Feed on Posts or Comments 23 August 2014

Christianity Johnson on 14 Sep 2008 10:16 am

“Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To” – Christianity on the cutting edge of absurdity

Here is a book with a startling title:

Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To

We know that God NEVER says yes to a prayer to heal amputees. Nor does God ever heal a child’s cleft palate. Over 30,000 children will die today of things like starvation, dehydration and preventable diseases, and God completely ignores their prayers (even though he promises to answer them in Luke 12 and many other verses).

If we study prayer with statistical tools, we know that the whole idea of prayer is nothing but a superstition. But we don’t even need statistical tools. Simply by looking at the world around us, it is obvious that God never answers prayers.

And yet here is a book that claims there to be 10 prayers that God ALWAYS says yes to. What could these 10 prayers be? They are conveniently listed in the Table of contents:

1) I Wish I Could Believe: God, Show Me That You Exist
2) Why Should I Get Involved?: God, Make Me an Instrument
3) What’s in It for Me?: God, Outdo Me in Generosity
4) I Can’t Take It Anymore!: God, Get Me Through This Suffering
5) Am I a Terrible Person?: God, Forgive Me
6) This Stress Is Killing Me!: God, Give Me Peace
7) Okay, I Admit It: I’m Afraid: God, Give Me Courage
8) Sometimes Being Smart Just Isn’t Enough: God, Give Me Wisdom
9) Will I Ever Be Happy Again?: God, Bring Good Out of This Bad Situation
10) Why Am I Here, Anyway?: God, Lead Me to My Destiny

According to the book, God ALWAYS says Yes to these prayers.

How can we immediately see the absurdity of this list? Let’s take question #10:

“Why Am I Here, Anyway?: God, Lead Me to My Destiny”

Now we simply have the 30,000 kids who will die of starvation today pray this prayer: “Dear God, Why Am I Here, Anyway?: God, Lead Me to My Destiny…” The answer from God will be, “Well, 30,000 kids, your destiny is to die of starvation today! Have fun!” Then all 30,000 kids die. And then we repeat the same process EVERY SINGLE DAY.

This, once again, is the Christian peephole at work. Only by ignoring reality can Christians continue to have “faith”. If they would look at reality, they would have to admit that they are worshiping an insane demon.

Question 10 is obviously absurd, but question #8 is hilarious when looking at the average Christian:

“Sometimes Being Smart Just Isn’t Enough: God, Give Me Wisdom”

Given that God ALWAYS says yes to this prayer, what would we expect? We would expect all Christians to be wise, wouldn’t we? But then we look at George W. Bush and shake our heads. OBVIOUSLY God does not answer this prayer.

Or look at Sarah Palin. She is a “strong Christian believer”. She is praying all the time. And then she gets into an interview with Charlie Gibson and we see a total breakdown. Not only is she not “wise”, she doesn’t even know basic stuff like the definition of “the Bush doctrine”:

Can anyone, Christian or not, watch Palin’s interview and claim that Sarah Palin is filled with wisdom derived from an all-knowing, all-powerful being? Obviously not.

And if Christians are so wise, why do they need a blizzard of lies?

The book “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To” shows Christianity on the cutting edge of absurdity.

What’s even more interesting is that we could write the companion volume very easily:

1,000,000 prayers that God NEVER answers

For example:

1) God, please spontaneously regrow the leg of this amputee
2) God, please appear to us by taking over all the TV stations and web sites of the world and delivering your divine message to humanity
3) God, please eliminate cancer from the planet tomorrow
4) God, please give us a Bible that makes sense
5) …

All of these prayers would be trivially easy for an “all-powerful being” to answer if he were to exist. But the reality is that God is imaginary. And it is obvious that he is imaginary. This imaginary God cannot even answer the 10 questions that he ALWAYS answers.

46 Responses to ““Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To” – Christianity on the cutting edge of absurdity”

  1. on 14 Sep 2008 at 3:40 am 1.Stephanie Methvin said …

    Has it ever occurred to you that our short little lives here on earth are such a miniscule part of the great picture? We can’t understand how unimportant something like arms and legs are because our minds have a hard time dealing with ETERNITY. All we think about is the here and now. God is a little bigger than that. He doesn’t have to respond to all of our requests with a “yes”.

    I should hope that you’re kidding about the Sarah Palin thing – nobody knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Well, thanks to google and Wikipedia, I suppose EVERYONE but Sarah Palin knows what it is now.

    A spirit world absolutely exists. The details are sketchy, but there is most definitely good and evil – with Jehovah God and Jesus Christ as major players on the side of good. Open your spirit eyes and you will definitely see it.

    Stephanie Methvin, MBA (since an education is so important to you apparently)

  2. on 14 Sep 2008 at 4:24 am 2.PSR said …

    Yes, she is very wise:

    Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (NYTIMES)

  3. on 14 Sep 2008 at 4:54 am 3.PSR said …

    More Palin Wisdom:

    Palin Camp Provides Conflicting Accounts of Iraq Visit

    “Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin spent Saturday scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America in the wake of a report that that trip did not include travel into Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.”

  4. on 14 Sep 2008 at 6:40 am 4.lil tom said …

    stephanie said : “A spirit world absolutely exists. The details are sketchy, but there is most definitely good and evil – with Jehovah God and Jesus Christ as major players on the side of good. Open your spirit eyes and you will definitely see it.”

    yeah, that argument holds a lot of water around here. sketchy indeed!
    evil exists so therefor GOD created the world in 6 days, jesus christ MUST have been born of a virgin, and all the other fairy tales in the bible are true, too! yay!

    I wonder why some people’s spirit eyes show them Buddha, some Allah, Some the God of Abraham, Some Zeus, Poseidon, Shiva, countless other vague agnostic notions of god, the science God of Einstein, and on and on (there are thousands of deities, you surely know). then their spirit eyes show them that they should judge others for not seeing what their spirit eyes are seeing (don’t tell me you don’t because it is intrinsic to faith) leading them to go out and convert others to the CORRECT way to see imaginary spirits, because if they don’t see them OUR way they are surely doomed. thus creating a division of spirit visions, wars, genocide, intolerance and

    maybe you’re one of those Unitarians who claim to accept all faiths (which seems a bit dishonest because they all contradict each other all over the place), but even so, this is not how most people view faith. otherwise you have nothing on all of the other religions that claim to be right, too.

    why would an MBA make you more qualified to make extraordinary claims devoid of extraordinary evidence? the mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste…
    let’s use our REAL eyes and our REAL brains, please.

  5. on 14 Sep 2008 at 8:15 pm 5.kh said …

    I have looked at your website and a couple of your videos on “prayer” and “Jesus is Imaginary.” WOW. I think you need some help with the logic and proofs. Your logic and though processes are faulty and not scientific. You cannot prove that God does NOT answer prayer, although you try.

    It’s interesting you think Jesus is imaginary, since historians agree that He was a real person. It’s also very interesting that you don’t have a biblical understanding of prayer, that prayer by everyone and without faith is not the same as prayer by someone with faith,who is a believer in Christ, just as a start. You seem to lack an understanding of the Bible and Jesus’ words.

    It’s ironic I stumbled on your site today, because I took my son to the doctor, and we were talking about the parts of the human body on the wall behind him (he’s nine). It struck me today that I could never doubt the existence of God, simply based on the wonders of the human body and sexual reproduction. If you truly ponder the complexity of the human body, you realize that it could not have happened randomly, by accident. More than that, there is absolutely no way that a male and female human could have, would have, evolved at exactly the same time to procreate, using sperm and egg. Ridiculous. Preposterous. Takes WAY more faith to believe that than to believe in a Creator and the true, historical person of Jesus Christ.

  6. on 14 Sep 2008 at 9:01 pm 6.PSR said …

    KH,

    “It’s also very interesting that you don’t have a biblical understanding of prayer”

    Biblically, can you explain why God won’t heal amputees (or cancer patients) when we ask him to? Especially in light of all the Bible verses on this page:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

  7. on 14 Sep 2008 at 9:11 pm 7.kh said …

    PSR,

    Well, I don’t know about amputees…but I fully believe God could do that. There are examples of people being raised from the dead, so that’s along the same lines of ‘impossible.’ I do know that He has healed cancer patients, even to the point of doctors seeing cancer in biopsies/scans and then having it disappear. I do know of people personally who were told by doctors that their recovery was indeed a miracle, totally inexplicable by scientific/medical standards.

    Also, I do believe that if you look at the Bible historically, you will see that there was ‘healing’ during certain times/epochs, but not in all periods. Healing/miracles during the time of Christ and the apostles was used as a sign that these people truly were ‘of God.’ Paul even mentions that the ability to heal/perform miracles was a sign of apostleship. I think most of the ‘faith healers’ are big fakes. I don’t think we are in a period of ‘signs and miracles.’ If you are familiar with Biblical periods/history, you will know what I mean. That’s not to say that God doesn’t/can’t heal today, because He does. But He also says He doesn’t heal or do miracles many times because of peoples’ unbelief.

  8. on 14 Sep 2008 at 10:29 pm 8.lil tom said …

    kh,

    >”It struck me today that I could never doubt the existence of God, simply based on the wonders of the human body and sexual reproduction.”

    which I can answer with your opening statement :”I think you need some help with the logic and proofs. Your logic and though processes are faulty and not scientific.” …You can never prove that God exists, although you try. being that it cannot be put to the tests of reason, it is by definition irrational to believe in an imaginary being without evidence.

    >More than that, there is absolutely no way that a male and female human could have, would have, evolved at exactly the same time to procreate, using sperm and egg. Ridiculous. Preposterous.

    you only betray a deep lack of understanding of the science of evolution. in evolution, we see that indeed these things rarely evolve concurrently. long before there was a seperation of male/female, there were self reproducing organisms (of course many such organisms exist today) which eventually evolved into a different system that was more beneficial to the organism.

    >”There are examples of people being raised from the dead”

    no there are not. first you would have to prove God’s existence (which is an impossibility), then be able to prove irrefutably that it was indeed God’s work. this has never been done.
    as for the cancer miracles, they are no different from the miracle cures with any quackery. Homeopathic sugar pills are still on the shelves of actual pharmacies despite the fact that they have no effect other than placebo. Of course thousands claim that they “really do work” even though, like prayer, they fail miserably when put to the test.

    >Takes WAY more faith to believe that (evolution) than to believe in a Creator and the true, historical person of Jesus Christ.

    well, not really, because one is an extraordinary claim with MOUNTAINS of evidence (99.85 percent of scientists agree that evolution is fact) whereas the other is an extraordinary claim with a complete lack of evidence to back it up. many believers, yes, but many people believed in sun gods, dragons, a flat earth, bigfoot, and so forth all with complete lack of evidence.

    >”Also, I do believe that if you look at the Bible historically, you will see that there was ‘healing’ during certain times/epochs, but not in all periods.”

    ha. could it be because it is fictional?

    >”He doesn’t heal or do miracles many times because of peoples’ unbelief.”

    what a great guy! I’m glad my doctor is infinitely more ethical than God.

  9. on 14 Sep 2008 at 11:01 pm 9.kh said …

    lil tom,

    I was not trying to say that I am proving the existence of God. I don’t think you can do that. I was saying why I do not doubt the existence of God. The point still stands that going from disorder to the order of the human body, its reproduction, and all its complexities to me takes way more faith than believing there is a Creator behind these things.

    I do not believe you can prove the existence of God, but I also think it’s foolish to say you can prove He (or Jesus) does NOT exist.

    I was not trying to ‘prove’ anything; merely stating what and why I believe. It bothers me when others try to ‘disprove’ things they cannot disprove. Do you have a soul? I cannot see it or prove its existence. That does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    Miraculous cancer cures where doctors see cancer, then don’t, are a bit more than feeling better after sugar pills :).

    Did you SEE male and female humans evolve at the exact same time and reproduce? No, you did not. No one did. You cannot prove that, either. This ‘prove’ ‘disprove’ things is just a game. These accusations about being ‘irrational’ are also a game. There are things beyond the scientific. It’s not irrational for me to trust my husband or closest friend, when I have no ‘proof’ they will be trustworthy. I can’t prove they will be trustworthy. I have evidence that shows me they could be. Faith in God is the same way. It’s a relationship, not a scientific formula.

    And if Jesus is God, He had the most compassion of anyone by dying for all of our wrongs and sins and unbelief and wretchedness, freely offering us total grace and forgiveness.

  10. on 14 Sep 2008 at 11:36 pm 10.PSR said …

    KH,

    “Well, I don’t know about amputees…but I fully believe God could do that. ”

    But he doesn’t. We never seen it happen (no doctor has witnessed it). Why won’t God heal amputees?

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

  11. on 14 Sep 2008 at 11:54 pm 11.kh said …

    I’ll start asking God for that. Of course, I don’t presume to know God’s will or way. But even if God DID heal an amputee, or raise someone from the dead, people will not believe.

    Luke 16:
    “There was a rich man 13 who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.
    20
    And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,
    21
    who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.
    22
    When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried,
    23
    and from the netherworld, 14 where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
    24
    And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
    25
    Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.
    26
    Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’
    27
    He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house,
    28
    for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.’
    29
    But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’
    30
    15 He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
    31
    Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’”

  12. on 15 Sep 2008 at 2:50 am 12.SteveK said …

    Congratulations on another fine post that uses logical fallacies as a means to argue against belief in God.

  13. on 15 Sep 2008 at 5:51 am 13.lil tom said …

    kh,

    >I do not believe you can prove the existence of God, but I also think it’s foolish to say you can prove He (or Jesus) does NOT exist.

    foolish? if someone makes extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is needed. it’s rather foolish to believe in something with no evidence.

    let’s take a look at your own belief. see how questionable it looks when you fill in the blank with a god (or anything, really) you don’t believe in:

    >I do not believe you can prove the existence of Poseidon, but I also think it’s foolish to say you can prove He does NOT exist.

    >I do not believe you can prove the existence of Santa Claus, but I also think it’s foolish to say you can prove He does NOT exist.

    >Do you have a soul?

    no.

    >I cannot see it or prove its existence.

    right.

    >That does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    yes, it does. until you can prove it does. those are the rules of science.

    >I can’t prove they will be trustworthy. I have evidence that shows me they could be.

    you just shot yourself in the foot with that argument. My whole point was that there is simply no evidence when it comes to god. people are not imaginary, invisible, all powerful beings. surely we can trust people based on their behavior. we can never know the behavior of imaginary beings, so the analogy is dead.

    >There are things beyond the scientific.

    if by that you mean supernatural, I disagree. If instead you mean areas of life that shouldn’t be researched, I strongly disagree. nothing is off limits in science, nor should it be.

    I’m not about to attempt to argue the fact of evolution with somebody who’s not willing to listen, but if you ever feel a desire to learn something, please read one of the thousands of articles and journals written by real scientists who have answers to all of your misconceptions about evolution.

    for an interesting view of just what kind of people take the lazy creationist view (despite it’s non-explanation due to the HUGE problem of infinite regression of a creator):

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

    notice the direct correlation between education and the belief in evolution? interesting, no?

  14. on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:07 am 14.Anointed said …

    Lil tom. listen here. Your mindset seems to be strictly limited to Scientific proofs. Let’s not forget that life does not end with physical or materialistic things only. In other words,you have limited yourself to things you grew up knowing like Scientific evidence and you think that’s all there is. If it cannot be proven Scientifically, then it simply does not exists.

    There are some things that are unexplainable, way past our human understanding that cannot be measured with the ruler of Science but it doesn’t mean they are not there. The human educational system teaches us that if Something cannot be proven scientifically, then it does not exist, and I do not blame you.You are simply expressing that which you have gained from your education and will not be told otherwise.(which is the wrong mentality).

    God is not a human that He should fall under the rules of nature. He created nature and do not think that our worldly science holds the answer to everything. Humans are not all-knowing. You simply cannot prove God’s existence using the ruler of Science. Has it ever occurred to you that in order to understand God perhaps you should keep in touch with your spiritual side? You cannot measure something spiritual with a physical ruler. God is a spirit.

  15. on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:25 am 15.Anointed said …

    Oh. and by the way, God does not operate under the rules of Science and nature. If He did, then He would not be God. And unless you understand that, you will never understand anything about Him.Science is for our human level only and limited to our humanly understanding.There are some things on Earth (like the existence of life) we humans do not understand how it came about.

    The Bible gives us answers to these questions but we Humans have decided to make-up our own theories and ignore the Bible simply to suite our level of understanding.’HUMAN NATURE’….if we humans cannot understand or SEE something-it simply means it isn’t there. Poor souls.

  16. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:12 am 16.kh said …

    lil tom,

    You say you do not have a soul. You say there is no such thing as the supernatural. The website here says that we are just ‘chemical reactions.’ The reality is, there is a lot of evidence for that fact that we have souls and are much more than chemical reactions, although it can’t be ‘proven.’ ‘Evidence’ and ‘proof’ are two different things.

    I am not trying to prove that God exists…but you are telling me that man evolved. YOU CANNOT PROVE IT. I will say it again, you CANNOT prove that. This is where science falls apart. I am not trying to prove something, or disprove something, you are. I believe in God, but I will not say I can ‘prove’ it scientifically. You are saying evolution of man without a Creator is scientific. You cannot prove it. I don’t think its fair to belittle faith, or try to ‘prove’ that God does not exist, when you can’t ‘prove’ that man evolved without a Creator. Neither can be scientifically proven.

  17. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:33 am 17.PSR said …

    More Palin Wisdom:

    Gov. Palin’s WorldviewGov. Palin’s Worldview

    “One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”

    We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.

    The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.

    But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.

    Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”

    Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

    Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.

    This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis. “

  18. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:36 am 18.PSR said …

    KH,

    Regarding Luke 16, do you believe this passage? If so, then why did Jesus need to appear to anyone after his resurrection? Why did Jesus need to come at all?

  19. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:38 am 19.PSR said …

    SteveK,

    “Congratulations on another fine post that uses logical fallacies as a means to argue against belief in God.”

    What are the fallacies? Are you saying that all Christians are “filled with wisdom derived from an all-knowing, all-powerful being?”

  20. on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:47 am 20.kh said …

    PSR,

    The point in Luke 16 is that even when people DO rise from the dead, people don’t believe (not that no one should ever rise from the dead, or need to). It was Jesus foreshadowing His own resurrection. He needed to come because someone needed to die for your sins and mine. He died in our place, and rose from the dead to conquer sin and death. But I’m not trying to ‘prove’ this, only saying that I believe it. And it does take an element of faith.

    Why are people avoiding my points about not being able to prove evolution?

  21. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:11 am 21.PSR said …

    KH,

    Are you saying that if a God did something obvious and undeniable (like “taking over all the TV stations and web sites of the world and delivering your divine message to humanity”), it would not cause people to believe?

  22. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:30 am 22.kh said …

    PSR

    No, I’m not saying that. But I think the world and its divine complexities (Romans 1) and Jesus being raised from the dead are in that category.

    What I am saying is, evolution cannot be proven either. No one is answering that, but deflecting to other topics. I’m not trying to ‘prove’ God, but this site is talking as if evolution is a proven scientific fact, and it is not.

  23. on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:25 pm 23.Armchair General said …

    It’s pointless kh, these people don’t even realize that they’re even more dogmatic than the Christians they rail against.

    So far every Christian on this board has admitted that their beliefs can’t be 100% scientifically proven, but they believe them on faith.

    These clowns refuse to admit that their beliefs can’t be proven either. They just give the robotic “science proves it” answer, because in their backwards minds, “evidence” is the SAME thing as “proof.” Even though any educated person knows it’s quite obviously not. Also, according to them, the evidence for creationism is NOT proof. Why? Because they say so.

    All they can do is create straw-men, nit-pick based on their intentional misinterpretation, and side-step topics when they’ve been cornered. You’ll never get them to actually answer a question, because they CAN’T … but they’re too INDOCTRINATED to admit it.

  24. on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:37 pm 24.PSR said …

    Armchair General,

    “Also, according to them, the evidence for creationism is NOT proof. Why? Because they say so.”

    I am open minded. I just haven’t seen any real evidence, and would like to see some. In my experience, every piece of evidence I have seen for creationism did not come from scientists, and upon examination is easily disproved.

    For you, what is some of the most compelling evidence for creationism?

  25. on 15 Sep 2008 at 1:03 pm 25.kh said …

    PSR

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html

    http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html

    There are lots of resources to find scientific evidence, from scientists, on creation. I have a busy day, so I’m not going to sift through them to find the best, but here are two that can get you started.

  26. on 15 Sep 2008 at 2:16 pm 26.SteveK said …

    PSR:
    “What are the fallacies?”

    I’ll list just one. The author said ‘How can we immediately see the absurdity of this list? Let’s take question #10′

    The author goes on to conclude that the *reason* (destiny, purpose) a person is alive can be seen in what happens to that person in one specific event. Using that severely flawed thinking, it’s obvious the reason *you* gave birth to your child is so it can flunk 8th grade algebra and eventually die at age 75.

    In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon. This guy Johnson is a real intellectual lightweight.
    ……………..

    “Are you saying that all Christians are “filled with wisdom derived from an all-knowing, all-powerful being?”

    That wisdom is accessible to all who seek it.

  27. on 15 Sep 2008 at 3:30 pm 27.PSR said …

    KH,

    Thank you for the links. Here is my initial experience.

    I clicked on the first link you provided (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html) and on that page saw this:

    “Part I:
    The Scientific Case for Creation

    Part I is a brief summary, in outline form, of 131 categories of scientific evidence that support a sudden creation and oppose gradual evolution.”

    The number “131″ is a link, so I clicked on it expecting to see a list of 131 items. Instead I found myself on this page:

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences17.html#wp1031464

    It begins like this:

    “131. Was There Room?

    Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily.”

    Your “scientific site” appears to have gone off the deep end in asking, “Could the Ark have held all the animals?” There is no scientific evidence of a flood or a mass extinction as described in the Bible, and the idea of an “ark” holding 10+ million species is absurd. Can we agree on that?

    That is my initial experience. Can you link me to a piece of evidence for creation so I do not have to wade through nonsense?

  28. on 15 Sep 2008 at 3:38 pm 28.kh said …

    PSR,

    http://www.icr.org/article/177/

    Try this one and scroll down past the chart to the writings labeled as Roman numeral. There are sections on scientific evidence.

    Again, I don’t have a lot of time today, but this is a start.

  29. on 15 Sep 2008 at 5:46 pm 29.lil tom said …

    kh,

    >”YOU CANNOT PROVE IT. I will say it again, you CANNOT prove that. This is where science falls apart. I am not trying to prove something, or disprove something, you are.”

    I thought that was pretty funny. sure…. you’re not trying to prove (or disprove) anything… then why are you here? what is the point in professing your spirit beliefs to a bunch of skeptics? what would be the point in saying you know better than 99% of all scientists? you might as well be professing your belief in bigfoot, because it is equally insane to a skeptic. as are the thousands of other religions – and somehow christians never get that.

    for a good introduction into evolution read “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr. It is an extremely lucid and should help you with your confusion about evolution.

    so the “debate” really boils down to people who are scientifically literate vs the scientifically illiterate (which unfortunately is the majority)

    to give you an idea of the “debate”:

    the creationists:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UhbmRCNxIA&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw

    the scientists:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNxXlq8_OTA&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkMHRDAOlA&feature=related

  30. on 15 Sep 2008 at 6:04 pm 30.SteveK said …

    “what is the point in professing your spirit beliefs to a bunch of skeptics? what would be the point in saying you know better than 99% of all scientists? you might as well be professing your belief in bigfoot, because it is equally insane to a skeptic. as are the thousands of other religions – and somehow christians never get that.”

    What is the point in expressing your scientific understanding as a means to answer a non-scientific question? What would be the point in saying the scientific establishment understands its limitations better than the people who are in a position to actually know? You might as well be saying that science has shown humans have no free will, because it is equally insane to those who know and understand otherwise – including the silly people who choose to write about such drivel – and somehow you never get that.

  31. on 15 Sep 2008 at 6:57 pm 31.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    >You might as well be saying that science has shown humans have no free will

    well, much of it does indeed. I happen to agree with the many thinkers who postulate that free will is an illusion.

    >the silly people who choose to write about such drivel

    I don’t agree that science is drivel.

  32. on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:44 pm 32.SteveK said …

    “well, much of it does indeed. I happen to agree with the many thinkers who postulate that free will is an illusion.”

    They postulate in the face of knowledge that to this day says otherwise – which is really speculation, or inference to the least-best explanation when you think about it.

    “I don’t agree that science is drivel.”

    I’m with you. Science is awesome. My disagreement is with sloppy thinking – no matter who does it – and the idea that if a scientist came to a particular philosophically-driven, non-empirically verifiable conclusion that science can’t falsify or prove, then it *must* be a fact of empirical science.

    Since I’m on the subject of sloppy thinking, my disagreement is also with those who have a sloppy theory of epistemology that self-destructs into solipsism or some other non-realistic theory of “how you know” when you start looking under the hood.

  33. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:21 pm 33.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    >They postulate in the face of knowledge that to this day says otherwise – which is really speculation, or inference to the least-best explanation when you think about it.

    notice I didn’t claim to have the right answer. that’s the whole point. As a nonreligious person, I can openly admit when I don’t know something, and I’m free to believe whatever seems to be most evident as I build a collection of understanding about my universe. religion inhibits science.

    you said “What would be the point in saying the scientific establishment understands its limitations better than the people who are in a position to actually know?”

    are YOU in a position to KNOW the limits of the sciences?
    really?
    and what of the christian biologists who understand that evolution is not disputed in the least within the sciences, but only among those who haven’t put the time into learning and thinking about it?

    I don’t agree that we should limit scientific understanding. had we accepted the science of the bible, we would still believe The Flood was possible, that the earth was flat and created in 6 days, that the first human were made from dirt (and then the first female was created AGAIN out of a human rib – YUM!).
    it used to be thought that dissection of the human body was a huge sin as was the study of the cosmos in a non-religious context, and as we well know things that don’t support biblical “facts” have always been suppressed by religion (there many many more examples of course).

  34. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:36 pm 34.SteveK said …

    “notice I didn’t claim to have the right answer. that’s the whole point. As a nonreligious person, I can openly admit when I don’t know something, and I’m free to believe whatever seems to be most evident as I build a collection of understanding about my universe. religion inhibits science.”

    Tell that to all the theists and deists who are considered to be the founders of modern science. For my own part, I have yet to be convinced of atheism’s contribution to scientific understanding.

    “are YOU in a position to KNOW the limits of the sciences?
    really?”

    Yes – and you are to. As empirical science stands today, it can never *empirically* verify or falsify the truth of a logic argument or the *validity* of logical inference or the ontological *nature* of being, just to name a few.

  35. on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:59 pm 35.kh said …

    lil tom,

    Last answer…because you are trying to ‘prove’ and ‘disprove’ things that you cannot ‘prove’ and ‘disprove’…that’s why I’m on here.

  36. on 16 Sep 2008 at 12:01 am 36.lil tom said …

    kh,

    I don’t even find it necessary to disprove god. just as when a bum comes up to me on the street and mumbles to me drunkenly that he just saw the virgin mary in his piss stream in the alley I don’t need to verify the truth of his claim.
    consider: there have been countless religions and belief systems throughout history. must we prove all of them wrong before we choose one that suits us? no, we almost always accept the one we’re born into.
    atheists are just like you in your disbeliefs, we just go one god further…

  37. on 16 Sep 2008 at 2:38 am 37.lil tom said …

    re: religion inhibits science.

    steveK said: “Tell that to all the theists and deists who are considered to be the founders of modern science. For my own part, I have yet to be convinced of atheism’s contribution to scientific understanding.”

    are you suggesting for a moment that they made their discoveries because of their belief? if so you’ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who don’t believe in gods could make useful discoveries? here’s a challenge for you: give me an example of a scientific discovery that came from any religion that could not have been discovered without its aid.

    I’ll post it again, because it is quite spot on and far better than I could put it. this is from Daniel Dennett:
    “There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can’t consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusively—”beyond a reasonable doubt”—against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.”

    “What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don’t. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedom—we wouldn’t accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instance—shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.”

  38. on 16 Sep 2008 at 4:10 am 38.SteveK said …

    “are you suggesting for a moment that they made their discoveries because of their belief?”

    In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.

    “if so you’ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who don’t believe in gods could make useful discoveries?”

    I explain it by saying belief in God isn’t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. It’s obvious that such a belief isn’t *required*.

    The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

  39. on 18 Sep 2008 at 4:37 am 39.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    >The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

    this is practically offensive it’s so wrong. you don’t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? history would show quite the reverse. You seem to forget that until quite recently it was not really an option to be an atheist. not at all. when new discoveries in science throw a wrench in the current beliefs of the faith, you can bet your life that they’ll do everything in their power to keep the truth from the masses (as we’ve seen with galileo and currently in US science classes) you also seem to ignore the fact that the majority of scientists are agnostics or atheists. hmmm. what could possibly drive them, if not an imaginary being? surely not their concern for humanity, honesty, an appetite for truth, and a decent paycheck…

    >I explain it by saying belief in God isn’t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. It’s obvious that such a belief isn’t *required*.

    more of the same…
    you might as well be attempting to argue on the basis of race: “well, the majority of the world’s greatest scientists were white, so therefore white people must be endowed with the greatest intelligence.”

    the reality of the situation is that many great scientists and thinkers were practicing in times when disbelief in god was simply off the table in any public sense without serious consequences.

    the devout didn’t stop burning witches and heretics at the stake because they became *more* religious, rather that they adopted the reason and ethics of scientific thought.

    please reread the dennett interview for a more in depth look at the implications of the fact that “There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science.” it may be hard to come to terms with, but it’s truly something to think about.

  40. on 19 Sep 2008 at 9:59 am 40.Anonymous said …

    Lil Tom,

    Sorry, may I just cut in. I recommend you (and every other “PROUDLY ATHEIST” on this website) visit the “Insights of God” website. This is a website on true life testimonies of people who went to hell and back. Even if you do not believe such things exist, just give it a try. Just Google “Insights of God, visions of eternity”.

    As for the Science facts on Christianity, I would have recommended a DVD I watched called “Incredible” about the galaxy and God’s amazing wonders compiled by Scientists. I was almost close to tears having watched it because it is so touching. I will try to find out the details for you. In the meantime, please visit the Insights of God website.

  41. on 19 Sep 2008 at 3:36 pm 41.SteveK said …

    lil kim,

    “this is practically offensive it’s so wrong. you don’t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? ”

    Your ability to read is offensive. I said “normal human curiosity is all that most people require” which means belief in deities is not freakin’ ***REQUIRED*** !!! Do you know what the word even means?

  42. on 20 Sep 2008 at 5:45 pm 42.lil tom said …

    steveK,

    now if you’re going to resort to attacking my name, well that’s just cute… I’ll refrain from twisting the facts..

    okay. lets revisit your statement: “The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.”

    you claim that the science is *more* motivated by a belief in god than by a disbelief in gods. on what basis can you assert that?

    I assert that the scientific breakthroughs that came from religous men (who again, had little freedom of their religion) were totally in *spite* of their religion. I assert this on the basis that no science has ever been derived from biblical sources. it has never been shown that a divine being gives more “science” to believers than to non-believers. most scientists are atheist or agnostic.

    “In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.”

    my problem is with the first three words of this sentence.
    you readily admit that belief isn’t required, yet somehow in *part* you still assert that it was god that instilled the beautiful findings of science in those few scientists who said they were god-fearing..
    inal point was that religions as organizations inhibit the moment
    my origum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

  43. on 20 Sep 2008 at 5:50 pm 43.lil tom said …

    sorry, the last paragraph got garbled somehow…

    my original point was that religions as organizations inhibit the momentum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

  44. on 20 Sep 2008 at 6:03 pm 44.lil tom said …

    anon,

    you have got to be joking…

    if you think for a moment I’m going to take this trash seriously:
    http://www.insightsofgod.com/spiritual_warfare.html

    I have listened to people who claim they have been to hell and back. I have heard it all and it just reeks and reeks of magical thinking and the reminder of those poor children who have been taught to believe such atrocities. these beliefs are unethical and harmful.

  45. on 16 Aug 2009 at 2:35 am 45.Rollin S said …

    I will try to explain why an amputee cannot receive the gift of a new limb. To understand why God does not grant this request, we must understand some things about God and about the other heavenly beings who either serve Him now or did before the fall. God is, amoung all those omni characteritics, completely fair and totally honorable.
    So let’s go back to the time before man. Satan and the angels in alliance with him got all uppity and God cast them down from Heaven. They now inhabit the Earth and they command still great knowledge and power but only a fraction of what they once had. So at this point you must take note of the main character trait of Satan that being he is a legalist and a nit-picker constantly bringing forth arguments.
    God does not at this point have to prove he was right to withold forgiveness to Satan for his treasoness acts but He is Totally fair and honorable so he crafts an example by creating mankind and making him a little lower than the angels. His intent for man is to at some point elevate them to a position higher than the angels and Satan has a problem with that so he figures if he can interfere with the process he can make a case for reinstatement because God loves man so much He will not let us go. But God gave man two simple rules and with a little shove from Satan man screws up. Satan’s probably grinning ear to pointy ear by now but he gets a big surprise when God kicks us off of the ultimate welfare program and now He gives man more and more rules he must live by to get to Heaven and when they can’t they are detined for the abyss. So to be fair to the angels man had to pay for his sin and must still. If you know anything about Christianity then I don’t need to go into how Jesus is the solution for that problem but instead let me get back to the original point.
    Statement: Man must come to God through faith. The best example of that I know of is the story of Job and the exchange between Satan and God about overly favorable treatment of this man which implies an unfairness to the angels (good and bad). The rest of the story is not important to the problem of the amputee so I will skip it. Now if it were not so that we must come to God through faith then God could have sent a bunch of magical electronic obelisks that hover around waiting for man to ask questions and give nice hi fidelity answers (no King James version needed) or He could have left some indestructible non corroding metallic Bible written in every language. Either of those would eliminate faith from the equation and that would not be fair. (oops) That is also the quandry our amputee is in because unlike the little girl who recovered from rabies and the miracle can be rationalized to be some fortunate accident there is no way to rationalize away a new limb. No human can possibly regenerate a limb and if God performed that miracle the jig would be up and God would violate His nature. (that’s not gonna happen) So in effect God beat the American military to the punch when it comes to plausible deniability.
    In all things God has done He has never violated His nature. There is always more to consider than simply He could so why not or He killed all those people so He must be mean etc.
    Much of what I stated above does not have a direct correlation to scriptures and most of it is inferred from other scriptures but if God is not imaginary and if God is fair to all then the logic is sound. This where “The rain falls on the just and the unjust” comes in by the way.
    When it comes down to it there is another important thing I must mention. Unless the Bible is the living word of God, then it can’t be trusted and it is pointless to even discuss it. If the Bible is what it is claimed to be then the story of Christ is plain enough to bring someone to the brink of immortality and lead to the ultimate choice to believe or not to believe on faith alone and what feeble understanding of a man. Remeber those hardened hearts and Satan and his angels who lost knowledge and understanding when they fell? The only way to true understanding of scripture is through the Holy Spirit which comes through accepting Christ and there is no getting around that. So you can believe the inspired but very real logic I have expressed above (doubtful) or you can read the story of Jesus and believe and then be baptised in the Holy spirit and the scripture will be opened up to you like never before; or you can not believe and stay on the outside looking in. If you choose number two then you will never have true happiness so sin hard and have lots of fun because otherwise what’s the point of goodness?

  46. on 16 Aug 2009 at 8:31 pm 46.VeridicusX said …

    Rollin:

    Why do you think that happiness and goodness necessarily come from a baseless belief in a magic, white haired, child molesting, mass murderer in the sky?

    You’ll find that atheists in general are as happy and as moral as anyone else.

    You mentioned various spirits, starting with God, winding through angels and culminating in the Holy Spirit.

    Maybe you’ll have the integrity and courage to consider carefully and think through what I’m about to say …

    * That which is spirit is immaterial, incorporeal, supernatural, non-physical.

    * It is impossible for non-physical things to have physical properties.

    * Physical properties are:
    1) Energy – information, entropy, force, effect.
    2) Dimensionality – spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.

    * Time is a physical dimension.

    * Space is a physical dimension.

    * Something which is non-physical does not have physical properties.

    * Something which has physical properties is physical.

    Therefore, a spirit has no energy or physical dimensionality.

    This is just another way of saying that spirits have no dimensions, information, force or effect and they do not and cannot exist anywhere or at any time in the Universe.

    Spirits are no more real then, than square circles.

    Spirits are mental constructs. Spirits are invented concepts. Spirits are pretend. Spirits are fictional. Spirits are imaginary.

    Spirits are the quintessence of square circles.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply