Feed on Posts or Comments 17 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 02 Oct 2011 12:07 am

You CAN trust science. You CANNOT trust religion.

A video with a simple message: You CAN trust science. You CANNOT trust religion.

Why can you trust science? Because it has a track record that has produced thousands of solid advancements that are undeniable. Just look around you: electricity, computers, advanced medicines, medical imaging, automobiles, airplanes, space flight, GPS, television, skyscrapers, etc. Science is so obvious, so visible, so ubiquitous that it is impossible to deny. Everywhere you look and everything you touch today bears the effects of science.

Why can’t you trust religion? Because it clearly doesn’t work in a vast majority of cases. Religion leads us to things like this and this and this. For more information on the problems with religion please see GodIsImaginary.com.

107 Responses to “You CAN trust science. You CANNOT trust religion.”

  1. on 03 Oct 2011 at 4:34 pm 1.Ian said …

    A wise individual will not completely trust either. Science is wrong constantly. I have a friend who will die any day now due to a drug he took for 10 years that destroyed his liver.

    However, he has a solid relationship with his Lord and he is passing on with complete peace and comfort from the God who created him.

    Space Shuttles blowup,
    Titanics sink
    Planes crash
    Cell phones fail on arrival :)
    Drugs fail

    God is immutable and faithful.

  2. on 03 Oct 2011 at 4:46 pm 2.DPK said …

    What fairy tale land do you live in where god is immutable and faithful? Not the same planet I live on, for sure.
    Why didn’t god repair your friend’s liver… or prevent him from whatever illness he had that required medication to begin with? Why doesn’t god heal him? Or, even better, why did god allow him to take a drug that would destroy his liver?
    Is that being immutable and faithful??? What a joke.
    You are a blind fool.

  3. on 03 Oct 2011 at 5:42 pm 3.Burebista said …

    DPK

    You need to look up the word immutable so you do not look so foolish.

    May I ask one question? Why is it Atheists must attack others personally when they disagree with a position? It seems to be a characteristic of Atheists.

    You apparently feel Ian’s friend is a fool and would desire to rip the peace he has away in his last days. That is such a pathetic position.

  4. on 03 Oct 2011 at 6:30 pm 4.DPK said …

    Burebista again fails to see either the point or the irony.
    What world do you live in in which god is both faithful and immutable? The terms are mutually exclusive. I’m sorry if you can’t see that, but please refrain from calling me foolish when you simply miss the point.

    I have no desire to rip the peace away from Ian’s friend anymore than I would take morphine from a person dying in pain.

    D

  5. on 03 Oct 2011 at 7:12 pm 5.Lou (DFW) said …

    3.Burebista said …

    “You need to look up the word immutable so you do not look so foolish.”

    You need to completely refrain from posting any comments so you do not look so foolish. Simply post evidence for your imaginary god.

    BTW – immutable means unchangeable. But your imaginary god has changed. He used to perform all kinds a miracles in Biblical times, but now he doesn’t. Then there’s a that bit about the Old/New Covenant.

    God is fickle and unreliable.

  6. on 03 Oct 2011 at 7:27 pm 6.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Ian said …

    “Space Shuttles blowup,
    Titanics sink
    Planes crash
    Cell phones fail on arrival :)
    Drugs fail”

    You are confusing science with engineering and technology. Those things you listed didn’t fail because of science.

  7. on 03 Oct 2011 at 10:06 pm 7.DPK said …

    If god is immutable and unchanging, then how can he answer prayers? How come he changed his mind about capital punishment for trivial sins between the old and new testament? Why, after he wiped out nearly every living thing on earth in the flood, did he “regret it” and promise never to do it again? Why does he heal some people, and not others? Why does he save some people from disasters, and not others… and why does who gets saved and who does not have no bearing on their religious faith?
    Sounds like he is neither immutable nor faithful to me…………….
    Ian… do some homework. Please list all the improvements and advances science has brought to our lives in the last 100 years. Now list all the improvements and advances religion has brought in the last 1000. (Short list huh?) If you are over the age of 40 the fact that you are even alive is likely thanks to science. The fact that you have food on your table, clothes to wear, a job (if you have one) and are able to communicate with us here.. science. If god had his way, you would likely be dead of smallpox or polio, if not starvation or dysentery. In fact, if god had his way, you likely would not have made it past infancy.
    Please.

  8. on 03 Oct 2011 at 10:14 pm 8.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    Madison came from science Meditation came from religion. Madison heals our body; Meditation heals our heart and soul. Science gave us electronic devices, aircraft and satellites but the truth is, it is not science, it is man who discovers all these. Science itself is nothing if man is out of it.

    God create this man, monkey and other walks of life on this earth? He made this earth, planets, suns, stars, air and space? Science has nothing to say except big bang. Science has followed religion in this regard. For examples

    Evolution theory, Carbon theory, Space endless theory and energy everywhere theory. These theories exists in Guru Granth Sahib, Holy book of Sikhism.

    God is not imaginary. He is real. We can feel Him through meditation. He made us equal but we are blaming Him for our mistakes.

    Science can not see invisible. The things that we see with telescope or x-rays are not invisible. They are visible but can not be seen with our eyes. Telescope and x-rays help us to see. Through Meditation we can see invisible and we can see God. Are we ready to do Meditation?

    Kulbir Singh Shergill
    Calgary Canada

  9. on 04 Oct 2011 at 2:07 am 9.DPK said …

    “Madison came from science Meditation came from religion.”

    Next time you get bacterial pneumonia, try meditating on it and see how long you live.

    “God is not imaginary. He is real.”

    Now exactly WHICH of he available gods are you talking about, specifically?

    “Through Meditation we can see invisible and we can see God.”

    Is it at all possible that through meditation we can imagine that we can see god?” I mean, Native Americans say that through meditation they can see animal spirit guides.

  10. on 04 Oct 2011 at 3:05 am 10.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    DPk please learn how to ask question. Do not give quotations from my writing I know that. Just ask a question. I could not figure out what you are asking?
    your vocabulary matches with tenth grade students. What is your real question please?

  11. on 04 Oct 2011 at 3:59 am 11.Anonymous said …

    First, if you are going to criticize my vocabulary and grammar, learn some English yourself before you criticize someone else’s.

    “DPk please learn how to ask question.”

    One asks A question… one does not ask question.

    “Do not give quotations from my writing I know that.”

    Run on sentence.

    “I could not figure out what you are asking?”

    This is not a question. Why are you using a question mark?

    “your vocabulary matches with tenth grade students.”

    We capitalize the first word in a sentence.
    Your grammar matches with 3rd grade students.

    “What is your real question please?”

    Well, now that we are done sorting out who has 10th grade language skills, let’s review:

    You stated that “god” is not imaginary, he is real. I wanted to know WHICH of the hundreds of available gods we have to choose from you are claiming is “real”? Jesus? Yahweh? Allah? Krishna? Sambo the volcano god? Zeus? Thor? Jupiter? Please be specific.

    Then, you claimed that through meditation we can “see invisible” (which is a contradiction in terms) and we can see god.
    Have you personally seen god?
    How do you know that your experience during medication is not simply a product of your own imagination? Do you consider it possible that your experience during meditation is completely internal, and if so, why?

  12. on 04 Oct 2011 at 12:17 pm 12.Horatiio said …

    KSS,

    DPK does the best he can. Just adapt.

    The atheists always go to the medicine …..OR….prayer card. I think it is the Aspergers syndrome. Anyhow, ah no, God gave us medicine and prayer you use both. It is a stupid choice which is not Biblical.

    A lot of great stories out there showing prayer does aid in healing. I see it all the time personally.

    FYI. Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke was a physician.

    Never deal with specific a specific God with an atheists. This is their method of changing the subject. Back them into a corner to let them realize there is a God. Which God is their journey.

  13. on 04 Oct 2011 at 12:43 pm 13.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.Horatiio said …

    “The atheists always go to the medicine …..OR….prayer card.”

    The theists like Hor NEVER, EVER provide any evidence for their imaginary god. The simply post lies about atheists.

    “I think it is the Aspergers syndrome.”

    Who cares what you think. Simply provide evidence for your imaginary god.

    “Anyhow, ah no, God gave us medicine and prayer you use both. It is a stupid choice which is not Biblical.”

    This is, of course, another one of Hor’s lies. God never gave anybody medicine.

    “A lot of great stories out there showing prayer does aid in healing.”

    And that’s all they are – stories.

    “I see it all the time personally.”

    Once again, you are a liar. Not only that, you are the one harping on the scientific method:

    “A short list of bullet points, smoking guns if you will, that proves [prayer]. Of course, they need to hold up under the modern scientific method since all truth falls under this for the atheists.”

    So, Hor, please provide the “smoking guns” that prove prayer. Of course, they need to hold up under the modern scientific method. But you won’t, because you don’t operate under the same burden of proof that you require of everybody else, because you are a fraud.

    “Never deal with specific a specific God with an atheists. This is their method of changing the subject. Back them into a corner to let them realize there is a God. Which God is their journey.”

    Another one of Hor’s lies about atheists. Asking to which god one refers isn’t “changing the subject.” And the only people Hor has ever possibly backed into a corner is his children.

  14. on 04 Oct 2011 at 12:48 pm 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    10.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    “Just ask a question. I could not figure out what you are asking?”

    Then you can’t read and comprehend a simple English sentence. If English is not your native language, then I understand that you may not fully understand what is written. But until you do, then perhaps you would be better served to simply read comments rather than posting them, especially this kind of nonsense:

    “Madison came from science Meditation came from religion. Madison heals our body; Meditation heals our heart and soul.”

  15. on 04 Oct 2011 at 3:40 pm 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.Horatiio said …

    “DPK does the best he can.”

    But apparently you never do.

  16. on 04 Oct 2011 at 4:56 pm 16.Anon said …

    Apparently in the minds of the Christians a bible up the butt solves everything.

  17. on 04 Oct 2011 at 5:33 pm 17.DPK said …

    “The atheists always go to the medicine …..OR….prayer card.”

    And the theists like Horattio never have an answer for either one.

    “Never deal with specific a specific God with an atheists.”

    Hor is now implying that there is more than one god?
    Man, this keeps getting stranger and stranger.

    “A lot of great stories out there showing prayer does aid in healing.”

    A lot of great stories out there about alien abductions, fake moon landings, and people living in the belly of a whale. Doesn’t mean any of them are actually true.

    Can we get another hearty LOL for Hor and his ridiculous attempts and making a rational point?

  18. on 04 Oct 2011 at 7:28 pm 18.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    Anonymous
    Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Krishna are not Gods.God is a Supreme Power that create and runs everything in this universe.Keep in mind that he in not running our daily activities.It is up to us how to run our daily life.

    I have not personally seen God I know if I want to, there is way to see Him.

    Meditation always belongs to the internal healing.

    Horatiio
    It is not the science that gave us Madison it is the Man who invent all these.

    Madison and prayer are not stupid choice believe me

    lou
    If you believe that Madison has’t come from science
    ,it up to you. But I believe.
    If you have a question about my english language and writings than please correct me and let me know and please ask any question about my writings.

    I touch two subjects Science and Religion especially the God.

  19. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:23 pm 19.Horatiio said …

    “Then you can’t read and comprehend a simple English sentence. If English is not your native language,”

    Ah, what gave it away Louis?

    LOL!!!

    DPK,

    A lot of stories about universes being created with no creator! Some hilarious stuff out there for sure.

  20. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:44 pm 20.DPK said …

    Yup, and also stories about a creator being who had no creator… also hilarious… no?

    Hey you guys, Kulbir says Jesus is not god! Aren’t you going to correct him?

    I’m still trying to figure out who the hell Madison is and how he came into the discussion. Wait, maybe Madison is god??? What do you say Horattio? Got room for one more in your many gods philosophy?
    D

  21. on 04 Oct 2011 at 9:40 pm 21.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    Horatiio
    It‘s up to you how you take it, ‘hilarious stuff’ is your word. If he is not the Creator then who is? Please give your view.
    Everything in this word and in the universe is created by Him. Everything in science is discovered /created by man, and man is the creation of God. Give your view if it is not true.
    DPK
    I think you are anguish with me and don’t want me to post any comment. You have no knowledge on these issues (Science, Medicine, Religion and God), why you guys are do this debate?

  22. on 04 Oct 2011 at 10:23 pm 22.Horatiio said …

    KSS

    My post was made jokingly to the atheist on the blog who believe the universe was created without a creator.

    Of course I know the universe was created by a Creator. Any clear thinking individual knows this to be true.

  23. on 04 Oct 2011 at 10:43 pm 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Horatiio said …

    “Of course I know the universe was created by a Creator. Any clear thinking individual knows this to be true.”

    Of course you “know” no such thing anymore than I “know” it wasn’t. You are a compulsive liar. You only believe there is a creator.

    You have no evidence that a “creator” exists, much less that it actually created the universe. If you “know” otherwise, then please present your evidence. There’s one thing I do “know,” and that is you won’t do it because there is no such evidence of a creator. Any clear thinking individual knows this to be true.

  24. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:04 pm 24.40 year Atheist said …

    I recently became aware of a YouTube video family purporting to teach “critical thinking”.

    It turns out to be a good starting video, because it clearly and in no uncertain terms spells out Philosophical Materialism. The entire video is dedicated to two concepts: Rule #1, one must not believe anything without evidence. Rule #2, if you don’t obey rule #1, then you will be open to believing anything and your mind will be filled with rubbish.

    As might be expected, “Science” is mentioned reverentially throughout, as is the implication that science is the only critical thinking that is possible. If the evidence for a certain premise is not scientific, aka material, then one must not accept the premise but must reject it with at least an “I can’t know”.

    This is reinforced with the standard references to believing in fairies, ghosts, paranormal experiences and so on: fear-mongering blatantly aimed at limiting reality to physical, material, measurable “scientific” entities.

    But as we know, Truth does exist and can be known. Further, it cannot be tested physically since it is not material. And further still, science never, ever produces Truth, science produces only contingent factoids. This means that material evidence – via science – does not give us Truth and even its factoids are vaporous. And any implications to the contrary are false. This does not mean that science is false. It means that using science as a limit to reality is a philosophical error.

    There are no tools presented by Qualia’s video to implement evaluation of the materialist “evidence filter” touted by Qualia, either for the actual evidence, its source, nature and validity, nor for the discernment process required for the actual screening and cognition of evidence. Nor induction with its limitations and deduction with its limitations. Nor falsification as a screen for non-material propositions. Nor axioms, their source and validation. Nor the difference between hypothesis and theory. Judging from the titles of the other video family members, I doubt that any reference to these are made anywhere in any of these videos.

    These videos, based on viewing the Open Mindedness video, are not based in any principles of logic, nor the principles of rational thought, nor the apprehension and comprehension of the First Principles. They are purely philosophical, not rational. And, again judging from titles, they are purely a tool of Atheism.

    But what these videos do demonstrate quite vividly is the principle that one must question EVERYTHING, especially if it is on the web. Question everything, study the principles, introspect and intuit. That will take you beyond science, and into the realm that actually contains Truth.

  25. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:50 pm 25.DPK said …

    21.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    “DPK
    I think you are anguish with me and don’t want me to post any comment. You have no knowledge on these issues (Science, Medicine, Religion and God), why you guys are do this debate?”

    No, you are welcome to post a comment. But if you do, be prepared to back up your claim and to answer questions asked of you. You have done neither. You make claims with no evidence to back them up, insult people by telling them they have a 10th grade vocabulary, and ignore direct questions. That is preaching, not debating. Where do you get off telling me I “have no knowledge on these issues”?
    You claim you can “see invisible” and “see god” although you admit you have actually done neither. You make claims about the origin of the universe and mankind without any evidence to back it up other than “Because I said so.” Like every other swami-guru-snake oil salesman, I suspect your are a fraud. You have given us no reason to suspect otherwise.
    And, while clearly English is a second language for you… you are terrible at it. No shame in that, except you ridicule others for it. That also tells me you are pompous.

    So, if you want to start over and have an actual debate, let’s do so:
    You claim that, “Everything in this word and in the universe is created by Him. Everything in science is discovered /created by man, and man is the creation of God.”
    I believe gods are imaginary. They are created 100% in the mind of man. What evidence do you have that the god you claim created “everything” actually exists?

  26. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:53 pm 26.DPK said …

    40 year…
    I have no idea what kind of drugs you did in the 60′s… but it has obviously done a number on you.

    Maybe you should write a manifesto. I’ll bet Hor would read it.

  27. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:57 pm 27.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    Lou is asking for clear evidence about the Creator. Lou takes your breath and asks yourself who is taking this in and throwing it out. Give your view.

    Big bang theory is strong evidence by the science how this universe came into existence. Without any power big bang cannot happen, and that power represents Him that He is a Creator.

    All seeds are coded by Him. After sow, plant starts its journey towards death, and before death plant makes its own seeds and save them in order to save his generation. Previously coded codes automatically transferred to the new seeds. Keep in mind that all automatics are run by Him. Even this Earth and Sun are coded when they will die. Ask scientist they will show you that Sun stats to be black from the centre.

    So far I have these evidences that He is a Creator. If you do not agree please give your view and prove that He is not a Creator.

  28. on 05 Oct 2011 at 12:16 am 28.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    DPK
    Please read my recent posting and give me answer.

  29. on 05 Oct 2011 at 12:31 am 29.Curmudgeon said …

    KSS

    You are wasting your time. DPK and Lou only make personal attacks and answer no questions. Idiot, stupid and delusional are there favorite words. I wish you well but they will not cooperate.

    40YA

    “That will take you beyond science, and into the realm that actually contains Truth.”

    I agree 40YA. It is amazing how many actually believe science is about truth. It is much like those who think the justice system is about the truth.

    I once saw a definition for science from the late 1800s that contained the phrase “God”. At one time science recognized the supernatural.

  30. on 05 Oct 2011 at 2:11 am 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Kulbir Singh Shergill said …

    “Lou is asking for clear evidence about the Creator. Lou takes your breath and asks yourself who is taking this in and throwing it out. Give your view.”

    My “view” is that I personally do not know or understand how the universe began. In other words, I am NOT making any claim as to how the universe began. Therefore, I am not obliged to present any evidence for a proposition that I have not made. Conversely, YOU ARE.

    “So far I have these evidences that He is a Creator.”

    You DID NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE. All you provided is your opinion and belief.

    “If you do not agree please give your view and prove that He is not a Creator.”

    Who is “He?” There’s no evidence that “He” is a creator anymore than there is that Leprechauns exist. Therefore, there’s nothing to disprove.

  31. on 05 Oct 2011 at 2:55 am 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Curmudgeon said …

    “You are wasting your time. DPK and Lou only make personal attacks and answer no questions. Idiot, stupid and delusional are there favorite words. I wish you well but they will not cooperate.”

    As opposed to you and and Biff and Hor who NEVER, EVER provide any evidence of their imaginary god? We would not have this discussion, nor would this blog even exist if there was any evidence for your imaginary god. All you must do is provide said evidence, but you can’t because it does not exist. That’s why you continuously deflect and refuse to answer questions that are asked of you and your ilk. Your belief is a fraud, and so are you.

  32. on 05 Oct 2011 at 3:09 am 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.Curmudgeon said …

    “I agree 40YA. It is amazing how many actually believe science is about truth. It is much like those who think the justice system is about the truth.”

    It is amazing how many actually believe that religion is about truth. It is much like those who think the justice system is about the truth.

    “I once saw a definition for science from the late 1800s that contained the phrase “God”. At one time science recognized the supernatural.”

    I once heard the Pope say that evolution and the Big Bang are true. At one time religion rejected those, not to mention heliocentrism.

    Do you ever actually have a point in your comments?

  33. on 05 Oct 2011 at 3:33 am 33.Anonymous said …

    I also do not know how the universe began. What existed or occurred before the big bang is not knowable, and can only be theorized. I do not think it is logical to assume that some magical being, for which there is absolutely no evidence, somehow initiated it. That raises even more questions. Who created this magical being? How did it come to be.
    Now, if by “god” you mean that the natural laws that govern the universe. Fine. Call it what you want. There is no doubt the the universe “works” according to certain “rules”. But if you are going to postulate that this “god” interacts with humans, “loves” us, answers our prayers, knows our thoughts, offers us eternal life of reward or punishment, I do not believe there is any reason to believe that that is true.
    I do not believe you can communicate with the natural laws of the universe. They do not care if we worship them. They are not “aware” of us in the typical sense that people claim they have a “personal relationship” with god.
    I also do not believe that consciousness somehow survives the death of the brain and nervous system in which it functions. There is no reason to believe that there is an “afterlife”. Once the brain ceases to function, consciousness ends. There is no heaven, no hell, no eternal life.

    Now, I will also say that I do not claim to “know” this with 100% certainty. If think that it is most likely, based on logic and the evidence available. If god came down on his chariot of fire tomorrow and landed in Times Square and started performing miracles… I’d change my mind. But, that isn’t going to happen, is it.

    Do not believe the lies that Crum, Hor, and the others tell you. The atheists here always go to great lengths to answer questions, explain their positions, and provide intelligent reasons and rationality to their positions. The theists are the ones who dodge questions they do not want to answer. If you don’t believe me… the record is here in the archives of this blog. Feel free to review it for yourself.

    Now, to your specific comments. You said;
    “Without any power big bang cannot happen, and that power represents Him that He is a Creator.”

    You do not know this. You do not know that the big bang cannot happen without any power. Quantum physics seems to show us that particles can and do pop in and out of existence in our universe. Why this happens is unclear. You also do not know what was “before” the big bang, if that phrase even has any meaning. The singularity could have been the condensed remains of another universe, perhaps an infinite progression of them. If “M” theory holds true, it could have been the collision of mufti-dimensional membranes that regularly produce universes. The fact is, we do not know. But that does not mean that you can just make up a story and jump to the conclusion that there is a Creator behind it.

    The final problem with your claim of a creator is the one of infinite regression. If the universe required a creator, then the creator requires a creator, and that creator requires a creator, and on and on and on. Not a very satisfying scenario. Now, if you contend that the creator does not need a creator and can either exist eternally, why can you not accept the same premise for the natural universe?

  34. on 05 Oct 2011 at 3:38 am 34.DPK said …

    Sorry… Anonymous 33 was me.
    Don’t know why this site sometimes remembers me and other times not.
    This was in response to KSS’s direct question to me.
    So, one again, Curmudegon has been exposed as a fraud and liar.

  35. on 05 Oct 2011 at 4:33 am 35.Severin said …

    24 40 yA
    “But as we know, Truth does exist and can be known.”

    I only waited to see an “as we know” demagogy, and it is here.

    Don’t you feel shame?
    I doubt, it seems that you have really thick skin.

  36. on 05 Oct 2011 at 5:01 am 36.Severin said …

    33 DPK (anonymous)
    “Quantum physics seems to show us that particles can and do pop in and out of existence in our universe.“

    It is only a „feeling“, and it is not originally mine, of course, but sounds as a good, logical explanation:
    Particles, in fact do not „pop from nothing“, and do not „go back to nothing“.
    The M theory involves many more dimensions than we are able to „handle“ at this level of our knowledge, that are „bended over” (or “inside”) the dimensions we can see, feel and measure.
    „Popping“ of particles is then nothing more than some sort of keeping balance between those dimensions: one in, one out.
    As laws of physics may be different in different dimensions, we might „see“ that some particles have their speed higher than speed of light, and that they appeared „before“ they dissapeared.

    We have to learn a lot.

  37. on 05 Oct 2011 at 5:14 am 37.Severin said …

    24 40 yA
    “That will take you beyond science, and into the realm that actually contains Truth.”

    Brrrrr…. What a dark prospective!

    What could that “Truth” (with capital “T”) be?
    That there is some “higher force” that governs all events in universe?

    But we already KNOW it! Natural laws!

    Or, shall we, from now on, write it as “Natural Laws”?

  38. on 05 Oct 2011 at 6:53 am 38.Gurdeep singh mand said …

    God is exist

  39. on 05 Oct 2011 at 11:10 am 39.Anonymous said …

    38.Gurdeep singh mand said …

    “God is exist”

    God is not exist.

  40. on 05 Oct 2011 at 11:13 am 40.Xenon said …

    Cur,

    Good job. You shamed the atheists it to posting without ad homenim for once. A lot of words for “I don’t know”. But they will be back at it in short order. The record is there.

    Bottom line, they don’t know anything including God’s existence and they are unwilling to learn.

  41. on 05 Oct 2011 at 12:40 pm 41.Lou (DFW) said …

    40.Xenon said …

    “The record is there.”

    Our record is there for many times answering the same questions that you ask over and over. As is yours for NEVER, EVER posting evidence for your imaginary god.

    “Bottom line, they don’t know anything including God’s existence and they are unwilling to learn.”

    Bottom line, you are a liar who is unable to provide any evidence of your imaginary god. We are willing to learn. Stop lying and post evidence of your imaginary god.

  42. on 05 Oct 2011 at 12:44 pm 42.DPK said …

    “Bottom line, they don’t know anything including God’s existence and they are unwilling to learn.”

    Oh, we are more than willing to learn. We have been asking you for some time to show us why we should believe in god’s existence. But all we get from you is empty claims that do not bear up to reason or scrutiny and a complete refusal to defend them. Really, all that comes from you is unfounded claims, stories of talking snakes and floods, and pigheaded denial of scientific facts in order to carve out some niche where your imaginary gods can still survive. Creation seems to be your last refuge, and your only line of reason is, “You can’t explain it, therefore god did it.” Either that or, you can’t disprove god, therefore he us real.
    That doesn’t cut the mustard, so to speak. Sorry. But we’re still listening. For at least the 100th time, present your evidence for god and we’ll consider it. But you won’t, because you have none. If you did, you would have offered it by now.

  43. on 05 Oct 2011 at 4:28 pm 43.40 year Atheist said …

    Evidence is the mantra of Atheists: “We must have evidence in order to believe a thing” (Bertrand Russell); and, “Proof! Proof! We must have proof!” (Thomas Edison). But never is there a discussion of how to determine what constitutes valid evidence, nor how evidence is to be gathered, judged and internalized.

    In fact, Atheism is based on the repressive philosophical stance of total materialism, in a single, physical reality, a self-refuting position that is required for support. And Philosophical Materialism attempts to co-opt empirical science as its foundational principle, falsely implying that the voluntary materialism of empirical science translates to total materialism and a single, physical reality – a proposition easily refuted, and one never proposed by science.

    When Atheists demand evidence, they mean physical evidence. If non-physical entities are claimed, Atheists demand physical evidence as proof. This is consistent with their repression of reality into a single, physical reality, and their misapprehension of the principles of science.

    But this post is not about the characteristics of evidence.

    This is about the other side of evidence, the evaluation of it. When we think of evidence, first of all we decide who or what to trust. Evidence must be trustworthy if it is to be held as credible. So now we will consider not “what can be trusted”, but ”how do we trust?”

    Then what is “trust”? If we are to trust a piece of evidence or a source of evidence, we have to go through our discernment process.

    Then what is “discernment”? Discernment[1] is an internal human faculty that first allows discrimination between data inputs and then allows judgment to be made on these discriminated inputs. These data inputs are restricted to sensory inputs only if the dogmatic worldview is Philosophical Materialism. But there is no rational reason to lock out non-sensory input from the discernment process.

    If evidence is sensory, then all the questions surrounding the quality and reality of the sensory inputs come into play. These have been discussed in detail before, including the errors that are possible; the techniques, including the scientific method, for minimizing the potential errors; the problems of dogma and ego which sacrifice accuracy for agenda.

    But there is another source which is non-sensory. It is intuitive, intellectual.

    If the evidence is intellectual (non-sensory) then new questions arise. For example, how can these purely intellectual understandings be tested physically? How do they interact with the material world? How can I know if they are valid?

    I can document my contact with the First Principles and my comprehension of the nature of those principles. But I cannot supply physical evidence for impartial testing. I can do the same with logic. I can do the same with math, especially higher math. [2] Nor can I share my actual experience of comprehension – the moment of understanding; I can relate that experience as an historical anecdote, but the personal nature of apprehending and comprehending – say math or logic, for example – means that it is up to each individual to capture the experience for himself. This is entirely different from physically existential experiences, which can be shared simultaneously, although viewed from separate personal viewpoints.

    None of these entities, First Principles, logic, math, were discovered by examining the physical world. They were discovered by examining the non-physical, intellectual region of existence – a reality that is non-material.

    How to deny this reality? Is there a rational way to deny this non-material reality without denying the source of rationality itself which is non-material? The only philosophers to deny non-material reality and its contents are those who devolved into Anti-Rational philosophies.

  44. on 05 Oct 2011 at 4:59 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.40 year Atheist said …

    I’m not going to waste anymore time to answer your long-winded, rambling comments except for this:

    “In fact, Atheism is based on the repressive philosophical stance of total materialism, in a single, physical reality, a self-refuting position that is required for support. ”

    In fact, you are a liar, because atheism isn’t “based” on anything. Atheism shouldn’t even be an “ism” anymore than the rejection of a belief in leprechauns is an “ism.” Atheism is simply the rejection of a belief in deities, nothing more. Your attempts to redefine the rejection of a belief in deities is only an attempt to deflect the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    Stop posting your rambling, illogical, philosophical nonsense, and post ANY evidence that you have for your imaginary god. The following is NOT acceptable evidence:

    The Bible or any similar ancient book of myths and fairy tales that has been translated and edited no telling how many times.

    “Goddit” because there’s no other explanation.

    “I have a relationship with god” or similar anecdotal evidence.

    Or you can simply admit that you have no legitimate evidence and god is nothing but faith.

    WHICH IS IT?

  45. on 05 Oct 2011 at 6:19 pm 45.Rostam said …

    Lou,

    I think I have the answer you deserve.
    You are a liar. Pure and simple. You
    don’t understand 40 above due to your
    lack of education. He makes compelling points
    and all you offer is your childish gibberish.

    If you need someone to prove God to you you have
    bigger problems. What’s next? Prove love to you?

  46. on 05 Oct 2011 at 7:19 pm 46.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.Rostam said …

    “If you need someone to prove God to you you have
    bigger problems.”

    I don’t “need someone to prove God” because he doesn’t exist. I have no need for god or an imaginary belief in him. And you, just like all the others, can’t provide any evidence that he exists, as evidenced by your comment. Either provide evidence for god, or stop pushing your fantasy on everyone who doesn’t share it.

    “What’s next? Prove love to you?”

    No, “love” can’t be proven because love is only an electrochemical reaction in the brain that we call love. Love doesn’t exist except as our perception of those electrochemical reactions. But those electrochemical reactions can be proven to exist, regardless of what they are called. However, we’re not here to discuss “love,” evolution, Big Bang, or any other number of diversions that theists introduce in order to avoid the discussion of god’s existence.

    By introducing love into the discussion about god, all you have done is created another tangent to deflect the fact that there’s no evidence for god, just like creation is used for that purpose. That is unless you want to admit that god, just like love, First Principles, logic, and math only exist in the mind, and that you have no evidence for god?

    And do you also admit that if god only exists (or doesn’t exist) as alleged in 40YA comments, then the acts of god in the bible or other “holy” books didn’t happen, that they weren’t real, physical manifestations that were observed and experienced by people?

  47. on 05 Oct 2011 at 7:48 pm 47.DPK said …

    Rostam… Lou has you trumped. He is absolutely right… you can’t prove “love” because outside of the biological consciousness in which it manifests, it does not exist. Stars and planets do not “love”. Rocks and trees and water do not love. It is an emotional state in the mind. I hesitate to say “human mind” because it is obvious to me that other animals also feel a similar emotion. So, if you want to equate god to an internal, emotional state… no argument. Whatever.
    The problem crops up when you make the claim that this internal experience or state that you refer to as “god” interacts with the physical world. You claim it performs miracles, sends its offspring here for human sacrifice, demands obedience and worship, and judges us and punishes us for our thoughts and deeds. If you are going to claim that god is then part of the physical world, it only stands to reason that there will be physical evidence to that effect. But, sadly for you, there is NONE.
    I’ve said before, if you wish to refer to the natural laws of the universe that govern the way matter, energy, space, and time behave as “god”… have at it. You’ll get no argument from anyone here. If you want to claim that those natural laws listen to prayers, wrote the bible, randomly perform miracles that violate the laws of nature, and offer eternal life… well those ARE part of the physical world and require physical evidence to be believed.
    The essence of your belief in god is because you want to believe it. There is NOTHING else. That’s why it requires faith… belief in something for which there is NO evidence. Why don’t you just admit that and accept that many people do not share belief in your imaginary gods or other magical being and stop trying to convince others that you are somehow in possession of knowledge that you in fact do not have?

  48. on 05 Oct 2011 at 8:15 pm 48.Anonymous said …

    Lou@44 – The reason 40YA makes these long-winded, rambling, mostly irrelevant posts, is because he re-posts prior material from his blog — right Stan?

  49. on 05 Oct 2011 at 8:39 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.Anonymous said …

    “Lou@44 – The reason 40YA makes these long-winded, rambling, mostly irrelevant posts, is because he re-posts prior material from his blog — right Stan?”

    I’m aware of those (haven’t checked anymore) because when read his first comment here I searched on his text and there it was.

  50. on 05 Oct 2011 at 9:14 pm 50.Observer said …

    #48 Anonymous PLEASE give us a link to the lunatic 40YA’s blog. PLEASE. Who is this Stan simpleton wack-job anyway?

  51. on 05 Oct 2011 at 10:55 pm 51.DPK said …

    All you have to do is copy ANY of his diatribe into a search engine and it will find it for you:
    http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-side-of-evidence.html

  52. on 06 Oct 2011 at 1:22 am 52.Observer said …

    DPK Will wonders never cease? I have tried this a few times before with something actually useful from an academic journal and it was a bust. Should have known better with a blog. Merci.

  53. on 06 Oct 2011 at 1:36 am 53.Horatiio said …

    Rostam

    They don’t believe love exists either.
    Its a experience and Louie said we cannot
    use experience. Hate, the conscious, depression
    and aesthetics don’t exist either. I don’t see how these guys function the silliness is so thick.

    Oh no my experiences don’t count according
    to Louie. What will we do!

    Stan or 40YA

    I like the blog. Some great info. Look out attack dog Buster may try to shut you down.

    Take Care

  54. on 06 Oct 2011 at 1:38 am 54.Observer said …

    For laughs, look at the idiot 40YA’s most recent post:

    “Now let’s consider philosophers. Many philosophers like to say that philosophy is the rational analysis of arguments. Or some variation on that. Supposedly an argument is made, say that,

    “If P is true, then Q is true;
    P is in fact true;
    therefore Q is true”.

    So far so good… except is P really, in fact, true?

    In order to know if P is true (to support the contention that Q is true), we need another argument:

    ”If N is true, then P is true;
    N is in fact true;
    therefore P is true”.

    But is N really, in fact true? We must find yet another argument to support N, and so it goes. It could go on forever, in an infinite regression of arguments which never reaches a known “true” by self-evidence, or by definition, or by some other form of unquestionable authority.”

    SERIOUSLY! Is this abysmal or what? First, BY DEFINITION,P is sufficient for Q. Then he veers off unwittingly into epistemology. If P is TRUE, then it is TRUE and so is Q. If maybe P, then maybe Q. This is completely muddled thinking. It is either a result of stupidity, there is plenty of evidence for this, or a complete lack of intellectual discipline and education; it’s a coin toss.

    40YA, those physics classes never really worked out for you did they? This is truly astonishing.

  55. on 06 Oct 2011 at 2:28 am 55.Anonymous said …

    40YA’s blog is just one mass of super-concentrated fail. Here’s some howlers:

    “Is that the case? Let’s back up to the original claim. Atheists claim to know conclusively that God does not exist. The challenge to that is this: Can they prove the non-existence of God with irrefutable, empirical, material evidence for every inch of space, every moment of time, every dimension?”

    Wow, someone who has no evidence, none whatsoever, for the existence of his imaginary friend wants people to disprove his delusion in every facet of existence. Tell you what, Stan, how about you provide evidence for your claim? There’s a good lad.

    “Now, even if true, does this hypothesis satisfy the criterion of evidence for the non-existence of gods?”

    What criteria would that be Stan? You’re just making up illogical conditions to hide the fact that you can’t prove that your silly superstition is based on anything other than wishful thinking.

    “Another commenter has been removed from the blog. Some commenters are merely out to jerk chains and see how long they will be tolerated. Refusal to deal with logical criticism and adapt to logical discussions is an indicator of an individual’s attitude of disruption and wastes the time of serious users of the blog. When these people show up and have been given adequate time to adjust, but refuse to, they are removed.”

    So, let’s see. 40YA runs a blog where he moderates comments (don’t like people disagreeing with you, Stan?) and throws out people who behave exactly as he, himself, does on this blog? Do us a favor Stan, remove yourself and go continue to suck up to your hero Vox Day / Beale.

  56. on 06 Oct 2011 at 2:31 am 56.Lou (DFW) said …

    53.Horatiio said …

    “They don’t believe love exists either.”

    One thing is a fact that you prove here daily – that you are a liar. I didn’t write that love doesn’t exist. I wrote that love exists as a perception of electrochemical reactions that occur in the brain.

    “Its a experience and Louie said we cannot
    use experience. Hate, the conscious, depression and aesthetics don’t exist either.”

    I said they are not physical manifestations. So, are you now admitting that god is not a physical manifestation, that none of the things he allegedly did as reported in the bible did not happen, and that god only exists as a perception of the electrochemical reactions that occur in the brain, and that god does not otherwise exist?

    “I don’t see how these guys function the silliness is so thick.”

    Yet we do, and very well, regardless of your lack of understanding of how rational people function. We don’t, as you do, resort to lies and deception to defend an irrational, illogical fantasy with which you isolate yourself from reality. Yet in the insecurity of your lies and deception, you are reinforcing it by attempting to force it upon those who don’t accept it. If you were actually secure in your fantasy, then you wouldn’t be here.

  57. on 06 Oct 2011 at 2:40 am 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    46.Lou (DFW) said …

    “However, we’re not here to discuss “love,” evolution, Big Bang, or any other number of diversions that theists introduce in order to avoid the discussion of god’s existence.”

    Then on cue, and with the predictability of a dog worrying a bone -

    53.Horatiio said …

    “They don’t believe love exists either.”

    Neither does any evidence for your imaginary god.

  58. on 06 Oct 2011 at 2:29 pm 58.DPK said …

    I said:
    “outside of the biological consciousness in which it manifests, it does not exist. Stars and planets do not “love”. Rocks and trees and water do not love. It is an emotional state in the mind. I hesitate to say “human mind” because it is obvious to me that other animals also feel a similar emotion. So, if you want to equate god to an internal, emotional state… no argument. ”

    And from that Hor concludes:
    “They don’t believe love exists either.”

    No wonder you can’t reason with him. The man is either completely dishonest or mentally handicapped.

  59. on 06 Oct 2011 at 3:22 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    58.DPK said …

    And from that Hor concludes:
    “They don’t believe love exists either.”

    “No wonder you can’t reason with him. The man is either completely dishonest or mentally handicapped.”

    Hor is a fraud. First, he lies about atheists and what’s written on this blog. Second, he and the others use tangents such as love and creation as a diversion in an attempt to hide the fact that they don’t have any evidence for their imaginary god.

  60. on 06 Oct 2011 at 5:23 pm 60.Severin said …

    43 40 yA
    „Evidence is the mantra of Atheists“

    It seems that lookoing for evidences is something negative!?
    What exactly do YOU accept without evidences?
    Everything that you like/please?

    Yes, it seems to be true:
    „I can relate that experience as an historical anecdote, but the personal nature of apprehending and comprehending – say math or logic, for example – means that it is up to each individual to capture the experience for himself. ”

    Using your pretentious manner of speech, you are, in fact, saying that each idiot can interpret evidences his own way, and can accept or reject them as he pleases.
    Nothing new!

    You are free now to try to prove existance of god using (immaterial) math and/or logic.
    We are very good in understanding both, including higher math, and mathematical logic.

  61. on 13 Oct 2011 at 4:02 pm 61.mynet said …

    Chat kelimesinde google d eilk sayfaya gelme plan?m?z var. tab? ondelik mYnet Sohbet kelimesin de yukselmek bunu yapt?ktan sonra s?ra Sohbet Siteleri
    kelimesinde iyi bir yere gelmektir.

  62. on 18 Oct 2011 at 6:17 pm 62.james said …

    There is a God who created man. Need evidence God created the single-cell organism which is the bases of all life on Earth. Tell science to create one, in fact just tell a scientist to explains its creation. They can’t. God doesn’t need a name, man just needed a name to be able to identify God. To me God is the force which aligns and program the universe to run the way it does. What you call him/her or it is irrelevant. Religion to me is Good vs. Evil that’s all.
    And prayer does work if its Gods will, if the was no suffering(evil) then there would be no joy(good) if there were no criminals(evil) there would be no police(good) not saying all criminals are evil and all police are good. Some become criminals due to circumstances(poverty, greed, lust, anger, survival). God does what is needed to fulfill a divine purpose, that we as human sometimes can’t or will not understand. Kids in Africa die of starvation because their government will not feed them governments are not controlled by God they are ran by humans. Humans are not always good some are evil especially those who want and desire power more than anything else. God doesn’t heal amputees because amputees are meant be amputees or else they wouldn’t be amputees. I’m not an amputees that mean he healed me from becoming an amputee. My mother had cancer doctors said she was die in 3 months she gave her life to Christ immediately became a pastor that was 49 years ago. Science does not heal cancer if it did the world would be well over populated. I had a friend her mother had H.I.V. she gave her life to Christ in a matter of months doctor’s called it a miracle the HIV test was negative. Science can’t heal HIV if it did the world would be overpopulated.
    Bad things happen to good people because good things happen to bad people sometimes. All bad things don’t happen to all good people all the time. God answers prayer according to his will if its not his will to do you can pray all you want and nothing will not happen, if its his will then when you pray it will happen.
    Let look at science creation: HIV, Bird Flu, The Ak-47, Missiles, Gas chamber, The Electric Chair, Atom Bomb, the guillotine, the torture rack, RFID chips, Four loko,biological warfare (Anthrax, Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B, tularemia, M114 bomb, Argentinian hemorrhagic fever, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, Chikungunya virus, Dengue fever, Eastern equine encephalitis, Hantavirus,3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ)
    Phencyclidine (SN)
    Lysergic acid diethylamide (K)Adamsite (DM)
    Diphenylchloroarsine (DA)
    Diphenylcyanoarsine (DC)a-Chlorotoluene
    Benzyl bromide
    Bromoacetone (BA)
    Bromobenzylcyanide (CA)
    Bromomethyl ethyl ketone
    Capsaicin (OC)
    Chloracetophenone (MACE; CN)
    Chloromethyl chloroformate
    Dibenzoxazepine (CR)
    Ethyl iodoacetate
    Ortho-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (Super tear gas; CS)
    Trichloromethyl chloroformate
    Xylyl bromide.
    Now name all the weapons and diseases God created or was responsible for.

  63. on 18 Oct 2011 at 6:52 pm 63.MrQ said …

    james #62
    Is the god/God/GOD you write about an all seeing/all knowing/all powerful one?
    Does it see all future events? Does it know how we ALL will act tomorrow and beyond?

  64. on 18 Oct 2011 at 7:56 pm 64.DPK said …

    “God answers prayer according to his will if its not his will to do you can pray all you want and nothing will not happen, if its his will then when you pray it will happen.”

    Then why pray at all?

  65. on 19 Oct 2011 at 12:52 am 65.Anonymous said …

    62 “Now name all the weapons and diseases God created or was responsible for”.

    No gods exist, therefore it’s as asinine position to attribute any properties to it.

    Of course, according to your logic “God does what is needed to fulfill a divine purpose, that we as human sometimes can’t or will not understand.” – that it was your god’s will that any and all weapons and diseases exist. Your god is either evil and malicious or it doesn’t exist.

    People kill people over religion. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that so many people are convinced that their god is ordering them to kill other people who believe in a different god? Wouldn’t a real god simply reveal himself rather than allowing such utter mayhem?

    As it is, you absolutely are not telling the truth regarding your claimed cures via Christ. What you are almost certainly missing is to mention the medical treatments these people received or that they were not diagnosed by an actual specialist in that area; or that they simply were not told that they were going to die; or any one of several perfectly natural explanations for these supposed events. Show us a respected academic publication where these miracle cures are described or it didn’t happen for the reasons you’d like to believe, or it didn’t happen at all.

    You speak of Cancer as if it’s some single monolithic thing, when it’s really hundreds of different diseases. Anyway, we can’t cure all cancers but we can cure some of them and many more are treatable. So, basically your post is simply full of crap and you are extraordinarily ignorant about the real world. If, by the way, you are young then you seriously need to change your method of obtaining education because you are being dangerously misled.

    Are you aware that there are both false-positive and false-negative tests? Do you understand the difference between a screening and diagnostic test? Do you know that HIV doesn’t equal AIDS? Apparently not, as you also foolishly state that HIV is man-made. You seem unaware that at least person has been cured from AIDS and that having AIDS is no-longer (thanks to science) an automatic death penalty. Again, more made up shit on your behalf to support your nonsense.

    Science can’t heal xxxx, if it could the world would be overpopulated? You’re an idiot, pure and simple. Instead understand that religious opposition to birth control is a known and recognized contributor to over-population. Basically, your argument is 180 degrees out of step with reality.

    Drawing to close. Go read your post. You are inventing your own version of god then are you adding in all sorts of special excuses so that you can argue away any deviation from your claim. If you truly believe that all of these excuses, caveats, special conditions, “can do, but doesn’t want to”, and other nonsense makes any kind of sense than, frankly, you are delusional.

  66. on 19 Oct 2011 at 3:09 am 66.Observer said …

    #62 James That was absolutely splendid. Many incisive and well reasoned points. You certainly live in a very animated and interesting world.

    I did not realize that science had created so many single cell life forms, in particular the viruses you mention. I am always grateful for the knowledgeable participants on this blog as well as the others of course.

  67. on 20 Oct 2011 at 6:46 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    James mentioned prayer, then didn’t come back when his story was challenged. Here’s a real example of what happens when seriously ill people use prayer instead of scientific medicine. This post also shows why we need to rid the world of the superstitious nonsense known as religion.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818

    The article should be read in it’s entirety, but here’s some excerpts.

    At least three people in London with HIV have died after they stopped taking life saving drugs on the advice of their Evangelical Christian pastors.

    The women died after attending churches in London where they were encouraged to stop taking the antiretroviral drugs in the belief that God would heal them, their friends and a leading HIV doctor said.

    and…

    BBC London spoke to a second woman from east London who told of a friend who died after taking advice from her pastor who told her to stop taking her antiretroviral drugs.

    The kicker comes here. It also represents the self-delusion believers utilize in order to claim that they were cured by prayer.

    However, when asked by BBC London if it claimed its pastors can cure HIV, SCOAN responded: “We are not the healer. God is the healer. Never a sickness God cannot heal. Never a disease God cannot cure.

    “We don’t ask people to stop taking medication,” the church added. “Doctors treat; God heals.”

    So, there you have it. Doctors do all the work, the Christian god gets the credit.

  68. on 21 Oct 2011 at 5:28 am 68.Gurdeep singh mand said …

    God is exist,
    can u tell me that which thing makes us alive

  69. on 21 Oct 2011 at 12:47 pm 69.DPK said …

    What makes “us” alive is the biochemical reactions that occur within the cells in out bodies.

    But I suspect your broader questions is “where did life originate?” Good question. Please define what you consider “life.”

    RNA can replicate, but doesn’t metabolize… it is alive? Viruses rely on other cells to metabolize, but can perform some other functions. Bacteria can metabolize, replicate, etc… but have no nervous system, so they are not sentient.
    There is no clear boundary between what is “alive” and not without a clear definition of what you would consider life, so your question is nebulous.

    Let me jump ahead of you on your thought process though, because I see your intention is to claim that if we cannot clearly and succinctly tell you how “life” originated, then that is somehow proof of god. That is a non-sequitur and a fallacious argument. The inability to explain the exact process by which life originated does not mean it is not explainable, and it does not mean it required a god with supernatural powers, anymore than the inability to explain the exact nature of gravity means that there are trillions of tiny invisible angels that hold everything in place by flapping their wings.
    This is a common tactic theist use to try and justify their superstitions, claiming any gap in human understanding for their gods and magical beings. Doesn’t work.

  70. on 21 Oct 2011 at 1:12 pm 70.DPK said …

    “So, there you have it. Doctors do all the work, the Christian god gets the credit.”

    I have friends that I communicate with on a professional discussion forum who are devout christians.

    A while back their youngest child became seriously ill, and they took to the boards begging for people to pray for him. The exchange went something like:
    “Our 8 year old Timmy is in the hospital with pneumonia. His fever is very high and the doctors are very concerned. Please everyone… pray for him.”
    Of course all the other devout christians started praying, adding them to their prayer groups and offering up special requests to god on Timmy’s behalf.
    Next day the message was, “Timmy is worse today, his fever spiked at 104 last night, and they had to put him in a cooling blanket to bring his fever down. Today the doctors are changing his antibiotics in the hope they can better fight the infection. PLEASE, pray HARDER!”
    And, of course, the faithful responded with promises to redouble their praying activities.
    That night, “The prayers WORKED!!! Timmy’s fever is down to 101 and he is asking for something to eat. He is getting better!!! Thank you all and PRAISE GOD!”

    What the hell?

    When I hear these kind of stories I always picture St.Peter coming to god and saying… “Little Timmy is circling the drain, Lord. He’s got pneumonia and is spiking a dangerous fever. Some prayers are coming in for him.”
    God repiles, “I KNOW Peter, who do you think GAVE him pneumonia?? Now, how many prayers have their been?
    Peter: “958, so far Lord. Seems like a lot of people care about little Timmy.”
    God: “Pffft… if that’s all, Timmy’s worm food. I’m going to make him worse. Tell you what, if the prayers top 2000, I’ll make him better. Otherwise, tough shit for Timmy…. hahahaha”
    Peter: “Ok, I’ll text you if we hit 2000. By the way, there’s this orphanage on fire in South America… 200 kids are trapped inside.”
    God:… “50,000… I don’t wanna hear about it until the prayers hit 50k dude. Don’t waste my time….”

  71. on 22 Oct 2011 at 12:02 am 71.Anonymous said …

    An excellent summary by DPK, an amusing but sad story, and a perfect example of the desperate tactics theists will resort to in order to find someway to shore up their belief in imaginary beings. It’s really quite despicable, actually.

    It’s strange though, isn’t it, that “god” (which ever one) seems to intervene on a basis that is proportional to man’s ability to heal without heavenly intervention. You’d think a supreme being would take on the hard cases in order to prove his magnificence, but he seems to focus on the ones that we can deal with without his help.

  72. on 22 Oct 2011 at 4:46 pm 72.DPK said …

    “You’d think a supreme being would take on the hard cases in order to prove his magnificence, but he seems to focus on the ones that we can deal with without his help.”

    True… god never heals amputees…. ever. I pointed out a while ago to someone giving testimony about how god favors him that the very idea was narcissistic. “God loves ME so much he cured my shingles…” while at the same time allowing thousands of innocent children to starve to death or die of AIDS or dysentery. He had absolutely no idea what I was talking about and suggested I was the narcissist. I guess it isn’t a vocabulary word they teach in Bible class.

    I did have one christian rationalize to me that god actually DOES heal amputees… but not until after they are dead. Then, you see, they become “whole” again in heaven. One one would need arms or legs in heaven is another of god’s mysteries, I suppose. The delusions are quite like a layer cake… you pile on layer after layer, after layer of sweet, icky stuff and then ultimately it becomes something you crave so much you don’t think about how bad it is for you.

  73. on 22 Oct 2011 at 6:03 pm 73.Gurdeep singh mand said …

    My question is clear.u dont need to know that what i consider life.U Should give answer of my question”which thing makes us alive”?

  74. on 22 Oct 2011 at 7:16 pm 74.DPK said …

    I did. Learn to read.
    The biochemical reactions that occur within our cells makes us alive.

    D

  75. on 23 Oct 2011 at 2:11 am 75.Anonymous said …

    Gurdeep singh mand, you want someone to answer to a question but you absolutely refuse to clarify your question?

    Then you posted under false pretenses.

    Be honest, you are not at all interested in the answer, are you? You sound very much like a close-minded theist.

    You’ve received the correct answer twice. Seeing as you disagree with the answer, that means you must believe you already know the answer. So, tell us, great oracle, what do you think the answer is and why?

  76. on 23 Oct 2011 at 2:30 am 76.Anonymous said …

    “True… god never heals amputees…. ever”

    This is the point where I start seeing things unfold as in a skit.

    God is sitting on his throne looking at his pile of requests. He gets on the blower to St Luke…

    “Hey, Luke, my man. Just going through my to-do list, and got a couple questions. You’re the go-to saint for Doctors, right?”.

    “Sure am, G. What you got?”, says Luke

    “Bad tummy bug, Luke. Can we fix him?”.
    “Sure, big G, you can answer that one. He’s a keeper”.

    “Nasty wound infection and the guy’s tested positive for MRSA. Go or no go?”.
    “No problem, G, these humans have some new antibiotics then can use. We’ll give him a pass”

    “Luke, it seems that Timmy’s grandmother has Alzheimer’s”
    “Sorry, big guy. Man’s at least 50 years away from being able to cure that. Gonna have to pass on that one.”

    “OK. Young kid, 18, frequent church goer, top of his class, went into the army to fight for his country. Got his leg blown off. He’s deserving right, Luke?”
    “You fricking kidding me, G? We can’t deal with that kind of 5h1t.”

  77. on 25 Oct 2011 at 1:42 am 77.A said …

    This is a verse that seems to sum up this entire blog to me.

    Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Matthew 7:13-14).

    This argument is based of R.C. Sproul’s book, Defending Your Faith.

    How did the universe come about? There are a few possibilities.

    Life is an illusion.
    This possibility has been disproven by Rene Descartes: “Cogito ergo sum.”

    We are all self-existent beings.
    If you go back far enough, you will find that one person was the first person ever. Humans have not existed for an infinite amount of time.

    The universe was created by chance.
    I see this as being a very common argument among atheists. However, the fact of the matter is that chance can not cause anything. Chance has no causal power. Chance is not a thing.

    The universe is self-existent.
    If the universe was created by the “Big Bang,” as often claimed, there is still one question that must be answered: How did the “Big Bang” occur? From what did it come about?

    The universe was created by a self-existent being.
    Every effect must have a cause. However, there must be a transcendent, eternal being that set off this chain of effects. Can you rationally conceive the idea of an eternal, self-existent being? Deep down, logically, the thought makes a bit of sense. We see that the existence of a self-existent being is entirely necessary, due to the fact that our universe did indeed begin at one point or another.

    Our God is one who is faithful, just, immutable, unfailing, and eternally loving. He sent us His Son to die for all mankind, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), providing us a way to once again be reconciled to Him in the way we were created, in His own image (Gen. 1:27).

    So I tell you: according to the words of the one, true God, there is eternal life. “For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Eternal life is inevitable for all men. The big issue is where man will go. Heaven or Hell. Hell is a real place. So is Heaven. And it will be much better and more awesome than it is often portrayed. The children of God will be able to live with God forevermore, along with all others who have been saved from their sins by the grace of Jesus Christ.

    Look back at the opening verse of this post. Which road will you take?

  78. on 25 Oct 2011 at 1:50 am 78.Anonymous said …

    A, what a load of self-delusional, illogical, bullshit. “The bible proves that the bible is true?” — yours is a complete failure to engage your brain. I have one sentence that sums up your abject failure to make your case.

    There is absolutely no proof that your god exists, because it exists only in the imagination of your addled brain.

  79. on 25 Oct 2011 at 1:54 am 79.MrQ said …

    A,
    There’s a stairway to heaven and a highway to hell. Looks like most traffic, including you and your crew, is with me on the only available path to us.
    On the other hand, Phelps and his followers will go the other way.
    Oh, don’t forget to bring the beer, I heard it’s hot down there.

  80. on 14 Feb 2012 at 7:52 pm 80.medicine forum said …

    This is good site to spent time on .I just stumbled upon your informative blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your very well written blog posts. I will be your frequent visitor, that’s for sure.

  81. on 14 Feb 2012 at 9:19 pm 81.Suh said …

    Galileo vs. the leaders of his day is not an example of “religion vs. science” but rather is an example of scientists being wrong for about 1,200 years. Their educated peers, later being the church-state leaders of the Middle Ages, sided against Galileo for his standing against what was “already long since known” and settled. But the ripple effects of educated people long believing such an inaccurate scientific theory had subsequently impacted European theology, philosophy, and many other disciplines.

    Early in the 20th Century so-called “vestigial organs” were used to help bolster belief in evolutionary theory during the “Scopes Trial”. There were 180 organs in the human body that the experts of the day said were not used. (And before you read the rest of the story, keep in mind that many of today’s experts claim that 98% of human DNA is “junk DNA” left over from “evolution”, only about 2% is actually used, they claim.) In any event, the leftover “vestigial organs” argument was a pivotal argument in the 1920′s. If there were some 180 unused organs, evolution must have placed them there – confirmation of random chance over design. But evolutionists are quiet on this topic today. Over the decades they’ve slowly learned that every single one of the 180 organs and glands has a distinct purpose!

    So can we trust science on the most important questions?

    Why am I here?
    What happens after I die?
    How did it all begin?
    How will it all end?

    No. Design combustion motors, develop new drugs and new surgical techniques. Develop new semiconductors to improve technology. But science will never be a substitute for truth and life questions.

  82. on 14 Feb 2012 at 10:41 pm 82.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh, science is the most effective way man has devised in search of the truth. Religion, is man’s most effective way to remain ignorant.

    Look at your alternative – talking snakes, man from dust. That you would want to believe such nonsense is proof positive of religion making people stupid.

    Give us all a laugh. Tell us again the one about your sky daddy taking a rib and making a woman!

  83. on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:10 pm 83.DPK said …

    “But science will never be a substitute for truth and life questions.”

    But a 2 thousand year old book of myths written by primitive people who could scarcely do addition and subtraction and believed that volcano and storms were the embodiment of gods can? Really Suh? Your irrationality is showing, again.

  84. on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:30 pm 84.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh, please list as many examples as you can of your story book providing technological solutions that were more detailed and further advanced than the science of the day. Please try not to stop at zero.

  85. on 15 Feb 2012 at 12:40 am 85.Suh said …

    DPK and Mr Stupid,

    I assume by your attacks on the Bible, of which I make no reference, that you do agree, science is not a vehicle to discovering high priority truths? You both do agree with this?

    I have looked at alternatives. Thus my post.

  86. on 15 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 86.ReligionIsStupid said …

    And here we have it… as ever, once you challenge a theist to actually produce something positive in support of their claim, they immediately start blustering, changing the subject, anything but produce the goods.

    Thanks Suh. Every time you post here, you come up empty. Every time. You really have nothing other than an irrational belief in the supernatural, and that’s as good a pointer to a delusion as anything.

    Come back when you’ve got something to offer other than your silly distractions. Something like some proof or evidence would be a good start.

  87. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:17 am 87.uv said …

    “Galileo vs. the leaders of his day is not an example of “religion vs. science” but rather is an example of scientists being wrong for about 1,200 years.”

    Suh you will be (maybe not) baffled at the number of atheist who believe this was all due to religious beliefs. Not many read any history anymore. They just read blogs.

    “today’s experts claim that 98% of human DNA is “junk DNA” left over from “evolution”

    I recently was in a discussion with my kids about this not long ago. I wonder how many actually believe this? We don’t know so it must be junk? One of the most short-sighted and ridiculous claims made by science. Second only to life forming in the ooze with the help of lightning.

    Don’t expect DPK, “religion is stupid” aka Lou to actually engage your points. They run from actual discussion but I wish you luck.

  88. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:19 am 88.Xenon said …

    That was Xenon above. I don’t know what happened to my OS.

  89. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:30 am 89.DPK said …

    “That was Xenon above. I don’t know what happened to my OS.”

    I do… mischievous elves are messing with your computer. There is no other possible answer and you can’t prove I’m wrong.

    “that you do agree, science is not a vehicle to discovering high priority truths? ”

    Science is the ONLY reliable method we have for discovering truth. What exactly, do you present as an alternative method for determining truth? Meditation? Ancient texts? Prayer? Tell us exactly what vehicle you are presenting as a better alternative to science and what evidence do you have to support it?

  90. on 15 Feb 2012 at 2:53 am 90.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh, do you honestly think that plagiarizing Kent Hovind does anything to help people take you seriously? Kent Hovind, really?

    So when are you going to stop throwing stones and offer something positive that your anti-science, anti-progress movement has produced that would not have been possibly without it?

    As a hint, outside of your religion, condoning slavery, stoning people, killing, raping, promoting fairy stories, polluting children’s minds, encouraging over-population, homophobia, xenophobia, and all that “good stuff” that the bible teaches is not generally considered a good thing by educated people.

    When is Hovind due to be released from jail, by the way?

  91. on 15 Feb 2012 at 4:52 am 91.DPK said …

    Not surprising Suh has to plagiarize… pretty obvious (s)he has never learned to think for her or himself. But to plagiarize a felon… hahahaha.
    Notice the common thread among the theists here? The come one and make some preposterous claims… then when they are challenged and asked to defend those claims, they disappear, only to reappear in a week or so to start the same process all over again. I have never once had one of them actually respond to a direct challenge except with either bible quotes, or they bring up evolution, Stalin, or some other irrelevant diversion. But they never, ever explain “this is why I believe in god” “this is why god never heals amputees” “this is why god endorses slavery” “this is why god wants us to hates homosexuals” “this is why there are so many factual contradictions in the bible” “this is why god demanded a human blood sacrifice to atone for sins he created us to commit” or any other contradictions of their faith.

  92. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:08 pm 92.Suh said …

    Didn’t know who Kent Hovind is, but no I did not plagiarize him. I posted facts and we both therefore used the same source. Sad he is in jail for doing the same thing half the presidents administration did.

    However, back to my post that angered Lou and DPK so.

    I assume by your attacks on the Bible, of which I make no reference, that you do agree, science is not a vehicle to discovering high priority truths? You both do agree with this?

    Lou I like your new moniker. We agree, religion is stupid.

  93. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:47 pm 93.DPK said …

    Suh… your post at 81 is cut and pasted directly from his website, so don’t play dumb. You are busted. That makes you a plagiarizer and a liar.
    http://www.creationism.org/topbar/vestigial.htm
    I answered your question already in 89. Now answer mine. Or do you just come here to jabber on and don’t really bother to read what anyone else has to say because it might expose your delusions?

  94. on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:57 pm 94.Lou (DFW) said …

    92.Suh said …

    “Lou I like your new moniker.”

    I have NEVER, EVER posted under any other “moniker” than LOU and Later Lou(DFW).

    Furthermore, since Saturday I have spent most of my time where a loved-one is hospitalized after suffering an accident on Saturday, so I haven’t had much time to post as Lou(DFW), much less any other name.

  95. on 15 Feb 2012 at 3:34 pm 95.DPK said …

    Low, hope everything is ok with your family member.
    D

  96. on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:21 pm 96.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh said “I posted facts and we both therefore used the same source.”

    Then you’re digging an even bigger hole than the one you are already in. It almost sounds like your defense is that you just post what supports your position without regard to its origin or veracity.

    Either way, you didn’t quote your source nor indicate that you were cut and pasting. Claiming that you were unaware of the origin of something that you didn’t correctly attribute doesn’t stop it being plagiary. As above, it’s that plus more.

    Lou, concerns too for you and your family.

  97. on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:28 pm 97.curmudgeon said …

    Suh

    I am a prophet. Did I not tell you Dpk and Lou would not answer your question. I have asked 3 and they did everything to digress. It is funny to watch though.

    Dpk, Lou an Stupid do sound like one another. I would not doubt they are the same. I don’t really care if the 3 in 1 could just answer a question.

  98. on 15 Feb 2012 at 6:45 pm 98.drugs advice said …

    am also interested in this topic. I have spent a lot of time on searching this kind of topic. It is very informative.

  99. on 15 Feb 2012 at 7:21 pm 99.MrQ said …

    Cur bravely states:

    I am a prophet. Did I not tell you Dpk and Lou would not answer your question. I have asked 3 and they did everything to digress. It is funny to watch though.

    Now on the topic of answering a SIMPLE question, Cur, can you let me know the age of the planet Earth and universe.

    I am beginning to hear the crickets, smell red herring, and see the dodging and weaving already.

  100. on 15 Feb 2012 at 7:41 pm 100.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon asks questions as a way to divert attention from his own failings. He also does this to stop the conversation going back to the silly, silly, notion of a god that intercedes in today’s world. He has no proof, just a desperate need to feel special.

    He promised back in November 2011, to produce evidence for the existence of his imaginary god. He hasn’t. Anything he does now is just an attempt to avoid facing up to his own dishonesty.

  101. on 15 Feb 2012 at 9:48 pm 101.DPK said …

    “I am a prophet. Did I not tell you Dpk and Lou would not answer your question.”

    Not much of a prophet…I answered Suh’s question in 89 directly, and then told Suh again in 93. How fuckin’ dense are you??
    There has not been a single question you have asked that has not been addressed other than “tell me exactly step by step how the first living organism developed” Now you, Curm in particular, have never answered ANY of my direct questions… should we start again? Let’s start all over with this one:
    Define the characteristics of your god. Is he both omniscient and omnipotent? Does he listen to and answer prayers? Does everything happen according to his plan.
    Balls in your court Curm. Gonna run away again?

  102. on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:33 am 102.DPK said …

    I’m a prophet. I predict Curm will not answer my very simple questions.
    On what do I base my profound prediction? Did a magical horse descend from heaven with a note from god saying Curm will not answer? Did an angel give me golden plates with the prophesy inscribed that were only visible through magical stones? Did a burning bush tell me?
    No, I predict it based on the fact that I have asked Curm this at least 6 times before and he has NEVER, not even once, ventured an answer. Why? Seems like a simple enough task. You believe in this god and you believe he possess certain characteristics. But he will never say what they are. Don’t you wonder why this is? Why will he never answer a simple, direct question?

  103. on 16 Feb 2012 at 2:56 am 103.Lou (DFW) said …

    95.DPK said …

    “Lou, hope everything is ok with your family member.”

    Thanks to you both. Because of medical SCIENCE, her injury was completely repaired. A full recovery is expected.

  104. on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:27 am 104.Lou (DFW) said …

    81.Suh said …

    “So can we trust science on the most important questions?”

    “Why am I here?”

    Science doesn’t answer “why?” to philosophical questions.

    “What happens after I die?”

    There is no evidence that anything happens to you after you die. Therefore, the scientific answer is “nothing.” By definition, you are dead after you die.

    “How did it all begin?”

    You’re question is (intentionally?) too vague. No matter what answer science provides, you will simply “move the goalposts” farther back.

    “How will it all end?”

    Ditto. But why does it matter? You will be dead long before “it all end[s].”

    How is ANY of this relevant to the fact that you have no evidence for an imaginary god?

  105. on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:32 am 105.Lou (DFW) said …

    92.Suh said …

    “…science is not a vehicle to discovering high priority truths? You both do agree with this?”

    At his time, science does not not answer “how?” So what? Neither does any other discipline.

    My personal opinion is that the only answer to “why?” is that there is no reason for the universe. I have no problem with that. I don’t have to invent imaginary gods, b.s. myths, legends, and stories to comfort me because of that.

  106. on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:39 am 106.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.curmudgeon said …

    “I am a prophet.”

    No, you are a pathological liar.

    “Did I not tell you Dpk and Lou would not answer your question. I have asked 3 and they did everything to digress.”

    Show me, prior to yuour comment, that I “did everything to digress.”

    “Dpk, Lou an Stupid do sound like one another.”

    Crum is still using the “I know you are but what am I” defense to something that happened days ago.

    “I would not doubt they are the same.”

    Who cares what you doubt? You doubting something is similar to an astrologer doubting that the universe is expanding. It’s both incorrect and entirely irrelevant.

    “I don’t really care if the 3 in 1 could just answer a question.”

    Crum, when are you getting a new schtick? When are you ever going to abandon the simple, irrelevant tangent tactic to divert attention from the fact that you can’t provide any evidence for your imaginary god?

  107. on 16 Feb 2012 at 7:01 am 107.Anonymous said …

    What’s with nonsense about “high priority truths”?

    This is the same pathetic whining you get from all manner of nutters who are desperate to believe that ‘The Universe’ cares for them. These “why are we here” questions are similarly loaded; that some people are so afraid to live in a world that wasn’t created just to stroke their ego is quite astonishing.

    It’s interesting that the theist wants to know “why” and scientists are more interested in “how”. Imagine the difference in Lou’s story, for example, if medical doctors were less interested in understanding how our bodies worked preferring to pontificate over why we were here.

    “high priority truths” – what a load of bollocks.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply