Feed on Posts or Comments 20 August 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 10 Aug 2009 12:11 am

Can living things come from non-living matter?

A Christian poses this question in the forum:

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don’t come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don’t see ‘em.

See this thread for a discussion:

God vs. Spontaneous Generation

121 Responses to “Can living things come from non-living matter?”

  1. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:23 am 1.Tommy said …

    There is no bright line between living and non-living.

    Eventually, scientists will create life. I wonder what Christians will do then?

  2. on 10 Aug 2009 at 5:11 am 2.Anonymous said …

    Well, for starters, this is a textbook case of the “God in the gaps” argument. It goes like this: We don’t understand X, therefore God created X.
    Additionally, nobody, especially not any atheists I’ve ever encountered, have ever said that something could be made from nothing. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, but it’s just a straw man that the religious like to stand up and knock down to impress themselves. Life on earth was created by basic elements that are found all over the universe, and scientists have already used experiments to form protobionts in conditions resembling early earth. This took only a matter of days to accomplish. Imagine what can be done in several hundred million years.
    What is particularly curious to me about the “something from nothing” straw man argument is how religious people fail to see it suggests the non-existence of their own god. How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?

  3. on 10 Aug 2009 at 12:28 pm 3.Chip E said …

    “How could god exist if *everything* must have been *created* from *something*? Who, then, created God?”

    Quite simple. God is beyond the natural whereas you are arguing that something came from nothing in the natural realm. It is a problem atheist struggle with. They attempt to minimize the problem with much could, may and possibly.

    Man will never create something from nothing in a lab therefore the atheist is backed in a corner with this problem. If man can ever create life from non-living matter in the lab if will just go on to prove intelligence is needed for life to form.

    .

  4. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 4.Kevin said …

    Umm, Argument-Fail. Scientists have never observed God either, nor has he ever been reproduced in a laboratory. From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life – or some invisible, as yet unobserved and undefinable power dunnit. Occam’s razor applies (as well as GOTG).

  5. on 10 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 5.Morph said …

    Ockham’s razor states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

    We are not creating unnecessarily, in this case one is necessary.

    “From a scientific pov what is more likely: that some combinations of chemicals and energy may have started life”

    Conveniently Kevin has failed to provide origin of chemicals and energy. Kevin also failed to mention this has never been observed much like the undefinable power he goes on to reference.

    Kevin’s fallacy is typical and consequently his argument fails.

  6. on 11 Aug 2009 at 1:37 pm 6.boomer said …

    It seems that none you fully understand that scientist will never be able to create a human from a mound of dirt. Better yet do as God did and you create it from something that you made. They can’t use anything that was made by God or from God. Good Luck!! I would go as far to say that they will not be able to create a human from one rib. If for some odd reason they do I bet it will not be completely different in its DNA. My God is a awesome God and one day you will bow and proclaim that!!!! Philippians 2:10-11 The next time you do a video on how repulsive the Bible is please use your scripture in context! Surely you should know that…..

  7. on 14 Aug 2009 at 9:04 am 7.swbts student said …

    wow boomer nailed it,

  8. on 16 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm 8.Denis Loubet said …

    All of us create living matter out of dead matter every day. It’s called digestion. You eat dead matter, and it becomes part of the living matter that is you. It’s all completely natural.

    This is not what abiogenesis is about, but it does establish beyond doubt that dead matter can become living matter through natural processes.

    Of course there’s no difference between the atoms of living matter and dead matter, it’s all in the ARRANGEMENT of the atoms that determines what’s alive and what’s not.

    So we see atoms in dead arrangements, and atoms in living arrangements, and we even see a chemical process where atoms in dead patterns can be re-arranged into living patterns.

    I don’t see that much of a stretch to get to abiogenesis. It’s all just atoms being pushed around. It’s all chemistry.

  9. on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:51 pm 9.tdhladhla said …

    First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything. You cannot tell me that you have an explanation to every single thing that exists. You can doubt the existence of God, but dare not dispute it. And your 10 questions on GodIsNotReal are totally out of context. When reading the Bible, you have to read it in context with a wise mind. eg Sure in the OLD TESTAMENT, God commanded people who worked on the Sabbath to be put to death. But between then and now, a Savior came to bear our iniquity. He died on the cross; a righteous man made to carry our filth so much that the Father he had been in fellowship with from the beginning of time turned His face away from Him. Our sin made God turn His face away from us then…. but now, because we have a person who argues our case with Him, we have a chance to be redeemed.
    It is unfair to say we’ve never seen Jesus… He’s in heaven. But he sent Holy Spirit to be with us here on Earth. And to have a personal encounter with God, you need the Spirit.
    It could be looking at the sunrise and realising that certainly it couldn’t have ‘just’ happened.
    And on your point about suffering… the fall of man caused God to curse man but not so much as to kill man. Suffering is under that curse (Gen 3: 14 -21). But God also promised that there would be a Savior and he hasn’t failed us.

    True, there’s always gonna be so much we do not know or comprehend about God. But the fact of the matter is, He gave us enough evidence to make it rational and plausible that He exists but not enough to compel us to believe.
    You believe there is no God… that was a conscious choice you made. An example of the freedom God gave you.
    I believe in God and if you asked me why… I’d take a whole day,2 or even more telling you about what He has done in my life.
    The difference between me and you is that when i do something wrong (sin), i don’t guilty…I am driven to the feet of a Father who is rady and willing to forgive me.
    When you do wrong, all you can do is feel bad and guilty about it.

    It’s a heart matter…. not a mental/intellectual matter. After all, the mind follows the heart; not the other way round.

    Be blessed

  10. on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:16 pm 10.Denis Loubet said …

    “First and foremost, to say there is no God, you must know everything.”

    Let’s see where this “logic” goes.

    “to say there is no Zeus, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Odin, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no Shiva, you must know everything.”
    “to say there is no IPU, you must know everything.”

    Since you ascribe to this logic, I must assume you believe in Zeus, Odin, Shiva, and the Invisible purple Unicorn, along with every other unevidenced supernatural nonsense that comes down the pike.

    That must keep you very busy.

  11. on 18 Aug 2009 at 4:08 pm 11.tdhladhla said …

    I did not say i believe in all those gods that you mentioned. But i will not ridicule a person who does, but simply tell them about my God.My reason to not believe in them: there’s nothing that points to their existence. cartoons, astrology,’myths’ and whatever else they are associated to are not enough reason for me to even consider their existence.
    It’s what i’ve felt in my heart and the physical manifestation thereof that has driven me to believe in God.

  12. on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:59 am 12.Denis Loubet said …

    You do not believe in Zeus, and Odin, and Shiva, and the IPU for exactly the same reasons I don’t believe in your god. And those that believed in them believed for the same reason you believe in your god.

    You are an atheist regarding Zeus and Odin and countless other gods that mankind has believed in at one time or another. Congratulations. You have just one more god to disbelieve in and your atheism will be complete.

    Good luck.

  13. on 20 Aug 2009 at 8:56 pm 13.tdhladhla said …

    As i said i do not ridicule anyone who has any other belief…. i just strive to explain to people why I believe in God whenever an opportunity arises. It’s never easy… Not everyone is receptive. But i know that once you open up to experience this truth, your whole perspective changes. According to definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia etc, i do not qualify as an atheist. I quote from wikipedia “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.”
    “Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.”
    If you want to have an intellectual argument on the existence of God, so be it. The very same arguments you use work against you. But as i said, its a heart matter, not a mind matter.
    I’ll ask you a question… Why do you say there is no God? Can you rationally prove that there is no God?

  14. on 20 Aug 2009 at 10:17 pm 14.Denis Loubet said …

    If you’ll read carefully, I have not said there is no god. That would be a knowledge statement about the state of the universe.

    I have only said I do not believe in one. That is a statement describing my subjective status regarding belief in gods, not a statement about whether they exist or not.

    I am an atheist because I have not been presented compelling evidence to convince me there is a god. Failing that evidence, I remain unconvinced there is a god.

    It would take extraordinary evidence to convince me of a god at this point because so many people are able to believe in mutually exclusive gods that it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right. This is exactly why I brought up Zeus and the rest. People had great faith in them, but since you refuse to believe in Zeus, it must be that you think their belief is wrong. That their faith has led them astray.

    This means you absolutely cannot trust faith.

    So, I’ll need concrete evidence to change my mind.

  15. on 21 Aug 2009 at 1:31 pm 15.Lou said …

    “it’s obvious that it’s possible to be completely wrong, and yet through faith feel completely right.”

    Atheism?

  16. on 21 Aug 2009 at 2:26 pm 16.Denis Loubet said …

    No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about being right or wrong.

    A gross mischaracterization of skepticism might fit the description, but that would be a gross mischaracterization.

    There is one human endeavour that elevates faith to a virtue, rather than recognizing it as the synonym for ignorance that it is, and that’s religion.

  17. on 21 Aug 2009 at 8:48 pm 17.Lou said …

    Denis atheism is either right or wrong. BELIEVE ME, atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional.

    You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith. This “lack of belief” is just a new spin that doesn’t change the fact or what atheist REALLY claim.

    Last argument against you is that SCOTUS declared atheism to be a religion. Everyone places faith in something so enjoy the ride and accept you are like everyone else.

  18. on 22 Aug 2009 at 4:49 am 18.Denis Loubet said …

    Even if it were true that “atheist are constantly claiming they are right and everyone else is delusional”, an argument could be made that that is preferable to “I’m right and I agree with my god that atheists deserve to be tortured forever in a lake of fire”.

    As to me having faith that it’s possible I could be correct in my belief, wow, that’s quite a logical contortion just to move some goalposts. Is that what religious faith is to you, the notion that maybe there’s the possibility that there’s a god? Is that what you would call a man of faith? The people I hear being called men of faith are the ones that claim to harbor absolute certainty in their god, and no doubt whatsoever as to what it wants. The more certainty the better.

    Since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing. That’s not even dipping into the “If atheism is a faith, then not playing baseball is a sport” territory.

    And as powerful as the SCOTUS may be, they do not dictate reality.

  19. on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:49 pm 19.Lou said …

    “since I hold all my beliefs conditionally, it’s hardly the same thing.”

    Oh yes Denis, this makes you unique! Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally. That is why you see atheist becoming christians, christians becoming atheist and so on!

    Now…..if you can prove with certainty that God does not exist, then you have a fact. Until then, it is faith. Look it up.

  20. on 22 Aug 2009 at 7:17 pm 20.VeridicusX said …

    Lou, you’re (willfully?) mistaking gullibility and delusion, (read faith), for normal beliefs.

    Specifically, faith is believing in contempt of the facts.
    [See Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 8:24]

    “You have faith that you possibly could be correct in your lack of belief. That is faith.”

    … is just another theist lie.

    To state that something is possible is simply to say that the statement agrees with itself and with known facts. It doesn’t contradict itself – this is known as coherence – and it doesn’t contradict the facts – this is known as consistency. Facts are verified physical evidence.

    When a rational person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are not certain.
    “Did John say that the shipment will arrive today?”
    “I believe so.”

    When a religious person says, “I believe so-and-so”, it is taken to mean that they are sure of or certain of, things that they cannot possibly know, often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

    “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – The Bible. New International Version.

    I should just define a lie for you. Theists conveniently don’t seem to be able to remember what one is.


    Noun 1. lie – a statement intended to deceive.

    Noun 2. lie – a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.

    Noun 3. lie – an unqualified baseless assertion. An avowal not based on fact.

    If I declare something to be true, even though I know that I have no valid evidence to support my statement at the time that I make it, then I am lying. (Even if it subsequently turns out to be true).

    If I assert that you are a pedophile without valid evidence, then I am lying. It doesn’t matter how much “faith” I have. It is still an unqualified baseless assertion which leads others to believe that what I say is based on facts.

    If I say, “Jesus rose bodily from the dead!”, I’m lying.

    I’m not lying if I say, “I gullibly believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, even though I have no valid evidence to support this belief and all the verifiable evidence and the 2nd law of thermodynamics point to bodily resurrections being essentially impossible”.

  21. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:44 am 21.Denis Loubet said …

    Everyone holds their beliefs conditionally? That must be why I hear things like “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

    And since I don’t make the claim that god doesn’t exist, I am exhibiting no faith whatsoever regarding that issue.

    I simply lack belief in any gods.

  22. on 23 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 22.Lou said …

    Not only does your ilk “not make the claim” they are also emphatic there is no God.

    From Merriam Webster:

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    Since you like to put out there what you hear let me put out what I hear. I hear atheist who sound more like evangelist attempting to save the multitudes! This website for one. Atheist stating “there is no God” and “Christians/Muslims/etc are delusional”, are making a faith statements….according to Merriam & Webster.

  23. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:35 pm 23.VeridicusX said …

    #22.Lou

    Lou, you are mistaken in thinking that people who are strong atheists concerning the Abrahamic God are making a claim of faith.

    The capital-G God is indeed impossible. No faith needed.

    I don’t need faith to know that square circles don’t exist. Likewise I don’t need faith to know that a supernatural-omni-creator God doesn’t exist in reality.

    Here’s the proof in multiple dimensions so you’ll know that no faith is needed:

    a) Spiritual or Supernatural in a religious context means above nature, incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical.

    Non-physical means no physical properties.

    Physical properties are:

    Dimensionality – spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.
    Energy – radiation, mass, information, entropy, force, effect.

    Therefore, for something to be spiritual or supernatural it must have zero dimensions, no energy, information, force or effect and not exist anywhere in the universe at any time – past, present or future.

    b) An omni entity is a self-contradictory concept.

    You can easily look up the myriad contradictions that arise from the usual claims of omni-whatever properties ascribed to the conjectured God.

    c) The concept of a creator god is incoherent or undefined.

    Space and time are physical properties of the Universe.
    Whether or not space and time had a beginning, there is no before time where a cause could exist.
    There is no time when the Universe did not exist.
    Causation is a physical property of the Universe.

    So the Creator God conjecture is either meaningful and false or nonsense.

    If something contradicts the facts and/or itself it is provably false. No faith needed.

  24. on 23 Aug 2009 at 3:48 pm 24.Denis Loubet said …

    Not many atheists I know claim that there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any.

    I think what you’re hearing is atheists calling you delusional because you believe in something for which there is no evidence. They don’t have to make the claim that gods don’t exist for that to be true.

    And Mirriam Webster seems to agree with my definition of faith.

    Since I have complete trust in nothing, I fail to see how this supports your position.

    Some atheists are out there to save the multitudes. They see the damage religion does, and seek to reduce it by trying to convince the theists to free themselves from it’s influence.

  25. on 23 Aug 2009 at 6:55 pm 25.Lou said …

    V,
    You have proven nothing other than you limited ability to detect and measure. You have faith that your five senses provides all needed detection and measurement. Highly unlikely and therefore you have proven only that you have faith. You have no clue what happens in the darkest regions of the universe.
    According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.

    Faith – firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

  26. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 26.VeridicusX said …

    I’m sorry Lou,

    If someone says that God is The Quintessence of Square Circles, I know that it doesn’t exist.

    See how that works? I don’t have to perform an exhaustive search of the whole Universe and every possible world.

    “According to you hypothesis, we should not even be here but yet here we are!
    To believe God would conform to the physical universe is silly.”

    I think I’ve made it quite clear that I don’t believe in the objective existence of any God.

    I certainly don’t believe that a God can have physical properties while at the same time not having them, which is what is taught by the main Abrahamic religions and is what you seem to be suggesting.

    How not believing in The Quintessence of Square Circles means that we should not even be here, I don’t know.

    It seems that according to your conjecture, an [impossible] invisible, child molesting, mass murdering wizard in the sky wished everything into existence. Now that’s silly.

  27. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:13 pm 27.Denis Loubet said …

    I’m not V, but I’ll take a stab.

    Yes, our ability to detect and measure is limited, I doubt you’ll get an argument there. And our five senses doubtlessly do not provide all needed detection, that’s why we try to supplement our senses through technology. I also doubt you’ll get an argument about not knowing what happens in the darkest regions of the universe. I sure don’t.

    We’re unlikely, but here we are. So what?

    Well, according to the bible, the god did conform to the physical universe for a time. Ended badly on a cross thingy. I agree it’s silly.

    So, what super-senses do you have that allow you to detect this god-thing? And if you can’t detect it, what made you posit its existence in the first place?

  28. on 23 Aug 2009 at 8:32 pm 28.Lou said …

    V you can’t even stay on subject. You bounce from God to Christianity and back. Maybe you are ADD/ADHD but try to focus.

    You really should put that in book form and prove this hypothesis to the rest of humanity. Any man that has all knowledge and the unlimited ability to detect, manipulate and solve all possible metaphysical scenarios is one fella who would be in great demand. You should consider, just for a moment, that all theist may have a reason for believing in God rather than just being delusional.

    When a very small minority calls the vast majority delusional, the minority might need to take a look in a mirror…..or just maybe this is the greatest hoax in history, huh?

  29. on 23 Aug 2009 at 9:30 pm 29.VeridicusX said …

    OK Lou,

    You got me there.

    Lots of people believe in Square Circles, therefore rational people should too?

    If you’ve decided to change the definition of God so that it isn’t the supernatural and/or omni and/or creator version or The Quintessence of Square Circles, then I can say nothing about it. Maybe you’ve decided that your gerbil is “God”?

    I have no evidence that you have a gerbil, so I’ll remain agnostic about it.

    Traditional theists have presented no valid evidence of any gods, only definitions which I have shown are provably incoherent.

    Of course, I’ll suspend judgment or assign a probability to “gods” that we cannot prove or disprove or possible entities for which we have no verifiable evidence.

    If you have a non-contradictory definition of God you’d like to share, I’d love to hear about it. Better still, if you can present some valid evidence I’ll make every effort to attend the presentation of your Nobel prize.

  30. on 23 Aug 2009 at 10:45 pm 30.Lou said …

    Oh no V, I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate. I don’t even do that for the planet compositions orbiting in the Messier 89 galaxy and they are comparable to your square circles!

    But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist? If you have done this, maybe others could be saved? But if you want to attempt this feat, you need to stop with the silly square circles and attempt an honest analysis. Calling most of the world delusional just won’t cut it. Here is where you fall. Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?

    I see you as one of those guys who doubts everything you can’t see. The Bah humbug of the world if you will I prefer to see many possibilities and discoveries that man can not yet imagine. I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.

  31. on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:25 am 31.VeridicusX said …

    “But haven’t you already proven he doesn’t exist?”

    If you have any integrity, rebut my refutation – with reasoned evidence.

    Who, what or where is this “he” to which you refer? Oh, that’s right. “God” is no longer the set of contradictory statements we’ve been told about for centuries and that I’ve clearly refuted.

    “God” is now suddenly undefined…

    “I don’t pretend to understand exactly what God consists of or how he may operate.”

    I’m sure you don’t, because you have no evidence of any such thing. You’re making it up.

    You talk about honesty. Ethics and personal integrity require that we don’t believe things for which we have no valid evidence. Beliefs have consequences, beliefs determine behaviors.

    Do I have to mention 9/11 or the people who have been in court recently for negligent homicide, due to “faith in God“?

    “Most of the world DOES NOT believe in square circles so why God?”

    I already know why people believe in “God”. And so do you. You keep on bringing it up.

    It’s called indoctrinated fear and wishful thinking or “faith”. No magical mass murdering molesters required.

    If you believe that you’ve won the lottery you will in all probability feel Really Good™.
    It isn’t required that you’ve really won the lottery, only that you believe it.

    Remind you of anything?

  32. on 24 Aug 2009 at 6:05 am 32.VeridicusX said …

    Lou,

    “I see the possibility of God as highly likely by observing the very same evidence you do.”

    You do realize that if your answer to the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is anything other than “yes”, then you’re an atheist?

    Certainly, your position is incompatible with the traditional “omni” God.

    This particular God is supposed to be the necessary creator of the capital-U Universe, everything that could possibly not exist. As such is is supposed to be present in the history of every possible world.
    If you suggest, as you have done, that there’s any possible world in which it doesn’t exist, then you don’t believe in it. [See Alvin Plantinga's "Maximality", the Ontological Argument, etc.].

  33. on 24 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am 33.Burebista said …

    What is a traditional OmniGod? This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.

    Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness. We may see the results but how can you prove scientifically that the conscious exists? But I would venture a guess you would argue you do.

    Can you prove it? The same kind of proof you desire for God?

    BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

  34. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:15 pm 34.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista,

    If you don’t know what the traditional “descriptions” of God are, then you’re not equipped for this discussion.

    “Science cannot prove you possess a conscious or self-awareness.”

    You’d better hope it can should you ever go into hospital for surgery.

    “BTW I believe there is a God and suffer from no fears. Therefore you are wrong on that account as well.

    I don’t believe you.

  35. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm 35.VeridicusX said …

    Oh, and Burebista,

    Present a rebuttal. “I’m an idiot!” is not an argument.

  36. on 24 Aug 2009 at 12:48 pm 36.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista again,

    “This guy confuses traditional religion with the argument of a supreme deity.”

    A what?

    You seem to be the one who’s confused. It’s impossible to know if any so-called “deity” is supreme. Even said so-called “supreme deity” can’t know. So I’d be interested to see what “the argument of a supreme deity” might be.

    See Descartes, The Simulation Hypothesis, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, etc.

  37. on 24 Aug 2009 at 2:39 pm 37.Burebista said …

    Great argument. “I don’t believe you” The incredible Vee has the ability to know what everyone believes and feels. No need to go further with that idiocy. I didn’t use the argument you are an idiot, but you now make it fit.

    A supreme deity is not a religious argument no more than SETI is since we have members of the scientific community taking up the task. ID offers up many possibilities in the realm of a supreme diety. I doubt you would look into them since I find many of you to be narrow minded and incapable of examining other lines of reasoning.

    So, once again, prove the existence of the conscious. You do believe in the “I” don’t you? You attempt was lame and not believable.

  38. on 10 May 2011 at 2:59 am 38.Christy said …

    I believe your all crazy. im a CHRISTIAN AND PROUD those who have not been touched by the Lord ya’ll need to get a grasp on reality and get to know him he will change your life. Look up cool stories of people being healed and God blessing them.I hope I was a help.

  39. on 10 May 2011 at 1:36 pm 39.Lou said …

    38.Christy said …

    “I believe your all crazy.”

    This from somebody who believes in a maniacal god who allegedly heals and blesses people – LOL!

    Take your own advice – “get a grasp on reality.”

    “I hope I was a help.”

    You weren’t. It’s people like you who are the problem.

  40. on 05 Jul 2011 at 1:58 pm 40.Bovice said …

    Lou- I completely agree with you on the fact that people like Christy are the problem.

    Christy- I am a Christian and believe everything you believe but stating things like you did are not going to convince an atheist of anything.

    I was born and raised a Christian. Do I have some doubt, yes. But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.

    I could sit and give you facts on why there is a God and everyone will accept or refute them based on their own beliefs.

    Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.” This supports my belief in God and rejects numerous scientific hypothesis about the creation of the world. Where did living organisms come from if science can not prove this? My logical answer-God.

  41. on 05 Jul 2011 at 3:15 pm 41.Lou said …

    40.Bovice said …

    “But here is my logical way of thinking: Believing there is no God gives you 0 chance of having a good after-life. Believing there is a God gives you a chance to be saved and live in happiness in what I belive in as heaven.

    Before you think that this is a dumb reason to believe in God, this is just my logic on why it is a good reason to believe in God.”

    Your thinking is not at all logical. It’s an old argument known as Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, so I’m not going over it again here.

  42. on 05 Jul 2011 at 8:00 pm 42.Severin said …

    40 Bovice
    „Getting back to the original reason of this post, I would like to hear someone’s argument about “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    Please see here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1945 , posts #19, #48, #57, #66, #67

    Think about it, and, if you want, try to find week points in this reasoning.

  43. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:05 pm 43.Ian said …

    “If your god is so obvious, why can’t you prove his existence?”

    Looks to me he has proved it. Seems quite obvious which is why the vast majority have no problem in belief in a creator. We are here, the universe is here. I don’t have enough faith to believe chance created it all.

    _________________________________________________

    “However, he who believes in a random beginning and evolution also relies fully on faith. This is the fact that cannot be denied.”

    Absolutely telson.
    ______________________________________________

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.

    _____________________________________________

    ” Is gravity a supernatural force? Is god necessary to hold the universe together?”

    Yes, God is required to hold the universe together.
    ____________________________________________

    “Can living things come from non-living matter.”

    If there is no proof of God, there is no proof of such a process.

  44. on 05 Jul 2011 at 9:08 pm 44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s Wager that has been repeatedly shown to be wrong”

    Another lie (fallacious even) that has been prove wrong numerous time. Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.

    I think Pascal has a little more on the ball than some atheists on blogs who do not even understand his wager.

  45. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:00 am 45.DPK said …

    There are so many problems with Pascal’s wager it is silly.
    First, an all powerful god would not be fooled or impressed by a “decision” to believe… that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed. You also assume that he would be more impressed with someone taking a “safe bet” to gain eternal live than with someone who has an honest and sincere disbelief based on the intellect given him, or her. This requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell. But this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice.

    Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one. Considering the hundreds of gods we have to choose from, the odds of you picking the “correct” one to believe in is quite small. You may decide to believe, but pick the wrong deity and you will be in the same lake of fire as me. The chance of you simply picking between Jesus, and say, Allah alone greatly reduces your chances of getting it right… add in all the hundreds of other sundry gods, and the very real possibility that NONE of the current major religion’s gods are actually the true one, and you chance become almost nil. What if you die and find that the Raelians or Mormons, or scientologists actually have the “right god”? You lose.

    Third, you assume that an omniscient and omnipotent being of such vast intelligence as to create the whole universe and everything in it would be so unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation. That would be very much like me smashing my dog’s head with a sledge hammer repeatedly for not coming when I called him. Hardly behavior worthy of a supreme being.

  46. on 06 Jul 2011 at 3:16 am 46.Lou said …

    43.Ian said …

    “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze.”

    “This is not a fallacious statement. He makes a claim of something he has not witnessed. If he claimed otherwise i would call him a liar.”

    Of all of your idiotic comments, I will only choose this one for a reply because it illustrates your dishonesty. You intentionally edited his comment that was labeled a fallacy. To wit, “I have yet to witness complexity, information and design arising out of ooze. Using logic and deduction I reason intelligence must be behind such things.”

    The second sentence of his comment is a fallacy. You are either very presumptuous or very ignorant to think that anybody would fall for your dishonest tactic. However, I think the latter is more likely because of your rather simple defense of the strong rejection of Pascal’s Wager.

  47. on 06 Jul 2011 at 11:11 am 47.Ian said …

    Debunking DPK”

    “that is not real belief and an omniscient being wouldn’t be impressed.”

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?

    “unbelievably petty as to insist on belief in him via “faith” that he would be willing to impart a penalty of eternal damnation.”

    Yes, what does this have to do with the wager? Run out of objections? Once again Pascal was Christian. You are like the little kid who doesn’t like his parents punishment. Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.

    DPK vs Pascal?

    Well, Pascal wins again.

    Lou sorry, you are not worth my time.

  48. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:34 pm 48.DPK said …

    Folly, Pascal never made the claim of false belief. That is akin to unbelief which puts them in the later category.

    A belief that is predicated on a favorable outcome is not a “belief”. It is not possible for me to “decide” to believe in god. Such a belief is shallow and disingenuous. To claim to do so would be a lie. Like Bovice above who admits he has doubts but chooses god to be safe, after all, what’s the harm, would not cut mustard with an omniscient being. Therefore the idea of “which is the better choice” is fallacious.

    Assuming a god who demands belief as a condition of avoidance of eternal punishment, which is what the wager is about, atheism has a zero chance of success, but belief in god, when there are hundreds of possible gods to choose from, with no way of knowing which one is right, is not much better… perhaps one in a thousand?

    Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.
    I am simply trying to think rationally about what behavior an supreme being would exhibit. YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me. I’m just saying that the way you claim he behaves is not in keeping with the nature of an omniscient, omnipotent being of infinite intelligence. YOU are claiming that god is the christian god, that he favors you, and that he will reward YOU for believing in him. That takes some balls.
    What will you say to Allah when he asks you why you worshiped this fraud Jesus instead of him, the one true god?
    Run out of answers?

  49. on 06 Jul 2011 at 2:47 pm 49.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Such chutzpah to think God must act as YOU believe.”

    Again, most of your comments are too idiotic to justify a response, but your last comment reflects your obvious bias. DPK doesn’t even believe in god, so he has no belief of how your god “must act,” but only how a logical, rational being would act. But you, being an irrational, illogical being have the “chutzpah” to tell anybody how your imaginary, maniacal god, for whom you have no evidence, DOES ACT – complete, utter delusion, and that’s not even considering the stupidity of Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager requires an irrational belief in a maniacal god. If that’s you, then are deluded.

  50. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:26 pm 50.Lou said …

    44.Ian said …

    “Pascal’s wager is from the pov of a Christian not an atheist. From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.”

    Simply being the “pov” of a xtian (chutzpah) invalidates it. Therefore, all other arguments, regardless of their merits, against it are moot. Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.

  51. on 06 Jul 2011 at 6:44 pm 51.Lou said …

    47.Ian said …

    “Secondly, your wager is based on the assumption that “your” god is the correct one.”

    “Yes, because Pascal is making the comparison between belief and non-belief (atheism). Between the two, which is the best wager?”

    No, he isn’t. Pascal is making the choice (comparison) between (his) the xtian god only and “non-belief.” This also invalidates the wager because it’s a false dichotomy unless you’re a deluded xtian.

  52. on 06 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 52.Ian said …

    “YOU are the one claiming he acts as YOU believe, not me”

    Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.

    Again you would like to take Pascal’s wager beyond that which he makes the wager. This is why you guys who think you have debunked it fail. His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.

    In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.

  53. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:34 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Ian said …

    “His argument is from an intellectual analysis, not from an actual acceptance of Christ and the changes that take place.”

    Yes, that is understood. That’s why I previously wrote “Pascal’s wager is simply an exercise in probability that only serves to distract from the main issue, to wit, there’s no evidence for god.”

    It’s still an unacceptable “wager.” Substitute a leprechaun for god and a pot of gold for heaven. There’s no point in it, yet theists somehow see and use use it as an argument for their belief in god. There’s no point in having an “intellectual analysis” about a leprechaun and a pot of gold.

  54. on 06 Jul 2011 at 9:56 pm 54.DPK said …

    “In any event if hypothetically I ever must answer to Allah I suppose I would say the same thing as you DPK.”

    haha… then your “safe bet” is really no safer than mine. Thanks for at least admitting it.

    “Where do you come up with such ideas. He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.”

    You are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. Let’s look at the assumptions that YOU are making about god in order to get the outcome from Pascal’s that you desire:
    1. You assume that god really cares about whether you believe in him or not. If he doesn’t, your wager fails.
    2. You assume that the god you choose to worship is actually the correct one. Pick the wrong god, you loose.
    3. You assume that he rewards those that profess a belief in him for a self serving interest over those who are true to their (ehem, god given) ability to reason. If you’re wrong about his behavior, you loose.
    4. You assume that he does in fact, punish people for all eternity and that he is, in fact, a “jealous god” full of anger and wrath. If he is, rather a forgiving and loving god… you loose.
    5. You assume that he will accept someone choosing to believe in him because it is the safest bet to be satisfactory to him. If he sees through your rouse, you loose.

    In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions that your god will behave according to how YOU want him to behave.

    If your statement is true, that “He acts as He chooses. I would not have the audacity to believe God should act as some mere man.” then there is no point in trying to understand him at all. He will do what he wants… and your fate has been determined since before you were conceived.

    I wonder why god choose to give YOU the gift of faith and belief, and deny fully 2/3rds of the world’s population? You think very highly of yourself, don’t you?

  55. on 06 Jul 2011 at 10:44 pm 55.Ian said …

    “In short, my friend, your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions”

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.

    It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.

    Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not? Should I be a self-loathing twit? I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.

  56. on 07 Jul 2011 at 12:22 am 56.DPK said …

    No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.

    What? The bible?? Every religion has it’s holy book. There is no evidence that your “word of god” is any more valid than any other.

    Yes, if against all odds, you happen to have gotten it 100% right and I have it 100% wrong, you get the gold ring and I loose. But at least I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god. So, if I have it right and you have it wrong, you don’t get the “same thing” as me. Because I got to live my life free of delusion and superstition.
    “Diversions” aside.. I’m not avoiding the wager. I’m pointing out to you how weak it is. It’s like saying “Assuming that I know exactly what lottery number will come up, it is a safer wager to play the lottery than not play. Well, it’s true… you can’t win if you don’t play, but the odds of you actually knowing the winning number are remote. You act like it’s a 50/50 deal. It isn’t. In fact, the odds that YOU have everything right number is very small.

  57. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:13 am 57.Lou said …

    DPK,

    You can forget all the arguments against Pascal’s Wager because someone like Ian will always have some answer for them that they will accept over your argument.

    My point of the leprechaun and gold analogy was meant to illustrate how Pascal’s Wager is “rigged.” That is, to use Ian’s term, for it it to be “true,” you must believe it to be “true.” Even Ian admits as much when he writes “From the pov of a Christian his wager is true.” If you aren’t a xtian (believer), then it isn’t true. It’s a “rigged” wager.

  58. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:29 am 58.Lou said …

    55.Ian said …

    “No, it is based on God’s Word, not my assumptions. You missed again.”

    There is no “God’s Word,” only your delusional belief that there is. You missed again.

    “The wager is sound. If I am right I get heaven and you unfortunately will not. If you are right, we both get the same thing.”

    It’s only “sound” to the extent that Pascal set the limitations of the wager.

    “It is really quite simple, solid and still applies today. Drag all the other diversions in that you may, you are simply avoiding the wager. If not avoidance, then you are just simply not intellectually acute enough to get it.”

    Anyone who agrees with your analysis is not intellectually honest.

    “Yes, I do think highly of myself. Should I not?”

    No, you should not because so far you haven’t exhibited to us that you have any reason to.

    “Should I be a self-loathing twit?”

    No, you shouldn’t.

    “I certainly don’t pretend to know more than God.”

    All theists pretend to know more than god. It’s the only way to maintain their delusional belief. God is an invention of man. Therefore, a man who believes in god must know more than god does.

  59. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:48 pm 59.Bovice said …

    For all of you that do not know much about religion, my christian God is the same God that the Muslims and Jews both believe in. In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not. Christianity is the only faith of the major religions that you need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. (Although I believe this to be false) The major point you all miss is that you need to live a righteous life in order to be saved as well. You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved. Someone who constantly steals from others or kills others will not be saved.

    I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic. Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex. There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.

  60. on 07 Jul 2011 at 2:52 pm 60.Ian said …

    “I have not lived my life as a serf in service to a maniacal, murderous god.”

    What???? I hope you don’t really believe that. It so ridiculous. I know a God who loves me and provides for me. I am free, full of joy and gratitude. I can’t imagine my life any other way.

    The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.

    I wish I could agree you have a life free of delusion. You do not and that is truly too bad. You are probably one of those guys who has a religion and gave up on it. I can relate. Religion is a waste of time.

  61. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:11 pm 61.Lou said …

    59.Bovice said …

    “I would love to see the idiotic responses to my next statement. Anyone that believes us humans “evolved” from a single celled organism over billions of years clearly has no logic.”

    Evolution is a fact, not a belief. It’s irrelevant whether or not you believe in it. It has nothing to with logic. Gravity defies logic and explanation, yet it is a fact. It operates regardless of your belief in it.

    “Animals are so complex. Humans are even more complex.”

    How much more complex?

    “There is no sane person that can tell me otherwise. God clearly is the only explaniation.”

    We understand your position and reasoning. It’s not unusual for deluded people to think they are sane and that everybody else is not. God or gods were always the explanation for unexplained natural events. However, once they are understood, they are no longer supernatural events. There are no supernatural events. There are only natural events, both explained and unexplained. Only the feeble-minded continue to explain unexplained natural events with gods.

  62. on 07 Jul 2011 at 3:49 pm 62.Bovice said …

    Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis. There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.
    The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.

    I could go on for days. Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained. Our world didn’t happen by chance.

  63. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:11 pm 63.DPK said …

    “The odds I have it right are 100%. When you have met God, have a relationship with him, you know he is the real deal. You don’t know him so I understand your lack of understanding.”

    Spoken like a truly delusional person. You know no such thing. You think you do. But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat. Even the atheist here are not so irrational as to claim that they know things that are not known or unknowable. We look at the evidence and make a rational conclusion based on what is most likely real. You read a magic book and have a tingly feeling in your tummy and think you are blessed. Sorry, can’t buy into that snake oil.

    Bovice… go to a real university and study biology and stop listening to the religious whack jobs and their voodoo “science”. Even most main stream religions have accepted evolution as a scientific fact, although predictably, they now want to claim it as god’s work. Seriously, you sound like the church leaders who insisted the earth is the center of the universe long after it was painfully obvious they were wrong. You make yourself just sound silly. The alternative is that god poofed everything into existence and then created an overwhelming mountain of evidence to trick us into believing he didn’t. That Yahweh, such a kidder!

  64. on 07 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 64.Bovice said …

    DPK…You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job. I am no scientist but I am well educated. Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.

    For all you that love spitting in philosophical anayalsis consider this:
    If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent

    Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.

  65. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:27 pm 65.Ian said …

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.
    __________________

    “But that’s fine, have at it. Just stop trying to cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat”

    Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?

    Atheists like to claim they make no claims but that is like Obama stating we need to live with in our means financially. It is just talk.

  66. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:28 pm 66.Lou said …

    64.Bovice said …

    “You provided absolutely no facts besides calling me a religious whack job.”

    You have already demonstrated that very thing, he is correct until you demonstrate otherwise.

    “I am no scientist but I am well educated.”

    Again, you have demonstrated just the opposite. You obviously are not as well educated as you think you are.

    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless.

    What part of gravity do you believe? I wonder because I only believe the part that planets orbit each other because of gravity. But it’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it.

    “To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.”

    It might be if someone presupposed that. But even if they did, it’s still not as “logically incoherent” as inventing a supernatural being to account for it. Again, ignorant people have done the same thing for centuries until science explains how nature works. Simply because there’s no scientific explanation for a natural event doesn’t mean that god did it. That is the most “logically incoherent” explanation that there is, provide by “logically incoherent” people such as yourself.

    “Accept your belief that you are here by chance and have no reason to be here if you want, every arguement I have seen just supports my own belief.”

    Of course every argument supports your belief because you pick the arguments that you agree with and reject those that are in conflict with your belief. Your belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Another problem you have is understanding the concept that no belief is not a belief.

  67. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 67.Bovice said …

    Lou you are so biased and make no sense.

    “No belief is not a belief”
    Yes it is, you believe in nothing.

    Your arguments are not sound at all. All you try to do with your arguements is tick people off. You are way too biased in all of your philosophy. The object of philosophy is to make you think, and you are completely one-sided. Become better educated on the most important information-facts. All you do is put a philosophical spin on others comments. Facts speak for themselves. Your way of thinking is based on a possibility of something to be true. Bring facts to the table if your going to argue, that is what I have done. Until you do that keep your comments to yourself.

  68. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:56 pm 68.Bovice said …

    Lou:
    “Although I doubt the evolutionary process of humans coming from other animals, single cells,etc., I believe in evolution as a fact that animals change, but not to an extreme as the evolutionary theory suggests.”

    Oh, you’re one of those people who cherry picks which parts of science that they “believe” are facts and which are not. Ignorant people have been guilty of that for centuries. Evolution is fact, both the parts of you believe and don’t believe. It doesn’t matter what is known about the evolutionary process. It exists, regardless. ”

    “Evolution is a fact, not a belief.”

    Microevolution is a fact

    Macroevolution is a philosophy.

    Well put Ian

  69. on 07 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 69.Lou said …

    68.Bovice said …

    “Microevolution is a fact”

    Prove it.

  70. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:01 pm 70.Lou said …

    67.Bovice said …

    “No belief is not a belief”

    “Yes it is, you believe in nothing.”

    I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?

  71. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:02 pm 71.Bovice said …

    mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples

  72. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:08 pm 72.DPK said …

    “Will you stop forcing your delusions down our throat? Will you start by having this website shutdown?”

    Yes, you’d like that, wouldn’t you? Prevent anyone else from voicing an opinion that differs with yours. How typical of your deluded xtian worldview. Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice, and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.

    Your tired dogmatic babble has already been debated here ad-nausium. You bring nothing new to the debate that hasn’t been presented and rejected many times before.

  73. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:09 pm 73.Bovice said …

    Lou said “I don’t believe in Horus. Is that a belief? Also, I don’t believe in countless other imaginary gods that I never knew of. Is that a belief?”

    If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.

  74. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:18 pm 74.Lou said …

    71.Bovice said …

    “mosquitoes evolving resistance to DDT

    Mutations

    Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance

    Just to name a few examples”

    HA! You fool! God did it.

  75. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:22 pm 75.Bovice said …

    HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?

  76. on 07 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 76.Lou said …

    75.Bovice said …

    “HA Lou you are a funny man.

    You love arguing for the sake of arguing dont you?”

    No, my sarcastic replies only serve to demonstrate how absurd is any reply that attributes natural processes and events to some imaginary god.

    Both macro-evolution and micro-evolution are part of the same natural process that we know as evolution.

    Now, back to my question – what part of gravity don’t you believe in?

  77. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:35 pm 77.Bovice said …

    never said a thing about gravity.

    your a joke I’m done with you

  78. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:54 pm 78.Lou said …

    77.Bovice said …

    “never said a thing about gravity.”

    I know you didn’t. So do you believe all of it or none of it? You won’t answer because perhaps you know where I’m going with it, and it will make your cherry-picking of evolution look absurd.

    “your a joke I’m done with you”

    I finally got through to you. My sarcastic replies were merely a parody of the idiotic comments you made starting with #59. You respond “your a joke I’m done with you.” Now you understand how your comments appear. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with anybody who makes the claims that you made in #59.

    P.S. I am not the same Lou who made comments in this thread before 10 May 2011.

  79. on 07 Jul 2011 at 7:58 pm 79.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “In the Muslim and Juedism faith, everyone that believes in God are saved, whether Muslim, Jew, or not.”

    Why, then, aren’t you a Muslim? Why do they all hate each other and faith mutually, and call other religions heretical?
    You are wrong!
    ALL religions claim that ONLY they are right, and that ONLY their god helps and “saves” people.
    You should not talk such things without carefully study things you are talking about.
    No non-muslim can be “saved” by definition (read, ask a muslim, as I did). In Islam, ALL non-muslims go to hell, and SOME muslims have chances to be “saved” under certain condition (that are very different from group to group!).

    You are wrong, and all your conclusions based on this wrong premise are wrong.

  80. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:05 pm 80.Severin said …

    59 Bovice
    “You can’t just believe in God and therefore you are saved.”

    What is “saved”?
    I don’t believe in god, I live a very decent and fruitful life, and can’t see what “saved” could mean. Heaven?
    I dont believe that BS, I expect to dissapear for ever when I die, so if not heaven, what is “saved”?

  81. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:09 pm 81.Bovice said …

    Severin. Did my research buddy. I have watched countless shows on this and read plenty of things.

    Quotes from a book of Islam:
    2:62 Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

  82. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:15 pm 82.Severin said …

    68 Bovice
    “Microevolution is a fact
    Macroevolution is a philosophy.”

    When you are sick, you go to doctors, don’t you?
    You trust experts for TV when your TV set doesn’ work.
    You trust experts and enter a plane, you don’t think it will fall down?
    You use your mobile phone, so you obviously do trust experts for mobile telephony.

    When you come to evolution, you STOP trusting experts!
    Why?
    Are YOU an expert, who has decades of research job behind you?
    What do YOU really know about evolution?

    Before you debate so resolutely, please READ something, for example:
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Evolution-3839/2008/7/Microevolution-vs-Macroevolution.htm#b , AND a few other kinks suggested there.
    After you read this, THINK, and try to give some ARGUMENTS (not only your opinion) against it.

    Then we can talk.

  83. on 07 Jul 2011 at 8:34 pm 83.DPK said …

    Like the bible, you can find support for any condition you want in the Quran, even contradictory ones. This from a Muslim website:

    31. What about non-Muslims do; they go to heaven?
    Ans: Allah only accepts Islam. He says in the Quran: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam it won’t be accepted of him, and he will be one of the losers in the hereafter”. I would rather lose anywhere, but not lose in the hereafter. This is because hellfire is eternal. It never ends and we never die when we go there, if we go there.
    Source: http://www.sultan.org

    So, it appears Bovice, you have a quandry. Just like the bible says “thou shalt not kill” and then god instructs us to kill all manner of people for the most trivial offenses, like working on the sabbath, being disrespectful to our parents, and being homosexual. It tells us to love one another, and instructs us on the proper way to procure and beat our slaves. Just more evidence that it is ALL superstitious nonsense.

  84. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:01 pm 84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.

    Another wager for you.

    You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?

  85. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:03 pm 85.Ian said …

    Bovice,

    Don’t feed Lou the troll.

  86. on 07 Jul 2011 at 9:40 pm 86.Lou said …

    84.Ian said …

    “Need we remind you that YOU are here, by choice,”

    “So, you are paid or forced to be here DPK? My friend, you are such a mess.”

    Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t. The rest of DPK’s sentence was “…and we are not on some whack job Christian website that claims god made man from dust and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony 6 thousand years ago.”

    “You promise to stop forcing your delusions down the throat of others but shutting down this site?”

    Specify – what delusions and whose throats? And what do you mean by “but shutting down this site?”

  87. on 08 Jul 2011 at 1:21 am 87.DPK said …

    Not a chance. What makes you think I have the power to shut down this website anyway? And why would I want to? It’s a voice of reason and rationality and obviously serves to annoy you, so that’s two good reasons to support it.
    My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions, why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.

  88. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:32 am 88.DPK said …

    “Here we go again, as he did in #43, Ian has edited a comment in order to make look like it says something that it doesn’t.”

    Lou, seriously, you’re surprised that christians use deceit and lies to try and make their point of views look valid? It happens all the time. I actually find it extremely amusing. They are so predictable. What do you expect from poor Ian who believes he has a personal relationship with an invisible man, but also claims that he believes in him because it’s a safer bet than missing out on eternal life in heaven with Jesus.

    I wonder if he ever thought about why, if heaven was so great, did Satan and the other angels decide to rebel against perfect god and leave? Guess he wasn’t so perfect, huh?

  89. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:34 am 89.Lou said …

    62.Bovice said …

    “Evolution is not a fact. It is a hypothesis.”

    Evolution is a fact. There are hypothesis for how it works.

    “There are so many facts that disprove evolution.

    For example: The missing link. This can be done with humans and monkeys, try this with another animal.”

    REALLY?! “The missing link?!” The lack of certain transitional fossils disproves evolution? Wait until paleontologists hear about your discovery! It will keep them all awake at digesting your discovery, wondering how they will now make a living.

    “The fact that a bird has wings defys natural selection. A bird would have to develop a wing over millions of years. It would not keep a useless wing for that amount of time, which would keep it at a significant disadvantage.”

    Where do you come up with such nonsense?! Ever heard of penguins?

    “I could go on for days.”

    With more nonsense? No doubt you can.

    “Evolution is a made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.”

    Really? Would you care to explain gravity to us. Please do, because if you can’t, then it doesn’t exist, and we will most certainly be flung from the earth and fly into space.

    “Our world didn’t happen by chance.”

    Please elaborate. How did “our world” happen? I’m dying to hear this one.

  90. on 08 Jul 2011 at 3:55 am 90.DPK said …

    While you’re explaining to Lou exactly how “our world” did happen, please explain to me how you suppose you magical god, “happened”?

  91. on 08 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 91.DPK said …

    Bovice… take 8 minutes of your life and learn why the stuff you have been told about micro and macro evolution is incorrect. Here’s the reader’s digest version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

    Now, let’s try to explain this. You said:
    “If you don’t believe in something, it means you don’t support it. you could still have a belief about that something, even if that belief is that that something doesn’t exist. It’s still a belief, because you believe it, but you don’t believe in the something and that belief that that something doesn’t exist is therefore your belief.”

    This is a common statement I hear from theists. I assume it is because you are so used to surrounding yourself with people who have different “beliefs” that the fact of “no belief” as it pertains to the supernatural just doesn’t compute. It’s hard for you to comprehend. Look at it this way, I suppose you don’t believe in Santa, correct? Not believing in Santa is not a “belief” it is more a realization. You may say, “Well, no… it;s not the same because everyone KNOWS Santa isn’t real. You can’t say that about god.”
    This is not really correct. There are a large class of people, small children, who DO believe that Santa is real. Your rejection of the idea of Santa is no different than my rejection of the idea of a supernatural god. It is not a “belief” it is a rejection of anther’s belief based on realization.
    The sams can be said about elves, fairies, all manner of other imagined creatures for which no evidence exists. Not believing in fairies is not a “belief”. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explain something that is a common misconception between people of faith and skeptics.

  92. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:16 pm 92.Ian said …

    “My suggestion, since YOU are on an atheist website complaining about atheists voicing their opinions”

    Actually you complained about the theist expressing their opinion. I never did until you took exception I am not afraid of the arena of ideas as you seem to be. I simply offered a compromise to soothe your ruffled feathers.

    You seem quite scattered and unable to remain on point.

    Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.

    I’m sure you would like to shut us up and spread you belief without competition. This shows you don’t believe your worldview will hold up under scrutiny. History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.
    ____________________

    Lou,

    It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.

  93. on 08 Jul 2011 at 4:21 pm 93.Ben said …

    “why don’t you just take your bullshit ideas to some christian god fearing forum where someone will agree with you.”

    Ian,

    To satisfy DPK’s demand, I would like to acknowledge I agree with you right here on this blog.

    Thanks for completely discombobulating DPK. You have him in a complete tizzy. You have refuted every point and now he has no answers outside of “shut up”.

  94. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:08 pm 94.DPK said …

    Ian… Jesus will not look kindly on your dishonesty. You know full well that my comment was in response to YOUR claim that “You have it 100% right….because of your personal relationship with god.” This after failing to answer any objections to your support of Pascal’s wager with anything more than “I am right and you are wrong.”
    You can attempt to spread your dogma of whatever it is you think you know, but please be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts, or lacking that, logic and reason. If you can. I doubt it.

    And yes, we have gotten off track. Me trying to follow your circular reasoning that always seems to end with “because I have a personal relationship with god.” is quite tiring.

    Congratulations though, you have won the admiration of Ben, the local village idiot. Not much of an accomplishment really. But good for you. I’m sure Horatiio will also give you two thumbs up. Maybe you three could start a tent show revival. I’m sure you’d be popular in the bible belt.

  95. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:10 pm 95.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “It is always entertaining to watch atheist go to the gravity card. Gravity, that which is here and now and can be studied in the present day. The fallacies never quit.”

    But as usual, you avoid answering the question.

    It’s obvious that objects and people can’t be held to an immense globe that’s spinning at more than 1,000 MPH while traveling at more than 67,000 MPH through space. It’s “logically incoherent” to think otherwise, so the only explanation is that we don’t fly off the earth into space because god prevents it. Do you agree?

    Evolution happens “here and now,” too.

  96. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:47 pm 96.DPK said …

    Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god. I wonder if he would let me drop a bowling ball on his head while he prayed for god to stop it falling. Then if it cracked his skull, it would be “god’s will”. Up for the challenge, Ian?

    Not for Ian, because I know he is a lost cause, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this who may be less sure that they have it “100% right”, I ‘d like to address another deceitful statement made here. Ian said, “History has shown us that atheists like to eradicate religious beliefs at all cost.”

    Now, unlike Ian, I will not presume to speak for all atheists, but I can speak for me. In so much as I consider religious dogma to be irrational and superstitious, and unarguably one of the major sources of conflict in the present world, I would like to see religious dogmatic beliefs abandoned in favor of a more rational, human based worldview. Notice I did not use the word “eradicate” that Ian choose, because that implies some sort of unilateral force. I think most atheists, my self certainly, value independent liberties way too much to attempt to force our values on anyone. Convince? Sure… is that wrong? Religions are the ones that history shows have the record of repeatedly and systematically trying to force itself upon people.
    Most of the atheists I know are in fact, good, honest, and moral people. Are there some bastards? No doubt. But I don’t know any of us trying to “eradicate religious beliefs at all cost”. Never saw an atheist strap on an explosive vest or fly and airplane into a building or start a holy war.
    We don’t have a god that commands us to dash babies on rocks, rip pregnant women, stone people to death, or requires blood sacrifice in atonement for some sin of our ancient ancestors.
    So think about which of us should really be on the lunatic fringe.

  97. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:49 pm 97.Lou said …

    92.Ian said …

    “Since you seem to be OK spreading you dogma of no belief in anything, you won’t mind if I spread mine of hope, peace and salvation.”

    Yes, some of us do mind, because that’s not what you’re doing.

    First of all, atheism isn’t dogma. This is either a typical ploy of redefining words in order to attack atheism or you simply don’t have the capacity to understand the world except in the context of religious dogma. And if you think there is any comparison to alleged spreading of atheism to that of religion, then you are again being absurdly dishonest.

    Second, have you ever considered that some don’t believe or accept that you particular dogma is hope, peace, and salvation? If you are a xtian, then your dogma is to convert people against their will to believe like xtains believe. That is not spreading an opinion. It is, as DPK wrote, to “cram your delusions down everyone else’s throat.”

    Lastly, spreading your dogma has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with evolution. Yet you are so threatened by it to the point that you dishonestly and fraudulently attack it. You’re nothing but a throw-back to the Middle-Ages who attacks anything that you can’t understand or accept because it conflicts with your delusional relationship with an imaginary god – one that I know for a fact that you don’t have. How do I know that? Because I live in the same “here and now” that you do. I am the same species that you are. I experience the same environment that you do. I was raised as a xtian, attended church, bible school, VBS, and I was even baptized. There is no reason that a god would have a relationship with you, but not the majority of the rest the people including me. The only logical explanation is that you are delusional. So why don’t you keep your bastardized dogma of “hope, peace and salvation” to yourself and your fellow jesus freaks, and leave everybody else alone? You are not in anyway harmed by doing that, yet you insist that everybody share your delusion, intruding and trespassing into their right to liberty while demanding yours.

  98. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:54 pm 98.Lou said …

    96.DPK said …

    “Ian has already stated in #43 that god is required to hold the universe together, and presumably then, that he considers gravity to be a supernatural force that works only upon the will of god.”

    Yes, I know. But he didn’t specifically answer whether or not he believed that gravity is a natural or supernatural force.

  99. on 08 Jul 2011 at 5:58 pm 99.Lou said …

    Or maybe gravity is only a philosophy.

  100. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:24 pm 100.DPK said …

    I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god. To me, that would certainly imply that gravity is a supernatural force. Without god to magically enforce it, it would not exist. Since the god of the bible has been claimed on several occasions to have countered or suspended the force of gravity, and since Ian knows that “the word of god” makes him 100% right… seems no other conclusion will fit the facts in evidence.

    You would expect though, that gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism would then exhibit some degree of randomness in response to prayer or god’s will. I wonder why we don’t see this? If we lived in biblical times, we would have to have seen this, is the bible stories are to be believed. I wonder why not now?

  101. on 08 Jul 2011 at 6:58 pm 101.Ian said …

    Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!

    Ben,

    Thank you friend. I get on a roll and just enjoy myself. I will be asking DPK to back up another comment. Let me see if he produces this time.

    “be good enough to do it without deceit and with actual facts”

    DPK,

    I will be glad to. Please bullet point my deceitful claims and I will be glad to retract them post-haste.

  102. on 08 Jul 2011 at 7:57 pm 102.Lou said …

    101.Ian said …

    “Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages! I feel like I am talking to a Middle schooler! I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Maybe not 90%, but the majority are. But probably the majority of theists don’t actually claim to have a personal relationship with god like you do, and I think a large number of people actually doubt the existence of god, but they’re too afraid to admit it.

    Your personal relation ship with god claim reminds me of something Sam Harris said -

    “George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”

    Regardless that you somehow equate reality with majority belief doesn’t make it true. First of all, it’s evidence of your inability to think rationally. Furthermore, public opinion and beliefs have been wrong throughout history. If anything, that the majority believes something questionable to be true is evidence that it’s most probably not. When someone like you resorts to defending their position with majority belief, then it’s a safe assumption that you can’t defend it otherwise. The very last defense of any position I take would be to say that “everybody else agrees with me, so you must be wrong.” At that point you might as well raise the white flag.

    But please, you don’t really think that the majority of people are smarter than the minority of people, do you? Your majority belief defense is really only a cop-out for your lack of a real defense, isn’t it? Tell me you don’t really think that because the majority believes something that it must be true.

  103. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:04 pm 103.Severin said …

    101 Ian
    “I guess 90% of all Americans and the world are in the Middle ages too!”

    Yes!

    Maybe you overestimated the percentage, but, in principle, and unfortunately: yes!

  104. on 08 Jul 2011 at 8:39 pm 104.Lou said …

    100.DPK said …

    “I think we can assume that he did. If gravity “requires” god, and god is supernatural, then gravity does not exist without the supernatural will of god.”

    My point is that gravity is much more difficult to accept than is evolution. It’s common sense that if you place an object on a globe and spin it at over 1,000 MPH that that object will fly off the globe. There is no acceptable explanation other than some mysterious force called gravity that keeps us from flying into space. Gravity is just, as Bovice wrote about evolution, a “made up scientific explanation for something that can not be explained.” That being the case, then the only other explanation is that “god does it.”

    But then again, this is all moot. Because anybody can look up at the sky and see that it’s the sun and stars that spin above our heads on this obviously flat earth. The majority of the people thought that, so it must have been true.

  105. on 08 Jul 2011 at 11:20 pm 105.Ian said …

    Lou quoted Sam Harris! Oh yeah, that carries some weight.

    To top it off Lou thinks this is a question of intelligence! Well, Trekies tend to be intelligent as well as the truthers! So there you go. You are in the same league. I must contend Lou – you don’t seem exceptionally intelligent.

    Truth be known I could rattle off highly intelligent individuals in each camp. I won’t since I won’t fall into your “appeal to authority” fallacy.

    You are a mess my friend!

    When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult. I will assume Sam is the head of your cult.

    Friends, don’t drink the blue Kool Aid no matter how tastier Sam makes it sound.

    Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.

    Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.

  106. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:11 am 106.DPK said …

    “Lou you are so predictable. Flat earth, gravity and Sam Harris.”

    So, are you going to actually say anything to refute the points, or are you just going to parrot Lou’s statement in a mocking tone and think that counts as a rebuttal. YOU are the mess. Harris’ quote is absolutely true. If the president talked to god though his hair dryer, he would be crazy. Do you disagree? You say you have met god and have a personal relationship with him…. hmmm.

    His point about gravity and scientific theories is valid. Again, I noticed you mocked it, but didn’t refute it. Curious. You seem to be all wind and no substance. I see a pattern here.

    “Lets knock down that other fallacy you have set up. The majority believe the sky is blue, oranges are round and God is real. I agree on all points.”

    So? Again, no point. At one time the majority believed the earth WAS flat, mental illness was demonic position, witches cast spells, volcano gods caused volcanos and earthquakes. You point is completely without merit. Even if there WAS any validity to it, the majority of the population does not believe in YOUR chosen god. How does that fit into your position? You haven’t knocked down any fallacy.

    ““Oh no! I am now from the Middle ages!” No, but your reasoning and belief in superstitious ignorance is straight from the middle ages. Again, is there a point to be made? You take your dogma from an ancient book written by bronze age shepherds. So, yeah.

    I don’t have time to retrace all your posts here and call you out on all your intellectual dishonesty, but we can start with your practice of pulling part of a statement from a post and trying to claim it says something it doesn’t. That’s dishonest. You also stated you have met god and have a personal relationship with him. That is a lie. You have not met god.

    Your tactic of “moving the goal posts” on the Pascal’s discussion is also intellectually dishonest. Claiming the argument is valid, and then when faced with a list of problems you claim you must look at it only from the point of view of a christian.. then it is valid. The wager is an apologist’s attempt to convince non-believers to convert. It would be wasted on a Christian. Then your claim to know with 100% certainty that the conditions needed for Pascal’s to be valid are all true. You know no such thing and it is intellectually dishonest (or seriously deluded) for you to claim you do.

    You are so predictable. You don’t make any attempt to actually debate any logical points, you simply mock and act superior. Typical.

  107. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:01 am 107.Severin said …

    105 Ian
    “When less than 10% of the populace calls the vast majority delusional what you have is a cult.”

    Maybe you can call it a cult, but unlike you, and your “90% population”, that “cult” is right.

    There were times when much less than 10% of population claimed earth was not flat.
    90 % were delusional.
    Fortunately, delusions are wiped out.
    It does not happen easy and quickly, but it is unavoidable.

    In 2500., I guess there will be some 5% of religious population on earth (mostly retarded misfits), subdivided in 1,000 to 2,000 denominations, like: “Church of Eternal Gravity”, “Followers of Madona’s Nickers”, “Blessed Earth is Center of Universe Idiots”, “Church of the Holy Big Bang”…

    Christianity and Jesus, Islam and Allah, will be forgotten, except maybe taught in schools the same way we learn obut Greek gods today.

    How many atheists existed on earth 200 years ago?

    How many people believing in Ra have we today on earth?

    You just look at history!

  108. on 09 Jul 2011 at 12:43 pm 108.Leah said …

    Ian

    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life. He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.

  109. on 09 Jul 2011 at 2:53 pm 109.DPK said …

    Leah,
    Again, like Ian, you make claims with no justification or reasoning behind it. You claim this is to avoid giving “them” credence?? That’s a a pathetic position.
    Let’s review:

    Sam Harris is no more relevant than Fred Flintstone.
    Because?

    I think Harris is a nut since he believes in lightning that produces life.
    What? Please show us where Harris has stated that lightening produces life. You are lying.

    He refutes himself. His argument against Bush is a fallacy.
    Where does he refute himself? Are you saying that if the President stated that he talked to go through his hair dryer, that most people would have no problem with that? That seems to be what you are claiming.

    We experience gravity everyday. It is proven to exist. We don’t know why the universe exist and we don’t know why gravity exist.
    What makes you conclude that there must be a “why” to gravity or the universe? You believe god exists… why? By why I mean, why do you believe he exists AND why does he exist?

  110. on 09 Jul 2011 at 3:44 pm 110.Ian said …

    I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.

    Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?

    Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.

    Remember Harris with his olive branch of love?
    Before or after the hair dryer gem?

    “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”

    Yes, and Christians are the ones full of hate. Maybe if we get Harris to talk to more hair dryers he might develop some tolerance rather than being the thought police.

    These rabbit trails are just a way for DPK to avoid answering questions asked of him. He has been wrong on every point and refuses to bullet point my deceitfulness.

  111. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:16 pm 111.DPK said …

    “I really don’t take these things seriously Leah. These are ideas we worked through as children.”

    Apparently so.

    “Yes, Sam Harris believes nothing created the universe. That seems on par with talking to a hair dryer. Hair Dryer? Injection molded plastic, circuit board and small single phase AC motor? Not QUUUITTEEE on the same level as God. What is the difference though?”

    There you go, being dishonest again. Harris never claimed the president talked to his hair dryer. The point was, he talked to an invisible being and that is considered normal. If he talked to the same invisible being through a hair dryer, (or a magic chalice, or a special telephone for that matter), he would be considered crazy. But the only difference is the addition of the hair dryer that makes the difference between insane and normal. You’re not much on deductive thinking, are you. No surprise, you thin Pascal’s is avalid argument. So now I understand that you figured these things out as a child and haven’t given them much critical thought since then.
    ““some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,”
    Despite that you took that statement completely out of context, which again… is dishonest of you, are you saying that the US was wrong to kill bin-Laden?
    Is it wrong to kill a terrorist who is attempting to get his hands on a nuclear weapon? Is it wrong to kill someone who promotes and aids religious terrorism? You live in a funny little bubble.

    “108.Leah said …
    Ian
    Please don’t argue against any of these silly myths. If you do you just give them credence they do not deserve.”

    I wonder why the two of you are here then if not to argue against “silly myths”. Oh, you just want to spout your illogical dogma without anyone challenging you. Typical. Ian, you are so transparent.

  112. on 09 Jul 2011 at 6:46 pm 112.Lou said …

    110.Ian said …

    “Bush did not speak to hair dryer. Therefore Harris’ claim is moot. Harris is still a nut and he did not speak to a hair dryer.”

    I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable. Ever since you’ve joined this discussion you falsely responded to comments quoted out of context. You posted false information. You’re a fraud. But, then so is your belief and your representation of it. I wonder which came first – your intellectual dishonesty lead to your delusion, or the other way around? Either way, it’s pathetic.

  113. on 09 Jul 2011 at 7:00 pm 113.Observer said …

    Leah- You should read the article I posted earlier about xtians wising up. It is currently under the pot vs. jesus thread currently the first post.

    Ian- I think Lou and DPK are summing you up pretty accurately here. What is your motivation? Are you at a crisis stage in your beliefs and making a last ditch effort to defend beliefs despite everything that is reasonable and logical? Do you ever wonder why the smart folks who are actual scientists do not believe what you believe even though they are vastly better educated than you, and probably have much better minds than you in the same way that Larry Bird was a better basketball player than you are?

  114. on 09 Jul 2011 at 11:38 pm 114.DPK said …

    Lou: “I first thought that you were simply intellectually dishonest. But you’re simply down-right despicable…”

    At first, I actually thought perhaps he was just dim, but now that I see the pattern repeating again and again, I have no choice but to agree with your conclusion. He is deceptive to the point of being despicable. It’s a very sad state that you need to try and deceive someone about what was actually written simply to try and make yourself look right. Doesn’t that fall under the “thou shalt not bear false witness” clause? Makes me wish there was a god to judge because I think Mr. Ian will “have some ‘splainin’ to do”

    I think maybe Observer has it right. He is so desperate to be right he’s willing to lie to himself to convince himself. That sounds like desperation.

  115. on 01 May 2012 at 7:11 am 115.Ken A said …

    Christianity answers the question of who made God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis: In the “beginning”, God created the heavens and the earth Gen1v1. Time, for us, had a starting point. This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tell us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe. There r more than the 4 dimensions in which we reside.

    How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God’s creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason – so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

    The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time’s arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

    Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

  116. on 01 May 2012 at 11:10 am 116.Lou (DFW) said …

    115.Ken A said …

    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    You omitted the most obvious, logical, and probable interpretation – that the bible is a story of myths that in fact did not happen, and that your god is nothing but a fairy tale for which there is no need of being created.

  117. on 01 May 2012 at 11:50 am 117.Severin said …

    115 Ken
    “Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.”

    Fine, you only tell us which god was it among thousands of gods acting as creators of the universe thousands of years before Christian god came to scene.
    Was it An (Anu), or Baal, or Dagon, Great Mother, Ra,…, maybe Zeus, or his parents Cronus and Rhea, …?

    Then please tell us something about the moment of creation.
    Is it as it was described in Genesis, or a god created universe in big bang?

  118. on 07 Sep 2012 at 5:29 am 118.wane said …

    I was scanning through here and figured id say a few things in a firm believer in God but for those who don’t and scream for evidence because there is no energy or whatever for a spirit well in sure you all know there is a devil and for all of those people who want to argue it is truly invalid it would be wrong to tell you to ask anything o of the devil because that brings on all kinds of demons but look up videos , exorsisoms any thing internet is a great thing or of you know anyone who follows Satan ask them about it but please don’t go ask the devil yourself because he went wait to answer youi hope this makes sense and helps you guys

  119. on 01 May 2014 at 4:55 am 119.B Sattva said …

    I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive. When the time and conditions are right things just start moving. I think that they will find that where ever life can be, it will be. Life is the very nature of the universe. But of course thats just my opinion.

  120. on 01 May 2014 at 11:59 am 120.alex said …

    “I have thought about this for some time now, and have come to the conclusion that their can be only one answer, and that is that everything is already alive.”

    and like the god shit, you got no proof. just because you don’t know, you don’t have to make up shit.

    just because the math says stars should fly off into space instead of being held together in a spinning galaxy doesn’t mean dark matter exist.

    just because we don’t know where the universe came from doesn’t mean god created it.

    it’s ok not to know. we seek answers.

  121. on 19 Jun 2014 at 4:56 am 121.Curious A said …

    Wow, is it midnight already? I was just getting to the good parts of the argument.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply