 100% reality.”

    Congrats – you didn’t write that god is reality. You wrote “for me.” At least you understand that your delusion isn’t actuality.

  118. on 24 Jul 2011 at 1:44 pm 118.DPK said …

    Man. we are making some progress. It seems Ben is making progress toward a deist “clockmaker” god delusion which is an improvement over his prayer answering, judgmental god and personal friend Jesus.

    Xenon admits that the perception of his god is purely his own personal experience and not reality for everyone.

    Poor Duke still thinks the odds of winning the lottery or of Santa being real are 50/50… but we’ll take what we can get and maybe he’ll figure it out own his own. I’d suggest he buy 100 lottery tickets and see if half of them are winners.

    Still not sure if Horatiio has discovered to where they moved Bangkok, or not. I’d suggest he pray for guidance from above. While he’s at it, he should read a bit about Antony Flew before he claims him as a hero and makes himself look even sillier than he already has.

    Stay cool everyone.

  119. on 24 Jul 2011 at 5:18 pm 119.Horatiio said …

    “Still not sure if Horatiio has discovered to where they moved Bangkok,”

    LOL!!! Still high? You might want to do some research on to who made the faux pas. You guys get me so tickled when you try to be witty. Thank you DPK!!

    “Anytime I see the hatchet crew attacking (especially our in-house basement dweller)”

    Nose buster? Yes, I am especially impressed with his tolerance. Isn’t the loony left the ones who cry for tolerance? The problem is it is only for them.

    “Thank you Horatio. I have never considered Theist an enemy.”

    Nor I the atheist/agnostic Duke. However we have those on this blog who admit Christians should be locked up for their teachings. Those intolerant bigots I will not tolerate. I do know they are a minority and guys like you are refreshing. Sorry your own will not even accept you.

  120. on 24 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 120.DPK said …

    Hor, if I mis-credited that foot in the mouth moment to you in error, I do apologize. You guys all do spout the same basic rhetoric so I admit it is hard to keep you straight without a face to put with the words.

    Again, if it wasn’t you who lambasted me for mu ignorance in not knowing that Bangkok was the largest city in India and used to be called Mambia, I’m sorry. Who was it then?

    D

  121. on 24 Jul 2011 at 9:03 pm 121.Lou said …

    119.DPK said …

    “Again, if it wasn’t you who lambasted me for mu ignorance in not knowing that Bangkok was the largest city in India and used to be called Mambia, I’m sorry. Who was it then?”

    I think it was Rostam.

    But it’s Hor who is obsessed with Mambian Dalit (and Nose Buster) or something similar.

  122. on 24 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 122.Observer said …

    “True” (=political right-leaning) Christianity in Action-

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/24346904-b46c-11e0-9eb8-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1T3jUg2jM

  123. on 25 Jul 2011 at 12:51 am 123.Biff said …

    It really is quite pitiful. We have terrorist throughout the world but who is the enemy of Barrack/DNC/Liberals and atheists?

    The Tea Party, Christians and Republicans.

    Yes, they consider fellow Americans and states like Arizona the enemy. Let us quote Barrack:

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

    I think Duke has hit on something.

  124. on 25 Jul 2011 at 1:40 am 124.MrQ said …

    Biff #122

    It really is quite pitiful. We have terrorist throughout the world but who is the enemy of Barrack/DNC/Liberals and atheists?
    The Tea Party, Christians and Republicans

    Did ya hear….Obama got Osama. The Shrub couldn’t git’r dun….. Congrats on electing a president that can.

    Back on thread topic >If you and Hor follow the A. Flew example you’ll soon be able to punt the zombie king into the pit where he belongs. And don’t forget to visit Collins website (biologos) to obtain a clue about evolution. Thank me later….

  125. on 25 Jul 2011 at 3:09 am 125.Biff said …

    Yup, in 2 1/2 years Barrack finely did something right. He got out of the way and let professionals do their job. Good thing we never listened to him when he was a Senator.

    But can I thank you now? I owe you.

    Thank you Mr Q for showing us how dangerous it is to drink the Kool Aid.

    Do you often belt out “Oh Yeah!’

  126. on 25 Jul 2011 at 1:55 pm 126.Observer said …

    Boof- You are such a twerp.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply