Feed on Posts or Comments 14 February 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 18 Aug 2012 12:24 am

Understanding the logical breakdown that occurs in the minds of theists – Rabbi Mark Gelman and “40 Year Atheist” provide examples

How can theists believe in something as ridiculous as the God of the Bible? Theists look at the world around them, see no evidence whatsoever for their deity, yet still believe in their imaginary friend. How do they do it?

One technique that is critical to their delusion is the strange ability to hold two completely contradictory positions simultaneously. In the previous post, Rabbi Mark Gelman of The God Squad demonstrated this ability in disturbing fashion. At the beginning of his article he says:

Together these statements explain that God wanted and therefore created a regular, rational, ordered universe. God wanted this so that we could use the brains God gave us to solve problems. If God was in the habit of capriciously and miraculously intervening in nature, then we’d have every reason to just give up seeking to understand anything.

This is a simple statement of reality. Gelman explains that the reason God does not heal amputees is because God cannot be “capriciously and miraculously intervening in nature”. Indeed, this logic prevents God (if he were to exist) from performing any miracles at all. This is how the universe operates – completely devoid of any interaction by any imagined God – and no intelligent person can deny it.

But then, later in his article, a logical impossibility occurs. Gelman proclaims the completely opposite position:

I believe that God has also done miracles for us in the world. The spontaneous remission of cancers, the sudden flashes of genius in science and art and philosophy, and the way people who’ve hardened their hearts suddenly find a soft spot where forgiveness and compassion can enter — all these miracles and more are, for me, evidence that God is with us and cares for us and can, unprovoked, act on our behalf.

An intelligent person looks at this reversal with utter bewilderment. How can Gelman think anyone will take him seriously? By proclaiming two diametrically opposed positions in the same article, Gelman appears to be insane.

In that same post there is a comment by a visitor named “40 Year Atheist” that contains the same sort of insanity. In this comment, 40YA defines God in this way:

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

According to 40YA’s logic, God is “a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine”. Furthermore, this immaterial being is impossible for humans to detect here in our material universe.

Then we read the Bible. God supposedly does a thousand material, detectable things in the Bible: God creates man and woman, walks with them in Eden, bans them, talks to their decedents, completely floods the planet, creates rainbows, destroys towers, talks through burning bushes, brings down plagues, kills babies, dries out the Red Sea, rains manna, carves on stone tablets with his finger, parades naked before Moses, pours fire down to earthAnd then God incarnates himself – God, supposedly, becomes man. What could possibly be more material than that?

So either 40YA has to completely ignore a thousand material elements in the Bible that act as the foundation for his Christian mythology, or 40YA is inventing a completely new God of his own design out of thin air. Either path is pure delusion.

In both of these examples – Rabbi Gelman and “40 Year Atheist” – the lack of logic and the strength of the delusion is palpable. It makes it impossible for any intelligent person to take them seriously.

373 Responses to “Understanding the logical breakdown that occurs in the minds of theists – Rabbi Mark Gelman and “40 Year Atheist” provide examples”

  1. on 18 Aug 2012 at 10:03 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    These kind of contradictions occur in conservative and republican thinking constantly. One good example:

    Conservative Contradictions Abound In the Boy Scouts’ Discrimination Against Gays

    “The issue of choosing which master to serve is not unique to the BSA; it is endemic to conservative Christian legislators, and conservative Christians as a religious segment of the population. Since the start of the 112th Congress, Republicans spent the majority of their time attempting to enforce Catholic and evangelical Christian dogma on the entire population through anti-women and anti-gay legislation in direct conflict of their oath to uphold the Constitution, its separation clause, and equal rights amendment. Legislators’ oath of office does not include anything remotely requiring them to uphold biblical law, and yet they attempted to inflict Catholic prohibitions on contraception and legislate evangelical abhorrence of gays on the entire country. The war on women has as its basis the Christian bible that clearly states women are inferior to men and unworthy of choosing when they give birth or earning equal pay for equal work. In Kansas, legislators passed a law, and Governor Sam Brownback signed it, that allows employers to fire an employee, or a landlord to evict a renter they discover is gay and they used the “religious exemption” appeal to give legal cover to obey god and not the Constitution.”

  2. on 19 Aug 2012 at 8:48 am 2.Paul D. said …

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

    Isn’t that a fancy way of saying “non-existent”? I can’t think of any definition of existence that isn’t predicated upon interaction with any of the fundamental fields in physics.

  3. on 19 Aug 2012 at 8:35 pm 3.Spherical Basterd said …

    Que the shitstorm of intellectual dishonesty and misplacement of ontological predicates from the sock-puppet army of Moronica.

  4. on 19 Aug 2012 at 10:19 pm 4.galvão said …

    “How can theists believe in something as ridiculous as the God of the Bible? Theists look at the world around them, see no evidence whatsoever for their deity, yet still believe in their imaginary friend. How do they do it?”
    One question: How should we do to help people heal from this terrible disease so called religion?
    Galvão(I am brazilian)

  5. on 20 Aug 2012 at 1:20 am 5.A said …

    #1 Anonymouse

    This blog is not about Boy Scouts. We know you hate them because they are Conservatives and might even vote GOP. They develop real men and that threatens you. We don’t care. Keep it to yourself.

  6. on 20 Aug 2012 at 2:13 pm 6.BrianE said …

    When discussing religion, theists get to define and re-define god as many times as they want in order to argue whatever point they want to make. That’s the rules they play by. If they need him to be invisible, then he’s invisible. If they need him to intervene, then he intervenes. And no matter how inconsistent their position is, they still can’t understand why we have a problem with their arguments. It’d be funnier if it wasn’t so prevalent.

  7. on 20 Aug 2012 at 3:35 pm 7.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.ASStrophysicist said …

    “We know you hate them because they are Conservatives and might even vote GOP.”

    First, who is “we?” Which of your sock-puppets does “we” include?

    Second, you don’t know any such thing.

  8. on 20 Aug 2012 at 4:51 pm 8.Lou(DFW) said …

    “God wanted this so that we could use the brains God gave us to solve problems.”

    First, god obviously gives more brains to some people than he does to others.

    Second, what’s the difference in giving us enough brains to solve a “problem” and simply preventing or solving the “problem” for us in the first place? Giving us brains is a roundabout way of the solving the problem for us. And if theists really believe that we must solve the “problems,” then why do they pray to god for help when god wants us to solve them ourselves?

  9. on 20 Aug 2012 at 5:52 pm 9.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.ASStrophysicist said …

    “#1 Anonymouse

    This blog is not about Boy Scouts.”

    Poor ASS, he’s so fixated on “parroting” me that he can’t stay focused on what’s being written.

    ASS, his comment was not about the Boy Scouts. It was about how theists attempt to “enforce Catholic and evangelical Christian dogma on the entire population.”

  10. on 20 Aug 2012 at 8:41 pm 10.Suh said …

    “If they need him to be invisible, then he’s invisible. If they need him to intervene, then he intervenes.”

    Yes Brian, if God was a programmable robot He would be easier to predict. Imagine, God intervening and intervening whenever He desires without asking a man. Who does He think He is, God?

  11. on 20 Aug 2012 at 9:08 pm 11.alex said …

    “… if God was a programmable robot He would be easier to predict. Imagine, God intervening and intervening whenever He desires without asking a man.”

    and how is that any different that a non-interventionist god?

  12. on 20 Aug 2012 at 9:49 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    10.Suh said …

    “Yes Brian, if God was a programmable robot He would be easier to predict.”

    Or if he doesn’t exist, he’s extremely easy to predict. And just as predicted, he NEVER intervenes in man’s affairs.

    “Imagine, God intervening and intervening whenever He desires without asking a man. Who does He think He is, God?”

    What does a god need with man? Why does a god have the desire to intervene in man’s affairs?

  13. on 20 Aug 2012 at 10:30 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    Imagine that a hypothetical poster wrote on their blog that a race of aliens from beyond the observable universe helped them achieve their duties.

    Now imagine if it was explained that even though our instruments failed to register their presence, these aliens were still subject to the normal constraints of space and time and, of course, they were material entities bound by the known laws of the universe and, of course, mass-energy considerations still applied. To all intents and purposes these aliens were invisible but they helped us none-the-less and they definitely existed. Absolutely. No doubt. For certain.

    The only caveat being that these aliens didn’t want us to become reliant upon their help so sometimes they’d help, sometimes they’d decline, sometimes they’d help later, and sometimes they’d help in unexpected ways.

    Now imagine that this person shared this with their doctor, someone with a mandatory responsibility to report. Quite likely, particularly if this individual was in a position of authority, our hypothetical poster may find themselves institutionalized both for their safety and for the safety of society as a whole. In other words, they’d likely be judged to be suffering from a mental illness.

    Now imagine that our poster makes an even wilder claim. Going beyond a corporeal life-form to the pseudo-scientific invention of “being beyond space and time” and being non-material and not of “mass-energy”. Let’s up the ante.

    Instead of a race of aliens, let our poster claim help from a sole individual that is responsible for the creation of an entire universe over 13 billion years ago with the sole intention of letting us spend the previous 2000 years in obsequious servitude. Like before, this entity helps us according to the rules of “yes, no, or wait” but not always in ways that we can understand. To add to the extravagant claims, our poster posits that this power from outside of space and time loves us so much that he’s going to condemn those that don’t worship him to an eternity of suffering.

    The first claim was absurd; the second piled absurdity upon absurdity. Yet, instead of being carted off to the asylum, as long as our hypothetical poster couches his claim in terms of “religion” then the religious amongst us congratulate him for his insight and understanding in order to protect their own need to believe.

    And that’s just one reason why we can’t allow religious claims to exempt themselves from rational examination and critique.

  14. on 20 Aug 2012 at 11:37 pm 14.CastBound said …

    “Imagine that a hypothetical poster wrote on their blog that a race of aliens from beyond the observable universe”

    Maybe the poster is a scientist.

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

    Imagine a hypothetical poster claiming that the 500,000 lines of code to control the ascent of curiosity to the surface of Mars was not written by programmers but was assembled by throwing random code into a program. Anyone buying the claim?

    Now imagine a hypothetical poster claiming the universe has always existed and created what we see today by pure chance. I know the thought is nuts.

    The Curiosity program is much more likely since it is much less complex than the DNA sequence.

  15. on 20 Aug 2012 at 11:39 pm 15.DPK said …

    “… if God was a programmable robot He would be easier to predict.”

    Um… he’d also be able to be demonstrated to actually exist also.
    Amazing how in ALL respects, your god always acts exactly the same as a god who is completely imaginary.
    What are the odds?

  16. on 21 Aug 2012 at 12:07 am 16.alex said …

    imagine allah laughing.

  17. on 21 Aug 2012 at 1:46 am 17.Anonymous said …

    Castbound (a sock puppet) it seems that the argument went over your head. Much like curiosity. Too bad you never contribute anything other than sad diversions.

    Now by showing us that your only response to #13 is your tired and predictable red-herring, you are confirming that you have no rational response. Thank you so very much for your help!

  18. on 21 Aug 2012 at 2:12 am 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    14.CastBound said …

    “Imagine a hypothetical poster claiming that the 500,000 lines of code to control the ascent of curiosity to the surface of Mars was not written by programmers but was assembled by throwing random code into a program. Anyone buying the claim?”

    Your (apparent) claim is that the DNA code was designed and written (by god). If you want to sell that claim, then where’s your evidence? Please present it or retract your claim that “goddit.”

  19. on 21 Aug 2012 at 3:24 am 19.DPK said …

    “ascent of curiosity to the surface of Mars”

    Clear evidence of the muddled thinking of the theistic mindset. Literarily doesn’t know up from down.

  20. on 21 Aug 2012 at 7:47 am 20.Severin said …

    14 CB
    “Now imagine a hypothetical poster claiming the universe has always existed and created what we see today by pure chance.”

    You theists always mention the “chance”. You obviously adore it, and are obviously wrong.

    WHO spoke about the chance here?
    NO THING depends on chance. There are strict laws of physics and chemistry that rule the events.
    Put a glass of water on your table, wait, and it will evaporate. If the temperature is higher, it will evaporate sooner. If temperature is lower, it will evaporate later. Put it on fire, it will boil, and it will ALWAYS boil when it reaches the right temperature under the right pressure. Absolutely NO EXCEPTION.
    Whether or not will an atom of Na react with a molecule of water, or a molecule of chlorine, does NOT depend on any “chance”: they WILL react! They will not wait for “god’s decision” to react, neither a god can stop them reacting and making a new compound.
    THAT is reality, not “chances”!

    Why don’t you tell us about YOUR “picture” of creation?
    Do YOU think that god created universe as described in Genesis, some 6,000 years, or 10,000 years ago, or god caused the big bang and let things develop natural way after that?

    How can we answer anything if we don’t know what are you saying?
    So, what ARE you saying?

    If everything that exists must have been created, why is god an exception?
    If god is not exception, who/what created him (her? it?)?
    If god IS exception, you better find an excellent explanation for your claim, because we do not believe if you only say it.

    My mom told me once there was Santa and I asked her to give me some evidences for her claim as soon as I reached 5.

  21. on 21 Aug 2012 at 6:10 pm 21.Anonymous said …

    So hoping 40 Year Atheist responds.

  22. on 21 Aug 2012 at 11:22 pm 22.DPK said …

    He will not respond. He never engages anyone except with cut and paste drivel from his own blog. Like a typical preacher, he can’t engage, converse, debate, explain or think on his feet… all he can do is regurgitate and spew dogma. And then the other brainwashed trolls congratulate him on how brilliant they think he is.
    That says a lot too.

  23. on 22 Aug 2012 at 12:34 am 23.A said …

    I’m so hoping Rabbi Gelaman or Thomas will respond!

    Severin

    You are so close to getting is right. Energy and matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself. So many issues there like entropy for one. A Creator is required just like a creator is required for automobiles, smartphones and computers.

    No we don’t know everything or understand everything about the Creator but so what?

  24. on 22 Aug 2012 at 1:19 am 24.Anonymous said …

    Looking at his latest ranting and raving where he screams from the rooftops about his disgust of people who don’t agree with him and of the existence of the LGBT community, then he’s probably off somewhere being medicated for his own good.

    Still waiting for a reasoned rebuttal from the imaginary-friend crowd for #13. It seems that they have no defense to argue that if not for the label “religion” that their beliefs would have them declared incompetent.

  25. on 22 Aug 2012 at 2:57 am 25.Lou(DFW) said …

    23.ASStrophysicist said …

    “I’m so hoping Rabbi Gelaman or Thomas will respond!”

    That’s much more likely to happen than for you to respond to any challenge put to your belief in your imaginary god.

    “Energy and matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself.”

    Prove it. Oh yea, there’s still that proof you never provided for your idiotic claim that “We know you hate them because they are Conservatives and might even vote GOP” – coward.

    “No we don’t know everything or understand everything about the Creator but so what?”

    You don’t know ANYTHING, much less everything about any such creator. If you do know anything, show us. So far you NEVER, EVER have – liar.

  26. on 22 Aug 2012 at 3:20 am 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.Anonymous said …

    “…their beliefs would have them declared incompetent.”

    As he and the local sock-puppets demonstrate over and over, one mustn’t be declared incompetent to be incompetent

  27. on 22 Aug 2012 at 5:48 am 27.Severin said …

    23 A
    “No we don’t know everything or understand everything about the Creator but so what?”

    I know NOTHING about the creator.

    Who answers the prayers of Muslims?

    Plop!

  28. on 22 Aug 2012 at 10:50 am 28.Anonymous said …

    The sock puppets and trolls, and 40YA fits the definition of a troll, seem to run away when called out in public.

    CastBound disappeared, Matt whatever disappeared, now we’re waiting for 40YA to explain himself. More proof of how trolls bluster in public but can’t provide justification for their views.

  29. on 22 Aug 2012 at 11:18 am 29.Asher said …

    “Imagine a hypothetical poster claiming that the 500,000 lines of code to control the ascent of curiosity to the surface of Mars was not written by programmers but was assembled by throwing random code into a program. Anyone buying the claim?”

    I cannot. I also cannot imagine DNA, a much large and complex program, being created by nothing. If atheist can prove a program this large and complex can be created by nothing, I will change my position from theism,

  30. on 22 Aug 2012 at 11:57 am 30.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.Asher said …

    “I also cannot imagine DNA, a much large and complex program, being created by nothing.”

    So, because YOU can’t, goddit? Can you imagine that as an object travels faster its perception of time slows, it stretches in the direction it travels, and its mass increases? I can’t imagine that either, but it doesn’t affect the reality of it. So, it doesn’t matter what you can or can’t imagine about the reality of nature.

    “If atheist can prove a program this large and complex can be created by nothing, I will change my position from theism,”

    It’s not up to atheists to prove ANYTHING to you. Disbelief in god doesn’t have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with creation. Why can’t you theists understand such a simple concept? Because you don’t have ANY evidence for your imaginary god shouldn’t require you to attack any fact or theory that you think opposes your delusion. The ONLY argument you have is to provide evidence for your imaginary god. But you NEVER, EVER do that.

    If you choose to believe in god because of your ignorance, nobody cares. Just keep your delusion to yourself. You’ll be left behind with the flat-earthers and geocentrists – exactly where you belong.

  31. on 22 Aug 2012 at 12:11 pm 31.alex said …

    “I also cannot imagine DNA, a much large and complex program, being created by nothing.”

    ok moron. imagine thor is the creator. problem?

  32. on 22 Aug 2012 at 12:48 pm 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.Asher said …

    “If atheist can prove a program this large and complex can be created by nothing, I will change my position from theism,”

    Asher, in effect, just admitted that he doesn’t have any evidence that god is the creator. If he has any, then he must choose between evidence for god or evidence that DNA can be created from nothing. If it was, and he changed his “position” from theism, then he can’t have any evidence for his imaginary god.

  33. on 22 Aug 2012 at 2:23 pm 33.DPK said …

    ” I also cannot imagine DNA, a much large and complex program, being created by nothing. If atheist can prove a program this large and complex can be created by nothing, I will change my position from theism,”

    So your entire faith in god rests entirely on the fact that you cannot understand something? Did you know that the net energy state of the entire universe is exactly zero? Did you know that at the quantum state, we in fact do observe matter appearing spontaneously out of what we call “nothing”? Do you realize that only a few hundred years ago people were making the EXACT same sort of claims about volcanos, earthquakes, and infectious diseases.
    Archer’s faith is based totally on ignorance… and now he has painted himself into a small corner, admitting that the only reason he has to believe in magical gods is that he can’t imagine how DNA could have evolved naturally, without magic.
    Then Astrophysicists adds:
    ” Energy and matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself.”
    Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without reason. Prove this is true.

    “A Creator is required just like a creator is required for automobiles, smartphones and computers.”

    Again a claim made without evidence… and conveniently ignores that fact that the assumption is that the even more complex and even more energetic creator either created itself or came into being from nothing, or has existed for infinity… something he just claimed is impossible without a creator.”

    The only claim that can be dismissed easier than one presented without any evidence is one that violates its own premise.

    Epic fail on all counts theists.

  34. on 22 Aug 2012 at 3:34 pm 34.Lou(DFW) said …

    33.DPK said …

    “[Asher’s] faith is based totally on ignorance… and now he has painted himself into a small corner…”

    Ironic, isn’t it? The sock-puppet theists continually play games in an attempt to make atheists post a comment that they can jump on (in lieu of evidence for their imaginary god). As I posted before, simply let them post enough and they’ll eventually have enough rope to hang themselves.

  35. on 22 Aug 2012 at 4:29 pm 35.DPK said …

    and Asher… here is the beginning of the evidence you said would cause you to abandon theism. Welcome to the dark side brother:

    http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

  36. on 22 Aug 2012 at 6:06 pm 36.Asher said …

    DPK,

    Thanks for the link but no it failed. Try again. Try remembering the level of proof you desire for God. That I what I require that nature can write a long and complex program.

  37. on 22 Aug 2012 at 6:35 pm 37.Anonymous said …

    ..and what has DPK’s ability to provide links on “origins” got to do with the logic breakdown mentioned above?

  38. on 22 Aug 2012 at 6:50 pm 38.Lou(DFW) said …

    35.DPK said …

    “and Asher… here is the beginning of the evidence you said would cause you to abandon theism.”

    36.Asher said …

    “Thanks for the link but no it failed.”

    DPK, I agree with him.

    But here’s the fallacy with his logic (and your reply) – he bases his faith on LACK of evidence, and it’s a double standard about which he’s intellectually dishonest.

    He doesn’t accept that DNA is the result of natural processes without supernatural intervention because he claims there’s no evidence for it. But, he accepts that god is the creator, even though he has no evidence for that, either.

    You can’t convince a child that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist because the child’s tooth was replaced with money, and for the child there’s no other explanation for it, even though there’s no actual evidence of the tooth fairy.

  39. on 22 Aug 2012 at 7:23 pm 39.Lou(DFW) said …

    “there’s no actual evidence of the tooth fairy.”

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

  40. on 22 Aug 2012 at 10:18 pm 40.DPK said …

    I expected no less from Archer… but note that I did not offer the link as “proof”, I provided it as “evidence”. Specifically, Archer claimed that something as complex as DNA could not possibly have evolved from simpler compounds. I simply offered some evidence as to how it is indeed not “impossible”.
    Of course, Archer will continue to reject any and all evidence presented in the same way that an evolution denier will not accept evolution because he thinks he should be able to see a monkey give birth to a human.
    Willful ignorance on Archer’s part… sad, but certainly not unexpected. Understandable, as it is a required component of deluded religious thinking.

  41. on 22 Aug 2012 at 10:21 pm 41.DPK said …

    Um, Archer = Asher = Hor, Ben, Chris… whatever… you all know who I’m talking about……..
    D

  42. on 23 Aug 2012 at 12:59 am 42.Asher said …

    DPK

    I am willing to give you a second chance. What was evidence suppose to be that nature created that first DNA sequence? How does this evidence point to nature doing this and not an intelligent being?

    Looking forward to a reasonable response.

  43. on 23 Aug 2012 at 1:58 am 43.DPK said …

    Fair enough. No one said it was evidence that nature created the first DNA sequence and that it was not created by say, a magical inter dimensional turtle, or perhaps space monkeys from an alternate universe. I never claim to know things I do not know… That is the province of theists.
    What was offered was evidence that it is not “impossible” ( your words) for such a sequence to occur naturally, without intercession from a magical god. You made the claim, I just showed you that it is not a reasonable assumption on your part because it is based on ignorance, as all claims for gods are.

  44. on 23 Aug 2012 at 2:34 am 44.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.Asher said …

    “What was evidence suppose to be that nature created that first DNA sequence? How does this evidence point to nature doing this and not an intelligent being?”

    When are you guys ever going to understand that a natural process is NOT evidence for or against the idea of creator? Why do you discard the idea that a creator could have created DNA through what we perceive as a natural process? Did god wiggle his nose or blink his eyes to create human DNA, or did it evolve through “natural” processes that your imaginary god initiated tens and hundreds of millions of years ago?

    The truth of the matter is that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god, and your irrelevant, pointless, fruitless arguments about origins is nothing but a ruse to divert attention from your lack of evidence – either that or you’re actually that stupid.

  45. on 23 Aug 2012 at 7:59 am 45.Severin said …

    36 Asher
    “Thanks for the link but no it failed.”

    How strange! You accept existence of a god without any evidences, but you refuse to consider alternative POSSIBILITY for which there is no direct evidences, but sounds logical. Much, much more logical than “god did it”.

    Have you ever in your life said to yourself, when you heard for an explanation of whatever, that differed from YOUR opinion: “it MIGHT be that way”?

  46. on 23 Aug 2012 at 8:07 am 46.Severin said …

    42 asher
    “I am willing to give you a second chance.”

    I am willing to give you the 100th chance: provide evidences that there is a god, THEN ask whatever you want, and you will always get honest answers.

    Who the hell you think you are?
    Someone who is in charge to only pose questions and never answer any?
    King Solomon?

  47. on 23 Aug 2012 at 8:13 am 47.Severin said …

    42 Asher
    ” What was evidence suppose to be that nature created that first DNA sequence?”

    ALL of us are saying that it is MOST PROBABLY that DNA developed naturally.
    You got a link that supports such an idea. I agree that neither this link, nor other things are EVIDENCES, but specifically that link closed the idea to reality.

    Now YOU (YOU!) give us evidences that god created the DNA.

    Because YOU say so!

  48. on 23 Aug 2012 at 8:20 am 48.Severin said …

    Asher,

    If we got St. Paul in our century and showed him computer (airplane, penicillin, submarine, …), what do you think he would say?
    “That is too complex to be made by human being. It MUST be god’s deed”, he would certainly say.
    I think he would say it for the simple bulb!

    Why are YOU so primitive?

  49. on 23 Aug 2012 at 10:26 am 49.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.Severin said …

    “Who the hell you think you are?”

    Xtian apologists – liars for god.

  50. on 23 Aug 2012 at 11:07 am 50.Asher said …

    Gentlemen,

    The anger this subject generates is amazing. Let me share my reasoning. When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved. You may not be aware of just how much coded information is in a sequence of DNA. I do understand atheists are under pressure to make up some amazing set of events where the simple somehow becomes the complex without intelligence guiding the process. I follow the logical conclusion. When something more logical presets itself I will adjust.

    Severin men are beings with intelligence so you help prove my point. Cars are built by intelligence.

  51. on 23 Aug 2012 at 12:07 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    50.Asher said …

    “When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved.”

    So what? First of all, there’s no evidence of any such creator. Second, your reasoning has been shown to be historically incorrect.

    “You may not be aware of just how much coded information is in a sequence of DNA.”

    Irrelevant.

    “I do understand atheists are under pressure to make up some amazing set of events where the simple somehow becomes the complex without intelligence guiding the process.”

    No, you imagine that to be true, just like you imagine there’s a creator god.

    “I follow the logical conclusion. When something more logical presets itself I will adjust.”

    Because you won’t present your evidence, then at least present your logic, step-by-step.

    “Severin men”

    What are “Severin men?”

    “…are beings with intelligence so you help prove my point. Cars are built by intelligence.”

    Cars aren’t natural objects subject to natural laws.

    Who built this arch?

    http://tinyurl.com/8lzg8hh

  52. on 23 Aug 2012 at 12:48 pm 52.freddies_dead said …

    50.Asher said …

    Gentlemen,

    The anger this subject generates is amazing.

    I suggest you breathe deeply and count to 10.

    Let me share my reasoning.

    You think what you’ve presented is reasoning, how sweet.

    When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved.

    You call this intelligence ‘God’ and it must be more complex and ordered than DNA, right? Seen as how you can’t imagine complex and ordered things being created by simpler, less ordered entities? So then there must be something even more complex and ordered involved in creating your complex and ordered God, right? And something even more complex and ordered to create the creator of your creator? Just where does this end? It seems that it’s turtles aaaall the way down.

    Cue Asher doing a bit of special pleading in 3….2….1….

    You may not be aware of just how much coded information is in a sequence of DNA.

    How does the amount of information preclude there being a naturalistic explanation? Oh, that’s right, turtles.

    I do understand atheists are under pressure to make up some amazing set of events where the simple somehow becomes the complex without intelligence guiding the process.

    Atheists are under no pressure at all. We haven’t had to make up something that already exists. In fact it is theists who have the burden of proving that a) their guiding intelligence actually exists and b) it is responsible for guiding the natural processes we actually observe causing the simple to become more complex. You’re welcome to start trying anytime you’re ready.

    I follow the logical conclusion.

    The one that we’ve seen leads to an infinite regress you mean? Strikes me as being somewhat less than logical.

    When something more logical presets itself I will adjust.

    As you’ve already demonstrated that you have, at best, a very tenuous grasp of logic, it does not seem at all likely that you would accept anyone’s arguments if they don’t fit your flawed concept of what is logical. This means that if we offer an explanation that isn’t predicated on an infinite regress of deities you will most likely reject it.

    Severin men are beings with intelligence so you help prove my point. Cars are built by intelligence.

    Cars these days are made using evolutionary principles. Genetic algorithms are used to determine the optimum design for various parts and changes (i.e. mutations) which lead to better performance/speed/durability etc… (i.e. fitness for purpose) are kept while those that lead to a vehicle being less suited to it’s environment are discarded.

    Yes, we have studied the natural world very well and have found that mimicking it’s processes – such as evolution – can be a very good idea.

  53. on 23 Aug 2012 at 4:54 pm 53.DPK said …

    “When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved.”

    Explain how this is fundamentally different from saying “When I see something as powerful and destructive as a volcano eruption I must conclude that a magical god must be involved.” or “When I see a plague that infects and kills an entire population, I must conclude that some god is angry and has sent it as punishment for sin.”? It isn’t. You are arguing from a point of ignorance… YOU cannot understand, and then jumping to a completely unfounded conclusion… THEREFORE, the ONLY possible explanation is a god. Based on what? Past experience has shown this assumption has ALWAYS been wrong. And why a god… specifically the god of the bible? Why not an inter-dimensional rabbit? Why not the flying spaghetti monster? There is as much evidence for any of them as for your god. You are not just jumping to conclusions, your are jumping to them over galactic distances.

    “You may not be aware of just how much coded information is in a sequence of DNA.”

    Again.. ignorance. Do your research, no one has ever claimed that a fully functioning strand of human DNA spontaneously formed out of a completely random collision of atoms. Everyone agrees that that would be statistically impossible within the known age of the universe. But it appears that it is not a random process, and there is strong evidence to suggest that the process has many plausible., and not at all unlikely, steps that could result in complexity. It is not fully understood, but when it is, your last stronghold for your imaginary god will be gone

    “I do understand atheists are under pressure to make up some amazing set of events where the simple somehow becomes the complex without intelligence guiding the process.”

    We understand how theists are under pressure to make up excuses as to why something is “impossible” without intervention of some magical god or gods. Problem is, the process doesn’t historically have a very good track record (100% failure, so far), it is totally illogical because it presents an “answer” with absolutely no evidence to support it.

    Now, we have provided an honest response. We don’t know exactly how DNA originated, but we have some clues, and all those clues point to it being a natural process that does not require magic. Now, show us the evidence as to exactly how “god did it” and, more specifically, why you think YOUR particular god did it. Hint: you will need more than “well, because I can’t think of any other way…” That’s not a reason.

  54. on 23 Aug 2012 at 5:25 pm 54.Asher said …

    “Cars these days are made using evolutionary principles. Genetic algorithms are used to determine the optimum design for various parts and changes (i.e. mutations) which lead to better performance/speed/durability etc… (i.e. fitness for purpose) are kept while those that lead to a vehicle being less suited to it’s environment are discarded.”

    Freddie thank you too. Severin and now you have strengthened my position. Men, with intelligence, developed these processes which do not even begin to compare to a DNA sequence.

    But Freedie, you are suppose to be presenting some sort of evidence that there are naturalistic processes which can develop this complex and ordered sequence for DNA. But you seem to have a difficult time staying on task. You are still dead Freddie but you too are welcome to try again.

    I admit my logic is simple. I am a simple man. Show me how reasoning is in error.

  55. on 23 Aug 2012 at 5:56 pm 55.Lou(DFW) said …

    54.Asher said …

    “I admit my logic is simple. I am a simple man. Show me how reasoning is in error.”

    So were ancient, simple goat herders. You’re reasoning is no different than theirs. Anything they couldn’t understand could only be explained by “goddit.” It’s the same with you. You’re simply stupid if that’s the way you think.

  56. on 23 Aug 2012 at 5:57 pm 56.Lou(DFW) said …

    54.Asher said …

    “I admit my logic is simple.”

    P.S. You were asked to provide your logic, but you didn’t.

  57. on 23 Aug 2012 at 7:08 pm 57.Lou(DFW) said …

    53.DPK said …

    “Now, show us the evidence as to exactly how “god did it” and, more specifically, why you think YOUR particular god did it.”

    He will NEVER do that because :

    1. He has no such evidence because no such evidence exists because no such creation happened because no such creator exists.

    2. He’s dishonest.

    All he can ever do is continue to demand proof of how DNA formed or prove that his god isn’t real. That’s all he has.

  58. on 23 Aug 2012 at 7:56 pm 58.Asher said …

    “So were ancient, simple goat herders. You’re reasoning is no different than theirs.”

    Irrelevant. But if true, then you cannot even prove a goat herder? wrong. Not sure there has ever been such an occupation.

    “Anything they couldn’t understand could only be explained by “goddit.””

    Actually I claim a Creator is required. You by nature did it or I don’t know. Provide the evidence or you have nothing.

    “All he can ever do is continue to demand proof of how DNA formed or prove that his god isn’t real. That’s all he has.”

    Actually I asked for how how nature could design and construct a DNA sequence or anything else even close while you have nothing. I provided my logic, you simply ignore it. Unless you can provide anything relevant in your next post this will be my last post to you. I’m too busy for your shenanigans.

  59. on 23 Aug 2012 at 9:45 pm 59.Severin said …

    58
    “But if true, then you cannot even prove a goat herder? wrong.”

    When will you learn that it is not our duty to prove you wrong, but yours to prove yourself right.

    O.K., I will immediately accept the idea of “god did it” if you come with some more details about it. Your “naked” claim that god created DNA is insufficient. To make me get closer to your idea, why don’t you please tell me, for example WHEN did god create DNA.
    Was it during the Genesis days? Earlier than that?How long ago was it, approximately?
    Then, HOW god did it? By blowing his saliva through nostrils of Adam, whom he previously made from dirt? Did god’s saliva contain DNA?
    Some other way?
    You must have SOME idea about what you claim to be the truth! Unsupported claim is bullshit.
    Support it!

  60. on 23 Aug 2012 at 9:47 pm 60.Severin said …

    Asher
    “When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved.”

    When I see something as complex and ordered as god, I must conclude intelligence was involved.

    Whose intelligence was it?

  61. on 23 Aug 2012 at 9:58 pm 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    58.Asher said (EXACTLY as I predicted in #57)…

    “Actually I asked for how how nature could design and construct a DNA sequence or anything else even close…”

    That question was answered many times – nobody knows, including you.

    “…while you have nothing.”

    That’s right! I NEVER claimed to know how DNA formed. I don’t have, nor do I require any evidence for “I don’t know.” YOU claim “creator.” Provide evidence for “creator.”

    “Unless you can provide anything relevant in your next post this will be my last post to you.”

    How convenient. Exactly as I wrote, you have nothing to offer. You NEVER answer any direct questions about your “creator” claim. You are a dishonest coward. Why don’t you be honest and write “this will be my last post because I don’t have any evidence for “creator?”

    “I’m too busy for your shenanigans.”

    Liar, you don’t have any evidence. If you did, then you would have spent a lot less time posting diversions. Run away now for the next sock-puppet.

  62. on 24 Aug 2012 at 9:08 am 62.Severin said …

    58.Asher
    “Actually I asked for how how nature could design and construct a DNA sequence or anything else even close…”

    I explained many times how I think nature “did it”.
    Many people gave ideas about how it happened.
    Both the link provided by DPK and many experiments done in laboratories give us very credible hints about how (approximately) self-creation of complex compounds cold have happened.
    I do agree that those are not (yet) direct evidences, but, especially because DNA is not made of microscopic angels, but of known compounds, and because we know well the chemistry those compounds followed to get together, this sounds to me logical and acceptable.
    A “sort” of DNA COULD HAVE BEEN “constructed” spontaneously, then developed spontaneously to its present form, through billions of years.
    It WAS POSSIBLE, or, at least, IT WAS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

    You claim god created DNA.
    Fine! Excellent!
    Now you only have to say something more about that, the same way I explained my idea, to support it (present compounds, conditions, time, some simple chemistry, …).

    In this case I am not asking for unambiguous evidences.
    Some details about when and how would do.

    Shoot!

  63. on 24 Aug 2012 at 11:26 am 63.Lou(DFW) said …

    Let’s review the discussion on DNA.

    Who do you think introduced DNA to the discussion, theist or atheist?

    That’s right – thesit:

    14.CastBound said …

    “The Curiosity program is much more likely since it is much less complex than the DNA sequence.”

    Before continuing, if what CB wrote was true, then we would have billions of “The Curiosity program[s]” rather than billions of the “DNA sequence.” But, I digress.

    I next posted to CB:

    “Your (apparent) claim is that the DNA code was designed and written (by god). If you want to sell that claim, then where’s your evidence? Please present it or retract your claim that “goddit.”

    Did CB ever reply? What do you expect from a lying theist?

  64. on 24 Aug 2012 at 12:53 pm 64.A said …

    Asher

    You busted the A’s in one of their typical hypocritical lies. They claim to be open and take no position on a deity. They are only waiting for proof.

    Yet, no proof for “nature-diddit” but that is their belief. Sure, they pretend the answer is “I dunno” but when is the last time they argued against “nature diddit”? Do they go on blogs and argue against “nature diddit”? :)

    They don’t because that is what they want to believe.

    Actually, the evidence is against “nature-diddit” Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.

  65. on 24 Aug 2012 at 12:58 pm 65.A said …

    “Imagine a hypothetical poster claiming that the 500,000 lines of code to control the ascent of curiosity to the surface of Mars was not written by programmers but was assembled by throwing random code into a program. Anyone buying the claim?”

    Absolutely not but the A’s should. If “nature-diddit” on the DNA then a monkey typing in random code should be able to produce the program to land Curiosity. He just needed time and chance (T&C).

  66. on 24 Aug 2012 at 1:08 pm 66.Lou(DFW) said …

    64.ASStrophysicist said (exactly as I predicted the sock-puppet would)…

    “Actually, the evidence is against “nature-diddit” Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.”

    Liar, show us your evidence for another false claim.

  67. on 24 Aug 2012 at 1:11 pm 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    65.ASStrophysicist said …

    “If “nature-diddit” on the DNA then a monkey typing in random code should be able to produce the program to land Curiosity. He just needed time and chance (T&C).”

    The chance of that happening is about the same as you typing anything that makes sense.

  68. on 24 Aug 2012 at 1:11 pm 68.MrQ said …

    A:

    the evidence is against “nature-diddit” Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.

    Ahhh, yet another misconception. Remember how you and Castbound forgot that energy cannot be created nor destroyed? Conveniently forgotten? Don’t blame you. As an Astrophysicist you ought to know your Laws of Thermodynamics better than that. Too bad there’s no reset button on your stupid comments.

    And that will likely conclude the debate since A will fade away either now or shortly after re-appearing, calling me psychotic, and saying that 500,000 lines of code requires a creator (or something equally ridiculous).

  69. on 24 Aug 2012 at 1:18 pm 69.Lou(DFW) said …

    23.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Energy and matter is not eternal and it cannot create itself.”

    25.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Prove it. Oh yea, there’s still that proof you never provided for your idiotic claim that “We know you hate them because they are Conservatives and might even vote GOP” – coward.”

    ASS- we’re still waiting for your replies.

    And now this:

    “Actually, the evidence is against “nature-diddit” Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.”

  70. on 24 Aug 2012 at 1:20 pm 70.Anonymous said …

    Once again we see the sock-puppets running amok with their diversions.

    This blog is not about what nature did. The challenge for your theists is for you to prove the existence of your god.

    Trying to play games and change the subject to what atheists think is the answer is trolling. Funny how you believers always associate science with atheism, you must realize that atheists are better educated.

    So, theists, take up the challenge or just accept that you have no proof for your god or your claims. It doesn’t matter what science has or has not, that’s not the question here.

    Man up, believers. Show us your proof.

  71. on 24 Aug 2012 at 2:40 pm 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    If this requires a intelligent designer,

    http://tinyurl.com/cs9n4l8

    then so must this

    http://tinyurl.com/bvldae5

    because it’s impossible for nature to form such a perfect design without some intelligence to guide it. And according to ASStrophysicist, “Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.” Therefore, we can conclude that some intelligent designer was at work in the latter design because it obviously has order.

  72. on 24 Aug 2012 at 2:52 pm 72.DPK said …

    “Actually, the evidence is against “nature-diddit” Nature has a tendency to digress toward disorder not order.”

    First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of entropy. In closed systems with energy applied, nature will create order. One need only look up to see billions of perfectly functioning fusion reactors that were once just clouds of hydrogen gas organized by nothing more than the force of gravity. You’d think an Astrophysicist would understand that… but you lied about that too didn’t you? You’re no more an Astrophysicist than I’m a brain surgeon.

    Second, your contention seems to be that lacking irrefutable and undeniable proof of something, all propositions are then equally likely. Is this what your claim is? That because science cannot demonstrate exactly the process by which DNA evolved from simpler compounds, than any other claim made should be considered equally as likely to be true?

    Lastly, you either have (another) fundamentally flawed concept of the idea of evolution, or you are deliberately attempting to be deceptive. No one ever claim the information assembled in a DNA molecule occurred by random chance. In fact, chance has little or nothing to do with it. If you did some actual reading on the matter instead of listening to your Saturday morning TV preachers, you’d understand that.

    Now, enough with the red herrings and distractions. We have honestly admitted we don’t know the exact process that formed DNA. We simply contend that a natural, explainable process is more likely than a magical creator god (curiously, who has no creator itself, but surely is way more complex than a DNA molecule). If you are going to contend otherwise, we are waiting for either your evidence, or at the least a logical, believable, and somewhat supported hypothesis as to why we should accept that.
    Ball’s in your court… we’re waiting.

  73. on 24 Aug 2012 at 3:10 pm 73.Severin said …

    A,

    Let DNA alone!
    You did not grow up to this problem

    Who answers the prayers of Muslims is the question for you.

    OOPS! You did not grow up to that one either!

  74. on 24 Aug 2012 at 5:01 pm 74.Mitch said …

    “We simply contend that a natural, explainable process is more likely

    More likely based on what? What process?

  75. on 24 Aug 2012 at 5:06 pm 75.40 Year Atheist said …

    For Cause and Effect to be completely in control of every aspect of human thinking, every thought (which must be material itself) must have a direct physical cause and that cause must be an effect of a prior cause, clear back to the big bang. Now Cause and Effect is ruled by entropy, which means that every effect must be less than its cause, with at least a portion of the cause resulting in disorder such as heat. A relentless trek toward disorder is the fate of the physical universe, and this is a rule that allows no exceptions: there can exist no reversible machines in our physical universe.

    The emergence of life is the first anentropic (non-entropic) event, and that has been followed by generations of further anentropic events, all constrained to living systems. The universal law of Cause and Effect fails to account for the increasing order that is found in living systems. So there is some attempt to claim that things like sentience and thought “emerge” from complex systems somehow, yet there is no explanation for why complex systems exist in an entropic universe in the first place.

    Cause and Effect as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics are universal and undeniably applicable to every and all physical systems… except living systems. But for Philosophical Materialism to be valid, everything that exists must exist physically and obey the laws of physics. This means that, given the conclusion first and trying to fit premises to it, all life must not be exceptional, all life must also fit into the rules of the physical universe, including Cause and Effect and Entropy.

    Now if entropy dictates the degradation of effects within a long chain of causes, how might we account for sentience, thought and rationality? It has to be argued that a) these things are physical, and b) they are not exceptional, so that c) if they seem to be exceptional, that is an illusion or delusion. Even the self and consciousness as well as intentionality and agency are declared illusory or delusory. (If we believe an illusion it becomes a delusion).

    Brain activity is given as definitive evidence of this delusion; moreover, damage to the brain shows that no mental activity can be correctly performed without a proper brain, with all segments hooked up and working together as shown under MRI. That physical hardware is exercising software of unknown origin escapes this description, which requires that a hardware brain be hardwired with physical connections, and that these connections fire just right somehow to perform a thought, the results of which are then transferred to the conscious mind – which is a delusion.

    So it is the firing of the synapses that create the thought, and the thought is a transient state, existing only in time.

    We are deluded into thinking that we somehow control these transient states, even creating sequences of them as would be required for critical thinking. There is no agency in the physical universe according to Philosophical Materialism. There is only response to stimulus (effect from a cause) and the response is lossy at that. So we are locked into our delusions.

    I am not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears. It is the necessity of a physical-only, material-only dogmatic philosophy that forces such absurd conclusions. Those who think that these positions are not absurd should pledge to abstain from using the results of intentional, conscious agency, including clothing, buildings of all types, transportation of all types, toilets, water and power utilities, and communications devices; these are concrete products of intentional agency. Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.

    The existence of the mind, rationality, agency and self requires a completely separate understanding of our existence within a physical universe. Our existence defies the natural laws, and requires a separate and extended view of reality beyond the Materialist viewpoint. The Materialist viewpoint is not sustainable even using its own standards of empirical knowledge: it cannot prove the limits it self-imposes on reality. But even more damaging is the boatload of absurdities that become necessary to believe, if Materialism is to be preserved.

    The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion. Theism is an understanding of a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans. This cannot be proven empirically because it is not an empirical hypothesis, but it is not non-coherent nor is it paradoxical nor does it depend on mass or individual delusion.

  76. on 24 Aug 2012 at 5:23 pm 76.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.40 Year A-hole first said …

    “Theism is an understanding of a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans.”

    Now 40YA-H is lying about the definition of theism. Theism is a BELIEF, not an “understanding” of a creator-god.

    “The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion.”

    Then he says …

    “This cannot be proven empirically because it is not an empirical hypothesis, but it is not non-coherent nor is it paradoxical nor does it depend on mass or individual delusion.”

    Translation:

    First he says theism cannot be a delusion because that’s an “absurdity.”

    Then he says there’s no evidence for a creator god.

    Nah, theists aren’t deluded.

  77. on 24 Aug 2012 at 5:32 pm 77.Lou(DFW) said …

    73.Mitch said …

    “We simply contend that a natural, explainable process is more likely

    “More likely based on what? What process?”

    That a flying pink unicorn farted DNA into existence – because I believe so, that’s why.

  78. on 24 Aug 2012 at 6:32 pm 78.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.40 Year Atheist said …

    “The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion.”

    At one time “all humans” believed that the sun orbited the earth, the center of the universe. But that could not be possible because it would be an “absurdity” for them “to be living in a shared delusion.” Therefore, the earth is the center of the universe and the sun orbits the earth.

    Xtians, you can take comfort in knowing that, according to 40YA-H, it doesn’t matter which creator-god you believe in, because even though the majority of humans aren’t xtians, it’s not possible for your belief to be a delusion. If enough people believe something, it’s an “absurdity” for you xtians to be living in a shared delusion. Even though followers of a different god would kill you because you don’t believe in their creator-god, it would be an “absurdity” to think that neither you nor they are living in a shared delusion. No, as long as you believe in some creator-god, it’s not possible that neither one of you or them or believers of countless other gods are deluded.

    Do you know why? Because 40YA-H has declared it would be an “absurdity.”

    So don’t worry about it, your faith in a “a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans” is safe because 40YA-H is “not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears.”

  79. on 24 Aug 2012 at 6:37 pm 79.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction:

    “…either you or they are living in a shared delusion.”

  80. on 24 Aug 2012 at 6:56 pm 80.DPK said …

    “More likely based on what? What process?”

    Um… chemistry. Which, unlike the claim that some “non-physical, non-material reality” is responsible, is actually known to exist and behave in predictable manners. You do realize that DNA is a molecule made up of chemical elements, correct? And you realize that chemistry does not depend on “then a miracle occurred” as a process.

  81. on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:03 pm 81.A said …

    “Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.”

    Indeed! I have pointed this out to the A’s before. They are a cult since to believe their claim at least 80% of the world is deluded.

    Enjoy them for the entertainment value.

  82. on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:13 pm 82.Severin said …

    73 Mitch
    “More likely based on what? What process?”

    Based on chemistry, of course: substitution, addition, exchange of ions, exchange of radicals, chemical condensation, like between alcohols and acids, many reactions between -OH group and other reactive groups, polymerization, and hundreds of other (today) well known chemical reactions.
    Extremely complex ribosomes are already synthesized in lab, and they are doing in a test tube exactly what they do in a cell: catalyzing formation of proteins from “soup” of mixed amino acids.

  83. on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:21 pm 83.Severin said …

    73 Mitch, cont.

    You got your answer.

    Now you:
    On what processes is based creation of DNA done by god?
    HOW did he create them? By only saying “let DNA exist”, or maybe by saying “abracadabra DNA”, …?
    What processes were included in god’s creation of DNA?

    We are also all very interested in information WHEN do you think god created DNA?

    Your OPINION about the a.m. two questions (how, when) will do!

  84. on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:29 pm 84.Severin said …

    A,

    Are Muslims deluded or not?

    Who answers their prayers?

  85. on 24 Aug 2012 at 7:30 pm 85.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.A said …

    “I have pointed this out to the A’s before. They are a cult since to believe their claim at least 80% of the world is deluded.”

    You also “pointed this out” – that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “cult,” once again demonstrating your stupidity and predilection for circular reasoning.

  86. on 24 Aug 2012 at 8:23 pm 86.DPK said …

    “They are a cult since to believe their claim at least 80% of the world is deluded.”

    Well, IF that argument had any validity whatsoever (which it doesn’t as has been pointed out to you on many, many occasions… yet you still bring it up and make yourself look very, very stupid)… but IF it did, that would put you in a very bad position because fully 2/3rds of the world population thinks that YOU are deluded in your belief in your jewish zombie/god. They most definitely believe you have it completely wrong, so that makes your christian minority the “cult”. You can’t have it both ways…. were the round earth proponents a “cult” too?
    You’re not to bright for a capital “A” Astrophysicist. What community college did you get your “Astrophysicist” certificate from?

  87. on 29 Aug 2012 at 10:13 am 87.freddies_dead said …

    54.Asher said …

    Freddie thank you too. Severin and now you have strengthened my position. Men, with intelligence, developed these processes which do not even begin to compare to a DNA sequence.

    So you missed the bit where humans actually borrowed from what they observed in nature to help them design ‘better’ cars? I’m not surprised by this, after all you believe that complexity can only be acheived by the active interference of a more complex and ordered intelligence.

    Unfortunately you don’t seem to realise that that kind of thinking leads to an infinite regress of ever more complex and ordered intelligences. All of them necessary before we even get to the ‘God’ that you claim created DNA.

    In other words you believe that there are turtles aaaall the way down. However, you have still to produce any evidence that even the least of these turtles actually exists – it’s as if you can’t.

    But Freedie, you are suppose to be presenting some sort of evidence that there are naturalistic processes which can develop this complex and ordered sequence for DNA.

    No I’m not. I was simply responding to your illogical argument from ignorance i.e. that complex things can only come from intelligence.

    However, there are theories – with corresponding supporting evidence – which suggest naturalistic processes for the evolution of DNA – try googling things like RNA or have a look at this article for example.

    Of course this will all be pointless as you’ll simply dismiss the evidence or start asking what created the RNA that lead to DNA. From there you’ll ask what led to the thing that led to RNA etc… etc… until we get to the point where I say I do not know – at that moment you’ll shout “Aha, goddidit!” and cram your deity into the tiny gap you’ve found.

    But you seem to have a difficult time staying on task. You are still dead Freddie but you too are welcome to try again.

    Try again so you can ignore everything again? That would be as pointless as your unsupported claim of an intelligent designer.

    I admit my logic is simple.

    Your logic isn’t simple, it’s faulty, as I demonstrated.

    I am a simple man.

    Finally a bit of honesty.

    Show me how reasoning is in error.

    I already did, but as you’ve been honest enough to admit you’re struggling with the concepts, here it is again:

    You said:

    When I see something as complex and ordered as DNA I must conclude intelligence was involved.

    I showed how this is illogical:

    “You call this intelligence ‘God’ and it must be more complex and ordered than DNA, right? Seen as how you can’t imagine complex and ordered things being created by simpler, less ordered entities? So then there must be something even more complex and ordered involved in creating your complex and ordered God, right? And something even more complex and ordered to create the creator of your creator? Just where does this end? It seems that it’s turtles aaaall the way down.”

    Are you likely to address this infinite regress at any point? Perhaps by producing some evidence of the God you claim exists?

  88. on 29 Aug 2012 at 10:17 am 88.freddies_dead said …

    Apologies for the poor formatting but, if nothing else, our simple friend cannot now fail to find the link to an explanation of the evolution of DNA.

  89. on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:32 am 89.Asher said …

    “So you missed the bit where humans actually borrowed from what they observed in nature to help them design ‘better’ cars?”

    Hardly, but thank you Freedie more evidence. A process in nature so complex as it would not be possible for nature to design it.

    You haven’t proved anything. I apply a concept I observe all around me. That is, all complex systems have a system designer.

    Your link is NOT proof DNA evolved. Not one shred on evidence but full of speculation and fairy tales. More proof from your link for my logic:

    “indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought”

    “The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA”

    “The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates”

    You like to give challenges. Why don’t you read something written by the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. He has great insight to the design of DNA and how it points directly to having a designer.

  90. on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:47 am 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    89.Asher said …

    “I apply a concept I observe all around me. That is, all complex systems have a system designer.”

    And I apply a concept that I observe all around me – that a flying pink unicorn farted everything into existence.

    After you provide the evidence for your observation, then I will provide mine.

    You and your ilk, as usual, never replied to my previous comment:

    Who is the “system designer” for this?

    http://tinyurl.com/9osxgvd

  91. on 29 Aug 2012 at 12:06 pm 91.Lou(DFW) said …

    89.Asher said …

    “You like to give challenges. Why don’t you read something written by the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. He has great insight to the design of DNA and how it points directly to having a designer.”

    Collins, a theistic evolutionist, rejects Intelligent Design and Creationism. Show us where, as you claim, that his “insight” into DNA design points to a designer.

    “Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant “gaps” in the progressive development of life’s complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now.”

    FRANCIS COLLINS

    Director, National Human Genome Research Institute

    Time magazine interview

  92. on 29 Aug 2012 at 12:37 pm 92.MrQ said …

    Asher,
    So good of you to bring up Collins whose website, biologos.org, states:

    …. A simple response would be to give a God-of-the-gaps explanation: that some supernatural force, namely God, must have intervened to bring life into being………Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith.

    And his explanation of “first life” states that they were simple single celled organisms, created billions of years ago. Did you see that, Ash? SIMPLE LIFE, NO god. Collins also states that humans EVOLVED from other lifeforms.

    Looks like you really stepped in it this time. Thanks for the link that destroys your argument.

    Maybe now you’ll abandon Collins and embrace Ken Ham? LOL

  93. on 29 Aug 2012 at 4:27 pm 93.DPK said …

    89.Asher said …

    “A process in nature so complex as it would not be possible for nature to design it.”

    Again Asher presents a claim with no evidence to back it up and argued 100% from a position of ignorance. But, EVEN IF, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the argument that it is indeed “not possible” for nature to design it… so what? How does that necessarily lead to the conclusion of a magical god, and specifically, the biblical god, as the only acceptable answer. You answer your own unsupported claim with your own unsupported conclusion, which has no more validity than Lou’s flatulent pink unicorn, or any other crazy ass creation story. In the absence of evidence to support any of them, they are all equally valid.
    I will side with the historical record, which shows that ALL poorly understood natural phenomena which has in the past been ascribed to “gods” has ultimately had a rational, natural explanation discovered. I have no reason to think this one is any different.

    Archer, since you made the claim that “all complex systems have a system designer” why won’t you provide your explanation to Lou’s questions about who designed the sand dunes and the stone arches in the photos he linked? Even more importantly, why won’t you address the issue of if “all complex systems have a system designer” who designed the designer?

    For someone who demands concrete evidence from others, you sure leave a lot of completely unsupported claims hanging in mid air. Fraud.

  94. on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:05 pm 94.Lou(DFW) said …

    92.DPK said …

    “For someone who demands concrete evidence from others, you sure leave a lot of completely unsupported claims hanging in mid air. Fraud.”

    …and liar, coward, ignoramus.

  95. on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:27 pm 95.A said …

    Asher,

    Notice how even the atheist hint they do not believe DNA did not come about without a Creator. They know.

    I read “The language of God” by Collins and it is an excellent read. He has no doubt God designed DNA and programmed the unique codes.

  96. on 29 Aug 2012 at 6:07 pm 96.Lou(DFW) said …

    94.ASStrophysicist said …

    Now here comes the next sock-puppet to replace the vanquished Asher…

    “Notice how even the atheist hint they do not believe DNA did not come about without a Creator. They know.”

    Liar, show us where any atheist here posted anything that “hinted” that.

    “I read “The language of God” by Collins and it is an excellent read. He has no doubt God designed DNA and programmed the unique codes.”

    Really? Show us. And if you believe that, then you MUST believe in evolution. But, in fact, he DOES NOT believe that any god wrote DNA code.

    Collins says that his research shows “powerful support for Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is, descent from a common ancestor with natural selection operating on randomly occurring variations.”

    “Darwin could hardly have imagined a more compelling digital demonstration of his theory than what we find by studying the DNA of multiple organisms. In the mid-nineteenth century, Darwin had no way of knowing what the mechanism of evolution by natural selection might be. We can now see that the variation he postulated is supported by naturally occurring mutations in DNA.”

    “[O]n rare occasions, a mutation will arise by chance that offers a slight degree of selective advantage. That new DNA ‘spelling’ will have a slightly higher likelihood of being passed on to future offspring. Over the course of a very long period of time, such favorable rare events can become widespread in all members of the species, ultimately resulting in major changes in biological function.”

  97. on 29 Aug 2012 at 6:46 pm 97.Anonymous said …

    #94 “I read “The language of God” by Collins and it is an excellent read. He has no doubt God designed DNA and programmed the unique codes”

    Collins is saying for the 10 million species on earth today, and the billions of species that have gone extinct over hundreds of millions of years, god programmed all of these unique codes?

    And when one species goes extinct and another very similar species follows it, god did that himself?

    And god chose to program all of these species and fossilize them in exactly the order we would expect through evolution?

    And after the asteroid hit and made the dinosaurs extinct, god decided he was done with dinosaurs and suddenly decided he favored mammals, never to create another dinosaur?

    And when a bacteria gets exposed to radiation and mutates, god is changing the dna himself?

    Collins would have to be a blithering idiot to say things like that. You would have to be a blithering idiot to believe him. Why would you choose to be that stupid?

  98. on 29 Aug 2012 at 8:23 pm 98.Lou(DFW) said …

    96.Anonymous said …

    “You would have to be a blithering idiot to believe him. Why would you choose to be that stupid?”

    He knows Collins never said that. He’s a pathetic little liar who will lie about about anything to support his delusion. The only thing he has going for him is anonymity. Even while being anonymous, one can support a position without lying. But he can’t.

  99. on 29 Aug 2012 at 8:45 pm 99.Severin said …

    89 Asher
    “That is, all complex systems have a system designer.”

    Everyone with a grain of brain can only conclude:

    a) God (if he has not been created) is not complex
    or
    b) If he IS complex, he must have been created

    Which is it?
    Can’t be both!

  100. on 29 Aug 2012 at 8:50 pm 100.Severin said …

    84 Asher
    “Your link is NOT proof DNA evolved”

    No, it is not, but sounds logically. Fits reality.

    Now:
    What are YOUR proofs that god created DNA?

    I already asked you to answer simple questions:
    HOW and WHEN did god create DNA?

    I am asking you again: who, the hell, are you to only pose questions and ask for proofs, but never ever answer any?

  101. on 29 Aug 2012 at 9:09 pm 101.Lou(DFW) said …

    99.Severin said …

    “I am asking you again: who, the hell, are you to only pose questions and ask for proofs, but never ever answer any?”

    Nobody but a little chicken shit sock-puppeteer.

  102. on 30 Aug 2012 at 1:04 am 102.Anonymous said …

    99.Severin “I am asking you again: who, the hell, are you to only pose questions and ask for proofs, but never ever answer any?”

    He’s trolling. That’s one of the thing that trolls do.

    All he cares about is getting you to dance to his tune. He doesn’t care about your answers, and he’ll keep up this act as long as you’re willing to answer his questions and continue to engage despite him obviously having no intention of ever honestly answering your questions. As was pointed out, once one sock-puppet is vanquished, up comes another. It only ends when folks stop being baited into answering the same questions, time after time, after time.

  103. on 30 Aug 2012 at 1:52 am 103.Asher said …

    A quote from Collins:

    The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful – and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”

    I think that clearly indicates where Collins believes the genome had it’s foundation. I agree 100%.

  104. on 30 Aug 2012 at 2:01 am 104.alex said …

    A quote from Collins:

    so fucking what? i gots many quotes. doesn’t prove shit. many quotes from ancient greeks about greek gods. so what? you gonna ask next about specific ancient greeks? specific greek gods? get the fuck out of here with your diversions and wild good chase questions. prove your god. if you can’t, then i can equally say venus is the one.

  105. on 30 Aug 2012 at 2:09 am 105.DPK said …

    Also a quote from Collins:
    “On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains, the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.”

    So, Asher, do you conclude that it is also “impossible” for nature to create a frozen waterfall ad that too must be designed by god? Collins seems to think so. I’d say he is easily impressed. Does water freezing require magic, or can it be explained in simpler terms?

  106. on 30 Aug 2012 at 2:12 am 106.DPK said …

    And Asher… why won’t you answer any of the direct questions posed you? Are you afraid to answer? Why?
    No one here can make you look more foolish than you already have. Come on now… for the glory of Jesus… tell us who designed the sand dunes, the rock arch, and the designer. According to you they all must have a designer because it is impossible for them to occur any other way. Since you claim to know things no one else does… answer the questions.

  107. on 30 Aug 2012 at 6:58 am 107.Severin said …

    Asher,

    I don’t give a fuck for what some Collins says. I am talking to YOU, because YOU said god exists and god created the DNA.
    I never pretend my answers are totally correct, but they are HONEST: I ALWAYS explain my opinion with some arguments.
    You, on the contrary, keep claiming things without ANY arguments or explanations (not to mention evidences), then you re-claim, pose questions, and call “authorities” to support them.

    I expect honest answers from YOU, but you are a little dishonest chicken asshole who is afraid of your own answers.

    Pretty miserable!

  108. on 30 Aug 2012 at 7:23 am 108.Severin said …

    Asher,
    Go back to #98 and #99 and do your best to answer the simplest questions ever posed to you:

    1. Is god more complex “system” than his own creation, in which case he, as YOU claimed, needed his own creator (“Actually I claim a Creator is required”; “That is, all complex systems have a system designer”), or he is less complex than his creation, in which case he could not create anything more complex than himself? Maybe a car, but not DNA.

    2. How and when was DNA created by god (no proofs required, description will do: what he DID while creating DNA? How did the procedure of creating DNA look like?), with some time frame (6,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? 3.5 billion years ago?).

    3. Who answers the prayers of Muslims?

  109. on 30 Aug 2012 at 7:31 am 109.Severin said …

    Asher,
    Goat herders did THEIR best when they described creation of “universe” in Genesis. Poor people were ignorant, but they were HONEST. I am sure they would have mention creation of DNA if only they knew anything about it, as they mentioned everything they DID know: light, water, animals, land, man, …

    They gave pretty picturesque DESCRIPTION of what god did, according to THEIR understanding.

    Don’t you be a chicken asshole compared to goat herders!
    You said god created DNA, so you MUST have some idea about HOW (and WHEN) it happened.

    Simple description, please!

  110. on 30 Aug 2012 at 9:24 am 110.freddies_dead said …

    89.Asher said …

    “So you missed the bit where humans actually borrowed from what they observed in nature to help them design ‘better’ cars?”

    Hardly, but thank you Freedie more evidence.

    There was no ‘hardly’ about it, you simply ignored my initial mention of genetic algorithms.

    A process in nature so complex as it would not be possible for nature to design it.

    Do you have an argument to show that this is true? Or are you still applying your ‘logic’ to this claim – the logic that leads to an infinite regress of intelligent designers? Present an argument that shows – beyond reasonable doubt – that there are processes so complex they could not possibly have a naturalistic explaination. Failure to do so will be taken as a concession that this assertion is baseless and can be dismissed.

    You haven’t proved anything.

    Except that your logic is decidedly faulty you mean. Do you have an answer for how to avoid an infinite regress of intelligent designers? An argument to demonstrate that there are things so complex that there can’t possibly be a naturalistic explanation for them? Failure to provide such arguments will be taken as your tacit concession that nature can and does explain things that appear, to you, to be ‘designed’.

    I apply a concept I observe all around me. That is, all complex systems have a system designer.

    So you’ve seen someone design a rabbit? A pig? A person? When? Where? How did they do it? What’s that? You haven’t? So you’ve never seen someone design a self replicating biological organism? Then how can you possibly claim that “all complex systems have a system designer”? Oh, right, you figure that, because something is complex it simply *must* have been designed by an intelligence despite never having actually seen evidence that this is so. Of course you also never deal with the implications of this barely asserted belief of yours – to wit, the infinite regress of intelligent designers that it inevitably leads to.

    Your link is NOT proof DNA evolved.

    I never claimed that it was. You asked for evidence so I linked to a paper explaining how naturalistic process could lead to DNA.

    Not one shred on evidence but full of speculation and fairy tales.

    And, as I predicted, you dismiss the evidence without giving any reasons.

    More proof from your link for my logic:

    “indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought”

    “The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA”

    “The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates”

    Aaaaand it’s a twofer! Not just evidence dismissal but also the implication that I must now give evidence for U-DNA and dNTPs etc… Have you found a teeny tiny gap that you wish to cram your infinite regress of intelligent designers into? Well done you. Now can you explain how an infinite regress of intelligent designers could possibly work?

    You like to give challenges.

    The only challenge I’d like you to meet is the one where you present actual evidence to support the existence of the God you claim designed everything. Any chance you’ll try at some point? Or will we have to carry on watching you making unsubstantiated God of the gaps arguments ad nauseum?

    Why don’t you read something written by the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins. He has great insight to the design of DNA and how it points directly to having a designer.

    You want me to read something by the guy who *doesn’t* accept intelligent design … to support your claim of intelligent design? (See Lou(DFW)’s post 91 for details).

    I didn’t think your logic could get much more faulty but it seems I’ve underestimated just how simple you are.

  111. on 30 Aug 2012 at 11:51 am 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    102.Asher said …

    A quote from Collins:

    “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome.”

    Ha-Ha-Ha! The genome wasn’t even known of when the bible was written. And what is the bible full of? Stories about how an angry, vengeful god used natural events like floods to kill humans. In those days all natural events were the result of (some) god’s actions. Of course, now we know otherwise. So Collins has simply attributed another natural event to the imaginary god of the bible. Even though he clearly states that the imaginary god DID NOT write human DNA code!

    “I think that clearly indicates where Collins believes the genome had it’s foundation. I agree 100%.”

    Ha-Ha-Ha! (again). Now you’re changing the argument from god directly created humans by writing human DNA code to the genome has its “foundation” in god.

    Once again, you demonstrate how dishonest you are.

  112. on 30 Aug 2012 at 12:04 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    102.Asher said …

    “I think that clearly indicates where Collins believes the genome had it’s foundation. I agree 100%.”

    First of all, nobody cares about what you agree or think – only what you can demonstrate or prove.

    What is the “foundation” of Collins’ belief in god? A frozen waterfall! NOT the complexity of DNA. LOL!

  113. on 30 Aug 2012 at 4:44 pm 113.DPK said …

    “The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.”

    Curious use language by Collins here… “surrendered”. As if his rational mind knew it was bullshit, but he just gave up and decided to believe it anyway.

    “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so…” Mark Twain

  114. on 30 Aug 2012 at 5:11 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    Intriguing language. Surrendering, offering oneself, accepting as a personal savior, kneeling, bowing, etc..

    Xtains will say it’s all about something “bigger” then they are. However it sounds a lot more like abdicating thinking for oneself or, maybe, it’s simply a reflection of a tribal system of slaves and masters that was captured in the goat-herder’s stories that made it into the bible.

  115. on 30 Aug 2012 at 5:59 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    113.Anonymous said …

    “Intriguing language. Surrendering, offering oneself, accepting as a personal savior, kneeling, bowing, etc.. ”

    It’s part of religious brainwashing used to control the “flock” by those who make their money through religion.

  116. on 30 Aug 2012 at 6:08 pm 116.Lou(DFW) said …

    112.DPK said …

    “surrendered”. As if his rational mind knew it was bullshit, but he just gave up and decided to believe it anyway.”

    That’s EXACTLY what he meant. After years of working as a scientist who couldn’t accept the reality that this is all there is, he gave in. For some people, it’s much easier to fall into the religion trap than it is to accept that, in absolute terms, life is meaningless, and that there’s no afterlife. Some people, no matter how smart, simply can’t accept reality.

    Not only does the word “surrendered” communicate that, but it also communicates the exact same problem that all theists face – no evidence for their delusion. It’s not as if he found some actual evidence for god and proclaimed as much.

  117. on 30 Aug 2012 at 7:42 pm 117.Asher said …

    What goat herder described the Universe in the Bible Severin? How was is described?

  118. on 30 Aug 2012 at 8:51 pm 118.DPK said …

    I think you’ve more than used your quota of demanding answers from people until you provide some of your own, Mr.Asher. You have been asked multiple direct question by several honest folks here on several occasions. But you just ignore them and demand answers of others. How typically christian.

    Do you think no one notices that you conveniently ignore direct questions posed to you that you have no answers for? Do you realize how silly it makes you look to try and convince people of your position when it is obvious you cannot defend it? Do you know what the words “intellectually dishonest” mean?

  119. on 30 Aug 2012 at 9:18 pm 119.Severin said …

    116 Asher

    I am not ready to answer any questions before you answer mine.

    Suggestion: read Genesis! Blossom of the blossom of goat herders’ intelligence wrote the Bible carefully for centuries. They described with many details how god created the whole universe THEY knew at THEIR time: heaven, earth (land), waters, light, sun, moon, animals, plants, man, women, … they did not know for much more than that! If they knew more, for example for DNA, do not doubt they would put it in Genesis.
    They were wrong, of course, but they did a honest job: they wrote what they knew.

    You are not honest.

  120. on 30 Aug 2012 at 9:43 pm 120.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.Asher said …

    “What goat herder described the Universe in the Bible Severin? How was is described?”

    Asher, you’re even more ignorant than we all thought. Why advertise it?

  121. on 30 Aug 2012 at 9:58 pm 121.Lou(DFW) said …

    117.DPK said …

    “[Asher,] I think you’ve more than used your quota of demanding answers from people until you provide some of your own, Mr.Asher.”

    What more can you expect of ignorant people? He’s like a stupid little kid, incapable of adult conversation, who continues asking “why?” to every single thing you say to him.

  122. on 30 Aug 2012 at 10:10 pm 122.Severin said …

    Asher
    “How was is described?”

    The writers of the Bible described the CREATION of the universe the best way they knew. That was THEIR OPINION that the creation occurred THAT way, and they wrote it. They TOOK A RISK to write their opinion, be it right or wrong. It WAS HONEST from their side.

    You don’t have an opinion of your own.
    You don’t write anything but questions and citations.
    You can’t support your naked claims with a simple description of what YOU think and YOU claim is true.
    Conclusion: you don’t know a shit.
    Conclusion: you don’t think a shit.
    You only shit.

    Go home and bother your family or your friends (if any) with your idiotic, dishonest (and boring) question.

  123. on 30 Aug 2012 at 10:53 pm 123.Asher said …

    “Genesis! Blossom of the blossom of goat herders”

    Really? Show me. Who were these writing goat herders?

  124. on 30 Aug 2012 at 11:08 pm 124.alex said …

    “Really? Show me. Who were these writing goat herders?”

    you’re a confirmed idiot. shepherds?

    what do you think the writers did? circumcision specialists, collecting foreskins? maybe this explains the biblical reference?

    what other jobs were there? webmasters? what, you don’t know? around those times, which jobs were likely?

    damn, moron. what are you gonna ask next? prove that there were no dinosaurs back then?

  125. on 31 Aug 2012 at 12:26 am 125.Martin said …

    Just looking at three of the writers of the Bible who wrote a majority of the Bible.

    Moses: educated as a Pharaoh’s son which means he got one of the best educations of the day.

    Paul: A highly educated man under the famous teacher Gamaliel before becoming a Christian.

    Luke: Wrote Luke and Acts was a physician.

    Not a single goat herder in the bunch.

  126. on 31 Aug 2012 at 12:37 am 126.alex said …

    “Not a single goat herder in the bunch.”

    married Tzipora – Jethro’s daughter – and shepherded his sheep. a physician shepherd? as a physician, what do you think moses did? circumsized little boys?

    your three writers authored the whole bullshit book? get out of here with your nonsense. next.

  127. on 31 Aug 2012 at 5:21 am 127.Severin said …

    122 Asher
    “Really? Show me. Who were these writing goat herders?”

    That is all you have to say?
    You are SO miserable in your helplessness.

    Of course, blossom of the blossom of goat herder tribes were people who were the intellectual cream of the society of those times, who knew much more than average population of that time.
    Yet, their knowledge was nothing compared to today’s knowledge.
    They had no better idea to explain life but claiming that god made man from dirt, but they were brave and honest: unlike you, they SAID what they had to say.

    You are dishonest and far of being brave: you are a miserable coward.
    As I said: you don’t have opinion of your own, you don’t know a shit, you don’t think a shit, you only eat and shit around, like an amoeba.

  128. on 31 Aug 2012 at 5:26 am 128.Severin said …

    124 Martin

    I did not know Moses, Paul and Luke wrote Genesis!?
    Are you opening a new page in the history of Bible?

    Anyway: congratulations! Unlike Asher, who is on the level of an amoeba, you reached the level of a warm. You said SOMETHING!

    Evolution in action!

  129. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:25 am 129.Severin said …

    124 Martin
    I do not mock the trio you mentioned. Unlike you and your ilk, those people were honest and brave enough to say (write) what they thought.

    I can imagine a man of today to admire their brilliancy, which was incomparable (far above) with average level of knowledge of THAT time.
    I really, really can not imagine men of today ACCEPTING their knowledge as absolute and unsurpassed, and taking it (their knowledge) as the base of further reasoning.

    YOU are doing exactly that!
    As opposed to entire knowledge we have today, you take the knowledge of goat herder’s intellectual elite for granted. You TRUST them as if nothing happened with knowledge since then.
    It would be the same as if you felt sick (today) and went to an Indian medicine-man to heal you.
    Indian medicine-men were far above average knowledge of their tribe-bretherns. Their healing actions were successful in many cases, and were, in total, far better than no action, but you can’t compare their knowledge to anything of what we know today.
    What are medicine-men TODAY? Charlatans!
    No one denies their significance for THEIR time, but, if anyone would use their methods today, that one would be considered a charlatan and go to jale.

    You obviously have double standards: you would never go to a Indian medicine-man to heal you, but you DO proclaim the knowledge of Paul, Moses and Luke unsurpassed.

    It is not funny. It is sad.

  130. on 31 Aug 2012 at 11:08 am 130.Lou(DFW) said …

    124.Martin said …

    “Moses: educated as a Pharaoh’s son which means he got one of the best educations of the day.”

    Why is it you guys jump to defend something as insignificant as labeling ancient biblical figures and people as goat herders, but you can’t defend your claims of god and that he programmed DNA to create humans?

    “Not a single goat herder in the bunch.”

    Moses was a shepherd for forty years. Are you splitting hairs over goats and sheep or that he was single or married or herder and shepherd? LOL!

    Idiots.

  131. on 31 Aug 2012 at 11:11 am 131.Lou(DFW) said …

    Asher, who “designed” this cat?

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/The-Genetics-of-Venus-the-Famous-Cat.html

    It’s obviously IMPOSSIBLE for nature to make such a cat! It had to be designed and created by an intelligence!

  132. on 31 Aug 2012 at 1:35 pm 132.Anonymous said …

    Martin, which books do you actually think were written by those people? Be specific, name your sources.

    For bonus points. Assuming him to be real, how old do you believe Moses was when he died and how did he write himself, about his own death? How do you reconcile the lack of evidence for the exodus with the stories in the bible?

    Finally, given your regard for the man. Do you then take Genesis to be a factual account of creation? Talking snake and all.

    Will you answer or be replaced by…say Ben?

  133. on 31 Aug 2012 at 3:51 pm 133.DPK said …

    I once had a christian apologist tell me, with a straight face no less, that St. Paul was a highly educated man who had “the equivalent of a Ph.D from a major university today”.
    Really? Like from Fred Flintstone University?

    And Martin… what evidence do you have that Moses wrote the first books of the bible… in the 3rd person, no less, and detailed events that occurred before his supposed birth and after his supposed death? Is there no end to the bullshit you people will accept in an effort to convince yourselves you are going to live forever? Sad.

  134. on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:02 pm 134.Lou(DFW) said …

    131.Anonymous said …

    “Martin, which books do you actually think…?”

    Martin, do you actually think?

  135. on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:03 pm 135.Scourge said …

    124 Martin Paul: A highly educated man under the famous teacher Gamaliel before becoming a Christian.

    Acts 22:3
    King James Version (KJV)
    3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

    Maybe someday a historian will refer to “Snoop Dogg”: born in Watts, a city in Los Angeles, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Feynman at CalTech, and taught according to the perfect manner of the acoustic physicists, and was zealous toward Rap, as ye all are this day. GIT IT MUVUFUGGAH!!!!

    This thread really has degenerated to idiocy. I suppose we are to believe Moses is the adopted son of a pharoah (which one was it who was swept away by the Red Sea? Yule Brenner?) in the same way he could invoke plagues, do tricks, and chat with burning bushes.

  136. on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:26 pm 136.Lou(DFW) said …

    132.DPK said …

    “Like from Fred Flintstone University?”

    Yes, everybody knows that Moses went to Prinstone and Shale…

  137. on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:35 pm 137.Scourge said …

    130 Lou(DFW) “Asher, who “designed” this cat?
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/The-Genetics-of-Venus-the-Famous-Cat.html
    It’s obviously IMPOSSIBLE for nature to make such a cat! It had to be designed and created by an intelligence!”

    All that matters is the cat’s mother is a whore, and should be stoned to death.

  138. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:00 pm 138.Asher said …

    Severin,

    Martin is correct regarding 3 major writers of the Bible.

    You still have not shown me where Goat Herders wrote Genesis or any part of the Bible. Show me.

  139. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:10 pm 139.40 Year Atheist said …

    The definition of Atheism continues to morph away from representing any position at all, especially one that requires honest justification for its existence. So let’s follow this to the limits of what is possible in the Atheist rush to deny any intellectual responsibility.

    Now the concept of Atheism has been force fit into this concept: there is no concept. Atheism now is defined as having no belief regarding any god or gods. In other words, it is a conceptual and intellectual void. Perhaps the only true void in the entire universe, it seems.

    There is no rejection, because there is no opinion on the subject which exists in a mental void. They have heard the god theory and come away with a void.

    Now, a void is not arguable. A void is nothing. And this concept of “no concept” has come up recently as a result of successfully arguing that Atheists have neither logic nor empirical truth to support their position. So now they claim not to have a position, it is merely a void regarding gthe subject. Yet even a void as a worldview has consequences.

    How does one develop a mental void? Further, why does the Voidist feel the need to fight against the Non-voidists? How do they defend the position of Voidism? If Voidism is the complete lack of a concept or position, then what is the basis for their worldview?

    This last question directs a fatal arrow at the heart of Atheism’s new Voidist position. If they have no position, then they cannot argue for it or against its contrary – there is no differentiable contrary to a void, except for everything which is not a void, which is: everything.

    Further, a worldview which starts with a void as its base axiomatic truth proposition cannot be thought to produce anything of value. There is nothing in Voidism, literally, to direct thought processes, for example (and this is shown here daily). There is nothing to describe a Voidist moral concept (no concepts, remember?).

    Starting with a void, the Atheist develops everything from thinking patterns to morals basing them on the void, filling in the empty space with whatever he wishes. Perhaps he steals concepts from others, perhaps he just makes stuff up as he needs it. It is the Voidist, self-induced moral system and anti-rationalist thought process which makes the Atheist the most suspicious person on the planet.

    So about that Voidist claim to be based on logic and evidence: that is clearly not the case. There is no logic which dictates the existence of a mental void, and certainly no logic which is based on a void; logic is based on absolutes, the opposite of a void. There is no evidence which reveals the existence of the Voidist’s lack of mental activity surrounding the concept of possible deities. So the claim is false.

    Of course, true and false do not exist in mental voids, either. So Voidists merely declare things either true or false depending on which of those states is convenient for the Voidist’s self-induced morality and thought process. Further, Voidists are free, conceptually, to believe whatever they, themselves, say, whenever it is convenient to say it.

    Voidism is rationally deniable, but that is of no concern to the Voidist. That position, that Voidism is rationally deniable, sets the Voidists off and away as members of the anti-rationalist community, a la Nietzsche, and separates them from rational society… whether they like it or not.

    Rationality is not accepting whatever you wish the truth to be as actually true; rationality involves submitting oneself to the outcome of logical principles as they are applied to propositions. Where there is no concept to be discussed or analyzed, there is no rationality involved, either in that void or the consequences of that void.

    So if anything either valid or true comes out of Voidism, it is purely a random accident, not a purposeful, logical, analytical consequence of the Void. And with so many false possibilities for every proposition, but only one true possibility, the chances of Voidism producing anything of rational value is asymptotic to p ~ 0.

  140. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:52 pm 140.Lou(DFW) said …

    137.Asher said …

    “Martin is correct regarding 3 major writers of the Bible.

    You still have not shown me where Goat Herders wrote Genesis or any part of the Bible. Show me.”

    Let’s assume Martin is correct and Severin is incorrect. So what?

    Now let’s move on to what you showed us:

    1. No evidence for god
    2. That you are dishonest
    3. That you are a coward
    4. That you are deluded
    5. That like a stupid little child, you can’t have an adult conversation

  141. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:52 pm 141.Severin said …

    137 Asher
    “Martin is correct regarding 3 major writers of the Bible.”
    I did not say Bible, I said genesis, because we talked creation o universe.
    See #118

    “You still have not shown me where Goat Herders wrote Genesis or any part of the Bible. Show me.”

    I am not going to show you anything.
    If you want to learn who wrote the Bible, find it yourself.

  142. on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:54 pm 142.Lou(DFW) said …

    138.40 Year A-hole said …

    “So if anything either valid or true comes out of Voidism, it is purely a random accident, not a purposeful, logical, analytical consequence of the Void.”

    Like if anything intelligent or logical was ever contained in any of your rambling nonsense, that it would be an accident? Like monkeys typing?

  143. on 31 Aug 2012 at 10:33 pm 143.Asher said …

    Severin said “I am not going to show you anything.”

    Of course you won’t You cannot. You are a lair, deceitful and totaling lacking in decorum. You needed to be called out.

    I like the term voidism 40 Year Atheist is using in place of Atheism. Atheist at one time actually defended their position but now they are just a bunch of parrots quoting other parrots. They are now totally lacking in manners and honor. What a waste.

  144. on 01 Sep 2012 at 2:38 am 144.alex said …

    “They are now totally lacking in manners and honor.”

    You’re the impolite motherfucker. Why don’t you find an Islamic site and argue with the other morons?

  145. on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:05 am 145.Severin said …

    Assher
    “They are now totally lacking in manners and honor. What a waste.”
    … said a hooker and left to look for her next client.

    Ha ha ha.

  146. on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:24 am 146.Severin said …

    144 Alex
    “You’re the impolite motherfucker.”

    I was a little bit impolite.
    He is a combination of idiot and psychopath, and such a claim is no more impolite: it is diagnosis.

    Maybe I should apologize for I haven’t noticed it before.

  147. on 01 Sep 2012 at 11:52 am 147.Lou(DFW) said …

    143.Asher said …

    “I like the term voidism 40 Year Atheist is using in place of Atheism.”

    Irrelevant – nobody gives a damn what you like.

    “Atheist at one time actually defended their position but now they are just a bunch of parrots quoting other parrots.”

    You are a liar – atheists never defended their “position” because rejection of your “position” is not a “position.” Atheists only challenged the position of theists, one that you failed miserably to defend. We don’t have to defend that we don’t accept your delusion – a belief for which you have no evidence.

    “They are now totally lacking in manners and honor.”

    Honor? HONOR? Honesty, fairness, or integrity – something that you and your sock-puppets NEVER, EVER demonstrate here by answering questions about your delusion.

    “What a waste.”

    Oh, poor little Asher got his feelings hurt. If you can’t have your way with the grown-ups, then go to 40YA-H’s playground where they let the kiddies engage in fantasies without fear of being challenged. Stan will look after you and delete the comments that you can’t answer.

    When you grow-up and can behave like an adult to defend your lies, then come back.

  148. on 01 Sep 2012 at 12:05 pm 148.Anonymous said …

    139.40 Year Atheist said:

    “Atheism now is defined as having no belief regarding any god or gods. In other words, it is a conceptual and intellectual void. Perhaps the only true void in the entire universe, it seems.”

    Actually, that is how atheism has always been defined:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
    a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
    b : the doctrine that there is no deity

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    What you are missing is this famous quote by Stephan Roberts: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    40YA, you don’t believe in Santa, Leprechauns, Martians, Zeus, Ra… the list is endless. You are a “voidist” on all these things and you know that is perfectly OK.

  149. on 01 Sep 2012 at 12:19 pm 149.A said …

    Now Anonymous, you know the new coward’s definition of atheism is “a lack of belief”. Come on, stop being such a liar or provide substance for the definitions you propose. Maybe Louser can help you out with the proper definition. Speaking of Louser…..

    “When you grow-up and can behave like an adult to defend your lies, then come back.”

    Ha Ha Ha, thanks Louser, a great laugh to start the day off right. You leaving us?

    Asher,

    Louser is unemployed which is why he spells this blog hitting refresh every 5s……..

  150. on 01 Sep 2012 at 12:40 pm 150.Lou(DFW) said …

    146.Severin said …

    “[Asher] is a combination of idiot and psychopath, and such a claim is no more impolite: it is diagnosis.”

    Their dishonest behavior here, inability to defend their delusion, and irrationality is a result of the cognitive dissonance that occurs when the delusion of theism clashes with reality.

    When their delusion is exposed for what it is, theists feel that they’ve been had. And religion, for the most part, is about controlling people. When theists like our resident sock-puppets are humiliated enough, then they are LESS likely to ever admit that they were brainwashed to believe in fairy-tales and admit that their belief in an imaginary god is useless. But what they don’t realize is that their brilliant display of stupidity and juvenile behavior is even more humiliating than simply admitting that they don’t ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL for their imaginary god.

    And when their belief system fails, it’s never because THEY are wrong, it’s because it was/wasn’t god’s will or god works in mysterious ways or god is god and he can do what he wants. They rationalize the failure of their delusion because rationalization is a crutch for the ignorant and weak

    That’s the theist philosophy – delusion, denial, and irrationality.

    It’s not possible to debate with an irrational person:

    http://tinyurl.com/39zvwzh

  151. on 01 Sep 2012 at 1:09 pm 151.Lou(DFW) said …

    149.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Louser…”

    Here we go again with ASS’ parroting of me. It’s said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

    First he insinuated that I was a young boy, now this…

    “..is unemployed..”

    I must admit that you’re correct – I don’t have a job. I OWN the place. I’m sorry that you can’t afford an Ipad and that their use isn’t allowed on the recycling center separation line. Poor you.

    “…which is why he spells this blog hitting refresh every 5s……..”

    Feel better now, Asher? Your playmates have your back. Not that they’re capable of defending you when they can’t defend themselves.

    Of course, none of the lies ASS’ posts here in anyway whatsoever changes the fact that neither you nor him ever provide any evidence for your imaginary god.

    ASS, you haven’t hid-out long enough for everyone to forget what a fool you last made of yourself, and how you were caught sock-puppeting your “so precious” routine.

  152. on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:27 pm 152.Lou said …

    Anonymous.

    I noticed your definition of Atheism includes the word “doctrine”. Not typically a word atheist like associated with atheism since it implies a belief system.

    Doctrine:
    1.
    a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government.
    2.
    something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
    3.
    a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.

    Since you have been kind enough to set the record straight, will any Atheists who frequent this blog be able to defend their doctrine? How will they attempt to jump back to the lack of belief claim?

  153. on 01 Sep 2012 at 9:34 pm 153.Lou(DFW) said …

    152.Louser said …

    “I noticed your definition of Atheism includes the word “doctrine.”

    Liar – it didn’t. Show us where “his definition” includes the word “doctrine.”

  154. on 01 Sep 2012 at 11:12 pm 154.40 Year Atheist said …

    This is actually a good time to summarize the new Atheist position.

    Claim 1. There is no Atheist position: it is a void.

    Claim 2. Actually, the Atheist position is the claim that Theist arguments are (a) false; (b) can’t be falsified or proven false.

    Claim 3. Claim 2 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

    Claim 4. Claim 3 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

    Claim 5. Claim 4 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.

    …Ad infinitum…

  155. on 02 Sep 2012 at 12:50 am 155.DPK said …

    need not be defended against what?

  156. on 02 Sep 2012 at 12:55 am 156.alex said …

    “This is actually a good time to summarize the new Atheist position.”

    fine, whatever, just to shut your fucking mouth.

    your turn. these are the theists position.

    1. morons believe in a bullshit god. it’s bullshit because there’s no evidence. examples: rah, thor, jesus, allah. morons believe that it’s up to the atheist to support their nonbelief. well, jc and allah are mutually exclusive, so they both can’t be gods. but that’s besides the point. i don’t believe in thor either. ain’t nothing void about this disbelief.

    2. morons beliefs are inconsistent. they cherry pick their bible favs and ignore the rest. how many theists stone anybody? the bible is clear, but the shit talkin theist don’t have the balls to execute.

    3. morons come in here talking shit insisting on sidetracking the bizness with their diversions. but , but, the atheist is this and the atheist is that! i already tolya, i’ll agree to whatever. now stop the bullshit finger pointing.

    where’s the god evidence?

  157. on 02 Sep 2012 at 1:45 am 157.Curmudgeon said …

    Lou has pointed out an interesting thought. Atheism is a doctrine. Atheist like to claim they have only a lack of belief, no doctrines. It seems atheists are caught in another quandary on how to make the definition work with what they claim.

    Its the morality problem all over again.

  158. on 02 Sep 2012 at 1:49 am 158.alex said …

    “157.Curmudgeon said …”

    (sarcasm)everything you say about atheists are true(/sarcasm).

    now, your god proof? no? get the fuck out of here.

  159. on 02 Sep 2012 at 1:50 am 159.alex said …

    <test>

  160. on 02 Sep 2012 at 2:16 am 160.DPK said …

    Curm… I know you are great at making unsubstantiated claims and refusing to answer questions, but to put your absolutely ridiculous statement in perspective, please answer just one question for us! Is not believing in unicorns a “doctrine”?

  161. on 02 Sep 2012 at 12:02 pm 161.alex said …

    ad nauseum vomitum, it doesn’t matter what/who the atheists are or what other shit we believe in.

    there are no thors, ras, yahwehs, jesuses, venus, etc. gods. go back to your church/mosque/closet and come back with your proof.

  162. on 02 Sep 2012 at 4:10 pm 162.Anonymous said …

    The fact that 40ya bans people who ask him to support his position, and his response to bring challenged is to disallow all commenting in total (other than his cherry picking from email) and claim abuse as an excuse, tells you all you need to know about this character and why he doesn’t deserve behind taken seriously.

  163. on 02 Sep 2012 at 4:20 pm 163.Severin said …

    To all theists,

    I deeply, deeply apologize for claiming that GOAT herders wrote the Genesis.

    It seems that we actually talk SHEEP herders:

    1. “Moses was a shepherd, in the desert, for 40 years.”

    2. herder
    Pronunciation: (hûr’dur),
    a person in charge of a herd, esp. of cattle or sheep.
    Her•der

    3. Moses lived in 15./16 century B.C. Paul and Luke, who lived much later, could NOT write the Genesis.

    4. Before Moses became a shepherd, he graduated at MIT (and few other top universities), where he studied biochemistry and physics. He was well informed about DNA, gravity, light, Higgh’s boson, but he decided to reject those bullshits, and to accept the idea of god making a man from dirt and woman from his rib.

    Amen.

  164. on 02 Sep 2012 at 6:31 pm 164.Biff said …

    Severin

    That would be Higgs Boson or God particle. Now you think Moses herded goats? You still can’t get it right even after correcting you before. Yes, Moses was a sheep herder and the adopted son of a Pharaoh. So?

    “he doesn’t deserve behind taken seriously.”

    huh?

    40 YA,

    A truth spoken so clearly. Seems some atheist are upset they can’t get their vulgar-laced rants on your blog. Very wise. The Atheists have failed to deal with their doctrinal beliefs. The definition is there in black and white provided by our Atheist friend.

    I think their doctrines are well known. Too bad the majority of society find them so revolting.

  165. on 02 Sep 2012 at 6:54 pm 165.Severin said …

    164 Biff
    “Yes, Moses was a sheep herder and the adopted son of a Pharaoh. So?”

    So one (including you, see above) can say without lying that SOME herders wrote Genesis.
    Someone here called me a liar when I first said that goat herders wrote Genesis.
    Maybe he was offended for my confusing the sheep herders for goat herders, I would not know.

    Oh, yes, I made mistake again with Higgs boson, but YOU should know better than I that the word “boson” is not the word that needs a capital “b”. Even not in English.

    I would not be so “proud” about the nickname of the particle if I was in your shoes! For your information, here is where its nickname comes from:

    “(RNS) The Higgs boson is perhaps better known by its sexier nickname: the “God particle.”
    But in fact, many scientists, including the physicist for whom it is named, dislike the term.
    In 1993 when American physicist Leon Lederman was writing a book on the Higgs boson, he dubbed it “the goddamn particle.” An editor suggested “the God particle” instead.”

  166. on 08 Sep 2012 at 7:11 pm 166.Message to the Apples and Orangians said …

    Beloved brethren it has come to my knowledge that there are among you who have the belief that apples are oranges. You have among you those who seek to compare the preexistent, almighty, all-determining and omnipotent God who was not created nor have need of a creator with other created beings such as Santa-clause and spider man. For this cause bretheren we seek to remind you that nothing compares to the Almighty God who has created all things for whose pleasure they are and were created. Yes bretheren even if God waved a wand today and caused Santa to materialize, Santa still won’t be comparable to God Almighty. Nothing can. The laws are different, the realities are different. One is a creator and the other is a contingent being or thing.

  167. on 10 Sep 2012 at 9:59 am 167.freddies_dead said …

    166.Message to the Apples and Orangians said …

    A bunch of stuff for which a citation is very much needed.

    Any chance he’ll provide one? I predict ‘no’.

  168. on 11 Oct 2012 at 10:51 pm 168.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    You athiest realy have the streetlight effect. You haven’t found God where you think he should be (under the streetlight) so you give up and think that he doesn’t exist.

  169. on 11 Oct 2012 at 10:52 pm 169.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    You athiest really have the streetlight effect. You haven’t found God where you think he should be (under the streetlight) so you give up and think that he doesn’t exist.

  170. on 11 Oct 2012 at 10:58 pm 170.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    Most Atheist seem to think that the Gospel is an intellectual, quasi-intellectual or semi-intellectual construct which lets down its proponents and is in turn letting down the world.

    Most believers would propose it as a metaphysical substance which is compatible at both intellectual and emotional levels.

    Atheist should realise that the Gospel is not an argument in fact it is a non-argument. Unlike thought-out inventions The Almighty Jah God does not exist because of some intellectually arrived at propositions which has been applied and realised. Jah is not to be found among such.

    Rather the closer you get to Jah is simply that. It is the closer you get to HIM. It is the closer you get to the ‘non-createds’, the ‘non-applieds’ ‘the non-arrived ats.’

    We believers like to be perfect and upright so let us imagine that the Gospel and the work of God which we engage ourselves in is a vector of existence, maybe a 90 degree perpendicular. A bearing of 0 does not exist because of itself, in fact a bearing of 0 does not exist without the other bearings on the compass. So a bearing of 0 cannot exist without a bearing of 45 degrees.

    Technically God does not exist without me – Without you; or without all the other existents. But God is God and God will always be God. Likewise the Gospel does not exist without me – Without you; yes, without all the other existents.

    In another analogy a spent arrow wedging itself into the earth will make an impression and that impression will be an uneven impression. Some parts of the penetrated earth will be only vaguely disturbed while others will be deeply dugged into. Who can tell the cookie how to crumble? So to speak.

    No one will ever know why Abel was killed rather than Cain. No-one will be able to tell why Jacob was chosen over Essau. This is not an argumentative construct. It is the way God’s personality impacts mankind.

    It is not for the believer to make an argument for Jah. It is our job to do the work and deliver the message of the one who is the reason for our lives as long as we are alive. Now I speak of a great and miraculous truth. With the Athiestic bondage, with those outside the love of Jah – what you see is what you have to bear. However it is written the Lord God does not fail to hear his own elect.

  171. on 11 Oct 2012 at 11:02 pm 171.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    From what I have read on this blog I can now draw the following conclusion.

    Non-existence.

    A thing may be taken to not to exist if your next door athiest has not yet been delivered proofs of it.

  172. on 11 Oct 2012 at 11:33 pm 172.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    I am not denying the value of propositions in determining truth but truth does not wait on propositions to exist. You may uphold Einstein’s so-called discovery of Relativity but Relativity did not wait on Einstein to exist. If the world had to wait on you Athiest to discover its preserver it would be doomed.

  173. on 11 Oct 2012 at 11:44 pm 173.alex said …

    168-172.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    ya think by piling on your bullshit, you somehow acquire legitimacy?

    nobody here is looking for god. just like nobody here are looking for leprechauns.

    “Most Atheist seem to think that the Gospel is an intellectual, quasi-intellectual or semi-intellectual construct which lets down its proponents and is in turn letting down the world.”

    says who? same old fucken theists making up shit.

    “We believers like to be perfect and upright”

    you know damn well you can’t, so you got this ready made excuse when you don’t. your god gave you a choice and you made the wrong one, but you still like to be perfect and upright. get the fuck outta here, you fucken double talkin bullshitter.

  174. on 11 Oct 2012 at 11:55 pm 174.alex said …

    “A thing may be taken to not to exist if your next door athiest has not yet been delivered proofs of it.”

    you think you’re so clever, eh? how about:
    A thing may be taken to not to exist if there’s no proof.

    “Relativity did not wait on Einstein to exist.”
    Relativity has been proven. your god bullshit hasn’t. your kids santa claus can’t wait for proof either, so you really think santa is fer real? you’re a fucken moron.

  175. on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:00 am 175.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    Try telling a deaf mute about relativity you won’t get far.

    Try showing a blind man a document on relativity you won’t get far.

    Try showing proving god to someone who has hardend they heart to him you won’t get far not in the short run. Of course in the eventual course of time God is never deniable.

    I prove God daily.

  176. on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:09 am 176.JALindsay said …

    There’s a lot of irony that all this incoherent Jah God gobbledegook from HYAFTKY appears here on the comments to the post “Understanding the logical breakdown that occurs in the minds of theists….”

    You prove something daily, no doubt.

  177. on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:16 am 177.WoofWoof said …

    My dog is hungry he need a bowl of Athiest who have just be slaughtered and cooked for his dinner. Leave a little Athiest brain soup for the sow.

  178. on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:18 am 178.WoofWoof said …

    Sorry Athiest don’t have brains.

    My bad:(

  179. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:25 am 179.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    You could say the way the reality is: God exist, we are the believers and you are the Athiest.

    You can continue believing but that last straw you were trying to hold on to somehow believing that if it is not withing your intellectual grasp it doesn’t exist has now evaded you and you are now drowning.

    You can continue in your belief but if you had a mediocrum of honesty you would have to say maybe God hasn’t revealed himself to you yet; but you have not proof or way of knowing that he doesn’t exist; and no right to propose or dare teach that he doesn’t.

  180. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:38 am 180.Anonymous said …

    Another explanation that fits exactly with observed reality and doesn’t require a half-dozen posts, hundreds of words, and tortured attempts at appearing (but failing) intellectual is that the bible is work of fiction and gods do not exist,

  181. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:46 am 181.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    If there is one thing a scientific mind or a logical mind should acknowledge it is boundaries. This is why scientific experiments require such strict conditions. The wrong temparature, the wrong material in the wrong place and your whole scientific experiment is off.

    Now if you have a sense of boundaries you would know that matter and energy is not limitless (or found everywhere) their are some spaces where matter and energy are bound from and cannot enter. There is the realm which transcends matter and energy.

    That realm is never the less real and may or may not be inhabitable. There is also no way of telling by physics, chemistry or biology what exists in that realm, if it is inhabited by life, or what its properties are. However science admits boundaries and thus itself must be bound.

    There is also a big difference between divine intervention and capricious divine intervention. There is consistence and there is radical difference I consider both the manifestations of consistence along the manifestations of the radical to be miracles.

    There are somethings which make some persons say ‘There is a God!’ With me one of those things is the fact that my God is Logic-Surpassing. ‘There is a God.’

  182. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:55 am 182.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    That which is not Logic is not always less than Logic.

  183. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:56 am 183.alex said …

    “God exist, we are the believers and you are the Athiest.”

    Allah exist, we are the believers and you are the Athiest.

    Zeus exist, we are the believers and you are the Athiest.

    Odin exist, we are the believers and you are the Athiest.

    take your pick fuckhead, which one is the truth? answer: none of the above. get over it.

  184. on 12 Oct 2012 at 1:59 am 184.alex said …

    “There are somethings which make some persons say ‘There is a God!’ With me one of those things is the fact that my God is Logic-Surpassing.”

    There is something which makes me say “Well kiss my ass!” With me, one of those things is when theists say stupid ass sheeait.

  185. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:31 am 185.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    If you take a trip to my library at home you will see Christian books on the shelf along with The Koran and Islamic books as well as Books on Buddhism, along with books on Hinduism and Judaism. One of my favourite books is my big book of world religions with every thing from Shamanism to Janism. It doesn’t matter your tribe or kindred, ethnicity or origin there is only one source and one destiny. A living dog is better than a dead lion and a person with a little of the spirit of religion, the spirit of truth, of life is better than a dead, deadset on death…

    Don’t throw out your English dictionary yet because it says Father, while your French says père and your Spanish says padre.

    Yes there is only one source and one destiny and all creation bears the truth of this. But it is a pity some of us will have to crawl on that great day of destiny. Crawl not before their accuser but before the one they have become so small before because they have not ceased to accuse him.

  186. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:39 am 186.alex said …

    “you will see Christian books on the shelf along with The Koran and Islamic books as well as Books on Buddhism, along with books on Hinduism and Judaism”

    so, you like fiction. big fucking deal. you forgot the illiad, and grimms fairy tales. so your collection of books is your proof? your’re a fucking joke. books on santa aint proof.

    “A living dog is better than a dead lion and a person with a little of the spirit of religion, the spirit of truth, of life is better than a dead, deadset on death…”

    and???? a cookie is better than milk. wtf? your shit is weak. take it somewhere else.

  187. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:47 am 187.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    I like fiction yes. But when your mind is properly matured you will see there is no fiction. All things are true. You have to get beyond just KNOW WHAT and KNOW HOW. OR AS L RON HUBBARD PUT IT. KNOWING HOW TO KNOW.

    READ CORINTHINANS CHAPTER 13.

    YOU WILL SEE THAT WE OUGHT TO BELIEVE ALL THINGS

    Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

    5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

    6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

    7Beareth all things, BELIEVETH ALL THINGS, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

    8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

    9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

    10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

    11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

    12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

  188. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:49 am 188.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    HOW DO YOU SQUARE WITH QUANTUM THEORIES WHICH TEACH THAT A THING COULD HAVE HAD ANY POSSIBLE HISTORY.

    DOESN’T LEAVE MUCH ROOM FOR A QUANTUM PHYSICIST TO TELL A THEIST THAT HE IS TELLING LIES ABOUT ANYTHING.

  189. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:50 am 189.alex said …

    matthew 19:21? didn’t think so. fuckin hypocrite.

  190. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:52 am 190.alex said …

    “HOW DO YOU SQUARE WITH QUANTUM THEORIES”

    lame diversion attempt. next.

  191. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:52 am 191.Lou(DFW) said …

    185.HaveYouThesitFoundEvidenceForGod said …

    nothing about any evidence for his imaginary god. All he said, in effect, is that his imaginary god exists until proven that he doesn’t.

  192. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:56 am 192.Lou(DFW) said …

    187.HaveYouThiestFoundEvidenceForGodYet said …

    “I like fiction[,] yes.”

    Obviously.

    “But when your mind is properly matured you will see there is no fiction. All things are true. You have to get beyond just KNOW WHAT and KNOW HOW. OR AS L RON HUBBARD PUT IT.”

    Enough said. Next troll, please.

  193. on 12 Oct 2012 at 2:57 am 193.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    Now you are becoming incoherent. What does that mean?

    I myself have left everything in my past though I wasn’t selling I was giving away my things, not too much on that.

    But I actually know what it is to suffer cold, hunger and abject poverty for religion; while the world was offering riches just for pitching in with them.

    You need to read things in context. If you would learn how to ‘know how to know’.

    The word perfect refers to a condition of excellence and flawless integritous wholeness. You don’t get it by turning your back on it.

  194. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:25 am 194.JALindsay said …

    Quantum theory here isn’t just a lame diversion attempt, it’s a simultaneous attempt to blind with science while arguing to ignorance. That’s pretty incredible to do both at the same time. The thing is, the guy says it knowing good and damned well that he doesn’t know QM and hoping that no one else here does either. Good thing for him we’re not going to waste time on his little red herring there. Some of us did study QM and could call him on his BS.

  195. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:28 am 195.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    You need to stop worrying too much that a man turned water into wine, or walked on the sea or that a man parted the waters and just know that it was done. How? Is another matter. At the end of the day it was not an impossibility or it would not have been done. Tell someone living in another era that it is possible for man to fly across the Atlantic at 32,000ft they could have had you beheaded for heresy. But you see a little flying contraption called a plane and it is no longer impossible.

    Thus there were several arts and powers in past days that mastery of them, and rising above them through divine power made all the difference to what seems like an impossiblity to you. If you were there you would have seen how blatantly possible it was.

    Where is the wine we have today comming from, Nothing. From a fermentation process, from agriculture, but from before that a big bang you say, and before that nothing. If you can get a world out of nothing and a big bang is it hard to circumvent certain processes if you know what you are doing and get wine out of water?

    The men of old you say were primitive they had not planes or dvd players etc but they had sticks, stones, sheep. Can you make a stick or a stone or a sheep. No and the technology still does not exist today to do it. But it did then. What is so hard about circumventing or actually tapping the mysterious power that made earth and the sea and the air and all floura and fauna and doing a few MIRACLES – a word for a people who have fallen from their high standing and no longer know how to control the elements?

  196. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:35 am 196.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    Check what Stephen Hawkings or Richard Feynman had to say about quantum physics and multiple histories. Basically the theory of cause and effect are discarded and it is realised that nothing is measurable at quantum level since the activity of measuring creates its own dynamics. Further the conclusion is that everything in the universe is a function and that it had not one but any possible history. Thus the stories in the Bible would have to be true of the world being a possible history.

    It is just another way of acknowledging the Almighty. A thing might be like this or hey it might not. ‘Because you Sovereign Lord are omnipotent and you make your masterpiece out of infinite potential.’

  197. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:38 am 197.Anonymous said …

    195, still writing paragraph after paragraph to declare that you have no proof of the existence of your god yet you still cling to your delusion.

    We got it. Your desperation not to face reality is duly noted. Now please do fuck off.

  198. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:44 am 198.JALindsay said …

    Oy, paragraph boy, actually go study QM at a reputable university before spouting off about what it allows you to conclude. Good luck with the prereqs.

  199. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:54 am 199.The messenger said …

    187.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet it is good to see a believer in God standing up for God and his Teachings. You have done very well on this post trying to convince people that God does exist, so I ask for your assistance. I am having some trouble convincing people on the post (Proof of Heaven?) and (Insanity of Hurricane theology) that God does exist. Please send some of your comments to that post as soon as possible. ‘

  200. on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:55 am 200.HaveYouAthiestFoundTheKeysYet said …

    Night Night
    Don’t let the bed bugs bite

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply