Feed on Posts or Comments 18 September 2014

Christianity Thomas on 07 Sep 2011 12:58 am

How religious delusion destroys real-world thinking

The following article about Rick Perry perfectly depicts the problem with religious delusion: once you become delusional, you can no longer think clearly in the real world. It is the only explanation for the hypocrisy seen here:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Cut Fire Department Funding by 75%

According to KVUE-TV, the state of Texas, under Gov. Rick Perry, cut state funding for the volunteer fire departments that protect most of the state from wildfires…. Volunteer departments that were already facing financial strain had their funding cut from $30 million to $7 million.

At a press conference Monday, Perry promised to seek federal disaster relief and said that FEMA would be in the state by Wednesday. While the Texas governor has been highly critical of FEMA in the past, he dodged questions from CBS’ Erica Hill on Tuesday’s ‘Early Show,’ insisting that now was not the time to worry about reforming the agency.

To any normal person, Perry appears to be a complete hypocrite. How can Perry be “highly critical of FEMA in the past” but then request FEMA’s services? Any rational, intelligent person who is highly critical of FEMA would shun FEMA’s services and let the state of Texas deal with the problem on its own.

But Perry’s behavior is exactly what we would expect from a delusional person. After all, if you worship a “god” who commands “thou shalt not kill”, how can you accept that fact that this same “god” killed nearly every human and animal in a gigantic flood? How can you worship a “god” who prescribes murder as the chief punishment for disobeying the Ten Commandments? Only complete delusion would allow anyone to accept such blatant hypocrisy.

How could anyone hear “thou shalt not kill” from his “god” and then turn around and kill inmates left and right? Yet this article accurately describes Perry as “the leading Republican candidate for president, the governor who has authorized more executions than any other governor in the history of the United States, more even than his infamous predecessor.” Only complete delusion allows that sort of inconsistency.

Why would anyone want a person harboring so much delusion, hypocrisy and inconsistency to govern a state, much less a nation?

149 Responses to “How religious delusion destroys real-world thinking”

  1. on 10 Sep 2011 at 7:57 pm 1.Observer said …

    It is interesting to watch the Republicans who have reasonable educations getting very uncomfortable with the monster they have made of their own party in route to a hoped-for plutocracy. What is lost on most of the voting Repubs is the traditional power behind their party is highly secular, with concessions to tradition standing in for actual religiosity. The Republican establishment is squirming now they are confronted with total loss of power in their party as it goes to the lunatic right-wing Christians. Were it not such a threat to every thing decent about the United States, it would be quite funny.

    Unfortunately, it is both sad and terrifying. The beltway, Northeast, and Left Coast cannot fathom the horrors lying in plain view in the South and increasingly afflicted Midwest. A successful future for the United States is anything but assured.

  2. on 10 Sep 2011 at 9:26 pm 2.40 year Atheist said …

    Managed economies have always failed spectacularly. Ours is doing so now, after having been managed into a housing / banking catastrophe coupled with trillions in cash give-aways to prevent the consequences of the failure. The simplistic models of what constitutes an economy which Atheo-Leftist-Progressives have in their minds has never proven to do more than reveal their ignorance of the reality of complexity in the actual world of providing and distributing goods and services in a competitive environment, of dollars chasing goods and services, of developing and providing goods and services which people actually want to spend their dollars on. So historically, the Atheo-Leftist-Progressives around the world have eliminated competition and put the means of production of goods and services into the hands of government bureaucrats, who immediately specify the output and distribution according to this ideology:

    “What should we want the economy to do or accomplish?”

    That’s when breadlines form. Not for the bureaucratic elite who “ethically decide” and implement these things for the masses, but for the masses who are now equal under their ethical economy. Occasionally there is not enough bread even for the meager portions of the breadlines, and some segments of the population die off. In actuality, some segments of the populations have been targeted, ideologically, for insufficient distribution of bread. But those segments which remain are equal. One must break eggs to make an omelet.

    When the Atheo-Left-Progressives start to declare an “ethical” attack on any institution, it is legitimate to ask for the source of their moral authority and for the specifics of their “ethics”, not to mention their means of implementation. It is guaranteed that “compassion” for certain favored classes over other hated classes and social engineering / social “justice” for certain favored classes over other hated classes will be involved. And because it can’t be implemented voluntarily, then it would need to be involuntary: just breaking more eggs for more omelets. All in the name of ethics and moral authority to adjust the “moral component”.

  3. on 11 Sep 2011 at 1:46 am 3.Observer said …

    #2 That is on par with Hor. Are you Hor? I like the
    “Atheo-Left-Progressives” if for no other reason than the stupidity is obvious from its redundancy, although me writing “lunatic right-wing Christians” is possibly even more redundant. Somehow my redundancy doesn’t seem stupid in that it does provide a bit more precision, or does it? Lunatic right-wingers come in several forms other than Christian, Jew, atheist, etc. Right-wing Christians are certainly lunatics.

    Hmmm. Well on to economics.

    Managed economies always fail spectacularly? Hard to think of an economy more planned than post-War Japan, which was doing reasonably well despite a couple decades of grief from too much foreign dough. Jury is out on Fukashima effects.

    What about Socialist West Germany? Sweden? France? France mind you is still AAA.

    If you are implying that the damage done by Reagan when he quadrupled the national debt is possibly fatal, you might have a point. If you also are pointing out that Reagan’s boy Alan Greenspan who oversaw two catastrophic asset bubbles is culpable, then yes. I assume you are also blaming the “planned” non-regulation of financial institutions under BushII for this too. If that is the case, then I will concede your point.

    While Stalinism is indefensible, it is still remarkable that Russia went from the Middle Ages to the Soviet Union putting a man in space in 50 years. They point, which you would not get however long I wrote, is that fundamentalism of any king, economic, or political is never correct.

    There is a time for managed economies such as in the United States during World War II, in fact it looked very much like the war economy under Lenin. We were as far as one could be from a free economy then. We performed impeccably! The primarily difference was because we had a century of industrial development on Russia.

    The reality is that complete control is necessary at times, at other times, only clear regulation to prevent distortions are necessary. To anyone reasonable, it understood that there is no way for an economy to efficiently monetize all value. Hence the for folks even nominally brighter than you in positions of responsibility.

  4. on 11 Sep 2011 at 1:48 am 4.Observer said …

    Last sentence: Hence the need for folks even nominally brighter than (40YA) in positions of responsibility.

  5. on 11 Sep 2011 at 1:49 am 5.Observer said …

    Christ I droned longer than 40YA.

  6. on 11 Sep 2011 at 2:51 pm 6.Severin said …

    Observer,

    3 Observer
    (to 40 yA)
    “#2 That is on par with Hor. Are you Hor?“

    No, he isn’t.
    Horatio might be wrong and might use impropper methods in debate, but at least he does debate from time to time, his way. Horatio COMMUNICATES.

    This one sees himself as an alien super-authority, who comes to people from time to show them his benevolence by telling them what His Majesty thinks obout something.
    Noticed the totally impersonal structure of his tirades?
    He is addressing to no one.
    He is giving announcements!

    Strange personality.

  7. on 11 Sep 2011 at 7:22 pm 7.Horatiio said …

    Right on the money 40YA. Thanks for the compliment Nose Buster.

    Not too long ago Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. They were traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the evil capitalist empire when they were only 50 miles from the workers paradise of Cuba.

    Does more need to be said? We are hardly a pure capitalist empire. In recent years the strain of vile labor unions and a POTUS bent on turning us more into an impotent bloated socialist society have weakened a once great system.

    The real choice is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history makes the choice obvious. Market driven prices, profit-and-loss system of accounting and private property rights overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest economic system available.

  8. on 12 Sep 2011 at 4:54 pm 8.herald said …

    God
    he is beyond our understanding
    his ways are not our ways
    what he considers moral and what we cosnider moral are two completely different things
    his reasoning is far more superior than ours
    if we would submit our inner beings to the possibility of him being real, and sincerely seek for him to reveal himself, not in a demanding way in some sort of sign or miracle or special prayer. but if we would earnestly and sincerely ask him to show him self from a place of humility i believe that he will appear to you and make him self known. But, God knows your heart, he will know whether you are just trying to prove him wrong, or whether or not you truy want to know if he is real and would be willing to submit to him and serve him if he were to reveal himself. God loves you, he is passionately pursuing you, but he will not be mocked. the more you commit to making a mockery of him and proving him wrong, the farther in your understanding you will be from who he is. I ask you to seek earnestly from a place of need for him

  9. on 12 Sep 2011 at 9:59 pm 9.Severin said …

    8 herald
    “what he considers moral and what we cosnider moral are two completely different things”

    Yes, you are right!
    That is the very reason I would spit on god if he existed.

    Your god considers mral to drown thosands of children and to rip pregnant women.
    Your god considers moral to sell and buy people as slaves.
    Etc.

    I don’t.
    I think that is sick lunacy and highly immoral.

  10. on 12 Sep 2011 at 10:10 pm 10.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.herald said …

    “God
    he is beyond our understanding”

    WRONG! It’s you and your ilk and your delusional belief in such nonsense that are “beyond our understanding”"

  11. on 12 Sep 2011 at 10:14 pm 11.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheists take each situation separately and decide for themselves what is the moral thing to do. That is called relativism, and it is the position that Atheists can and do change morality on the spot, because it is convenient and they are extra- moral anyway. Relativism is highly unpredictable and cannot be considered an ethic, at least not if one expects consistent decisions of an ethic.

    And yes, they will decide when it is ethical to lie or cheat. Or what ever. And that is why they are not trusted by anyone else. Who knows when they are going to decide to lie or cheat or whatever their momentary urge might be? In other words, they cannot be trusted to produce a single, stable set of behaviors, even for one of them, much less an entire group of them. So this is not an ethic at all.

    However, we can depend upon them to distort the Bible, because they think that works in their favor every time they do it. I don’t usually take on biblical distortions by atheists, because that doesn’t disprove the existence of a creating First Cause in any way

    Bottom line: Atheists are always good, by their own definition that Atheism = good. In other words, it is tautological in their minds. They decide what is good in their own minds, so when they do it, they are good QED. Maybe in the Atheist case it should be spelled differently, maybe guud. Atheists = Guud. That’s definitely better.

    Usually Atheists take offense at the entire idea of God ordering the eradication of offensive cultures. The model is to first distort and then claims it as a reason for believing that there is no God, One never knows just what it is that their morality of the day will find offensive. Or acceptable, for that matter. You just can’t know what to expect from an Atheist, so as the old Boswell quote goes, “when he leaves, we should count the silverware”.

  12. on 12 Sep 2011 at 10:40 pm 12.Observer said …

    11. 40YA. Thank you for adding more of your very deep and nuanced thinking to this blog. Are you on faculty at Liberty U? Wheaton College?

    I am also impressed you picked up QED somewhere, but it is used to signify a proof, not to be used as punctuation in an incoherent ramble. We know you are trying hard, but try reading something to educate yourself instead of struggling to write something intelligent and failing miserably.

  13. on 13 Sep 2011 at 2:00 am 13.A said …

    #11
    “so as the old Boswell quote goes, “when he leaves, we should count the silverware”.”

    Yes, the relativism opens the door for all sorts of atrocities. Remember to check your wallet, toes and fingers.

    I would rather deal with the ones who adopt the Judeo-Christian ethics. It might be hypocritical but at least they are predictable.

  14. on 13 Sep 2011 at 2:25 am 14.Observer said …

    #13.A “I would rather deal with the ones who adopt the Judeo-Christian ethics. It might be hypocritical but at least they are predictable.”

    Given that the is US is for all intents and purposes, as the theists here so often point out, a Judeo-Christian (although any Jew who knows anything about Jewish theology and is not pandering thinks the term nonsense) country, why is it we have by far and away more lawyers per capita than any other country? And no, it is not because we are a country of laws; look at Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and of course Switzerland. I we may need more lawyers because of our vaunted Judeo-Christian values, but I am at a loss as to what they are.

    What are they? And what is predictable?

  15. on 13 Sep 2011 at 2:38 am 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.40 year Atheist said …

    You comment is so full of lies about atheists and atheism that it demonstrates that being a theist doesn’t provide one with any morals (that you obviously don’t have).

    Bottom line: theists are always good, by their
    own definition that theism = good.

    Furthermore, your tirade about atheists is yet another example of the level to which theists stoop when they can’t support their delusional belief system with anything that resembles reality. Therefore, they falsely present atheism as something it isn’t.

    Similarly, a clear sign of the inadequacy of a position can be found in the misrepresentation or irrational exaggeration of the other side’s arguments.

  16. on 13 Sep 2011 at 5:28 am 16.Severin said …

    11 40 yA
    “Atheists are always good, by their own definition that Atheism = good.”

    No atheist on this blog ever defined atheism as good per se.
    No atheist at any oter place defined atheism as as “good per se”.
    IF an atheist said smething so stupid, he/she would be comnsidered, hm, stupid.

    You use falsified arguments in your debate/line of announcement.

    You are very dishonest.
    You are a liar Q.E.D. (and was demonstrated).

  17. on 13 Sep 2011 at 2:13 pm 17.Observer said …

    11 40YA Please note that #16 Severin has made the proper use of the Latin abbreviation.

  18. on 13 Sep 2011 at 5:30 pm 18.Horatiio said …

    “They decide what is good in their own minds, so when they do it, they are good QED.”

    Perfect use of QED 40YA. Nose buster gets upset when someone trounces his elitist presuppositions. For our atheist brethren, QED can be used for mathematical or philosophical arguments and only denotes “which was to be demonstrated” which 40YA has done wonderfully.

    On the other hand, Severin comes back with ad homenim and has not fulfilled the QED requirement.(periods not required Sev)

    Of course, 40YA actually produces rational, demonstrable arguments while Buster and the boys simply attack with nu-uhs.

  19. on 13 Sep 2011 at 6:08 pm 19.Severin said …

    18 Horatio

    “Of course, 40YA actually produces rational, demonstrable arguments …“

    11 40 year Atheist
    „Atheists are always good, by their own definition that Atheism = good“
    No rational, or any other type of arguments can be based on lies. A lie can not turn to an “argument”, except, maybe, by theists.
    Statement that atheist’s own definition of atheism (capital „A“?) is that atheism = good is a lie. There is no such „definition“.

    He is a liar, and you are free to choose a name for yourself who suppors and confirms his lies.

    Q.N.E.D., because it is obvious.

    P.S.
    Do you write the word “atheism” with capital “a” in the USA?

  20. on 13 Sep 2011 at 8:47 pm 20.Curmudgeon said …

    I read 40Y/A post and at first glance I dismissed it. Upon further evaluation I realized he is absolutely correct.

    Examples:

    Anytime the communist-atheist regimes and brought into a conversation to exhibit the evils of atheist what is always their argument? Atheism had nothing to do with their vile acts. Why? Atheism=Good

    Anytime the quotes of Sam Harris are brought up as dangerous and unacceptable the atheist reinterpret his comments. Why? Atheism = Good

    When atheist here say they would support imprisoning theist for teaching their children about God never does one atheist condemn the comments. Why? Atheism = Good

    Anytime Observer goes on a hate-filled tirade against those who reside south of the Mason-Dixon line not one atheist confronts his comments. Why? Atheism = Good

    Good catch 40Y/A. I had never thought of it in that context.

  21. on 13 Sep 2011 at 10:23 pm 21.Observer said …

    #20 Cur “I read 40Y/A post and at first glance I dismissed it. Upon further evaluation I realized he is absolutely correct.” Thanks for trying to give the impression that you actually thought about something rather than reacted. Of course, we know better.

    So- As per usual, your thinking is disjointed and lacks basic rigor. Both atheistic regimes and non-atheistic regimes do horrific things, Christian Nazis, Atheist Maoists, etc. Given that bad things happen regardless of religious orientation, then we can infer that religion is not particularly predictive, and therefore these things happen independent of religion. When horrid things happen basic humanism has gone. Secular folk being unencumbered with supernatural fantasies probably have a leg up on the humanism front.

    I will agree with you that Athiesm is a good point of view, but use of the “=” “Atheism=Good” is a non sequitur akin to nectarine = airworthiness.

    Please note that my tirades against southern cracker filth does not include all the white folk south of the Mason-Dixon line. There are many, although far from a majority who are well-educated, rational, and quite decent people, as well as those who are nothing if not sterling. The reason the atheist folk here do not confront these comments is that, at least in this case, Observer = Correct.

  22. on 13 Sep 2011 at 11:43 pm 22.Horatiio said …

    Cur,

    And Nose Buster comes in to proves your points. Redefining his hate-filled attacks. You had to know it was coming. I have pointed these things out to this group quite a few times.

    A big difference is that Christians recognize that men are sinful and only God is holy. Even the best of men. Atheist believe man is naturally good. Obviously the definition of good for atheists is a much lower threshold than for God.

    Christian Nazi? Is that like a Christian Atheist? No such thing for anyone who can read the commands of Christ(ian). Observer = Wrong Again

  23. on 14 Sep 2011 at 3:00 am 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    19.Severin said …

    “Do you write the word “atheism” with capital “a” in the USA?”

    No, we do not.

    People like Sideshow Hor do it as part of their false representation of atheism. People like Sideshow Hor can’t provide any evidence of their god, so they think that they must attack anything that doesn’t agree with their delusion. Therefore, they must must resort to lying and misrepresenting anything that they think is threatening their delusion because they have no rational, logical alternative.

  24. on 14 Sep 2011 at 3:06 am 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Horatiio said …

    “Atheist believe man is naturally good.”

    This is yet another one of Sideshow Hor’s lies. Atheism has no such belief.

    In lieu of his evidence for his imaginary god, Sideshow Hor lies about atheists. He resorts to the lowest common denominator of atheists and theists alike.

  25. on 14 Sep 2011 at 3:10 am 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Horatiio said …

    “And Nose Buster comes in to proves your points. Redefining his hate-filled attacks. You had to know it was coming. I have pointed these things out to this group quite a few times.”

    Yet Sideshow Hor wrote during his recent masturbatory fantasy “I would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.”

  26. on 14 Sep 2011 at 5:23 am 26.Severin said …

    22 Horatio
    “Atheist believe man is naturally good.“

    What a bullshit lie! Atheist do not believe such a bullshit thing.

    Now, when you lost ground under your feet, you also totally lost your compass.
    From your mouse holes, you have no other „weapons“ but trying to think up your own new basis and rules.
    „If I have nothing new to say“, you reason, „let’s LIE about what THEY said, let’s postulate FALSE arguments, let’s put lies in their mouths, then let’s try continuing telling something based on our lies“.

    Gebels’ strategy!

    Shame on you, people. Don’t you know better?
    No, you don’t, and it is very sad.

  27. on 14 Sep 2011 at 6:38 pm 27.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheist maintain that the Old Testament God did all sorts of things that the Atheists think are bad. Now God did order some things done that only a deity could justify, no argument there. But if a deity is justified in doing whatever a deity does, then they no case other than his own pique.

    What the Bible displays is a continuous cycling of obedience, betrayal, and correction. The correction is purposely visited upon a disobedient society by the use of an invading force which brings humility where hubris and contempt had reigned. And this after explicit warnings of what was to come. If one assumes these to be literally true, which Atheists always do, it is clearly the deity’s prerogative to handle his creation as he wishes. But this action, being that of the diety, is neither moral nor immoral in terms of human behavior. By taking on the Bible, Atheists should be obligated to at least understand its meanings and to use a meaningful model to criticize rather than their own fake model. Morality in human terms, according to the Bible, means obedience to the directives given by the deity. Atheists might not like the directives, and they might be tempted to compare the specific directives for action to the general directives for daily behavior and then declare their False Dichotomy. Honesty dictates they should act in dispassionate fairness when they passes judgment, rather than present False Dichotomies and Straw Man arguments.

    This is total blindness to the concept of a deity which is actually more powerful than they. Morality doesn’t come from the daily maunderings of institutional intellectuals; if it even exists it comes from an extrahuman source. The morals of intellectuals have never been consistent, and much less when put into practice have they been humane. Atheist’s arguments against God and for Atheist Goodness cannot withstand the most cursory historical glance at the 20th century. Ah, say Atheists, that was coincidentally Atheists slaughtering hundreds of millions of their own countrymen, purely coincidence. In other words, excusing their own belief system for its slaughters.

    Religious people continue to improve or at least change their understanding of the deity and its wishes for them. Atehsists conveniently ignore that it was the religious efforts of uberChristian William Wilberforce in Great Britain, and the Republicans in the USA that put slavery away – not the force of “secular improvements”. Taking credit for what one did not accomplish is intellectually dishonest.

  28. on 14 Sep 2011 at 7:10 pm 28.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.40 year Atheist said …

    “Atheist maintain that the Old Testament God did all sorts of things that the Atheists think are bad. Now God did order some things done that only a deity could justify, no argument there. But if a deity is justified in doing whatever a deity does, then they no case other than his own pique.”

    Your entire comment is nothing but a rationalization of the things that your maniacal god allegedly did.

    “Religious people continue to improve or at least change their understanding of the deity and its wishes for them.”

    One would think that after thousands of years the religious would understand their god by now. But the point is rather moot. Why doesn’t your god simply tell you what it wants rather than make you “…improve or at least change their understanding of the deity and its wishes for them?” But why does such a deity require ANYTHING of it’s creatures?

    The entire idea is simply absurd, and the only evidence to support it in the imagination.

    “Taking credit for what one did not accomplish is intellectually dishonest.”

    Funny stuff. Again, after thousands of years, it took the good-old religious to abolish slavery. What complete and utter nonsense.

    You can’t even be intellectually dishonest. You first must be intellectual.

  29. on 14 Sep 2011 at 9:28 pm 29.Severin said …

    28 Lou (DFW)
    (comment to #27)
    “The entire idea is simply absurd, and the only evidence to support it in the imagination.”

    His entire tirade is a bullshit that does not deserve a word of comment.
    It is illogical, inconsist, just a “blah blah”, such as was seen on theese pages so many times, only with conotation of hate.

    This one probably hates himself in the morning, and the entire world the rest of the day.

    This … nothing … deserves only to be ignored.

  30. on 14 Sep 2011 at 9:58 pm 30.Observer said …

    #28 “You can’t even be intellectually dishonest. You first must be intellectual.” An apt comment.

    #27 You drone on about the source of your beliefs, yet you also seem to point out, correctly I might add, that the Bible is completely muddled and requires indecent amounts of apology and rationalization to make it seem something other than the unparalleled grotesque abominable olio of Semitic and other Mediterranean religions it actually is. AND that goes far toward explaining the thinking process of you folk which generates idiotic comments like

    “The morals of intellectuals have never been consistent, and much less when put into practice have they been humane. Atheist’s arguments against God and for Atheist Goodness cannot withstand the most cursory historical glance at the 20th century.”

    Again, you can say the same about the religious (Nazis, Conquistadors, etc.) The thoughtful person realizes all this falls into the “absolute power corrupts absolutely” category of human behavior.

    You might also look at your history a bit closer on the Wilberforce matter. The folks that made the anti-slavery business happen were Whigs (liberals). If you were to read a bit or history, you might also learn that the Republican Party in this country was originally comprised of Whigs (note again- liberals). The Republicans really did not begin to become conservatives until the 1920s, and did not start becoming the lunatic right-wing until Nixon’s racist oriented Southern Strategy was used to bring in the filthy white-trash Southern Democrats like Jesse Helms who paved the way for wing-nuts like Rick Perry, James Inhofe, et al.

    Fool! Quit reading the garbage in the Bible and educate yourself!

  31. on 15 Sep 2011 at 6:15 pm 31.Horatiio said …

    40YA

    Again you bring the facts, the proof and a rationale eye to the truth. Your haters bring hate and ad homenim attacks. When the facts do not support their foolishness this is all they have left.

    Good job and keep them buzzing. I like watching them scramble! LOL!!

  32. on 15 Sep 2011 at 6:38 pm 32.Observer said …

    #31 Hor Your cretin credentials are crassly conspicuous as per usual. I provide actual ideas and facts which destroy poor 40YA’s blather, and of course, you turn your accurately named “rationale eye to the truth” (idiot) to the matter and come up with the wrong answer.

    I have been working very hard today. Thanks for the chuckle.

  33. on 15 Sep 2011 at 7:29 pm 33.Lou (DFW) said …

    31.Horatiio said …

    “Again you bring the facts, the proof and a rationale eye to the truth.”

    Maybe you meant rational eye, but regardless, what he did was rationalize a delusional belief and idea. There were no facts nor a proof for the truth.

    “I like watching them scramble!”

    Nobody’s scrambling, but we know what you like to watch:

    “I [Sideshow Hor] would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.”

  34. on 15 Sep 2011 at 7:37 pm 34.Horatiio said …

    “Maybe you meant rational eye, but regardless”

    Maybe you intended to add a neither with your nor? LOL!! Such a sideshow Lou. I’m glad you like the term. Too bad your creativity is lacking.

    Nose Buster!

    The only fact you provide is hate and bigotry. I’m sorry to hear the basement is such a mess today. Chin up!

    Will you be dancing with some Wiccans this evening Buster?

  35. on 15 Sep 2011 at 8:24 pm 35.Lou (DFW) said …

    34.Horatiio said …

    “Maybe you intended to add a neither with your nor?”

    Yes, I should have. But you missed the point. My comment wasn’t a jab at improper grammar, but at the unintentional irony created in your mistaken use of rationale rather than rational.

    “Too bad your creativity is lacking.”

    Compared to the creativity that you use in your lies posted here – YES, it’s very lacking!

    “Will you be dancing with some Wiccans this evening Buster?”

    Sideshow Hoe is already getting worked-up in another masturbatory frenzy about this.

    But really? MY creativity is lacking? How long have you been using the “Nose Buster” nonsense.

    Regardless, please post your evidence for god. Maybe you should be looking for it rather than fantasizing about Wiccans dancing in “Broadway in the basement.” You’re such a fruitcake.

  36. on 15 Sep 2011 at 9:13 pm 36.Observer said …

    #34 Hor- You cretinous buffoon. Nor is a conjunction negating correlation (you dumbass); it is likely a contraction of the not-too-often used English word nother. Where do you get you must use neither with it? (you idiot) Your head is hopelessly stuck up your ass. Where do you get the temerity to speak that way to one of your betters?

    #35 You could have used a comma before nor.

  37. on 15 Sep 2011 at 11:02 pm 37.Ben said …

    “I [Sideshow Hor] would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.”

    That is pretty funny. Observer is neither a pleasant personality on this blog nor any other.

    “But this action, being that of the diety, is neither moral nor immoral in terms of human behavior.”

    40 Year Atheist,

    Bravo! I have watched atheists from all walks attempt to apply the moral laws for man to the deity. Theists often seem at a loss. If the deity gives the life, he can take it whenever he pleases. If the deity created all then it all belongs to him to do what he wills. Why this is such a difficult concept is quite puzzling.

  38. on 15 Sep 2011 at 11:47 pm 38.MrQ said …

    Ben #37

    If the deity created all then it all belongs to him to do what he wills. Why this is such a difficult concept is quite puzzling.

    I wonder if it’s because it requires a leap of faith to
    1) Accept that there was a god or committee of gods that started it all
    2) Pick one of the numerous man-made gods as your “saviour / grand poobah” (and, likely, attach a penis to this god)
    3) Suspend any shred of rational thinking in the face of all the evidence which contradicts the belief.
    4) Just ACCEPT, don’t question; it’s much easier that way.

    There is no 12 step program to rational thought.
    But if you got issues, Hor can explain the 12 steps to help you find a god. First you gotta glug, glug…hick….until your liver can’t deliver.

  39. on 16 Sep 2011 at 12:35 am 39.JesusIsMyBitch said …

    Having read literally hundreds of comments on this website, I’m wondering if any Christian has yet to take up the challenge of posting some evidence for the existence of their Sky Daddy?

    As far as I can tell, all the believers do is to post ridiculous and moronic comments regarding atheists, atheism, and evolution. Perhaps not so surprising when their morals come from some two-thousand year old myths as recounted to them by a bunch of perverts and pedophiles.

  40. on 16 Sep 2011 at 1:01 am 40.Observer said …

    #37 Ben- This is not surprising: “I have watched atheists from all walks attempt to apply the moral laws for man to the deity. ”

    If there was such a thing as your “God” for its deeds it would either be in prison for life, or executed.

  41. on 16 Sep 2011 at 2:25 am 41.Observer said …

    This is why the American South scares me so…

    http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643004-a-celebration-of-reason-2012-global-atheist-convention

    Bat shit crazy.

  42. on 16 Sep 2011 at 12:00 pm 42.Horatiio said …

    Ben

    And now you understand why atheist all drive trucks. It is so they can move the goal posts quickly. They indulge in God bashing by abhorring his acts and then when it is explained to them why their bashing is ridiculous they resort back to there is no God.
    LOL!!!

    It could be the Aspergers but I am not sure. More than likely it is their moral code also be moved around by their trucks.

  43. on 16 Sep 2011 at 2:52 pm 43.Lou (DFW) said …

    37.Ben said …

    “Why this is such a difficult concept is quite puzzling.”

    It’s not at all puzzling because it’s not true. Apparently even you doubt existence of such a deity because you preface your comments with “if.”

  44. on 16 Sep 2011 at 2:54 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Horatiio said …

    “And now you understand why atheist all drive trucks.”

    And we understand why you are a liar – you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

  45. on 16 Sep 2011 at 2:56 pm 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Horatiio said …

    “It could be the Aspergers but I am not sure.”

    There’s one to thing to be sure of – that you’re a liar.

    “More than likely it is their moral code also be moved around by their trucks.”

    Says Sideshow Hor who lies about atheists.

  46. on 16 Sep 2011 at 3:10 pm 46.Observer said …

    #42 Hor Pray tell how sloppy thinking like Ben’s and the resulting tired apologies for this deity, or deities for the Trinitarians out there, is a justification for said deity does not follow. You used to seem just goofy. You really aren’t too intelligent are you?

    In light of the number of posts I have made on this site the past week, one could question how smart or sane I am too.

  47. on 16 Sep 2011 at 3:11 pm 47.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Horatiio said …

    “They indulge in God bashing by abhorring his acts and then when it is explained to them why their bashing is ridiculous they resort back to there is no God.”

    You moron, what’s ridiculous is that you don’t understand the meaning of atheists “…God bashing by abhorring his acts…”

    Maybe I can can explain it to you. Atheists “god bashing” is not “god” bashing at all. It’s theist bashing for being so stupid to believe that there would be such a god.

  48. on 16 Sep 2011 at 3:41 pm 48.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.40 year Atheist said …

    “But this action, being that of the diety, is neither moral nor immoral in terms of human behavior.”

    Maybe that explains the hypocritical behavior of most theists, especially xtians. They behave similarly to the maniacal god that they worship.

  49. on 17 Sep 2011 at 5:24 am 49.Severin said …

    48 Lou (DFW)

    It is impossible to discuss with blind, hypocritical, and very impudent demagogues, because they are not honest.

    Fine example of pure (and typically dihonest) demagogy (40 yA, #27):
    “But if a deity is justified in doing whatever a deity does, then they no case other than his own pique.”

    In the part of his sentence „…if deity is justified“ there is hidden claim that deity exists (he can only be justified if he exists), exposed to reader as fact.

    That is the intentional fraud, of course.
    Before we say „… if deity is justified…“ we have to prove a deity exists.
    They know they are unable to prove it, so they avoid it by using bullshit demagogy that only Horatio can take for granted and glorify.

    Dirty!

  50. on 17 Sep 2011 at 5:47 am 50.Severin said …

    If I said, for example:
    “If mermaids are justified in doing whatever mermaids are justified to do…”, how would they react?
    Wouldn’t they jump screaming: what bloody mermaids, there is no such thing as mermaids.
    They would, and they would be right.

    But why would they play under same rules they expect others to obey?

  51. on 17 Sep 2011 at 6:38 pm 51.DPK said …

    What, you don’t believe in mermaids?
    Didn’t you ever see “Splash”?
    I’m sorry, Tom Hanks would NOT lie to us about mermaids.
    Listen you fool… if there are no mermaids… then how on earth do you explain MERMEN!?? You can’t! LOL
    Nose Buster!
    See, the silly atheists can’t even offer a simple explanation like where mermen came from if there where no mermaids… or exactly how the entire universe began, or the exact process by which life began… or anything else…. Silly, gullible people.
    Next they’ll be telling us there are no volcano gods and volcanoes are “just a natural process” or some other utter nonsense.
    LOL

  52. on 17 Sep 2011 at 7:55 pm 52.40 year Atheist said …

    Two of the most powerfully deceptive of the inclusive theories are those of evolution and infinite universes. For example, evolution provides for any and all eventualities without exclusion (including no change at all) to have evolved from a single cell, and specifically denies anything to do with the advent of that original single cell. And the infinite universe theory means that anything that is conceivable not only could, but will exist in some parallel universe somewhere… including an orbiting teapot, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and pink unicorns. This is declared inevitable: the equations defining it are “robust”. This is the new look of science.

    But what does it mean to have a “theory of everything” that is, in reality, a theory of anything no matter how absurd? If theories and equations discriminate against nothing whatsoever, then what do they actually prove? Isn’t science supposed to be logic based, and designed, even required, to filter out the absurd? No longer, it appears. Much of science has quietly aligned itself with Philosophical Materialism over the past century, thereby becoming aligned with ideology, an eventuality that was not supposed to happen. When observations now include characteristics of the observer, the objectivity which science prided itself on in its heyday has become subjective. When a legitimate science such as biology becomes subservient to a non-empirical offshoot like evolution, science becomes beholden not to experiment and verification so much as to extrapolated inferences, and predictions retrofit into experimental results. Validity must be taken on the word of experts, who are never reticent to give it (especially biologists).

    The scientists become authoritarian in their ideology-of-absurdity, as Hawking demonstrates (“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”, Hawking says, with the definitude of a religious prophet). Something from nothing is now science, not absurdity. Even Feynman’s “many histories” model of quantum electrodynamics, which Hawking fearlessly applied to the emergent universe, means that histories of our existence are not really known – or knowable knocking out all prior knowledge, scientific and otherwise. Absurdity is now endemic; a functional ignorance is “scientifically” enforced as an ideology.

    So the thinking of the semi-educated is no longer held to the exclusivity of traditional logic; it is watered down with theories-of-anything-no-matter-how-absurd, and their acceptance without observational verification, and merely on the word handed down by the authority of the elites. It is indistinguishable from ideology because it is ideology.

  53. on 17 Sep 2011 at 9:36 pm 53.Observer said …

    #51 DPK Good attempt. But I am sorry, it just isn’t quite there. To fully mimic Hor you will need a radical pre-frontal lobotomy. I do like your example. Is Tom Hanks God?

  54. on 17 Sep 2011 at 9:38 pm 54.Observer said …

    #52 40YA WTF? Are you a low-church minister. I posted a more energetic, and equally bright one somewhere recently. The attempt at intellectual commentary really isn’t working for you. You should get some hell-fire in there.

  55. on 18 Sep 2011 at 12:33 am 55.Xenon said …

    40 Year

    It is refreshing to have someone here providing intelligent well devised analysis here on this blog. There has been little of that.

    The way science has been bastardized to include ridiculous theories that do not even meet the criteria for science is a farce. The psuedo-intellectuals however, eat it up. Faith=religion

  56. on 18 Sep 2011 at 12:49 am 56.observer said …

    #55 “Faith=religion” That is almost well put. Where you miss the point is that science is notoriously short on faith. Hence that whole experimentation thingy. I would like to hear where “science has been bastardized to include ridiculous theories”. As I am sure you have no experience in the field, theories get traction when they explain what is being observed in the material world. I know you are more comfortable in the “beyond matter, space and time” realm, but us more mundane folks make do with the universe as it presents itself.

    #52 The idiocy that 40YA is writing up there, particularly where he is making a critique of Feynman and Hawking is breathtaking in its combination of audacity and absurdity. Seriously, that cretin couldn’t make it through “A Brief History of Time” let alone mount a criticism of non-relativistic versus relativistic physics that a decent high school curriculum covers. If you buy relativity, then you gotta go with General Relativity, and that leads to what those guys are up to at CERN. And what is even more pathetic, is from the text, the fool 40YA’s understanding of the physics he is criticizing is no deeper than the garden variety understanding of the English it is written in. Pathetic.

    Inert Gas-bag, you are more the fool for vouching credence to the clown.

  57. on 18 Sep 2011 at 6:14 am 57.Ross said …

    I am a Christian. I believe in Heaven and hell. Every person will someday be judged for their lives and will face the consequences.
    If any person will give all of his will to God, he will feel the peace and love that only God can give.
    There was a time in my life when I became converted. We where having a large storm and I was afraid for my life. I started hyperventilating I was so scared. It was very clear to me I was going to hell if I died. It was then that I knelt and prayed to God to save me. I begged him to forgive me and committed my life to him. It was that fast. I was instantly calm and relaxed, and completely unafraid of death. From that day on I have been a Christian.
    I agree that there are many so-called Christians in this world that do not practice true Christianity. Any Christian organization that has been formed to make money is evil.
    Any Christian that gets divorced has sinned.
    Any Christian that gets drunk, or steals, or kills, or commits adultery, etc. etc. has sinned.
    A gay will not go to Heaven.
    A Christian can go to Hell just as soon as an Atheist if they have sinned and not repented.
    There are times when sins are so grievous that God’s grace will not cover the sins and salvation is impossible.
    I do not care to argue with all the comments on this blog, but I would like to throw my opinion out there in case it can help someone.
    I have a “peace” in my heart that I know when I die I am going to Heaven. There are time when I wrong others, swear, get angry, etc. etc. and I lose this feeling of “peace”. I only get this back when I correct the wrong I have done, and pray to my Lord Jesus and ask for forgiveness.
    I do not hold any stock in earthly religion, although I am a member of a Christian church which I do believe follows the Bible and the Holy Spirit as closely as it knows how.
    If I do not have “peace” and a strong relationship with my God, and live to the best of my abilities, (admitting my faults and failures, and always looking ahead to better myself) Going to church does not do me any good. All a Christian church is is a group of believers with a common goal. Heaven.
    I truly can say that even if there was no Heaven or hell, the life I live is SO much more fulfilling than if I was not a Christian, I would still desire to live this way.
    I have never smoked a cigarette, never drank a beer, never done drugs, never had sex with anyone other than my wife (and not before we were married), I do not have a criminal record, etc. etc. I don’t mean to brag, but I would not trade my clean lifestyle for anything in the world.
    I could not live this way if it was not for the relationship I have with God.
    I am 22 years old, and I plan to keep my peace with Jesus Christ until I die.
    I do not care to try and prove my point that I am right on all points.
    I do believe in the Bible, the Old Testament is only history of old times that I do not fully understand, but the New Testament is alive and full of truths and holds the answer to true “peace” in this present age.
    May the Lord bless you, and may we meet in Heaven some day.

  58. on 18 Sep 2011 at 3:00 pm 58.Observer said …

    #57 Good for you. Please do not vote.

  59. on 18 Sep 2011 at 7:32 pm 59.Burebista said …

    “It is indistinguishable from ideology because it is ideology.”

    The 40 Year Atheist has made a very valid point. If you want to get someone to believe an idea is true, simply proceed it with “a scientific study has proven”

    The fallacy of appealing to authority is rampant.

  60. on 18 Sep 2011 at 9:28 pm 60.Observer said …

    #59 Bur It is frequent that a scientist (excluding mathematicians here) will say “proven” in a strict sense, but much more often in an exuberant sense. The “proven” language is generally provided by a journalist. This leads to confusion by those who know nothing to very little about science.

    Nevertheless, I defer to the authority of science, and I especially welcome you to do otherwise. Go to a very tall building, stand at the edge of the roof, pray to the wish fulfilling zombie to let you fly, jump, flap your arms. You can be guaranteed a few moments of appreciation for science before what science predicts comes true. In that sense, something will have been proven.

    As to the quote you so value regarding science, “It is indistinguishable from ideology because it is ideology.” define ideology and how the scientific method is an ideology. If you can do the first part, then show how that prevents science from attaining its aims.

    Of course you won’t, because you can’t.

  61. on 18 Sep 2011 at 9:29 pm 61.Observer said …

    #60 First sentence should read “It is NOT frequent that a scientist (excluding mathematicians here) will say “proven” in a strict sense, but much more often in an exuberant sense.”

  62. on 19 Sep 2011 at 1:41 am 62.Horatiio said …

    “define ideology and how the scientific method is an ideology.”

    Buster

    Define the scientific method. I already know but I don’t think you do. Feel free to google it. Then using what 40YA has pointed out so eloquently, let us verify if is followed by origins and macoevolution.

    Maybe when can throw in some Francis Crick alien theories and see how they measure up. LOL!!

    You so silly with your lame and tired gravity references. Fallacious as ever.

    40YA has got you a little flustered eh?

  63. on 19 Sep 2011 at 1:55 am 63.Lou (DFW) said …

    62.Horatiio said …

    “You so silly with your lame and tired gravity references. Fallacious as ever.”

    As are you with your comments that NEVER provide any evidence of your imaginary god. At least gravity is real.

  64. on 19 Sep 2011 at 2:06 am 64.A said …

    Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-non-2010-07-06

  65. on 19 Sep 2011 at 4:20 am 65.DPK said …

    haha… there are plenty of “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution. Just none of them fit the observable evidence or make much sense. Just like there are “alternatives” to the theory of gravity… millions of angels holding everything in place comes to mind.
    Once again we come back to the inevitable conclusion that the theists here seem to be too simple minded to comprehend. Even if the sum total of scientific knowledge were somehow to be completely discredited overnight… that STILL would not mean that their unfounded and ridiculous stories of magical gods, resurrections, global floods, and all the other nonsense would therefore be true. Popper can bang on his kitchen table from now into the next century, but that doesn’t prove the existence of any gods.

  66. on 19 Sep 2011 at 1:03 pm 66.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.DPK said …

    “Once again we come back to the inevitable conclusion that the theists here seem to be too simple minded to comprehend. Even if the sum total of scientific knowledge were somehow to be completely discredited overnight… that STILL would not mean that their unfounded and ridiculous stories of magical gods, resurrections, global floods, and all the other nonsense would therefore be true. Popper can bang on his kitchen table from now into the next century, but that doesn’t prove the existence of any gods.”

    I know, they just don’t seem to get that, or they realize the only way to defend their belief in an imaginary god is to attack everything that they think threatens their belief. Or like Hor does, they lie about atheists an atheism.

  67. on 19 Sep 2011 at 1:26 pm 67.MrQ said …

    Hor #62

    Define the scientific method………….
    using what 40YA has pointed out so eloquently, let us verify if is followed by origins and macoevolution.

    Ok, Hor. In our 4+ billion year old Earth, at what point in time did Homo sapiens emerge? Use whatever resources you have at your disposal and see what you get.

    I doubt that you will investigate the real answer because it gives you discomfort. Other theists, feel free to chime in with an answer, including everyone associated with Hor and his special brand of anti-science mind funk.

  68. on 19 Sep 2011 at 2:56 pm 68.Observer said …

    #64A Thanks for the link to the SA article. It is pretty good. First identifying Intelligent Design folks as idiots, along with “other religious ignorami”, he then shows how even smart folks can get sidetracked on evolution. What is more, pretty smart folks, like the authors of “What Darwin Got Wrong”, can make fools of themselves when they take on a topic for which they are far from expert. He also talks about Dawkins and his indisputable brilliance.

    It is also good to see someone as bright as Popper admit error as in his case of evolution where he mistook iteration for tautology.

    One point the author doesn’t quite seem to get is the notion of self-organization, but given its extreme difficulty, that is not too surprising. When someone in evolutionary biology gets around to really working with Prigogine’s work, some great discoveries will be made- this is where the process for genes and the epigenome creating organs and individuals will be discovered and formalized.

  69. on 19 Sep 2011 at 7:09 pm 69.40 year Atheist said …

    I always wondered why Popper would eviscerate his own theories in order to support evolution. He caved under attack, professing to something he did not consider to be valid. The Atheo-Lefty Ad Hominem machine apparently was too much for him. I’m glad the true story is now out. It is odd, however, that the revelation comes from one of the Atheo-Leftist Ad Hominemers, but that just helps its credibility, in my book.

    First, in the REAL scientific method data is open, not secret. This is not a choice, it is mandated by the method. And not just the data, all the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the data are to be open and challengeable.

    Second, independent replication of the data gathering procedure is expected, and is also mandated by the method.

    Third, if data is to be manipulated, the reason and the method must be open.

    Fourth, results that vary from the expected must be reported.

    Fifth, dissent must be honored when it is accompanied by science as determined by items one through four, above.

    These are not a complete description of the scientific method, but they form a list of (some of) the current major deficiencies that are known to exist in the CRU mis-use of science.

    However, when it comes to evolution, those defiencies cannot even exist, because the science is non-existant at that level. For example, there is no data showing evolution at the macro level (new, non-preexisting, beneficial features arriving in a population due to selection). So items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not even exist for evolution.

    The fifth, honoring dissent, is not possible given the religious nature of the story telling and myth-creation nature of evolution. Being a religion itself, evolution and its adherents would be expected, under their own Atheist definitions of religion, to demonstrate intolerance toward dissent.

  70. on 19 Sep 2011 at 7:26 pm 70.Lou (DFW) said …

    69.40 year Atheist said …

    “I always wondered why Popper would eviscerate his own theories in order to support evolution.”

    I always wondered why people like you think that anyone of reasonable intelligence would accept your comments for anything other than what they are – complete and utter b.s.

  71. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:23 pm 71.Observer said …

    #69 40YA. Thank you. You are getting sillier by the moment. The reason Popper changed course was that he saw he was wrong. That is what reasonable and intelligent people do. He would not have cared what the “Atheo-Lefty Ad Hominem machine” said, or anyone else. He saw he was wrong and moved on from his mistake.

    So you totally miss the scientific method, and write out a crude version of academic ethics thinking this is part of the scientific method. Pathetic. The reason dumbasses such as yourself get no respect is that you don’t quite grasp what your are arguing about, let alone understand what you are arguing about. (Again, try to read, and understand the post above which I referred to earlier.) In the same way certain people can not be expected to learn chess, or more consistent with the metaphor in your case, checkers, perhaps you should be given a pass. But first, please, let’s hear a recent case of the scientific method being eschewed by paleontologists, or evolutionary biologists.

    At any rate, the idiocy of the ID crowd will be always be dismissed because it explains nothing and is inconsistent with what is observed. What is more, who in the ID crowd is an accomplished paleontologist? Or for that matter, distinguished as anything other than a religious crack-pot?

    Where does this no instance of macro-evolution canard come from? As has been mentioned on this website many times, whales provide a very interesting fossil record showing macro-evolution as they moved from the land to the water.

    Finally my crack-pot, please show us how evolution is a religion. I do appreciate that you use something as odious as religion ( faith in the supernatural ) in your attempt to slander science, specifically evolution in this case. But please, first why not look up what the Scientific Method is, then show us how evolution is a religion.

    Seriously, try it. It might lift the veil of ignorance you are living under.

  72. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:37 pm 72.Horatiio said …

    40YA

    Thank you for laying out the scientific method. And you have shown the deceitfulness of evolution and origins in a nutshell. It is historical science at best and does no meet the classical definition. Of course we would have those who would skew the definition to make it fit.

    What a shame. A self professing savant like Nose Buster could not even type out a simple synopsis of the scientific method. Not unexpected.

    Lou,

    Try this. Bawwwkk. It will save you some typing . LOL!!

  73. on 19 Sep 2011 at 8:49 pm 73.Observer said …

    #72 Hor, thanks for verifying you do not know what the Scientific Method is either.

  74. on 19 Sep 2011 at 9:10 pm 74.MrQ said …

    Hor, see #67,
    Waiting………..

  75. on 19 Sep 2011 at 10:03 pm 75.Biff said …

    Lets get to the nitty gritty. How did first life know how to reproduce accurately, as well as the other features of being alive, such as deriving nutriton, eliminating waste, creating a protective coating, being anti-entropic, and so on?”

    The answer to such questions by evolutionist are not empirical rather they are stories created on the foundations of no evidence whatsoever. These stories are said to be valid on the basis that because evolution is true, then the stories are true. Circular reasoning and religious.

  76. on 19 Sep 2011 at 10:17 pm 76.MrQ said …

    Biffy, #75

    …..first life …….
    The answer to such questions by evolutionist are not empirical rather they are stories created on the foundations of no evidence whatsoever.

    *Ahem* First life does not involve the Theory of Evolution.
    So, Biffy, would you like to state at what point in time Man (aka Homo sapiens) appeared on Earth. I am wondering if Hor is able to give me a date (maybe within +/- a million years) of Earth’s 4 billion+ years age.

    Go ahead Biffy, use whatever resources you have available and tell me: Were we hunted by T. Rex? Did humans enjoy the sweet taste of Ramapithecus meat at some time in our past?

  77. on 20 Sep 2011 at 12:53 am 77.Observer said …

    #75 Biffy The opening dud in your ongoing salvo of misfires implies specifically the business of life is volitional. This would imply the sorrowful event leading to YOU, specifically, was a choice. What is more, it also implies that your cells KNOW how to split and replace themselves.

    This line of reasoning is akin to a snow flake “knowing” how to form. And this is precisely correct if one were to use “know” in the metaphorical sense Severin used it a couple weeks ago.

    The plausibility of the specifics of evolution are all based either on observation or plausible processes based on chemistry. Ultimately all that Darwin assumed was that individuals were not identical but contained variability, the heritability of traits of individuals, and organisms with traits making them well adapted to their environment would propagate more of their traits into the population on average. That is evolution. Subsequent generation have filled in many of the specifics.

    Gilbert did basic research into electricity. Orsted, Frankline, Ampere, Farraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, and Hertz filled in the blanks and created the whole of the theory of Electromagnetism. Of course, that all came apart with Einstein’s photoelectric effect, but eventually, that was sorted and we have Quantum Electrodynamics. That took about 350 years. I think we are doing pretty well on the evolutionary biology given we have just celebrated its sesquicentenary.

  78. on 20 Sep 2011 at 1:09 am 78.40 year Atheist said …

    Atheists avoid the question of the source of first life. Instead of demanding scientific evidence for their own position, they demand scientific evidence for the supernatural agent. This argument devolves to the rudiments of Philosophical Materialism: show us the evidence they bleat, as if that is an answer to the issue of “a priori elimination of one whole field of inquiry”.

    ”credible evidence” is always the Atheist mantra. This allows them deniability, because when they can’t deny the evidence, they can deny the Materialist credibility of the evidence and then go immediately to false analogies (elves, etc). The underlying basis for this maneuver is the fallacious position that empirical evidence which is voluntarily materialist is identical to Philosophical Materialism – which is a metaphysical, religious position without possibility of proof. So they always demand ”scientific evidence”, which is logically and functionally impossible for metaphysical issues.

    And they never answer the question, “if the philosophy of living things must be, by definition, materialist, then the origin of life must be materialist also, if logic is to be coherent: so where is the evidence for abiogenesis?” And they never answer the question, “where is the experimental, replicable evidence for ancient speciation and development of new, complex features?” The position is that science will magically someday answer this, despite its metaphysical nature.

    Both ID and Evolution are religious positions, each of which is based on unsupportable (experimentally) inferences taken from static pieces of evidence. So it is reasonable to assume that each position is taken from, not science, but prior commitment to an agenda regarding the issue of non-physical reality. Since that issue is regarding a metaphysical existence, the positions are actually positions on metaphysics, i.e. religious.

  79. on 20 Sep 2011 at 1:31 am 79.MrQ said …

    40YA
    Let’s reverse engineer the process, shall we?
    And we end up with single celled creatures at some point in time 4 billion years ago. Try it.
    There are models one can use to find reality/validity of a position. One is using magic/myth such as religion (the IDiot crowd) and then there’s the observable physical evidence.

  80. on 20 Sep 2011 at 1:45 am 80.Observer said …

    #78 40YA You are back to the GOD of the gaps. Good going.

    How is evolution a religion? And by what idiotic mental mechanism do you get to the notion it is metaphysical?

    “The underlying basis for this maneuver is the fallacious position that empirical evidence which is voluntarily materialist is identical to Philosophical Materialism – which is a metaphysical, religious position without possibility of proof. ” You are pretty lost. Are you an undergrad at Liberty U?

  81. on 20 Sep 2011 at 1:49 am 81.A said …

    Reverse engineer the process? Who is the engineer Q? Do you even know the very basics of biology 101?

    You seem to be much more knowledgeable than the rest of us. Show us this “physical evidence” that engineers us back to that 1st single celled creature of which you speak.

    I have a better idea since yours is pointless. Read the post from 40 year atheist. He seems to understand the “reality” for which you search.

  82. on 20 Sep 2011 at 2:52 am 82.MrQ said …

    A,
    OK. I doubt that we will get anywhere but what the hell. Let’s get some basic facts out of the way. We’ll then fill in the “nitty gritty” details with FACTS and paint ourselves a nice picture.

    First I am sure that we can agree that Homo sapiens have existed on our planet Earth, for arguments sake, less than 1 million years.
    Prior to “the rise of mammals” there existed an era where the dinosaurs ruled. Are you with me?
    I am sure we can also agree that 99% of all species that have ever existed on our humble planet are now extinct.
    We can date the first signs of single celled life to 4 billion years +/- 150 million years.
    Please add some information yourself. Let’s do this together. No need to be frightened!!! We can all be the engineers…how exciting.

  83. on 20 Sep 2011 at 5:55 am 83.Severin said …

    75 Biff
    „How did first life know how to reproduce accurately, as well as the other features of being alive, such as deriving nutriton, eliminating waste, creating a protective coating, being anti-entropic, and so on?”

    How does an atom „know“ what to do in a situation?

    No atom reacts randomly to stimuli from its surroundings.
    Each of them reacts preciselly according to „knowledge“ it has „built in“ its structure.
    If you heat it, it will vibrate EXACTLY proportionally to quantity of imputed energy and its mass.
    If it meets another atom, or particle, or beam of energy, it will strictly react according to laws of physics. No exception.

    For example, if 2 free H atoms (ATOMS!) meets an O atom, they will immediatelly join to make water molecule.
    If an H atom meets another H atom, they will create a H2 molecule.
    If 2 H2 molecules meet an O2 molecule, they will NOT spontaniously create water, as free atoms did, but will „wait“ for some innitial energy to enable this reaction. If innitial energy does not come, they will NEVER create water.
    When 2×3 (=6, for you) atoms of oxygen meet, they will NOT create 2 ozone (O3) molecules, unless enough innitial energy is present, they will make 3 O2 molecules!

    And it will ALWAYS happen exactly TAHAT way, not another.

    How do they „know“ what to do?

  84. on 20 Sep 2011 at 7:07 am 84.Severin said …

    78 40 Ya
    “Atheists avoid the question of the source of first life.“

    No, we don’t, you liar.
    Can’t you say ANYTHING without lying?

    We believe life spontaniously originated somewhere in universe, most probably on our own planet.
    FACTS are as simple as this:
    2 +2 =4, H+H = H2, inorganic matter transforms to organic matter, simpler organic molecules build more complex ones, more complex ones build still complexer ones…
    Any problems with that?

    You ignorants involve „randomness“ in the story as the crucial argument that something is impossible.
    You probably think that each atom in a primordial soup had to „try“ every other atom there, but it does not work that way!
    You forget LAWS of physics and chemistry (you ignore them), that DISABLE chemical reactions that are impossible, and PREFER („incourage“) other chemical reactions. Chemistry is NOT a „chaos“ as you ignorants may think. According to STRICT LAWS, something is POSSIBLE to happen, and something is IMPOSSIBLE to happen.
    Posible things DO happen. Especially in chemistry!

    We think during 4 billion years, somewhere in „primordial soup“ OR in volcano puddles, OR in layers of mica, or… (on Mars), trillions upon trillions upon trillions of more or less complex molecules colided EVERY SINGLE SECOND of those 4 BILLION YEARS, with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of other more or less complex molecules, made trillions upon trillions upon trillions of combinations, and ONCE (I believe much more than once, and pretty soon after forming of earth) a molecule was build that was able to „eat“ (to use parts of surrounding organic and inorganic molecules to compensate parts of itself lost in some „undesirable“ chemical reactions), and – WHY NOT (any theoretical obstacles/limits?) to REPLICATE itself. Inorganic crystals DO copy themselves, for example, why not complex organic molecules?

    What is wrong with this logic?

    So, gentleman liar, we DO NOT avoid that question, and our answer perfectly fits chemistry, physics and logic.

    Now YOU finally tell us AT WHICH MOMENT your god intervened:
    a) to make universe from nothing
    b) to create life
    Don’t you miss to explain us HOW hi did it!

  85. on 20 Sep 2011 at 7:27 am 85.Severin said …

    81 A
    “Show us this “physical evidence” that engineers us back to that 1st single celled creature of which you speak.”

    Well, dear A, amino acids CAN be synthesized from simple inorganic compounds.
    Proteins ARE made of amino acids.
    Chemical reactions that combine thousands amino acids to proteins are POSSIBLE chemical reacions, that regularry occur in nature.

    Put WORDS “life in lab” in your searching machine and read!
    WHAT will you say when the first “eating” and self-replicating complex protein “crawls out” from a test tube?

    What else would you like to know?

  86. on 20 Sep 2011 at 10:19 am 86.Observer said …

    #81A I get the impression you did not understand the article you cited from the Scientific American, or you chose to selectively quote out of context to make a point other than what the article was saying. Dumb or dishonest or both.

  87. on 20 Sep 2011 at 10:47 am 87.Severin said …

    gentlemen theist,
    Ever heard about Avogadro’s number?

    Ther is 6.10^22 molecules of water in ONLY 18 g of water, that is TEN BILLION TRILLION molecules in a THIMBLE of water.

    If this water dissolves from stones, dirt, and air only 0.1% b.w. of SOMETHING (minerals, gases….), ther will be 0.018 g of that “something” in our thimble with 18 g water.
    Assuming that those are simple molecules, having relative molecular mass of roughly 18, as water itself, there will be “only” 2.7*10^19 (10 million trillion) molecules of “something” in our thimble.
    In this case, each molecule of “something” will be separated from another molecule of “something” with about 1000 molecules of water, and, in a space pattern, they will be “far” from each other some 100 nm.
    If water is not frozen, but is moving under heat exchange, wind… not to forget Brown’s moving(!!!)what are the chances that a molecule of “something” OMMITS another one within a second?
    I would say NONE!
    IF some of the dissolved particles have their own electrical charges (ions), then they will ATTRACT particles with opposite charge, increasing their chances to collide to CERTAINTY.

    In short: molecules of “something” WILL collide extremely frequently and WILL mutually react in water solution (AND with water itself), at rate of millions of collisions per second, to create new compounds, if their mutual reaction is “permitted” by laws of chemistry. EACH single molecule containing an –OH group will instantly react with another molecule containing a free protone (“-H”, or “-H3O” group), etc.

    They will NOT wait god to tell them to react!

    Now imagine BILLIONS of “thimbles” on earth, each containing trillions of molecules of “something”, and molecules of that “something” spontaniously, governed by LAWS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, constantly COLLIDE, and readily REACT, millions of times in each single second, during billions of years!

    If life did not appear, THAT would be a miracle!

  88. on 20 Sep 2011 at 1:23 pm 88.Lou (DFW) said …

    78.40 year Atheist said …

    “Atheists avoid the question of the source of first life. Instead of demanding scientific evidence for their own position, they demand scientific evidence for the supernatural agent.”

    This a straw man argument.

    Atheists do not “avoid the question of the source of first life.” That is a lie, a typical theist tactic for avoiding “evidence for the supernatural agent.”

    “[T]he question of the source of first life” has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, to do with atheism. However, “the supernatural agent” is the core belief of theism, yet theists have no evidence for said agent except that it exists in the space between their ears.

    40YA, therefore, you are simply full of it as it a theist (what’s new?) until you offer any evidence for your position. And I’ll try to explain this to you one more time – ATHEISM HAS NO POSITION OR EXPLANATION for “the source of first life” except as it relates to the rejection of theism. Atheism does not attempt to explain how life began or evolved. DO YOU GET IT?

    You can keep typing and posting lies about atheists and evolution until your keyboard breaks, but it’s all irrelevant until you provide evidence for your “supernatural agent.”

  89. on 20 Sep 2011 at 2:18 pm 89.Observer said …

    #88 Lou(DFW) Here! Here! That really is the crux. The theists have such muddled thinking. They can still vote. If we keep pointing out their stupidities maybe one or two will come around to reason. The other thing is that they always seem to come around to the “God of the Gaps” when they attempt reason. Through science there is hope.

  90. on 20 Sep 2011 at 4:30 pm 90.A said …

    “Atheism does not attempt to explain how life began or evolved. DO YOU GET IT?”

    Maybe you should see post #84 by Severin Can you atheists agree on anything? Would you claim you default position is I see nothing, hear nothing and believe nothing?

    Its called origins. Run down to your local Barnes and Noble and pick up a science book. Look in the index for things like spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Then start looking for the actual facts that back the positions. They don’t pass the smell test.

    This is the typical atheist back down when they have been called out.

  91. on 20 Sep 2011 at 4:32 pm 91.A said …

    #84 @Severin,

    This big long rambling post is very nice. Where are the facts that stand up to the scientific method?

  92. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:43 pm 92.Severin said …

    A,
    I didn’t comment scientific methods.
    I only denied someone’s lie that atheists avoid some questions.

    I said how I think life could have occured on earth.
    I presented my opinion about something and explained it.
    Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but it is my opinion, and I think I argumented it well.

    Your turn now!
    SAY SOMETHING.
    Tell me I am wrong, but then tell me why am I wrong.
    Use arguments to refute my logic, one by one.
    Tell us YOUR ideas about how life began on earth.
    Give some explanations to your claims, as I gave for mine.

    I am waiting.

  93. on 20 Sep 2011 at 6:59 pm 93.Observer said …

    #90 A Are you really this dense? Why couldn’t there be a God, and there be abiogenisis or spontaneous generation? Again this will reduce to the “God of the Gaps” problem.

    And how could you have possibly come to the incorrect conclusion that you have the gumption to determine whether anything, aside from something to eat or fuck, passes a smell test? Please, what facts don’t look right to you?

  94. on 20 Sep 2011 at 7:00 pm 94.Severin said …

    A,
    In #85 I am adressing to you, but you neglect it and turn to other issues.

    A “deja vu” situation!

    Theists are allways doing it: neglecting sensitive questions to hush them up, and making noice about some other questions, never by explaining anything, never by saying something of THEIR OWN, only by posing further nonsense questions.

    Stop posing questions, A.
    Don’t YOU have something to say?

    I doubt it.

  95. on 20 Sep 2011 at 8:18 pm 95.A said …

    “Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but it is my opinion”

    Its not my place to disprove your opinion Severin, it is your place to prove it. I thought atheists only accepted what could be proven? Is that not what you gripe about regarding ID?

    Any other atheist accept Severin’s opinion as outlined #84 & #85??

  96. on 20 Sep 2011 at 9:49 pm 96.observer said …

    #95A You assert that there is some uber-faerie sprinkling come-alive dust around the universe, providing a guiding hand, whatever. Severin, myself, and others have called bullshit. Severin uses as an example hydrogen and oxygen mixing to form water and I used the creation of a snowflake as examples of order coming out of nature- no great guiding hand, it is just the way things fall together- there are many many examples in inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry.

    Now, like the coward and dullard you are, you try to turn the tables saying that, despite entire libraries of valid research on evolutionary biology and biochemistry, Severin has to prove something? You parade out your idiotic God of the Gaps? If you can’t even read a Scientific American Blog article and understand that, how are you supposed to voice any kind of opinion worth respect?

  97. on 20 Sep 2011 at 10:19 pm 97.Tek said …

    A, some children believe in the Tooth Fairy. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you that their parents taught them that if they left a tooth under the pillow, the Tooth Fairy would replace it with some money. If you ask the child for proof, they’ll tell you about the money and that they just KNOW the Tooth Fairy exists. If you ask the child how the fairy gets into the room, the child will simply make up an excuse to continue to live out their story. The parents, meanwhile, look on smiling knowing that their child will soon grow out of their fantasy.

    Some children believe in Father Christmas. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you that their parents taught them that if they were good that Father Christmas would bring them presents at Christmas. If you ask the child for proof, they’ll tell you about the presents, how they can write and receive letters from Father Christmas, that they can track his sleigh on Google and that they just KNOW that Father Christmas exists. If you ask how Father Christmas gets down sealed or nonexistent chimneys the child will simply make up an excuse to continue to live out their story. The parents, meanwhile, look on smiling knowing that their child will soon grow out of their fantasy.

    Some children believe in god and Jesus. If you ask them why, they’ll tell you that their parents taught them that if they were good that Jesus would look after then when they grew up. If you ask the child for proof, they’ll tell you that they just KNOW that Father Christmas, no I mean the Tooth Fairy, no I mean god exists. If you ask the child to explain away the many contradictions about their god then the child will simply make up an excuse to continue to live out their story. The parents, meanwhile, look on smiling hoping that neither they nor they child will soon grow out of their fantasy.

    A, the reason you and so many other Xtians are afraid to provide proof for your fantasy is precisely because it is a fantasy. Ironically, there is more proof for the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas then there is for your magic stick boy but, then, at least if you ask Father Christmas for something you might get it. However, pray to god or Jesus and you’re wasting your time because they are even less real than Father Christmas.

    Let’s see you be the first Xtian here to provide proof for the existence of Sky Daddy. Got nothing other than excuses? What a surprise.

  98. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:14 am 98.A said …

    Observer,

    Can you prove Severin’s opinion? Nobody asked asked about snowflakes or other pretty things. We asked about origins. You fallacious red herrings will not pass unchallenged. The 40 years atheist has already called BS on that tactic.

    Well? Can you prove his opinion……Observer?

  99. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:48 am 99.Lou (DFW) said …

    98.A said …

    Observer,

    “Can you prove Severin’s opinion?”

    I can prove his opinion. Scroll up a few lines. It’s right there in plain site for all to read. The only stronger proof of “Severin’s opinion” is for him to say it to you face-to-face.

    “Nobody asked asked about snowflakes or other pretty things. We asked about origins.”

    This blog “explores God and religion in our world today.” It’s not about discussing “origins,” yet you continue to dwell on that rather than present evidence for your imaginary god. THAT is a red herring – a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god. “You[r] fallacious red herrings will not pass unchallenged.”

    “Well? Can you prove his opinion……Observer?”

    Neither Severin’s opinions nor Observer’s ability to “prove his opinion” are relevant to the existence of your imaginary god. The only relevant comment you can post here is evidence for your imaginary god.

    Well.. can you provide any evidence for your imaginary god…A?

  100. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:52 am 100.Observer said …

    #98 Bold talk A. You are asked many questions and you never answer anything. I answer stuff all the time and often give references.

    Question 1 for A: Please give an example of a “fallacious red herring”, preferably presented by me.

    Question 2 for A: What precisely did 40YA call bullshit on and was not completely shot down? This character seems like a dumb-as-a-stump Liberty U sophomore.

    Answer. What precisely are you referring to with Severin? Ii can guess. First, I did about one year of formal laboratory chemistry, before veering off into bookish chemistry using those stretched-out “S”s and funny looking “d”s and upside down triangles. I have also done more lab work, and crystallography using macro-scale, microscopic, and X-ray diffraction. I have even done the experiment with H and O when I was in eigth-grade- electrolysis to create the gas from a battery I made gave me two parts H and one part O (sadly this took weeks). Even with the baby analytical chemistry we were using, we got the water back. Also, in a stat-mech class, a decade later, we calculated the shape of a water molecule, which has the 120 deg bend. From the crystallography, this predicts hexagonal symmetry, which lo and behold give us those pretty snow flakes. So I agree with Severin that in all likelihood, two Hs and an O will give water. Where I disagree is that if they are put together at standard temperature and pressure, the stat-mech predicts a half-life of around 25,000 years ( if I recall correctyly) for the gasses as they turn into water. BUT, a spark, and it is over in a millisecond or so. Lightening could do the same thing. So I agree with Severin.

    As for the spontaneous bit with life, it is hard to imagine otherwise, but it will be created in my lifetime, arguably it has. So what then?

    As Lou pointed out, Atheism has no opinion on the origin of life specifically. It so happens that most atheists, and this may have to do with the severely positive IQ bias, also are rational and are either self- of formally educated. As a result, the notion of the Man in the Sky makes no sense to them. What is more, given the incomparable success of science as an intellectual enterprise, they also feel comfortable extrapolating that we will get the genetics down in around the three hundred years it took to understand electromagnetism. That is, unless we get some white-trash Christian filth like Perry or Bachmann elected by their fellow travelers and the blood-suckers who use the aforementioned for their financial gain.

    Now answer your questions weakling.

  101. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:55 am 101.Horatiio said …

    Severin said:

    “I said how I think life could have occured on earth.
    I presented my opinion about something and explained it.”

    How does what you think Severin constitute science? We all know about molecules and all your other diversions but how did you “thinking” provide meaningful proof of how life began?

    What you did was provide a religion, faith, in what you believed happen. You have zero proof.

    Then, Severin, you ask someone to prove you wrong. Tell you what. Prove God wrong and then I will prove you wrong.

    Deal?

  102. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:59 am 102.Horatiio said …

    Nose Buster,

    Appeal to authority is bunk. Of course, there in your basement “dreaming” about all of your “credentials” means nothing here.

    Back to the basement. When you get brave, enter the real world and take a look at reality, if you dare. LOL!!

  103. on 21 Sep 2011 at 3:24 am 103.MrQ said …

    Hor #102

    Appeal to authority is bunk.

    Yeah, that’s right. Next time you see a doctor call them on their bullshit analysis….
    Doctor: You have a tumour.
    Hor: Don’t be a dumbass, doc. I have got god in my corner and I prayed for my health.

    Since the appeal to authority is bunk, are you still thinking the Earth is centre of the universe? Galileo proved otherwise…. But wtf does he know. Hor, have you ever actually proven to yourself and measured to find out if what Galileo said was correct?

    Look up at posts 81/82. Can you pick up the ball where A dropped it? We may, however, need to appeal to authority to get any traction on having a discussion. But all you’ll likely do is throw a bible at me.

  104. on 21 Sep 2011 at 5:14 am 104.Severin said …

    95 A
    “Its not my place to disprove your opinion Severin, it is your place to prove it.“

    My opinion is based on laws of chemistry that are already proven to work.
    It is based on fact that proteins are not made of microscopic angels, but of amino acids, that CAN be synthesized from inorganic compounds, and CAN make coomplex polymers in chemical reactions we know well.
    Those facts do not prove my opinion, but make it pretty realistic.
    I can not directly prove it, science will prove it, and soon.

    Now, it was MY OPINION, and I was honest enough to say it, and to offer as much support to it as I knew.
    What about you?
    Do you have opinion about how life started?
    Why are you hiding it?

    In a debate, you only have right to attack and deny something, if you have your own “theory” about the topic discussed.

    We did not see it here.
    How DID life started on earth (or anywhere else), according to YOUR ideas?
    Have any?
    Don’t you hide them, please! Be honest and expose them to us.

  105. on 21 Sep 2011 at 5:26 am 105.Severin said …

    101 Horatio
    “How does what you think Severin constitute science?”

    It doesn’t, and I did not say it.

    It FOLLOWS science. It USES science.

    “Then, Severin, you ask someone to prove you wrong. Tell you what. Prove God wrong and then I will prove you wrong.
    Deal?”

    YOU alreday proved there was no god, I have nothing more to say.
    To refresh your memory:

    “Everything that xists needs a creator”, you said.

    God exists = god needs a creator.
    God has no crator = god does not exist.
    (Tertium non datur)

    You said that, not I.
    Yhank you so much!

  106. on 21 Sep 2011 at 12:42 pm 106.Lou (DFW) said …

    102.Horatiio said …

    Nose Buster,

    “Appeal to authority is bunk. Of course, there in your basement “dreaming” about all of your “credentials” means nothing here.”

    206.Sideshow Hor said …

    “I would pay to see our resident racist Nose Buster dancing with some Wiccans! We could call it Broadway in the basement.”

    You’re the one dreaming in the basement.

  107. on 21 Sep 2011 at 12:47 pm 107.Lou (DFW) said …

    101.Horatiio said …

    “Tell you what. Prove God wrong and then I will prove you wrong.”

    You have presenting nothing that can be proven wrong.

    The only thing you have presented for god is your belief. That is not “wrong.” It’s a fact that you have a belief, nothing more.

    Tell you what. Provide any evidence you have for your imaginary god, then we’ll have a starting point. It’s irrelevant whether or not you can prove evolution, Big Bang, etc., wrong. That they are “wrong” is irrelevant to the existence of god.

    Put up or shut up.

  108. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:05 pm 108.Horatiio said …

    “Yeah, that’s right. Next time you see a doctor call them on their bullshit analysis….”

    LOL!!!, aw its the old Severin complex. Reject an opinion in one area means we reject in all areas.

    Well, let us see if we can steer you in rationale discourse. Nose Buster may be an authority on cleaning basements but HE IS NOT an authority on the existence of God. I doubt he is an authority on chemistry.

    It is much like when the atheists throw some quote out there by Pope Dawkins. The atheist masses expect us to be in awe when in reality he has no authority on God. Now if I need information on bacteria replication I will listen to Dawkins.

    I hope this clears up the confusion for those with jumpy knees.

    _____________________________

    “My opinion is based on laws of chemistry that are already proven to work.”

    Uh Huh we know about the laws. Your opinion has never been proven to create life from lifeless matter. Not even close. That is the point. Any other ideas? How will science prove it soon as you claim? Do you have inside information? Share

    The Deal is still valid for Severin and/or the rest.

    ___________________________

    Lou you scare me. You seem strangely tied to Nose Buster’s Wiccan dance. You wouldn’t be his Wiccy partner would you? LOL!!!

  109. on 21 Sep 2011 at 1:26 pm 109.MrQ said …

    Hor, #108

    HE IS NOT an authority on the existence of God.

    And the authority on god/Jewish Zombies would be you? Someone who found salvation because of misjudgements earlier in your life. How pathetic.
    Who exactly is the authority on deities? Who decides?

  110. on 21 Sep 2011 at 3:08 pm 110.Lou (DFW) said …

    108.Horatiio said …

    “The Deal is still valid for Severin and/or the rest.”

    But strangely, it NEVER is valid for you, is it? You NEVER provide evidence for your imaginary god on the blog that is about discussing god and religion, not the origins of life or the universe.

    You are a fraud.

    ___________________________

    “Lou you scare me. You seem strangely tied to Nose Buster’s Wiccan dance. You wouldn’t be his Wiccy partner would you? LOL!!!”

    Yes, I scare you because I constantly remind the readers about what a fruitcake you are.

    It’s bad enough that you already have a masturbation fantasy about watching “Nose Buster” (still obsessed with that) dance with Wiccans in the “Broadway in the basement,” as you put it. But now you want to see me involved. You really are a FRUITCAKE. You can’t change what you wrote with your extremely odd comment of trying to include me in your fantasy.

    Now stop pulling a “Ted Haggard” on us. Reading your comments are like watching a train wreck.

  111. on 21 Sep 2011 at 3:14 pm 111.Severin said …

    108 Horatio
    “Reject an opinion in one area means we reject in all areas.”

    Not in all areas, no. Only opinions that exclude each other because they are mutually contradictory.

    For example, why going to doctors if you pray and believe god will help you?
    If you do visit doctors, you do not believe in god.
    You can not “a little bit” believe in god, and “a little bit” not believe in god.
    Or, you can not at the same time believe/not believ in god.
    I mean YOU can, we saw it, but what you are doing is a meaningless contradictory bullshit.

    Like your claim about “everything that exists needs a creator”!
    Then, when we come to god, all you can offer is “ooops!” (LOL).

    Like your pathetic bullshit about “when I see cration, I think creator”, only tou can not define creation so that we all can recognize it when we see it.

    What are you doing out of your hole?

  112. on 21 Sep 2011 at 3:26 pm 112.Severin said …

    110 Lou (DFW)
    “You are a fraud.”

    I doubt it. I think he is only a pathetic ….(and a liar, but myabe he does not even notice it), that deos believe every bullshit he says, and he just can’t see/understand anything that needs IQ bigger than some 55 to be understood.

    He never noticed his own bullshit construction about “everything that exists need a creator” was, in fact, negation of existance of god. I guess ANYONE with IQ above 35-45 would understand that stupid contradiction, and would never offer it anywhere to “prove” anything, especially not existance of god.
    From time to time I feel sorry for the man.

  113. on 21 Sep 2011 at 4:29 pm 113.Observer said …

    #108 Hor I am as much an authority on the existence of “God” as exists.

    As for Chemistry, at one point in time I knew quite a bit about a very small slice of chemistry before I headed off on another academic path. As a rule, scientists know a lot about a small portion of the broad field they study. That is not to say they do not know a tremendous amount about a lot of things. This is not meant as a slight, but unless you are actually at the forefront in a field, it is hard to know what you don’t know.

    In my screed above, I did do those things. “A” had asked for someone to defend Severin’s opinion, and his “knowing” metaphor fit perfectly for his water example.

    One other point that is rather telling, 40YA at some point asserted that Philosophical Materialism is metaphysical. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It also explains the translational nature of scientific reasoning from empirical knowledge to theoretical construction. I believe this is one place where theists allow themselves to be derailed as they try to understand their beliefs as their model of the world and universe is implicitly metaphysical. Try shaking that, and you might better understand what all these science-people have been doing for centuries and how they have brought us understanding of the world, television/radio, microwave ovens, ICs, antibiotics, in the last couple years astonishing gene therapies, with more to come.

  114. on 21 Sep 2011 at 8:40 pm 114.Horatiio said …

    #113 Hor I am as much an authority on the existence of “God” as exists.

    Really? How so.

    Listen, I truly do enjoy the science lessons from you and Severin but science is not the problem. The problem is the hypothesis and the inability to support the hypothesis. Where is the credible empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. I realize all atheists are not philosophical materialist but I don’t see you as Buddhists, Jain or Taoist.

    Severin already admitted it was just his opinion regarding origins. Would that be your position as well.

  115. on 21 Sep 2011 at 8:57 pm 115.Lou (DFW) said …

    114.Horatiio said …

    “Really? How so.”

    Really? Are you that dense or are distracted because of your Wiccan “Broadway in the basement” fantasy?

    “Listen, I truly do enjoy the science lessons from you and Severin but science is not the problem.”

    That’s right, it’s not. The problem is that you have no evidence for your imaginary god, so you continue to babble on and on with your juvenile attacks on anything that you perceive as a threat to your fantasy – no, not “Broadway in the basement,” but your belief in your imaginary god.

  116. on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:05 pm 116.Observer said …

    #114 (Sigh) Hor- Actually, I am not all that familiar with Philosophical Materialism and its implication for atheism. I suspect they are necessary and sufficient conditions, although I do not know enough about the various philosophical factions to know.

    As for the “God” bit, and I am done with this thing for a while, there needs to be a REASON to believe in something. Myths do not qualify as a reason. The “God” model explains nothing. The “God” model predicts nothing. The “God” model is only a repository for an ever shrinking collection of things we are ignorant about. So in that I observe no reason to apply the “god” model, and other smarter people with opinions worthy of respect can find no reason either, I reject the model. Anyone is capable of doing this, so I am no more of an expert than anyone else, but no one is more of an expert than me.

    Many arguments on this website for the God model are folks who found some peace in a time of crisis. With brain imaging and psychology, these sorts of things are getting sorted out now too. It is my hope that just as folks via knowledge came to understand thunderstorms were not harbingers of supernatural disaster, via knowledge being discovered now, folks will come to understand why storms in peoples’ minds form and by non-pharmaceutical/surgical procedures (except in extreme cases) we as a society will find ways to make everyone’s life better via social programs and reform, education, exercise, and nutrition. It seems that with a better society, there will be less reason for a “God” and the associated parasitic institutions. Bon Soir!

  117. on 22 Sep 2011 at 5:14 am 117.Severin said …

    114 Horatio
    „Severin already admitted it was just his opinion regarding origins.“

    Of course, but my opinion is based on solid facts, and is most probably true in general (not necessarily in details).

    What is your opinion, and what facts is it based on?

  118. on 22 Sep 2011 at 5:28 am 118.Severin said …

    A,

    I am still waiting to hear your opinion and arguments that support it.

  119. on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:41 am 119.Horatiio said …

    “there needs to be a REASON to believe in something.”

    Well I do agree with that. It could be opinion as you and Severin contend that origins comes about by chemical reactions although life has never been proven to form in such a fashion. Such a position takes a great deal of faith I just do not have. If this could be proven by our modern scientific method I may be more so inclined.

    Or we can look at our world and recognize that design of all things complex always has a designer at the center of the process. This position utilizes observation that of which I can partake. I have no reason to place my faith in chemical reactions that have never been proven to produce life.

    Both positions postulate a religious position of faith as 40YA pointed out. I don’t have enough faith for your position.

  120. on 22 Sep 2011 at 12:23 pm 120.DPK said …

    So, if and when the process by which life is created from non-living chemicals is demonstrated, are you saying you will abandon your belief in your silly supernatural god?
    There is hope for you yet!
    D

  121. on 22 Sep 2011 at 12:27 pm 121.DPK said …

    Let’s see how Horatio backs away from this one:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece

  122. on 22 Sep 2011 at 1:06 pm 122.MrQ said …

    Hor

    always has a designer at the center of the process….. chemical reactions that have never been proven to produce life…….Both positions postulate a religious position of faith as 40YA pointed out. I don’t have enough faith for your position.

    This is a god of the gaps argument and not a comparison of faiths. Science seeks answers and true scientists will accept whatever conclusion is reached (God or otherwise). Religious faith must be something that does not, and never should, require any proof whatsoever.

  123. on 22 Sep 2011 at 2:32 pm 123.Lou (DFW) said …

    119.Horatiio said …

    “Both positions postulate a religious position of faith as 40YA pointed out. I don’t have enough faith for your position.”

    No, only yours does.

    Poor Hor, he must view everything in the context of religion. So much so that it affects his ability to understand what religion is and isn’t. Either that or he’s up to lying about what religion is in order to attack something that isn’t religious.

  124. on 22 Sep 2011 at 3:41 pm 124.DPK said …

    Hor has backed himself into a very small corner. Remember, a while back, he abandoned his contention of an intercessory, personal god in favor of a deist philosophy of a creator god who started the universe in motion and now just sits back and watches. The reason for this is the ONLY thing left of his god of the gaps argument is genesis.
    Like the caveman marveling at the volcano, he simply is not capable of comprehending any other explanation for what he calls “creation” other than the supernatural… even though his entire premise that “design of all things complex always has a designer at the center of the process” is self contradictory when it come to his own un-created and un-designed god.
    So he is left with the origin of life as the last hold out of evidence of his mysterious, supernatural being. Very soon that will be taken from him, if it hasn’t already. But, no doubt, the rationalizing religious minds of the truly deluded will find some kind of small crack to crawl into to hold fast to their contentions.

  125. on 22 Sep 2011 at 3:44 pm 125.DPK said …

    “…origins comes about by chemical reactions although life has never been proven to form in such a fashion.”

    Tell us Hor, exactly what processes HAVE been proven to result in the origins of life?

  126. on 22 Sep 2011 at 3:50 pm 126.Severin said …

    119 Horatio
    “It could be opinion as you and Severin contend that origins comes about by chemical reactions although life has never been proven to form in such a fashion.”

    I think the case is proven. The path from simple compounds to complex proteins is recorded in the very structure of proteins, and clearly visible there. NOTHING unusual there!
    No microscopic pigeons in structure of proteins, no small Jesuses, nothing like that.

    But what with YOU opinion?
    Why are you hiding it?
    If you think god created life, you MUST have some idea about how and when it happened.

    Share it with us! Maybe you convince us with some more details than simple “goddidit”, that we obviously don’t buy.

  127. on 22 Sep 2011 at 4:52 pm 127.Lou (DFW) said …

    125.DPK said …

    “Tell us Hor, exactly what processes HAVE been proven to result in the origins of life?”

    At :48 is the church’s alternative to the theory of evolution

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0&feature=related

  128. on 22 Sep 2011 at 5:07 pm 128.Severin said …

    119 Horatio
    “Such a position takes a great deal of faith I just do not have.”

    You KNOW that amino acids are easily made of simple inorganic ingredients. You KNOW that proteins are nothing more than very long chains of amino acids.If you don’t know how proteins can be synthesized from those simple blocks, you may take my word that it is not SO complicated. People are doing it today rutinely.

    You also KNOW that trillions upon trillions of atoms and more or less complex molecules that were present on erth, collided every single nanosecond of billions of years, at billions of places on earth, each being MUCH bigger than a thimble, to create trillions upon trillions of more or less complex compounds that were degraded, reconstructed, changed, rebuilt…
    Knowing all that, you still need FAITH to accept possibility that the first living „peace of protein“, able to reconstruct itself by „eating“ and able to divide itself (or to copy itself), was ever spontaniously constructed?
    I think it happended billions of times, but not each „eating and multiplying“ nucleus produced in trillions of spontanious reactions was „self-supportable“ for longer periods of time, untill, once, ONE (figuratively speaking) SURVIVED and continued to develop.

    That was the very moment when evolution started, that followed not ONLY laws of physics and chemistry, but also laws of survival.

    Think!
    Having modest knowledge of math, physics and chemistry, I would need a tremendous quantity of faith to EXCLUDE possibility of spontanious creation of simple life nucleus under given circumstances.
    I would probably put a finger on my forehead if proteins were not constructed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, but of small pigeon-shaped blocks, or of tellur/germanium/platinum blocks, connected via diamond bonds.

    Yet, they are made of common, simple ingredients you can find everywhere, and YOU can synthesize millions of compounds from them.

  129. on 22 Sep 2011 at 9:20 pm 129.Horatiio said …

    “the first cell controlled entirely by man-made genetic instructions had been produced.”

    DPK, thanks! You just proved intelligence is needed to produce life. I take it you on now on board? Now if we can get Lou, Sev and Buster we will be getting somewhere. However you didn’t read you own article. So desperate aren’t we??

    “Ben Davis, who works on synthetic biology at the University of Oxford, said: “I still think we are quite a long way away from artificial life. “You could take this synthetic genome and write in new genes with known functions, but that is not so different from molecular biology at the moment.”

    AWWWW, not so much huh?

    Just supposing here, If we discover God’s mechanism for creating the universe just exactly how would this disprove God? Just wondering how the logic works. How much faith do you have science will unlock the mystery!

    I know how the Taj Mahal was built but I still believe intelligence built the Taj. See how that works there big fella?

    Guys your opinions are great, just don’t claim they have been proven under the scientific method you all claim you follow.

    Have a great weekend boys.

  130. on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:06 pm 130.DPK said …

    “the first cell controlled entirely by man-made genetic instructions had been produced.”

    DPK, thanks! You just proved intelligence is needed to produce life.

    No I didn’t. Sad to see you need to LIE to try and make a point. All I have proven is that you do NOT need a GOD to do it. The fact that human intelligence demonstrated how it can be done without magical powers doesn’t preclude it happening by natural means. Man can generate electricity.. does that mean intelligence is required for electricity? You are so predictable… I told you he’d try to find a crack to scramble into….. LOL….ROTF-LMFAO!!!

  131. on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:12 pm 131.DPK said …

    Don’t go just yet there, Dufus… as usual, you still haven’t answered any of the direct questions we have asked. Why is this such a problem for you? You claim to know the answers to the great questions of the universe. Let’s just start with ONE since it was actually YOUR point.
    “Exactly what processes HAVE been proven to result in the origins of life?”

    Fair question, since you claim that the natural chemical processes that Sev described have not be demonstrated to result in the origin of life… and therfore… hold on tight… BIGGGGG leap here… that proves god must have did it…
    So let’s hear your answer, oh great bag o’ wind.

  132. on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:17 pm 132.Lou (DFW) said …

    129.Horatiio said …

    “the first cell controlled entirely by man-made genetic instructions had been produced.”

    “DPK, thanks! You just proved intelligence is needed to produce life.”

    Except that he didn’t. He only “proved intelligence is need to produce” ARTIFICIAL or SYNTHETIC life. It DID NOT in any way whatsoever prove that intelligence is required to produce life. Once again, you are lying to defend what you perceive as an attack on your belief in an imaginary god.

    “Just supposing here, If we discover God’s mechanism for creating the universe just exactly how would this disprove God? Just wondering how the logic works.”

    And I’m wondering how your usual convoluted logic works. Who claimed that if “God’s mechanism for creating the universe” is discovered, that would disprove god? There’s really something wrong with your thought process.

    “I know how the Taj Mahal was built but I still believe intelligence built the Taj. See how that works there big fella?”

    Yes, we do, but apparently you don’t. You “know how the Taj Mahal was built,” but you don’t know how life was “built.” Your argument is faulty.

  133. on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:07 am 133.Suh said …

    “Fair question, since you claim that the natural chemical processes that Sev described have not be demonstrated to result in the origin of life”

    Wouldn’t the one making the claim need to prove the claim? This would fall on Sev. I am not aware of any chemical processes sparking life. If so, I’m sure it would be published extensively.

  134. on 23 Sep 2011 at 1:26 am 134.DPK said …

    Wouldn’t the one making the claim need to prove the claim?

    Absolutely. Hor is making the claim that god did it. We are waiting for him to prove it. You can attempt to do so in his place.

    Sev on the other hand, did not claim any such thing. He simply said that natural processes resulting in the origin of life on the planet seemed much more probable, due to the reasons he stated and explained in detail, than a magical god being breathing life into mud… as Hor believes.

    “I am not aware of any chemical processes sparking life.” Debatable.. but even so, what does that prove? Nothing. The caveman was not aware of any natural processes that would cause a volcanic eruption. That does not validate his belief in volcano gods.

  135. on 23 Sep 2011 at 2:45 am 135.Lou (DFW) said …

    129.Horatiio said …

    “DPK, thanks! You just proved intelligence is needed to produce life.”

    Oh Hor, you are so slow. We all already knew that intelligence was required to produce anything natural. Haven’t you ever heard of nylon? It required the intelligence of man to create it. Therefore, it’s obvious that cotton required a designer. My goodness, you are dense. Don’t tell us that you missed class the day they taught intelligent design.

  136. on 23 Sep 2011 at 4:59 am 136.Severin said …

    Horatio,

    Is your opinion that a god created life?

    O.K., man, all what you have to do is to tell us when and how god did it.
    Be descriptive, please. Use all imagination you have.
    If you only keep spreading your empty idiotic claims “goddidit, goddidit” around, we might start considering you a parrot.

    If you don’t, case closd, you may go back to your mouse hole, oops, parrot cage.

  137. on 23 Sep 2011 at 5:04 am 137.Severin said …

    Suh,

    From your post I conclude you believe in god and you think god created life.

    Am I right?

    I do no claim anything, I only described a scenario that fits reality and I believe it might be the right one.

    I will be happy to hear your scenario of the same event.

    When and how did god create life?

    Do you have any proofs that god exist, in the first place?

    I mean I do NOT claim god does not exist, I only don’t believe there is one, unless someone gives me some evidences.

  138. on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:29 pm 138.40 year Atheist said …

    The lack of empirical argument. Consider this for a moment. The statement might be made clear as follows: There is no evidence for X, therefore there is no X. Now let’s substitute something for X, such as X-rays, for example, which had no evidence for millennia. Or radio frequency electromagnetic signals. Or a zillion other things, including sub-atomic particles, dark matter, planets around other stars, etc.

    An island with no visible residents can be said to be “probably uninhabited”. This is of course, far different from declaring that something in another dimension does not – in fact – exist. Or declaring that the entire universe has been searched for all time and space, and decisions made at each point. Nor does it defend against the allegations that certain physical irregular singularities within human history are attributable to deity intervention, by claiming to have resolved, empirically, each and every one. Both the defense and the argument itself are not robust and are false.

    Even mature Atheists agree that a negative cannot be proven. That’s why they move to cover their tracks with the notion of having “no deity theory” as opposed to a “theory of no deity”. The unicorn / orbiting tea pot / flying spaghetti machine theories are superficial veneers for actual arguments; they fail at first investigation, because they are arguments created specifically as “proof of no deity”, which they cannot do as failed proof-of-negative analogs.

    For example, the probability of “no orbiting tea pot” is far different from the probability of a First Cause, or the existence of other dimensions, or the connection between mind and matter that doesn’t seem to exist between matter and matter. The fallacy is the “Black and White Fallacy”, and the tactic is the “Red Herring Fallacy”, used to redirect an argument into false argumentation

  139. on 23 Sep 2011 at 3:25 pm 139.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.40 year Atheist said …

    “The lack of empirical argument. Consider this for a moment. The statement might be made clear as follows: There is no evidence for X, therefore there is no X.”

    As usual, your logic is faulty. How many times does this have to be explained to you?!

    Nobody ever said “There are no x-rays!” But somebody once said “There are x-rays, and I have a proof or empirical evidence for them.”

    Before god was postulated, nobody said “There is no god!” At some time somebody said “There is a god.” But he didn’t have proof or evidence for such a god. Nor do you.

    Just as there is no evidence or proof for the Volcano God, there is none for your imaginary god.

    Forget your red herring faulty logic and simply provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  140. on 23 Sep 2011 at 4:26 pm 140.MrQ said …

    Hor @129

    Right on, MrHor.

    Synthetic life
    Taj Mahal
    God

    All have man as the creator, all are man-made.

  141. on 23 Sep 2011 at 6:06 pm 141.DPK said …

    Thank you Lou… you beat me to it.
    40Year, your verbal diarrhea does not hide the flaw of your reasoning. By your assertion, everything someone postulates should be accepted as truth until proven false. How ridiculous!
    This argument can be ended quickly by simply providing some actual evidence that the god you claim is real actually exists. That doesn’t mean a gaps argument, as in “atheists can’t explain the origin of life, therefore god is real”. That’s really beneath you, and you know it. So fess up and admit that the reason religion is founded exclusively on FAITH is because that’s all there is to found it on.

  142. on 23 Sep 2011 at 6:31 pm 142.Xenon said …

    @138 40 Y-A

    You must be a logician since you logic is always sound. I think because the logic is so sound is why those who hold to the theory of no deity must change the subject to superficial veneers to make any argument at all or resort to name-calling.

  143. on 23 Sep 2011 at 7:57 pm 143.Lou (DFW) said …

    142.Xenon said …

    “You must be a logician since you logic is always sound. I think because the logic is so sound is why those who hold to the theory of no deity…”

    Of course you think his logic is sound, because you also think there is a “theory of no deity.”

    Hint for Xenon, there is no such theory anymore than there is a “theory of no Volcano God.” There is a “theory” (irrational belief) for god. But there’s no more evidence for that theory than for the Volcano God “theory.” The only evidence for your god is your imagination.

    “…must change the subject to superficial veneers to make any argument at all or resort to name-calling.”

    Nobody has changed the subject. We’re still waiting for theists to present their evidence for their imaginary god.

  144. on 23 Sep 2011 at 9:07 pm 144.MrQ said …

    Xenon 3138,
    Can you explain what 40ya said in post #138?
    Do you personally know who 40ya or anyone else posting on this blog is?

  145. on 25 Sep 2011 at 9:44 am 145.Severin said …

    138 40 yA

    Blah, blah, blah…

    Why are you wasting words?
    If you believe there is a god and want someone to accept your believe, (or “first cause”, or whatever you call it), provide some evidences for your claim.

    That is ALL you need to do to make us believe you.

  146. on 25 Sep 2011 at 7:20 pm 146.A said …

    Severin

    Blah blah blah, just words. If you believe there is no God prove it and we will believe you.

  147. on 25 Sep 2011 at 9:51 pm 147.Lou (DFW) said …

    146.A said …

    “Blah blah blah, just words. If you believe there is no God prove it and we will believe you.”

    Do you believe in leprechauns? If not, then prove that they don’t exist. If you can’t, then they must exist, correct? Of course not. Not even you are dumb enough to think that, are you? So if you aren’t that dumb, then you can understand that it’s not required to “prove” that leprechauns don’t exist in order to understand that they don’t. It’s up to the person who asserts that they exist to “prove it.” Likewise for god. So, either prove god, admit that god is nothing but a belief for which no evidence exists, or admit that god doesn’t exist.

    Which is it?

  148. on 25 Sep 2011 at 10:46 pm 148.DPK said …

    There is no end to people who don’t comprehend the simple fact that it is not necessary to “disprove god” anymore that it is necessary to “disprove fairies”, “disprove flying carpets and genies” or any other type nonsense. The person making the claim is required to demonstrate that it is true. As Lou stated, you cannot prove a negative. You can’t prove there are no invisible space monkeys from Pluto living in my garage. That doesn’t mean they are real. Especially when one is confronted with the magical powers typically associated with a god, and one who is also said to require that we believe through faith. In other words, one who is defined by the property of being unprovable, and who, for some reason, insists on remaining mysterious and unknowable.
    Ask yourself a simple question. If god created us and loves us and WANTS us to know him…. why are their so many DIFFERENT gods around? Why doesn’t the real god make himself known? Why does he allow so much conflict and strife to occur over which of his personae is the correct one? Why doesn’t he just…. show up?
    The simple answer is… because he is not real. He is a figment of your imagination. Doesn’t exist… make believe… a fable, a fairy tale, a story… how many more ways can we say it.
    Now, if you have any real evidence to show that you are right and I am wrong… we are all waiting.
    D

  149. on 27 Sep 2011 at 9:15 am 149.Anonymous said …

    Republicans like Rick Perry are skeptical of everything the government does—except when it executes people

    “Either you believe in government or you don’t.

    The current field of Republican contenders for president are hard at work to prove they don’t. The best government, they insist, will leave you alone to repair your own ruptured kidney while your neighbors bring you casseroles and cigarettes. In recent weeks, leading Republicans have made plain they don’t believe in government-run health care (lo, even unto death). They don’t believe in inoculating children again HPV (lo, even unto death). They don’t believe in government-run disaster relief (ditto, re death), the minimum wage, Social Security, or the Federal Reserve. There is nothing, it seems—from protecting civil rights to safeguarding the environment—that big government bureaucracies can’t foul up.

    But there is one exception: killing people. These same Republicans who are dubious of government’s ability to do anything right have an apparently bottomless faith in the capital-justice system. Everything is broken in America, they claim—except the machinery of death.”

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply