Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Apr 2011 12:06 am

Why religion can flourish even when it is provably false – Science shows that human children are easily indoctrinated

This quick science experiment shows that human children are strangely easy to indoctrinate. Apparently human children can be indoctrinated with any sort of nonsense, if the video is to be believed:

Commentary:

Young chimps make chumps of children

Vicky Horner, who worked on the study, added: “All the children blindly copied everything I did, perhaps because as humans we’re predisposed to copy adults.

This is likely the source of religion’s persistence. Human children will accept any nonsense from if it comes from an adult.

327 Responses to “Why religion can flourish even when it is provably false – Science shows that human children are easily indoctrinated”

  1. on 04 May 2011 at 2:55 pm 1.jkk said …

    That is some study there!!!! I can’t believe it such an educated person to figure that out. Of course children copy adults and react to what they see adults do. Children who are brought up in Christian homes are taught to love Jesus. Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.

  2. on 04 May 2011 at 3:02 pm 2.jkk said …

    I have four children who were raised to love Jesus. I have also taught my children to be kind to others and not make fun of or bully others. They have been taught that all of us are different, but we all have feelings and do not appreciate it when someone is cruel to us. I am very proud of my childre, they are all great kids and yes, I do pray for all of them. I have told them to “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. That we all sin and it is not our place to decide who is sinning and who is not. It is God’s. I would not raise my babies any other way! God bless you all and your little ones!

  3. on 04 May 2011 at 3:50 pm 3.Lou said …

    1.jkk said …

    “Children who are brought up in Christian homes are taught to love Jesus. Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.”

    DOH!

  4. on 04 May 2011 at 4:48 pm 4.DPK said …

    “Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.”

    How very true.

  5. on 04 May 2011 at 5:03 pm 5.Rostam said …

    jkk

    Thank you for being such a good and faithful parent. We definitely need more.

  6. on 05 May 2011 at 4:12 am 6.Ben said …

    “This is likely the source of religion’s persistence. Human children will accept any nonsense from if it comes from an adult.”

    And it seems it comes down to one things: validation. If you validate a child by telling them they’re a “good girl/boy” for doing what you tell them then they’re likely to act agains their nature. Kid doesn’t want to go to church? Punish them. Kid does go to church? Get icecream on the way home.

    Anybody who thinks human beings are anything other than animals should learn the first thing about early-childhood development: you can teach a child new tricks using the same methods as you teach a puppy — reward and punishment.

  7. on 05 May 2011 at 6:19 am 7.Severin said …

    5 Rostam
    “Thank you for being such a good and faithful parent. We definitely need more.”

    You are free to thank me too!
    I was a very good parent, and taught my daughter EXACTLY the same things jkk did.
    She is now a decent and responsible adult.
    Very decent, and very responsible. A GOOD and HONEST person.

    You also may, if you want, thank to many other atheists, who raised wonderful children.

    Conclusion: god is not necessary to raise good people.
    Moreover, god is an obstacle, for at least 2 reasons:
    - My daughter has no fear of dying. She does not believe in afterlife, so she spends her time much more effectively for LIVING
    - She never spent her precious time on prayers and going to churches; again, she had much more time for LIVING

    She cares for PEOPLE, not for gods.

    Her moral rules are the SAME as those of jkk’s children.
    Why would anyone think that I, or my daughter, or an atheist debating here, or ANY atheist, would violate moral rules accepted by human society?

    WHAT is it we “definitely need more”?

  8. on 05 May 2011 at 4:29 pm 8.Joshua said …

    So now we need to deal with the foolish Christians. A never ending task. Fortunately I find it fun.

  9. on 05 May 2011 at 6:32 pm 9.A said …

    Children are easily indoctrinated? Eureka! A huge breakthrough!!!

  10. on 06 May 2011 at 3:11 am 10.Sister Chromatid said …

    Children who are told that gods (or Jesus) talks to people can readily confuse the voices in their head for gods. Schizophrenia can be confused for revelation.

    I find magical thinking unbecoming in adults– Even Jesus-god magical thinking. I look forward to a time when humanity outgrows it’s myths.

  11. on 06 May 2011 at 3:34 am 11.DPK said …

    I saw this on a teen’s facebook wall today. They were talking about the 2nd coming of Jesus which is supposed to take place on May 21st. (I’m paraphrasing)

    “No, I don’t really believe it, but maybe it will terrify some people into accepting Jesus, so in that way I guess it’s good.”

    Such is the result of indoctrinating children. I think brainwashing children, particularly with tales of fire and brimstone and eternal torment, is just a form of child abuse. I don’t think children should be given religious instruction until they have reached an age where they can reason for themselves and make a conscious decision to join a religion under their own free will.
    For Rostram, that may be well into his 60′s however.

  12. on 09 May 2011 at 6:35 pm 12.Lauren said …

    Something must have happened to you Joshua.
    If you need someone to talk to, I’m here.
    I’m 22 years old and not very quick to judge.
    If you want my e-mail address let me know :)
    -Lauren <3
    P.S. In the meantime I will be praying for you! LOL!

  13. on 09 May 2011 at 6:40 pm 13.Lauren said …

    Sister Chromatid then you must believe evolution is a myth….
    Darwyn himself said that if the creatures’ fossil’s in-between the chimp and the cave man were not to be found, then everything that he has said about evolution is a lie.
    The cave man’s and the chimp’s have been found, they have yet to find the in between.
    Also, Noah’s ark has been found…..
    Repent my friends, he’s coming quickly.

  14. on 09 May 2011 at 6:51 pm 14.Lauren said …

    Quit looking at all the bad in the world, there’s alot of good happening also.
    But for some reason, people love to focus on the evilness of it all.
    Human nature…
    Look at the beauty…Especially in nature.
    The flowers, the birds, and my personal favorite the stars.
    Then, you will realize that, there’s no way that there can’t be a God.
    Got a little sentimental :`-)

  15. on 09 May 2011 at 6:57 pm 15.Lauren said …

    DPK,
    Revelation does phrophecise the second coming, and I’m not going to lie, I’ve thought about it myself…
    But, not even Jesus knows the day nor the hour.
    Only God. So, it’s just always good to remember, better SAFE than SORRY.
    “42 Therefore stay alert, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect.”
    Matthew 24:42-44

  16. on 09 May 2011 at 6:58 pm 16.Anonymous said …

    Lauren,
    How much do you know about science? Better check into the fossil record again about what has been found. Maybe you’ll be surprised….check out a link (pssst….the website founder is a christian): biologos.org

    Who found the ark? Wow, looks like I am converting. Just point me to the evidence.

  17. on 09 May 2011 at 7:06 pm 17.Lauren said …

    About the whole chimp video,
    How many “non-christians”, on this blog, are the same demoninantion as their parents?

    Not very many I bet.

  18. on 09 May 2011 at 7:08 pm 18.Lauren said …

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

  19. on 09 May 2011 at 7:13 pm 19.Lauren said …

    Time to convert :D

  20. on 09 May 2011 at 7:20 pm 20.Lauren said …

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

  21. on 09 May 2011 at 7:20 pm 21.Lauren said …

    National Geographic good enough Anonymous?

  22. on 09 May 2011 at 7:34 pm 22.DPK said …

    Lauren, I have to ask if you actually READ either of the 2 articles from National Geographic that you cited, because neither one of them supports your assertions that Noah’s ark has been “discovered” or that evolution is a myth. In fact, both articles would seem to suggest that those supporting both claims are rather silly.
    Lauren, lots of people have predicted the end of times on many occasions. The only thing they have all had in common is that they have all been wrong.

  23. on 09 May 2011 at 7:54 pm 23.Lauren said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!
    But, I don’t know what you’re talking about one the one of Noah’s ark?
    It doesn’t say anything about it being silly, they 99.9 % believe that it’s it, but they can’t get to it.

  24. on 09 May 2011 at 7:55 pm 24.Lauren said …

    And they would have to find every single one of those species in order to prove the “theory” of evolution.
    Not one has been found yet.

  25. on 09 May 2011 at 8:02 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!

    Yeah, I know what you mean. Math is tough, too. Better just stick to the bible, it’s made for the simpletons.

  26. on 09 May 2011 at 8:07 pm 26.DPK said …

    23.Lauren said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!

    That’s pretty obvious. Why don’t you refrain from commenting about things you know nothing about? Evolution is a “theory” in the same way that the earth revolves around the sun is a “theory”. The only people still claiming evolution is a myth are the lunatic fringes, of which you are one. And no, they do not “have to find every single one of those species to ‘prove’ evolution.” What a silly statement.

    As far as Noah’s ark, here is the opening line from the article you cited:

    “A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they’ve found the remains of Noah’s ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey’s Mount Ararat.

    But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah’s ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very.”

    “I don’t know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn’t find it,” said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=146941

  27. on 09 May 2011 at 8:35 pm 27.Lou said …

    This Lauren person can’t be for real. It’s only somebody pulling your chain to get a reaction.

  28. on 09 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 28.DPK said …

    I think you are right Lou. If it was April Fool’s day, I’d suspect Joshua.
    Nobody could actually cite an article that completely refutes your point and then admit they “did’nt read at all, it bores me”
    Lauren, if you are for real, wherever you went to college, go get your money back, you wuz robbed!

  29. on 09 May 2011 at 9:43 pm 29.Mitch said …

    David Berlinski, one of the most erudite writers in science and mathematics has authored a book called “The Devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions”. Those who particularly like seeing sacred cows treated with a bit of sarcasm and irreverence will enjoy his writing on almost any subject, but this book, attacking the status quo as it does, is especially delightful if for no other reason than for how pompous writers like Richard Dawkins and others approach to this subject.

    The argument boils down to three main points: there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point extolled by SJ Gould), most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion. I think Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident. Claims, for example, that one “should” only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims.

    Berlinski also correctly notes that the critics of St. Thomas really do not understand his arguments. Take for example the famous cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. In its simplest form, this argument takes the form of a syllogism. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause. Agnostic that he is, Berlinski correctly notes that this is not actually an argument for God. It is an argument that the universe began to exist, meaning it required a cause. Aquinas, of course, argued this cause was “God” and very specifically the God of the New Testament.

    But one need not arrive at this conclusion. It is possible that the universe simply goes on forever. One event causes another and so on back to infinity. Berlinski asks, if we saw a row of dominoes falling, “would we, without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling. Of course not. We fall back upon such reasoning only when discussing God. But of course Hume’s argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.

    Dawkins for one simply asserts that Aquinas failed to consider the possibility that God was subject to infinite regress. Amazing, to call this argument sophomoric is an insult to sophomores, though he did not specify whether he was referring to high school or college sophomores. Aquinas did not “assume” God was not subject to infinite regress. It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible and Dawkins, should he want to refute such an argument, needs to address it directly.

    The book examines one argument for atheism after another and finds each wanting. The authors of these arguments are logically inconsistent. They appeal to multiple universes and dimensions, a weak anthropic principle, physical laws that change from place to place coupled with as yet undiscovered universal laws, and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam’s Razor. They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects. Perhaps the highlight of the book to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted that Darwinism “misled science into a dead end” but “we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists .. in fighting against the creationists.” Any theory is better than an alternative that might imply God or some other non material cause.

    Why would Liu make such outlandish claims? For some scientists, and many more non-scientist, science has itself become a religion. And it is a religion with a very jealous God, who can have no other Gods before Him. Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.

  30. on 10 May 2011 at 12:42 am 30.Observer said …

    Mitch- I suppose in the birds of a feather flock together vein, you again trot out the crank Berlinski. I can cut and past too… (But I will use quotations)

    “A 2008 Slate magazine profile by Daniel Engber characterized Berlinski as “a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank [...and] zealous skeptic, more concerned with false gods than real ones.”[10] In that same article Berlinski said he “got fired from almost every job [he] ever had” before finding a career as a writer as a “maverick intellectual.” Engber characterized Berlinski’s viewpoints as “radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.”[10]

    Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski’s writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski “has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science.”[15]

    Responding to Berlinski’s arguments concerning evolution, marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry comments: “I personally like my ‘at onces’ to refer to events significantly shorter than ten million years.”[16] Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski’s arguments in The Deniable Darwin as:[17]

    . . . The content of David Berlinski’s article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, though his tone is more genteel and his writing a lot more literate. . . . But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . .
    ” From the infallible Wikipedia.

  31. on 10 May 2011 at 1:05 am 31.Observer said …

    This is better than the twaddle Berlinski peddles. This is free, and on the front-lines of Christianity. The end of history is upon us, graves are already beginning to rumble from below; IT IS TIME TO DRAIN THE RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, GOOF OFF AT WORK, TAKE A HOLIDAY because JUDGEMENT DAY IS UPON US! HALLELUJAH!

    ( I recommend the Feederz “Jesus Entering from the Rear” as accompaniment. )

    http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

    This stuff comes from the great Harold Camping of Oakland, CA. I used to listen to him when I lived in the Bay Area (other side of the bay).

    If only these annoying folks, Christians, would actually disappear in the next couple weeks.

  32. on 10 May 2011 at 1:45 am 32.Horatiio said …

    Mitch,

    Good information from Berlinski. It is the best post I have read here in quite awhile. I especially like the religious comparison which is spot on.

    You got Nose Buster all upset which makes it all worth while.

  33. on 10 May 2011 at 2:15 am 33.Observer said …

    Hor- You are exquisitely stupid; keep up the good work! Will you be packing your bags on the 20th, or the Rapture a full service event? Did Snoop Dogg, Biggy Smalls, et al. presage these soon to come events?

  34. on 10 May 2011 at 6:03 am 34.Severin said …

    15 Lauren
    “But, not even Jesus knows the day nor the hour.
    Only God.”

    Jesus is NOT god?!

    Elaborate, please!

  35. on 10 May 2011 at 6:32 am 35.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    „Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause.“

    Except god?
    Why is god excluded from this „logic“?

    What if everything that exists has NO cause? How did TA conclude that everything that exists must have cause? He just SAID something, that absolutely does NOT sound logical, and you expect us to just trust it!
    WHY would existance of matter/energy necessarily have a cause? Because TA said so?
    Or because you think it must be so? Oh, yes, Mr. Berlinski also said it! Then it MUST be right!
    Bullshit!

  36. on 10 May 2011 at 6:34 am 36.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    „One event causes another and so on back to infinity.“

    What if „infinity“ is circular? Who said it must be a straight line? Berlinski?
    In fact he did, he mentioned a „raw“ of dominoes, not a „circle“.
    The man has no imagination at all!

  37. on 10 May 2011 at 6:39 am 37.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    “„Hume’s argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.“

    UNIVERSE had beginning! It did NOT (and no one ever said it DID!) beginn from „nothing“.
    Universe we know begann from already existing matter/energy compressed in „mega black hole“, made of MATTER/ENERGY, NOT from “nothing”!
    Which direct us to conclusion that matter/energy are eternal, but only changeS its form.
    No gods necessary.

    Especially not idiot who take mud (dust? dirt?) to “create” a man, then forgets inbreeding leads to destruction of species, and orders A&E children to fuck each other to have children!

  38. on 10 May 2011 at 7:02 am 38.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    “It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible”

    Except in case infinite regress was circular, of course.
    Which leads us to conclusion that SOEMTHING had to “just exist”, WITHOUT CAUSE, and that “something” only changes its form.
    I would agree with that point.

    WHAT “just existed”, without cause?

    God? Hmmmm..I never saw any god!
    Matter/energy? I saw a lot of matter/energy.

    Of couse you are free to call matter/energy “god”.
    You are also free to EXPECT something from that god, but you will get from “him” only things that strictly follow natural laws.
    Do not expect “eternal life” from THAT god (except if you don’t consider “eternal life” the fact that atoms you are made from, will one day be in another person).

  39. on 10 May 2011 at 7:55 am 39.Severin said …

    Mitch (Berlinski),

    In short:
    Linear infinite regress can not exist, because in such a “chain” each effect MUST have a cause, and god can NOT be excluded from this (linear, “dominos”) chain.
    If god caused something, something must have caused god.

    Idea that SOMETHING must have existed WITHOUT CAUSE is probably right, but turns the cause-effect chain from linear to circular:
    Something DOES exist “per se”.
    Everything thet occurs, occurs within the CIRCULAR cause-effect chain, “INSIDE” the system. The “triggers” that play roles of “causes” are:
    - previous state of the system (that can be described by observable and measurable values)
    - inherent rules (natural laws, also observable and measurable through observing and measuring effects they cause)
    Effects that occur are the CAUSES for next effects.
    The “circle” is not necessarily a perfect geometric circle we know, but is obviously a closed loop.

    PERFECTLY fits to “god” called matter/energy!

    “Sins” done against THAT god have terrible consequences!
    Global warming, for example!

  40. on 10 May 2011 at 11:14 am 40.Boz said …

    “Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.”

    Mitch I think that point has been made just by the posts that followed. Just as the Roman Catholic dogma dare not be question so we must not dare question the dogma or origins and dogma. If so their intelligence and stability must be attacked, not the argument to tear them down.

  41. on 10 May 2011 at 1:10 pm 41.Lou said …

    29.Mitch said …

    ‘David Berlinski, one of the most erudite writers in science and mathematics has authored a book called “The Devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions”.’

    One major point missed – even if Berlinski is correct, there’s still one major problem – no evidence for God. Forget all the philosophical and logic arguments – where’s God and any evidence for him?

  42. on 10 May 2011 at 1:54 pm 42.Lou said …

    33.Observer said …

    “Hor- You are exquisitely stupid”

    And apparently very proud of it – he continues to advertise it with such comments.

  43. on 10 May 2011 at 5:03 pm 43.Joshua said …

    @ Lauren
    Hi Lauren!
    @ Lauren 12
    What makes you think something happened to me? I have no problem with people judging, it’s how society moves forward. The only time I react badly to people judging me is when they can’t support what they are claiming.

    @ Lauren 13
    “The cave man’s and the chimp’s have been found, they have yet to find the in between.”
    This is a common complaint about evolution. The problem is that whenever we do plug the gaps that you mention creationists are still not satisfied. We do not need every single in-between in order to make claims about the fossils that we do have. Any analysis of fossils looks at hundreds of characteristics, patterns of similarity between them, and the ages of the fossils to determine how they may be related. Conclusions can be drawn without the literally billions of fossils that your standard of evidence would lead to.

    It would be similarly unfair to demand that in order to prove jesus was everything the bible said, that you must provide a videotape of his entire life. A much smaller amount of evidence would be satisfactory.

    @ Lauren 14
    “The flowers, the birds, and my personal favorite the stars.
    Then, you will realize that, there’s no way that there can’t be a God.”

    Why is this an argument for god? Just because things exist and are beautiful does not point to a god, it just means that beautiful things exist.

    @ Lauren 17-21
    “How many “non-christians”, on this blog, are the same demoninantion as their parents?”

    This is confusing. What do you mean by this?

    Noahs ark
    The article contains a lot of information about those who dispute that this is the ark. You can’t use this evidence for the ark because it is an article about a group of people who claim to have found the ark, and the comments by folks (including other Christians who believe in the ark) who say that this is not the ark. The wood dates wrong, the textual support for the mountain is not there, and other objections. “wooden compartments” does not equal a boat. There needs to be more evidence than that given the description in the bible.

    Evolution article
    Why do you think that this article (whole issue actually) is a problem for evolution? If you read the articles the conclusion of all the pieces is that while Darwin got some of the details wrong, the overall idea of evolution was correct and since then we have discovered more details about how evolution works. (Ok now I know. Below).

    @ Lauren 23
    “LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!”

    So you make claims about evolution, and admit that you have not read the article you cite as a problem for evolution. Why should I think that you have a good understanding of evolution if you don’t read the things you cite? I have to admit that so far your ideas about evolution are all wrong.

    “And they would have to find every single one of those species in order to prove the “theory” of evolution. Not one has been found yet.”

    Which species are you talking about? Also nothing is “proved” in science or anywhere else. There is only a pile of evidence sufficient to convince a person.

  44. on 10 May 2011 at 5:51 pm 44.Joshua said …

    @ Mitch 29
    1. “there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion”

    *Too vague A. Replace “religion” with a specific belief system. Otherwise to me this means that religion just makes new stuff up when the old stuff is not good enough anymore.
    Too vague B. Religions have made specific claims that when explored with science have come up short. Replace “religion” with a specific claim and then we can talk.

    2. “most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent” Most of it is meaningless to me because the only arguments I care about are the ones that are supposed to demonstrate the existence of god. Those that I have read have been poor arguments. Also logical arguments are only a starting point for possible research. You still need real evidence and not a logical argument. The logical argument is only to demonstrate that there is something worth pursuing.

    3. “finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion.” Certainly individual scientists and atheists can be dogmatic. I personally dislike dogmatism. But that is not an argument against science or atheism as a whole. Just the fact that science is by it’s very nature self-correcting makes it different than religion. I would need specific examples here.

    “Claims, for example, that one “should” only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims.”

    We trust in science because it gets results. Please give me examples of non-physical and/or non-visible evidence that you would consider to be of a type that science does not accept, and tangible benefits of such evidence.

    “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point…”

    And there I have to stop you. All we know from physics is that at some point the universe expanded from a singularity. We do not know what form the universe took before that so we cannot say that it “began”. It’s possible that the universe always existed (though I would need evidence either way) and we can only go back so far. Scientists/atheists are not making assumptions here. Sounds like Aquinas is the one making assumptions. I will need an argument for why the universe needs a cause, or why in possible previous universe configurations there could not be universes that had uncaused causes.

    “…cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.”
    The universe’s CURRENT FORM. We cannot currently go past the plank time limit.

    “…and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam’s Razor.”
    So because there are competing hypotheses about cosmology in SCIENCE (physics) ATHEISTS are wrong? Category error. Most of us don’t believe your evidence and are happy to admit that the picture of the universe is still under dispute.

    “They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects.”

    I need a specific example. Everyone I read has no problem separating evolution from abiogenesis. I suspect you (or Berlinski) are misunderstanding what you are reading. Also since Evolution is still an active area of research, or course aspects of the theory are still incomplete and may not yield an accurate picture of the world. This is normal for science. Why is this important?

    “Perhaps the highlight of the book to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted…”
    So one biologist says stupid things (if the context is correct) and that means science is now like a religion? So when I hear some Christians say dumb things is it OK to think that all Christians are like that now?

    I have a better idea. Like I said above, give me examples of why science is now like a religion and we can discuss them.

  45. on 10 May 2011 at 5:59 pm 45.Joshua said …

    Ah Horatiio. For a moment I thought class was back in instead of the off period that I have.

  46. on 10 May 2011 at 6:01 pm 46.DPK said …

    41 Lou:

    One major point these guys seem to have missed. Berlinski is agnostic, or as he himself describes “a secular Jew”.

    So, his dissertations on the “problems” he sees with the current state of atheism is little more than philosophical yammering, offering no alternatives, and certainly not in support of religion, or theism in general.

    “Berlinski shares the movement’s disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: “warm but distant. It’s the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives.”
    Berlinski is a scathing critic of “Darwinism”, yet, “Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life.”

    Berlinski is a contrarian who offers much criticism, but no answers.

    Personally, I think it’s rather amusing that the theists would cite the work of someone who does not acknowledge a god as evidence against atheism.

  47. on 10 May 2011 at 6:03 pm 47.Joshua said …

    @ Boz 40

    “Mitch I think that point has been made just by the posts that followed. Just as the Roman Catholic dogma dare not be question so we must not dare question the dogma or origins and dogma. If so their intelligence and stability must be attacked, not the argument to tear them down.”

    You can question. Just be able to defend and explain your questions/objections. If you can’t than we are free to dismiss your questions and objections.

    Most of the time on this blog when one of us says why we don’t agree with a line of questioning or an objections, we get nothing from you. So we are free to dismiss.

  48. on 11 May 2011 at 2:20 am 48.Thomas said …

    @ Mitch

    An outstanding post and sounds like an outstanding read. I will need to check it out. Anytime one question Darwinism the radical nuts pop out of the woodwork. I can think of nothing in science that is guarded so closely. It is good to see the ID movement growing. We need alternatives to an obviously flawed theory.

  49. on 11 May 2011 at 3:05 am 49.DPK said …

    Berlinski doesn’t support intelligent design either. He doesn’t seem to actually support anything, only criticize everything.

    Sorry, “God did it.” isn’t and alternative to a flawed theory, it isn’t a theory at all as it doesn’t explain anything, nor is it testable.
    http://www.seykota.com/tribe/faq/2009_june/11/then-a-miracle-happens.jpg

  50. on 11 May 2011 at 11:03 am 50.Thomas said …

    ID is open to natural and intelligent causes. All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer. When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.

    Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.

  51. on 11 May 2011 at 1:21 pm 51.Lou said …

    50.Thomas said …

    “ID is open to natural and intelligent causes. All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer.”

    LOL! There’s nothing intelligently designed by nature. For starters, the vast majority of “intelligently designed” life forms on earth are extinct. Some intelligent designer!

    “When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.”

    So what? Where is this alleged intelligent designer?

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with” with an unknown supernatural being designer “when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

  52. on 11 May 2011 at 1:37 pm 52.Lou said …

    48.Thomas said …

    “Anytime one question Darwinism the radical nuts pop out of the woodwork.”

    Anytime one uses the term “Darwinism” to describe modern evolutionary biology, it can be assumed that the user is an idiot – probably one that embraces purely religious fantasies such as Intelligent Design and Creationism, ideas reminiscent of a flat-earth, geocentric universe, celestial orbs, astronomy, spontaneous generation, and alchemy.

  53. on 11 May 2011 at 1:38 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Lou said …

    Correction – astrology, not astronomy.

  54. on 11 May 2011 at 2:16 pm 54.Observer said …

    I keep going back to this, one of the all time great Christian websites that, in a compellingly and verbose way, is the quintessence of the faith. This fellow, who I have corresponded with, is at the top of his game.

    http://www.fixedearth.com/

    It also has some other rather splendid slants that all but the densest reader will find and be either shocked, amused ( my case ), or sickened.

  55. on 11 May 2011 at 2:47 pm 55.Lou said …

    Gravity is only a theory -

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

  56. on 11 May 2011 at 3:05 pm 56.DPK said …

    50.Thomas said …

    ID is open to natural and intelligent causes.

    If ID is open to natural causes, then that is evolutionary biology. If it is open to intelligent design, that is religion. The problem with a designer, is who designed the designer?
    I am no expert on evolutionary biology, but my understanding is that the complexity you speak of as empirical evidence can be explained by the evolution of self replicating biological systems in a closed system, given the enormity of geological and cosmological time. I have never heard an evolutionary biologist claim that anything happens by “chance”. Quite the opposite.
    But to make the leap from evolution, guided by natural selection, to talking snakes, crucifixions, and resurrections is well…. absurd.
    Maybe that’s not a leap you yourself are making, I don’t know. But it is not one supported by empirical evidence, to be sure.

  57. on 11 May 2011 at 9:29 pm 57.Lou said …

    56.DPK said …

    “But to make the leap from evolution, guided by natural selection, to talking snakes, crucifixions, and resurrections is well…. absurd.”

    Absurdity – the basis of religion.

  58. on 12 May 2011 at 1:24 am 58.Boz said …

    Thomas

    Everything comes full circle. In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God. Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief. It is just not PC to mention God. Essentially that is what science is today. The ID group just mentions God. I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.

    Lou would call them idiots. I think Lou and Observer are brothers.

  59. on 12 May 2011 at 1:28 am 59.Boz said …

    Ha Ha Ha, someone is actually attempting to equate gravity (observable science) macroevolution (historical science). Where do we get these people……..

  60. on 12 May 2011 at 1:46 pm 60.Lou said …

    58.Boz said …

    “In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God. Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief.”

    Nothing was ever “discovered or unearthed” to support a belief in God.

  61. on 12 May 2011 at 1:49 pm 61.Lou said …

    59.Boz said …

    “Ha Ha Ha, someone is actually attempting to equate gravity (observable science) macroevolution (historical science). Where do we get these people……..”

    Apparently you are the only one who interprets that tongue-in-cheek article as such. But yes, where do we get YOU people? In a cave somewhere?

  62. on 12 May 2011 at 2:23 pm 62.Joshua said …

    @ Thomas 50
    “ID is open to natural and intelligent causes.”

    Yes but that just pushes back the question of where the designer came from, if you take ID seriously. When you look at the origins of ID however it is pretty clear that modern ID is the politically acceptable replacement for creationism.

    “All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer.”

    Impossible. To recognize design you need to have been exposed to design to have a frame of reference. The only biological design humans have experience with is design that humans have invented. What is your frame of reference for the “design” in nature?

    “When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.”

    What is in the cell is chemistry. Increases in complexity in systems with simple rules have been observed. You are incorrectly equating complexity with information. We have experience with humans creating symbolic patterns and systems (information), but there is no evidence that the complexity in nature is symbolic (made through intention) and the evidence that has been collected so far indicates that the early earth had chemistry that would have produced the biochemistry that cells use.

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

    Only the ignorant would accuse supporters of evolution and abiogenesis of believing in a system that is based on chance and time when natural SELECTION is the opposite of chance. You have obviously not looked at the empirical evidence. Please link to your sources if I am mistaken.

  63. on 12 May 2011 at 2:48 pm 63.Joshua said …

    @ Boz 58
    “In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God.”

    Until the evidence collected by scientists indicated that the biblical view of the world was mistaken. Creationists always skip that portion of history. As time goes on the proportion of unbelievers in science has increased. Education is correlated with less religious belief for a reason.

    “Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief.”

    Seeing as you never reply to substantive replies to the comments that you and other theists make here with anything that indicated that you really read and under stood the substantive reply, I am safe in assuming that you just have not bothered to read about the discoveries and things unearthed that are inconsistent with many religious beliefs, especially yours.

    “It is just not PC to mention God. Essentially that is what science is today.”

    Science tests claims about reality. Every time a religious person has made a claim about “god” that describes an interaction between this god and our reality, the evidence for that has been disappointing. Most of the time “god” in science has been unfalsifiable as an explanation so cannot be confirmed (if it is not potentially possible to collect evidence against, it is a useless explanation because the truth cannot be determined). The rest of the time “god” has just been a place holder as the “god in the gaps” argument. Every time this has been done in history we have eventually found a material cause. That is literally the track record of “god” as an explanation. Every time it has been used a material cause has eventually been found. What you perceive as “not PC to mention god” is a resistance to considering “god” as an explanation because of this history. Science is completely dependent on evidence and testability. If the explanation of “god” has neither than it is useless. Maybe you can be the one to give us a testable explanation for something involving “god”. (quotes used to highlight the fact that “god” must be defined for testing purposes).

    “The ID group just mentions God. I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.”

    This REALLY makes me wonder if you are a poe. If you can’t see how this is self-contradictory I am pretty positive you are either a middle school student or you still get help tying your shoes in the morning (and not because you have no fingers).

  64. on 12 May 2011 at 8:28 pm 64.Curmudgeon said …

    #58 @ Boz

    You are on the money here. As culture became more determined to come up with a naturalistic explanation for origins eventually resulting in man, scientist have pushed the definition of science to come up with some ridiculous theories.

    God is as much a part of the equation as ever. I guess time diddit and chance diddit or we don’t know are the new scientific catch phrases. We who question the conclusions are the enemy. I don’t mind being the enemy

  65. on 12 May 2011 at 9:26 pm 65.Anonymous said …

    #64
    Yeah, Cur, maybe your onto something there. Of course they knew more of the ways of the world and universe back in the days when god spoke directly to his underlings. When you can channel the almighty and write a book about it then nothing is a mystery, is it?

    Just wondering what happened to the old boy….seems he’s become a little muted since his guide book came out. Come May 21st, maybe we re-establish our connection with the holy spook. Looking forward to that day. How ’bout you Cur? Have you been a good boy?

  66. on 12 May 2011 at 10:28 pm 66.Dutch said …

    Great Minds discuss ideas
    Average Minds discuss events
    Feeble Minds (Like A – Lou?) discuss people.

    Just laying out the parameters.

  67. on 13 May 2011 at 12:44 am 67.DPK said …

    Joshua is right on the money. Religion and science have historically made claims about the nature of things. If history has shown us nothing else, it has been that religion has usually been wrong, and science ultimately has been right.
    The scientific process by it’s nature is self correcting, whereas religious dogma does not have that luxury.
    To point, 50 years ago most religions opposed the idea of evolution. Now only the fringe nutjob sects still deny evolution as reality. Of course, now they claim the evolutionary process as the idea of their god. What else are they going to do? When undeniable evidence drags them kicking and screaming into the real word, they just rearrange the dogma and claim it as their own. How long did the church brand as heretics those who theorized the earth was not the center of the universe?
    Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science. Eventually even the creationist wing nuts will go away. It takes time.

  68. on 13 May 2011 at 2:55 am 68.Lou said …

    66.Dutch said …

    “Great Minds discuss ideas
    Average Minds discuss events
    Feeble Minds (Like A – Lou?) discuss people.”

    Says the guy who’s discussing people.

    Yes, I sometimes discuss people who can’t comprehend events or ideas, but can only comprehend a fictional fairy tale book about an imaginary god. That why I insist that it’s an exercise in utter futility to discuss ideas with them.

    “Just laying out the parameters.”

    Nobody elected you to lay out anything.

  69. on 13 May 2011 at 2:59 am 69.Lou said …

    67.DPK said …

    “Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science.”

    Even the Pope, and thus the church, have accepted the Big Bang. But, as you wrote, they claim it’s the work of god.

    “Eventually even the creationist wing nuts will go away. It takes time.”

    Unfortunately, I think you’re incorrect. The “creationist wing nuts” are simply part of the people who have what I call the religion gene. They simply can’t help it and they never will. It’s as if it’s part of their instinct to think and act stupidly.

  70. on 13 May 2011 at 3:55 am 70.DPK said …

    They will. But it takes generations, not years. We won’t see it, but our grandchildren might.
    Think about where we are now compared to the superstitious nonsense that went on when churches ruled the world… the aptly named Dark Ages. A scant 400 years ago, which is a blink in the history of our species, we were still burning witches.

  71. on 13 May 2011 at 4:34 am 71.Severin said …

    58 Boz
    “I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.“

    http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
    „Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.“

    So, the difference between creatonism and ID is:
    - ID followers claim universe was designed by some intelligent entity.
    - Creationists (Christians, Muslims,…) claim universe was created by an idiot, using “hocus – pocus” methods

    Are YOU a Christian?
    If you follow and support the idea of intelligent design, you can NOT be a Christian!
    There is nothing intelligent in Christian teachings.

    Please tell us: are you a Christian?

  72. on 13 May 2011 at 4:46 am 72.Severin said …

    64 Curmudgeon
    “God is as much a part of the equation as ever.”

    Are YOU a creationist or a follower of ID idea?
    We Boz enlightened us that the 2 things are NOT same!

    Now, YOU have to tell us: are YOU a Christian?

    WHICH god is “a part of equation”?

    Christian god, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna…OR a “yet unidentified intelligent, but all present and eternal entity”?

    Boz told us (indirectly, but obviously) that Christianity (Islam, …) was an idiotic bullshit.
    What do YOU think?

  73. on 13 May 2011 at 10:46 am 73.Curmudgeon said …

    “Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science.”

    The Bible never discusses evolution. Second, my money is on this. In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge. Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing. When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.

    The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.

  74. on 13 May 2011 at 10:46 am 74.Curmudgeon said …

    Dutch,

    I have heard that before. So true.

  75. on 13 May 2011 at 1:12 pm 75.Lou said …

    73.Curmudgeon said …

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    Nor germ theory, nuclear fusion, etc.

    “Second, my money is on this.”

    Irrelevant.

    “In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge.”

    No, it won’t. And neither will gravity. Get this through your thick skull – evolution is a fact. But yes, there will be new theories and discoveries that will change our understanding of how evolution happens.

    “Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing. When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.”

    That’s nothing but nonsensical rambling.

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    That is total and utter B.S. without an ounce of truth to it.

  76. on 13 May 2011 at 2:36 pm 76.DPK said …

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    Yes, that’s odd, isn’t it? Instead it talks about man being made from dust, and woman from a rib, and the earth being supported on “firmaments”. But nothing actually relating to reality. Odd, coming from an omniscient being.

    “In a century evolution will be discarded.”
    No, in a century evolution will be refined. I think in way less than a century, perhaps in a decade, man will have created living organisms as well. The only real conclusion you can draw is that if evolution is in fact incorrect and “god did it” then he also went to an awful lot of trouble to plant an astounding amount of evidence to deceive us. And since god does not deceive, that would kind of go against his nature, no?

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    So, one myth predicts what will happen in another myth and that’s impressive? Whne I was little my parents told me the story of the tooth fairy and how if I put my tooth under my pillow at night, the tooth fairy would come and take the tooth and leave me some $$! Know what? The prophesy came true! Not one, but several times… fo rme AND my siblings and friends. THAT is impressive and recorded!!!
    Read your history. The Judea-Christian legends are not original. They are all borrowed from older gnostic or earlier religions. The virgin birth, death and resurrection… all of it recycled superstitions.

  77. on 13 May 2011 at 2:47 pm 77.Joshua said …

    @ Curmudgeon 64
    “As culture became more determined to come up with a naturalistic explanation for origins eventually resulting in man, scientist have pushed the definition of science to come up with some ridiculous theories.”

    Examples? The scientific process was developed by the religious and when they used it the results showed them that the world was not what they thought it was. What the culture thinks does not matter, what matters is the evidence that those using science have collected. If anything the culture is very anti-scientific and was more so back then (with respect to cherished beliefs being challenged by scientific findings). Naturalistic explanations were not being sought, they were what was found. You have it completely backwards.

    “God is as much a part of the equation as ever.”

    Evidence please. If that is the case it should be trivial to provide evidence to assess.

    “ I guess time diddit and chance diddit or we don’t know are the new scientific catch phrases.”

    One of the reasons that it is hard to respect you guys is that even when we tell you what we think, you continue to go around saying that we think something else. Time and time again we have told you that chance is not how any of the origin theories works. Natural SELECTION! Selection is the opposite of chance. Name the scientists who say it was time and chance.

    We don’t know has always been part of the process. Why do you think science is being done? Because we don’t know but we want to know! “We don’t know is a reason for science.

    “We who question the conclusions are the enemy. I don’t mind being the enemy”

    Questions are fine. But when the questioner cannot describe the questioned accurately, displays flawed knowledge of the subject, and refuses to engage in discussion, we have a right to display scorn and contempt. As an example look at how I am talking to Lauren. I am polite with her because she deserves the chance to demonstrate if she will discuss in an honest manner. But if she were to insist on telling us what we think, refuse to consider our claims that she has flawed knowledge on subjects that we do for a living, and refuse to respond to counterclaims and comments on her claims after getting responses from us, I would consider her as dishonest as some of you and bring out the inner asshole.

  78. on 13 May 2011 at 3:16 pm 78.Joshua said …

    @ Curmudgeon 73

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    What’s the point? So what if the bible does not mention it.

    “Second, my money is on this. In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge.”

    People have been saying this since Darwin wrote the Origin. I have been hearing this my whole life. It never happens. It could happen, IF folks actually try to develop a theory that explains all the things that evolution does AND things that evolution does not (whatever those are), AND is useful as a tool to explain and manipulate reality. That is what every hypothesis/theory must do. But I am not holding my breath.
    “Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing.”

    Which does not detract from the areas where it is right. It also does not change the fact that in the areas where it is wrong, the wrong explanation was the best explanation available until better data was collected. Nothing replaces discussion of the specifics of the evidence that lead to the explanation, something that the theists on this board are largely resistant to doing.

    “When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.”

    Big problem. Most likely you pulled that explanation out of your rear. If not please show me the evidence that indicates that “god” is the best explanation for the big bang. (god quotes indicate differences in definition of god among believers)

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    Examples please. I have never seen a prophesy that did not have a perfectly good normal explanation. To be convinced in something as divorced from our normal experience as a prophesy, there really can’t be any other explanation.

  79. on 13 May 2011 at 5:36 pm 79.Lou said …

    70.DPK said …

    “They will. But it takes generations, not years. We won’t see it, but our grandchildren might.”

    Thousands of years ago some smart guy like you probably said something similar about all the fighting that occurs in the Mid-east.

    For example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tXxIgjlT7c

  80. on 13 May 2011 at 6:06 pm 80.Rostam said …

    The atheists are funnier than ever. One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy. The dogma is so inconsistent. Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.

    But alas, the case for evolution is irrelevant. Atheists have never provided any evidence against God. God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case. They have yet to even provide an abstract. Until then we will never consider your case.

    Why must you provide the evidence? It’s quite simple really. Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo. If you desire to change the state, you must provide a compelling case. Rebellion against your parents, hatred of religion or perceived intellectually superiority are not sufficient credentials. This is not a challenge, due to the fact I know what evidence you have for the task.

  81. on 13 May 2011 at 6:10 pm 81.Rostam said …

    Well, I was wrong. Lou provided a clip from Family Guy. Lou you forgot to provide your “Doh” after the link. The Simpsons and Family Guy are your trump cards. Nice!

    Yes, that was quite compelling. I will take it under consideration.

  82. on 13 May 2011 at 7:30 pm 82.Lou said …

    80.Rostam said …

    “One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy.”

    Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is fact. And just as there are theories for gravitiy, there are theories for evolution. Can’t you understadn that simple concept?

    “The dogma is so inconsistent.”

    There is no dogma.

    Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.”

    It doesn’t matter who you agree with. There may be some theories about evolution that will change, but evolution, like gravity, will never be replaced as a part of nature.

    “But alas, the case for evolution is irrelevant.”

    There is no “case for evolution,” per se, anymore than there is a case for gravity.

    “Atheists have never provided any evidence against God.”

    Oh no, here we go again with this same stupid argument that is like beating a dead horse.

    “God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case.”

    Let’s try it again – atheism is not a dogma anymore than is not believing in Santa Claus, leprechauns, or the tooth fairy. For someone who alleged went to college, you have great difficulty understanding that. If theists presented a case with any plausible evidence or facts, then there wouldn’t be any atheists.

  83. on 13 May 2011 at 7:35 pm 83.Lou said …

    81.Rostam said …

    “Yes, that was quite compelling. I will take it under consideration.”

    And perhaps you can easily understand it because it’s a carton. People who believe in fairy tales about a god written about in fictional books like the bible most often operate on a level than doesn’t allow them to understand anything much beyond cartons.

  84. on 13 May 2011 at 7:52 pm 84.Lou said …

    80.Rostam said …

    “Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo.”

    Perhaps I was mistaken. Apparently you didn’t understand the Family Guy clip.

  85. on 13 May 2011 at 8:34 pm 85.Joshua said …

    @ Rostam 80

    “One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy.”

    Please explain this. The second part makes no sense.

    “The dogma is so inconsistent. Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.”

    If you think the evidence for “macroevolution” is flimsy, you don’t understand it. Here is a good way to present the concepts,
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    More intelligent people than you have been saying that the theory of evolution will be replaced for almost 200 years. I think I know where I would put my money.

    “Atheists have never provided any evidence against God. God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case. They have yet to even provide an abstract. Until then we will never consider your case.
    Why must you provide the evidence? It’s quite simple really. Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo. If you desire to change the state, you must provide a compelling case.”

    The person making the claim is the one to present the evidence. Atheists are not making that claim, and status quo does not matter.

    By making this demand you are asking most of us to lie by making an argument that we do not believe. So no, I will not be providing evidence against god because that is not something I have ever done. I do not take the position “god does not exist” and then go looking for evidence for that. Instead my position is “there is no reason to believe in gods or goddesses because the evidence for them is poor, cherry picked, and/or unconvincing.” I would never say that there is no “god” because it is always possible something like that exists and every religion has been wrong about its nature. But I do not believe things without evidence.

    I looked for evidence for god when I was a Christian, and discovered that not only was the evidence lacking, but my fellow Christians (including my family) were ignoring evidence that contradicted the god we believed in.

    As you have been told repeatedly, atheism is the rejection of someone else’s god claims. Me and others in these posts have been discussing some of the issues that have led to our disbelief, but we are not making an argument against god. Instead, the “god” concepts we are presented with do not match up with reality.

    So you may continue being a lazy ass and pretend that you can just sit there and make a claim with no evidence or argument all you want. One reason that religion has been on the decline in Europe and (organized religion at least) the US is because folks like us that are surrounded by all these beliefs with such terrible support get good at arguing against what evidence gets offered. Fence sitters see you being lazy, and us doing work no matter how you try to twist reality.

    “Rebellion against your parents, hatred of religion or perceived intellectually superiority are not sufficient credentials. This is not a challenge, due to the fact I know what evidence you have for the task.”

    So apparently you are psychic too. You should talk to James Randi since you claim to be able to read minds and do remote viewing.

  86. on 13 May 2011 at 9:09 pm 86.Lou said …

    83.Lou said …

    “And perhaps you can easily understand it because it’s a carton.”

    Corrections – I mistakenly typed carton when it’s obviously cartoon – sorry.

  87. on 14 May 2011 at 2:40 am 87.Truett said …

    I understand the carton.

    Rosta,

    Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too. They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people. But yet! There is no proof of God. The absurdity is so delicious!

    But then, they make no claim……..yeah right. If a frog had wings they wouldn’t bump there but when they jumped. Then again, is evolution done with the frog? Hey, unicorns are not that far either.

    I am definitely with you and your sensible approach. When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.

  88. on 14 May 2011 at 4:56 am 88.Severin said …

    87 Truett
    “When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence.“

    Who, the hell, are YOU to „consider“ evidences?
    Do you „consider evidences“ for electricity, mobile phones, GPS, planes…
    I don’t think you „consider evidences“ about medicine science before you go to doctors.
    DO you?

    WHY?
    You obviously TRUST science! In most cases you trust science BLINDLY! You do not doubt or question anything scientist did for you, you take everything for granted!
    Medicine heals, GPS works perfectly, planes fly, crops are 10x bigger than they were only 50 years ago, people go to moon and send their vehicles to deep space, electricity comes from broken atoms, Internet works, many diseases that were incurable only 20 years ago are successfully healed…
    You directly USE scientist’s achievments every single second of your life WITHOUT „considering evidences“!

    Then, when we come to evolution or the BB, YOU find yourself competent to “consider evidences”!
    Every semi-illiterate priest, who hardly can distinguish electron from proton, and could hardly understand what a „vector“ is, and knows nothing about simple trigonometry, not to speak biochemistry, or elementry physics, suddenly becomes more competent for evolution and BB, then scientists!

    And YOU follow those ignorants without using your own brain!

    Sad!

  89. on 14 May 2011 at 5:35 am 89.Severin said …

    Truett,
    „Atheists make all sorts of claims…They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people.“

    It is not „atheists“ who make those claims!
    It is the very same SCIENTISTS, who gave you electricity, GPS, atom power, medicines, higher crops…all that you benefitially USE, without looking for evidences.

    Of course, they are not so stupid to claim any “poofs”.
    Religions claim “poofs”, without ANY evidences.
    Science NEVER claimed anything like “poof universe”, “poof planet full of people”.
    RELIGIOUS BOOKS and legends claim such stupidities (see Bible, please!)

    You might call the BB a “poof”, but no one ever claimed it “poofed” from NOTHING!
    If it “poofed” it “poofed from MATTER that already existed in another form, and it poofed in accordance to laws of physics.
    Unlike biblical bullshits, you can SEE that matter and energy “flows” from one form to another: water freezes and evaporates, paper burns to ashes and gases, we get iron from iron ore that does not look like iron at all, and alumina from bauxite…

    No “poofs” in reality!
    Only in Bible.

    Chance has nothing to do with universe and with evolution. Time IS a crucial factor, NOT chance.
    If you mix 2 chemicals they will NOT react “by chance”! They will (or will not) react ONLY according to laws of physics and chemistry!
    You don’t need a “chance” to burn a peace of paper or a glass of gasoline! They will burn EVERY SINGLE TIME when you close a source of flame to them! No “chance” (“maybe they will, maybe they will not burn”)! They WILL BURN!
    -OH (a base) WILL react with –H (an acid) strictly according to laws of chemistry EVERY SINGLE TIME you mix them! They need no “chance” to react, they WILL react!

    You CAN NOT get 20 grams of water if you burn 16 g of oxigen and 4 g of hydrogen! It does NOT depend of “chance”! If you mix them, and burn them, you will get EACH TIME ONLY 18 g of water, and 2 g of hydrogen will NOT react, ever.
    No “chances” in nature!

  90. on 14 May 2011 at 1:34 pm 90.Lou said …

    87.Truett said …

    “Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too. They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic.”

    Are you really that stupid or do you only post stupid comments to irritate atheists?

    Big Bang and evolution aren’t “claims” at all, not even atheists’ claims.

    Evolution is a fact, it really happened, there’s no doubt about it except amongst backwards, uneducated people. Evolution is just as real as gravity is. Even the Pope has accepted that evolution is real.

    The Big Bang is practically considered fact. A Catholic priest first proposed it, not an atheist, you moron. Again, even the Pope has accepted it.

  91. on 14 May 2011 at 4:28 pm 91.Ben said …

    “Even the Pope has accepted that evolution is real.”

    Lou, you are not very intelligent. My apologies but it must be conveyed. The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.

    Gravity is fact. We can observe it in the present. Microevoltion is fact. We can observe it in the present.

    Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present. It seems obvious you only parrot Richard Dawkins and in reality know next to nothing on the subject.

    You persistent name-calling leads me to believe you are a high school student getting picked out and you must lash out at others to feel like you have some power. Accept your status as a drone try some respect for those who are superior to you.

  92. on 14 May 2011 at 4:30 pm 92.Ben said …

    “No “chances” in nature!”

    I agree Severin. Chance cannot bring about we be observe in the universe and on this little blue planet. It was designed and brought into existence by a Creator. We agree on this one.

  93. on 14 May 2011 at 5:23 pm 93.Severin said …

    91 Ben
    „The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.“

    YOU, on the contrary, are right in everything you say, and YOUR belief matters!

    Arrogance is so typical for ignorants!

  94. on 14 May 2011 at 5:27 pm 94.Severin said …

    92 Ben
    “We agree on this one.”

    No, we don’t!
    I never said universe was “created”.

    As you claim it was, why don’t you finally explain where the creator came from!?

    Who created him?

  95. on 14 May 2011 at 6:17 pm 95.Severin said …

    91 ben
    “Macroevolution is NOT fact.”

    Who are you to claim something like that?
    Are you an expert in biology, geology, genetics, chemistry, physics…?
    Are you COMPETENT to spread such claims around?

    You are not?
    Then HOW, the hell would you know it?
    Can you kindly elaborate your claim?
    Can you support it by some arguments?

  96. on 14 May 2011 at 8:46 pm 96.MrQ said …

    Gravity is fact. We can observe it in the present. Microevoltion is fact. We can observe it in the present.

    Ben, I thought that gravity was a theory, just like Evolution, supported by many facts. Nevertheless, you’re one baby step from acknowledging Evolution Theory with your unwavering acceptance “micro-evolution” ; whatever that is.
    It’s all for naught, though. You christians will all go to heaven when the world ends next Saturday, May 21 and the almighty zombie returns. Hope you’ve behaved yourself. I wonder why the prophet Camping has $100 million stashed away? You christians are so gullible.

  97. on 14 May 2011 at 10:15 pm 97.Hell Yeah said …

    You guys ready for Jesus to come back in a week? I know I am looking forward to waking up the next day and seeing he didn’t.

  98. on 14 May 2011 at 10:50 pm 98.Horatiio said …

    Mr Q-less

    You haven’t had your high school biology yet? Let me help you with the definition. Biology online is a great resource. Bookmark it. Ben is absolutely correct and Louis is completely wrong…..again! LOL

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution

    OK, now for the 21st. You atheists seem scared and obsessed LOL! It is OK. The chances are no greater for the world ending on the 21st than tomorrow. Behave yourself everyday and you never need to fear again.

  99. on 14 May 2011 at 10:53 pm 99.DPK said …

    I almost wish he would. At least then maybe people would stop blowing themselves and other people up over which invisible man is real.
    There is a not job in our town that drives around in a camper completely plastered with scripture quotes and a sign that the world is going to end on May 21st. The funniest thing is, the “May 21st” part is a changeable placard that sticks on with magnets!!!

  100. on 14 May 2011 at 11:12 pm 100.Hell Yeah said …

    The reason why I bring up May 21st is because some theists believe it and some theists don’t. The ones that don’t believe it and think it is silly that some do believe it, well, now you know how atheists think of overall theist beliefs. I find it funny how delusionists think other people with delusions are crazy, but their own delusions are totally justified.

  101. on 14 May 2011 at 11:58 pm 101.Thomas said …

    “The reason why I bring up May 21st is because some theists believe it”

    Some atheists believe in an invisible life force. Maybe we should bring that up daily.

    We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.

  102. on 15 May 2011 at 12:54 am 102.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    You never fail to disappoint. Maybe it’s your former alcoholic life coming back to haunt you, not firing on a lot of brain cells, are you Hor? Glug, glug….

    It’s just evolution in varying degrees…Remember your highly recommended christian website – Collins’ biologos.org . Sheesh, Hor…..How about reviewing the information again.

    Have you forgotten that evolution occurs in small steps over billions of years? Well, duh, apparently you have…Don’t tell me that you have bailed on Collins.

    OK, now for the 21st. You atheists seem scared and obsessed

    Try amused, highly AMUSED. You, like these nutty folks, operate on the fringes.

    BTW, Can you expand on your idea of HD motorcycles on beaches…I find your analogies very AMUSING. Always good for a laugh.

  103. on 15 May 2011 at 1:26 am 103.Ben said …

    Thank you Hor. I feel no need to respond to Q now. Based on his response he STILL does not know the difference between Micro and Macro.

    I think Q actually expects to find a motorcycle on the beech. Huh, why not. Less complex than a cell he believes evolved from the Big Bang soup.

    :)

  104. on 15 May 2011 at 1:44 am 104.MrQ said …

    Benny boy,
    Show me the DNA in a HD on the beach and we can talk. My god, your stupidity is showing. Ask Hor, he knows the Earth is billions of years old, he knows http://www.biologos.org has a good explanation of evolution. Check it!

    Better hope you are one of the few “good and faithful” ones on the 21st. You wouldn’t want to be left behind with all of us atheists, buddhists, muslims, satanists, etc. LOL!!

  105. on 15 May 2011 at 2:07 am 105.Hell Yeah said …

    Ben, last I knew spark plugs don’t evolve into motorcycles. Motorcylces are made up of many parts that are combined together unnaturally. Cells evolved naturally. That is the difference. Natural versus unnatural. How did your complex God get created and get complex? Did another God create him and so on? Think about that one. At some point complexity had to start from nothing. We can all call that nothing god. Does that nothing god have to have human qualities like your Christain god? No. Does the nothing god have to be watching over us? No. Would you still worship a god if you knew a god existed but once you died there was no afterlife? You believers only believe a god exists in the Christian form because you want an afterlife, so you are a slave to that wishful thinking. And Yes, humans have been good throughout history in making amazing stories up. Some, like Christianity, just seem too good to pass up.

  106. on 15 May 2011 at 2:29 am 106.Observer said …

    I believe Harold Camping is a genius if he has $100MM stashed. He is a fucking genius.

    The whole micro macro evolution thing is a canard. The macro evolution of whales is well documented by fossil discoveries from the Oligocene, Miocene, and Paleocene. I have mentioned this a couple times before, and the gormless xtians skip over that.

    I have brought this up several times, but another great perspective on the world and complexity is Ilya Prigogine. He got a Nobel Prize for his work on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. He even wrote a popular book on complexity. I will guarantee you that none of the creation crowd including the travesty running the NIH are up to understanding, let alone using his work. His research is very applicable to the notion of evolution. YET, none of the xtians dare take up his work: 1. You need to be competent at graduate level mathematics to do the work. 2. If you read about the work and understand what it does, you don’t need to master it, it explains nature incredibly well, and it crushes the notion of determinism which is the salient notion of the Abrahamic God (and his wish-fulfilling Jewish Zombie son).

  107. on 15 May 2011 at 2:50 am 107.Observer said …

    #101 Thomas. What a dipshit. The reason the guy looked at you like you are a dumbass is because it is a dumbass question. I will show you the calculation:

    U = { universe }

    n = { empty set or null set }

    Define G = { set of testable evidence for the Abrahamic god }

    intersection(A,B) = { members of both A and B }
    union(A,B) = { all A and B }
    Define P as the probability measure such that
    P(U) = 1, P(n) = 0, if intersection(A,B)=0, then P(intersection(A,B)) = P(A)+P(B), (etc.).

    SO, the calculation is rather simple:

    P(G) = P( null set ) = 0.

    Thomas, you are a disgrace to your name.

  108. on 15 May 2011 at 5:33 am 108.Severin said …

    101 Thomas
    “I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    You claim there is god?
    You are positive god exists?

    Give us, please some calculations that support your belief.
    It should be simple for you to support your belief with some simple (or complicated?) calculations!

    Don’t you just stare with a confused look!

  109. on 15 May 2011 at 5:39 am 109.Severin said …

    103 Ben
    “Based on his response he STILL does not know the difference between Micro and Macro.”

    Good for Horatio!
    Because there are no such things like “micro” and “macro” evolution.

    You have to elaborate your opinion, not to just spread your bullshit claims around.
    Again: are you an EXPERT?
    Experts do not just CLAIM. They support their claims with arguments.

  110. on 15 May 2011 at 2:14 pm 110.Anonymous said …

    #101, Thom
    “Some atheists believe in an invisible life force.”

    Wrong….Belief in “invisible life forces” describes xtians most perfectly.

  111. on 15 May 2011 at 3:38 pm 111.Lou said …

    91.Ben said …

    “Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present.”

    Your comment about macroevolution is so utterly ridiculous that it really doesn’t justify a reply.

    Evolution, micro or macro, is fact – period. The scientific community doesn’t debate it. They may debate about how evolution, micro or macro, occurred. They may debate the two definitions, but it’s not debatable that it
    happened.

    If you can’t accept reality, why don’t you stay in a cave somewhere, preferably one without an inet connection, and wait-out the second coming?

  112. on 15 May 2011 at 3:47 pm 112.Lou said …

    91.Ben said …

    “The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.”

    Because it demonstrates that even somebody who believes in magical gods – “wrong on SO many things (you identify with that?),” has a chance to understand some scientific facts. Care to join him? Even some clown who dresses in ridiculous religious attire and who’s the leader of a religion that has for centuries back-tracked on almost every opposition to science it made finally accepts when it’s wrong. Even the pope, who’s “so wrong on SO many things (your words)” gets it, but you don’t.

  113. on 15 May 2011 at 7:11 pm 113.Joshua said …

    @ Truett 87

    “Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too.”

    Name the atheist. I’ll bet you can’t because we do make claims, but the claims are about the arguments put forth to demonstrate god, and we make claims about the evidence for the big bang and such. What we don’t do is make claims about god not existing because what we do is disbelieve your claims.

    “They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people.”

    You have been told repeatedly that the “time and chance” description is wrong. You are a dishonest commenter if you continue to use this.

    “But yet! There is no proof of God. The absurdity is so delicious! “

    Another bit of BS. What we say is that we find the evidence for god unsatisfactory.

    “I am definitely with you and your sensible approach. When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.”

    You might as well leave then because we will not do your job for you. You have a claim that god exists. We do not believe you. That’s all there is to it. There is no sense in sticking around here because you just make your side look bad.

  114. on 15 May 2011 at 7:21 pm 114.DPK said …

    “If a frog had wings they wouldn’t bump there but when they jumped. Then again, is evolution done with the frog? Hey, unicorns are not that far either.”

    Ok, I have no idea what this even means. What stuff are you smoking dude?

    “When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.”

    Read your sentence again and replace “no God” with “no Santa Claus” and you will see how absurd your position is.

  115. on 15 May 2011 at 7:27 pm 115.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 91

    “Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present.
    Here is that link again,
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    Most murders have not been observed but we still can make claims about them and who might have done them. We can do this because of the one thing that the theists will not do here 99% of the time, discuss the evidence. Just as there is evidence in the present about murders in the past, so too has the ancient past left evidence for us in the form of fossils, radiometric dating, DNA and protein sequence, comparative anatomy, and other areas.

    There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time. Take lots of microevolution and stretch it out millions and billions of years and you get macroevolution. The theists here love to go on and on about how much macroevolution can’t exist but I have never seen them discuss say the fossils from lobed finned fishes to tetrapods or the sequence of whale ancestors that show nostrils slowly migrating up to the back of the head. Whatever explanation they want to replace evolution, it must also explain these stories that scientists have put together as well. OR they need to actually look at the stories and show why they are wrong. But they never will so they end up looking ridiculous.
    “It seems obvious you only parrot Richard Dawkins and in reality know next to nothing on the subject.”

    Unless you can dig up the Richard quote and show how Lou is parroting it I simply do not believe you. You are just making an excuse to avoid addressing the substance of his comments.
    “You persistent name-calling leads me to believe you are a high school student getting picked out and you must lash out at others to feel like you have some power. Accept your status as a drone try some respect for those who are superior to you.”

    I can do something that looks like name-calling but is not because it is descriptive. It will probably go over Ben’s head though. Ben you are a hypocrite. For someone to claim that another person is name calling and then go on to name call as well (drone) is despicable. But please go on, you are a great example for fence sitters that might be reading along.

  116. on 15 May 2011 at 7:29 pm 116.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 92
    “It was designed and brought into existence by a Creator.”

    How do you know this. We can recognize human design because we have been raised with a lifetime of encounters with objects of human design and experiences with humans designing and building. When have you seen a universe and a planet being designed?

  117. on 15 May 2011 at 7:37 pm 117.Joshua said …

    @ Thomas 101
    “Some atheists believe in an invisible life force. Maybe we should bring that up daily.”

    Since atheism is a single position on a single claim (no god belief) you can find atheists in every category you can imagine. There are republican atheists, democrat atheists, Ann Rand and Karl Marx were both atheists. Just because one atheist does something weird doesn’t mean anything. Theists however are defined by their weirdness because those are positive beliefs that can be acted upon.

    “We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    I would have given you a funny look too. That does not make any sense. Religions that make god claims describe the world as looking one way, atheists look at the world and see that the world is not what theists claim. There for some atheists feel justified in claiming that there is probably no god. You do not need a calculation because if your religion were correct the world would look different than it does.

  118. on 15 May 2011 at 8:07 pm 118.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 98 and Thomas 103
    Wow you guys are lazy. MrQ does not know the definition for microevolution so you assume (but do not demonstrate) that he does not know what he is talking about. You have to actually make an argument to demonstrate that he does not know what he is talking about. You know, like I have repeatedly done and you have repeatedly refused to respond to.

    In reality I have rarely heard actual evolutionary biologists use the terms microevolution and macroevolution because they are not very useful to them. They are the same thing except that one is over long time scales. There is nothing wrong with how MrQ has been discussing evolution, he clearly knows more about it than you two.

  119. on 15 May 2011 at 9:40 pm 119.Lou said …

    101.Thomas said …

    “We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations… ”

    There’s something wrong with this on several levels.

    First, I don’t believe it happened.

    Second, if it did happen as you describe, then you’ve demonstrated that there’s something seriously wrong with you. It would NEVER occur to me or any normal person with reasonable judgement to confront someone, especially a “n[u]t job,” about a BUMPER STICKER.

    Third, assuming the second, then the fact that you would admit to doing what you did on an inet forum while arguing an unrelated point further demonstrates your faulty thought process.

    So which is it? Are you a liar or are you the “not job?”

    “…and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    REALLY? What would you expect, dumb-ass?! I would have done the same while dialing 911 to report a “not job” accosting me about a bumper sticker while rambling about “probability calculations?” Were you also waving your arms in the air?

  120. on 16 May 2011 at 2:30 am 120.Scott said …

    “When have you seen a universe and a planet being designed?”

    A very stupid argument. When have you watched a universe come into existence without a creator? I would like to hear all about it.

    Wow, how stupid this guy is……

    Lou, may I add all of your ramblings are just stupidity too? How ironic we have you and your stupidity attacking the wit of others.

  121. on 16 May 2011 at 2:52 am 121.Scott said …

    “There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time”

    Another hilariously stupid statement. One is within a species the other is across species. That is like saying:

    “The only difference between swimming across my pool and swimming Ponchatrain is time”.

    I think Josh is a Christian attempting to make atheist look stupid.
    I would suggest a dictionary if you are really this challenged. Stupid is an observation. Look that up as well.

  122. on 16 May 2011 at 4:58 am 122.MrQ said …

    Scott #121:

    “There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time”
    Another hilariously stupid statement. One is within a species the other is across species.

    So you agree that evolution, at a “micro” level occurs? As does Hor, Ben and some of the others posting here. I call it evolution but, whatever – We all agree that living creatures change in some way due to genetic shifting or variations over time. You claim that it is always change within a species.

    We can all agree that the planet Earth is billions of years old. Not just thousands or millions, but billions of years old. Hor is on record as saying the planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old, I have no problem with that.

    We can all agree that at some point in our planet’s past, life arose. You say god (supernatural) was the spark, other folks say natural causes (abiogenesis) sparked life. But this is not relevant to a discussion of evolution. Just mentioning it in passing.

    Feel free to jump in and correct or add to the dialog. How are we doing? Everyone agree? Let’s get the ball rolling on a discussion of evolution, macro and micro….

  123. on 16 May 2011 at 5:39 am 123.Severin said …

    121 Scot
    “One is within a species the other is across species.”

    Wow! Another expert!
    Can you please refer to your scientific articles? Your works?

    Look here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

  124. on 16 May 2011 at 6:08 am 124.Severin said …

    121 Scot
    “The only difference between swimming across my pool and swimming Ponchatrain (Pontchatrain = Chatrain Bridg) is time”

    Basically: yes!

    Whales can not evolve from hypos, hypos can not evolve from whales.
    Whales and hypos had common ancestors.
    It took TIME for this ancestors to “branche” to two (or more) different species. Then ancestors dissapeared, beacuse they could not survive changes that new species were able to survive. Their successors become better addapted to specific changes in their enviroment, and survived.

    When species had NO time to addapt, up to 95% of all species did not survive (catastrophic events).

    ALL living species have ancestors.
    SOME dead species have living successors.
    Evolution is a huge tree with most branches being dead.
    The process is going on today.
    Too slowly to be observed, but it does.

  125. on 16 May 2011 at 6:12 am 125.Severin said …

    124 Severin

    “ALL living species have ancestors” = “All living species have COMMON ancestors”

  126. on 16 May 2011 at 1:27 pm 126.DPK said …

    What most creationists fail to grasp is the “common ancestor” idea. I have had ne challenge me “well why don’t we see monkeys turning into humans today?”
    The key to realize is we are not so much decended FROM apes… we ARE apes. Apes that share a common ancestor with other apes who also evolved into their current form. Remember too, that we were not the only species of hominids. There were other, now extinct, species of hominids. The simple fact that we have different races of humans today point to the fact that evolution occurred. If god created Adam and Eve, how did we get Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, etc, etc…
    Scott… is “stupid” the only word you can think of? Do you think you can win an argument by ignoring facts and direct challenges to your claims by simply calling the other person “stupid”? Your ignorance is showing.

  127. on 16 May 2011 at 4:53 pm 127.Lou said …

    120.Scott said …

    “Lou, may I add all of your ramblings are just stupidity too? How ironic we have you and your stupidity attacking the wit of others.”

    You think Thomas 101 B.S. story is “wit?!” WOW!

    Then no, you can’t add anything about MY “ramblings” because you obviously don’t know the difference between wit and ramblings.

  128. on 16 May 2011 at 7:54 pm 128.Lou said …

    126.DPK said …

    “If god created Adam and Eve, how did we get Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, etc, etc…”

    It’s obvious – the Asian god created Asians, the Caucasian god created Caucasians, the Blacks god created Black, etc., etc.

    :>)

  129. on 16 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 129.Burebista said …

    Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?

    No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?

    Unless you are providing solid facts not speculation please do not respond.

    Thanks

  130. on 16 May 2011 at 8:56 pm 130.DPK said …

    Burbesta,
    Short answer, we’re not sure. Shorter answer.. neither are YOU.
    Here is the best description of perhaps where the first cell came from that is actually supported by evidence, not a made up fairy tale:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    I doubt you’ll read it though. It doesn’t begin with “Once Upon a Time.”

    You remind me of the people who said “Man will never fly” and “There can be nothing smaller than the atom.”
    You assume things you cannot assume and you are always proven wrong.

  131. on 16 May 2011 at 8:59 pm 131.DPK said …

    Burebista,
    Short answer, we’re not sure. Shorter answer.. neither are YOU.
    Here is the best description of perhaps where the first cell came from that is actually supported by evidence, not a made up fairy tale:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    I doubt you’ll read it though. It doesn’t begin with “Once Upon a Time.”

    You remind me of the people who said “Man will never fly” and “There can be nothing smaller than the atom.”
    You assume things you cannot assume and you are always proven wrong.

    And Burebista, if YOU are not going to provide SOLID FACTS in response, rather than just speculation… please keep your mouth shut. I mean, you, of all people, have a huge set of balls to come on here and demand nothing but facts…. when have you EVER provided one fact, or even responded to even one argument here? Never, in my recollection.

  132. on 16 May 2011 at 9:07 pm 132.MrQ said …

    #129 Bur
    I thought we were trying to discuss micro/macro evolution here; not “where did the first cell come from”. Maybe we go there after we discuss EVOLUTION, macro and micro.

    See my entry #122 regarding origins of life:

    not relevant to a discussion of evolution.

    Why are you so dense?

  133. on 16 May 2011 at 9:56 pm 133.Burebista said …

    Well DPK had to post an article on Abio. I stated facts DPK! You guys must have the facts, remember? No God because because there is no proof! Such hypocrites.

    You wasted my time. Anyone else?

  134. on 16 May 2011 at 10:20 pm 134.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    Let’s find the common ground. See post #122 above. If you don’t want to talk macro/micro evolution go waste your time elsewhere. Bye now.

  135. on 16 May 2011 at 10:59 pm 135.DPK said …

    Buribesta,
    I am glad you finally admit that there is no proof for god. Thank you, I know that has been a difficult journey for you.
    Now, lets talk about facts vs evidence. Abiogenesis (it’s not that hard to spell, you don’t have to call it Abio really. I know you have trouble with long words) is the current theory that has the most promise and best fits the evidence we have at hand. Even if you by into panspermia theory, abiogenesis had to have occurred elsewhere.
    But, lets be honest now, if some scientist tomorrow created a living cell from organic compounds, you would not accept that as proof that life could have formed on its own. You would say, “well, you needed a scientist to make the living cell… that’s proof that you need a creator.. god. No matter what facts or evidence or compelling argument you are presented with, you will not hear it because you are a closed minded and stubborn dogmatist.
    So, where are YOUR facts? Where is YOUR evidence? Where are YOUR compelling arguments? Where is YOUR answer?
    Of course your entire position is not based on any FACTS at all. Yours is based on faith in a magical being. And, while you cannot accept that a cell may have formed naturally from compounds that we know already exist in nature, you have no problem believing that a god, infinitely complex, sprang into being with no creator.
    Now go away and wait for your next opportunity to make yourself look foolish.

  136. on 16 May 2011 at 11:41 pm 136.DPK said …

    134.MrQ said …

    “Bur,
    Let’s find the common ground. See post #122 above. If you don’t want to talk macro/micro evolution go waste your time elsewhere. Bye now.”

    You are wasting your breath. You will never get him to discuss anything that relates to actual evidence for or against anything.
    Take my last post. He asked for FACTS regarding the genesis of life on earth. I gave him FACTS. The facts are, no one knows. I don’t know, and neither does he. No one will ever “know” because no one was here 4.7 billion years ago to witness. The best we can do is examine the evidence and try to explain in ways that fits the evidence.
    These theists that lurk here don’t like to think about things and discuss evidence. It makes them very nervous, because when they start to think a bit, their world becomes very shaky. So they resort to dismissing stuff out of hand. Did you notice that Buribesta did not comment or refute on ANYTHING in the link I presented on abiogenesis? Do you think he even read it? Of course not! He looked at the title and decided it was worthless, because he already KNOWS that “god did it.”
    So, you will not get a discussion out of him, or most of the other theists here. Next will come some “LOL’s”… then they will quote scripture at you. Then, they will either shut up until the questions are forgotten, or they will offer to pray for you so that you may see the light.

  137. on 16 May 2011 at 11:46 pm 137.Hell Yeah said …

    Bur said,
    “Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?
    No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?”

    Where did your god come from? If you think inteligent design like your god can create itself, then there is your answer to where the first cell/seed came from, just with the middleman, or middleit, god cut out of the equation. To make it simpler for you to understand, whatever created your god from your point of view is what created the first cell/seed.

  138. on 17 May 2011 at 12:01 am 138.Horatiio said …

    Bure,

    Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL

    They are so gullible. They actually believe science supports their fairytale but obviously it does not.

    Lets see. We observe design and creation in our world by man.

    We observe things creating themselves in….uh……well no where other than in atheists imaginations.

  139. on 17 May 2011 at 12:33 am 139.Hell Yeah said …

    Fairy tale is a type of short narrative that typically features such folkloric characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. However, only a small number of the stories thus designated explicitly refer to fairies. The stories may nonetheless be distinguished from other folk narratives such as legends (which generally involve belief in the veracity of the events described)[1] and explicitly moral tales, including beast fables.

    So, based on the definition of a fairy tale, which is more like a fairy tale? Mythical gods and magical characters or the non-belief of them? The bible sure seems like a fairy tale book, doesn’t it?

  140. on 17 May 2011 at 12:44 am 140.MrQ said …

    OK Hor,
    Before we get to the micro/macro evolution stuff, let’s just look at early Earth life.

    For arguments sake, I will say that I don’t know how life BEGAN on Earth and I will accept that by some unknown force or event (you call it god) we had life on our planet some 3 to 4 BILLION years ago.

    Can I now ask some questions? Can we start investigating and thinking about the early life forms that god created?

    We can both agree that humans/horses/wolves/dinosaurs were not a part of early Earth life. If a god created life on this planet, we can both agree that the different species of life which exist, or have ever existed, on our planet were NOT all created 3 to 4 BILLION years ago.

    Hor, correct the information if I have it wrong….We’ll continue after that.

  141. on 17 May 2011 at 1:19 am 141.Burebista said …

    Horatio

    I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking. There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin. Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility. I would even say likely. Mr Q, was is macroevolution? Abiogenesis? Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?

  142. on 17 May 2011 at 1:54 am 142.Hell Yeah said …

    “There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin.”

    Your god had to have a beginning too then, right? You guys keep on dodging that.

  143. on 17 May 2011 at 2:04 am 143.Hell Yeah said …

    Also, just because you think there had to be a creator, how does that translate to an afterlife? Would you be okay if your god was real, but the afterlife isn’t? What I am trying to get at is the whole reason why you worship your god is because you think you will have an afterlife, but your whole main reason you think a god exists is because you think we had to be created by one, but I guess what I am trying to get at here is how does creation and afterlife relate to each other? Would it matter if there is a god or not if the afterlife isn’t real? What is your take?

  144. on 17 May 2011 at 2:21 am 144.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    Did god create that first seed 3 billion years ago? Hmmmm….I wonder.

    Hor, what do you say. Apple trees been around for 3 billion years?

  145. on 17 May 2011 at 2:35 am 145.Lou said …

    141.Burebista said …

    “But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.”

    (sigh) I guess you NEVER will get it. Atheists understand that religious “presuppositions (god)are lacking.” Why can’t you understand that simple concept? You always seem to get things wrong.

    “Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility.”

    Except that there isn’t unless there’s some evidence for one, and there isn’t. So except as an act of faith and/or in a delusion, a creator is NOT a “real and distinct possibility.”

  146. on 17 May 2011 at 2:37 am 146.Lou said …

    on 16 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 129.Burebista said …

    “Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?”

    Of course, like most your comments, this has nothing to do with atheism.

    But the answer is that cells evolved from replicating molecules that evolved from organic molecules.

    Now, back to the topic that you and your ilk always try to deflect with irrelevant comments – where is the evidence for god?

  147. on 17 May 2011 at 2:41 am 147.DPK said …

    138.Horatiio said …

    “Bure,

    Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    Told you the LOL’s and out of hand dismissal would be next. They are so absurdly predictable.
    If either of these geniuses had bothered to even skim the very brief article I had referenced, they would realize how stupid their “seed” argument was.
    Guys… here’s what you are missing. Life did not start with a seed. It started with chemistry. There was no chance involved. Chemical reactions do not happen by chance, they happen according to natural laws. All it takes is the right ingredients, the right conditions, and sufficient time.
    Now, since you guys are so bent on having nothing presented but FACTS… how about your provide some. “LOL” doesn’t count.

    Yeah… didn’t think so.

  148. on 17 May 2011 at 2:50 am 148.Lou said …

    138.Horatiio said …

    “We observe things creating themselves in….uh……well no where other than in atheists imaginations.”

    Really? Too bad your parents didn’t only imagine you.

    Self-replication is the definition of life, and it was the beginning of its evolution.

  149. on 17 May 2011 at 6:10 am 149.Severin said …

    129 Burebista
    “Unless you are providing solid facts not speculation please do not respond.”

    When could we kindly expect more or less solid facts obout god?
    ANY facts?

  150. on 17 May 2011 at 6:20 am 150.Severin said …

    138 Horatio
    “Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    Pathetic!
    Why don’t you try to finally tell us your answers for god?
    What is it that makes you think god exists?
    I might trust you if you replaced your “lols” with some arguments.
    You obviousl have nothing but “lols” to say, and it is very sad. No “lols”.

  151. on 17 May 2011 at 6:31 am 151.Severin said …

    141 Burebista
    “Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?”

    No, not really!
    It seems more likely that a creator who was never created, poofed universe from nothing some 13.5 billion years ago.
    Then he came to solar system, poofed the earth from nothing, made man from dirt and woman from his rib, and ordered their children to fuck each other to make more children.

    Sounds absolutely logical. It must have happened THAT way!

    Burebista, do you, or don’t you believe in Bible?
    Horatio does not, you two do NOT belong to the same world, in case you take the Bible seriously!
    WHAT do you two have in common?

  152. on 17 May 2011 at 11:01 am 152.Burebista said …

    “Life did not start with a seed. It started with chemistry.”

    DPK, brillant! Except I never claimed life started with a seed. OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.

    If you do have an answer for the seed you can share that as well.

  153. on 17 May 2011 at 11:42 am 153.MrQ said …

    Bur

    I never claimed life started with a seed

    Looks like we can all agree on this.

    Now, Bur, did a god create life with an instalment plan or was it a one day creation event? Eventually we’ll come to some more conclusions and get into a micro/macro evolution discussion …carry on with your brilliant observations.

  154. on 17 May 2011 at 1:08 pm 154.JohnnyP said …

    And ’round and ’round we go…

    C’mon, guys, seriously? Do you reeeally think you’re going to make even a dent in the Christian Bubble Of Denial?

    You have to understand why they cling so desperately to their belief system: Take away Jesus, and you take away their afterlife, their vengeance against those they hate, the justification for that hate, their notion that they’re superior, their perceived protection against the Powers Of Darkness.

    No reason, logic, facts, or rationale has that kind of power. It’s like explaining “red” to a blind man.

  155. on 17 May 2011 at 2:39 pm 155.DPK said …

    “No reason, logic, facts, or rationale has that kind of power. It’s like explaining “red” to a blind man.”

    Not really. Most secular people started out with religious indoctrination. There is hope. And remember, the point may be lost on the few rusted bolts here, but they may have an influence on other lurkers reading here who’s mind may be more receptive to reason.
    “DPK, brillant! Except I never claimed life started with a seed.”
    Ok.. good. You ARE making progress! First you admit there is no proof for god, now you acknowledge that living forms evolved from simpler forms. Keep thinking!
    Seriously, you want me to explain to you how heavier elements are formed in the cores of supernova and how elements combine to form molecules? Sorry, you need to learn that for yourself. Get out your high school chemistry text and review it. It would do you a world of good.

  156. on 17 May 2011 at 3:00 pm 156.Lou said …

    152.Burebista said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    Get this through your thick skull – this is not the how did life start blog.

    “About this blog

    WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com is a web site that explores the existence of God. This blog accompanies the site and explores God and religion in our world today.”

    Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god. YOU and your ilk are those who digress from the topics of this blog. If you have some evidence or facts about the evidence of god, then present it. Otherwise, stop posting stupid comments about other topics that you use only to deflect the fact that you have nothing relevant to add to the topic – THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, not evolution. We already know that evolution is a FACT. Your ignorant comments to contrary are IRRELEVANT.

  157. on 17 May 2011 at 3:23 pm 157.Lou said …

    155.DPK said …

    “Most secular people started out with religious indoctrination.”

    Yes, but they don’t have the religion gene like some of these guys here who so obviously demonstrate as if they’re somehow proud of it.

    “There is hope.”

    Not for them.

    “And remember, the point may be lost on the few rusted bolts here, but they may have an influence on other lurkers reading here who’s mind may be more receptive to reason.”

    True. If nothing else, their idiot comments serve as a constant reminder of “how religion poisons everything,” including rational, logical thought.

  158. on 17 May 2011 at 4:55 pm 158.DPK said …

    Yes, you’re right. Logical points are lost on many of them. The larger point they just don’t seem to appreciate is that even if science doesn’t have a ready answer to their question, that doesn’t mean the one they just made up is right. Even if science was somehow proven completely, 100% wrong about something like, the big bang, or evolution, that doesn’t mean their fairy tales are therefore true.
    Kinda reminds me of ancient people who trembled in fear of the erupting volcano. Just because they didn’t understand plate tectonics and geology, didn’t mean there really WAS an angry god living in the volcano.
    I know where Burebista is trying to take this. He wants someone to admit that science does not fully understand exactly how the first living cell developed. He will then jump in with “the god of the gaps” argument and claim that since science doesn’t know, that is proof that god did it, and therefore that god exists. Sadly, they do not understand that the ONLY thing that that actually demonstrates is that science has only just begun to understand. In science, it’s perfectly acceptable to say “we don’t know.” Not in religion. Religion always claims the gaps in learning for their god. That is why religions have historically fought against progress in science and understanding. The more reason reveals to us, the smaller the turf left for their magical beings.

  159. on 17 May 2011 at 5:12 pm 159.Lou said …

    158.DPK said …

    “I know where Burebista is trying to take this. He wants someone to admit that science does not fully understand exactly how the first living cell developed.”

    Of course he is. It’s obvious and somewhat humorous to watch him as he thinks he’s sneaking down that path. But the big flaw in his tactic is that first living cell actually existed, whereas god doesn’t, or at least there’s no evidence for god. In response to his juvenile approach, we could ask how did god develop? But that reply is also flawed because there is no god or even any evidence for god, so there’s no reason to ask how god developed.

  160. on 17 May 2011 at 10:43 pm 160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.

    They can’t answer such basic questions but they claim God does not exist. They need much better dogma to attract more parishioners.

  161. on 17 May 2011 at 10:56 pm 161.MrQ said …

    LOL-Hor,
    I don’t blame you for avoiding the macro/micro evolution discussion. You know how that would end up for you.

    You have not disagreed with or challenged any of the points I have entered previously. (see posts #122 and #140 above). I can only take it that you concur. GREAT!!!

    I do understand that the Jayzus thing is what keeps you from returning to hard drinking times. No reason to ask too many questions or think too hard. AA does work, from what I am told.

  162. on 18 May 2011 at 12:11 am 162.DPK said …

    160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.”

    Not much for reading are you? I answered his question in 155. How come we NEVER hear anything from you in the way of facts, logical arguments, rational explanations, or anything beyond “LOL”. Is that the sum total of your reasoning ability? A woeful chuckle?
    You are not doing your “side” any favors by sounding like a dimwit. LOL……….

  163. on 18 May 2011 at 2:04 am 163.Lou said …

    160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    “LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.”

    Hey dummy, read my reply in 156. It applies to you, too.

    We’re not here to discuss evolution or people. We’re here to discuss the existence of god, not to read your irrelevant comments that are merely a smokescreen for your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for god’s existence.

  164. on 18 May 2011 at 2:07 am 164.Lou said …

    163.Lou said …

    Hor – “We’re here to discuss the existence of god, not to read your irrelevant comments that are merely a smokescreen for your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for god’s existence.”

    I retract that statement and correct it – “…your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for ANYTHING.”

  165. on 18 May 2011 at 2:10 am 165.Hell Yeah said …

    “we could ask how did god develop? But that reply is also flawed because there is no god or even any evidence for god, so there’s no reason to ask how god developed.”

    Actually, I think it is good to ask them this question just to see how they would answer it. We know there is no answer, but I want to see how they get around it since they truly believe in this god that it had to create everything, but yet their god had to be created at some point too, which brings everything back to the big question, how did everything begin. So, let’s hear their answer.

    I also want an answer to the question I posed about would having a god matter if there was no afterlife. I bet you they would not worship a god if they knew there was no afterlife. That should be the main question on this website. We can call the beginning god, whatever that is, but where does the afterlife fit in other than through fairy tales?

  166. on 18 May 2011 at 1:41 pm 166.Lou said …

    165.Hell Yeah said …

    “We can call the beginning god, whatever that is, but where does the afterlife fit in other than through fairy tales?”

    As you know, the obvious answer is there is no afterlife. I don’t understand why people have a problem accepting that. After all, every person who’s ever lived and is alive today has already experienced not being alive. Before we were born we didn’t exist. Therefore, we had no consciousness – we didn’t know what we were missing. EXACTLY the same thing will happen upon death. We will cease to exist, we won’t have consciousness, we won’t know what we are missing.

    It’s amazing that this extremely simple concept, the only certain part of our existence, has caused so much fear and consternation when there’s absolutely nothing unknown about it.

    It is said we can’t know that there’s no afterlife. Be we do know, because there’s no “before-life.” Afterlife and “before-life” are the exact same thing – non-existence.

    Simple, simple, simple.

  167. on 18 May 2011 at 3:16 pm 167.Joshua said …

    @ Scott 120-121
    Shorter Scott.
    “I don’t like it so instead of arguing against it I’m gonna call it suupid! Waaaaaa!”

    At least I am making an argument instead of unsupported assertions. ID and creationism is similar to people who are obsessed with crazy conspiracy theories. It is seeing patterns where none exist because our ancestors survived more often when they thought a lion what there when there really was not, rather than not thinking there was a lion there when there really was. So we tend to get more false positives when thinking of explanations for things.

    Paley did not think deeply enough when he discussed discovering a watch on a beach. It is true that we would think it was designed. But this is because we have been raised in a society where we are constantly surrounded by things designed by humans (and sometimes animals) so we internalize the determinants of human design. This is why it would be obvious that Paley’s watch on the beach was designed.

    But his argument breaks down with “design” in nature. It is not obvious because we have not been exposed to design in nature, supernatural or otherwise. To make the claim that something in nature is designed you have to have a frame of reference (previous exposure to human design for watches). Without a frame of reference you cannot demonstrate that anything in nature is designed beyond things that humans in the biological sciences have tinkered with.

    “One is within a species the other is across species.”

    The linked definitions said “subspecies”. As time goes on and more and more differences accumulate between the subspecies populations their descendents make up new species, genera (containing different species) and higher. For example dogs and bears are closely related.

    1. Millions of years ago the common ancestor (CA) population for dogs (D) and bears (B) was split and the descendents of those populations went through a small amount of evolution which resulted in them becoming different species. This is what has been described as microevolution and has been observed in plants, fish, animals…

    2. As time goes on those new species (Dog common ancestor, DCA, and bear common ancestor BCA) had descendent populations that accumulated yet more differences and yielded new species within them (D1, D2 foxes, jackals, wolves) (B1, B2, Grizzly, Black bears) and made these new species even more different from the common ancestor, and the common ancestor of the other branch. Now we are getting into macroevolution.

    3. The above demonstrates that your description is true, and mine is true. For changes within species to yield changes above the level of species only requires more time.

  168. on 18 May 2011 at 3:24 pm 168.Joshua said …

    @ Severin 124
    “Then ancestors dissapeared, beacuse they could not survive changes that new species were able to survive.”

    DPK 126
    “There were other, now extinct, species of hominids.”

    Just to expand, remember that the ancestral population does not always dies off, it too continues to evolve as time goes on. They disappear from the fossil records because their descendants look different.

  169. on 18 May 2011 at 5:44 pm 169.Matt said …

    Horatio & Burbesta,

    Thanks for the thought provoking questions. I know sometimes I need a reminder of how much we really don’t know even though our knowledge has increased exponentially in the last decade.

    Sometimes it comes back to the simplest questions to bring us back into reality.

  170. on 18 May 2011 at 7:39 pm 170.Lou said …

    169.Matt said …

    Horatio & Burbesta,

    “Thanks for the thought provoking questions.”

    Really? REALLY?! Those were thought provoking questions for you?

    “I know sometimes I need a reminder of how much we really don’t know even though our knowledge has increased exponentially in the last decade.”

    What you need is a reminder of how much YOU really don’t know, not WE.

    “Sometimes it comes back to the simplest questions to bring us back into reality.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ax96iVmTCI

  171. on 18 May 2011 at 7:46 pm 171.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 129

    “No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?”

    First I want to point out the rhetorical nature of the question. I see creationists and ID supporters do this all the time. Point to a really big issue that is not well understood YET and is hard to answer without going into the literature, and when they are told that they are still studying this, or they do not have a good answer yet, they declare victory. (I am speaking in general terms so some of this may not apply to Burebista).

    This is dishonest for three main reasons.

    1. They ignore the fact that when you are addressing issues on the cutting edge of science there will be a lot of “I don’t know” and “There is not sure answer” and “There are several competing explanations” as answers. This is not a weakness, this is normal for science. Of course there are things we do not know yet, that is why we do science. Of course it takes time be sure of the explanations we test. None of this means that their explanation is correct, they need their own evidence for that.

    2. They ignore explanation for things with a lot of support and wide agreement in science like the origin of birds, reptiles, whales, and lots of other areas that are more easily discussed by evolution supporters, and contradict creationism.

    3. They assume there is no answer when in reality they could look it up for themselves instead of getting others to do the work. When folks make stupid assertions with no knowledge, they look dumb when someone answers.

    The intent (conscious or unconscious) is to make it look like they are winning by making a really quick, low effort comment/question that requires more effort to answer. If it goes unanswered they look like they are winning. Fortunately I was curious about this myself so I did not mind sharing my findings when I looked this up.

    Here is a review discussing the current literature on the origin of seeds. I will discuss it below.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406407

  172. on 18 May 2011 at 7:47 pm 172.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 129 continued…

    Here is the text.
    http://www.seedbiology.de/pdf/TansleyLinkies2010.pdf

    To properly understand the research one must discuss the data which is in the papers that are listed at the end of the review. Reviews are really useful because they are summaries of the current state of research in a particular area, usually written by the biggest experts in the field in question. I will summarize a little bit of what the paper says has been found, but if Burebista wants to discuss some of this evidence we need to get specific about what aspect so specific papers can be looked at. This we don’t waste huge amounts of time.

    The most relevant portion of this review is the fourth section, “Early seed-like structures and the transition to seeds”.

    In general, around 370 million years ago in the late Devonian era several changes occurred that led to the ancestors of seeds plants (progymnosperms) gaining the characteristics that differentiate seeds in general (there is a lot of difference among seeds). These changes among others is what separated the ancestors of the Spermatopsida (Seed plants) from the ancestors of other groups including ferns, mosses, and hornwarts. Seed plants produce seeds (duh) which are basically preserved plant embryos and not just fertilized egg equivalents. Spores on the other hand are virtually only genetic information and have not developed farther than fertilization (at most). The extra structures in a seed allow this

    1. “the evolution from homospory to heterospory, meaning the production of specialized haploid female-like megaspores and male-like microspores”.
    Basically the transition from asexual spores that did not need fertilization to male and female spore like structures.

    2. “the evolution of the integuments”
    Integuments: Outer layers of the ovule (female egg cell equivalent) that becomes the seed coat after fertilization.

    3. “…and the evolution of pollen-receiving structures.”
    The parts the pollen plugs into.

    The oldest fossils that display all of these features date from the late Devonian era. Here is some discussion about it from the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology.
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/seedplantsfr.html

    Note that the first known “modern” (merely meaning fits the loose definition of tree so can include today’s trees) tree was a progymnosperm and produced spores, not seeds. So the tree came before the seed. To figure out where first seeds came from scientists did two things;

    1. They compared fossil plants and looked for the appearance of characteristics of seeds among many fossils that the review references. The oldest fossil that has all the characteristics of seeds is “Elksinia polymorpha, the oldest known fossil seed plant, is a seed fern from the Late Devonian (Taylor & Taylor, 1993; Niklas, 1997; DiMichele et al., 2006)”. Prior to that there are structures that resemble seeds but are missing some structures. They mention “The oldest fossil pre-ovules are from the Middle Devonian (385 Ma, e.g. Runcaria; Gerrienne et al., 2004)”. This is where the range of 385-365 million years ago for the evolution of seeds comes from (370 is a safe general date).

    2. Compared the DNA and protein sequences of modern plants that do and do not produce seeds to get a proper tree of relatedness. This allows a more precise determination of what the most general seed structure are and is discussed in other parts of the paper (in all of its jargon-y glory).

    The paper covers a lot more than this, but you did ask specifically where seeds come from.

  173. on 18 May 2011 at 7:51 pm 173.Joshua said …

    @ Hotatiio 138

    “Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    No, it’s just that you guys are lazy and won’t look things up for yourselves. It’s easy to make a fast stupid comment that actually requires some work to answer.
    “They are so gullible. They actually believe science supports their fairytale but obviously it does not.”

    You only think that because you won’t look up the science, assume there is no answer when you won’t even look, and will probably reject any answer that you don’t like while giving no reasons at all.

  174. on 18 May 2011 at 8:14 pm 174.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 141
    “I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.”

    You cannot complain about possible presuppositions of others when your own presuppositions clearly cripple your ability to determine what is real. You just believed that there would be no answer to where seeds came from without ever looking it up for yourself. Now you look like an idiot because even if you don’t believe it, there is a scientific explanation for where seeds came from.
    “There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin.”

    See my post about the paper. The first trees produced spores, not seeds. Also the cycle is not so simple as the paper shows.

    “Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility. I would even say likely.”

    A creator is a competing explanation with unconvincing evidence. You need to present the evidence for a creator if you want to discuss it. Since I am on the side of evolution I do not mind presenting you with the evidence for parts of evolution that you ask for.

    “Mr Q, was is macroevolution? Abiogenesis? Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?”

    Only because you have never actually looked at the evidence and understood it.

  175. on 18 May 2011 at 8:18 pm 175.Joshua said …

    @ Johnny P 154

    “C’mon, guys, seriously? Do you reeeally think you’re going to make even a dent in the Christian Bubble Of Denial?”

    They may be unreachable, but my tactics involve who ever might be watching us, and my own satisfaction. I can practice on these guys and make them look like fools to the ones that are on the fence, or actually have a respect for evidence. Now I have information on the evolution of seeds in my brain for the next person who wants to know.

  176. on 18 May 2011 at 8:22 pm 176.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 156

    “Get this through your thick skull – this is not the how did life start blog.”

    This comment is true. However the same logical problems, errors in thinking, and other issues that give them problems with the evolution issue also affect the god issue so I don’t mind the diversions. Fixing a logical problem in one area can help the other areas where is used.

  177. on 18 May 2011 at 11:07 pm 177.Lou said …

    176.Joshua said …

    “This comment is true. However the same logical problems, errors in thinking, and other issues that give them problems with the evolution issue also affect the god issue so I don’t mind the diversions. Fixing a logical problem in one area can help the other areas where is used.”

    If you think you can resolve “logical problems” with them, then with all due respect, I think you are very much overly optimistic.

    They have what I call the “religion gene.” It’s imply beyond their ability to accept that there is no god. Trying to convince them to understand the fallacy of their belief is simply impossible. It’s like you or I trying to solve an extremely complex problem like writing the “theory of everything” – it simply isn’t going to happen because we don’t have that ability, just as they don’t have the ability to understand the fallacy of their belief. As we all know, it’s a delusion. If they’ve read WWGHA, and they still don’t get it, then they never will.

    Furthermore, at its foundation, the rejection of god isn’t really a logic problem, is it? There’s simply no evidence for god.

    The other thing about these guys is that they have some psychological or emotional deficiency that explains their acting out here. That is, they are here posting irrational and illogical comments as part of a defense mechanism that’s a response to their perceived attack on their belief system. If they didn’t have the aforementioned deficiencies, then they could offer some rational comments, or at least admit that they have no evidence for god, or simply not post here and be at peace with their belief. Also, this blog offers them anonymity for their acting out, so they can be even more extreme with the absurdity of their comments.

  178. on 19 May 2011 at 1:13 am 178.Observer said …

    #171 Joshua- Damned good work! I did not know all that about seeds, just the rather vague “seeds originated in the Devonian and helped lead to the plant rich Carboniferous period. The best part of your write-up is that the seed-producing-tree-like-tree preceded the seed-producing tree; it is just as one would expect based on the ever increasingly well supported theory of evolution.

    Thank you for the hard work. I wrote a few tomey bits a couple years ago here. I did not do much for the xtian crowd.

    This website though is still my guilty pleasure.

  179. on 19 May 2011 at 12:53 pm 179.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 177

    You sound a bit annoyed. I hope you don’t think that I was being critical. I can totally understand not wanting to waste time on the guys here. I was just giving my opinion on off-topic discussion. Not everyone is as masochistic as me when it comes to internet arguments (my wife thinks I am crazy). I do it for the fence sitters and for the practice. The only reason I was able to look up the seed info like I did was because of practice. The more I deal with the idiocy the faster I can respond to it when I want to. Besides, this way I am ready for anything that I might encounter as a teacher (though my attitude is different).

  180. on 19 May 2011 at 12:57 pm 180.Joshua said …

    @ Observer 178

    Thanks!

    I thought it was really interesting. It’s one reason that I actually take up their challenges. My best skill is finding information as quickly and efficiently as possible and believe it or not, practicing on guys like these is good practice!

    Prediction: the most likely next thing they will do is move the goal posts.

  181. on 19 May 2011 at 1:32 pm 181.Anti-Theist said …

    #177

    They are here due to their own weakness. If they stop blindly arguing for the existence of god, they will think and ultimately lose the faith. These people are desperately clinging to a religion they are falling away from. To the xians; if you truly believed you would be doing god’s work now, instead of showcasing your faith to others.

  182. on 19 May 2011 at 2:42 pm 182.Lou said …

    179.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 177

    “You sound a bit annoyed. I hope you don’t think that I was being critical.”

    No, I didn’t think so at all. Thanks for your consideration.

  183. on 19 May 2011 at 3:42 pm 183.MrQ said …

    #141 Bur, Hor, Matt, Scott

    I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.

    Hope you’ve been able to read some of the information here. Whoops….Another gap filled…Where does god fit in now?

    The xtians posting here are of the same ilk as those who, a few hundred years ago, looked at rainbows in awe of god’s powers, thought we are the centre of the universe, and had no problem condemning/executing anyone who disagreed.

  184. on 19 May 2011 at 5:33 pm 184.Lou said …

    180.Joshua said …

    “Prediction: the most likely next thing they will do is move the goal posts.”

    Yes, that is a common tactic. For example, evolution went from totally unacceptable to micro-evolution is acceptable, macro-evolution isn’t.

    Another common tactic is to create straw man, and then tear it down.

  185. on 19 May 2011 at 8:27 pm 185.Burebista said …

    No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.

    Guys I expect better. You claim there is no God, but you cannot answer the most simple of questions.

    Joshua, I do appreciate your hard work as Observer does. But your research does not provide any evidence for the fist seed. You suppose the first creature to crawl from the ooze planted the fist seed? Hard to say. Yes, we know there are very old seeds. See this link:

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/seedplantsfr.html

    Have you had time to work on first cell and chemicals? You do seem a have a great deal of time on your hands so keep looking.

    I did get a nice belly laugh from Mr Q. Another gap filled! Yeah, right! HA HA.

  186. on 19 May 2011 at 11:28 pm 186.Hell Yeah said …

    Bur said,
    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Where is your answer for how your god was created, if you think he exists other than in imaginary minds? Also, how does the afterlife relate to the first of everything? You think that because everything had to start from something intelligent, that because a book of poetic fairy tales was written 2000 years ago that talks about both your god and the afterlife, that somehow they have to be real. We can all call the begining god, whatever it may be, but where does the afterlife fit into the creation of everything? Would you still worship a god if you knew the afterlife wasn’t real?

  187. on 20 May 2011 at 2:02 am 187.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    So where is your problem? Hmmm, seeds came about by natural mechanisms or supernatural forces?

    I gotta ask….how much intervention does a god have on evolution? Do you agree with Collins (www.biologos.org) that god does not get involved with evolution? What exactly is your claim?

  188. on 20 May 2011 at 2:14 am 188.DPK said …

    185.Burebista said …

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Actually, you got answers to all of those things. You are just not bright enough to realize it. Tragic.

  189. on 20 May 2011 at 2:53 am 189.Lou said …

    185.Burebista said …

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Irrelevant – no evidence from you for god.

    “Guys I expect better. You claim there is no God, but you cannot answer the most simple of questions.”

    Non sequitur – one has nothing to do with the other. That there’s absolutely no evidence for god has no bearing whatsoever on how a person answer ANY question, a simple or complex one.

    Joshua, his reply is another perfect example of “the same logical problems, errors in thinking” to which you referred. This guy is a lost cause. It’s simply beyond his ability to comprehend or demonstrate logical thought.

  190. on 20 May 2011 at 2:56 am 190.Lou said …

    188.DPK said …

    “Actually, you got answers to all of those things. You are just not bright enough to realize it. Tragic.”

    Even if he did, he’s never going to admit it. His comments here are part of his acting out defense mechanism for what he perceives as an attack on his belief system (delusion).

  191. on 20 May 2011 at 2:58 am 191.Lou said …

    187.MrQ said …

    “Bur,

    What exactly is your claim?”

    He has no claim. He is, as predicted, moving the goal posts. But only in a disoriented way.

  192. on 20 May 2011 at 2:29 pm 192.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 185

    “Joshua, I do appreciate your hard work as Observer does.”

    You are welcome. We demand evidence for your god so it is only fair that someone on our side be able to talk about evidence as well. However be aware that just because a particular person who accepts evolution cannot point to the evidence very readily, that does not mean there is no evidence. Some of this is very technical and most humans accept scientific consensus on a subject because we all can’t be experts.

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    To be fair you said that we could just talk about seeds. If you want to talk chemicals and cells later we can, but those areas are not as well developed as seeds. Hypotheses for early cells and pre-cell chemical evolution are still being formed. While there is a lot of data regarding the conditions on earth during the hadean epoch, chemistry is a very precise subject and there are a lot of experiments that need to be done to pin down what was possible and compare with what the geologic record shows and modern life. All we have at the moment are competing explanations. One thing is for sure though, the evidence indicates that chemistry led to life, not a creator.

    “But your research does not provide any evidence for the fist seed.”

    Let’s set aside the question of if evolution is true for a moment and just discuss what the theory says. Over time populations of organisms change bit by bit and after millions of years they look very different from what they were. But when you just look at the difference from one generation to another the change is very slight if it is even noticeable. The consequence of this is that you cannot pick out any one generation of pre-historic plants and just say “that’s the first seed”. There is a series of slight changes from plants bearing pre-seeds to plants with seeds. You really should check out the link that I posted above to the picture with the slight color changes. It really is a great example of what I am talking about. Here it is again;
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    “Yes, we know there are very old seeds. See this link:…”

    Ummm… you know I did post this link above right? You have to admit that it makes you seem like you did not read what I posted when you ask me to look at a link that I already looked at.

    Also you can’t just dismiss that we have really old seeds because the comparisons of lots of really old seeds and really old pre-seeds is what makes the argument. That is why I said above that if you wanted to discuss the evidence we would have to agree on a specific subject (like say the comparison of pre-seed fossils to the oldest seed fossils). That way I can download or find the specific papers that show that evidence and then we can discuss if it convincing or not. Nothing replaces actually looking at the evidence. This is accepted science and people who trust experts in a field will not be convinced without pointing to why the experts are wrong.

    “Have you had time to work on first cell and chemicals? You do seem a have a great deal of time on your hands so keep looking.”

    I don’t actually, I enjoy learning new things. Over the years I have gotten very good at it so it does not take me as long.

    Also you said that we could just look at seeds so I want to focus there. If the evidence for the evolution of seeds is good we do not have to go on to cells and chemicals.

  193. on 20 May 2011 at 2:31 pm 193.MrQ said …

    Lou #191,
    The claim is and ALWAYS will be: god started it all/god is the original cause.

    For some of the hardcore xtians posting here – Even after they accept modern evolutionary theory (micro and macro) their belief in a god will remain unchanged. They perpetually distill their world view down to “the claim” that goddidit.

    It works like a flowchart – with god at the bottom. No matter what route you take, god is always the answer.

    No evidence/proof/logic is capable of swaying them. I, on the other hand, will come the the god conclusion once the evidence points me that way, After all, unlike Hor/Bur/Matt/et al, I am a fair and reasonable guy with an interest in honest research.

  194. on 20 May 2011 at 3:57 pm 194.Ben said …

    “No matter what route you take, god is always the answer.”

    Well yeah, God stared it all. This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop. The same goes for God and the universe. Now you are getting clued in.

    The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc. Too much time has passed.

  195. on 20 May 2011 at 4:24 pm 195.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 194

    “The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc. Too much time has passed.”

    “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”
    – Albert Einstein, 1932.

    “I also lay aside all ideas of any new works or engines of ware, the invention of which long-ago reached its limit, and in which I see no hope for further improvement…”
    – Sextus Julius Frontinus, governor of Britania, 84 C.E.

    Never say never….

  196. on 20 May 2011 at 4:48 pm 196.MrQ said …

    Ben,

    This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop.

    Can you let Hor know that my HD motorcycle goes back to HD? LOL-I didn’t find it washed up on a beach.

    Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc.

    And once we figure it out the goal posts shift. Don’t worry, I understand. What would it take for you change your mind? Answers to these questions? I doubt it…the flowchart just gets modified; god must remain at the bottom.

  197. on 20 May 2011 at 4:54 pm 197.Lou said …

    194.Ben said …

    “Well yeah, God stared it all.”

    But YOU never answer the question – who “stared” god?

    “This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop. The same goes for God and the universe. Now you are getting clued in.”

    Says the clueless Ben.

    “The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc.”

    Are you on “chemicals?” Your comment is nonsensical rambling. Exactly how is “the first of anything always a good test for the atheist?” It’s not only “doubtful,” but absolutely shown to be true by your idiotic comments that you don’t know a fraction of what’s been shown to be true by science.

    “Too much time has passed.”

    Not since your last stupid comment.

  198. on 20 May 2011 at 5:24 pm 198.Joshua said …

    “But YOU never answer the question – who “stared” god?”

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

    God, is, dead…

  199. on 20 May 2011 at 6:34 pm 199.Lou said …

    We can only imagine and wonder how much would be known if xianity/religion had never existed. The world would no doubt be a much nicer, safer, more knowledgeable, and technologically advanced place.

  200. on 20 May 2011 at 6:45 pm 200.Ben said …

    You boys get ugly when presented with questions you cannot answer. You hold up the mantle of the new angry atheist well.

    I like the Einstein quote. He didn’t believe something in the here now was attainable. Let me know when science can prove from where the fist cell came from. Science is my life calling, love to see it, but I doubt it. There is only one.

    I do know who brought about the first cell. How is a mystery but not who. Without the Xians, science wouldn’t nearly be where it is today.

    Continue with you ugly ranting.

  201. on 20 May 2011 at 7:20 pm 201.Lou said …

    200.Ben said …

    “I do know who brought about the first cell. How is a mystery but not who. Without the Xians, science wouldn’t nearly be where it is today.”

    Your absolute statement about Xians and science is no more factual than are your claims about god. Both are absolutely unsupportable assertions of a delusional mind.

    Let us know when you have any evidence for god. Hint – posting the same idiotic question over and over is not evidence for god, but of your faulty thought processes.

    Science may be your life calling, but it’s not your talent.

  202. on 20 May 2011 at 7:56 pm 202.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 200

    “You boys get ugly when presented with questions you cannot answer. You hold up the mantle of the new angry atheist well.”

    None of this means the explanation for where seeds evolved from is incorrect. Since you don’t discuss the data I am safe in assuming you don’t know what you are talking about.

    “I like the Einstein quote. He didn’t believe something in the here now was attainable. Let me know when science can prove from where the fist cell came from. Science is my life calling, love to see it, but I doubt it. There is only one.”

    You misunderstand the quote. Doubting science can do something for no reason is a bad idea. Plenty of smart people have been wrong about science doing or not doing something. Just because someone doubts that science will be able to collect evidence about chemistry on this planet billions of years ago does not mean that it won’t. Also, for the millionth time, science is about evidence, not proof. If you are unwilling to discuss the evidence you fail.

    “I do know who brought about the first cell. How is a mystery but not who.”

    Who, and how do you know?

    “Without the Xians, science wouldn’t nearly be where it is today.”

    Citation needed. Christians have also held science back.

  203. on 20 May 2011 at 9:00 pm 203.DPK said …

    “Science is my life calling….”

    For some who claims this, you have an absolutely astounding ignorance of the scientific process, and precious little regard for it. Are you serious?
    What “science” do you practice as your “life’s calling”? Alchemy?

  204. on 20 May 2011 at 11:11 pm 204.Hell Yeah said …

    Where did all the theists go besides Ben? Did they sell their computer along with all their other belongings in preparation to the end of the world tomorrow? 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. And only 3% of the world’s population is going to be lifted to heaven? So much for all those theists that make up the majority of the population.

  205. on 20 May 2011 at 11:13 pm 205.Hell Yeah said …

    Where did all the theists go besides Ben? Did they sell their computer along with all their other belongings in preparation to the end of the world tomorrow? 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time. And only 3% of the world’s population is going to be lifted to heaven? So much for all those theists that make up the majority of the population………..

    ……….oops, I meant 6:00pm Eastern Standard Time. It is 5:00pm my time.

  206. on 21 May 2011 at 6:23 am 206.Severin said …

    185 Burebista
    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.“

    You got your answer many times, and because it is absolutely logical, but because you don’t like it, and have no idea how to negate it, you keep lying that you did not get it.
    You GOT your answer! Don’t you lie (again).
    I will repeat it for you:

    Only answer for „first chemicals“ is necessary, and you got it many times:
    matter/energy existed, exists and will exist. It was not „created“ ever, it just exists, with no beginning, and no and. Matter/energy is eternal.
    It changed, changes and will change, according to laws that also existed, exist, and will exist, and are „built in“ matter/energy as its “inherent intelligence”.

    As the “first’, and any other living cell, and “first”, and any other peace of seed, are only forms of matter/energy, they are only transformation of matter/energy that occured the same way all other changes occured. Maybe it took more time to occur, but at any single place the right conditions were present, life spontaniously occured and developed, as a part of other changes matter/energy passes through, all the time.

    Now YOU try, without sticking your tongue at me like a stubborn child, to find waht could possibly be wrong in this logic.

    I remind you that I do NOT claim anything you don’t!

    I am ONLY giving matter/energy the same atributes you are giving to god: it existed, exists and will exist, without being created.

    However, I don’t see any god, and have no evidences something like that exists.
    I have all evidences matter/energy exists, and acts (changes) according to inherent laws it „contains“ („brings within itself“).
    NO „special“ gods! Matter/energy = „god“.

    So FINALLY, tell us WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS LOGIC?

  207. on 21 May 2011 at 7:25 am 207.Severin said …

    200 Ben
    „Without the Xians, science wouldn’t nearly be where it is today.“

    You are right!
    Without Christianity science would blossom!
    Without Christianity, science would give much more than it gave with Christianity.

    Christianity was the darkest regressive power in human history, that killed science.
    It still is.

  208. on 21 May 2011 at 5:14 pm 208.Horatiio said …

    “Nothing replaces actually looking at the evidence. This is accepted science”

    Notice how Joshua has shifted in his thinking along with the other Auspurger sufferers. What is the one thing they whine about in the sphere of theology? No proof for God. Evidence is now accepted science. Finally, the AS crowd has wised up.
    There is plenty of Evidence for God. We can go back to the great scholastic Aquinas to see the evidence.

    “No evidence/proof/logic is capable of swaying them.”
    This gem from Mr Q. What evidence? Wait, it is not the evidence it is the interpretation of the evidence. Many look at the evidence and see God, those with AS like Q-less refuse to see a God regardless of the evidence.

    “Without Christianity science would blossom!”
    My favorite from Severin. Severin you just like to type. As Josh would say “Citations please”. I have a whole plethora of theistic scientist to blast this idiotic statement to the moon. LOL!

    Ben, you have the only post above that make any sense. Congratulations.

  209. on 21 May 2011 at 5:22 pm 209.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    Do you ever think before you spew your rhetoric? Careful, don’t get into the bad books on this most important of days…the xtian end of time!

    I am a reasonable man. Surely the evidence – as you interpret it – will lead to a completely undeniable existence of a god. From there you can lead me by the hand to your zombie leader king-Jesus. With that in mind – Let’s have that discussion on micro/macro evolution. I have made some assertions (see above)…the ball is in your court…let’s play.

  210. on 21 May 2011 at 6:51 pm 210.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    What have you got? Oh yeah….Follow the flowchart – it goes down and always gives god as the answer.

    I know that you’ve got nothing, Hor. Jesus is your main man not because of any logic, deductions, evidence – there’s a reason it’s called faith. You have abandoned the need for any REAL evidence because you need the zombie leader to keep from falling back on old ways. It’s sad but, hey, it works for you.

  211. on 21 May 2011 at 7:24 pm 211.Observer said …

    #208 Hor, again you show your ignorance. The one thing that Aquinas managed, and has made him part of the curriculum in Western Philosophy was his utter inability to prove the existence of “God”, or even the necessity of “God”. He really did nothing aside from dead-ending at the Aristotelian “Prime Mover” via absurd tautologies he created.

    To his credit, or perhaps this is in reality an insideous blight perpetrated on humanity, he kept xtian thought from completely deviating from reality due to his adherence to Greek-style philosophy. Perhaps without him xtian thought would have collapsed prior to the 18-19th Century.

    That does not mean there would not still be adherents, just that we would be closer to ridding the world of the filth.

  212. on 21 May 2011 at 7:32 pm 212.Ben said …

    MrQ,

    I don’t know what your problem is, but I’ll bet it’s hard to pronounce.

  213. on 21 May 2011 at 10:36 pm 213.Hell Yeah said …

    Did we all survive the rapture? LOL.

  214. on 22 May 2011 at 4:57 am 214.Severin said …

    208 Horatio
    “As Josh would say “Citations please”.”

    You can start from Galileo and Bruno.
    Then you can follow the “Index librorum prohibitorum”.

    Pascal, Sartre, Copernicus, Darwin (Erasmus), Kepler, van de Velde, are all there.
    Interestingly, Hitler’s book (“Mein Kampf”, /My Struggle/ was never put in this “list of shame”.

  215. on 22 May 2011 at 5:03 am 215.Severin said …

    214 Horatio
    “There is plenty of Evidence for God. We can go back to the great scholastic Aquinas to see the evidence.”

    Yes, no doubt!
    You can use also Koran to prove existance of god.
    You can use ANY religion book or writing, of ANY religion.
    ALL of them CLAIM some gods exist(ed).

    Now, how would YOU prove god exists?

  216. on 23 May 2011 at 1:25 am 216.Rostam said …

    “You can use also Koran to prove existance of god.”

    Um, Severin do you even know who Aquinas was?

    WOW!

  217. on 23 May 2011 at 2:14 pm 217.Lou said …

    208.Horatiio said …

    “There is plenty of Evidence for God. We can go back to the great scholastic Aquinas to see the evidence.”

    If Aquinas is evidence for god, then this is a slam-dunk for the assertion that xtianity interfered with scientific progress:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4

  218. on 23 May 2011 at 4:30 pm 218.Lou said …

    208.Horatiio said …

    “Ben, you have the only post above that make any sense. Congratulations.”

    Funny – you post that comment as if it somehow provides any legitimacy to his comment, when in fact the opposite is true.

  219. on 23 May 2011 at 7:39 pm 219.Biff said …

    “What evidence? Wait, it is not the evidence it is the interpretation of the evidence.”

    Horatio this is so true but try to explain this to an atheist. It is like telling a child not to put his hand in the fire. Atheists somehow believe evidence and data in science supports atheism. Actually the data points to creation and design in nature to the unbiased eye.

  220. on 23 May 2011 at 8:21 pm 220.Lou said …

    219.Biff said …

    “Atheists somehow believe evidence and data in science supports atheism.”

    No, we don’t you idiot. Atheism isn’t something that’s supported by evidence. Atheism is the rejection of an assertion for which there’s no evidence.

    “Actually the data points to creation and design in nature to the unbiased eye.”

    What “data points?” Do you even know what a “data point” is?

  221. on 23 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 221.DPK said …

    “Actually the data points to creation and design in nature to the unbiased eye.”

    No, the data points to creation and design to those who do not understand it, much like the rumbling of a volcano points to “volcano gods” to those who do not understand the natural forces at work. Religion has always claimed what is not fully understood as the realm of their magical supernatural beings. As mankind’s knowledge advances, god’s turf diminishes. This is how it has always been, and will continue to be. This is why science has always had to drag religion, kicking and screaming, into any type of progress. The superstitious will always try to carve out spaces for their gods in any and all gaps in human understanding. Such is the nature of religion… it thrives on ignorance and dies with reason and understanding. Good riddance.

  222. on 23 May 2011 at 8:50 pm 222.Biff said …

    “Do you even know what a “data point” is?”

    ROTFL – Louis it is not “data-points” it is “the data points to”

    “Atheism isn’t something that’s supported by evidence”

    Yes, I completely agree with you on this point Louis.

    Thanks for the good laugh and I hope this helps you see the light friend. You young fellas are precious.

  223. on 23 May 2011 at 8:55 pm 223.Biff said …

    “Such is the nature of religion… it thrives on ignorance and dies with reason and understanding.”

    DPK, you continue to crank out such stupidity but nobody takes you seriously. There is not one iota of scientific data that threatens my belief in God. On the contrary, science only strengthens the reality and it has always been that way.

    You are getting desperate? When it was believed the cell was a simple black box it was easy to be an atheist. It is difficult to keep selling that story, eh DPK?

  224. on 23 May 2011 at 11:24 pm 224.Lou said …

    222.Biff said …

    ROTFL – Louis it is not “data-points” it is “the data points to”

    Do you EVER get it?! Of course it was! My commnet was an absurd reply to illustrate the absurdity of his comment.

    “Atheism isn’t something that’s supported by evidence”

    “Yes, I completely agree with you on this point Louis.”

    You don’t even get the point, much less understand it.

    “Thanks for the good laugh and I hope this helps you see the light friend. You young fellas are precious.”

    You’re welcome, but you STILL don’t get it, and you never will.

  225. on 23 May 2011 at 11:25 pm 225.DPK said …

    “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t true…” Mark Twain.
    Keep deluding yourself Biff. You religious types are great at lying to yourself to the point you actually believe it yourself….

    Still waiting for you and your cronies to but god’s instructions to kill homosexuals and many others “in context” so we can understand why he said that when he clearly didn’t mean it.
    You guys are very adept at conveniently ignoring anything that challenges your little bubble of delusion.

  226. on 23 May 2011 at 11:30 pm 226.Lou said …

    223.Biff said …

    “DPK, you continue to crank out such stupidity but nobody takes you seriously. There is not one iota of scientific data that threatens my belief in God.”

    Perfect! Because it is BELIEF, and THAT’S ALL. But there “is not one iota” of ANY LEGITIMATE evidence for God.

    “On the contrary, science only strengthens the reality and it has always been that way.”

    You already commented that god was your BELIEF, not reality. There is “not one iota of scientific data” for god, If there is, then post it or STFU.

  227. on 23 May 2011 at 11:32 pm 227.Lou said …

    222.Biff said …

    “You young fellas are precious.”

    WHAT?! Are you a Catholic priest?

  228. on 24 May 2011 at 12:00 am 228.Biff said …

    Friends,

    Mark Twain? Huh????

    God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.

    I hope I summed it up well for you. But since I am on a website that attempts to cure me of my delusion then have at it.

    I don’t hold out much hope though. The best you seem to have is STFU and idiot slams. Not very mature. Thus, my assumption of very young fellas.

  229. on 24 May 2011 at 2:43 am 229.Lou said …

    228.Biff said …

    “God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.”

    “…my belief [is] my reality…”

    Belief is not reality, it is delusion for all theists of all religions who BELIEVE that their BELIEF about god is the correct one. BELIEF is not REALITY. BELIEF blinds you from seeing the truth (REALITY).

    “But since I am on a website that attempts to cure me of my delusion then have at it.”

    Being blinded from seeing reality, you are empty and unsatisfied. That is why you are here – to confront an enemy you have created in order to vent your unhappiness. Atheists and atheism are not your enemy. You are only here to act out, not to “cure” your delusion or present evidence for god. You are a sad relic of the bronze age.

    “The best you seem to have is STFU and idiot slams.”

    No, but apparently it’s the only thing you respond to because you NEVER reply with evidence or “data” for god. So, if the shoe fits, then wear it.

    Again, post your evidence or “data” for god or STFU with your idiotic comments. Until you do, then your BELIEF is nothing but FAITH. FAITH is not REALITY or TRUTH. It is a delusion.

  230. on 24 May 2011 at 3:39 am 230.DPK said …

    Biff:
    “God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.

    God:
    “I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” [1 Timothy, chapter 2]

    God:
    “He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.”

    God:
    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.”

    Biff:
    “…………”

  231. on 24 May 2011 at 5:35 am 231.Severin said …

    Biff (at al),
    Why aren’t you a Muslim?
    Muslims claim EXACTLY the same things you do, and claim it without any evidences, as you do.
    Differences are only technical, not substantional.

    Are Muslims delusional?
    If they are not, you must be.
    If they are delusional, how would you prove it?

  232. on 24 May 2011 at 10:33 am 232.Biff said …

    “Being blinded from seeing reality, you are empty and unsatisfied. That is why you are here – to confront an enemy you have created in order to vent your unhappiness.”

    ROTFL again. Lou you so precious. Unlike you, I don’t consider those with another belief my enemy. Really is the best you can do? I am a very happy man. Frankly, I don’t see how it could be better.

    DPK,

    “Biff:”

    Yes?

    Severin,

    “Are Muslims delusional?”

    No, I don’t follow the characterizations of Richard Dawkins. I do think atheists are delusional thought.

  233. on 24 May 2011 at 1:30 pm 233.Lou said …

    232.Biff said …

    “I am a very happy man. Frankly, I don’t see how it could be better.”

    Of course you don’t, because you are delusional. But really, you “don’t see how it could be better?” It’s sad and pathetic that your truth and reality is an imaginary supernatural being. You are like child a xmas time. If you don’t believe in Santa, he won’t bring you any presents. Ignorance is bliss for you.

    And as usual, you offer no evidence or “data” for Santa-god. It can’t be better in the land of make-believe.

  234. on 24 May 2011 at 2:58 pm 234.DPK said …

    Let’s review:
    Biff claims: “God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.”
    Yet, when asked about god’s instructions to kill people for all manner of transgressions, his demands for offerings of blood and burnt flesh, his admonishment that no woman should hold authority over men, or be allowed to teach, his instructions on the proper etiquette of selling your daughter into prostitution, and all manner of atrocities…. silence.

    Delusion: A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with vehemence.

    Biff contends that atheists are delusional. Yet, in the same paragraph, he says that Muslims are not delusional. Muslims do not believe in the Christian god. They do not accept Jesus as divine. Yet, they are NOT delusional, but atheists who simply reject the god hypothesis as unsubstantiated, are not.

    Tell us Biff, are Mormons delusional? They believe there was a great tribe Israelites living in North America who are the direct ancestors of American Indians and that Jesus is just one god from a race of gods who were once humans.
    Are Hindu’s delusional?
    Buddhists?
    Does your definition of “delusional” exclude anyone who believes is “anything” supernatural… like fairies and elves? Do only those who do NOT accept SOME kind of supernatural power (no matter how bizarre) fit the definition?

    Readers, I know Biff will not address any of these issues, just has he has failed to respond to ANY other direct questions about his irrationally held beliefs, but if you are undecided, think about these questions and decide for yourself which one of us is truly deluded.

    Remember, atheists don’t have to make up excuses about why their invisible, magical friends do crazy things and act with such contradictions.

  235. on 24 May 2011 at 3:29 pm 235.Joshua said …

    “Notice how Joshua has shifted in his thinking along with the other Auspurger sufferers. What is the one thing they whine about in the sphere of theology? No proof for God. Evidence is now accepted science. Finally, the AS crowd has wised up.”

    Shifted from what? I have been telling everyone on both sides that the only thing we can talk about is evidence. I deny the concept of proof if what you mean is 100% certainty. We can never be 100% certain so all we have is a pile of evidence that is enough to convince. Evidence has always been a part of science since it was first formulated by Francis Bacon and company.

    “There is plenty of Evidence for God. We can go back to the great scholastic Aquinas to see the evidence.”

    Cite the Aquinas source and I will consider it.

    “This gem from Mr Q. What evidence? Wait, it is not the evidence it is the interpretation of the evidence. Many look at the evidence and see God, those with AS like Q-less refuse to see a God regardless of the evidence.”

    You actually have a good point here. Interpretation of evidence is as important as having evidence. This is why scientific consensus and peer review are important. Unfortunately you never participate in the interpretation of evidence we discuss here. All you do is toss around insults and assertions. You are not interpreting anything if there is no “why” statement attached to your “what” statement.

  236. on 24 May 2011 at 3:50 pm 236.Joshua said …

    @ Biff 219
    “Horatio this is so true but try to explain this to an atheist. It is like telling a child not to put his hand in the fire. Atheists somehow believe evidence and data in science supports atheism. Actually the data points to creation and design in nature to the unbiased eye.”

    1. I have repeatedly told commentors here that they need to add “why” statements to their “what” statements.
    2. I have repeatedly told commentors here they need to discuss evidence, not proof.
    3. I and others here have repeatedly asked for the evidence that god exists and that life is designed, we get little or nothing except assertions and silence. When we do get some evidence or more than an assertion and we respond, with only one exception we never get any farther responses. Discovering the right answers requires back and forth discussion. You can’t play tennis when your partner never serves and never hits the ball back. I have posted at least two lengthy comments (evolution of seeds and an analysis of a “Christian nation “ argument) and what I get back amounts to an assertion that I am wrong when the most important part is telling me “why” I am wrong. No one is ever convinced by an assertion.
    4. No eye is unbiased. This is another reason why there is scientific consensus and peer review. We are all biased to complaining about bias is a useless waste of time. Just acknowledge your bias and move on.

    The atheists here are overwhelmingly the group that likes to engage in interpretation of evidence. We have tried to get the theists here to join us but they would mostly rather make assertions and school yard taunts.

  237. on 24 May 2011 at 4:15 pm 237.Joshua said …

    @ Biff 222-223
    >“Atheism isn’t something that’s supported by evidence”
    “Yes, I completely agree with you on this point Louis.
    Thanks for the good laugh and I hope this helps you see the light friend. You young fellas are precious.”

    Atheists have been saying over and over here that our position is one of rejecting the arguments of theists. So there is no argument for atheism, and thus it is not supported by evidence. Instead we argue that the specific evidence presented by theists is unconvincing. This has been pointed out to the theists here so many times that it is becoming difficult to not assume deception on their part. Certainly I have almost never seen the theists acknowledge that they understand this.

    “DPK, you continue to crank out such stupidity but nobody takes you seriously. There is not one iota of scientific data that threatens my belief in God. On the contrary, science only strengthens the reality and it has always been that way.”

    Then I assume that your god beliefs do not involve god interacting with the world in some fashion, because such an interaction could be testable. Many claims by the religious have been dis-proven once science has looked into it. Lightning is not thrown by Thor or Zeus, mental illness is not caused by demons, native Americans are not descended from jews… every time that religion has fought a claim by science religion has lost. The current conflicts will probably go the same way. At least I have history on my side. So does the date of the earth (~3.5 billion years), or the accepted scientific fact that we share common ancestry with all life conflict with your beliefs?
    “You are getting desperate? When it was believed the cell was a simple black box it was easy to be an atheist. It is difficult to keep selling that story, eh DPK?”

    I have a master’s degree in molecular biology. I have been working in laboratories until two years ago when I started teaching. I have a depth of understanding in science that has allowed me to publish such work as this;
    http://mcb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/28/10/3151?view=long&pmid=18332120

    I assure you that the more science I study the easier it is to be an atheist. The world as it really is does not agree with the claims of theists I have encountered, including you. Some other theist may show me something different someday, but I doubt that will be you. The paper I just linked to is all about the complexity that goes on in a cell. I am still an atheist.

    Care to back up your words? Why am I wrong.

  238. on 24 May 2011 at 4:25 pm 238.Joshua said …

    @ Biff 228

    “God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.”

    Why? I am willing to consider your arguments and based on the seed evolution comment you know that I will take them seriously and tell you my reasoning if I am not convinced.

    “I hope I summed it up well for you. But since I am on a website that attempts to cure me of my delusion then have at it.”

    I am afraid that there is nothing to “have at”. Since all you do is summarize your beliefs there is nothing to respond to. The important stuff is why god is your belief, why god is your reality, and why you think god is the source of all truth. We already know the stuff you summarized.

    “I don’t hold out much hope though. The best you seem to have is STFU and idiot slams. Not very mature. Thus, my assumption of very young fellas.”

    I now have every right to consider you dishonest. I posted a lengthy comment above outlining the current scientific views on seed evolution that contained no STFU and no idiot slams. I have watched DPK, Lou and others give you responses that explain why they think what they do. For you to ignore all of that and pretend that the best you get is an insult is just dishonest.

  239. on 24 May 2011 at 7:09 pm 239.Horatiio said …

    “I am a very happy man. Frankly, I don’t see how it could be better.”

    I don’t know Biff. You could be as happy as Lou!! Can’t you see how happy he is in his posts?

    Joshua,

    You really do need a job. I don’t have time to read all your pontificating. Here is a clue for you. God is not testable by science in a lab. God is known by the creation left for us to study and personal experience. It is that simple and few are buying into you Auspuger induced delusion.

    Now if you stated anything noteworthy,keep it pithy and I will consider your delusion more closely.

  240. on 24 May 2011 at 7:18 pm 240.Biff said …

    “Remember, atheists don’t have to make up excuses about why their invisible, magical friends do crazy things and act with such contradictions.”

    Readers I, Biff, do not need to make excuses for God. DPK, however,shakes his fist at God and tells God what He does is not fair, not natural and wrong. The very definition of delusional.

    Readers, I further submit that Time & Chance are not as powerful as DPK would like to claim. Further proof that DPK is delusional.

    Horatio,

    I could never handle being as happy as Lou.

  241. on 24 May 2011 at 7:18 pm 241.Lou said …

    238.Joshua said …

    “For you to ignore all of that and pretend that the best you get is an insult is just dishonest.”

    Biff is only here to act-out. His comments are basically nothing but retaliation, part of his self-defense mechanism. This “blog” is an anonymous outlet not available to him in real social settings. He can lash-out while being completely irresponsible. If he appeared this way on a real-life round table discussion, then he would be laughed out of the room.

  242. on 24 May 2011 at 7:56 pm 242.Mitch said …

    After browsing the above posts this is what we can glean.

    1. A negative cannot be proven therefore God is not disprovable.

    2. Atheism is not supported by evidence.

    3. All evidence and data is open to interpretation.

    4. Josh thinks he has a MS in microbiology and this gives him special insight into points 1, 2 & 3.

    Now to simplify narrative, why is science even a part of the discourse?

    Using the parameters of science, prove that Socrates once existed.

  243. on 24 May 2011 at 8:22 pm 243.DPK said …

    242.Mitch said …

    After browsing the above posts this is what we can glean.

    1. A negative cannot be proven therefore God is not disprovable.

    Agreed. God is not disprovable.

    2. Atheism is not supported by evidence.

    Atheism is not a hypothesis that requires evidence. It is a rejection of a hypothesis that is not adequately supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to understand.
    Elves exist = hypothesis. Requires evidence.
    No such thing as elves = rejection of Elf hypothesis. Requires no evidence.

    3. All evidence and data is open to interpretation.

    Also true. But, there is reasonable interpretation and there is lunacy. I can interpret the evidence for gravity as being thousands of invisible angels holding things and moving things as god commands them. Doesn’t mean that is a good interpretation.

    Science is a part of the discourse because it is the only reliable system we have of determining truth. In this case, your other option is a compilation of ancient manuscripts of dubious origin written by superstitious, primitive men with absolutely no understanding of the physical world.

    Here we go with Socrates again?

    Biff, you are once again missing the point completely, or ignoring it because it is uncomfortable for you. (I think the later) I am not angry at god, that would be silly, since I don’t believe he exists. You cannot explain the dichotomy of an all loving, omnipotent, universal, infinite intelligence who “delights in the smell of burnt flesh” and command us to kill those that transgress against his laws about sexual behavior, modesty, and innumerable other trivial things.
    The point is not that your christian god is a shit, that is well documented. The point that a being who would embody the properties of a god would NOT be a shit. Therefore, your god, as described in the bible is simply not real. Your admonishment that we have no right to judge him is the same as saying we have no right to criticize the Emperor’s New Clothes.

  244. on 24 May 2011 at 8:40 pm 244.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 239

    “You really do need a job. I don’t have time to read all your pontificating.”

    Translation: “I am lazy and believe things because they feel good and not because I know about things. I don’t want to take the time to actually understand and respond to anything so I will just make excuses and bring up things that have nothing to do with the things I don’t like.”

    “God is not testable by science in a lab. God is known by the creation left for us to study and personal experience.”

    Science is not just in labs. If god interacts with the world those interactions can be detected through tests. Personal experience is useless as evidence because it cannot be experienced by others.

    “It is that simple and few are buying into you Auspuger induced delusion.”

    Translation: “I will use an appeal to not thinking and name-calling which is lazy and does actually address anyone’s arguments.”

    “Now if you stated anything noteworthy,keep it pithy and I will consider your delusion more closely.”

    When I take the time to explain something like in the seed evolution comments above, the proper thing to do if you do not understand something is to ask me to explain it. It might make a discussion last longer but that does not really bother me. I will not be “pithy” for you because I will not reward mental laziness. Every comment you make demonstrates that you have no interest in really discussing these issues. All you do is name call and make unsupported statements. Most of the time you do more for the atheist side than the theist side.

    You can do differently of course. I want to be correct, not “right”. If any of the theists asked me to clarify the information I presented and actually demonstrated that they understood and wanted to discuss it, I would have. Instead all I got were excuses and everything but talking about seed evolution.

  245. on 24 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 245.Lou said …

    242.Mitch said …

    “After browsing the above posts this is what we can glean.”

    That you’re an obtuse ignoramus.

    “Now to simplify narrative, why is science even a part of the discourse?”

    Why are you NOT part of intelligent discourse?

    Theists use the argument that nature requires a designer/god. The answer that it does not is scientific in nature. Read that two or three times and maybe you can comprehend it.

    “Using the parameters of science, prove that Socrates once existed.”

    This blog is not about the discussion of a person that may or may not have existed, and who certainly does not exist now. It is part of a “web site that explores the existence of God. This blog accompanies the site and explores God and religion in our world today.”

    Socrates, who does not exist, is irrelevant to any such discussion about the alleged existence of god. Can you understand that? Once you do, then provide ANY LEGITIMATE evidence, scientific or not, for a god who allegedly exists now.

  246. on 24 May 2011 at 8:54 pm 246.Lou said …

    239.Horatiio said …

    “God is known by the creation left for us to study…”

    The result of those studies indicate that “creation” wasn’t made by any super-natural being, and its explainable through scientific explanations and theories that are supported by evidence that is not indicative of a god.

    “…and personal experience.”

    My personal experience does not indicate any such god. Therefore, according to your convoluted logic, god doesn’t exist.

    “It is that simple and few are buying into you Auspuger induced delusion.”

    The vast majority of humans are morons or are marginally intelligent. I don’t doubt that you aren’t “buying into” intelligent ideas.

  247. on 24 May 2011 at 9:00 pm 247.Joshua said …

    @ Biff 240

    “Readers I, Biff, do not need to make excuses for God. DPK, however,shakes his fist at God and tells God what He does is not fair, not natural and wrong. The very definition of delusional.”

    Let’s switch around a few things.
    “Readers I, Biff, do not need to make excuses for Loki. DPK, however,shakes his fist at Loki and tells Loki what He does is not fair, not natural and wrong. The very definition of delusional.”

    Makes just as much sense.

    “Readers, I further submit that Time & Chance are not as powerful as DPK would like to claim. Further proof that DPK is delusional.”

    Where did DPK appeal to time and chance? Time and change are not what the theory of evolution appeals to.

  248. on 24 May 2011 at 9:10 pm 248.Horatiio said …

    Mitch

    what you glean is correct. Anytime one must share their qualifications I of think of our own TGHO and his delusion of a class of biology freshmen.

    Take this quote from above:

    “Science is a part of the discourse because it is the only reliable system we have of determining truth.”

    With these parameters DPK has manged to eliminate the existence of Socrates.

    Check out the challenged Lou:

    “The vast majority of humans are morons or are marginally intelligent.”

    His Auspergers comes shining through. I picture Lou in his bedroom in front of his computer hoping for a girlfriend chanting “me smart you dumb”.

  249. on 24 May 2011 at 10:40 pm 249.Lou said …

    248.Horatiio said …

    I picture Lou in his bedroom in front of his computer hoping for a girlfriend chanting “me smart you dumb”.

    And no doubt you are masturbating while doing so. When you’re finished in a few seconds, then please post any legitimate evidence or “data” for god.

  250. on 24 May 2011 at 10:50 pm 250.MrQ said …

    248 Hor
    Are you drinking again?

  251. on 24 May 2011 at 10:54 pm 251.Joshua said …

    @ Mitch 242

    “1. A negative cannot be proven therefore God is not disprovable.”

    The correct version is “A negative cannot be proven therefore nothing is disprovable”
    This is why science goes around collecting evidence for things instead of against things.

    2. Atheism is not supported by evidence.

    Because it is not a positive argument. It is a statement of DISBELIEF. When an atheist is arguing for something (like the evolution of seeds) they eventually need to provide evidence. But to be an atheist is to say “I don’t believe you” which is an assessment of YOUR evidence.

    “3. All evidence and data is open to interpretation.”

    True.

    “4. Josh thinks he has a MS in microbiology and this gives him special insight into points 1, 2 & 3.”

    BS. I said that my experience in science did not make it more difficult to be an atheist (quite the opposite) which is what was implied. I said that my familiarity with the biological sciences made me aware of the incompatibility of religious claims made about the biological sciences, and the reality that the biological sciences has uncovered.

    My degree means I am more likely to have a worthwhile opinion on matters relating to microbiology, and that my opinion on matters relating to biological sciences is more likely to be correct than someone who does not have that experience. It does not mean that my opinion cannot be challenged. When it is challenged by someone with no similar knowledge, that person has to demonstrate that they know what they are talking about. They have a higher bar to jump to demonstrate they can be trusted. The situation with seed evolution is evidence of why this is. Burebista makes a challenge about “where the first seed came from” and admitted that he expected no answer in a later comment. He literally knew nothing about what science thinks about seed origins but still felt that he could have an opinion worth considering. He has a very high bar to jump to be convincing on any scientific issue.

    You can challenge me on scientific issues, but your opinion is worth less unless you demonstrate that you are competent to discuss such issues. Something you have failed to do.

    “Now to simplify narrative, why is science even a part of the discourse?”

    Because when someone makes claims about reality, they can be tested. Claims about god would be untestable if that god never interacted with the universe, but most Christians believe that god does act in the world. Depending on the nature of the claim, those interactions can be tested, which is what science is, testing claims about reality.

    “Using the parameters of science, prove that Socrates once existed.

    No. I don’t really care if he existed or not, and you can’t “prove” it. You just collect enough evidence to determine if he likely existed. If someone with more historical knowledge wants to do it they can, but I would not. You only want this for rhetorical reasons. There are plenty of things in this post that have been argued that you likely disagree with. Grow a spine and actually respond to the objections of others in this thread.

  252. on 25 May 2011 at 12:10 am 252.Hell Yeah said …

    “A negative cannot be proven therefore God is not disprovable.”

    If I tell you that I am the real God, you can’t disprove it then, right? I can claim anything I want to and you can’t disprove it then as long as it fits outside our human senses.

    —————–

    “Atheism is not supported by evidence.”

    The reason Atheism doesn’t support a claim is because that claim has lack of evidence. Theists are an atheist of all other religions, correct?

    —————

    “Using the parameters of science, prove that Socrates once existed.”

    To start, Socrates was a man, not a supernatural being. We are man. So therefore man exists and has existed. Now if there was something out there that was supernatural that has real evidence, then the possibility of a God existing goes up a lot. See how that works?

  253. on 25 May 2011 at 12:24 am 253.DPK said …

    “With these parameters DPK has manged to eliminate the existence of Socrates.”

    As has already been noted, Socrates does not exist. You, however are claiming a god that not only currently exists, but intercedes in human affairs on a daily basis and is the source of “all truth”.

    However, as I am feeling magnanimous and I do not want you to feel too bad about the insignificance of your beloved Socrates, I will once again offer this: If you will accept the same standard of proof for Socrates that you accept for god, I will not only prove he existed, I will prove he is living in my garden shed. How’s that for an offer?

  254. on 25 May 2011 at 12:59 am 254.Xenon said …

    “familiarity with the biological sciences made me aware of the incompatibility of religious claims made about the biological sciences”

    Joshua, please share the religious claims that are incompatible with biology. Is it possible this is your interpretation or actual evidence? Please keep it short. I can do my own research.

    Socrates did not exist? Well I can’t prove it but I believe he did exist.

  255. on 25 May 2011 at 1:03 am 255.Xenon said …

    “Because when someone makes claims about reality, they can be tested.”

    I couldn’t pass this one up. How do you test for God Joshua if science has no past experiences to fall back on is testing deities?

  256. on 25 May 2011 at 1:34 am 256.Hell Yeah said …

    Xenon said “Socrates did not exist? Well I can’t prove it but I believe he did exist.”

    You might want to go read the thread again.

    How do you theists feel that the religion you choose to believe in has the same evidence (or should I say lack of evidence) that all the other religions have? What makes you stand out from them and that you are correct and they aren’t? Let’s hear some actual intelligence in your comebacks. As pointed out many times, you theists never show any evidence. All you do is say nope, you are wrong, we are right without any explanation. Remember, we are saying you have lack of evidence; that is what an Aheist does. Theists are the ones claiming the evidence……so, let’s hear it? Just try to outsmart us for once; we are tired of talking to child like minds.

  257. on 25 May 2011 at 2:12 am 257.DPK said …

    “Socrates did not exist?”

    No one said Socrates did not exist. I said Socrates DOES not exist. He’s dead.
    As to whether one can prove he ever existed depends entirely on what evidence you accept as “proof”. Again, if you accept the same standard of proof that you accept for god, I can “prove” the existence of almost anything.

  258. on 25 May 2011 at 2:32 am 258.Observer said …

    This thing about not being able to prove a negative is getting a bit carried away. For example, I say that AB, then A!B. We know what A is, and we know what B is. Therefore we can show A!B.

    Here is the problem with “God”, unicorns, the tooth fairy, etc. We can say there is none of the above, so it is like the Venn diagrams we had in 5th grade math, except the feasible set of possibilities is too large to pin down. We are then stuck with the inability to verify that there is no “God”, unicorns, or tooth fairies. I can say, “there are no pink argyle socks in my sock drawer”, Hor you will find that hard to believe, and prove it by opening the drawer, and inspecting its contents. It is not that a negative cannot be proved, the feasible set for “God” is the universe; it is to large to verify non-existence.

    What can be done is create TESTABLE hypotheses for the existence of “God”, but the xtians always you the “God hides himself” escape hatch. The point is, “God” predicts nothing, ask Harold Camping after Oct. 15, so is not useful in the pursuit of knowledge which leads to understanding our own world.

  259. on 25 May 2011 at 2:36 am 259.Observer said …

    It appears some characters did not carry over.. In the first paragraph it reads “I say that A is different from B by definition, then A is not B.”

  260. on 25 May 2011 at 3:16 am 260.Joshua said …

    @ Xenon 254-255

    “Joshua, please share the religious claims that are incompatible with biology. Is it possible this is your interpretation or actual evidence? Please keep it short. I can do my own research.”

    Actually it was more like religious claims that were incompatible with scientific descriptions of the world rather than just biology. My slow deconversion was due to seeing lots of claims fail to be confirmed by the evidence. Some of the areas included; age of the earth, evolution, failures of evidence in supernatural claims (medical miracles and such), Christianity as a whole looking no better or worse than other groups of humans (nothing to indicate we were special), rampant inability to accurately describe the things being disagreed with, general inability to accept correction and being attacked when I tried to get others to at least correctly describe what we were arguing against.

    “I couldn’t pass this one up. How do you test for God Joshua if science has no past experiences to fall back on is testing deities?”

    Science has no past experience testing for the higgs boson either, but they are doing that right now.

    The reason they can do it is because the different competing models for reality have different consequences for what exists depending on which is correct. Some (one?) of the models with lots of support predicts the existence for a particle with specific properties that has never been observed before because the conditions to produce it literally do not exist anywhere else in the universe except in this LHC.

    Testing for god would have a similar makeup. Theists of all kinds have different conceptions of what god is. Those conceptions have different consequences for reality depending on which one is real. The god that regrows limbs can be detected by finding a well documented case of someone who had their limb regrown. Other gods can be detected depending on how they interact with our universe. A god that does not interact with our universe might as well not exist and none of the religions can be right about it because it never contacted them. A god that interacted in the past and does not anymore is also useless because there is no reason to believe things that contradict what we know about reality without evidence.

  261. on 25 May 2011 at 5:21 am 261.Severin said …

    240 Biff
    “Readers, I further submit that Time & Chance are not as powerful as DPK would like to claim.“

    I kindly ask you to make a small experiment that costs nothing, and takes no time:
    Put some water in a plate, and wait.
    While waiting, please pray your god for a „chance“ to keep that water on the plate for a month.

    I hope you will learn that there is NO CHANCE this water will stay there for long, no matter how many times you repeat this experiment. It WILL ALWAYS evaporate. There is NOC HANCE to see it in the plate after some time.
    Then, if you precisely know the quantity of the water, the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air, you can PRECISELY CALCULATE (predict) also WHEN will your water evaporate. You can also precisely calculate how much energy was spent for this evaporation.
    It will behave the SAME WAY every single time you make your simple trial. It will NEVER fail to behave that way. If you put 100 g of water on the plate, it will take double time to evaporate than if you put 50 g of water (under same conditions)
    No „chance“ involved here!
    No „chances“ involved anywhere!

    No events depend on „chance“. All events depend on NATURAL LAWS.

    If you put water in plate, it WILL evaporate. No god will stop it!
    No „chance“ involved! No need to make guesses about „maybe it will, maybe it will not evaporate“!
    If you bring flame to gasoline, it WILL burn. No „maybe yes, maybe not“ stories!
    If you drop something heavier than air from your hand, it WILL fall down! No chance to stay in the air!

    WHY are you talking „chance“ all the time?
    WHO was talking „chance“, ever?

    Are you dishonest, or just stupid?

  262. on 25 May 2011 at 5:29 am 262.Severin said …

    239 Horatio
    “God is not testable by science in a lab.“

    Something that:
    - Is not testable
    - Is not calculable
    - Is not understandable (does not fit logic, escapes any attempt to be understood)
    is, in fact, not „something“.

    It is NOTHING.

    You finally admited us that you believe in NOTHING.

  263. on 25 May 2011 at 6:11 am 263.Severin said …

    Gentlemen theists,

    Gods are unobservable.
    Gods are undetectable.
    Gods are untestable.
    Gods are uncalculable.

    Where, the hell, are gods?

    In your heads only!
    DIFFERENT god in each head!

  264. on 25 May 2011 at 10:35 am 264.Xenon said …

    “Science has no past experience testing for the higgs boson either, but they are doing that right now.”

    The God particle (ironic huh) is believed to have properties that science has observed in the past. So no, this does not answer my question.

    “The god that regrows limbs can be detected”

    No, I don’t think so. We have animals that regrow limbs therefore it would be credited to evolution. Theist already use creation as evidence of God.

    “A god that does not interact with our universe might as well not exist”

    You think so? Even if the deity did create the universe? Suppose it is in a spiritual realm? Thousands upon thousands of stories exist through the ages of unexplained events. Sounds like the proof could be under your nose.

    “My slow deconversion was due to seeing lots of claims fail to be confirmed by the evidence.”

    Odd, I went the other way.

  265. on 25 May 2011 at 11:33 am 265.Renn said …

    I happened upon this thread by accident a few days back and have been following it with interest. But I feel compelled now to ask, for goodness sake, what is all this endless BS about proof and evidence?

    The cornerstone of Christianity is FAITH. Meaning, believing something which has no PROOF or EVIDENCE. If there was proof, it would not be faith. If there was evidence, faith would not be required. Faith that Jesus was god, faith in the resurrection, faith in his eventual return, etc etc. does not, by it’s very nature, need to be proven.

    For once I’d like to see a christian “grow a pair” and say: “I believe, even though there is no proof or evidence of any kind” and not get continually entwined in these debates about science and lack of evidence. It’s almost as if they’re embarrassed to come right out and admit that their beliefs are founded on something unprovable. But that’s what true faith is, is it not? Why do you all seem to feel the need to justify your faith to the unfaithful?

  266. on 25 May 2011 at 1:56 pm 266.Lou said …

    251.Joshua said …

    @ Mitch 242

    2. Atheism is not supported by evidence.

    “Because it is not a positive argument. It is a statement of DISBELIEF. When an atheist is arguing for something (like the evolution of seeds) they eventually need to provide evidence. But to be an atheist is to say “I don’t believe you” which is an assessment of YOUR evidence.”

    As you may recall, I posted Lou 220. “Atheism is not supported by evidence,” and I received several replies by the usual cast of idiots who can’t understand that concept. Joshua, this is why I continually comment that you can’t reason with those morons. Their thought process is so flawed as they continue demonstrate with the failure to understand my comment. Their frame of reference is so far removed from reality (228.Biff said “God is my belief, my reality and frankly the source of all truth.”) that you might at well be communicating with them in naval semaphore. They’re a lost cause. They’re stuck in the Bronze age, and you can’t reason them out of it. They are trapped there and Bronze age thinking is the only thing they can understand.

  267. on 25 May 2011 at 2:21 pm 267.Joshua said …

    @ Xenon 264

    X 255: “How do you test for God Joshua if science has no past experiences to fall back on is testing deities?”

    J 260: “Science has no past experience testing for the higgs boson either, but they are doing that right now.” (explanation followed)

    X 264: “The God particle (ironic huh) is believed to have properties that science has observed in the past. So no, this does not answer my question.”

    This response makes no sense to me. In order to test for anything there has to be something to test for. Properties can be anything from length, to the ability to implant memories and experiences, to the ability to create things out of “nothing”.

    Lots of common religious claims about god involve properties that science has looked at in the past like statistical distribution of features (are Christians more moral, happier, healthier, etc…) for example. If a god exists and it interacts with our reality, that interaction will have properties that we are familiar with just because it involves our reality.

    Why would you propose the existence of properties that science has not observed in the past?

    J: 260 “The god that regrows limbs can be detected”
    X: 264 “No, I don’t think so. We have animals that regrow limbs therefore it would be credited to evolution. Theist already use creation as evidence of God.”

    The kind of limb re-growing I am talking about is an instant appearance of a limb where one did not exist before. That does not occur in the animal kingdom. The energy involved in that kind of an event would be phenomenal. I would consider that an event that would be impossible given what we know about the universe so it would get me thinking about higher powers. Blindness and lameness can be instantly healed, why not amputation? These kinds of claims were common in the churches I grew up in.

    J: 260 “A god that does not interact with our universe might as well not exist”
    X: 264 “You think so? Even if the deity did create the universe?”

    Yes, because we would have no way to know this. If such a diety did exist eventually science would not be able to determine how the universe got here. If the diety never interacted with the universe after creating it, we would have no reason to believe in it. We would not know it was there and it would do nothing.

    “Suppose it is in a spiritual realm? Thousands upon thousands of stories exist through the ages of unexplained events.”

    I would need proof that a spiritual realm existed. To me appeals to such seems like making stuff up if there is no evidence for such. The fact that so many stories exist does not mean that “spiritual realms” exist. The masses have been wrong before and nothing replaces having evidence.

    “ Sounds like the proof could be under your nose.”

    Evidence, not proof. I do not think so.

  268. on 25 May 2011 at 2:30 pm 268.Lou said …

    265.Renn said …

    “It’s almost as if they’re embarrassed to come right out and admit that their beliefs are founded on something unprovable. But that’s what true faith is, is it not? Why do you all seem to feel the need to justify your faith to the unfaithful?”

    As I’ve posted several times before in this thread, they’re here to act-out. It’s part of their defense mechanism to what they perceive as an attack on their “world view.” It’s a pathetic situation they put themselves in. If their faith was as strong as they would have you believe, then they wouldn’t be here defending it with nonsensical, irrational, illogical comments. If it was strong, then they would be at peace going about their business somewhere rather than making asses out of themselves and their religion.

  269. on 25 May 2011 at 2:42 pm 269.DPK said …

    J: 260 “A god that does not interact with our universe might as well not exist”
    X: 264 “You think so? Even if the deity did create the universe?”

    But a “god that does not interact with our universe” is a far, far cry from the god of the bible, what with all the burning bushes, talking snakes, rising from the dead, virgin births, parting of the seas, floods, turning into pillars of salt, and all the rest. Those are certainly claims about the characteristics of god that, assuming they were still happening, could certainly be detected… no?
    That is why Joshua and others here have repeatedly asked you all to define your god, and specifically which god you are talking about.
    Other than designing and creating the universe, what specific properties do you consider god must possess? For example, does god answer prayers? If so, that would produce expectations that can be observed. Does god reward good and punish evil? Again, that would involve interceding in human affairs and would provide detectable evidence.
    Does god take sides in battles and wars? (He certainly did in biblical accounts.) Then that would provide observable evidence.
    Give us some specific characteristics of god that you think exist and cannot be detected.

  270. on 25 May 2011 at 3:04 pm 270.Joshua said …

    @ Renn 265

    The problem is that faith is not a well defined term. I see it get used in different ways depending on the particular theist, the point in the argument, or other things. Some Christians will say that faith is believing with no evidence, but I think that they are in the minority.

    Most Christians I talk to insist that “faith” does not mean belief with no evidence. They really think that they have god reasons for what they believe. Then they will start talking to me and I will tell them why I do not find their reasons for believing convincing. At this point they are using a definition for faith that includes reasons to believe. There is a bible verse discussing faith that compares it to not being able to see the wind, but being able to see its effects. The problem is that I do not find the analogous wind effects for their religion convincing so then the definition for faith changes without them realizing it.

    At some point when they run out of arguments I hear the “well, you just gotta have faith!” that every atheist hears eventually. At that point “faith” has the definition that means something like “just believe for no good reason”. They are completely unaware of this transformation because I think that the definition for faith that best explains its usage is “Believing something no matter what you have to do to justify it”. With that definition anything goes as long as they keep believing, which I think neatly explains what we see. This is why we see; rampant logical fallacies, refusals to engage arguments honestly, misrepresenting opponents, bad skills at assessing evidence, assertions with no explanations, grandiose uneducated opinions, and much more.

    This is the subconscious; script that I think they follow

    1. Have reasons for believing, but do not think very deeply about them or consider the arguments against them.

    2. Try to convert non-believer or defend against criticisms using reasons for number one.

    3. When this attempt fails appeal to faith as a reason for believing. Faith must mean “believe for no reason” at this point because the reasons have been exhausted.

    Every atheist I have ever talked to who was not born an atheist describes a process of slow deconversion as they bit by bit started seriously considering some of the criticism about what they believe. This is why I spend time hammering evidence. I think that a huge amount of the trouble that our society has involves beliefs and actions with no, or poor evidence behind them. Politics? It gets treated like sports where most folks root for their team instead of looking at evidence and issues. Most people out there are comfortable giving opinions on things that they literally know nothing about leading to misinformation everywhere. This is a horrible thing to do. Just imagine the improvement to the world if everyone made the effort to find out something about the things they wanted to have an opinion on before they spoke up. Or even better if it became accepted to always demand to know where someone heard something, and if they could not tell you it was socially embarrassing. This is the issue I feel most compelled to act on.

  271. on 25 May 2011 at 3:11 pm 271.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 266

    That is a fair opinion. But again I feel like fence sitters are worth it. Also repetition might one day have an effect. I enjoy picking apart arguments and don’t really get that tired of the repetition because a big part of learning is repetition. If every time they make claim A and someone here gives response B and they don’t engage in the discussion, that makes them look bad.

    I guess on some level I am trolling them and getting off on bugging them with the same response every time. The difference is that they are not engaging with my response, and I am engaging with their original comment so they end up looking worse. I hate to say it but a lot of social change is seeing who has the stamina to argue longer. The person with the best answer should have the easiest time in the long run because if reality is on their side and they master the knowledge of it, it gets easier to have the argument.

  272. on 25 May 2011 at 3:31 pm 272.Joshua said …

    @ Lou

    I found a blog post that explains my position perfectly.

    http://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-only-stupid-exists-on-internet.html#disqus_thread

  273. on 25 May 2011 at 4:18 pm 273.Renn said …

    Joshua, thank you for your thoughtful response.

    I’ve never felt the need to justify my faith to anyone. And, by extension, have never seen what good can come from forcing ones beliefs on those whose beliefs are different. Faith is not something one chooses. It’s something one has (or doesn’t have). To those who don’t, or can’t, think in spiritual terms, faith is a silly concept. Some people’s intellect requires evidence before allegiance. I completely get that. I even respect it.

    I think it’s one’s sincerity that God looks at above all. A Christian can easily claim faith, but can be doing so for reasons other than actual faith or love of God—their agenda is between themselves and God. By the same line of thinking, I also believe some atheists’ claims of DISbelief are insincere as well. Please note I am saying “some atheists” NOT “all atheists”. From my observations over the years, some so-called atheists are coming more from a place of resentment or disenchantment than actual disbelief. They were once Christians who have been hurt by some perceived betrayal by the God they trusted and put their faith in. So they retaliate against God by proclaiming “I no longer believe in you!” feeling that will sufficiently hurt God the way He has hurt/neglected/betrayed them. I personally know a few “ex”-Christians like that, one a dear friend for many years. In these cases, it almost always is due to some tragic circumstances usually involving a loved-one. For them, “atheist” is a misnomer because, out of pure anger, they disbelieve in spite of their belief, if that makes any sense, and will then proceed to find ways to convince themselves their disbelief is genuine. These ones can be spotted a mile away. They are always confrontational toward Christians and their words always angry. Just like angry, confrontational Christians are obviously shaky in their faith and are subconsciously confronting their own doubts by confronting atheists. I don’t know why it’s so difficult for some to be honest even just with themselves. Would it be so difficult for someone to admit their lack of belief is really just anger at God or, for the angry Christians, that they have some sincere doubts and questions?

    There’s nothing shameful in honesty and can be quite cleansing.

  274. on 25 May 2011 at 4:38 pm 274.Lou said …

    270.Joshua said …

    “The problem is that faith is not a well defined term.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iRFv-QBft0

  275. on 25 May 2011 at 5:50 pm 275.Joshua said …

    @ Renn 273

    Thank you for your polite response. If you see me acting harsh towards other posters that is because I enjoy responding in like manner. I like internet debate because it is like argumentative UFC. There are lot of styles that come in handy. I knew there were polite ones out there!

    I don’t make a habit of asking people to justify what they call faith without reason. I have a very live and let live attitude. The exception is when the faith of others affects my life, the life of others, or if they bring the subject up. That is when I feel the need to speak up. Unfortunately “faith” (quotes only used to emphasize that definitions vary) tends to impact a lot of behavior that intersects with the political realm, which ultimately affects me. I do try to make sure before challenging folks. For example my wife’s sister is a pro-life atheist.

    While I accept that you believe that you believe based on no evidence or proof, I don’t actually think that is true. I think that you just have not figured out why you believe. I don’t believe that anyone has beliefs for no reason. It can’t be faked (to yourself anyway). I could not make myself believe in Thor for no reason. Even if someone believes because it makes them feel good that is still a reason. Lots of people justify doing things because “that is just the way it has always been done” which amounts to tradition. Personally I think that tradition is the biggest reason people are religious because religion follows geographic distribution. I agree that “If there was proof, it would not be faith. If there was evidence, faith would not be required” which was why I characterized faith the way I did above*.

    “Some people’s intellect requires evidence before allegiance. I completely get that. I even respect it.”

    Don’t respect it. If humanity is to improve itself we should shed ideas that make it harder to improve. I don’t respect your ideas, I respect to your right to your ideas, and I respect the person that I have seen so far. I want my ideas disrespected because if they survive they are worth having, and I need to be able to defend them. My ideas have to earn respect. I can separate an attack on my ideas from an attack on myself.

    As for the “spiritual” and “god” talk, it is hard to discuss much without knowing what you are talking about. It is entirely possible that the things you are discussing exist. “Faith” might be a mental state that exists but is unexplainable to those without it, similar for “god” and “spiritual”. But without evidence for them I am entirely justified in disbelieving them.

    As for the atheists you know, it’s entirely believable. Since atheism is a state of disbelief on one issue, there are many paths one can take to that point. I personally had no big tragic problem. Instead as I became a scientist I became better at assessing arguments and evidence and eliminating logical problems from my life. Reality simply did not match what I was presented with in church. I am not saying that every Christian was as I was, but I still have not found any convincing reasons to believe. I would like to believe too because life is awesome and I would love it to keep going.

    *I find that the biggest problem in having arguments of any kind is when two people are using the same word, but have different definitions in their heads. I have tried to make it a habit to always look at the context and purpose of a person’s words to figure out what the definition is for them. Sometimes people say a word means one thing and they use it in a completely different way.

  276. on 25 May 2011 at 5:51 pm 276.Joshua said …

    I’ll have to check that out after work Lou. The school district blocks youtube :P

  277. on 25 May 2011 at 6:34 pm 277.DPK said …

    Renn wins the “All Religious People are not Jerks” award! Thanks for your thoughts, insights, and for not calling us idiots who will burn in hellfire for our insolence!
    “Faith is not something one chooses. It’s something one has (or doesn’t have).”
    Bravo. This is a point so many theists (at least most of those here) just do not comprehend. I could no more “choose” to believe that which to me is not believable, than I could “choose” to like asparagus. I mean, I could eat it and politely say how delicious it was, but inside I can’t stand the stuff and would rather puke.
    Going to church, acting pious, and reading the bible is not “belief”. That is acting on the social norm.

    Renn, since you seem to be comfortable in your faith and not prone to knee jerk defensive mechanisms, let me ask you this if you don’t mind:

    If the consequence of non-belief is hell, or eternal separation from god, or whatever you want to call it… some form of unpleasantness, why does god seemingly make it easy for some people to believe, and impossible for others? Doesn’t seem fair, does it? And what becomes of those, through accident of birth, happen to pick the “wrong” god to worship and follow?

  278. on 25 May 2011 at 8:43 pm 278.Burebista said …

    Renn,

    “For once I’d like to see a christian “grow a pair” and say: “I believe, even though there is no proof or evidence of any kind”

    I don’t know what you faith is in or if you are even what you claim to be but I do know this. You have never read Romans 1 and Psalm 24.

    I have faith Jesus will fulfill His promises. I have faith and evidence that God is real. I hope that helps. But before calling for some to “grow a pair” try finding out why they make the claims they do. Frankly, atheist have much more faith than me. I could never buy into there fairytale.

    Remember this quote?

    “If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.”

    If you feel the need to have atheist who mock your Lord and Savior like you, I think there is a problem.

    Anyhow, best to you.

  279. on 25 May 2011 at 8:44 pm 279.Burebista said …

    Let me add one thing. Caring is telling the truth Renn. What did Jesus say would happen to those who reject Him?

    This might be the real test if you believe what Jesus taught.

  280. on 25 May 2011 at 9:27 pm 280.Lou said …

    278.Burebista said …

    “I have faith Jesus will fulfill His promises. I have faith and evidence that God is real.”

    Please present your evidence.

    “I hope that helps.”

    It doesn’t.

    “But before calling for some to “grow a pair” try finding out why they make the claims they do.”

    Grow a pair – present your evidence for god.

    “Frankly, atheist have much more faith than me. I could never buy into there fairytale.”

    Frankly, I don’t understand why you can’t understand the simple concept that atheism has no “fairytale.” Atheists simply don’t believe your fairytale.”

    Maybe you can understand it this way – if you are christian, then you have a jesus fairytale. If you are muslim, then you have a muhammad fairytale. If you are an atheist, you simply don’t believe ANY religious fairytale. THERE IS NO ATHEIST FAIRYTALE! GET IT? If you don’t believe in the easter bunny, a different fairytale is not required to replace it, unless you are some kind of moron.

  281. on 25 May 2011 at 10:56 pm 281.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 274

    I have to find a longer clip for context. Otherwise LOL!

  282. on 26 May 2011 at 12:56 pm 282.Lou said …

    279.Burebista said …

    “What did Jesus say would happen to those who reject Him?”

    What did Santa Claus say if you are naughty?

  283. on 26 May 2011 at 1:27 pm 283.Renn said …

    Hello Joshua,

    You said “I want my ideas disrespected because if they survive they are worth having, and I need to be able to defend them.” A very intelligent position to take. Because the truth will always win.

    You said: “While I accept that you believe what you believe based on no evidence or proof, I don’t actually think that is true. I think that you just have not figured out why you believe. I don’t believe that anyone has beliefs for no reason.”

    I’ll try to answer this way: It’s just there. And it resonates so deeply in my soul that I couldn’t begin to explain why. As someone who has apparently not felt it, I can’t expect you to understand. It’s like a truth that is an actual part of me, does that make sense? Can you explain why some people like apples and others don’t? The apples have the same taste, but people react differently to that taste. I don’t think at any point anyone decides to like or not like apples. You either do or don’t. And does anyone question why they like/dislike them?

    You’re saying your studies in science have taken the “mystery” out of many things for you, and with the dispelling of the mystery went your belief in/need for a god (I’m paraphrasing). Kind of like knowing how a magician does a trick spoils the illusion of magic, perhaps? Yet, for me, learning about the fascinating, awesome intricacies of nature, the world, the universe, makes God all the more awesome to me. It doesn’t “spoil the effect”, so to speak. Seeing the complexity of a car’s engine just makes me appreciate the brilliance of the engineering all the more.

  284. on 26 May 2011 at 1:28 pm 284.Renn said …

    DPK, there are many Christians who are not jerks! You just don’t know them because they tend to be the less squeaky wheels. I don’t preach or pontificate to those who resist because I don’t see the good in hammering anyone over the head, but I’m more than happy to answer HONEST and SINCERE questions to the best of my ability. And people do ask, believe it or not, when they feel they won’t be judged or preached at. I don’t claim to have all the answers, I’m up front about that, there are many things I don’t know either. But that doesn’t deter my faith or trust in God in the least. In fact, it makes it stronger because the unknown requires faith to be all the more necessary.

    You referred to me as “religious”, but I don’t consider myself to be. To me, religions are man-made restraints, or maybe restrictions is a better word, that churches have put on God. (i.e. You can only get access to God if you do THIS in THIS particular way. What rot!) I was born and raised a Catholic but in my late teens began to question the rigid doctrines of what I’d been taught. Something didn’t feel quite right about it. It didn’t hinder my faith exploring these questions and doubts I had, but it did give me the courage to look outside the box. It was NOT easy! You basically have to erase the slate of indoctrination and start fresh.

    I then ended up getting absorbed into the Charismatic movement after attending a few prayer meetings with a born-again cousin who had left the church years before. Over time, I ended up becoming one of those in-your-face, self-righteous “Thus Saith The Lord” types that I feel so bad for now. What can I say, it filled the void, somewhat. But deep down it did not feel real. Something felt “off” about it as well, but it felt less spiritually restraining than Catholicism. Condemning the sins of others made me feel righteous, but it was a superficial righteousness I created myself. Looking back, I’m not sure I was aware I was doing that at the time. But I do know I was angry and felt a lot of hostility towards those who so blatantly rejected God. I was not honest enough with myself, or self-aware enough, to ask myself what the anger was about. If I was saved and God was going to take revenge on the laughers and mockers, what was there to be angry about? The only way I can explain it is to say I could only feel holy by calling out the unholiness of others. If I knew my scripture inside and out, praised God for every little thing, and felt such indignation toward sin, then I must be walking In The Spirit, right? I can say that now, of course, because hindsight is 20/20, but I don’t think I was open to discovering my self-deception at the time.

    It of course took a veritable tragedy in my life to start what I now call my spiritual housecleaning. Without going into detail, I’ll just say it was big enough to eventually to drive a wedge into my faith. I got to the point where I was so angry at God, felt so betrayed, that I acted it out in a way that I see a lot of atheists acting out. Condemning and mocking other Christians, feeling a stirring of rage whenever anyone even mildly indicates any kind of allegiance to God. I pronounced myself no longer a believer, and yet found myself at times cursing and expressing rage toward God (even though I now considered myself supposedly enlightened to the fact he didn’t really exist and had been a sucker for believing otherwise!) Talk about a walking contradiction! But I went about my life this way for many, many years.

    When a second life-altering tragedy struck, I suddenly found myself unable to cope even by using anger. I couldn’t possibly get any angrier at this lying, uncaring god (who supposedly didn’t even exist, remember!) or blaspheme anymore than I had been all the past years. There were no ways left to express my rage and betrayal. I was finally broken to the point of not wanting to live any more. I say “finally” because now I know that’s where God needed to take me in order to “wake” me. There was no rage or fight left in me. I was done. I surrendered. This allowed God the opening he needed because I was no longer trying to do things my way, which subconsciously tied his hands. The noise of life and my own ego was quieted and I was now able to hear that “still, small voice” that I heard about but never heard. The totally awesome part was the sudden knowledge that He still loved me. Through all my craziness, my arrogance, anger, cursing, he continued to love me and wait with patience that only He could have. I was filled with the knowledge that He understood my pain and my anger. But always, always continued to love me without judgment. By extension, I also now knew that He has that same love and patience for all of us. I was not a special case. No one is. He knows and understands our human pain and the actions it leads each of us to take. He knows that each of us can only function at the level of knowledge we’re at and that the mistakes we make, the bad and some times horrific choices we make are all a result of our emptiness and searching. Our need for something. He “gets” it. This amazing revelation completely changed my outlook toward myself and my fellow humans. I now “get” it as well and as a result find myself feeling much more compassionate (read “less judgmental”) toward others knowing they are no different than I am in their humanness, but each handling their own “stuff” the only way they are able with the knowledge and experience they currently have .They may make different choices from me for different reasons, but no one is any more or less human, or worthy, than anyone else.

    People try to fill their emptiness with so many things. Drugs, alcohol, sex, religion, power, anger. Whatever our particular “thing” is. But if there’s no inner peace quieting your spirit, most evident in the level of love and compassion you have for your fellow man, regardless of who they are and what they have to say, than you have not found your way yet. I believe you can only get there if you allow yourself to step out of your pride and ego and be brutally truthful with yourself about what your agenda is. Worked for me :)

    I do apologize for this epic, if you’re still with me, I did try to be as brief as possible. But I felt it was important for people to know where I’m coming from if they are to take anything I have to say seriously.

    Thank you!

  285. on 26 May 2011 at 1:45 pm 285.Renn said …

    Hi Burebista

    Maybe “grow a pair” was a little harsh. I apologize.

    I’m not really sure where you’re coming from. You seem to be implying that because I’m not compelled to trade insult for insult or mock the mockers that I’m somehow less Christian than you. That can’t honestly be what you’re suggesting, can it?

    You said “If you feel the need to have atheist who mock your Lord and Savior like you, I think there is a problem.” My “need” to have atheists mock my Lord and Savior???

    Jesus himself was laughed at and mocked. Even physically attacked toward the end. Not once did he feel compelled to fight back, name call, or shout “imbeciles!” at his detractors. He knew what the Truth was and knew the best he could do was offer it to us and then the rest was up to each of us in our own time. Where exactly did you read about him forcing his message on anyone? Even hanging on the cross, bloody, battered, and dying at the hands of the people he was only there to help, his thoughts were “Forgive them father, they know not what they do.” Please stop and think about that for a moment. “They know not what they do.” Compassion right to the end.

    Yes, scripture says believers will be mocked, hated, attacked etc. for their faith. Nowhere does it suggest we should retaliate likewise. Instead, we are commanded to turn the other cheek, love our neighbors, love our enemies. Jesus said the most important thing, after loving God with all our hearts and minds, was to love our neighbors. And if a Christian can’t lead this by example, even knowing that’s what Jesus commanded us to do, something’s seriously out of whack in their spirit.

    And yes, there are those who mock and sneer at me, although not often. While I find it annoying, I understand where it’s coming from and it does not change what I know in my spirit in the slightest. Therefore I feel no need to fight back to save my “ego”. Are people who are in a mocking, sneering frame of mind going to be open to learning anything from me? Will screaming it in their faces make them any more receptive? I feel bad that so many are so angry, so ready to fight instead of listen. No one listens. They seem more interested in protecting their egos and being the victor in the discussion. Really, what is that accomplishing? If you use your knowledge to set yourself above others instead of to help them, then your knowledge is meaningless.

  286. on 26 May 2011 at 1:55 pm 286.Anti-Theist said …

    #285

    Standing ovation

  287. on 26 May 2011 at 4:06 pm 287.DPK said …

    Renn,
    I doubt anyone here doubts your sincerity, and thank you for sharing such personal details with us. I think you are very much in the minority among “believers” who have had a profound, let’s say (for lack of a better word) “spiritual” experience. Although, it would seem that god has made it a rather difficult journey for you, and one can’t help but wonder if it is actually over yet.
    In comment, from a natural skeptic, let me say that I have heard others speak in the same kind of terms about the same kind of inner experiences that you describe. Several were born again Christians, several were Muslims, at least 2 swore their experiences was with spirits of the Native American variety, and several where with more obscure, eastern style philosophies. I think it’s safe to say that at least many of them described the same type of “spiritual awakening” that you describe, even though it had nothing to do with Jesus or the Hebrew god of the bible.
    This would lead me to suspect, that perhaps the experiences you describe are first, rather rare, and second, related to something internal to the human psyche rather than the embodiment of some supernatural power. Can I prove that? Of course not, but the fact that such experiences are not widespread and not related to one particular set of beliefs would tend to indicate that to me.
    I still think it is a long, long stretch to jump from the experience of having some heightened perception of reality to talking snakes, eternal life, resurrections, original sin, and eternal punishment or damnation. Your own history with doubt and rejection shows that somewhere this rings true to you, as well.
    I think when we have a personal crisis, it is human nature to “wish” for help and grasp for some higher power to intercede. Just last night, my daughter in law had a crisis with her pregnancy and had to be rushed to the hospital. I found myself thinking to myself “please, please, let everything be all right” even knowing full well no one was listening. Turns out she and the baby are fine. I credit it to the doctors and medical science, but a different person would credit it to an intercessory god. Why don’t I? Because I know that in other hospitals in other place in the world last night, other people who “prayed” more fervently and with real faith in their gods, lost babies and mothers, and more prayers will go unanswered today.

  288. on 26 May 2011 at 4:14 pm 288.Lou said …

    283.Renn said …

    “I’ll try to answer this way: It’s just there. And it resonates so deeply in my soul that I couldn’t begin to explain why.”

    Problem – there’s no evidence for a soul. I am a human just like you are. I have no soul.

    “As someone who has apparently not felt it, I can’t expect you to understand. It’s like a truth that is an actual part of me, does that make sense? Can you explain why some people like apples and others don’t? The apples have the same taste, but people react differently to that taste. I don’t think at any point anyone decides to like or not like apples. You either do or don’t. And does anyone question why they like/dislike them?”

    Problem – there is no apple that you tasted. If there is, then give me one to taste. If there’s not, then your apple is a delusion.

    It’s that simple.

    Despite how well your comments are, they still lack any substance other than to describe how you “feel.”

    “You’re saying your studies in science have taken the “mystery” out of many things for you, and with the dispelling of the mystery went your belief in/need for a god (I’m paraphrasing). Kind of like knowing how a magician does a trick spoils the illusion of magic, perhaps? Yet, for me, learning about the fascinating, awesome intricacies of nature, the world, the universe, makes God all the more awesome to me.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9L0EAZ8Tc

  289. on 26 May 2011 at 4:18 pm 289.Lou said …

    Correction: Despite how well WRITTEN your comments are…

  290. on 26 May 2011 at 5:45 pm 290.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 278

    “But before calling for some to “grow a pair” try finding out why they make the claims they do.”

    Wow. You have to be the biggest hypocrite that I have ever seen. You have made huge numbers of rude comments about what others have said while clearly now knowing why they were making their claims.

    To all nice Christians, I know that not all Christians are like Burebista or Horatiio and company. Sometime it get tough to remember though…

    “Frankly, atheist have much more faith than me. I could never buy into there fairytale.”

    Really? What if the atheist farytale? Since atheism is disbelief in the claim of another how can there be a story or “faith”?

    “If you feel the need to have atheist who mock your Lord and Savior like you, I think there is a problem.”

    None of us would mock Jesus because we don’t believe he existed (or at least don’t believe he was divine). Offensive Christians are what we are mocking. Unless you think that the act of disbelief is the mockery itself. If so that is scary thinking because it is a small step on the road that leads to Muslims wanting to kill other people for drawing Muhammad. Getting so bent out of shape because of the beliefs or non-beliefs of another is just mentally screwed up. It’s ok to disagree or not like the ideas of someone else. But to say something like we are mocking something that we don’t believe in?

  291. on 26 May 2011 at 8:15 pm 291.Burebista said …

    “Jesus himself was laughed at and mocked. Even physically attacked toward the end. Not once did he feel compelled to fight back, name call, or shout “imbeciles”

    I challenge you to find one time where I mock anyone here. The only ones who mock are the atheist and they are quite illicit. Go back and check out the posts of Observer or Lou.

    SO to go implying you are “better” because you do not strikes as self-righteous. You see just claiming this is the way because some atheist claim it does not make it true. You stay here long enough and they will make the claim about you.

    But you fail to answer two key points. Jesus stated “They hated me therefore they will hate you” Why?

    Do you not believe telling atheist truth is the most loving thing you can do?

    As long as you do not share the truth as Jesus did, you will indeed be welcomed by all atheists.

  292. on 26 May 2011 at 8:25 pm 292.Ben said …

    “For once I’d like to see a christian “grow a pair”

    Renn calls that being like Jesus?

    Renn do you suppose when Jesus was turning over the tables of the money changers he was loving others as himself?

    How about when he called the sinners a bunch of vipers? How about when he spoke of sinners spending eternity in hell? Some pretty tough stuff.

    No, it may be you who needs to grow a pair. Being loving means loving enough to care. It is not some middle school crush a boy has on a girl.

    I would challenge you to find where I ever mock atheist. As Bure stated, the atheist here are quite ugly in their attacks. It never really bothers me.

  293. on 26 May 2011 at 9:25 pm 293.Lou said …

    292.Ben said …

    “Renn calls that being like Jesus?”

    Funny, the xtians are fighting because of a fairytale.

    And don’t confuse an “attack” with an observation.

  294. on 26 May 2011 at 10:36 pm 294.Renn said …

    Calm down, calm down everyone!

    Ben and Burebista, I’m going to respond to both of you at once, since your posts were similar.

    So are you saying then that Jesus does not want us to love our neighbors/enemies? Where was the error in any of what I said? Again, the second most important thing Jesus said was, after loving God, was to love our neighbors. It was second only to loving God! Please don’t overlook the significance of that.

    You both said “I would challenge you to find where I ever mock atheist/anyone here.” I would be challenged to find where I actually said that. Firstly, I didn’t name names, I’m not keeping track! Secondly, I was referring to Jesus, and by extension, Christians being mocked and the fact that it solves nothing by mocking back. Am I wrong then?

    You both also indicate that “Being loving means loving enough to care” and “telling atheist truth is the most loving thing you can do”. Are you saying that you have come here then to help others find salvation? How is that working for you? Do you think, since it doesn’t appear to be working, that there may be something wrong with your approach?

  295. on 26 May 2011 at 10:37 pm 295.Atheist Goose said …

    Atheist Fairytal:

    Once upon time there might have been nothing or maybe there was something but not God..

    When all of sudden matter appeared all by itself and it began to spin and get hot and boom! it exploded.

    Then
    all these planets, stars, galaxies and laws of nature appeared out of no where. Remember little Richard it was not created….it was time and chance.

    Then this little planet called earth made some soup. The soup was hot and very lonely but suddenly lightning, not created, struck the soup and life started to form all by itself.

    Well, this life got tired of the alphabet soup and crawled out and eventually decided to become a man and make up fairy tales like this one.

    The End.

  296. on 26 May 2011 at 11:03 pm 296.Lou said …

    295.Atheist Goose said …

    “Atheist Fairytal:

    Once upon time there might have been nothing or maybe there was something but not God..”

    I wondered when some dummy would reply with something like that.

    The things you describe are scientific theories and facts. However, none of those theories and facts have any relationship whatsoever to do with whether or not god exists or caused those events to happen. They have no relationship whatsoever with atheism. The Big Bang theory and the fact of evolution don’t address the existence of god. You included the existence of god in order to create a lie because you know there is no atheist fairytale, unless you are even dumber than dumb.

    Let’s try this one more time with you – atheism is the rejection of the god fairytale. The rejection of a fairytale does not require a substitute fairytale except in the mind of a moron. Atheism has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zip to do with evolution or creation. Those two events could happen with or without a god. As a matter of fact, the Catholic church accepts them. But the fact is there is no evidence that they occurred as a result of a god.

    Furthermore, a person can be an atheist and not even be aware of the Big Bang and evolution, nor god or Jesus or Muhammad. He doesn’t have any atheist fairytale because there isn’t one. He is simply ignorant of any idea of a god. But if he believes in a god for which there is no evidence, then he has a theist fairytale. If he has never heard of the leprechaun fairytale, then he doesn’t have a anti-leprechaun fairytale.

  297. on 26 May 2011 at 11:40 pm 297.Anonymous said …

    Once upon a time there was nothing. But in that nothing was an omnipotent god. This god wasn’t made by anything – he was just always there — hanging out in nothingness for eternity ( Don’t spend a lot of time wondering how this could be, just believe it). You might think he was bored, lazy, or unimaginative because he didn’t do anything, but he was thinking of what he was going to do. It just took him a really long time to come up with a good plan. He thought of talking snakes, talking donkeys, superhuman men who lost their power when their hair was cut, killing people for picking up sticks on his day, making a lot of stupid rules that would be really hard to follow so he could punish them for not following them, wiping out whole communities of men, women, and children, and –oooh!! the best part!! – he would make an evil, powerful angel who would tempt people and cause people to turn away from god so he could put those people in a place of torment for all eternity.

    After god decided on a plan of action he got right to work. He made the earth and planets and stars. He added plants and animals and made a man out of dirt. Then he made the man fall asleep and he made a woman out of the man’s rib. They lived happily in a garden where everything was perfect. But one day a talking snake tricked the woman into eating fruit off of a magic tree that god had told them not to eat. This made god mad even though he knew ahead of time they would do that. That was the whole point of god making the magic tree and the talking snake. Duh! So he kicked them out of the garden and labeled every descendant of theirs a big piece of worthless shit, which god called “sinners.” But god was nice enough to let them live for hundreds of years and have tons and tons of worthless shit babies. God knew they were all going to be worthless and he had already preplanned a giant flood to drown them all, except for one family. He had to save one family to start all over again, even though he knew they were going to have tons of worthless shit babies, too.

    Deep down god really liked to kill and torment people. He told them how he was a loving god and they had to follow hundreds of stupid rules he made up or he would be well within his power as god to kill them. He made up rules about what they could eat, how to cut their penises, how to wear their sideburns, killing their kids if they talked back, having feasts, washing, working, having sex, and lots, lots more. He knew they couldn’t remember all the rules, much less follow them, so he would have lots of opportunities to kill and torment. Fun!!

    Along the way he had a little fun with some of the worthless people. He messed with their minds by allowing the evil angel to kill all the kids of one guy who followed god’s rules really good , he told an old man to kill his son and burn him, told another guy to lay on his side for months and make a fire using human shit, and he told another guy to marry a prostitute even though he had told people before that was a bad thing.

    God had an ingenious plan to help all the worthless shit people in the world and make them think he was really a nice, loving god. He was going to make a virgin 12-year-old girl pregnant with himself!! Then god would split into two different entities and be a man and a god. He would go around praying to himself, and tell people how worthless they were and they could either worship him or be eternally tormented. Then he would let himself be tortured and nailed to a cross and his body would die (but he wouldn’t really die because he is god) and then he would come back to the worthless people in two days (though it is supposed to be three days by his prophets, but never mind the technicalities), and tell more people how worthless they were. He would tell them that he was going to split into yet another form (a magic ghost!!) and if they actually believed this bull shit and telepathically communicated with him all the time, they could spend eternity worshipping at his feet. What could be more fun?? Well, the alternative was eternal torment in a fiery hell, so worship it is! Finally he would rise up and disappear never to be seen or heard from again.

    And everyone who believes this will live happily ever after.

  298. on 26 May 2011 at 11:49 pm 298.Burebista said …

    Renn

    Why do you think anyone needs to calm down. I just asked some questions for clarification.

    You are making claims you have yet to back with examples.

    You claim Christians need to grow a pair and admit our faith. I tried to explain to you it is a combination of faith and evidence as outlined in Romans 1 and Psalm 24. You make no response.

    I asked you if telling Atheist the truth is not the ideal for loving our neighbor as self and you still respond with nothing. Should we just agree with what we know to be lies?

    Here is another question asked you ignored. “What did Jesus say would happen to those who reject Him?”

    Now you ask how is my approach working. What approach? I drop by on occasion for material for a class I teach. So let me ask this. Are you here to bring salvation to the lost?

  299. on 27 May 2011 at 12:10 am 299.DPK said …

    298.Burebista said …

    “You are making claims you have yet to back with examples.”

    I can’t believe that you, Burebista, of all people, have the guts to actually say this to anyone. You have never once responded to any direct question or challenge, or request for evidence that I, or any of my peers here, have REPEATEDLY asked you for. Never once.
    Forget about needed to grow a pair, you obviously have huge brass ones already.

    Hor… can we get a “LOL” when we really need one?

  300. on 27 May 2011 at 12:10 am 300.Hell Yeah said …

    “…..After god decided on a plan of action he got right to work. He made the earth and planets and stars. He added plants and animals and made a man out of dirt…….”

    Also, don’t forget that god decided to make light before the sun. Those who don’t believe that, look it up. It is right in the beginning of the bible.

  301. on 27 May 2011 at 1:09 am 301.Mitch said …

    Renn,

    I seldom post here but I do monitor the banter. When one makes their way to WWGHA one must resolve the intention of the site. Why does WWGHA exist? Is it to carry serious debate or is the purpose for entertainment. I have interacted with a few here on serious dialogues but infrequently. Few still make their charisma known here. Without exclusion I had to funnel through the ad homenim attacks of the other contributors who without exception embrace the tenets of WWGHA. If you have come to convey salvation, take it to a more acceptable forum not a dominion of amusement. It will go well for you.

  302. on 27 May 2011 at 2:40 am 302.MrQ said …

    Hor, Bur, Mitch, scott, etc
    How come you never engage in a lengthy dialog? All you guys have is god as original cause.

    Anon #297
    Stop it….. You’re scaring the children ;-)

  303. on 27 May 2011 at 3:25 am 303.Lou said …

    299.DPK said …

    298.Burebista said …

    “You are making claims you have yet to back with examples.”

    “I can’t believe that you, Burebista, of all people, have the guts to actually say this to anyone.”

    NO KIDDING! What a hypocrite. Wait, that’s typical of a religious person.

  304. on 27 May 2011 at 3:26 am 304.Lou said …

    301.Mitch said …

    “If you have come to convey salvation, take it to a more acceptable forum not a dominion of amusement.”

    Yes, it’s amusing to read the theists comments that never actually provide any evidence for god.

  305. on 27 May 2011 at 5:16 am 305.Severin said …

    295 Atheis Goose
    “When all of sudden matter appeared…“

    What if it did NOT appear? What if it was never absent from universe?
    What if it already existed? What if it ALWAYS existed?
    If someone says god „just existed“, without being „caused“ („created“) by something/someone, what is wrong in giving the matter the same atribute: it „just existed“, without being „caused“/“created“, then changed according to natural laws.

    You theists always try to „fog“ reality by claiming that someone claims that the BB came from „nothing“.
    No one ever said anything like that!
    MATTER, that already EXISTED, but was compressed, exploded, not „nothing“.

  306. on 27 May 2011 at 5:25 am 306.Severin said …

    295 Atheist Goose
    “Remember little Richard it was not created….it was time and chance.”

    You have to lern not to use lies (or, at lest, wrong premisses) to build your “theories” on them.

    No one ever said anything about “chance”.
    There are natural laws that are very strict and never fail.
    Nothing happens “by chance”, everything happens according to natural laws.

    As I proposed to someone:
    Put some water in a plate, and pray god to keep it there for a month.
    It will NOT stay there, it will evaporate, according to laws of thermodynamics.
    No “chance”! Only laws.
    NOTHING happens because of a “chance”, but because of laws of physics, chemistry, biology, … that are “built in” matter/energy.
    And never fail!

  307. on 27 May 2011 at 10:41 am 307.Renn said …

    Burebista,

    You said: “I just asked some questions for clarification”. I did too, but you ignored mine. But I’m going to go ahead and answer you the best I can anyway, even though I’m getting the feeling that you’re more interested in combat than conversation.

    You’re continuing references to Romans 1, Psalm 24, what Jesus says would happen to those who reject Him, and “telling the truth” (presumably referring to the doctrine of hell?) is the way you and many other Christians choose to address those who are skeptical. Fine, but I don’t. Do you honestly believe people are going to be open to anything you say when you hammer them with condemnation, or threats of hell? You will put them on the defensive at once at which point they will only be interested in defying. Accomplishes nothing. Especially when you appear to take enjoyment from the idea of someone burning in hell. (Please note: I’m using the general “you”, not necessarily referring to you in particular. Coming out of the Charismatic movement, I saw Christians take this approach again and again. I was one of them too, even though I knew at a subconscious level that it was more about creating divisions than saving souls.) Again, I’m going to point out what I’ve seen in this thread from some Christians is clearly not about helping anyone. Without naming names, I’m going to once more suggest certain people be honest with themselves about what their agenda is. And even if one won’t be honest with himself, be mindful that God still knows what’s in their hearts.

    I believe proclaiming God’s love, compassion, and understanding and then setting an example of that in my words and actions is the best approach. Doing the talk but not the walk gets you labeled a hypocrite and a quick dismissal. I try to coax people to give God a chance because I know once someone begins to form even a tentative relationship with God and He begins to work in their lives little by little, one becomes progressively more open to Him. As he/she becomes more open, GOD will help them work out whatever needs to be worked out for them individually, in His own time at whatever rate a particular spirit requires.

    When Christians are angry and antagonistic, people will avoid you and view you as a threat. And they will reject what you’re offering, for one thing because they’ll have the idea that that’s what they’ll become too if they allow you in. To me, that seems rather obvious. But admittedly, I guess it wasn’t obvious at first to me either when I was one of the in-your-face types oh so long ago. If you are joyful, loving, compassionate, and at peace, people are more likely to take an interest in how you got there. A woman I work with, who is by nature very hyper and easily stressed, asked me once why I rarely seem to get upset or agitated. I was happy to talk about it. Guess what. She listened, took an interest, and, while not necessarily convinced, at least heard me and allowed me to share. She has approached me many more times after that with honest, sincere questions and our discussions are calm, civil, and mutually rewarding every time. That has been my experience, anyway, and that’s all I can offer.

    If you or anyone else is going to come back and argue with anything I’ve said, I respectfully ask that you please at least tell me where I’m wrong and why.

  308. on 27 May 2011 at 11:34 am 308.Burebista said …

    Renn

    Where do you get an idea I or any other theist here enjoy condemning people to hell? I stated “truth” not hell. Please show me a quote or a quote from any other theist here?

    You just keep making false claim after false claim.

    Let me ask would “growing a set” be combative? Does this strike you as being like Christ?

    I reference Ps 24 and Rom 1

    (which do not reference hell look them up)

    because you imply that all we have is faith and evidence is not available. If you believe that fine but the two verses I reference (and many more) do not agree with you.

    There are 7-8 theist that come to this site not to mention Mitch. None of them come off as self-righteous as you have in such a short time.

    I can assure you the last thing I become here is angry. As Mitch mentioned it is great for entertainment and to keep up with the apologetic side of Christianity.

    If you truly want to spread the Gospel on fertile soil, Why are you on a combative blog? How is it working for you?

  309. on 27 May 2011 at 12:53 pm 309.Renn said …

    Burebista,

    Maybe then to clear up my apparent misunderstanding, you can clarify what you’re referring to as “truth” when you say “I stated ‘truth’ not hell.” I made the assumption you were talking about punishment for non-believers because of the context of Romans 1 (expounding on God’s wrath). Also, I should point out I’m using the term “hell” only as a synonym for punishment. I thought that was obvious, so I apologize for the mix up. It’s not always easy to express oneself accurately on a computer screen, I’m sure you’ll agree!

    And regarding your reference to Psalm 24, how exactly is what I’ve been saying here contrary to that? If you mean to use it as evidence for God please realize I’m not the one asking for evidence! And as you must’ve discovered by now a skeptic is not going to accept mere scripture as proof since they do not accept the bible as the word of God in the first place. I understand and respect that stance and that’s why I don’t even attempt it.

    You said “You just keep making false claim after false claim” but have yet to point out what’s false about anything I’ve said. I’ve talked about God’s love, Jesus telling us to love our neighbors and enemies, and my believe that we should be more compassionate and less judgmental. I pointed out that there’s a lot of hostility in this thread, from both sides, and Christians need to take the high road if we are going to be taken seriously as Christians. Are these the false claims you’re referring to??

    You said “I asked you if telling Atheist the truth is not the ideal for loving our neighbor as self and you still respond with nothing.” I responded with nothing? Did you miss entirely my post at #307? It was admittedly long winded, (lol), and I apologize for my lack of brevity, but that was my response.

    You said “[this blog] is great for entertainment”… which could be construed as “laughing at the poor lost atheists” depending on how one takes it. Just to avoid that, what is it that you find entertaining?

    Regarding “Why are you on a combative blog? How is it working for you?” Well, for one thing, I’m finding it intriguing that the majority of those opposing me are Christians who are taking exception to my calm, non-combative approach and my choice to focus on God’s love, compassion and understanding.

    Oh, also, I apologized for the “grow a pair comment” a while ago. You must’ve missed that too!

  310. on 27 May 2011 at 2:23 pm 310.DPK said …

    Burebista said:
    “There are 7-8 theist that come to this site not to mention Mitch. None of them come off as self-righteous as you have in such a short time.”

    If you really believe that, you are even more delusional than I thought. Seriously? You, Ben, Horatio, and others come off as self righteous, ignorant, and condescending as they come.

    Renn:
    You are a breath of fresh air. While you haven’t convinced me that any of the claims you believe about the supernatural are actually true, you have convinced me that not all theists are, well, I’ll take a cue from you and not resort to name calling, let’s say… unreasonable?

    “Burebista,
    You said: “I just asked some questions for clarification”. I did too, but you ignored mine.”

    This is what he does continually. He makes demands, ignores it when they are met, and never responds to questions, arguments or reason except by ignoring it or rejecting it out of hand. Somehow he feels this is not intellectually dishonest because he thinks god is on his “side”. And that doesn’t qualify as mockery.

    On the other hand, I have asked you twice now for clarification about your position on certain matters (277 and 287) and you have ignored me as well.

  311. on 27 May 2011 at 2:30 pm 311.Lou said …

    308.Burebista said …

    “There are 7-8 theist that come to this site not to mention Mitch. None of them come off as self-righteous as you have in such a short time.”

    BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! Are you frinkin kidding us?!

    Pot, meet kettle!

    You just gave new meaning to the word delusional.

  312. on 27 May 2011 at 4:10 pm 312.Curmudgeon said …

    I have heard of historical revisionist but this is a riot.

    Atheists claiming the theists are the source of insults? Read through the thread! lol

    Atheists claiming theist don’t answer questions? The theist answer the question, the atheist don’t like the answer. The atheist refuse to prove Socrates existed. Oh well…..

    Now a Christians comes in claiming the Bible cannot be used? How would Jesus feel about that?

    _________________________________________

    “laughing at the poor lost atheists”

    Atheists how do you feel about Renn calling you poor lost atheists?
    ________________________________________________

    DPK/Josh

    Why don’t you pull out some of the scriptures you do not like and ask Renn? You never liked the answer give by other theist. Maybe Renn has a more calm approach.

  313. on 27 May 2011 at 4:20 pm 313.Renn said …

    DPK,

    Regarding #310 “I have asked you twice now for clarification about your position on certain matters (277 and 287) and you have ignored me as well.” My apologies, I hadn’t realized I didn’t respond! I guess I got…sidetracked.

    I’m assuming that what you’re referring to, looking back at #277 and #287 is essentially your request for hard, cold proof and not feelings, etc.

    When I entered this thread, I openly admitted that I don’t have all the answers nor any tangible proof to offer. And I pointed out that that’s really what faith is about for me. I can only offer my experiences to explain why I personally have faith and why I believe what I do. It’s up to you to decide what you want to do with it and I’m thus not going to get drawn any further into a debate about proof and evidence. I hope you can respect that. My sole intent here was to ask the faithful why they feel the need to “prove” the substance of their faith, not provide proof myself, for reasons I’ve already stated in abundance.

    The topics of “talking snakes, eternal life, resurrections, original sin, and eternal punishment or damnation” are all things I’m willing to explore, but I think it’s best saved for a dedicated thread where there will be less…distractions. However, I will preface by saying although I have opinions and beliefs about these things, I cannot offer any more to you in terms of proof there either. I can just tell you what I believe and why and the resulting changes in myself and my view of others.

    Your mention of “unanswered prayer” I’ll try to answer quickly. I don’t believe prayer is supposed to be used to “ask for stuff”. What I think it’s meant for is a kind of meditation, a way to tune us into a communion with God. When Jesus was asked by his disciples “How should we pray?” He gave them the example of what came to be known as The Lord’s Prayer. However I really don’t think he meant for us to recite His words verbatim, but use them as an example of “how to pray”. For instance, our prayers should contain glory and thanks to God, asking for his will to be done in our life (not recite what our own will is and request God to cooperate), that we are given discernment in all things, ask not only for forgiveness but help in forgiving others, and help in resisting temptations that will harm us spiritually or physically. It can be very therapeutic if done in earnest.

  314. on 27 May 2011 at 4:42 pm 314.Lou said …

    312.Curmudgeon said …

    “Atheists claiming the theists are the source of insults? Read through the thread! lol”

    Really? Who wrote that “theists are the source of insults?”

    “Atheists claiming theist don’t answer questions? The theist answer the question, the atheist don’t like the answer. The atheist refuse to prove Socrates existed. Oh well…..”

    Are you kidding us? Are you still fixated on the Socrates business? Socrates has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion about evidence for god. It’s nothing but a stupid distraction tactic used by theists who can’t answer questions about the existence of their imaginary god.

    “Now a Christians comes in claiming the Bible cannot be used? How would Jesus feel about that?”

    How would a leprechaun feel about knowing there’s no gold at then end of a rainbow?

  315. on 27 May 2011 at 4:45 pm 315.Lou said …

    312.Curmudgeon said …

    “laughing at the poor lost atheists”

    “Atheists how do you feel about Renn calling you poor lost atheists?”

    Another deceptive tactic – quoting out of context.

  316. on 27 May 2011 at 5:02 pm 316.Renn said …

    Lou,

    I have encountered plenty of “Burebistas” and “Curmudgeons” in my time (“Buremudgeons”? – just a little humor). While I find them a bit on the challenging side due to their particular choice of tactics, I do understand them because I WAS them once. So I’m more than acquainted with the underlying mechanics of that type of mindset and know that I can only remain as understanding as possible and respond as straightforwardly as possible in order to not be baited. It is a shame though, when Christians can’t even respect each others opinions. I’m sure that just erodes credibility even further.

  317. on 27 May 2011 at 5:14 pm 317.DPK said …

    “I’m assuming that what you’re referring to, looking back at #277 and #287 is essentially your request for hard, cold proof and not feelings, etc.”

    I didn’t ask you for hard cold facts. I asked you for your thoughts on why:
    1. God makes it easy for some people to be saved and impossible for others.
    2. What happens to people who, by accident of birth or other means, choose the “wrong” god to worship or follow? By Christian standards, this amount to about 2/3rds of the world population.
    3. What you think about the fact that the same kind of spiritual awakening you describe is also experienced by many other people of differing faiths, and even no theistic belief at all. How do you know your “feelings” as you describe them, are not simply an internal reflection of the human psyche which you project on Jesus an the god of Moses?
    4. And, since I have your attention, I’ll add one more that none of the theists here have answered for me despite numerous requests. How do you explain the dichotomy of an omniscient, omnipotent being with the god of the bible who instructs us to kill all manner of sinners, like homosexuals and adulterers, as well as people guilty of tribal offenses like working on the sabbath or wearing the wrong clothes, accepts slavery, denigrates women, and demands blood sacrifice in payment for sins? Doesn’t sound like much of a supreme being to me. Or, do you not accept the bible as the inerrant word of god? I have read the bible, entirely, and I have been told by the theists here that I must read it “in context” to understand that god does not really mean the abhorrent things proscribed in say, Leviticus. However, none of them have explained to me the context in which, for example: All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9) can be taken to mean anything but that?
    Thanks for your response.

  318. on 27 May 2011 at 6:06 pm 318.Burebista said …

    You are clearly self-righteous as outlined by your last post. So be it. I have met you kind in the past. You fancy yourself holier than thou. Renn there seems to be a communication gap. This is from your first post.

    Renn’s Quote:

    The cornerstone of Christianity is FAITH. Meaning, believing something which has no PROOF or EVIDENCE. If there was proof, it would not be faith.

    But

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    Romans 1:20

    The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.

    Psalm 24:1-3

    Evidence for God right in creation and man is without excuse. Would you like to revise your statement or do you stand by it?

    I have been here too long so know I exit. I wish you well.

  319. on 27 May 2011 at 6:45 pm 319.DPK said …

    “I have been here too long so know I exit. I wish you well.”

    Praise God!

  320. on 27 May 2011 at 6:51 pm 320.Crux said …

    Let me say to Curmudgeon and others out there who are not atheist. I am agnostic, former atheist, and I believe in treating all human beings, as much as humanly possible, with respect and dignity.

    I consider those of faith and no faith as friends and I treat their beliefs with respect.

    Frankly I am appalled and embarrassed by atheists who act and behave so ugly. It accomplishes nothing and gives atheists the labels we now get in the culture. Those who they believe may be “sitting on the fence” would only be driven away.

    I just wanted to set the record straight that many of us in the agnostic/atheist realm are not so disrespectful.

  321. on 27 May 2011 at 6:52 pm 321.Renn said …

    Burebista,

    I can only assume from your responses that you’re not really reading my posts but hastily skimming through since most of what you’re responding with I’ve already responded to. I again admit some of my posts are long, but if you’re not interested enough to take the time to read them and understand what I’m trying to say, then I will not take any more of my own time responding to you either. Sounds like a deal.

    In your defensiveness, from my vantage point, it appears that you’re not even making a small effort to understand not only what I’m saying but why. If anything, your effort seems more aimed at purposefully not understanding, as if you think respecting someone’s contrary opinion would somehow cause you to be the “loser” here. There’s a difference between understanding someone and agreeing with them. Knowing the difference may cause you to react differently in the future and gain you much different responses as well.

    DPK,

    There’s been so much going back and forth here, and again I apologize if I’ve gotten a little lost in the shuffle. Afterall, I’m doing double duty fending off both atheists and Christians, lol. Let me think about how to address your points a bit, alright?

    I too am now going to say over and out, we’re leaving shortly for the weekend for some much deserved R&R! Have a great weekend all…and play nice boys and girls!

  322. on 27 May 2011 at 7:13 pm 322.Xenon said …

    “I can only assume from your responses that you’re not really reading my posts but hastily skimming through”

    LOL, I know the feeling.

    Crux,

    Thank you. I do know for a fact not all atheists behave like those here. But it is nice to see one more respectable one is in the world. It makes the world a better place. I hope you make some contributions.

    Have a great weekend.

  323. on 27 May 2011 at 7:14 pm 323.DPK said …

    “In your defensiveness, from my vantage point, it appears that you’re not even making a small effort to understand not only what I’m saying but why. If anything, your effort seems more aimed at purposefully not understanding, as if you think respecting someone’s contrary opinion would somehow cause you to be the “loser” here.”

    And that, in less than a full paragraph, describes exactly what Josh, Lou, Severin, and others have been saying all along.

    320.Crux said …

    “Let me say to Curmudgeon and others out there who are not atheist. I am agnostic, former atheist, and I believe in treating all human beings, as much as humanly possible, with respect and dignity.”

    I fully agree… to a point. But when people come to a discussion forum and don’t discuss, but only preach, when they are intellectually dishonest and deceitful, well, I think that would try even Jesus’ patience. So while I try to be civil, I am human and sometimes my frustration comes out. If you note, no one here is being disrespectful to Renn, even though we may disagree with his beliefs or thought processes. In sort, I think you reap what you sow.

  324. on 27 May 2011 at 7:17 pm 324.DPK said …

    I should amend that to say that non of the NON-Theists here are being disrespectful to Renn, but only the christians who treat everyone that disagrees with them with the same level of contempt.

  325. on 27 May 2011 at 8:41 pm 325.Scott said …

    Bravo Crux!

    If only we could get the atheists to live up to the standard they expect out of others.

    This is not the ugliest site I have been on, but it is not friendly.

  326. on 28 May 2011 at 3:33 pm 326.Lou said …

    325.Scott said …

    “If only we could get the atheists to live up to the standard they expect out of others.”

    Please specify.

  327. on 11 Oct 2012 at 5:31 pm 327.Treatments said …

    What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It positively useful and it has helped me out loads. I am hoping to give a contribution & assist other users like its helped me. Good job.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply