Feed on Posts or Comments 28 July 2014

Christianity &Science Thomas on 29 Aug 2011 12:35 am

Why is it that “anti-science”, “anti-knowledge” and “Christianity” all go together in the United States?

These three articles all paint the same picture: Christianity and ignorance go hand in hand:

Republicans Against Science

Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Here, the group “Republican Party” is acting as a placeholder for Christians.

CNN’s Jack Cafferty Slams GOP Frontrunners: Why Are Americans ‘Allergic To Brains?’

Jack Cafferty lit into Republican superstars Sarah Palin (R-FNC), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Wednesday’s The Situation Room, comparing them to The Three Stooges (sans Shemp), calling Perry’s instant burial of Mitt Romney in the polls “a little scary,” and asking, “When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?”

It is not Americans who are allergic – it is Christians.

Famed Scientist Richard Dawkins Destroys Rick Perry on Evolution

In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

Again, the group “Republican Party” is acting as a placeholder for Christians. The Republican Party is the party of Christians. Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin are all devout, fundamentalist Christians. They are the stars of the Republican Party.

Why are Christians so remarkably backwards? It is because, to believe in the religion, you must be delusional. The delusion then affects all parts of the thinking process. If you are willing to overlook evidence and rationality in your religion, then you are willing to do it everywhere else. And the entire thinking process is degraded.

If you are a Christian and you are worried about the effect of your religion on your thinking, consider watching this video. It really will help you understand what is going on:

215 Responses to “Why is it that “anti-science”, “anti-knowledge” and “Christianity” all go together in the United States?”

  1. on 29 Aug 2011 at 7:17 pm 1.Vince said …

    I hope America is more concerned what the next president will do concerning jobs, three wars and record debt than what he thinks about TOE. It would seem the former questions are much more relevant. The later is just ideology.

  2. on 29 Aug 2011 at 7:44 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    Delusion:

    Bachmann jokes that hurricane was God’s message to D.C.

    According to Michelle Bachmann:

    I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’

  3. on 29 Aug 2011 at 7:55 pm 3.Lou said …

    Perry also lied when he told the little boy in the video that “In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution.”

    Texas Freedom President Kath Miller said:

    “Gov. Perry has once again waded into the culture wars for political gain, but without considering the harmful consequences. It is irresponsible for the leader of a state, or a presidential hopeful, to suggest to public school teachers that it is OK to teach creationism as science when such attempts have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and could result in litigation against a school district,” she said in a statement we received this afternoon. “And it is outrageous that Gov. Perry would erode respect for and trust in public education in Texas, simply in order to promote his political aspirations. Texans and Texas schools are working to prepare our children for college and 21st-century jobs. Gov. Perry’s irresponsible comments wrongly suggest otherwise.”

    “The Texas Freedom Network advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right.” – Texas Freedom Network website

  4. on 29 Aug 2011 at 8:14 pm 4.Xenon said …

    Vince;

    Thank you! Someone who actually cares about the duties of the POTUS rather than some stupid evolution/creationism debate.

    For the record, schools all over the country teach creationism. It is an easy matter to address. All you must have is one student ask the question and it is all legal. Texas is no exception to this process. So he is correct.

  5. on 29 Aug 2011 at 9:42 pm 5.MrQ said …

    X, #4

    some stupid evolution/creationism debate.

    What debate? There is no debate. There are only facts, and they are all on the side of evolution.
    Are you, like Hor, a “micro-”evolutionist who thinks that ALL species are fixed? LOL!!! Most (99%) species on this planet are EXTINCT. God is busy experimenting with differents species?
    But you are correct, it’s stupid to have a debate between knowing reality and/or having faith in a fantasy. BTW, Have you checked out the latest on molecular biology? Fascinating and amazing the information one can find if one dares to seek answers.

    “Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”
    — Carl Sagan

  6. on 29 Aug 2011 at 10:06 pm 6.DPK said …

    “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?”

    I don’t think I have ever seen such a small mind in such a big head………..
    D

  7. on 29 Aug 2011 at 10:31 pm 7.Lou said …

    4.Xenon said …

    “For the record…”

    “For the record (really?),” Xenon has posted his own version of the facts.

    Perry previously said “I am a firm believer in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it SHOULD be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”

    He didn’t say it IS taught, he said it SHOULD be taught.

    From PolitiFact Texas

    “Our sense: No doubt, some Texas teachers address the subject of creationism. But it’s not state law or policy to intermix instruction on creationism and evolution. We rate Perry’s statement False.”

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/aug/19/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-texas-public-schools-teach-evo/

    Perry lied to the little boy.

  8. on 30 Aug 2011 at 11:18 am 8.Xenon said …

    There is no debate. There are only facts, and they are all on the side of intelligent design.

    Xenon and Perry are correct. It is being taught in the classrooms because the students ask the questions. They have inquiring minds and want to know all the theories not just the pet theories.

  9. on 30 Aug 2011 at 1:54 pm 9.MrQ said …

    X, #8

    want to know all the theories

    And what, MrX, is the theory of Creationism? Genesis account? When you find the actual theory let me know, I’d love to study it and maybe learn something new.

    For the record: There are NO facts, presently, for creationism? Nice try.

  10. on 30 Aug 2011 at 2:01 pm 10.Lou said …

    8.Xenon said …

    “Xenon and Perry are correct.”

    Why are you writing in the third-person?

    Xenon, are you confusing your, as Hor would say, “moniker?”

  11. on 30 Aug 2011 at 4:36 pm 11.DPK said …

    Perhaps all the theists here are actually the same person.. at least it appears that Xenon and Horatio are. He just keeps striving for more and more “uniquer” screen names until he finds one that not only is the “most unique-st” but doesn’t make him sound so dimwitted.
    Good luck with that Xenon/Hor/Ben and whoever else you are.
    LOL

  12. on 30 Aug 2011 at 5:07 pm 12.MrQ said …

    “Xenon and Perry are correct.”

    Why are you writing in the third-person?

    Hor/Xenon/Ben/et al: Maybe these are, after all, the same person or couple of people. These aliases sure like to stroke each other over their lame ass comments. How pathetic!!! LOL!!!

  13. on 30 Aug 2011 at 5:14 pm 13.Lou said …

    In a different thread Hor mistakenly wrote:

    “I mentioned earlier the great Obama gaff of 57 states but I had forgotten my favorite.”

    But it was not “Hor” who “mentioned earlier the great Obama gaff,” but someone else. I twice asked him to explain, but he did not.

    Hor and some “others” including also repeat the same writing error, as well as dwell on the Red Chinese.

    There’s also the Horatio and Clausewitz connection from the Horatio Hornblower stories. In their comments here Hor and Clause support each other.

    Now we have “Xenon” making the mistake of supporting himself, writing in the third person.

    Coincidences? No, there’s obviously one person posting under several different “monikers.”

  14. on 30 Aug 2011 at 7:36 pm 14.Xenon said …

    Lou and DPK spend a lot of time patting each other on the back. Would you be the same guy? A little to chummy and a little to close in posting.

    I typed in third person for a fun much like the Seinfeld episode. I will add I was posting here long before you two. If you want to believe Xenon is the same as Ben and the rest then have it. I don’t really care. You seem to have nothing else to really contribute.

    Mr Q
    Since you stuck with the original point, give me just one fact that supports evolution but not intelligent design. Just one will do.

    Xenon

  15. on 30 Aug 2011 at 7:38 pm 15.Xenon said …

    Mr Q,

    Just saw your post. You are a conspiracy theorist too. Never mind, I doubt you have anything to contribute either.

  16. on 30 Aug 2011 at 7:53 pm 16.MrQ said …

    X, #15

    give me just one fact that supports evolution but not intelligent design.

    Ok Hor, errr. I mean, Xenon (I think). Where do we begin? Ok how about the THEORY of Evolution. Read up on it…supported by fact, many facts.

    I did ask you for the Theory of Creationism…you have FAILED to provide a link or referral to said theory. Why?

    Just one will do.

    Let us begin this discussion:
    Do you agree that early Earth life was of the simple singled celled variety? Do you agree that 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct?
    How’s that to get the ball rolling? All of your other id’s are free to chime in whenever appropriate, as is anyone else.

  17. on 30 Aug 2011 at 7:56 pm 17.DPK said …

    I think Xenon has a trinity complex, thinking he can be one person with three personalities. Certainly fits with the rest of his delusional way of thinking.
    D

  18. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:04 pm 18.Xenon said …

    MrQDPKLou,

    Xenon will ask one more time. Name one fact that supports the theory of evolution that doesn’t support intelligent design. I only ask for one. That seem to be a fairly easy task. Will they do this or will they change the subject.

    Xenon

  19. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:07 pm 19.Lou said …

    14.Xenon said …

    “Lou and DPK spend a lot of time patting each other on the back.”

    Except that we don’t. You’re a liar.

    “Would you be the same guy? A little to chummy and a little to close in posting.”

    “Xenon,” you were caught. No point in making yourself look more ridiculous.

    “I typed in third person for a fun much like the Seinfeld episode.”

    Sure you did. We all do that for fun at one point or another, don’t we. Right…

    OK, everybody who writes “in third-person for a fun much like the Seinfeld episode” please raise your hand.

    Xenon, you are such a goof.

    Just remember to confirm which name you are using before you click Submit Comment

  20. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:38 pm 20.DPK said …

    “Name one fact that supports the theory of evolution that doesn’t support intelligent design.”

    Trinity… as usual, you ask a meaningless question. Name one fact about evolution that requires an intelligent designer and maybe there will be something to discuss.
    Your question is ridiculous, like asking, “Name one fact about gravity that disproves god.” The two are unrelated. Evolution won’t “support” intelligent design because intelligent design isn’t a theory, it’s a religious faith. There are no “facts” that support creationism, so naturally there is nothing to counter those non-existent facts. You are asking me to disprove god, which cannot be done.. the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claim… so prove your designer actually exists, or shut up about it. Provide one fact about rainbows that disproves leprechauns. Will you answer the question, or change the subject.
    Not much on critical thinking, are you?
    D

  21. on 30 Aug 2011 at 8:53 pm 21.Lou said …

    18.Xenon said …

    “Name one fact that supports the theory of evolution that doesn’t support intelligent design. I only ask for one.”

    The fact that you exist.

  22. on 30 Aug 2011 at 9:22 pm 22.MrQ said …

    #21, Lou

    The fact that you exist.

    Damn you. I was going to say that.

    X,
    Look up at post #16. I stated two facts. Did I over work your circuit? Ask one of your other personalities to answer, if you cannot. I wonder if Hor will emerge from his slumber?

  23. on 30 Aug 2011 at 9:50 pm 23.Vince said …

    I seems quite obvious that Mr Q, DPK and probably Lou are the same poster or they are at a minimum in the same location.

    Don’t feed trolls since it will only encourage. Those who point the finger are typically the ones practicing.

  24. on 30 Aug 2011 at 10:03 pm 24.MrQ said …

    Vince,
    Congrats. You clearly suffer from HUYA syndrome.
    I do not live in the USA. I do believe that Lou and DPK do.
    The only thing that Lou and DPK have in common with me, as far as I know, is the inability to say ‘goddidit’ when we encounter something that we do not understand. We seek to learn.
    So, carry on with the discussion: Vince, have you heard of the Theory of Creationism? Can you guide me to some references?

  25. on 30 Aug 2011 at 10:16 pm 25.DPK said …

    Well, Lou has already said he lives in the DFW area. I’m in the greater Philadelphia area. MrQ doesn’t live in the US, and neither does Severin.

    Still waiting for Xenon to prove either god, or leprechauns exists. I’ll be amazed if he can do either one.

    Lou.. my brother and his family live in Plano… hot as hell, er excuse me, h*ll, out there…. but at least you don’t get hurricanes. I’ve sat though some really nasty thunderstorms on my way to the DFW airport though. Suppose that’s god’s way of trying to keep me there?
    D

  26. on 30 Aug 2011 at 10:31 pm 26.40 year Atheist said …

    The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths. In fact, by way of contradiction and paradox, the completely relativistic universe of the Atheist is interrupted by one Holy, Absolute, Unquestionable, Unassailable Truth and that is Evolution.

    Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all because everything else in the Atheist world is relative; only Evolution is Absolute Truth. With Evolution, the Atheist need only deny a few details here and there, such as in Darwin’s Dodge, and Darwin’s Horrid Doubt, along with the other Darwinian falsifications. Then all the rest of life is free of all restrictions.

    The dogma of Evolution is taken on 100% faith as follows; faith that there is no other possible position; faith that science will find all the answers; faith in the connections drawn between supposed genetic ancestors; faith in the supremacy of the mind of man.

  27. on 30 Aug 2011 at 11:24 pm 27.Lou said …

    26.40 year Atheist said …

    “The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist”

    This is, of course, complete and utter b.s.
    Evolution has nothing to with atheism and visa-verse. It’s similar to the same false claim that atheism is a religion.

    Even the Pope accepts evolution:

    “This clash [between evolution and creationism] is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

    The only way theists can respond to their aversion to evolution and atheism is to lie about it.

    The rest of your comment is simply false, irrational, illogical, nonsense symptomatic of a deficient thought process.

    Now, rather than continue to lie about atheism and evolution, please present your evidence for god.

  28. on 30 Aug 2011 at 11:47 pm 28.MrQ said …

    #26, 40-something
    WOW. What the HELL have you been smoking? Whatever it is, I want some!!!
    When you decide to pull your head out of your orifice, check out biologos.org (an evolution website started by a Baptist..Yes, a Baptist) Then go check out Ken Miller’s whacky ideas about evolution (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/) ….Ferchrissake that guy is a Catholic !!!!!

    40-something, you’re busted!!! Atheism and evolution have NOTHING to do with each other.

  29. on 31 Aug 2011 at 12:01 am 29.Xenon said …

    Vince
    I do believe you are correct. If I use the logic of these 3 in 1 we will follow this:
    Somebody named Claus agreed with Hor
    I referred to myself in the third person
    Therefore Hor, Ben and myself are the one and same.

    It sounds much like the logic they use to call a theory a fact. The difference escapes them.
    I guess if I make up some locations for all thee of us that will clear things up.

    40 year atheist,

    The logic is sound but beyond these three in one. The pope and other theist all recognize God ultimately behind creation. The atheist has nothing but a big bang and evolution to define their reality. They have no prime mover therefore their reality all rides on naturalism? nothing? aliens? Who knows.

    They successfully changed the subject of Obama being the worst president in history since Buchanan.

  30. on 31 Aug 2011 at 12:31 am 30.DPK said …

    26.40 year Atheist said …

    The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths.

    You just don’t get it do you? Even if evolution was tomorrow proven completely, utterly wrong and was discarded by every respectable scientist in the world (highly unlikely, but IF) that STILL would not prove that “god did it via magic”… There would still be no evidence for creationism other than a poorly written collection of ancient god-myths and fairy tales.
    In short, if it was shown that light refracting through water droplets did NOT cause rainbows, it would not then follow that leprechauns are real.
    Xenon, your idea of sound logic mystifies me. You assume that if 1 does not equal 2 then it must then equal 3. Not surprising from someone with multiple personality disorder.

  31. on 31 Aug 2011 at 1:16 am 31.MrQ said …

    X, #29

    The pope and other theist all recognize God ultimately behind creation.

    …and they also all have no problem whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution, unlike you.
    So what is it xenon? Are you now a biologos.org zealot or what? Is that your issue….cannot figure out how life began, so it must be god who didit. Rememeber, people once thought rainbows were gifts from god and we were at the centre of the universe, and you know how those ideas turned out.

    They have no prime mover therefore their reality all rides on naturalism? nothing? aliens? Who knows.

    Personally, I have no invisible means of support. ;-)

  32. on 31 Aug 2011 at 3:17 am 32.Lou said …

    29.Xenon said …

    “The atheist has nothing but a big bang and evolution to define their reality.”

    It’s obvious that you must incorrectly view others’ reality in the same context as yours. That is, because theists define their reality with god and creationism, they wrongly assume that atheists must somehow define their reality with “naturalism” and “a big bang and evolution.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, and is similar to the theists incorrect claim that atheism is a religion. That is, they must define atheism in the same context that their theism exists. They wrongly believe that atheism is anti-theism, the opposite of theism. But it isn’t.

    People like Xenon, Hor, Cur, and the rest simply cannot understand and accept the fact that atheists operate on a more rational, logical, and intellectual level than they do. They operate at the level of children while atheists operate at the level of adults. It’s not possible for a child to see and understand the world like an adult does. It’s only possible for a child to see the adult world with the eyes of child. It’s only possible for a child to perceive and understand the world like a child. And they incorrectly expect and assume that adults do the same as they do. Theism and god is the Santa Claus for adult children. Adults don’t have a Santa Claus god and mythology.

  33. on 31 Aug 2011 at 5:45 am 33.Severin said …

    “He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?”

    Maybe someone would listen to him, if he SAID something.
    A single word from heaven would have much bigger effect than an earthquke or a hurrican, because some stupid people can’t connect such events with god, idiots think they are caused by natural causes.

    Maybe the guy doesn’t speak English!?

    A Hebrew, Russian, German, Latin, Cherokee… word would do, dear Mr. God, if we positively knew it comes from you!
    Where are you?

  34. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:14 am 34.Severin said …

    29 Horatio

    We do not really care if you are a “trinity” or 3 different persons, but it would be much better for this world if you were really only one person, posting under 3 different names.

    I would be glad to know that there are 2 pathetic ignorants (and liars), spreading idiocy arround them, less on Earth.

  35. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:18 am 35.Severin said …

    Sorry, it was 29 Xenon, but isn’t it the same?

  36. on 31 Aug 2011 at 6:26 am 36.Severin said …

    29 Xenon
    “The pope and other theist all recognize God ultimately behind creation. The atheist has nothing but a big bang and evolution to define their reality.”

    The pope ad other theists fail to tell us:
    - WHEN, at what point, exactly, god interfered in “creation”. Was it the BB? Did god create the black hole from which universe “exploded”?
    Was it “creation” of erath?
    - WHO/WHAT created god?
    - If the cause – effect logic does not apply to god, WHY, the hell not?

    You are unable to give a single support to your claims, all you are doing is trumpeting (babbling) and desperate “sarcasm”.

  37. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:57 am 37.happy fifty said …

    thank you.

  38. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:58 am 38.happy fifty said …

    I was just saying that Christianity is based on a relationship with Jesus Christ. What you are describing about the milk thing is crazy. The first prayer God answers is when you call out to Him in repentance. Believe with your heart not your head. It takes faith not intelligence.

  39. on 01 Sep 2011 at 12:29 pm 39.DPK said …

    It takes faith not intelligence.

    There is no doubt about that.

  40. on 01 Sep 2011 at 3:20 pm 40.DPK said …

    I think the common thing that differentiates believers from skeptics is this notion that accepting something by turning off your intelligence and choosing to believe in something despite a complete lack of evidence or logic is somehow a virtue.
    Believers have been conditioned by the churches and religious authorities to accept that “faith over intelligence” is actually a good thing.
    I disagree. Believing in something for no good reason is not only foolish, I think it would be contrary to the will of any creator, if one happened to exist. To believe that a god created us with an intellect, an ability to reason, a curiosity to discover and learn the truth, and then to accept that he wants us to put all that aside and accept a lot of bat-shit crazy stuff purely on “faith” just wouldn’t make sense.
    Happy Fifty… hate to tell you, you don’t have a “personal relationship” with Jesus any more than Osama Bin Laden had a “personal relationship” with Allah, or Caesar had a “personal relationship” with Jupiter. It’s all in your head.

  41. on 01 Sep 2011 at 4:58 pm 41.Redeemed said …

    “It takes faith not intelligence.”

    Absolutely Happy 50. Jesus came to die for all, the plan is simple because he loves the highly intelligent down to the African bushmen who cannot read or write. What a wonderful God.

    Don’t you like how these who have never met Christ tell you what you and I have experienced? Will they tell me about my experiences in Costa Rica next?

    Allah does not have personal relationships with his followers. Even Muslims don’t believe that. That is what sets Christ apart from dead religions.

    My curiosity to discover, learn and grow has not subsided in the least. Where do these guys come up with such ridiculous ideas.

  42. on 01 Sep 2011 at 5:30 pm 42.Lou said …

    41.Redeemed said …

    “Don’t you like how these who have never met Christ tell you what you and I have experienced? Will they tell me about my experiences in Costa Rica next?”

    We know that you don’t have a relationship with Jesus in the same we know you don’t have a relationship with Santa Claus. Or are you going to tell us that you have one with him, too?

    “Where do these guys come up with such ridiculous ideas.”

    What an ironic comment. Pot, meet kettle.

  43. on 01 Sep 2011 at 5:35 pm 43.Lou said …

    You DO NOT Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1872

  44. on 01 Sep 2011 at 6:23 pm 44.Biff said …

    Bounce over and look at this guy who calls himself Cult of Dusty. I got it from Lou’s link above. The dude is a real whack job and is absolutely obsessed with this deity he claims does not exist.

    http://www.cultofdusty.com/

  45. on 01 Sep 2011 at 7:06 pm 45.Lou said …

    44.Biff said …

    “Bounce over and look at this guy who calls himself Cult of Dusty. I got it from Lou’s link above. The dude is a real whack job and is absolutely obsessed with this deity he claims does not exist.”

    Come on, Biff. You’re almost there. Keep thinking about it. Maybe you’ll get it.

  46. on 01 Sep 2011 at 7:40 pm 46.DPK said …

    “Allah does not have personal relationships with his followers. Even Muslims don’t believe that. That is what sets Christ apart from dead religions.”

    Well, the Muslims do not agree with you… this from a Muslim website:

    “Allah is our God, Lord, Creator, Companion, beloved, sustainer, preserver, provider, healer, protector and what not. We do reach Him and talk to Him directly without a mediator. A believer’s complete life depends on Allah; we do depend on Him on every single matter. I would say, yes, Muslims have personal relationship with God, however, that personal relationship is based on love, respect, awe and reverence. We don’t sum up that relationship to a parent relationship, for Allah the Exalted is above and higher than that.”

    So, you wanna make any other stuff up and claim it’s true? You seem to have a penchant for it.
    Just realize that while your personal delusion seems real to you, it is plainly obvious to most everyone else… and many other people claim delusions as real that you obviously deny… see anything wrong with this picture? I think that’s why they call it a delusion… you believe it even though it isn’t real. Bingo.

  47. on 01 Sep 2011 at 7:49 pm 47.Curmudgeon said …

    “Just realize that while your personal delusion seems real to you, it is plainly obvious to most everyone else”

    Most? Who would these most be? The blog?

    Pot meet the kettle.

    The Muslim relationship is slave/master with the slave never knowing if they will obtain heaven until the end. The works are based on earning paradise.

    The Christian relationship is Father/son with the son always knowing their eternal destination. The works are based on love not earning heaven.

    If you define slave/master a relationship, then yeah – but I doubt Redeemed viewed it as such.

    Dusty does think quite a lot of Dusty does he not Biff?

  48. on 01 Sep 2011 at 8:19 pm 48.Lou said …

    47.Curmudgeon said …

    “Most? Who would these most be? The blog?

    Pot meet the kettle.”

    As you, I mean Hor, would say, LOL! If you’re going to use an expression, as least learn how to apply it. It makes no sense here.

    “The Muslim relationship is slave/master…

    “The Christian relationship is Father/son…

    B.S. If you don’t do what your god says to do, then he sends you to hell. Not exactly slavery, but not much better.

    “If you define slave/master a relationship…”

    100% irrelevant! In either case, it isn’t real.

    “then yeah – but I doubt Redeemed viewed it as such.”

    But yeah, that’s what he wrote. But again, irrelevant.

    “Dusty does think quite a lot of Dusty does he not Biff?”

    So, what if he does?

    Now, back to the something relevant – where’s your evidence for god?

  49. on 01 Sep 2011 at 8:25 pm 49.Lou said …

    47.Curmudgeon said …

    “The Christian relationship is Father/son with the son always knowing their eternal destination. The works are based on love not earning heaven”

    No wonder your sense of reality so flawed. My father would NEVER, EVER think of sending me to hell for eternity. Why?! Because he loves me. You and your god are seriously demented and evil.

  50. on 01 Sep 2011 at 8:53 pm 50.Lou said …

    “47.Curmudgeon said …

    “Just realize that while your personal delusion seems real to you, it is plainly obvious to most everyone else”

    “Most? Who would these most be? The blog?”

    Must you have everything explained to you? It would be “obvious to most” of those who don’t have the same delusion.

  51. on 01 Sep 2011 at 9:36 pm 51.Redeemed said …

    Curmudgeon,

    The relationship comparisons you make are pretty accurate. God actually views the Church as the bride of Christ for who He was willing to lay His life down. Everyone is eligible but unfortunately many will reject His gracious gift.

    Lou

    I’m sorry my relationship with Christ angers you so. It was not my intent at all. It is going on over 30 years and those I know have never called it delusional. I hope you discover the peace and joy in your life.

    The best to you

  52. on 01 Sep 2011 at 9:41 pm 52.Lou said …

    51.Redeemed said …

    “Everyone is eligible but unfortunately many will reject His gracious gift.”

    Complete and utter nonsense. Nobody would reject such a gift.

  53. on 01 Sep 2011 at 9:57 pm 53.DPK said …

    “Most? Who would these most be? The blog?”

    “Most” would be the 2/3rds of the world’s population who are NOT christian and do NOT believe that Jesus was divine. Is this a revelation to to you? You DO realize that the majority of the world does not share in your delusion, right? Not that it makes a difference, many have their own delusions as well… just different from yours.

  54. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:00 pm 54.Horatiio said …

    “Not that it makes a difference, many have their own delusions as well… just different from yours.”

    Then you wasted everyone’s time. Does the D stand for delusional or Dawkins? You guys spit out his talking points so often I believe you must be a couple of his groupies! LOL!!

    Do you guys realize 90% of the world. rejects your delusion? In case you are wondering that is many more than reject Jesus. I’m not sure if you had a point to begin with DPK but it was fun to out do you again.

    Have a good week boys and play nice.

  55. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:09 pm 55.DPK said …

    Hor, you are so dense. I don’t have any delusions… I simply reject yours. Your reasoning ability has become so compromised you can’t process any thought process that doesn’t fit with yours… LOL.
    Remember, YOU are also an atheist with respect to a full 2/3rd of the current world’s gods. Not so very different from me. If you count in ALL of histories sundry gods, spirits, voodoo and assorted goblins and fairies, I’d dare say you are atheistic with respect to 99.9% of them. You just need to realize that your Jesus spirit god is no different and no more real than any of them.
    Thanks for the comparison to Professor Dawkins. I’d much rather be counted in league with his intellectual company than with yours……. major LOL

  56. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:13 pm 56.Lou said …

    54.Horatiio said …

    “Do you guys realize 90% of the world. rejects your delusion?”

    Not having a delusion isn’t a delusion. You must be deluded that you don’t believe in leprechauns.

  57. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:30 pm 57.Lou said …

    55.DPK said …

    “Hor, you are so dense. I don’t have any delusions… I simply reject yours. Your reasoning ability has become so compromised you can’t process any thought process that doesn’t fit with yours… LOL.”

    I think he understands. He’s simply a liar. He has no other legitimate response except to admit that he’s wrong. Nobody can be that dumb unless they’re actually retarded.

  58. on 01 Sep 2011 at 11:33 pm 58.Lou said …

    54.Horatiio said …

    “Does the D stand for delusional or Dawkins? You guys spit out his talking points so often I believe you must be a couple of his groupies! LOL!!”

    Show in this thread where anyone mentioned a Dawkins “talking point.”

  59. on 02 Sep 2011 at 12:05 am 59.Lou said …

    54.Horatiio said …

    “I’m not sure if you had a point to begin with DPK but it was fun to out do you again.”

    Just because you missed the point doesn’t mean he didn’t have one. The “point” was to answer you, I mean Cur’s question “Most? Who would these most be?”

    Dimwit.

  60. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:37 am 60.40 year Atheist said …

    I provide this challenge for any atheists. There are two levels available for Atheists to attempt to refute.

    First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe; for example, the cause of the original quantum field from which Hawking’s (fallacious) “spontaneous creation from nothing” theory derives. In terms of Cause and Effect, such a cause would be expected to be larger, more powerful, totally coherent, able to construct coherent structures, necessary and sufficient, able to implement causation at a distance. Note that a story such as that of “infinite universes” does not defeat the need for an original cause, it merely moves the cause back a step by using imaginary, unfalsifiable stories of unobserved objects or processes; the logical need for an originating cause persists.

    Second, as discussed above, is the theist notion of a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level. The occurrence of the relationship is internal to the individual person; is not a scheduled event; is not empirically, experimentally replicable; and most importantly it is not falsifiable using Popper’s criterion for separation of non-empirical from empirical entities. Such an event cannot be experienced by anyone other than the targeted individual, but it can be related in muted terms that are insufficient to describe the events with accuracy and completeness due to their non-material nature.

    These two levels are necessary and sufficient to justify theism. Refuting these levels would refute the existence of a deity. However, the only refutation allowed to the materialist (Atheists are materialists) is a material refutation. Arguments without material support for their premises are incapable of containing meaning within the constraints of materialism; this is the Atheist requirement for argument as exemplified by the demand for material evidence to support an argument FOR a deity.

  61. on 02 Sep 2011 at 3:15 am 61.Hell Yeah said …

    “First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe”

    You claim a god was the cause. What is the originating cause of your god? Just because in human history we haven’t gotten to the point of figuring out the originating cause of the universe exactly doesn’t mean it was by some magical being that has no properties that can be tested positive to exist by using any of the senses. Matter and energy could have always existed in some form that got compacted before the big bang. Is thunder caused by the thunder god? Humans used to think that until they used science to figure it out. Now there is no thunder god anymore. Your magical being would have had to had a beginning somewhere along the line too, right? I will tell you the beginning of your magical being….it was in some human’s imaginary mind at some point in history. Remember, your god isn’t the first god to have been thought to exist.

    ———–

    “the theist notion of a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level. The occurrence of the relationship is internal to the individual person; is not a scheduled event….. Such an event cannot be experienced by anyone other than the targeted individual”

    Delusion and brain washed is the explanation. This reminds me of a story I just heard about recently. There was a guy who was in the hospital because he thought he was pregnent with a dinosaur egg and got that from smoking cigarettes. In his world he thinks he is right; his mind is playing tricks with is version of reality. The same thing is happening with theists, just at a larger level beause other delusioned theists are brain washing others and so on because of the “fear of death”.

    ————

    “I provide this challenge for any atheists. There are two levels available for Atheists to attempt to refute.”

    That was easy. See above.

  62. on 02 Sep 2011 at 3:20 am 62.Lou said …

    60.40 year Atheist said …

    “I provide this challenge for any atheists. There are two levels available for Atheists to attempt to refute.

    First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe;”

    I don’t have to read any further to refute your so-called challenge. Atheism doesn’t have have anything whatsoever to do with an “originating cause of the universe” (anymore than does aleprechaunism).

    So much for your challenge.

    Now for a real challenge – show us any evidence for god. Theism is a proposition, atheism is not. Therefore, theists must present evidence for their proposition, not the other way around. That’s all you must do. But you never do, because you can’t.

    Why can’t you guys understand that simple concept? But you believe in an imaginary god and the associated mythology, so not much is really expected of you.

  63. on 02 Sep 2011 at 4:25 am 63.DPK said …

    “First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe; for example, the cause of the original quantum field from which Hawking’s (fallacious) “spontaneous creation from nothing” theory derives.”

    Straw man. Theism does not solve the “perceived necessity of an originating cause” any more than M theory or anything else, because it also ends with the infinite regression problem of the supposed creator. You can’t present the “original quantum field” or the infinite multiverse ideas as invalid and then present a magical non-material, but all powerful god-being as a somehow logical alternative. So your challenge to produce a provable theory on the origin of the universe has no real bearing on the actual existence of god. As has been stated, the inability to explain the originating nature of volcanoes, or rainbows, does not therefore prove the existence of volcano gods, or leprechauns.

    “Second, as discussed above, is the theist notion of a personal relationship with the deity described in the First level.”

    No one denies that many people experience what can be described as “spiritual” experiences that can be perceived as profound. These kinds of experiences cannot be attributed to a relationship with god for the simple reason that they are reported by people of all religions, and people with absolutely no religious faith. I can feel an incredible connection with the beauty and wonder of nature or the universe and I have no “personal relationship with god”. The fact that someone has a certain emotional experience and then, because of their religious belief systems, attributes it to Jesus, or Allah, or Krishna, or animal guides, or whatever, does not by any means prove that that is actually the source of the emotional experience.

  64. on 02 Sep 2011 at 4:46 am 64.Severin said …

    #60 40 YA
    “First is the perceived necessity of an originating cause of the universe“

    „Perceived necessity“ is a typical phrase of demagogues that doesn’t mean anything, but is trying to turn the attention of listeners from real problem to demagogue’s „wisdom“.
    It is nothing but „selling fog“. Like when politicians say „As we all know…“
    Who „perceived necessity“ of an originating cause of the universe?
    When was it?
    How and where was it elaborated?

    If god caused matter/energy to appear, and if the cause – effect law is still valid, then I perceive necessity of an originating cause of god.
    You can not just „stop“ on the cause – effect line at any place you wish, proclaim this point on the cause – effect line „percieved necessity“ and install a god there as the beginning of the cause – effect line.

    In case you put a god on the „beginning“ of the cause – effect line, I have all rights to ask: Why is god exception? Who/what created god? Why would god be excluded from cause – effect law?
    If you insist god needed NO „originating cause“, my question is: why, the hell, matter/energy DO need „originating cause“?
    Because you say so?

    What if cause – effect law is not a straight line, but a circle?
    What if matter/energy is the very base of the cause – effect CIRCLE; it (matter/energy) is eternal, has no “source” or “cause”, it “just exists”, and changes its form according to its own “inherent intelligence” (natural laws), which influence effects in both directions (clockwise and opposite)?

    Yes, in that case you could say: matter/energy = god, I do not complaint, but such a “god” has nothing to do with religious idiocies.

  65. on 02 Sep 2011 at 4:58 am 65.Severin said …

    40 YA

    If we, for the sake of debate, consider the premise that god WAS on the beginning of the cause – effect line, could you kindly tell us AT WHICH POINT was it?

    He could not have “interfered” anything, because HE was the cause of everything, he necessarily should have STARTED the process.

    What was the “starting point”, please? Big Bang? Genesis?

  66. on 02 Sep 2011 at 12:25 pm 66.Biff said …

    40 year atheist,

    A great challenge I doubt any above could even understand the challenge based on their responses above. Their typical response is to change the subject when backed in to a corner and of course there in the corner they remain.

    It goes to show you just how much faith they really do have after all.

  67. on 02 Sep 2011 at 1:35 pm 67.Lou said …

    66.Biff said …

    “Their typical response is to change the subject when backed in to a corner and of course there in the corner they remain.”

    As opposed to changing the subject to idiotic challenges such as this when theists are asked to provide evidence for god? That is the ONLY challenge there is – provide evidence for god.

    “It goes to show you just how much faith they really do have after all.”

    Wrong, it’s not faith. I know for a certainty that you cannot provide evidence for god.

  68. on 02 Sep 2011 at 2:15 pm 68.Anonymous said …

    “Their typical response is to change the subject when backed in to a corner and of course there in the corner they remain.”

    Biff, you’re such an empty bag of wind. Hell Yeah, Lou, Severin, and I all provided detailed responses to 40′s challenge… and your reply was…. what?
    Absolutely nothing. No substance, no argument, no rebuttal. You’re a fraud. But, we already knew that, didn’t we?
    I’m with Lou.. this has been going on long enough. You claim your god is real… put up some evidence to support your claim or stop whining about it when people call your bluff.

  69. on 02 Sep 2011 at 2:27 pm 69.DPK said …

    68 anonymous was me… sorry.

    To also address the “personal relationship, or let’s call it the spiritual experience challenge… After my recent surgery to repair one of the “intelligent designers” obvious screw ups in his perfect design, I was on some heavy duty narcotic pain killers for a few days.
    Toward the end I had some experiences of hallucinations that were so vividly real to me that I could not have distinguished them from reality, except that in hindsight I realized that my kitchen walls normally do not glow an pulse with light and my family room furniture does not randomly change shape and move about on its own. But I can attest that these experiences at the time seemed very, very real. So I can understand someone having an internal experience that seems genuine and attributing it to something they have been social conditioned to expect. Ever wonder why Christians have spiritual experience that involve Jesus, and Muslims have spiritual experiences that involve Mohammed or Allah? Because the experience is internal, not external, and does not provide “evidence” of the actual reality of a god in any way, shape, or form.

  70. on 02 Sep 2011 at 2:51 pm 70.MrQ said …

    40-something

    the logical need for an originating cause persists

    What is wrong with saying “I don’t know”? I am not a theoretical physicist, are you?

    All you’re doing is using the bible/koran/holy text to tell you how it all began. Your origins explanation is extremely weak but I am sure that you get a warm fuzzy feeling

    by using imaginary, unfalsifiable stories of unobservable objects or processes (or gods)

    But if that’s what floats your boat, good on you. Clearly, it does not require much brain power to limit your understanding and knowledge of the world to the same level as the original authors of these stories/fables. I am sure that you believe that Noah built an ark and that there was a world-wide flood which killed all Earthly critters except for the ark inhabitants.

    Your second point is most excellent and can be used to describe a number of mental conditions …schizophrenia, paranoia, depression, faith….

  71. on 02 Sep 2011 at 3:20 pm 71.Observer said …

    #60 What a load of tripe. First, you do not understand the meaning of the words “necessary and sufficient” in the context of logic. You are a total wanker: Your first criterion is a load of rubbish tarted-up with a few big words to lend the imprimatur of thought and education. It is so disjointed and laden with unsupportable premises that it is nothing more than a tangle of something short of thought.

    Sentence 1: How do we know Hawkings quantum field is “fallacious”? Because a nominally literate crank says so?

    Sentence 2: Why would the cause have to be larger, more powerful, and able to act at a distance? One small crystal of salt, Epsom salts work better, in a super-saturated solution will lead to an amazing array of crystals and patterns. I know in your world that salt crystal is a magic god, but for a relatively bright 5th grader, he gets that it is not.

    Sentence 3: “Infinite universes, unfalsifiable stories of unobservable objects” etc. seem to create a problem for you that bacteria did for folks even after the microscope was being used. Primitive peoples in Africa and elsewhere to this day have a hard time understanding the unobservable objects bacteria; some would argue this is due to a lack of intelligence, but in most cases it is due to a lack of education. It is clear you suffer from the same malady, but in a different manifestation like the malnourished morbidly obese in the US as compared to the malnourished skeletal humans in Somalia. That is actually a wonderful metaphor.

    On your second point, I am glad to see Popper’s name turn up here in something other than one of my postings. But as one would expect from your ilk, it is out of context and shows your lack or research or lack of intelligence to understand your research. You are describing the very thing that Popper called “false religion” in the Hibbert Journal in 1948. (You are an idiot.)

    And just for good measure you lay on a large scoop of idiocy by claiming you have demonstrated both necessity and sufficiency. (Read parenthetic at end of last paragraph.)

    Big words and references to intelligent people applied correctly can blunt the stench of bullshit in the ideas you try to support, but your ham-handed foolishness only thickens and intensifies the mephitis of what for you passes as thought. (I am going to open a window.)

  72. on 02 Sep 2011 at 5:09 pm 72.Lou said …

    69.DPK said …

    “But I can attest that these experiences at the time seemed very, very real. So I can understand someone having an internal experience that seems genuine and attributing it to something they have been social conditioned to expect.”

    I have these experiences almost every night when I sleep! Immediately after I awaken they seem real! Sometimes by heart is pounding and my breath is fast! Sometimes my mood and emotions are affected throughout the day! I wonder what supernatural being is causing this to happen to me?!

    I challenge anyone to refute my experiences and the relationship I have with the supernatural being that causes them.

  73. on 02 Sep 2011 at 5:55 pm 73.40 year Atheist said …

    The challenge was not seriously considered so let us examine the claim of this delusion.

    By labeling all intuitive knowledge as delusions, chemically imbalanced, brain farts, the Atheists have Poisoned the Well, and have used that tactical fallacy to shut down any argumentation of personal experience as delusional.

    So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.

    Thus the demand itself is self-contradictory, self-refuting, and Atheists who have any logic in them at all know this. A non-coherent demand, being irrational, does not merit a response, of course, in spite of some theists attempting to respond (with arguments which cannot possibly satisfy the non-coherents making the non-coherent demand). Because the demand is non-coherent, no answer can suffice. Rationally speaking there is no rationality involved.

    But more to the point, Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules. And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
    Prove that there is no God. Place your proof here or wherever you wish to post it. But make certain that your rebuttal follows your own rules: The proof must be coherent and material; after all material is all there is under your Materialist rules.

    Nothing less is acceptable. Go ahead. Face the challenge.

  74. on 02 Sep 2011 at 6:44 pm 74.DPK said …

    “So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.

    Thus the demand itself is self-contradictory, self-refuting, and Atheists who have any logic in them at all know this.”

    Your same argument can be applied to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or any other imaginary construct you care to throw into the debate. Prove there is no tooth fairy! Can’t be done. Sorry, if you are the one making extraordinary claims about the nature of reality “outside space time and mass-energy” yet you offer absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of the fantastic claims you make are in any way true.
    Nice try at shifting the burden of proof…. but sadly, Fail.
    D

  75. on 02 Sep 2011 at 8:20 pm 75.Hell Yeah said …

    “So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.”

    So if this being exists outside of our comprehension, then how would any of us know? What would be the point of this god wanting to make it so he exists outside this “zone”? Is he trying to make it so people don’t believe him? Why would he wait billions of years after the formation of earth and after many relgions have been around for a long time to eventually come out of the wood works? The answer is simple. He was made up at some point in history.

    ————-

    “And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
    Prove that there is no God.”

    Your god has the same characteristics as any other character made up by humans that has never actually been proven to exist by any of the senses needed to know something is real. Also, can you prove to me that there isn’t a teapot floating around Saturn? It must be true because you can’t disprove it. The point is, you are claiming something is true without any real evidence.

    We might not be able to claim there isn’t something outside of our human perception, but at the same time you can’t claim there is. So we say we don’t know for sure, but chances are great that it isn’t there. That should be the case for anything that isn’t proven to exist, but you theists act as if there is no question that it is there. That is where you guys fail.

    I am sure atheists will gladly accept a god if there is real proof of existence. Until then, god is just a mythical character like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. You guys are like the kids at school that still think Santa Claus is real. It would be great if there was an afterlife, which is the basis of why you want to believe in a god. It was a hard thing for me to swallow once I came to the realization there is no afterlife, that we are just like every other living thing on this planet, carbon based chemical reactions.

  76. on 02 Sep 2011 at 8:29 pm 76.Biff said …

    40 year atheist,

    I don’t believe they understand or they avoid your point. I for one have all the proof I need and so do billions of others. As you point out, would billions be delusional or would they know something atheist have not discovered?

    There is hope since many atheist have eventually discovered the truth.

  77. on 02 Sep 2011 at 8:31 pm 77.Lou said …

    73.40 year Atheist said …

    I didn’t respond in any such way that you claimed.

    I responded: I don’t have to read any further to refute your so-called challenge. Atheism doesn’t have have anything whatsoever to do with an “originating cause of the universe” (anymore than does aleprechaunism).

    “But more to the point, Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules.”

    Wrong. Atheism is not a proposition, but theism is. The burden of “proof” is on those who propose, not on those who DO NOT propose. So stop the b.s. and present evidence for god.

  78. on 02 Sep 2011 at 8:43 pm 78.A said …

    “Atheism is not a proposition”

    That is because you are a little man with nothing to offer. Since you have nothing to add why don’t you just fade away like the dew of the morning.

  79. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:21 pm 79.Lou said …

    76.Biff said …

    “I for one have all the proof I need and so do billions of others. As you point out, would billions be delusional or would they know something atheist have not discovered?”

    Call it what you want – delusional, crazy, desperate, ignorant, but it’s the former. How many millions or billions were sure of countless other gods that are no longer believed, were sure that the earth was the center of the universe, believed in astrology, didn’t believe in germs, or can’t even begin to comprehend Quantum Mechanics? If anything, that the majority of people agree on something is an indication that it’s usually wrong, because as a whole, people are mostly ignorant.

  80. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:23 pm 80.Lou said …

    78.A said …

    “Atheism is not a proposition”

    “That is because you are a little man with nothing to offer.”

    Really? OK big man, offer your evidence for god.

  81. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:29 pm 81.Lou said …

    73.40 year Atheist said …

    “So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.”

    Yet somehow xtians have a personal relationship with this being. And this being tells its most ardent followers to fly airplanes into buildings in order to murder thousands of humans in its name.

    Naw, it’s not delusion, correct, 40?

  82. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:30 pm 82.John said …

    Christians tend to believe what they are told to believe, without really thinking. Lots of liberals are the same way, and conservatives too. Instead of listening to the rants and chants about man-made global warming, I’ve spent countless hours researching, reading several books and about 30 scientific journals that do not agree climate change is affected by man. Climate is complex, and computer models can’t predict the whole story. Everything I’ve read, without any media influence, tells me climate change is due to the sun, not a measely increas in CO2. This is not the first climate change. It cycles, like everything else.

    Many fears of old have been debunked. Christianity is one of those that is in the process of debunking. Man made climate change will go down in history as one of those as well.

  83. on 02 Sep 2011 at 9:37 pm 83.DPK said …

    Who the hell said anything about climate change?

    40 year… are you going to answer the question as to why your proposition is any more valid than the one for Santa Claus? I know lots and lots of 3,4, and 5 year olds who also “know” that they have a personal relationship with Santa and that he loves them dearly!

    D

  84. on 02 Sep 2011 at 10:24 pm 84.Hell Yeah said …

    “Everything I’ve read, without any media influence, tells me climate change is due to the sun, not a measely increas in CO2.”

    Ever hear of the ozone layer which protects us from the sun? CO2 harms that protection, which then the sun warms up earth more, especially the oceans and causes a harsher climate mixture. So yeah, you are right when you say climate change is due to the sun, you just forgot about the protection layer that the increase of CO2 harms.

    ———-

    “I for one have all the proof I need and so do billions of others. As you point out, would billions be delusional or would they know something atheist have not discovered? There is hope since many atheist have eventually discovered the truth.”

    Biff, you think you and these others have proof. Anyone brainwashed on anything think they have proof of that brainwashing belief is true. I bet you if religions didn’t have the belief of an afterlife, the majority of people wouldn’t believe there is a magical being hiding some where. Like I said before, the majority of people want to believe because of the fear of death. And I bet you more theists have become atheists than the other way around, me being one of them.

    And Biff, please give more explanation of your proofs, because you never do. You just say “nope, your wrong” without giving a concrete explanation back. You can also attemp to point out specific errors in people’s posts, but you never try it.

  85. on 02 Sep 2011 at 10:41 pm 85.Mitch said …

    “Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules.”

    40 year atheist,

    That is the best summation I have seen on this blog. Both posts were excellent and you make excellent points I believe many on here believe what you have articulated but have failed to put together so well.

  86. on 03 Sep 2011 at 12:17 am 86.DPK said …

    85.Mitch said …

    “That is the best summation I have seen on this blog.”

    That speaks loudly to the prior testament that belief requires faith and not intelligence.

    D

  87. on 03 Sep 2011 at 1:37 am 87.MrQ said …

    40ya, #73

    material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine,

    Such a being is evidenced as being seen and conversed with, if only you would read a bible. I ask, did someone have a very personal relationship with god and he was asked to kill his son? Which he set out to do!!! Now who was that and where do we find that story? If you actually read a bible you’ll also see god interacting with many of his loyal subjects, or did Noah build his ark on a hunch?

    The being you speak of has completely vanished now that modern technology has erased much of the mystery of life and the universe. I wonder why.

    And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
    Prove that there is no God.

    Sorry, I can’t even disprove the existence of little pink unicorns, bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and multitudes of other fantasy beings. Why don’t you prove that your version of god is the one and only correct version. What makes the Muslims view wrong and you right? Maybe Antony Flew’s version is closer to the truth, but I don’t honestly know. I will anxiously await your reply.

  88. on 03 Sep 2011 at 6:22 am 88.Severin said …

    #73 40 YA
    “…one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, …“

    What/who is the god you believe in?
    You can not be a Christian, because Christian god does not fit your definition.
    Christian god did NOT use „outside space-time“ methods to create „universe“ („Universe“ = Earth in Bible) and to rule his „chosen people“.

    Why would an „otside of space/time/mass/energy god“ create a space/time/mass/energy depending universe?
    Couldn’t he create something closer to HIS atributes, if he wanted to play a „boss“, to rule it, to punish, to do experiments?
    A world of ghosts, souls, spirits? A world of information, a “cyber world“?

    An „oustide space-time and mass-energy god“ who creates a totally space/time/mass/energy depending universe?
    An „outside space-time and mass-energy god“ who uses DIRT as raw material to make a man, then BLOWS life into him through his NOSTRILS?
    A space-time-mass-energy independent god who takes man’s RIB to create a woman?
    A space-time-mass-energy god who uses WATER to kill his congregation, and sends FIRE and SULPHUR to Sodom and Gomorrah?
    What primitive, what unapproptiate means, unexpected from someone existing „out of space, time, mass and energy“!

    Very, very unconvincing. Totally illogical.

    You are obviously NOT a Christian.
    Christian god has nothing to do with god you described.
    Christian god was a primitive amateur compared to god YOU describe and believe in.

    I do NOT claim there is no god, I only don’t believe there is any.
    It is hard to believe that an immaterial, timeless god created so very MATERIAL universe!

    Why don’t you kindly enlighten us by telling us at which point YOU think YOUR god created this MATERIAL universe.
    Was it the BB?

  89. on 03 Sep 2011 at 7:26 am 89.Severin said …

    40 YA
    Do you recognize the BB as the “beginning” of our universe, no matter how was it caused and who/what caused it?
    We might not agree about its causes, but do you think the BB occured or not?
    It is very important for possible further discussion to know it!

    So, DO YOU?

  90. on 03 Sep 2011 at 12:45 pm 90.Anonymous said …

    I doubt he will answer you. In case you hadn’t noticed, the theists here almost NEVER answer direct questions. That is because they are not really interested in discovering the truth, or even in examining their own set of “beliefs”. They are only interested in playing word games to try and convince others that their particular delusion is the “right” one. That is the nature of religions… create a line of BS and then try to convince everyone that it is actually true. Nevermind anyone who points out any obvious, glaring errors… They just ignore those because they “know” they are right because of their holy book or personal relationship with the non-materal, outside of space-time, outside of matter-energy being they think is looking out for them.

  91. on 03 Sep 2011 at 1:29 pm 91.Lou said …

    90.Anonymous said …

    “They just ignore those because they “know” they are right because of their holy book or personal relationship with the non-materal, outside of space-time, outside of matter-energy being they think is looking out for them.”

    id est, deluded

    Oh, but wait! That simply can’t be! According to Biff, “would billions be delusional or would they know something atheist have not discovered?”

    Atheists know something that very few theists ever discover – that theism is incorrect.

    What guys like Biff never get is that religion is definitely part of our culture, possibly even part of our genetics. People are programmed to be religious. It’s not a choice for the billions of theists. The only choice is NOT to be one of those billions. That billions believe is stronger evidence that they are programmed than it is that they “know something atheist have not discovered,” because almost all atheists were programmed similarly. The atheists are those that discovered something that theists have not or possibly cannot discover. Atheists changed their program. Despite all the many “obvious, glaring errors” of their belief, it’s simply impossible for many theists to think otherwise. Their brains are hardwired to be religious.

  92. on 03 Sep 2011 at 2:52 pm 92.Observer said …

    40YA C’mon- I realize you cannot address anything about you silly superstitions, but the least you can do is try to squirm out of your ignorant reference to Karl Popper that I expose in post #71. How about a bit of weekend entertainment?

  93. on 03 Sep 2011 at 7:36 pm 93.Suh said …

    I think Lou is on to something. Atheist are missing some critical programming in their genetics. It doesn’t allow them to see what is evident to everyone else.

    That would explain it. How else can you explain the denial of what is so evident?

    For Observer Popper proposed that the truth content of theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. This is what 40YA essentially proposed. Would you be a glutton for being made to look foolish?

  94. on 03 Sep 2011 at 8:38 pm 94.DPK said …

    Yeah, that’s it… NOT believing in invisible people with magic powers is a genetic deficiency. Sure.

    If the existence of your silly god is so “evident” then why is it seemingly so impossible for you to demonstrate it to us. Should be easy… please provide proof of your god’s actual existence other than “you can’t prove it doesn’t exist” and we will believe you. Why is so hard for you guys to prove something you claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt? And Suh… would you care to clarify exactly WHICH of the dozens or hundreds of sundry gods we have available is so evident to YOU as being the right one? Because, no matter which one you choose, I’ll bet I can find several million people who will vehemently disagree with you…. You guys are so silly.

    the truth content of theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified.

    By this argument then, we should accept belief in Santa, elves, fairies, and unicorns then? You can’t falsify them. In fact, I am in possession of a book.. very old, that describes an actual eye witness account of an encounter with Santa Claus. It includes eye witness testimony of flying reindeer, Santa descending down a chimney, and bringing gifts in a large sack. It’s called “The Night Before Christmas”. It is even illustrated with artists renderings of the events that occurred. Undeniable proof that Santa Claus is real.

    Now, prove I’m wrong. I’ll make popcorn.

  95. on 03 Sep 2011 at 9:22 pm 95.Observer said …

    #93 Suh Read #94. Is one of the Great Southern xtian diploma mills turning out nonsense on Popper? Popper proposed that “the truth content of theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified”? If he did it was only to disprove it by counter-example. In fact, he is the guy that formalized the notion that you can only tell whether a theory holds, I suppose you and your ilk might call this contains truth (which is an asinine way to think about it) by scientific testing.

    Seriously, there is more than a whiff of low-church theology, a.k.a. rank bullshit, about your statement. Is this some crap from a diploma mill like Liberty or Wheaton? Is that Korean Presbyterianism?

    “Would you be a glutton for being made to look
    foolish?” seems to be a question more appropriately directed to you. You are the guy who sits down at the poker table, and I suspect life in general, and can’t figure out who is the patsy. But on the bright side you do make a contribution; you are a necessary part of our capitalist ecosystem.

  96. on 03 Sep 2011 at 9:37 pm 96.Lou said …

    93.Suh said …

    “I think Lou is on to something. Atheist are missing some critical programming in their genetics. It doesn’t allow them to see what is evident to everyone else.”

    Yet 40YA wrote “a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine.” But, according to you, it’s “evident to everyone else,” including people who fly airliners into buildings to explode themselves and others around them in the name of this “being.”

    “For Observer Popper proposed that the truth content of theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. This is what 40YA essentially proposed.”

    God is a theory?

  97. on 03 Sep 2011 at 9:44 pm 97.Suh said …

    “You are the guy who sits down at the poker table, and I suspect life in general, and can’t figure out who is the patsy.”

    I did well, patsy.

    Truth hurts? Its like backing a dog in to a corner and he comes out hurling spit and teeth.

    When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy. I can recommend a book if you have access to such materials?

  98. on 03 Sep 2011 at 10:48 pm 98.Anonymous said …

    While you and Observer are fighting it out over Popper, I’m waiting for you to disprove the existence of Santa Claus… or maybe you actual believe HE is real, as well? Why not, eh? One story is just as believable as the other….hahahaha.

  99. on 03 Sep 2011 at 11:43 pm 99.Observer said …

    #97 Suh. My, my, my. Aren’t you getting just a wee bit testy? How about backing up your assertion on Popper? Of course there is nothing to back up, but your earnest efforts, aside from copying something of dubious quality from Wikipedia, are welcome.

    And just in case you are Korean, go easy on the dog analogies. It makes me think of barbecue with way too much garlic.

  100. on 03 Sep 2011 at 11:43 pm 100.Lou said …

    97.Suh said …

    “When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy. I can recommend a book if you have access to such materials?”

    This is absolutely hilarious! This bozo Suh thinks atheism is “ideological BS.”

    Newsflash, Suh: atheism isn’t an ideology.

    Furthermore, atheism (which really isn’t an ism), in and of itself, doesn’t bring anything to the “table.” It simply says that theism doesn’t bring anything to the table. If you have anything about theism to bring to the “table,” then bring it. Otherwise, you’re just another bull-shitting theist who has nothing to offer except your belief in an imaginary god. You can’t even ante-up.

    And please spare us the juvenile, colorful euphemisms. It only serves to demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to offer.

  101. on 04 Sep 2011 at 1:11 am 101.Horatiio said …

    “And just in case you are Korean, go easy on the dog analogies.”

    You reside in a basement and eat dog food Nose Buster? What a mess! LOL!

    If Suh and/or 40 Year is wrong, why don’t you prove he is wrong Mr Wizard. This might be shocking, but because you say it doesn’t make it fact.

    Lou,

    You are so out of touch you couldn’t find your big behind with both hands. What are you talking about Homer?

  102. on 04 Sep 2011 at 2:22 am 102.40 year Atheist said …

    Theists, it is asserted, have the burden of proof. Burden of Proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate. That person makes the case for his point. Then the opposing side has the burden of rebuttal, being required to refute the case being presented using the same standards for acceptance and rejection as are used for the original case; then the rebuttor makes a counter case, the validity of which is, again, subject to the same standards for acceptance and rejection.

    Rather than dispute of terminology, why not just refute the simplest concept: one first cause (as defined in #60)? After refuting just one, then expand your effort to refuting “many” gods, if you wish. You seem to be dithering in oblique criticisms, but without making any refutations.

    Go ahead, make your refutation argument.

  103. on 04 Sep 2011 at 3:30 am 103.DPK said …

    You are the one making the assertion. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
    You are claiming to have knowledge of how your “first cause” occurred. We make no such claim. Atheist do not claim to know things that cannot be known. That is the turf of religions.
    We do not have to refute your claim that some non-material being that exists outside of space and time and outside of matter and energy created the universe and everything in it, because you have presented absolutely no evidence to support the claim that any such being even exists.
    Your only argument is that you can’t imagine anything else. Like the caveman marveling at the volcano…. show some evidence that your god exists… define his nature, and we will gladly refute.
    But you cannot refute nothing, which is all you have presented.

  104. on 04 Sep 2011 at 4:54 am 104.Severin said …

    97 Suh
    „When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy“
    .
    Case A
    A Muslim: Allah is the only god who created us all
    Christian: Can you prove it?
    A Muslim: When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy.

    Case B
    Christian: There is no Allah, Christian god is the only one that exists and rules the universe
    Muslim: Prove it
    Christian: When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy.

    Case C
    Christian and Muslim, in one voice: There is god
    Atheist: Could you kindly support your claim with some evidences
    Christian and Muslim: When you can accept truth that is contrary to your ideological BS, come back to the table patsy.

  105. on 04 Sep 2011 at 5:15 am 105.Severin said …

    102 40 YA
    “Burden of Proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate.“

    Hmmmm…WHEN the debate started?
    When a shaman of a stone age tribe proclaimed there were gods of evrything (hunt, darkness, rain, wood…), and a supreme god called ABC, and the shaman of neighbour tribe said: GO TO CORNER WITH YOUR IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHITS!
    OUR supreme god is the only one and his name is CBA.

    If there were any ayheists at that time (and I do not doubt there were very clever people there, who had initial traces of DOUBT in their minds), they could not join the „debate“.

    If they did, they would have been killed.

  106. on 04 Sep 2011 at 6:10 am 106.Severin said …

    Gentlemen theists,

    Debate started when first god was proclaimed to exist, probably some 150,000 years ago.

    The only “proofs” that “party” that “made assertion at the start of a debate” was willing to offer, were threats: if you don’t accept our claims, you will be decapitated, your heart will be pulled out, you will be burnt alive…
    They did not care much for “burden of proofs”.

    “Modern” religions accepted that approach: we claim there are gods. Moreover, we claim OUR gods are the only real ones. If you don’t accept it, you are dead.
    Stones, axes, knifes, ropes, fire, airplanes, bombs, were the ONLY “proofs” they offered to support their claims, ever.
    Why, the hell, should they fuck with “burden of proof”, when they could just kill people they opposed them.

    Times came (not everywhere, unfortunately), in which people are free to pose questions without fear of being stoned, decapitated or burnt.

    Theists are not ready to answer questions. They still have 150,000 old “felling” that they MUST be right, and that burden of proofs is on opposite party.

    No, it is NOT!
    If you claim something, you prove it.
    I don’t claim anything, I only doubt you are right.

  107. on 04 Sep 2011 at 6:23 am 107.Severin said …

    Now, please, prove us there is/are god(s).

  108. on 04 Sep 2011 at 2:26 pm 108.Observer said …

    #102 40YA This is truly pathetic. The stench of Falwell follows you. Why the debate team play acting? C’mon, set us straight on Popper. And please drop your idiotic practice of using words and phrases that come from science without the meaning. Precision is one of the great strengths of the English language when used properly. Let’s try to do the same here.

  109. on 04 Sep 2011 at 5:28 pm 109.DPK said …

    After an extensive web search, I managed to find a picture of 40 year doing his “I can’t hear you, na, na, na…. routine. You could also title it.. “go ahead, prove my god doesn’t exist… he’s outside of space-time-matter-energy….”
    http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1207409/36737c686c64bf3780c9a264bb49e8a0_rectangle_xlarge.jpg?0cba521e

  110. on 04 Sep 2011 at 8:01 pm 110.Horatiio said …

    40YA

    I love it! You have Nose Buster peeing on himself with contempt that he cannot begin to debunk your case for Popper. He does have an unhealthy obsession with Popper and eating dog food but to each his own.

    I delight when the atheist makes no claim for origins. If they have no claim then they have nothing to debate and consequently no case.

    We know that is not the case since many have alleged aliens, parallel universes, infinite existence and such. So why are they not attacking these proposals and those who support them since they are “neutral”. LOL!!

    Now that is funny, I don’t care who you are. neutral!

  111. on 04 Sep 2011 at 11:28 pm 111.Lou said …

    110.Horatiio said …

    “He does have an unhealthy obsession with Popper and eating dog food but to each his own.”

    Right, like your unhealthy obsession, not to mention your fascination with excretory functions, with “Nose Buster.” If his few references to Popper is an unhealthy obsession, then yours is a full-blown case of OCD.

  112. on 05 Sep 2011 at 1:17 am 112.Xenon said …

    “So why are they not attacking these proposals and those who support them since they are “neutral”.”

    They don’t attack these theories because they support them. I suppose alien invasion, theorized by many scientist, is more palatable than an all powerful deity.

    Aliens are a religion to some so can this be taught in the schools?

  113. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:47 am 113.Lou said …

    110.Horatiio said …

    “I delight when the atheist makes no claim for origins. If they have no claim then they have nothing to debate and consequently no case.

    We know that is not the case since many have alleged aliens, parallel universes, infinite existence and such. So why are they not attacking these proposals and those who support them since they are “neutral”. LOL!!”

    If you could write coherently, then perhaps we could more clearly understand what it is you are ranting about.

    Try to get this through your thick skull – atheism, the disbelief in theism, doesn’t theorize about origins any more than does aleprechaunism theorize about Quantum Mechanics. But, an atheist can theorize about “aliens(?), parallel universes, infinite existence and such” because they are a scientist, for example, not because they are an atheist (or a theist).

  114. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:50 am 114.Lou said …

    112.Xenon said …

    “I suppose alien invasion, theorized by many scientist, is more palatable than an all powerful deity.”

    Really? Which “many scientist” theorize “alien invasion?

    “Aliens are a religion to some…”

    Aliens are not a religion.

    “…so can this be taught in the schools?”

    Are you drinking heavily when you write this nonsense?

  115. on 05 Sep 2011 at 3:44 am 115.Observer said …

    110 Hor How is it that 40YA has me on the ropes or whatever on Popper? I gave an actual citation to a lecture he gave and was published where what he says specifically refutes the nonsense of 40YA. For your info Hor, that is how us “edumucated” folks do it. Citations. Got it?

    Back to more fruitful endeavors…

  116. on 05 Sep 2011 at 12:13 pm 116.Lou said …

    101.Horatiio said …

    “Lou,

    You are so out of touch you couldn’t find your big behind with both hands.”

    Says the guy who with “both hands” can’t find any evidence for his imaginary god. So ironic.

  117. on 05 Sep 2011 at 12:34 pm 117.A said …

    Lou edumucate yourself.

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

    http://collidinguniverses.blogspot.com/2008/12/origin-of-life-alien-origin-taken.html

  118. on 05 Sep 2011 at 12:42 pm 118.A said …

    Here is one for the blow hard Observer.

    “A well-known critic of logical positivism was Karl Popper, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934 (translated by himself as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, published 1959). In it he argued that the positivists’ criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an inductive inference, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not satisfy the verification criterion.”

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

  119. on 05 Sep 2011 at 1:54 pm 119.Severin said …

    110 Horatio
    “I delight when the atheist makes no claim for origins.”

    You are lying again.
    I made claims for origins many times here.

    My theory was that matter/energy was not “created”, but existed and changed its form according to its inherent intelligence, which are “built-in” natural laws.
    Matter/energy “originated” from itself (I did NOT say they were “made”, “crated”, “synthesized”, “done”, or whatever).

    Some other atheists here, in their posts, confirmed many times they had similar opinions.

    As for life, as I told it many times here, I accept abiogenesis, and many other atheists confirmed they did, too.
    Didn’t I explained to you ignorants many times that “chance” has nothing to do with chemistry?
    Put Na and Cl together and pray your god not to get salt from it!

    You can’t live withou tlies, can you?

  120. on 05 Sep 2011 at 2:54 pm 120.Observer said …

    #118 Are you really this dense? You make the argument for atheism. You morons are arguing from a positivist perspective always. You are too stupid to even understand what you are reading. Now I am laughing out loud. Your idiocy is beyond belief.

    Falsifiablity? Hmmm.

    Hypothesis: Prayer to God heals.
    Experimental results: Prayer has no effect.
    !Hypothesis rejected

    While someone of your obvious deficiencies should be complimented for being able to query Wikipedia, then to cut and paste like the other theist genius kingdomcometower(whatever), you might try wading through Popper’s book “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge” with a dictionary and some references to Western Philosophy.

    Thanks for making my day.

  121. on 05 Sep 2011 at 3:04 pm 121.Observer said …

    #117 Wow! Collidinguniverses blog? You are really pulling out the big guns! That is really definitive.

  122. on 05 Sep 2011 at 3:41 pm 122.Lou (DFW) said …

    117.A said …

    “Lou edumucate yourself.

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

    As I said, “Aliens” are not a religion. Aliens, in the context of this discussion, are extraterrestrials, not a religion. And it’s unfortunate that the word religion has been perverted to describe every crackpot belief such as so-called “UFO religion.”

    http://collidinguniverses.blogspot.com/2008/12/origin-of-life-alien-origin-taken.html

    Exogenesis – “alien invasion?”

    And just how “many scientists” support this theory? But, it really doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to the theists claim for divine creation, for which there is no evidence.

    A – rather than wasting your time defending and supporting the dummies who spout such nonsense here, EDUCATE YOURSELF by spending some time reading about real science.

  123. on 05 Sep 2011 at 7:31 pm 123.Horatiio said …

    Severin,

    Let us put your statement to the test.

    “My theory was that matter/energy was not “created”, but existed and changed its form according to its inherent intelligence”
    “I accept abiogenesis”

    How many atheist believe this is the case? To follow what 40YA proposed, be prepared to use the standards of proof you require of theist to back up the Severin theory.
    Unless you can do so I will need to pull out Lou’s classic argument. No! Then I will need to deride your sill faith.

    LOL!, I’m still laughing over matter and energy having “intelligence”. Classic!

    Nose Buster!,

    What are you whining about now? Someone popped you Popper claim?

  124. on 05 Sep 2011 at 8:54 pm 124.Observer said …

    #123 Hor- Delighted as always. “Someone popped you Popper claim?” It does seem to be a bit beyond you, but try reading the previous posts, and then something that is coincident with the Enlightenment- there is around 300 years (and counting) of material to choose from. Of course, that would require a bit of discrimination on your part to select your reading material, so nothing will come of that.

    As for your characteristically inane comments about Severin’s use of “inherent intelligence”, that is called METAPHOR. Don’t feel too bad, understanding metaphor requires a modicum of the intellectual ability to perform abstract thought. I am sure he regrets raising the level of discussion above the early elementary school level and confusing you. We are with varying tactics, trying to improve our fellow man- you included.

  125. on 05 Sep 2011 at 11:00 pm 125.Xenon said …

    “My theory was that matter/energy was not “created”, but existed and changed its form according to its inherent intelligence”
    “I accept abiogenesis”

    Every bit of his theory requires faith. He has found his religion. Especially this intelligent matter & energy. Where did the intelligence come from Sev?

    Abiogenesis is ALL faith.

  126. on 06 Sep 2011 at 12:33 am 126.Observer said …

    #125 Inert Windbag Read the last paragraph of 124, this seems to apply to you too.

  127. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:07 am 127.Lou (DFW) said …

    123.Horatiio said …

    “LOL!, I’m still laughing over matter and energy having “intelligence”. Classic!”

    And we’re all laughing at you for being a pathological liar. What Sev wrote and meant, and anyone can go back and read it, was:

    “matter/energy…changes its form according to its own “inherent intelligence” (natural laws)…”

    Obviously he was referring to the laws of nature. Too bad that you don’t have any intelligence.

  128. on 06 Sep 2011 at 2:16 am 128.Lou (DFW) said …

    125.Xenon said …

    “Every bit of his theory requires faith.”

    Of course it doesn’t. Once again, Non follows Hor’s lead to demonstrate his ignorance. One thing that doesn’t require faith is that you will predictably, reliably, and repeatably demonstrate how stupid you are.

    “He has found his religion. Especially this intelligent matter & energy. Where did the intelligence come from Sev?”

    Where did your ignorance come from? Were you born that way or did you suffer a serious head injury? Just like the Laws of Nature never fail, neither does your ability to demonstrate an unfailing ability to display your ignorance.

  129. on 06 Sep 2011 at 4:29 am 129.Severin said …

    123 Horatio
    “Let us put your statement to the test.“

    Let us test both matter/energy AND god in one single simple test:
    Put a glass of water in a freezer and pray god to keep it liquid.
    Organize millions to pray, if you wish.

    Then you will see what is more „intelligent“ and more „mighty“.

    Water will „win“ your idiot god, and it will win EACH SINGLE TIME YOU REPEAT THE TEST, from now to eternity.

    Maybe it would help if Muslims would be included in prayers? Maybe Allah would help?!
    No, it would not.

  130. on 06 Sep 2011 at 4:59 am 130.Severin said …

    125 Xenon
    “Abiogenesis is ALL faith.“

    You would like it, wouldn’t you?

    O.K., I gave some arguments for my claim: time frame, laws of chemistry, fact that simple organic molecules ARE possible to get from simple inorganic ones, fact that complex moleculs ARE made of smaller ones, etc, but I maybe was wrong.

    Your turn now:
    WHEN (6000 years ago,…?)
    HOW (using dirt as raw material, blowing life into man made of dirt through his nostrils…)
    Sorry, I do not buy THAT.

    If you want me to incline to your explanation, then EXPLAIN.
    How can you expect anyone to follow you, if you do not say anything but „goddidit“, giving no details at all?

    More details, please!

  131. on 06 Sep 2011 at 5:08 pm 131.Lou (DFW) said …

    73.40 year Atheist said …

    “… a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.”

    This comment reminds me of something Apollo astronaut Alan Bean said about seeing god when he went to the moon. He said that people used to think gods lived on Mt. Olympus. When it was learned they didn’t live there, then people thought god lived in the clouds. After man flew above the clouds and didn’t find god, then people thought god must live in the stars. But once man went to the moon and explored the solar system with robotic probes, god wasn’t found there either. Now we have people like 40YA making a better excuse for why god can’t be found.

    Is Bean an atheist? I don’t know. But he makes a good point about how people continue to move and redefine god when god doesn’t exist as previously thought.

  132. on 06 Sep 2011 at 7:25 pm 132.Horatiio said …

    in·tel·li·genceNoun/in?telij?ns/
    1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
    2. The collection of information of military or political value: “military intelligence”.

    Sevy

    Could you explain how matter/energy meet the definitions above? LOL!!

    I know, go to the “English is not my first language excuse”. If you plan on posting be willing to learn English.

  133. on 06 Sep 2011 at 7:36 pm 133.Lou (DFW) said …

    132.Horatiio said …

    “Could you explain how matter/energy meet the definitions above? LOL!!”

    Could you explain why you continue to post idiotic comments when it was twice explained to you that when he wrote “inherent intelligence” (natural laws) that he referred to the laws of nature?

    “I know, go to the “English is not my first language excuse”. If you plan on posting be willing to learn English.”

    If English is your “first language,” then what’s your excuse for not knowing that in the context of their usage, those quotation marks indicated words used in a special sense? In case you STILL don’t get it, the quotation marks indicate a figure of speech or an expression, not the literal meaning of “inherent intelligence.”

    Unfortunately for you, you obviously don’t have:

    The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    Now, please prevent your evidence for god.

  134. on 06 Sep 2011 at 8:34 pm 134.Severin said …

    132 Horatio
    “How to define intelligence is controversial.
    Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving.”

    “Definition: Intelligence
    There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are experts who study it. Simply put, however, intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with one’s environment. This general ability consists of a number of specific abilities, which include these specific abilities:
    • Adaptability to a new environment or to changes in the current environment
    • Capacity for knowledge and the ability to acquire it
    • Capacity for reason and abstract thought
    • Ability to comprehend relationships
    • Ability to evaluate and judge
    • Capacity for original and productive thought

    My own definition of intelligence would include simply: know how.

    Matter/energy KNOWS how, and know it ALWAYS, no matter what your stupid god wants or does.

    Water “knows” it “must” freeze when temperature drops under certain limit.
    An atom/electron/redical exactly “know” what to do in certain enviroment and under certain conditions, and does it ALWAYS when put in such conditions.

    Whatever you say, it IS a sort of inherent ontelligence.

    You might also be inetrested in this:
    http://www.dtowers.blogspot.com/ :

    “The apostle Orson Pratt, presented that matter had intelligence. And that it was made up of particles. Each having intelligence. That it could collect itself into smaller groups of intelligences, or go into large groups. That it had 3 dimensions. These particles are extremely small. Far smaller than anything we are capable of seeing with microscopes. He also presented that intelligences have power within themselves.”

    LOL!

  135. on 06 Sep 2011 at 8:54 pm 135.Severin said …

    Dr. Roger D. Blomquist:
    „Intelligence is a fundamental and primordial ingredient of the universe and exists as a part of its basic fabric.“

  136. on 06 Sep 2011 at 9:23 pm 136.Lou (DFW) said …

    132.Horatiio said …

    “I know, go to the “English is not my first language excuse”. If you plan on posting be willing to learn English.”

    Let’s test your English skills, “Einstein.”

    What’s the significance of the quotation marks around the word Einstein?

  137. on 06 Sep 2011 at 10:19 pm 137.Ben said …

    What Severin is trying to say is that everything is programmed to function as it was meant to function. Of course this logically leads to the ultimate programmer (God) but Severin I’m sure believes the program just exists from luck/chance/who knows. Therein this is where the logic fails.

    Roger Bloomquist is an MD. Why is he quoted?

    Each of a set of punctuation marks, single (‘ ’) or double (“ ”), used either to mark the beginning and end of a title or quoted passage or to indicate that a word or phrase is slang or is being discuss rather than used within the sentence.

  138. on 07 Sep 2011 at 1:26 am 138.Observer said …

    #137 Ben “Of course this logically leads to the ultimate programmer (God) but Severin I’m sure believes the program just exists from luck/chance/who knows. ”

    Finally you acknowledge “God” is merely the god-of-the-gaps! We are making some headway. You now see clearly that this “God” is diminished with the growth of every bit of scientific knowledge. That is the spirit!

  139. on 07 Sep 2011 at 2:45 am 139.Lou (DFW) said …

    137.Ben said …

    “What Severin is trying to say is that everything is programmed to function as it was meant to function.”

    Except that he didn’t say that. He didn’t mention that “everything is programmed.” You lied.

    He clearly wrote otherwise that “it (matter/energy) is eternal, has no “source” or “cause”, it “just exists”, and changes its form according to its own “inherent intelligence” (natural laws).”

    Therefore, it’s untrue that “Of course this logically leads to the ultimate programmer (God).”

  140. on 07 Sep 2011 at 3:22 am 140.Burebista said …

    “He clearly wrote otherwise that “it (matter/energy) is eternal, has no “source” or “cause”, it “just exists”, and changes its form according to its own “inherent intelligence”

    Where is the proof matter/energy is eternal and where did this intelligence come from? Got to prove it, just can’t make a claim.

    Oh, can you prove things just exist with no cause? This is not logical since everything we experience has a cause.

    I believe Severin and Lou must be related by location or the same person since Lou likes to speak for him

    Observer,

    Where does Ben claim it is only God of the gaps? Don’t see it.

  141. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:21 am 141.Skip said …

    people who believe in a god are delusional plan and simple. Religious people read some books besides your dumb bible!

  142. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:23 am 142.Thor said …

    I believe anything that is in the bible that is good enough for me. Why read anything else that would just confuse me

  143. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:42 am 143.Severin said …

    104 Burebista
    “Where is the proof matter/energy is eternal…“

    Now, THAT is impudance!
    They are trumpeting that god exist without giving any proofs ever, then demand proofs from other people for averything other people say.
    WHY am I obligate to give proofs and you are excluded from this obligation?

    But they never really read what other people write.
    I have no other proof but logic based on YOUR postulates, that were:

    a) “God exists”
    b) “God created universe (matter/energy)”
    c) “Averything that exists needs a creator”
    Are these your postulates?

    Then there comes my logical analysis:
    Matter energy exists.
    If it exists, and if statement that everything that exists needs a creator is true, then matter/energy must have been created.
    If b) is true,god created matter/energy.
    If a) is true, god exists.
    But, if he exists, and everything that exists needs a creator (c) is true), then god must have been created too. Tertium non datur!
    If was NOT created, he can NOT exist (“Everything that exists needs a creator”, tertium non datur!)
    If he doesn’t exist, he could NOT create matter/energy.
    BUT matter/energy DOES exist.
    Oviously, if we don’t want to ruin logic, and claim whatever bullshits we want, it (matter/energy) exists WITHOUT being created.

    In that case, “Everything that exists needs a creator” is a false statement.
    or
    If it is not a false statement, god must have been created.
    In that case please elaborate: who/what created god?

  144. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:47 am 144.Severin said …

    140 Burebista
    “…where did this intelligence come from?“

    From exactly the same place your god comes from!

    My post #143 refers to #140, not to #104.

  145. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:50 am 145.Severin said …

    140 Burebista

    “Got to prove it, just can’t make a claim.”

    Ha, ha, ha, ha…
    Who says it!?
    We are still waiting for your (or abyone’s) proofs that god exists!

  146. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:52 am 146.Severin said …

    137 ben
    “Roger Bloomquist is an MD. Why is he quoted?”

    Jesus was a fisherman. Why is he quoted?

  147. on 07 Sep 2011 at 11:44 am 147.Horatiio said …

    Jesus was a fisherman. Why is he quoted?”

    Um, he was a carpenter and the Son of God, not a fisherman. Wow!!

    Sev all that typing and not one logical answer. You guys are the naturalist, everything is suppose to have a naturalistic explanation and then you provide zero.
    ________________________________

    “But, if he exists, and everything that exists needs a creator (c) is true), then god must have been created too.”

    Would you be claiming matter and energy are deities? Would that make me a deity Sev in your eyes?

    You tried Bure. These guys claim everything is logic and based in naturalism but they can prove nothing. And as much as they holler for proof!

  148. on 07 Sep 2011 at 12:57 pm 148.Lou (DFW) said …

    140.Burebista said …

    “I believe Severin and Lou must be related by location or the same person since Lou likes to speak for him”

    And you also believe in an imaginary god.

    The point isn’t that I speak for him, but regardless of whether or not he is right or wrong, what Ben wrote about what Sev wrote was a lie. That’s a common tactic of theists who can’t provide any evidence for their imaginary god.

  149. on 07 Sep 2011 at 1:56 pm 149.Lou (DFW) said …

    147.Horatiio said …

    “Um, he was a carpenter and the Son of God, not a fisherman. Wow!!”

    WOW!! indeed. Jesus was neither.

  150. on 07 Sep 2011 at 1:57 pm 150.Lou (DFW) said …

    147.Horatiio said …

    “Would you be claiming matter and energy are deities?”

    He claimed no such thing.

    “Would that make me a deity Sev in your eyes?”

    It makes you a liar in my eyes.

  151. on 07 Sep 2011 at 3:56 pm 151.Severin said …

    147 Horatio
    “Um, he was a carpenter and the Son of God, not a fisherman. Wow!!”

    Paraphrasing 140 Burebista:
    Where is the proof Jesus was the son of god?

    (140 Burebista: “Where is the proof matter/energy is eternal and where did this intelligence come from?)

  152. on 07 Sep 2011 at 4:15 pm 152.Severin said …

    Horatio, Burebista,

    As many times before, you people are desperate.
    You don’t know what to say, and instead to go to some mouse hole and keep your mouth shut, you bable bullshits.
    Logic is clear, and you can formally prove it by a professional philosopher specialized in logic, or by a matematician specialized in math logic:

    Your set of stetments:
    a) God exists
    b) God created universe
    c) Everything that exists needs a creator
    represent a CONTRADICTION, therefore it can NOT be true.
    Either god exists, AND had to be created, OR, if he was not created, he can NOT exists.

    It clearly rsults from YOUR statements.
    YOU proved something we atheists were not able to prove: god CAN NOT exist!

    Thank you!

  153. on 07 Sep 2011 at 4:18 pm 153.Severin said …

    Horatio, Burebista,

    “We say that a statement, or set of statements is logically consistent when it involves no logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and it’s denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial can not both be true at the same time. Here are some simple examples of contradictions…”

    See more in http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/Handouts/phl4contradiction.htm , or in any book about logic.

    Thank you, gentlemen, once again!

  154. on 07 Sep 2011 at 4:44 pm 154.Observer said …

    #153 Severin Sadly you may have opened a can of worms here. From your link we have

    1. Some dogs have fleas.
    2. Therefore I want a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.

    as an example of logical consistency, but there is no necessity and sufficiency for deduction aims here. ( If A, then B, and if B, then A. or A B )

    So, at the intellectual level these folks operate, it is little wonder something like this would occur so frequently:

    1. The world is a scary place, and I am unsure about what is going to happen next.

    2. Therefore I want to believe the story of a wish-fulfilling Jewish Zombie who will take care of me.

  155. on 07 Sep 2011 at 5:24 pm 155.Lou (DFW) said …

    151.Severin said …

    “Where is the proof Jesus was the son of god?”

    We know the answer to that, there is none.

    But where’s the evidence that he was a carpenter? Better still, why would the son of a god, an omnipotent, divine creator being that exists beyond space-time, yada, yada, yada, be a carpenter?

  156. on 07 Sep 2011 at 6:42 pm 156.Horatiio said …

    Sev

    What are you talking about??

    Would you be claiming energy/matter is the null of God?

    Can you prove anything you claimed? Let us just start there little buddy

  157. on 07 Sep 2011 at 9:13 pm 157.Lou (DFW) said …

    156.Horatiio said …

    “Can you prove anything you claimed? Let us just start there little buddy”

    “Skipper,”

    You’re in no position to ask anybody to prove anything. You were asked over and over and over to provide evidence for your imaginary god, but you NEVER have. So let’s start there, then we will get to any other claims. Otherwise, go back to your hut and play with your straw and coconuts Ginger doll.

    If you think your condescending attitude scores points with anybody here other than one of your other “monikers,” then you are sadly mistaken – just as you are about everything else.

  158. on 07 Sep 2011 at 9:24 pm 158.Biff said …

    Hor,

    I have asked this site to prove their insistence there is no God many times but all I get is the godisimiginary fallacies website. Full of fallacies and illogical conclusions.

    They make this claim that God is imaginary with zero proof to back it.

    They claim since Zeus is not real God is not real. An obvious fallacy.

    God doesn’t answer their prayer as they desire, therefore God is not real.

    Lastly, God didn’t heal an amputee therefore God does not exist.

    It goes on and on but in the end they never provide anything to substantiate this site. On the bright side, it is fun to poke fun at it.

  159. on 07 Sep 2011 at 10:25 pm 159.Lou (DFW) said …

    158.Biff said …

    “I have asked this site to prove their insistence there is no God many times but all I get is the godisimiginary fallacies website.”

    Let’s assume your god is real. Answer this, why is your god a malevolent, maniacal, evil, sadistic, jealous being who tortures, maims, disfigures, and murders his innocent, living, feeling creatures (or allows it), even those who worship him and pray to him to help them when those things happen to them?

    Your god is either as described above or he doesn’t exist. Which is it?

    “It goes on and on but in the end they never provide anything to substantiate this site.”

    If nothing else does, your existence does.

    “On the bright side, it is fun to poke fun at it.”

    The next time you see an amputee, why don’t you ask him why he thinks god allowed him to become an amputee. Then ask him to pray with you to your god to re-grow his limb. When it doesn’t happen, and I guarantee that it won’t, ask him why he thinks why god will allow a lowly lizard to re-grow a limb, but not him, a human? If his reply is that he doesn’t believe in god, poke some fun about it, OK?

  160. on 07 Sep 2011 at 10:57 pm 160.Observer said …

    #158 Biff you little (insert insult of choice here). You morons exhibit the very thing pointed out in 154 above in reference to Sev’s link.

  161. on 07 Sep 2011 at 10:59 pm 161.Observer said …

    #156 Hor- Trying to branch out and use more words you don’t understand? “Would you be claiming energy/matter is the null of God?” You are an idiot, but a funny one.

  162. on 08 Sep 2011 at 4:47 am 162.Severin said …

    156 Horatio
    “What are you talking about??
    Would you be claiming energy/matter is the null of God?”

    Nope.
    I only showed that YOU, making contradictory assertions, actually proved god = null (empty set), OR he/it MUST have been created.

    It was YOU who SAID that, I only accented it.
    Don’t you blame me for your null logic, please!

    I will instantly withdraw everything I said if you withdraw/denay your assertions, that were:
    - God exists
    - God created universe
    - Everything that exists needs a creator

    Will you?

  163. on 08 Sep 2011 at 5:00 am 163.Severin said …

    158 Biff
    “I have asked this site to prove their insistence there is no God many times but all I get is the godisimiginary fallacies website.”

    And we ask you to prove there is a god.

  164. on 08 Sep 2011 at 5:12 am 164.Severin said …

    159 Lou (DFW)
    “Then ask him to pray with you to your god to re-grow his limb.”

    Something is VERY interesting:
    Have you ever heard religious people tell amputees to pray for their limbs?
    A theist will instantly tell someone having cancer to pray god to be cured, but NO theist will ever tell an amputee to pray god to give him a new limb!

    WHY is it so?
    Is it because deep in their minds they do NOT believe bullshits they spread around?

    Gentlemen theists, if I was religious, I would have had much more confidence in my god!

  165. on 08 Sep 2011 at 11:57 am 165.Lou (DFW) said …

    164.Severin said …

    “WHY is it so?
    Is it because deep in their minds they do NOT believe bullshits they spread around?”

    But, you can bet your ass that when scientists invent a way to regenerate limbs that some moron like Biff will be attributing it to god.

  166. on 08 Sep 2011 at 12:59 pm 166.Lou (DFW) said …

    164.Severin said …

    “Gentlemen theists, if I was religious, I would have had much more confidence in my god!”

    In the NE US people are praying for the rain to stop and for the floods to recede. In Texas people have been praying for months for rain to end the severe drought while wildfires have burned down more than 1,500 buildings, including homes.

    Some god. Not only is he not a very intelligent designer, but he’s also cruel and unsympathetic towards his creatures.

  167. on 08 Sep 2011 at 7:04 pm 167.Xenon said …

    Lou,

    Your answer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycsaZzxWpTU

    Biff,

    I can sympathize. I would think WWGHA would have some kind of proof, evidence, anything to be so insistent they are right.

    Hor,

    How you follow the Sev logic (not) is beyond me. I chalk it up to his language barrier.

  168. on 08 Sep 2011 at 8:04 pm 168.Severin said …

    167 Xenon
    “Hor,
    How you follow the Sev logic (not) is beyond me.”
    All logic is beyond you.

    I tested yesterday a 13 year young lady, my friend’s daughter, telling her to comment 3 statements of yours:
    - God exists
    - God created univese
    - Everything that exists must have been created
    Young lady immediatelly (without a second delaying) asked me: who then created god? I said no one, why are you asking, and she said: but you said everything that exists needs a creator, so either god does not exist, or somebody created him.

    As expected, a 13 years old young lady is far beyond your level. You are probably somewhere about 4 or less.

  169. on 08 Sep 2011 at 8:09 pm 169.Lou (DFW) said …

    167.Xenon said …

    “Lou,

    Your answer.”

    Are you referring to 159.Lou (DFW)?

    What question did I ask that was answered in that video?

    Regardless, Todd Waites said in the video that god did it (amputated his arm) for him. That is a textbook case of delusion and rationalization. Why didn’t god simply cure his cancer? Yes, thank you Jesus for cutting off my arm so I can do something so totally meaningless as play the keyboard! WOW! Who needs a god like that?!

  170. on 08 Sep 2011 at 8:10 pm 170.Lou (DFW) said …

    167.Xenon said …

    “How you follow the Sev logic (not) is beyond me. I chalk it up to his language barrier.”

    How you can’t follow it is beyond me. I “chalk it up” to your ignorance.

  171. on 08 Sep 2011 at 9:08 pm 171.Horatiio said …

    I tested a 13 year old just last night. I presented these 3 statements

    1. Paintings have a painting
    2. Building have a builder
    4. Creation does not have a creator

    She turned her little head and said sweetly but that makes no sense. We had to have a creator if there is a creation.

    Ah, you got to love the bright young mind.

  172. on 08 Sep 2011 at 9:40 pm 172.Severin said …

    171 Horatio

    You ARE desperate, if you pull that shubby (idiotic) cliche out from garbage baskets again!

    “Nicely said”, said my young lady friend, “but how do I know something I see is a creation?”.

    HOW can we recognize “creation”, Horatio, when we see one?
    Describe “creation”! Give it atributes! Give us criteria to recognize it! Maybe examples?

    Help my young friend, Horatio, don’t you be selfish.

    Oops, you can’t!
    She is much older than you.

  173. on 08 Sep 2011 at 10:06 pm 173.MrQ said …

    Hor, #171

    We had to have a creator if there is a creation. Ah, you got to love the bright young mind.

    Did the conversation get to a point where you convinced her that there was a Jewish representative of god’s who was fastened to a stick, killed, and then became a zombie who people pray to for guidance?…Or did you ask her to look up Antony Flew’s version of creation events?

  174. on 08 Sep 2011 at 10:28 pm 174.Lou (DFW) said …

    171.Horatiio said …

    “1. Paintings have a painting
    2. Building have a builder
    4. Creation does not have a creator”

    You always avoid the fallacy of your example.

    1. We know for fact who painted a painting.
    2. We know for a fact who built a building.
    3 (not 4.). We don’t know anything about, nor is there any evidence for, a creator for what you call “creation.”

    And any intelligent 13 year old would have asked – then who or what created the creator?

  175. on 08 Sep 2011 at 10:36 pm 175.Severin said …

    Horatio,

    Don’t you think, please, that I have anything against you personally, if my questions are too complex for you.

    I will try it the easier way:
    I fully and totally agree that painting have a painter, a building have a builder and a creation have a creator.
    My problem, and I am pretty sure that that will be a general problem, not only mine, is that I do recognize paintings, and I do recognize buildings, I know what paintings and buildings are (and when I see them, I can imagine they had their peinters and their builders), but I can NOT recognize a “creation”. I do NOT know what a “creation” is. Sorry!

    When you enlighten me about how to recognize a creation, I will instantly consider possibility that there is a creator too.

  176. on 08 Sep 2011 at 10:54 pm 176.Observer said …

    #171 It really creeps me out your are allowed to work with children. All jokes aside, you should have the decency to not do that. Resign. Do something good don’t pervert children.

    Call your buddy at

    http://www.fixedearth.com/

    This is your metier.

  177. on 08 Sep 2011 at 11:42 pm 177.40 year Atheist said …

    The dogma of Evolution and origins is taken on 100% faith. Faith that there is no other possible position; faith that science will find all the answers; faith in the connections drawn between supposed genetic ancestors; faith in the supremacy of the mind of man.

    The Faith Statement could be as follows:

    · Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.

    · Faith that the appearances of design are false.

    · Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.

    · Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.

    · Faith that a multiverse that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).

    · Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine).

    · Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.

    · Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.

    · Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).

    · Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.

    · Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth.

    · Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.

  178. on 08 Sep 2011 at 11:55 pm 178.Horatiio said …

    Lou,

    Who built the Knap of Howar? Provide the same evidence you require for God. Thanks slick!
    When you complete that task, prove Socrates existed with same level of evidence.

    Nose Buster,

    You just creep me out! I would hate to be some southern poor black man and run across you in a dark ally.

    Sev,

    You can’t recognize creation? Well, maybe back to a 5th grade physical science class might help would help.

    40YA,

    I din’t see a single point I would disagree with. The atheist here will have a stroke with you F bomb. LOL!!

  179. on 09 Sep 2011 at 1:28 am 179.MrQ said …

    @40YA,
    Gotta ask…How old is our Earth? Do you agree with Hor (guy posting #178) the it is 4.6 billion years old?
    Are you one of those folks who believes in the Noah’s Ark story?

    Lastly, do you know, or have you ever met anyone else who posts on this website? Such as Horatiio, Xenon, Ben, Biff…..and/or many others? It is a certainty that many of them are “friends” or have contact with each other.

  180. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:21 am 180.Lou (DFW) said …

    178.Horatiio said …

    “Who built the Knap of Howar? Provide the same evidence you require for God. Thanks slick!”

    Hor, you’re such an idiot. Your analogy is bad. The Knap of Howar is there in plain sight for everyone to see. There is no question about it. But, where is your god?

    As for Socrates, I’m not making any assertion that he existed, so I’m not obligated to provide any evidence that he existed. But you are asserting that god exists, so provide evidence for him. IT’S THAT SIMPLE! If I was on the the whydoesntsocaratesexist blog claiming all sorts of things about Socrates as you do for your imaginary god, then I would have evidence to support my claim. Why don’t you have any evidence for your claim? Hint: because there isn’t any.

  181. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:23 am 181.Lou (DFW) said …

    178.Horatiio said …

    “You can’t recognize creation? Well, maybe back to a 5th grade physical science class might help would help.”

    Why can’t you define “creation” rather than deflect the fact that you can’t by asking stupid questions of Sev?

  182. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:30 am 182.Lou (DFW) said …

    177.40 year Atheist said …

    “The dogma of Evolution and origins is taken on 100% faith.”

    Just as is the “dogma” of gravity?

    “The Faith Statement could be as follows:”

    Or it could be any other thing that you want it to be, except that it isn’t. You’re simply writing a bunch of inane crap that is 100% meaningless. What you wrote has no more relevance than me writing any nonsense that I care to invent.

  183. on 09 Sep 2011 at 3:12 am 183.Observer said …

    #177 40YA So you disappeared when I called bullshit on your misrepresentation of Popper. Now you come back with the twaddle above. You should check out the earth is not moving nonsense I left a link for above.

    I do feel bad for you that you work so hard to create this veneer of legitimacy by composing a weak facsimile of something Berlinski might wright. Why don’t you instead try to learn something? Your mind is so closed. Come on! It is 2011 not 411.

  184. on 09 Sep 2011 at 3:13 am 184.Observer said …

    #177 40YA So you disappeared when I called bullshit on your misrepresentation of Popper. Now you come back with the twaddle above. You should check out the earth is not moving nonsense I left a link for above.

    I do feel bad for you that you work so hard to create this veneer of legitimacy by composing a weak facsimile of something Berlinski might right. Why don’t you instead try to learn something? Your mind is so closed. Come on! It is 2011 not 411.

  185. on 09 Sep 2011 at 6:02 am 185.Severin said …

    181 Lou (DFW)
    Thank you Lou, that was exactly what I would have answered if I wasn’t sleeping (I am in Europe).

    Maybe I would add: it is sad how people keep babbling bullshits and exposing themselves as idiots, without feeling bad.
    They claim there is god, but are unable to prove it.
    Then they claim there is creation, but can’t describe it.
    But they are „courageous“ enogh to „tease“ people using some primitive manner they think it is sarcasm.

    If I was defeated the way they were, my face would stay red for a month, BUT I would publically acknowledge I was wrong.

    Such people have really thick skin, or are really SO stupid that they can’t see they have nothing more to say!

  186. on 09 Sep 2011 at 6:21 am 186.Severin said …

    40 year Atheist,
    You bitter, angry man (lady?), go and suck your beer in peace, then come back when you have something to say and when ready to debate, instead to patronize.

    We alredy passed all points you exposed here many times, and got NO answers to any question we (atheists) ever posed.
    You saw how it looks like!
    It seems you are following that same manner.

    We know what faith is, and because we know it, we do not blindly believe every bullshit someone claims.
    Do you know what ARGUMENTS are?

  187. on 09 Sep 2011 at 9:42 am 187.Severin said …

    #177, 40 yar Atheist
    To show you my benevolence and to show you how a real debate looks like, I will answer some of your postulates.
    “* Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.”
    I do not have such a “faith”, sorry! I think Einsten, Howking, Sartr, …, were much more intelligent than myself.
    I also have good reasons to believe that somewhere in universe there are intelligences much, much higher than any human intelligence.
    My reasons are based on simple and obvious fact: WE are here, on a small blue pearl! Why not others, too, somewhere there, on some red or purple pearls, among trillions of stars and planets?

    “ *Faith that the appearances of design are false.”
    I can’t say it is false. I can say it is questionable, and I don’t buy it. It does not fit reality and logic (who/what created creator?!). As soon as you prove creacionism, or give a rational answers to some simple questions, I am ready to accept creationism.
    I mean, “theory” about mice coming from old rags was “right”, then questionable, then became false when someone saw mother mice giving birth to baby mice.
    “Theory” about diseases coming from god was “right”, untill someone invented microscope.

  188. on 09 Sep 2011 at 10:04 am 188.Severin said …

    #177, 40 yar Atheist, cont.
    “* Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.”
    It could be called “faith” if it was based on someone’s unargumented assertion, but it wasn’t.
    I only followed simple logic:
    Organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganoc compounds. It was known long before Miller and Urey did their experiment. Complex chemicals are made of simpler chemicals, which was also well known.
    PEOPLE synthesize, today, right now, many extremely complex organic molecules, including proteins.
    Mother nature had SO much time to combine compounds, billions of years, to produce first primitive cell.
    What is wrong with this logic?
    At the very moment you expose some evidences life was created, I will instantly leave my “faith”!
    But you HAVE to SAY something, for example to describe act of creation, to give us some clues to trace, to tell us HOW it happened.
    I told you how I think it happened.
    All yo are doing is attacking with some sort of ill-humorous sarcasm.
    NO arguments. NO explanations. NO descroptions.
    Get awake and tell us HOW univers/life were created!

  189. on 09 Sep 2011 at 10:13 am 189.Severin said …

    40 yA
    “*Faith that there is no other possible position;…”

    That “faith” is well established in the fact that science GIVES answers. Right now.
    Why would I doubt it will, eventually, give them all, after I clearly SEE what science IS doing?

    Where are the answers from god(s)?

  190. on 09 Sep 2011 at 10:20 am 190.Severin said …

    40 yA
    Sorry, my last comment related to your sentence:

    “…faith that science will find all the answers”

    About “faith that there is no other possible position”, I even can’t understand what you mean.
    I can imagine (or, if not imagine, I can believe, but only based on arguments!) ANY other position.
    So, if you want me to believe in god (as “other possible position”), please prove there is a god.

    I swear I will not reject your proofs “automatically”. You just provide them!

  191. on 09 Sep 2011 at 10:34 am 191.Severin said …

    40 yA

    “Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.”

    THAT is the pearl of the pearls!

    YOU just tell me, if there is “intelligence” in DNA, WHY, the hell, would there not be “intelligence” in atoms, electrons, quarks, bosons, whatever matter/energy combination DNA is made from?

    Horatio, Ben, Xenon, Burebista…where are you?
    Here is another one who claims matter is intelligent!

  192. on 09 Sep 2011 at 12:08 pm 192.Curmudgeon said …

    Severin I do thank you. Your posts are always such a delight.

    40 Atheist,

    Your list is quite correct although very much abbreviated. Outside of the obvious postures of faith you provide all of us live out faith in every day endeavors. They range from traveling down the Autobahn that the BMW beside me will not cut me of to sandwich at lunch will not be tainted.

    We all have faith in something even if some groups like to deny the reality.

  193. on 09 Sep 2011 at 12:43 pm 193.Observer said …

    #192 Cur You must live in a world of immense mystery and surprise- “Oh my God! The Sun has risen yet again!” Other higher functioning folk tend to operate on expectations based on experience. Even higher functioning factors in both experience, and the cost of something improbable for an expected cost.

    I too have spent some time on the autobahn and also have seen spectacular fatality laden multi-car crashes. I am sure there was all sort of faith held in all those cases. There was probably had been a load of it in the head of a dead older man I saw on the E-45 between Nuremberg and Munich; my guess is his faith had been in the roughly one quarter of his head that had been left as a streak on the 30-40m of pavement behind him.

  194. on 09 Sep 2011 at 1:04 pm 194.MrQ said …

    Cur, #192

    We all have faith in something even if some groups like to deny the reality.

    Seriously? I looked up two of the definitions of FAITH (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    Without a doubt, many of the bible thumpers on this blog fall into category #1. Other definitions of FAITH mention religious beliefs. Is that why you so desperately and unsuccessfully want to try and define atheism as a faith/religion? Maybe you can tell me where we meet for services? Where we send our children to get molested? There is no high priest – Dawkins or Hawking or Hitchens – as you claim. I became an atheist at a very young age 12 or 13 years old. With parents who were religious, it was not always an easy step, but it certainly was the right one.

    Cur/40YA : If you want proof of something, you must seek out the answers based on the evidence at hand. For instance, you and your crew seem to have a very difficult time with “How the universe began.” A gap that you’ve conveniently slotted god into ( for the moment ;-) ) Why don’t you check out how close scientists have come to t+0 seconds? So far there are no “fingerprints” of a god on this “creation event.” Check out the Hubble space telescope and find out how far back in time that they have looked. Doesn’t require faith in anything. Just examine the data for yourself.

  195. on 09 Sep 2011 at 1:11 pm 195.Lou (DFW) said …

    192.Curmudgeon said …

    “We all have faith in something even if some groups like to deny the reality.”

    No, we don’t. Faith is another word whose meaning has been perverted by theists, similar to the way the definition of religion has been perverted, because they try to express reality in the context of their delusional thinking.

    Faith – complete acceptance of a truth which cannot be demonstrated or proved by the process of logical thought.

  196. on 09 Sep 2011 at 1:14 pm 196.Lou (DFW) said …

    177.40 year Atheist said …

    “Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.”

    Some dogs have fleas, therefore I want a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.

  197. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:22 pm 197.Horatiio said …

    Louis!

    You sideshow you!. I asked who built the Knap of Howar and this is your answer?

    “The Knap of Howar is there in plain sight for everyone to see.”

    Yes, we know. So now again, who built it? You claimed in 174:

    “2. We know for a fact who built a building.”

    Back it up with fact Louis. Faith?

    40YA,

    I warned you your F bomb would get the beehive buzzing!

  198. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:25 pm 198.Horatiio said …

    Mr Q,

    I direct you to post 60. Can you meet the challenge?

  199. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:39 pm 199.MrQ said …

    Hor #198,
    I direct you to post #70.

    Hor: Your own personal relationship with a deity comes from a need to put something between you and your past life. You need that buffer to stay off the bottle/away from the pill/out of trouble. If god works for you and helps keep you from straying, that’s just peachy. You’ve found your salvation, Hallelujah!!! But, remember, not all models are the same and your mileage will vary.

  200. on 09 Sep 2011 at 2:54 pm 200.Lou (DFW) said …

    197.Horatiio said …

    “You sideshow you!. I asked who built the Knap of Howar and this is your answer?

    “The Knap of Howar is there in plain sight for everyone to see.”

    You missed the point. The point is man built it. It’s obvious. But it’s NOT obvious that your god even exists, much less that he created anything. Where is your evidence for god? All of the questions you ask of atheists are 100% irrelevant. They are a smoke screen that you try to create to hide the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    Yes, we know. So now again, who built it? You claimed in 174:

    “2. We know for a fact who built a building.”

    “Back it up with fact Louis. Faith?”

    Men built it. It requires no faith to know that.

  201. on 09 Sep 2011 at 3:02 pm 201.Lou (DFW) said …

    197.Horatiio said …

    “Louis!

    You sideshow you!.”

    Sideshow Hor, 100% of your comments on this blog are a SIDESHOW because you NEVER, EVER provide any evidence for your imaginary god. That’s all it requires, Sideshow Hor. Then all of the other b.s. about Socrates and The Knap of Howar that you write about would be unnecessary. But it is necessary for you, Sideshow Hor, because you don’t have ANY evidence for your imaginary god.

    Now, get back inside the tent with the two-headed snake and the bearded lady until you can show us evidence for your imaginary god.

  202. on 09 Sep 2011 at 6:55 pm 202.Curmudgeon said …

    The Socrates reference is interesting. I was reading an article by a Wiccan not too long ago claiming God cannot be proven and to make their point they referenced a conversation Socrates has with an individual.

    Ironically, there is more evidence for God than for Socrates but this Wiccan believed there was a Socrates but no God. I realized then the issue is not proof, it is ideological. I have no qualms in the belief of a Socrates or a God because both have compelling written evidence. However, God as worked in my life to solidify the proof. Can’t say that for Socrates.

    The post at #60 explains the personal experience well.

  203. on 09 Sep 2011 at 7:35 pm 203.Observer said …

    #202 Of course to you it would be ideological in much the same way climate change or evolution is ideological to someone like Rick Perry. This is because both of you lack rational faculties. Sadly, it appears that in much the same way a schizophrenic believes whatever jumble is going on between their ears, regardless of what is actually going on around them, you cannot see beyond your small intellect and/or psyche.

    There is a pretty straight line tracing the writings of Plato. No large congresses were convened determining what is in the texts and which texts to keep as in the case of the Bible. Whether Socrates existed or didn’t doesn’t really matter. What was written by Plato is of, to varying degrees, value. There is no need to “believe” in anything- especially zombies or a ham-fisted sadistic deity.

    Children find comfort in Teddie bears, blankies, whatever. You choose to have an imaginary Teddie bear- that is up to you.

  204. on 09 Sep 2011 at 7:39 pm 204.Observer said …

    #202 Wiccan beliefs are as goofy as xtian beliefs (I am surprised you did not find it more to your liking). They do not have the high church music, but I do like the idea of mid-Summer bonfires and women dancing in gauzy gowns. Beats the hell out of the ugly crowd at a Southern Baptist brouhaha on any given Sunday.

  205. on 09 Sep 2011 at 8:24 pm 205.Lou (DFW) said …

    202.Curmudgeon said …

    “The Socrates reference is interesting. I was reading an article by a Wiccan not too long ago claiming God cannot be proven and to make their point they referenced a conversation Socrates has with an individual.”

    So what? They, like you and most theists, can’t form a logical thought. That an individual had a conversation with Socrates is irrelevant to the existence or evidence of your imaginary god. And for all intents and purposes, your belief in god is no different than Wiccan crackpot beliefs. But in your mind, of course theirs are wrong and yours are right, correct?

    “Ironically, there is more evidence for God than for Socrates…”

    How is no evidence more than any?

    “…but this Wiccan believed there was a Socrates but no God. I realized then the issue is not proof, it is ideological. I have no qualms in the belief of a Socrates or a God because both have compelling written evidence.”

    To which god’s written evidence to you refer?

    “However, God as worked in my life to solidify the proof. Can’t say that for Socrates.”

    And many people can’t say that for god. But guess what? I had a vision wherein Socrates appeared. Not only did he tell me that he really existed, but that there’s no god. He explained his philosophy of life that affected me in a positive way so much that it solidified the proof. So, I have TWICE as much “proof” as you that refutes your belief and supports mine that Socrates existed, but your god doesn’t. What more proof could anyone possibly need?

  206. on 09 Sep 2011 at 9:20 pm 206.Horatiio said …

    LOL!!

    Cur,

    They don’t get the obvious double standard they implore. I hear all this talk related to the IQ of atheist – I don’t buy it. They can’t even define creation! LOL!!

    I still think they suffer from Auspergers which keeps them from thinking and relating.

    I would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.

  207. on 09 Sep 2011 at 10:12 pm 207.Severin said …

    206 Horatio
    “They can’t even define creation!”

    No, we can’t, and we say it honestly.
    Can you?

    No, you can’t. You are only braking winds around.
    And it smells badly.

    Why are you making such an idiot of yourself? Are you a masochist?
    Or, maybe you ARE an idiot.

  208. on 10 Sep 2011 at 12:23 am 208.Lou (DFW) said …

    206.Horatiio said …

    “They don’t get the obvious double standard they implore.”

    Double standard? There hasn’t been any standard – double, triple, or quadruple applied to your evidence for your imaginary god because you have provided any.

    “I still think they suffer from Auspergers which keeps them from thinking and relating.

    I would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.”

    Sideshoe Hor, you are a fruitcake, plain and simple. No wonder you turned to an imaginary god.

    Sideshow Hor, I always knew that you were OCD about “Nose Buster,” but now you worked yourself into a masturbatory frenzy over it. So much so that you can’t even perform your Asperger (not Auspergers) schtick right anymore. Aspergers doesn’t keep anybody from thinking. But what keeps you from it?

    Sideshoe Hor, you are a fruitcake, plain and simple. No wonder you turned to an imaginary god.

  209. on 10 Sep 2011 at 1:13 am 209.Observer said …

    #206 Hor You are utterly unhinged. Stay away from children for your sake and their sake.

    #208 Much appreciated.

  210. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:15 pm 210.magdalene said …

    Dear Athiest,

    I am not judging you for your beliefs but I feel sorry for you, it must be a miserable life to think that when you die, it is over.I wish I could show you the things I’ve seen and what I have heard about the lord, but you wouldn’t understand or listen. I know beyond a doubt that god does exist, I am a psychic, medium, sensitive and I have literally talked to him and Jesus. This is very real, it is not beyond belief that god created the earth first, then created man millions of years later. I am sorry that the catholic church has made everything so black and white that you have been confused. I will pray for you and I know in time, every atheist comes to terms with god and believes when he or she is ready to believe, with your own personal experiences. But don’t be foolish and not believe because of science because god is the greatest scientist there is, he uses natural things to do his miracles. Listen I am 110% positive that he is real, and if I am wrong then I won’t go to heaven when I die. Ok here is something you can try to show you there are spirits and life beyond death, get whats called a ghost radar for the android or iphone application and ask the ghost questions about things, and you will be a believer then. Or go to a place that is really haunted, you will see then too.Or for that matter go to an apostolic church on Sunday night,get holy water put on you and watch what happens. You will feel the presence of God.
    Because we are souls/spirits, this physical world is only a fraction of what really exists. Call me crazy but I am a college educated, respected person, and true knowledge is knowing all about life and death.

  211. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:51 pm 211.Observer said …

    #210 magdalene Well, if there is an iPhone app to prove the spirit world, then the matter is solved once and for all. I have been holding out for an iPhone5, but maybe my girlfriend will let me use her old iPhone3g. I will keep everyone posted. Will Jesus talk to me? Will I need to know Aramaic?

  212. on 20 Sep 2011 at 7:22 pm 212.Lou (DFW) said …

    210.magdalene said …

    “I know beyond a doubt that god does exist,”

    Doesn’t make it true.

    “I am a psychic, medium, sensitive and I have literally talked to him and Jesus.”

    Actually, I think you’re over-cooked and well done.

  213. on 20 Sep 2011 at 8:08 pm 213.Asher said …

    “Will I need to know Aramaic?”

    No, you will however need humility and unfortunately you seem to be seriously lacking. You are reminiscent of Jesus with the Pharisees. It did not go with them either.

  214. on 20 Sep 2011 at 10:05 pm 214.observer said …

    #213 “You are reminiscent of Jesus with the Pharisees.” That is a splendid insult as it has the potential to offend both me, and the xtians on this site.

    I would no more have argued with the Pharisees than I would argue with a modern analog such as a religious court in the Islamic Republic or Iran. My strategy would have been to bribe the easy-to-buy Cohain Gadol and walked.

    If the history of Jesus is correct, the Pharisees may have done us a favor, although as they did not have the power of life and death under Rome, we have to give ultimate credit of the deed to those fun-loving Romans. On the other hand, had Jesus been left to his own, he would have imploded like most charlatans prior to the Baptist cretin dominated American South.

  215. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:43 pm 215.Lucas said …

    So tired of smug theists putting out drivel like

    “…I feel sorry for you, it must be a miserable life to think that when you die, it is over.”(#210 above)

    or similar BS.

    Personally, I think it would be a much sadder life to be a christian: always seeing sin, evil and Satan in everyone and everything. How could one possibly enjoy life surrounded by such abundant evil! No wonder you all pray for Jesus to get his ass back here already.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply