text:
Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 03 Feb 2012 12:59 am
The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane
This graphic nicely sums up the insanity of Bible-believers:
Atheists, can you prove The BIBLE is false?
Any rational person can see that the Bible is false in hundreds of different ways. A simple comparison of Genesis 1 and 2 shows that the Bible itself cannot agree on the order of creation, and both of these creation stories are absolutely false by so many measures.
The only way for a Bible-believer to believe the Bible is to completely abandon reality and the truth. Someone who completely abandons reality and the truth is insane.
386 Responses to "The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane"
on 03 Feb 2012 at 2:09 pm 1.A said …
"abandon reality and the truth."
What is the realty and truth?
on 03 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm 2.Anonymous said …
There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.
Jesus is a fictional character. The stories about him are myths.
The universe is 14 billion years old.
All life on earth is the product of evolution.
Humans are primates.
There was no Adam, created from dust.
There were and are no talking snakes.
God is imaginary.
Heaven and Hell are imaginary.
on 03 Feb 2012 at 6:26 pm 3.Anon. said …
Funny how easy it is to talk about reality if we're honest and self-critical. What's hard is to talk about truth. The religious make it worse by capitalizing it and then capitalizing on that capitalized "Truth."
on 03 Feb 2012 at 7:36 pm 4.Curmudgeon said …
Glad I found you over here. This reality of which you speak. Lets go through them one by one together.
1. "There are no answered prayers, only coincidences."
Prove it. You may use the scientific method, or you may provide scientific evidence for each prayer that was claimed answered that it was a coincidence. Your choice. This should be fun.
on 03 Feb 2012 at 7:55 pm 5.Anonymous said …
Curmudgeon is a well known troll who posts here under a variety of sock puppet accounts. Ignore him he is only trying to be disruptive.
on 04 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 6.Anti-Curm said …
LOL. You don't prove negatives. You prove positives, like "there are answered prayers." Again and again with these turds. One would think they'd learn.
Curm, that means YOU are up to prove it.
on 04 Feb 2012 at 5:16 am 7.Lol said …
Even coincidence means miracles, god did say I work in misterious ways, so coincidence is misterious
on 04 Feb 2012 at 11:36 am 8.Yahh said …
It would be crazy to have no god, and theirs no proof to what atheists say, other then the city you can't see because you can't see it with your human form, even science is trying to be like a god, making lotions to make your face look younger when in heaven you'll be young forever
on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:44 pm 9.JS said …
RE:"The problem with people who believe the Bible is that they are insane" (Opinion)
If The Bible is just a silly story book, then why are some people so threatened by it? (Green Eggs & Ham is a story book. Have you ever heard of anyone offended by the words of Dr. Seuss?) The Bible is illegal in over 30 countries. In some parts of the world, you can be put to death for just believing in Jesus.
01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I've had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)
02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)
on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:58 pm 10.Anonymous said …
Ah, typical Christian. Make believe that the world is against you so that you must be right. How pitiful.
Why don't you prove that your god is real then?
Instead of trying to turn the conversation round on others, why don't you stop with the childish martyr crap and prove this god exists? Why don't you prove that the Jesus you worship existed and was the son of god? Why don't you prove it?
Why? Because you can't.
on 04 Feb 2012 at 5:42 pm 11.alex said …
"01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I've had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)"
01. There are no tooth fairies, only coincidences,
(Opinion) I've had many $$ under my pillow. (not just coincidences).
"02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)"
02. Santa Claus is fictional. (Are you sure")
…see the pattern? come on man, wake up. you can be good without god, but don't be bad and use redemption as a hedge. behave.
on 04 Feb 2012 at 8:23 pm 12.Anon. said …
"If The Bible is just a silly story book, then why are some people so threatened by it? (Green Eggs & Ham is a story book. Have you ever heard of anyone offended by the words of Dr. Seuss?)"
How many people live and die by Dr. Seuss? How many people run huge organizations to make sure everyone in the world hears Seuss's rhymes and understands them as literal truth about the world (the Sneeches with stars on their bellies are ministers of evil…)? How many people try to get science disposed from science classrooms so Seuss Theory has equal time and weight? How many people are on boards like this claiming there really are Whos out there and if you can't prove that there are not then there must be while simultaneously refusing to prove that there are?
on 04 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 13.alex said …
I think deep down, these xtians know that they have nothing to gain by believing. They push their agenda so that when they do commit all the BS and crap, they can immediately Tebow and proclaim, with great fanfare, that they are redeemed and free to do it again and again.
on 04 Feb 2012 at 9:31 pm 14.Anonymous said …
Do people go around saying believe in Dr. Seuss or you will die?
Do people go around saying that if you drink the blood and eat the flesh of the Cat in The Hat you will have everlasting life?
Do people go around saying that everyone is condemned to eternal torment unless they accept that they are evil and only The Cat In the Hat can save them?
Do people go around crying that people won't let them force feed their Dr Seuss obsession down everyone's throat?
Do people go around pretending that America was founded to be a nation based on Dr. Seuss?
Do people go around complaining whenever anyone dares tell them that Dr. Seuss? is only a story?
Do people go around pissing off people by talking loudly and stupidly about their favorite Dr. Seuss story in public and then get offended when they are asked to keep their fantasy to themselves?
Do people go around claiming that Dr. Seuss stories are real and that The Cat in The Hat is real yet run away when asked to prove it?
No, yet Christians think it's OK to do everyone of those things but get offended whenever anyone else raises a different point of view.
You know Dr. Seuss is as much about story telling as the bible, right?
on 05 Feb 2012 at 6:34 am 15.Me said …
But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation. I will sing to the Lord for he has been good to me. psalm 13: 5-6
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1st John 4:10
on 05 Feb 2012 at 7:02 am 16.Me said …
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Mathew 21:21
When you guys read this I don't know if you don't understand it or what but the key here is you have to have faith and you can't doubt God. You have believe he can answer your prayer. God also doesn't always answer prayer the moment you pray for it. Sometimes it takes weeks maybe months of faithfully praying for something before he answers.
Now I know some of you who are reading this are probably thinking to yourselves "ah-ha! If God loves you so much why doesn't he just answers your prayers right away?" My answer to this is (and I'm not claiming to know God's thoughts) that God is probably testing you to see if you are going to stay faithful or if you're going to give up after 2 days of praying. Also I've found that if you actually work at it when God does answer your prayers it's all the better.
Look I'm not here to force my life choices down your throats or convert you. You can even call me insane if you want to, I don't really care. I mean I probably didn't even explain this topic like I wanted to. I'm here because I want to give you something to think about.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 7:29 am 17.Anonymous said …
You've given nothing that hasn't been soundly dismissed before. So let me sum it up for you.
The excuses of "yes, no, or wait" cover all the cases that would occur with or without divine intervention. Funny, isn't it, how an all powerful being never seems to be able to actually do anything than that which is possible without him.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:05 am 18.Me said …
Really. So then you've heard of a scientist who has created life.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:18 am 19.Ian R said …
"Believers commit themselves to a lifetime of delusion, instead of commiting their lives to reality."
Oh yeah! have you taken a look at reality lately?
Dump religion but for goodness sake get a good shrink.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 12:38 pm 20.Anonymous said …
By the way, "me", you like to quote the bible? Are you consistent or only when it suits you? Let us know your feelings on these…
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:12 pm 21.Lou (DFW) said …
7.JS said …
"01. There are no answered prayers, only coincidences.(Opinion) I've had many answered prayers. (not just coincidences)"
Me, too. I prayed that whenever I flip coin that it comes up heads for me. It did a little more than half the time! But then I tried a more stringent test of prayer to prove to you all the parayer works. I prayed to Jesus and god that when I flip that coin that heads would appear so I would win, and for tails to appear so my friend would loose. Guess what? It happened every time! THANK YOU JESUS! PRAYER WORKS!
"02. Jesus is a fictional character. (Are you sure?)"
Which Jesus? Do you mean the one who is allegedly the son of god? Yes, I'm just as sure of that as I am that Santa Claus doesn't do the things attributed to him by the young children who believe it.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …
http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Hemmer/1061080208 Adam Hemmer
"Pray in one hand and take a dump in the other….let us know which one fills up first."
on 05 Feb 2012 at 2:54 pm 23.Anonymous said …
Here's a good post that goes hand-in-hand with the above topic. It's of note that it covers much of the distractions, fallacious reasoning, and extraordinary double standards that we see on here from various theists and their alter egos.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:49 pm 24.Xenon said …
I got a huge kick out of the above link. William Craig has debated every big name atheist and won in the world, but this John Loftus (owner of the blog) claims William Craig is afraid to debate him. How laughable.
John it might be because nobody knows who your are. See Dr Craig is a very busy and much in demand speaker.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 8:51 pm 25.Xenon said …
Never mind. I found the guys problem.
on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:59 pm 26.Anonymous said …
Ah, classic Horatiio, I mean Curmudgeon, as you were, Xenon. Rather than address the subject, he needs to vilify the messenger via his stock-in-trade combination of poisoning the well and ad hominem attack. Even if his assertions were true, they have nothing to do with the message or the subject.
Also, somewhat two-faced of you Curmudgeon, sorry, Horatiio, my mistake, Xenon, when you run away from providing evidence for the existence of your imaginary god, and you refuse to give direct answers to direct questions, your attacks on the character of others comes over as empty as your promises and your word.
Now, where's that evidence for the existence of your imaginary god that you've so far failed to deliver? Let's see you demonstrate how you're not afraid to demonstrate that your god is real.
Evidence. That's all you need provide. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes about how your god clearly doesn't exist.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 27.Xenonphobic said …
If any of you on here haven't read John Loftus, I heartily encourage it, particularly if you want to see Christianity handled on the terms apologists usually deal. He's really quite excellent, regardless of what Xenon or trolls like him have to say.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:38 am 28.Agnostic said …
When people really want to believe in something, they stop thinking. But ignorance is bliss I guess. I wish I could be so deluded. But I am too intelligent to believe for a second that the greatest fairy tale ever written could be true.
Thank you for this site. I have more fun reading the posts here!
on 06 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 29.Sl said …
Truth? Reality? I claim none who argue have neither if they are argueing someone else's ! Claim what belongs to you, you feeble humans so sure of things you've never been able to comprehend. Live for 14 billion years or 6 thousand and you'll still only be able to account for what you've been around for. Stop bickering over details you can't even prove! Live today! Not yesterday or tommorow . You can read whatever you want and you can see it is truly here,, now. The question and the answer is,, what are you going to do about it? Gonna love? Gonna hate? Change the world today! Change the reason you do things for righteous purpose, stop self righteous delusion and promote healing , not retribution ! Mercy for weak ( we are all). We cannot prove anything, everything proves us, and most everything is proving we are in need. So why not give instead of taking ? The bible is truth, the truth is proving itself and doesn't care what is perseived by you or me, we are the ones who care, maybe the truth does what it does by showing us "our" true colors ? Do you see fault in others and fail to see your own? You blind man.jesus healed the blind and said you could too! Get it? ( this post is for my benefit and is a way to see the man in the mirror more clearly and to drown out all the fake reflections I'm seeing everywhere) peace!!
on 06 Feb 2012 at 2:16 pm 30.Sl said …
P.s. not every Christian you meet is quite as dumb as to be a zealot. And to my fellow followers( so called by themselves) for for god's sake quit quoting bible verses to people! Please it just make you seem retarded And fully incapable of understanding the word. Live it !quit quoting it! And do everyone a favor and just read the red letters( Jesus words) cause everyone forsook him at the critical hour so why listen to cowards on how to fight? And do yourself a favor and stop praying for the physical, it's the spirit that needs suplication! Dust to dust, get it? Hope peace love and light to all! Peace!
on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:22 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …
21.Xenon said …
"I got a huge kick out of the above link. William Craig has debated every big name atheist and won in the world [sic]…."
Regardless of whether or not that's true, being a great debater doesn't change the fact that he has no evidence for his imaginary god, and that his conclusions, like yours, are absurd. It's similar to having a good lawyer or a bad one – that doesn't affect the true guilt or innocence of the defendant, but only how the jury perceives it.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 6:27 pm 32.DPK said …
Notice Xenon doesn't refute or address even a single point Loftus makes in the cited article, but instead resorts to "nobody knows who you are" and then posts a link to another site that also doesn't address a single point but is just a rambling ad homimen attack.
I'm with Xenophobe, I found his points well thought out and well presented, and very compelling.
Why don't you theists ever actually debate the actual point. Like… why WON'T god heal amputees. The closest thing to a rebuttal argument has been "maybe amputees don't need to be healed". Not even the point.
Xenon… why don't you try actually countering any ONE of Loftus's points… I'll make it easy.. let's just pick one at random:
"The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster."
So, Xenon, Hor, or any of your aliases care to actually explain this in light of your faith in a perfect being?
To the rest of readers…. prepare for a long period of silence from the theists.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 7:45 pm 33.Biff said …
It seems the Godless gang here has resorted to claiming all the God posters are the one and same. I can say Xenon has been posting here for years while the new Godless gang now here are fairly new. They all seem to have the same boring rhetoric disproven long ago. Scholarly debate is so hard to find.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:00 pm 34.Anonymous said …
Scholarly debate is so hard to find.
Indeed it is.
Perhaps you would provide some by either providing the evidence of this god of yours, or answering DPK's questions in 27?
Do start.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 8:14 pm 35.Lou (DFW) said …
28.Biff said …
"It seems the Godless gang here…"
Everybody is godless.
"…has resorted to claiming all the God posters are the one and same."
Another lie.
"I can say Xenon has been posting here for years while the new Godless gang now here are fairly new."
So what?
"They all seem to have the same boring rhetoric disproven long ago."
The "same boring rhetoric" is "provide evidence of your imaginary god," a statement that cannot be "disproven," and to which theists never, ever directly reply, despite that "Xenon has been posting here for years."
"Scholarly debate is so hard to find."
"Scholarly debate" on the existence of your imaginary god is akin to "scholarly debate" on astrology – there's nothing to debate. But if you wanted to begin a debate, then all you need do is provide your evidence. So yes, in that context, "scholarly debate is so hard to find."
on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:00 pm 36.40 year Atheist said …
We are here tonight to debate the issue of whether a deity exists. First, the Theist:
If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.
I have no God theory, and I don't have to prove anything. The theist has to provide proof that meets my personal approval, and I only approve of material evidence, because material stuff is all that exists, and no, I don't have to prove it.
(Audience applause)
That refutes my argument…. How?
Your logic sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter)
Please provide particulars so we can discuss actual cases.
Your logic REALLY sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter and lighters aflame overhead)
Well, that was quick. Thanks for participating, I think we all learned a lot here tonight.
(Crowd roars and rushes to congratulate the Atheist debater on his clear win)
Blog Analysts:
"Well, the Atheist wiped up the floor with the Theist last night. The Atheist was right on the money with his clear answers, while the Theist logic REALLY sucked".
on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:10 pm 37.DPK said …
Seems the only way 40 year can win an argument is by playing both sides.
Now, let's look at what might really happen……
Theist: If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself."
Atheist: "Let's assume for a moment that that assumption is correct. By your own argument then god must have a cause. What caused god? And what caused that, and what caused that…..?
Theist: "God has no cause. He is eternal.
Atheist: "Then you violate your own premise, and your logic does really suck."
on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:38 pm 38.40 year Atheist said …
What really happens in the blogosphere is rarely like the formal process. The drive to win is frequently fed by an attachment to an agenda that is not the desire to reveal truth. When an agenda is threatened, the proponent starts to use tactics rather than logic, and to insist that these tactics are not fallacies, they are in fact logic. And it is difficult-to-impossible to ascertain the opposition's true set of presuppositions, and the opposition might even deny that they have them.
The result is a chaotic mess that profits neither side, much less the observers.
It is understandable that a proponent of an idea that is essential to his worldview would become stressed to the point of constant fallacious assertions in order to protect that worldview. After all, to lose such an argument threatens his entire view of the world and of himself. And debating is win/lose argumentation.
This is the reason that I sometimes cease an argument. When an argument becomes non-rational, in the sense that the niceties of formal arguments are rejected in favor of win/lose tactics, there is no cause to continue because there is no chance of arriving at a rational, valid conclusion in that atmosphere.
But when a win/lose argument is found unable to be redirected into an analytical channel, I will assert my right to stop it, and move on. This is not about win/lose, it is about discovering the extent of reality and the possible existence of validity and truth despite a culture that denies it.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:54 pm 39.Lou (DFW) said …
33.40 year Atheist said …
"This is not about win/lose, it is about discovering the extent of reality and the possible existence of validity and truth despite a culture that denies it."
That there's no evidence for god.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 9:59 pm 40.Anonymous said …
So, which part of 40ya's latest rambling contained the, you know, evidence? As far as I can see, it's just another appeal
on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:00 pm 41.Anonymous said …
Oops, another appeal to ignorance.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:26 pm 42.A said …
Thanks for your posts 40y-a. You show some great insight. A nice reminder not argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 10:39 pm 43.Xenonphobe said …
If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified."
If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss's recent work shows that this is nothing short of the horses**t we've all known it to be all along. The cause for the universe is now essentially known: "nothing" is unstable and will decay into "something." The appeal to ignorance didn't hold up forever, like it never does, like Stenger keeps pointing out.
This also, of course, is a classic dodge. "I'll play with some words, have crappy logic, and conclude based on my ignorance that it must be God. All further investigation can cease, even if the catch-all, explain-nothing God I shoved in that gap isn't logically consistent or connected to the deity I think (since science showed that "God's morality" and our own morality are the same) everyone should worship on pain of eternal, nonsensical torture."
What's that they just said? "God doesn't have to make sense. He's God!" Yeah. Exactly. Where I come from, we call a spade a spade and a pile of dookie a, well, pile of dookie.
on 06 Feb 2012 at 11:07 pm 44.Curmudgeon said …
"The cause for the universe is now essentially known:"
Phobia thanks. Now the proof please. There are many many scholarly scientist out there who are unaware of this finding.
I'll get the popcorn.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:06 am 45.DPK said …
33.40 year Atheist said …
"The drive to win is frequently fed by an attachment to an agenda that is not the desire to reveal truth. When an agenda is threatened, the proponent starts to use tactics rather than logic, and to insist that these tactics are not fallacies, they are in fact logic. …
It is understandable that a proponent of an idea that is essential to his worldview would become stressed to the point of constant fallacious assertions in order to protect that worldview. After all, to lose such an argument threatens his entire view of the world and of himself. …'
Finally, 40 year has said something that I agree with…. this is very true, but your myopic worldview and attachment to your non-existent god doesn't even allow you to comprehend that you are talking about yourself. But thank yu for pointing out the obvious.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:10 am 46.alex said …
"The cause for the universe is now essentially known:"
meaning it's not 100%. when i drop an an apple, being the cynic, i'm almost 100% sure it's gravity. i suppose it could be god, but i doubt it. sometimes, what i see with my own eyes is unbelievable, but they haven't failed me yet. I saw someone levitate a boat, but i'm sure it's a trick. if jesus were to show up today, what would he need to do to prove it? for me, jesus would have to throw me in hell and when i'm screaming in agony, i guess I would have to admit my mistake. you like that? what would jesus need to do? theists, please answer.
p.s. my son is laughing as i'm writing this. i guess he's not too worried….
on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:43 am 47.Xenonphobic said …
It's funny how proof is requested when it comes to science but not when it comes to walled-off theistic beliefs–and no doubt the standard of "proof" is far beyond scientific consensus or anything like that when it comes to scientific findings that debase the ignorantly held pseudo-rational knee-jerk defenses of believers.
It's also funny, in one of the least funny ways possible, how these folks will make this request with a straight face while using it as a dodge to avoid presenting any evidence for their beliefs because they have this "get-out-of-thinking-free" card called "faith" that no one need respect in the slightest regard.
I'm not going to try to argue with you that this constitutes "proof," as we all know you can't really "prove" things in science the way you can in, say, mathematics. Indeed, I'm not even hoping it will convince any of you that believe. But, since it is very instructive for anyone to watch this, particularly sensible people that aren't aware of it, enjoy the following clip of awesome, courtesy of YouTube, Dr. Krauss, and the Richard Dawkins foundation for not being an insufferable idiot.
Yes. Get popcorn. This is long and spell-bindingly interesting… for anyone with the slightest amount of curiosity about how the world actually works.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:22 am 48.Curmudgeon said …
"I'm not going to try to argue with you that this constitutes "proof," as we all know you can't really "prove" things in science"
So you would not agree with Lou's calls for "proof" on God? As a materialist I would think proof would be quite easy to obtain? No? If everything is material, why is proof difficult to obtain?
I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established "God" without calling the deity as such. What makes it so beautiful is that for the materialist, they do not need proof because an atheist philosopher has made the hypothesis.
I have no problem with it. It moves atheist a step closer to God. Remember Parmenides claim that nothing cannot exist; because if nothing existed, it would then be something. But for God, its not that difficult to pull off, quantum or not.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:33 am 49.Anonymous said …
If there was an award for logical fallacies and false premises per square pixel, our Stan would surely be in the running. His latest missive runs his standard gambit – opening fallacy / false premise, word salad, strawman, erroneous conclusion.
I wasn't going to comment but perhaps it will be of some use to anyone tempted to be impressed by his use of science-y sounding stuff.
He starts off with his own curious definition of science. One that, of course, is going to support his conclusion whilst ignoring all the other pesky stuff that doesn't. How this chump can claim the "science" can somehow vindicate his position when he also hides behind the mantra of science not being able to test his woo we shall leave as an exercise to the reader. Certainly those kind of dishonesty and double standards disqualify him from being taken seriously in debate.
His opening premise is also curiously circular. He's assumed what he wants to prove then goes on to say he proved that. Yeah, OK, whatever.
He also plays word games with equivocation in that he mixes and matches cause and effect with directed action. Nice try, but back to shell-game school for you.
As has been pointed out, cause and effect, particularly directed certainly isn't a given for how this universe works. Perhaps it is to those stuck in bronze-age goat-herder land but for anyone with a smattering of science education, it's simply not so.
As we get to the juicy word-salad at the end of the first paragraph it's obvious that he doesn't actually have anything of substance, just another "maybe, if, perhaps, well, it could be, if only you'd take it my way" appeal to ignorance. So, here we shake our heads and say "yep, 40YA, nonsense as usual" – aka Blah, Blah, Blah
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:42 am 50.Anonymous said …
Ah, so now he has a chance to ask someone for "proof" our troll Curmudgeon surfaces.
Say, Cur, where do you go to when we're asking you to provide that proof of god we're still waiting for from November, 2011?
Also, what's with the diversions? You're simply playing a game of shifting the burden of proof. That you keep asking people to educate you when you don't want to hear the answer only avoid answering questions is sad. It's actually pitiful in that we all know that these "questions" have nothing at all to do with YOU proving that god exists.
Someone suggested that you are an atheist in disguise. I think this was raised a while back. I'll say that I think not as an atheist would make better arguments than you even to support theism. You make none, all you do is make yourself look cowardly and silly.
Man up and provide proof of your god or you'll just be ignored as a troll.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:52 am 51.Anonymous said …
Curmudgeon said, in between not answering questions directed at him "I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established "God" without calling the deity as such."
So, Curmudgeon, does this god that you claim Krauss established supposedly answer prayers, have a son, have a desperate need to be worshiped, knows everything going on everywhere yet, curiously, is unable to locate the sole man on earth in a garden he just created, have a thing for foreskins, likes killing people, and so on?
on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:41 am 52.A said …
Anonymous @ #44
Did you ever actually disprove or debunk anything 40YA stated earlier. You raised many fabulous accusations but you never actually cited examples.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:44 am 53.A said …
William Lane Craig destroys Lawrence Krauss in debate last year at NC state. Listen and enjoy.
Marshall where you there?
on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:50 am 54.Xenonphobic said …
"So you would not agree with Lou's calls for "proof" on God? As a materialist I would think proof would be quite easy to obtain? No? If everything is material, why is proof difficult to obtain?" -CurmTroll
Simpleton! Equivocator! Shame! Existence proofs are possible. Explanatory proofs are impossible. Because I'm a nice guy, I'll elaborate.
Example. Claim: apples exist. Proof: present apple.
Existence proofs are possible, even for things that cannot be presented, often but not only by using a modus ponens or modus tollens argument on demonstrable evidence. Example: "Rainbows are only visible when water droplets of a certain kind are suspended in the atmosphere in a certain way. A rainbow is visible. Therefore, there are such water droplets."
You are being asked to provide evidence for the existence of your god. You are not doing so.
Where's the evidence? One argument or scientific insight after another dismantles claims to ignorance as being "evidence." What then? Equivocating on the definition of your deity. Luckily for you, your theology is bunk and has lost power–you'd be cast in to hellfire for claims like the one you made about God if it were true and cast as a heretic into a worldly pyre set by priests if it still held real sway.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:04 am 55.Anonymous said …
Horatiio at 47, apparently my reply was over your head. That's OK, it's not like you ever actually do anything other than raise diversionary arguments just like this one.
Still, provide evidence for the existence of your god and I'll be happy to take it and you on.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:26 am 56.40 year Atheist said …
Empiricism depends upon cause and effect to be valid; that it be valid for all times and places in the universe; that existence and fact not ever be partial. These are the principles that cannot be reduced or tested, yet are known to be valid; they are axiomatic to reason, empiricism, and logic.
So empirical evidence, while demonstrated physically and repeatably, relies on non-provable "truths", in Locke's words: "intuited", as implicit axioms.
The very definition of empiricism insists that the material cause of the material effect be repeatable. But no effect can be verified by experiments repeated everywhere and at all times; so it must be assumed to probably be valid (if it is not falsified at some point). So empirical evidence is probabilistic in nature. It is never certain beyond any possible refutation.
And empiricist David Hume observed that the constant conjunction between a certain cause and a certain effect in no way guarantees a future such conjunction. This is a verification of sorts of the probabilistic nature of empirical findings. However, Hume agreed that cause and effect, while not certain in his mind, is a "useful construct". In fact, despite Hume's concerns, it remains a First Principle because no falsification of it is possible; the failure of a particular proposed "constant conjunction" would merely mean that it does not represent a law of nature, not that the principle of cause and effect has failed.
If the First Principles are believed to be valid – and they must be if empiricism is to be considered valid – then valid truths can be known outside the realm of materialism and empiricism. This is a radical thought to Philosophical Materialists and Logical Positivists who reject any thought of any possible existence beyond the physical material world. For them, reality stops at the end of the physical. Metaphysical reality is rejected.
But this rejection of the obvious leads directly to the logical downfall of such ideologies.
First, the rejection of the validity of the First Principles leads straight and immediately to anti-rationalism, as Friedrich Nietzsche proved. This removal of the basis for rational thought collapses logic into a subjective gumbo of personal opinions based on no absolute foundation whatsoever. Without logic based on the First Principles, contradiction, paradox and non-binary logic become acceptable modes of thought.
Second, the concept of a "philosophy" is itself non-material, having no length, width, breadth or mass. So a non-material philosophy that requires that only material entities exist, self-refutes and dies a death of non-coherence and paradox. The idea that science, a material pursuit, produces axiomatic truth is false.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 3:59 am 57.Lou (DFW) said …
51.40 year Atheist said …
Third, you, like all the other theists here, NEVER, EVER present any evidence of your imaginary god. That's all that matters and that's all that's required. The rest of your pseudo-intellectual babbling is nothing but "smoke-filled coffeehouse crap."
on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:06 am 58.A+ said …
"William Lane Craig destroys Lawrence Krauss in debate last year at NC state. Listen and enjoy."
To claim that Craig won that debate is pretty shaky, but let's have fun and concede that to you.
So what?
A debate, particularly a philosophical debate, despite the value placed on it by some, is a game. It's very much like verbal chess, in a sense. Winning the debate has nothing to do with anything. Krauss has spent his life studying science; Craig has spent his life studying philosophy for the purpose of attempting to validate Bronze Age myths and storytelling, something that was never intended to be taken as properly valid, in the modern sense (one is particularly reminded of this in the doctrine of the Trinity, which is explicitly meant to be confounding to reason and thus requiring faith). To put the men in the same league is utterly ridiculous, and the only real error here was on Krauss's part in volunteering to let this buffoon share the stage with him as if his ideas were worthy of anything more than scorn.
Craig falls back on his stock of philosophical flim-flam arguments that (a) have been slapped around by philosophers, scientists, and other thinking people since their invention and (b) are complete non-starters on getting to any particular theism. Somehow his bullshitting in this regard is tantamount to Krauss's keen understanding of how complicated parts of nature actually work? I call shenanigans of the highest order!
Generally, debating with a theist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good a player someone is. The pigeon is still going to hop up on the board, kick some of the pieces over, poop on something, and strut around oblivious to the game acting as if it accomplished something. Bless whoever first wrote that because it's a gem.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:17 am 59.A++ said …
Also, anyone that points at Craig as a debate-winner as some claim to his superiority or authority is a fool. The man has "won debates" in which he attempts to justify genocide (see Craig v. Harris, Apr. 2011, Notre Dame, e.g.). If you are a human being that stands in front of other people and tries to justify ethnic-cleansing via genocide, then you are a lunatic. Your credibility is utterly lost.
Craig has also been claimed to have won debates by his appeal to the "self-authenticating nature of the holy spirit," sometimes called the "inner-witness" of the same. Anyone who puts forth this kind of crap loses all–yes, ALL–credibility.
He's gone further with that (because it backed him into a corner) and said that if he was shown absolutely unequivocal and incontrovertible evidence that Jesus never was resurrected that because of his inner witness, he'd still believe Jesus was resurrected. That destroys his credibility even further while branding him as the kind of delusional lunatic that he really is.
That anyone listens to him after that blows my mind.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 4:34 am 60.Anonymous said …
That's the point, Lou. Lots of meaningless babbling, psuedo-intellectual posturing, the double-standard I mentioned earlier, laying the groundwork for excuses to come, and the proof of their god? Not addressed even in the slightest.
Best Fail, 2012 – YTD.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 12:15 pm 61.Curmudgeon said …
"Existence proofs are possible. Explanatory proofs are impossible."
So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?
As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?
I'm with you Lou, I got your back.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:10 pm 62.Lou (DFW) said …
56.Curmudgeon said …
"So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?"
He is obviously not saying that.
"As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?"
Why do you continue to lie about what I write here? Show me where I wrote "why should [you] believe something you cannot prove?" Unless you can or you don't retract your comments and cease misquoting me, that makes you a liar.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 1:16 pm 63.Anonymous said …
Curmudgeon, you keep avoiding the question. Let me help you here:
"The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster."
Now, where's that evidence for the existence of your imaginary god that you've so far failed to deliver? Let's see you demonstrate how you're not afraid to demonstrate that your god is real
Say, Cur, where do you go to when we're asking you to provide that proof of god we're still waiting for from November, 2011?
Also, what's with the diversions? You're simply playing a game of shifting the burden of proof. That you keep asking people to educate you when you don't want to hear the answer only avoid answering questions is sad. It's actually pitiful in that we all know that these "questions" have nothing at all to do with YOU proving that god exists.
So, Curmudgeon, does this god that you claim Krauss established supposedly answer prayers, have a son, have a desperate need to be worshiped, knows everything going on everywhere yet, curiously, is unable to locate the sole man on earth in a garden he just created, have a thing for foreskins, likes killing people, and so on?
Would it help if I also linked to your post of November, 2011 where you offered to provide proof of the existence of god? You can't have forgotten, we keep reminding you of it.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 2:16 pm 64.Xenonphobic said …
"So Xenophobic, are you saying this universe from nothing event never existed?
As Lou has been so clear about, why should I believe something you cannot prove?"
No. That's not what I said. Shame! Shame again!
What I was talking about is a simple matter of what can and cannot be established by evidence. Interestingly, 40yA came rather close to what I was talking about by going on a long-winded philosophical babble-fest about whether or not empiricism requires us to believe in metaphysics, specifically when he concludes that science cannot provide axiomatic truth. Maybe you should re-read where I made that statement about "unlike, say, mathematics," where axiomatic truths are routinely established (though those "truths" still rest upon the agreement upon the axioms). That's hard to take out-of-context, though, so you keenly ignored it, like you ignore the requests for evidence of your (or any!) deity.
Since people seem worked up about 40yA's philosophy, let's comment briefly on it. First, a dismantling of empiricism as a philosophy doesn't necessary have anything to do with reality, nor does it have anything to do with establishing a requirement for theology. Let's suppose he is correct, even, in his analysis, AND that it means something objective (which it doesn't–Krauss's big point in his debate with Craig). In that case, he concludes that empiricism, if followed, requires metaphysics–not theology–metaphysics. This metaphysics that is required is simply a set of statements outside of what can be established by the axioms of empiricism (Godel did better, 40yA; you might look at his work to see why EVERY philosophy is necessarily incomplete or inconsistent, which says an awful lot about why theologies, which force completeness, are always so damn inconsistent).
Those metaphysical statements are only required to be of one of two kinds: true statements that cannot be proved true within the context of empiricism and false statements that cannot be proved false within the context of empiricism. There is no requirement that these metaphysical statements should be theological in nature or that any theological statement in this metaphysics is true. Indeed, proper (meaning not idiotic) theological statements are very likely to be the kind that are false and cannot be proven false within the context of empiricism since immediately upon donning theological axioms (which is how you handle these statements when you screw up and say they're anything more than undecidable, e.g. by calling them Truth or choosing to worship them–they become axioms in a new system) you run into all sorts of problems of disagreement with reality. That casts a heavy shadow on those axioms and thus on the likelihood of the truth-value of those undecidable statements outside of empiricism.
Back to Cur's idiocy and thereby to wit, Krauss's lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator, so we have no reason to feel a requirement to fill in that gap in our knowledge with a fairy tale–a magical story for which there is no evidence. Your God could maybe be established by evidence. We're all waiting for that evidence. Maybe you can't hear the repeated injunctions for it, or maybe you're ignoring them because you know as well as everyone else that you can't deliver.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 6:51 pm 65.Curmudgeon said …
Phobic states
"Krauss's lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator"
Interesting point after meandering through a long winded post that fails to present proof of a universe from nothing(the Lou rule of proof). You seem to credit this standard to me, but please, all credit goes to Lou. Please, this new evidence Krauss demonstrates that points away from a deity; could you offer this? Or is it too, a form of veracity that just cannot be "established by evidence"?
See you and Lou keep asking for God evidence but you cannot provide evidence for your own claims so why bother?
Be aware, you mention metaphysics and Lou does not accept metaphysics. You should stay away from that theme.
Evidence for God has been offered up many times on this blog. BTW phobia,as you long unremitting tirade attempted to decree, this has nothing to do with theology. It is about did the universe come about by a Creator. Theology is immaterial here. Horatio, Biff, Ben, Xenon, Boz among others all recognize the evidence. I don't see a need to keep covering the same material.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:05 pm 66.Xenonphobic said …
Go-go-gadget-Curm writes:
'"Krauss's lecture shows us that evidence points away from the necessity of a Prime Mover or Creator"
'Please, this new evidence Krauss demonstrates that points away from a deity; could you offer this?'
Again with the shame!
Read those two sentences. Look at how you have misquoted me. Look at how you are wrong. It is plain as day: "Krauss's evidence points away from the necessity of…" gets translated into "Krauss demonstrates that points away from."
The rest: more dodges, plus a request to prove a negative claim, which is what we're all really making: "the creation of the universe DOES NOT REQUIRE a deity." You don't prove negative positions, Curm. That's where you live when there's no proof of a claim.
We're all willing to hear of some evidence. I don't care, and I doubt anyone cares, how much "evidence" has been presented here before. Apparently no one bought it. We'd all like to hear some from you now.
Now I'll get popcorn.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:23 pm 67.Lou (DFW) said …
60.Curmudgeon said …
"See you and Lou keep asking for God evidence but you cannot provide evidence for your own claims"
I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher. I admit I have no evidence for him, but why don't your prove that he doesn't exist? Because it's not possible, no more than it is to disprove your god claim. Therefore, neither your claim nor mine is valid until we provide evidence. I admitted I don't have any, but you didn't. I am honest, you are a dishonest fraud.
"…so why bother?"
To save yourself from more embarrassment, that's why. Why don't you simply end your charade and admit that you have no evidence? Just admit that your belief is one of faith. It's the only truth that you have.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:23 pm 68.Curmudgeon said …
Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?
You seem unstable and likely to dodge so let me keep this simple. So let us recap.
What exactly have you claimed that can backed with evidence?
Universe from nothing?
No need for a deity demonstrated by?
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:24 pm 69.Xenonphobic said …
Let me make this simple for you, Curm, though it might still be over your head.
Ideally, we look for explanations that meet conditions of both necessity and sufficiency. Sufficiency here indicates that the explanation would be able to account for an observed phenomenon. Necessity indicates that the hypothesis in question is *required* to account for it. You can call it by it's name, Ockham's Razor, or you can call it "common sense," that we strive to cut away unnecessary hypotheses in explaining things. For example: "the earth completely exploded and reformed" is a sufficient explanation to how the dinosaurs died out, but it certainly isn't necessary. Since we see no evidence of that claim anywhere else, we reject it, even though it would explain the mass extinction. Incidentally, Noah's flood is identically sufficient but not necessary in this example. It is therefore summarily rejected based on being unnecessary and generally idiotic.
A creator god is a would-be sufficient explanation to explain existence, but Krauss's work undermines its necessity. It turns out that any number of magical explanations that have nothing to do with gods, or God, are also sufficient and yet unnecessary, so people don't buy them. Examples: "Lord Brahman dreams the whole universe into existence," "the universe just is and always has been," and "aliens in another universe intentionally constructed this universe."
You might be tempted to argue the "sufficiency" of some of those examples, but the arguments you will construct are applicable to god too, as has been repeatedly shown to you.
When I say "Krauss points away from the necessity of a deity," then, that's not the same thing as saying that he points away from a deity. We have no reason to believe in any hypothesis, including a deity, that isn't necessary to explain a thing.
As for Lou's standard of proof, you're misinterpreting him (big f-ing surprise there!). He wants some evidence that points to God. You never give it. In the lingo here, he wants sufficient evidence for which a God as a hypothesis is also necessary. That's what he's saying you can't provide. Further, I suspect he'll quite agree with my assessment of metaphysics, as laid out, as being statements outside of the "physics" created by the axiomatic system of empiricism. If not, he's free to comment. You've proved incapable of grading anything and of speaking for him, so cut it out and stop trying to displace blame repeatedly.
Now, this is surely something you'll try to turn back on Krauss, so let's crap on that move before you do it. Krauss is pointing away from the necessity of the God hypothesis by providing a consistent alternative hypothesis. He is not saying that "this is absolutely certainly how it went down." His reasoning is simple: "We know this kind of thing happens, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that it happened in the formation of the universe. Examining the data we have available to us, we get a good match between predicted consequences of this model and observed reality, so we have more reason to expect this alternative hypothesis has validity."
Why don't you do the same instead of being insufferably thick-headed?
1) Provide your god-hypothesis, whatever it is.
2) Whittle it down to the barest bones of necessity while maintaining sufficiency.
3) Provide data-based evidence that your god-hypothesis makes decent predictions about real observed and observable phenomena.
I won't speak for Lou, but I will bet that this is much more in line of what he's asking for.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:25 pm 70.Curmudgeon said …
"I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher."
Awesome! I don't ask for any evidence either. Have fun with him/her.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:26 pm 71.Xenonphobic said …
"Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?"
Looks like Curm doesn't know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult either.
I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you're an idiot. I'm just calling you an idiot.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:26 pm 72.Curmudgeon said …
Tsk tsk, ad homenim and anger?
You seem unstable and likely to dodge so let me keep this simple. So let us recap.
What exactly have you claimed that can backed with evidence?
Universe from nothing?
No need for a deity demonstrated by?
Keep these simple so Lou can follow along. His burden of proof is very high.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:31 pm 73.Curmudgeon said …
I'm not going to try to argue with you that God's actions constitutes "proof," as we all know you can't really "prove" things in science the way you can in, say, mathematics. Indeed, I'm not even hoping it will convince any of you that don't believe. But, since it is very instructive for anyone to watch this, particularly sensible people that aren't aware of it, enjoy the following clip of awesome, courtesy of YouTube, Dr. Collins, and the Veritas Forum for not being an insufferable idiot.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 7:52 pm 74.Xenonphobic said …
Collins? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Saw a waterfall in three cascades and remember the Trinity after reading C.S. Lewis and converted from de facto (unexamined) disbelief to Christianity Collins? Wow. Bad move.
Let's consider the slide Collins puts up about a third of the way into his talk:
"Nature provides some interesting pointers to God
-There is something instead of nothing
-"The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"
-The Big Bang" (cf. something instead of nothing)
From here, Collins jumps to "so there must be a supernatural something behind it all."
So Krauss's talk, which is considerably more recent, removes the first and third objection Collins has here. That's the point of Krauss's findings. They remove the blinders from that situation and give a plausible natural explanation, contrary to what Collins says. So Collins fell for the old God-of-the-Gaps argument there (aka argument from ignorance). Krauss offers a filling to that gap that should make Collins shake in his boots because a "supernatural creator" is no longer the "only 'reasonable' alternative" to "something came from nothing." Krauss showed that something will always come from "nothing." That's not so unreasonable, then.
The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is really surprising to me. We built mathematics specifically to be this kind of effective tool, so when someone is surprised at how effective it is, it's pretty damn surprising. The fundamental meaning of the concepts in mathematics are designed around understanding fundamental concepts in the world.
Then Collins goes on to say "there must have been a creator, so let's call the creator God." Okay, let's. That's a stupid choice of name, though, because "God" already means something else (in theology) and thus is likely to cause confusion (as it clearly did). That leads Collins to read C.S. Lewis and see a waterfall and take the big non sequitur leap from deist, which is all that his little slide could possibly lead him to, to theist to Christian. That's not evidence. It's pointing to a lack of evidence as evidence.
A lack of evidence is not evidence unless we're making a modus tollens kind of argument, but such arguments absolutely require necessity to get off the ground. Since the god-hypothesis cannot be demonstrated to be necessary, it goes nowhere.
You've got better than this kind of flim-flam holding up your worldview, Curm, don't you? I hope so. Wow.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:08 pm 75.Curmudgeon said …
I dunno, Collins is much more believable than you. Sort of creative how I took your post and with a few word changes make the my case. And no, if you have read any of Collin's works, his belief in God consist of more than the natural.
Yes Phobia, a natural explanation of something from nothing is more believable than a supernatural. How laughable. The natural producing ex nihilo. How quaint! If you can provide me one example….maybe. But you have not. Is this all that holds your atheistic worldview together? No wonder the religion is so small.
Now for your claim.
"They remove the blinders from that situation and give a plausible natural explanation, contrary to what Collins says."
Which is what?
on 07 Feb 2012 at 9:24 pm 76.Xenonphobic said …
Can you read, Curm? Collins says "there is no reasonable natural explanation." That's what Krauss provided.
Actually, no one said anything about "ex nihilo." What Krauss pointed out is that there is a fundamental difference between "nothing" in the "nihilo" sense and nothing in the sense that actually is in the universe. The "real nothing" is unstable and gives rise to things. Everything else is philosophical pissing around that goes nowhere toward any particular theism… only to deism, and only to a deism remote from the original deism since "creation" doesn't really require too much and even then only when a feeble human mind needs to fill in a gap in his knowledge with some kind of explanation for something that doesn't necessarily need an explanation (but might end up with one someday anyway).
So where does that leave your god, for which you've provided no evidence except a pointer to gaps? It leaves him as the creator of a universe of nothing but vacuum energy. If you want to call vacuum energy "God," I suppose you're entitled to do that, as stupid as it is. So what, though? Vacuum energy doesn't care what you call it, whether you believe in it, or if or how you worship it.
"Is this all that holds your atheistic worldview together? No wonder the religion is so small."
Are you really that stupid, Curm? Atheism isn't a religion. This point has been covered about a bajillion times. It's the rejection of religions. It's not having a religion. It's not even a worldview. It's not embracing any of a particular class of worldviews called theologies.
As to Collins sounding more convincing than I do, so what? "Sounding convincing" has nothing to do with being correct about something. There's a whole collection of fields for "sounding convincing," like marketing and con-artistry.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:05 pm 77.Lou (DFW) said …
71.Xenonphobic said …
"Are you really that stupid, Curm? Atheism isn't a religion."
No, he's a pathological liar.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:06 pm 78.Lou (DFW) said …
65.Curmudgeon said …
"I made no claims except for the Purple Gnome who lives in my dishwasher."
"Awesome! I don't ask for any evidence either. Have fun with him/her."
Why not?
on 07 Feb 2012 at 10:19 pm 79.Xenonphobic said …
73.Lou (DFW) said …
"Why not?"
Because he's an idiot, pathological liar or not.
on 07 Feb 2012 at 11:46 pm 80.Anonymous said …
So, come on Curm, you made this claim, now let's see you flesh it out.
I have seen how it works. Essentially Krauss has established "God" without calling the deity as such.
First, why do you say that?
Which god is this? Perhaps you, like Horatiio, have also come round to the conclusion that deism is the only place you can hide your god? Expand, please.
Tell us about this god you say Krauss established. Define it, tell us about its properties, and tell us what proof you have regarding its continued existence. We'll start there and proceed.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 1:05 am 81.Curmudgeon said …
"What Krauss pointed out is that there is a fundamental difference between "nothing" in the "nihilo" sense and nothing in the sense that actually is in the universe."
Yes, yes I know. I was being felicitous. I have read some of his work.
"The "real nothing" is unstable and gives rise to things."
Sigh, another claim with no proof.
"Atheism isn't a religion."
Yawn, yes it is. It is no more than a worldview like Taoism.
"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."
1. No Gods, Religion is evil, Theist are delusional, etc.
Now lets cut to the chase. I am on a blog which is selling atheism. It is supported by supposed proofs of why God is imaginary. All of the "proofs" are fallacious at best. I use your own criteria "proof" since you all are strict materialist to ask you to support valid questions.
Universe from nothing?
No need for a deity demonstrated by?
Mr Q claimed the first lifeforms were single cell. No proof provided
All any of you have is ad homenim attacks. In fact, Phobia even admits he cannot provide proof.
In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic. You provide nothing, especially Lou. You don't want to support your view, you only want ammo to attack another view. This means you have nothing to offer. Why would anyone want it?
Most of you are cowards with your redefining of atheism to reflect the words "lack of belief" while the true atheist actually still claim "No God". That I can respect.
If you have no proof, then fine. Shut down the blog and participate on a Theistic website.
So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in.
Prediction: More ad homenim blasts!
on 08 Feb 2012 at 2:05 am 82.Curminator said …
One more time, Curm: only positive claims require proof. You may require convincing to leave your worldview, which if it is an Abrahamic religion you can find simply by honestly reading the bible, but claims like "I don't believe in gods" do not require evidence. Show the god or admit you have no reason to believe in it. Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on following real evidence to the wonders it will uncover, allowing us to marvel at our universe for what it really is.
By the way, go look up ad hominems and insults. Really, we're just insulting you. It's not the same.
I hope you enjoy your hollow "victory." Anything that brings more cheer to the world certainly can't be too bad. We'll keep thinking for you, nonetheless.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 2:40 am 83.Anonymous said …
Interesting; more evasion, more avoiding providing anything to back up his position, more nonsense, more proclamations, and not one iota of evidence or proof. What a total idiot. And, no, that's not ad hom. either.
Now, you can bluster all you like and you are fooling no-one – not even yourself – that your comments about who needs to provide proof is in any well either a victory or even rational. You see, you also undermine yourself with your continued attempts to drive the conversation off track and your willful and deliberate attempts to avoid the conversation that show you to be the delusional idiot that you certainly portray here.
Perhaps you actually believe the nonsense you spew here? Frankly, I doubt anyone can be that dense, hence it does seem that you're just trolling. Perhaps its a game, perhaps it your obvious anger that you've wasted a life believing, what, idiotic bronze age myths. Honestly, no-one cares, it was your choice to remain uneducated.
So now you claim "victory" as an excuse to withdraw. In other words, you have nothing to offer in support of your god – you are so spectacularly dishonest that you won't even respond to questions about your own statements – but that's OK.
In the end, Crum, you've contributed no value to this conversation so you'll only be missed in terms of lost comedic value.
You'll be back, though. New pair of socks next week?
on 08 Feb 2012 at 3:17 am 84.Lou (DFW) said …
76.Curmudgeon said …
"Atheism isn't a religion."
"Yawn, yes it is."
Yawn, no it isn't. By definition, it CANNOT be a religion. Atheism isn't really even an "ism."
"Now lets cut to the chase. I am on a blog which is selling atheism."
No, you aren't, regardless of how much you lie about it.
"In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic. You provide nothing, especially Lou."
Here we go again with a straw-man argument. I am not here to offer anything. I am here to read what YOU HAVE TO OFFER. So far, that has been NOTHING, NADA, ZIP evidence of your imaginary god.
"Most of you are cowards with your redefining of atheism to reflect the words "lack of belief" while the true atheist actually still claim "No God". That I can respect."
Cowards? Really? That's rich coming from a pathological liar.
"So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial."
That's all you have to do in order to demolish everyone who doubts the belief in your imaginary god – offer something substantial.
"If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in."
Who gives a rat's behind what you consider to be a victory post? There's no more substance to that than is in your claim that god exists. It's 100% meaningless. Extraordinary claims require evidence. There's no more evidence for your "victory post" than there is for your imaginary god. Your "victory post" is nothing but a retreat by an intellectually dishonest coward. You might as well retort to that with your single-cell lifeforms tangent. It's no more relevant to your victory post claim than it is to your imaginary god claim.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 3:55 am 85.Lou (DFW) said …
76.Curmudgeon said …
"In order to leave my worldview, you must provide valid evidence, proof and logic."
Another straw-man argument. Nobody here is trying to convince you to "leave my worldview." We only want to see your evidence for what is the basis of your "worldview" – your imaginary god.
"If you have no proof, then fine. Shut down the blog and participate on a Theistic [sic] website."
"Theistic?" Are you now also redefining theistic so that it requires a capital T? And here you are on a blog that "explores God and religion in our world today," insistent on discussing big-bang, biology, and evolution, while telling everyone else to take their discussion of evidence for your imaginary god to a "Theistic [sic] website?!
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:41 am 86.DPK said …
"So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in…"
You are exactly like the chess playing chicken…. enjoy your hiatus, no hurry back though… the only one who thinks you've proven something is you…
Why don't you take a stab at my question to your other persona, Xenon> in 27, which, as predicted, has been met with silence.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:02 pm 87.Anonymous said …
"So prove me wrong. Offer something substantial. If not, I consider this my victory post and I head back to my occasional pop-in…"
The fact that god won't heal amputees proves you wrong.
The fact that the god portrayed in the bible is a blundering idiot and psychopath proves you wrong.
The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong.
The fact that your god never communicates with you or anyone else proves you wrong.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:22 pm 88.Anonymous said …
Actually, current UN figures have it at 25,000 dying of hunger or hunger related causes per day. That's one every 3.5 seconds. But don't worry, Xtians will rationalize that to be the fault of man not carrying out their god's good work or some other utterly delusional excuse.
But we need to be careful. If we offer the troll something "substantial" he might stay, and we really don't need the input of someone whose major contribution is to be the kind of moron who believes bronze-age goat-herder's stories to be the defining act of intellectual attainment.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:44 pm 89.Xenon said …
Good one Curmudgeon.
Atheism is the worldview of no evidence no morals no future an no hope. Maybe they can use that for a bumper sticker.
The GII site is good for a laugh.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:57 pm 90.A said …
How does children with no food prove there in not a god?
on 08 Feb 2012 at 5:58 pm 91.DPK said …
Nice dodge on #27 Xenon. I knew you wouldn't have the balls to offer an answer. Par for the course.
I'm an atheist, I have morals, I have a future, in fact, I have a great life full of love and meaning. So that makes you full of shit.
One thing I don't have is a need to pathologically lie. So I guess that puts my morals way above yours.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:08 pm 92.Lou (DFW) said …
84.Xenon said …
"Atheism is the worldview of no evidence no morals no future an no hope. Maybe they can use that for a bumper sticker."
The pigeon crapped on the chess board again.
"The GII site is good for a laugh."
Unfortunately, you aren't. You're simply pathetic.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:14 pm 93.Anonymous said …
Remember, all he has is insults. That's absolutely all he has.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:21 pm 94.A said …
Nice dodge of my question. X and Cur are right on about about these posters.
Let others observe and learn.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:36 pm 95.Anonymous said …
LOLHor – thanks for the confirmation of #88
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:38 pm 96.Lou (DFW) said …
85.A said …
"How does children with no food prove there in not a god?"
Because it conflicts with the idea and ideals of your imaginary god.
Now, please provide YOUR evidence to the contrary.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:40 pm 97.DPK said …
85.A said …
"How does children with no food prove there in not a god?"
It doesn't prove there is no god. It proves there is no all loving, perfect god who answers prayers and intercedes in human affairs on a daily basis, who is all good, all loving, and all powerful and helps Tim Tebow win football games and cures old ladies of psoriasis. No one can prove there is no god, because when you do the believers just keep moving the goal post. But you can demonstrate to anyone with an open mind and half a brain that the god of the bible and Koran is not an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being.
on 08 Feb 2012 at 6:42 pm 98.DPK said …
Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question, perhaps you will take a stab at my question to Xenon, aka Hor, aka Curm in #27??? Or will you also be calling the kettle black?
on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:39 am 99.A said …
"It doesn't prove there is no god. It proves there is no all loving, perfect god"
then you said,
"No one can prove there is no god"
and previously it was said,
"children with no food prove there in not a god"
Do you understand logic? I'll give you another shot. Which is it. I have never moved a goal post but you are doing a fine job.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 2:40 am 100.A said …
"Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question"
You did? You may have to point that out.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 3:41 am 101.Lou (DFW) said …
94.A said …
"Do you understand logic?"
Do you understand simple English? Apparently not.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 3:55 am 102.DPK said …
""children with no food prove there in not a god""
Where did I say that? In fact, where did anyone say that?
""Now, Mr. A… since we have answered your question"
You did? You may have to point that out."
If you can't read for yourself, sorry, I'm not going to point it out for you. Do you have a rebuttal, or even an actual point, or do you just like to bluster.
How about a simple answer… why does your all powerful loving god allow innocent children to starve to death every single day?
We're waiting.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 12:08 pm 103.Anonymous said …
"Where did I say that? In fact, where did anyone say that?"
Actually, he said that as part of his usual "make up stuff that no-one said so that he can divert the conversation away from proving that his god doesn't exist" routine.
So, once again we see the intellectual dishonesty and evasion from our resident sock-puppet / troll theist. It should be obvious to anyone, even a believer, that no-one has an answer to these questions which is why they'll always try to turn the conversation to someone else.
The fact that they keep coming back with "so how does that prove my god doesn't exist" when they NEVER EVER offer proof that he does, is more than enough for any sane person to see that gods, Jesus, etc, don't and didn't exist.
They can bitch and moan, shift the burden of proof, but they've had two-thousand years and they still won't address the subject directly?
It's a delusion. It's game over. And we can thank Xenon, Horatiio, Curmudgeon, Q, A, Ben, Boz, whatever and whoever they want to pretend to be, for making it clear what a crock of shit religion actually is.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 5:45 pm 104.Curmudgeon said …
Your post in 94 is a perfect example of assertion and then running these atheist participate in. In #82 Lou claims you are wrong with his list including starving kids proves no God.
I showed some of these posts to my wife and she got a huge laugh out of this perceived logic. Seriously, paste it into a Word doc. and then read it as an argument. It is a hoot.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:13 pm 105.DPK said …
If you do, at least read what is written and stop making things up. I never said starving kids prove there is no god. As been asserted here many times before, you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Santa Clause, the tooth fairy or the Keebler Elves (who's cookies, at least, are delicious.) What you CAN do, and what I SAID was, you can demonstrate that the properties attributed to a god do not fit the observable evidence. If god is all powerful and all loving, then he would not let innocent children starve to death daily. If he is powerless to prevent it, he is not all powerful. If he can prevent it but chooses not to, he is not all good. So, you god either is a contradiction of your definition of him, in other words, a sadistic monster, or he simply doesn't exist. Do you, or your wife have a third option to offer for consideration?
What WAS said, by A I believe, not Lou, was that "The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong." And by "prove you wrong" I take it to mean that god as you declare him to be, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, who responds to prayers and intercedes in the physical world does not exist. Perhaps you and he are not talking about the same god?? Perhaps yours is in fact a god who delights in pain and suffering, and deliberately inflicts torment on children for his amusement or to teach them some lesson. Remember, I have asked you on this forum multiple times to define your god and what his characteristics are so that we can examine the evidence for his existence, and you have refused to do so, over and over, and over. Why is that Curm? Why haven't you answered my question in #27, or any other questions posed of you. Do you not have an answer or are you afraid your answer will be exposed for the steaming pile of excrement that it is?
on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:27 pm 106.Lou (DFW) said …
99.Curmudgeon said …
"In #82 Lou claims you are wrong with his list including starving kids proves no God."
Liar, I DID NOT!
91.Lou (DFW) said …
85.A said …
"How does children with no food prove there in not a god?"
"Because it conflicts with the idea and ideals of your imaginary god."
What I wrote was "…your imaginary god." Repeating – YOUR IMAGINARY GOD. Not "god."
on 09 Feb 2012 at 6:29 pm 107.Lou (DFW) said …
99.Curmudgeon said …
"I showed some of these posts to my wife…"
You have a wife?! I supposed it's too much to hope that you don't have any offspring.
"..and she got a huge laugh out of this perceived logic."
Who cares? Her judgement is obviously flawed.
on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:28 pm 108.Christianity is Wonderful said …
I read through a few of through a good majority of these comments, and good Lord, I had a good laugh.
You men and women, may think you have everything completely figured out, but if you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else's "research". Now, I know I won't be able to convince anyone via internet (I've spent many hours barking up that tree.), but if you care to see a well formed argument FOR Christianity, I recommend checking out a few books by C.S.Lewis. (And although the Chronicles of Narnia are a good allusion to the Gospel message, those are not the books I mean.)
Lastly, I hope you all have wonderful, blessed lives.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 3:39 am 109.Lou (DFW) said …
103.Christianity is Wonderful said …
"Now, I know I won't be able to convince anyone via internet (I've spent many hours barking up that tree.)"
But, here you are anyway, barking up that tree again.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 4:01 am 110.Anonymous said …
CIW, what books by well-known authors have you read on other religions in order to ensure you have not fallen foul of the issue you bring up when you say "..you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else's "research""?
For example, if all you have read is Christian apologetics and writings, it would be hypocritical of you to address people as you just did. So, please, we so rarely (never) get someone coming through who can explain how they reject other gods, but not the one they worship. We'd all be very interested in what you learned from your research. Please do share.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 111.DPK said …
I read your post and good Lord, I had a good laugh. CS Lewis??
You may think you have everything completely figured out, but if you were as smart as you state, you should not become complacent because of someone else's "research". I recommend checking out:
And when you have studied it sufficiently, please come back and explain to us specifically why you accept your Christian myth and no others.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 6:30 am 112.Curmudgeon said …
Well, you really do have it all wrong. They have nothing figured out, they stand for nothing and defend nothing. The site does make for good entertainment.
I too like CS Lewis, he did figure it out. Some good works there.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:51 pm 113.Anonymous said …
Curmudgeon, it's hard for you to keep track of your various guises we know, but you announced you were leaving. Remember?
If you are staying, you still owe us the evidence of your god that you promised to provide back in November of 2011. Please provide it. It would be so much clearer, not to mention honest, for you to do so rather than your taunts and emotional outbursts.
on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:58 pm 114.Lou (DFW) said …
107.Curmudgeon said …
"They have nothing figured out, they stand for nothing and defend nothing."
If nothing else, then we have YOU, "Ben," "figured out" and outed.
"The site does make for good entertainment."
Yes, especially when Frauds (notice the capital F like "Theists") like Crum make a mistake when commenting as one of their sock puppets – hilarious!
on 13 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 115.j_lozano713 said …
"Reality and truth" is the actual world we live in. What you smell, feel, taste, see, and touch is necessary to experience reality and truth. Reality and truth is what rational people strive for. We may not know all the answers, since science is fairly young (500 years), while religion is thousands of years old. Everytime we discover something through science, there is less and less evidence for any god to exist. One day humanity will evolve into all rational beings, but until then, we will keep striving for reality and truth.
"A foolish faith in authority, is the enemy of the truth"- Albert Einstein
on 16 Feb 2012 at 5:06 am 116.Someone101 said …
This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous. People should believe what they want. You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what's Thay you say? You can't? Hmm what a shame. Even if you could throw some numbers out, who is to say that God did not make it that way? What, you think we are here by coincidence? Chance? What? Are you butt hurt atheists only an atheist because you got dealt a bad hand at life? Woe you. You think that if God existed he'd take care of all your problems but since your problems exist you automatically decide that he must not exist simply because of what you're going through? That's real fair. What causes a lot of traumatic things to happen? Sin? Coincidence? I don't know you makers of the website think you know it all, honestly, you don't know the half of it. Shame on all of you for taking biblical quotes and twisting them in your favor. Look, if you have nothing good to offer about religion because you don't believe in it then keep your mouths shut and leave Christians alone. The two groups can coincide in society but its made difficult when people like you with harsh lives try to twist the words of the bible to try and prove a point. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 5:28 am 117.Someone101 said …
AND BY THE WAY, children not having food if ANYTHING helps provide support for the existence of God. How?
Not God's fault people are starving, it's OURS.
Look, any argument thrown by atheists can be answered. Which is why arguing over the existence of God is a waste of our time because it cannot currently be proved either way. There is only answers that support or refuse either groups hypothesis.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:02 am 118.alex said …
"You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what's Thay you say? You can't?"
Once again, crusaders come in here talkin shit. What is the title of the page? Why won't god heal amputees!
Get it thru your thick skull. You can't prove a negative. Challenge me to prove that Santa doesn't exist. Oh, what's that I say? I can't? Then Santa exists, I can't prove it. Same shit with you god.
It's up to you to prove it. It's your god.
"butt hurt atheists"
Ignorant, homophobic? That's why you idiots get no more free passes! You walk around talking shit smug in your own flawed beliefs. I bet you're gay?
"Look, if you have nothing good to offer about religion because you don't believe in it then keep your mouths shut and leave Christians alone".
Yeah and let you go around doing stupid shit like championing Creationism in school, beat up fags, oppress women, and molest children with impunity. Yeah, then you can do it over and over again, because Jesus forgives you?
I suspect Someone101 won't be back, but dozens more like him will be…….
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:07 am 119.alex said …
"Reality and truth" is the actual world we live in. What you smell, feel, taste, see, and touch is necessary to experience reality and truth. Reality and truth is what rational people strive for.
Says who? Is this proof of god? This doesn't tell me shit.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:19 pm 120.Someone101 said …
Who said anything about oppressing women and beating up fags? There is no way to prove or disprove anything. Hence as to why I said WASTING OUR TIME. Yet again you people only read what you want and don't refute things that you can't because you have nothing to say. Your talk about people championing creationism in schools is not a religion I belong to. You're thinking of more extremist. I'm not arguing Thay what they do is right. Yet again, you people putting words in people's mouths. Oh and guess what else? IM A GIRL. You can't prove he doesn't exist and I can't prove that he can. Yet again, wasting our time. And people comparing god with Santa is ignorant. Since when do we gave a Bible or a book about Santa? I have better things to do than waste valublr time trying to prove things that can't be proved. You can't prove he doesn't exist, I can't prove that he does.
I don't know where you get off saying about molesting children. It takes screwed IP people to do that. Its people like you that give chritins a bad name.om telling you right now that o ado go to church and anyone who degrade women and molest children I'm MY belief will not be going to heaven. Everything you justdescribed does not describe my religion AT ALL.
Pure ignorance.
Because you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about.
Nothing here can be proved. There is only evidence to support each theory.
so I am sure you will pick apart every last word here and twist them to your favor. Go ahead. But I'm done arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about because they only read about the crazies and don't pay any mind to the normal Christian people. Besides you have probably never stepped foot into a church or cracked open the bible. So don't talk shit about something you know absolutely nothing about. You know nothing about religion, clearly, or you'd see that churches help with a lot of things That most people don't. Donations food to people, etc.
I may not be back because we are wasting our time so do what you do so well and tear this apart and twist my words to your favor, just like you did with butt hurt. Which was nothing towards gays, it was toward people who are all, "I can't live with my life cry cry cry." Vs people that stand up and live with what cards they're dealt.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:27 pm 121.Anonymous said …
#116 Someone 101 said:
"You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this."
The fact that god won't heal amputees proves that your God is imaginary.
The fact that the god portrayed in the bible is a blundering idiot and psychopath proves that your God is imaginary.
The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove that your God is imaginary.
The fact that your god never communicates with you or anyone else proves that your God is imaginary..
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:31 pm 122.ReligionIsStupid said …
Someone, I'll be happy to leave you alone. All you need do is wake up, stop believing in magic men in the sky, stop passing off your shit as anything other than a collection of pre-scientific folk stories, dismantle that evil institution of the church, and join us in reality.
Until then, we owe out to society to free your mind from the abomination that is religion. If it helps you feel better about this, I think that all religions are equally as silly, so there's no need to feel that anyone is ganging up just on your fantasy.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:32 pm 123.Someone101 said …
1. Our tissues weren't made for regeneration. We aren't starfish. Get over it.
2. Please show me in the bible where Gos is, "A blundering idiotic psychopath." Oh that's your opinion? Exactly, THAT'S YOUR OPINION.
3. Clearly you don't read well, I addressed this issue, FREE WILL. I don't are you doing anything about those 10,000 children? But I'd everyone worked together would their be as many children starving? No.
4. Woopti doo I can't talk to God face to face, but you can't talk to someone that was here when the earth "evolved." Differences? Nope.
you still failed to show me the SCIENTIFIC (which includes numbers and mathematics for you idiots out there), that he doesn't exist. Why? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE. JUST LIKE I CANNOT PROVE HIS EXISTENCE. And I have a thick skull? I think not.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:39 pm 124.Someone101 said …
You think I should join someone that they were going to leave me alone and them bashed me through the rest of the post? Yeah right. If you think every region is equally as silly that proves your ignorance to me. There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS. I dont belong to one. Evil institution of the church? If they're so evil then why do they give food and money to the poor? Probably because people like you in your 'reality' don't see what reality is really there. Poor starving people that CHURCHES (not you) are trying to help.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:49 pm 125.Someone101 said …
So wake up and smell your "reality" because churches are doing more about the reality than all of you. Who made the earth in the state it is today? WE did, not God. Like I said, we are all just wasting our time here. Nothing is going to prove either hypothesis.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 2:58 pm 126.ReligionIsStupid said …
Exactly, you can't prove your god exists because he's just a delusion.
You recognize the nonsense in other religions, but not your own. Step outside your delusion and you'll see yours more clearly.
Yes, you are wasting your time because all you have are the stories of uneducated goat herders.
Religion is stupid, but you're just misguided. But very angry too.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 3:46 pm 127.ReligionIsStupid said …
Ah, I see. You know what everyone does, who helps, who doesn't, you know that anything that doesn't support your claim is either because they are evil or have free will. You know you can't prove your god exists, so you resort to challlenging people to disprove something that doesn't exist.
Your church is good, and priest who rape children? Free will, or not true Christians, which is your favorite excuse?
You want to claim that things would be different if people read your silly book, but fail to admit you haven't either. Or did you, and you decided to be ok with all that slavery, misogyny, killing, and barbarism? Oh, perhaps you need a new excuse here? Let's try context.
Somehow all these mental gymnastics make more sense to you than it just being the camp fire stories of a group of uneducated nomads? Really?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm 128.DPK said …
"So wake up and smell your "reality" because churches are doing more about the reality than all of you. Who made the earth in the state it is today? WE did, not God."
But doesn't everything happen according to god's plan? I'm confused, but apparently not as confused as you are.
"This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous. People should believe what they want. You say Zeus is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this. Oh, what's Thay you say? You can't? Hmm what a shame. Even if you could throw some numbers out, who is to say that Zeus did not make it that way?"
Do you believe in Zeus, Mr. Someone? Why the hell not? You say people should believe what they want… but then you say "There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS." Says who? Who is telling you you aren't allowed to believe what you want? No one. But that doesn't exempt you from ridicule. You are free to believe any ridiculous nonsense you want to. "Free will" is your answer? Do you think the thousand or so children who will die today of malnutrition do so of their own free will? Really? And isn't their death and suffering a part of god's plan? Yes or no.. it is or it isn't. Make up your mind, you are so full of contradictions.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 6:19 pm 129.DPK said …
Someone… I'll repost this for your benefit. Will you answer the questions that Curm, Ben, Xenon, and the other personas just dodge and weave around? If not, why not?
I never said starving kids prove there is no god. As been asserted here many times before, you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Santa Clause, the tooth fairy or the Keebler Elves (who's cookies, at least, are delicious.) What you CAN do, and what I SAID was, you can demonstrate that the properties attributed to a god do not fit the observable evidence. If god is all powerful and all loving, then he would not let innocent children starve to death daily. If he is powerless to prevent it, he is not all powerful. If he can prevent it but chooses not to, he is not all good. So, you god either is a contradiction of your definition of him, in other words, a sadistic monster, or he simply doesn't exist.
Do you have a third option to offer for consideration?
What WAS said was that "The 10,000 children who will die of starvation today prove you wrong." And by "prove you wrong" I take it to mean that god as you declare him to be, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, who responds to prayers and intercedes in the physical world does not exist. Perhaps you and he are not talking about the same god?? Perhaps yours is in fact a god who delights in pain and suffering, and deliberately inflicts torment on children for his amusement or to teach them some lesson. Remember, I have asked on this forum multiple times to define your god and what his characteristics are so that we can examine the evidence for his existence… will you do that? Tell us exactly what properties define your god. Is he omniscient and omnipotent? Does everything in the universe happen according to his plan and his will? Is he perfect? Is he loving? Does he answer prayers and intercede in the affairs of the physical world? Are the bible stories about him communicatiing face to face with people, and doing things directly to the world, like Noah's flood, killing all the 1st born of Egypt, parting the Red Sea, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, did they actually happen?
Lastly, you said, "Who said anything about oppressing women and beating up fags?" The offensiveness of your words aside, this leads me to ask the question, "Have YOU ever actually READ the bible?" Because, if you have, I don't see how you could possibly say this. The bible is quite clear that god wants, or at the very, very least, wanted, in biblical times, us to oppress women, kill homosexuals and all manner of other "sinners" including our own children, own slaves and all other manner of things that most people today would consider clearly immoral. That fact is simply undeniable. If you continue to try and deny it, then that in itself is clear evidence that you are delusional and not in touch with reality.
So, what's it going to be? Are you going to answer these questions, or like the rest of your delusional cohorts here, will you just disappear only to reappear in a few days under a new moniker and try to re-assert your ridiculous positions all over again?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 7:27 pm 130.Anonymous said …
Someone, let's also add some of this for clarification. I'm going to post from the perspective of your beliefs being aligned with Christianity. If you are Christian but believe differently, do correct me or explain how you know your version of Christianity is correct.
Our tissues weren't made for regeneration. We aren't starfish. Get over it.
So, your god made man with dominion over the animals but he gave these unintelligent creatures (Starfish, good example) the ability to regenerate whereas we'd bleed to death? Sound sensible to you? Also, why are you always seeing anger in everyone but you? Sounds like some serious projection going on here.
Also, how is it that your god can, apparently, do all manner of "miracles" but he can only do ones that man can do? That's the point you are avoiding. He can, apparently, cure illness, bad colds, fix broken bones, win sports-games, but his miracles are limited to only what we can do without him? Not very omnipotent is he?
2. Please show me in the bible where Gos is, "A blundering idiotic psychopath." Oh that's your opinion? Exactly, THAT'S YOUR OPINION.
Well, first, that's a strawman as you decided to get angry about something you pretended someone else said. But let's give you a couple of examples anyway. First, you missed all that smiting and stuff, did you? What about god not being able to find the only naked man in existence in the garden he created? Not very swift your Yahweh is he?
3. Clearly you don't read well, I addressed this issue, FREE WILL. I don't are you doing anything about those 10,000 children? But I'd everyone worked together would their be as many children starving? No.
First, which part of the bible do you base this statement on? Second, do you know that DPK and Lou can fly? It's true, but they are exercising their free-will not to. Please demonstrate that my assertion is untrue without invalidating yours.
4. Woopti doo I can't talk to God face to face, but you can't talk to someone that was here when the earth "evolved." Differences? Nope.
At least you admit that you don't actually come face to face with your god, as others do. But that brings up an interesting point. Why do they get to meet this god and you don't? That's not fair.
Second, what are you on because that's some good shit. The earth didn't "evolve", who the heck taught you that? Also, there's a lot of things that no-one claimed to be able to do that they can't do? What is your point here?
Differences? You appear to be addicted to strawmen and other irrelevant arguments?
you still failed to show me the SCIENTIFIC (which includes numbers and mathematics for you idiots out there), that he doesn't exist. Why? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE. JUST LIKE I CANNOT PROVE HIS EXISTENCE. And I have a thick skull? I think not.
no-one needs to demonstrate to you that things that don't exist, don't exist. Yours is the task to take on to prove that this god exists. Otherwise he joins Thor, Zeus, Ra, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and a whole load of literary characters that people wrote about but existed only in their imagination.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 7:57 pm 131.randyjordan said …
are yall so ignorant that the air you breath is not your own. can you make and breath your own air. i bet not. just because you try so hard not to believe doesn't make god fake. cause if the big bang is true then why is it that when two cars hit head on there isn't life created but death and serious injuries. please prove that god isn't real. email me at email@example.com and prove me wrong. cause i've seen the very hand of god move. the problem is your lack of faithfulness. stop saying you're waiting on god when he is waiting on you to change and accept him.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:08 pm 132.alex said …
we need a filter on this blog to exclude the morons. even though you can't see this filter, it exists. if you pray hard enough, this filter will materialize and exclude the morons…..
prove to me that this filter doesn't exist!
on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:21 pm 133.DPK said …
"if the big bang is true then why is it that when two cars hit head on there isn't life created but death"
Ok… you got me. I'm speechless, and that doesn't happen often. But there are simply no possible words to respond to this, other than perhaps "WTF" and that hardly does it justice.
The next time some theist wants me to disprove intelligent design, all we have to do is point them to this post. randy should be the new poster child for theism. That would end it right quick.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 134.Burebista said …
"This whole website is down right ignorant and ridiculous."
It is Someone but admit it. The site is really is entertaining. Hard to believe these folk walk and talk and everything
The site is so serious and relevant that its founder will not even ascribe his mane to to it. He did at once, but now he runs and hides.
Check out Marshall Brain on WWGHA way back. http://web.archive.org/web/20051102090554/whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god.htm
on 16 Feb 2012 at 8:32 pm 135.Burebista said …
BTW, check out Richard Deem who does not hide. In one page completely debunks the entire WWGHA premise.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:24 pm 136.Someone101 said …
Yet again. This is all I have to say. You have all FAILED to disprove God's existence. Something I have repeatedly asked for over and over. Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Saying things such as, "He wouldn't allow this and that if he was all loving." You all seem to forget who foiled Gods plans in the beginning. Satan anyone? It isn't God that is punishing and hurting people, its the evils of the world that is. If we all weren't so selfish would we have starving people or homeless people? Hmm nope. And quit twisting aepund the whole free will thing. Because free will is what got this wprld into this mess. Yiu can reply, but take note I will continue to repeat mtself. Yet again, there is no proving God and there is no disproving God. I can't do it. AND NEITHER CAN YOU. So quit acting like you know everything there is to know because I know you don't know it all and neither do I.
Have fun rotting in hell. Oh, and have a nice day (:
on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:32 pm 137.Someone101 said …
And I'm done answering questions. I have answers but you'll only turn it back around. I'm done wasting my time on you people. You don't want to believe? Fine, then don't. But you don't have to start blogs such as these online as a means of offending people. I'm done arguing, you are all ungrateful, clearly. You can't prove anything. Neither can I. Get over it and move on.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:34 pm 138.DPK said …
"You all seem to forget who foiled Gods plans in the beginning. Satan anyone?"
hahaha… your god is supposed to be all powerful. Satan foiled his plans? How did that happen? Didn't god create Satan too? Your logic is so twisted.
"You have all FAILED to disprove God's existence." That's only because you refuse to look at the evidence and only want proof that something does not exist. As has been pointed out many time, you have failed to disprove Zeus's existence… does that mean therefore he is real too? How about the Easter bunny? I have a book full of stories (and pictures) about the Easter bunny, and almost any child can tell you the story of how he comes and brings candy… by your logic that must be true as well.
"Yiu can reply, but take note I will continue to repeat mtself."
And we will continue to laugh at you, and the world goes on. You can repeat yourself until your finger wear to a nub, but it doesn't make you any righter, or any brighter.
"So quit acting like you know everything there is to know"
I haven't seen anyone here other than you and your ilk who is claiming to know things that cannot be known. You have said yourself that you don't know if god exists or not because it cannot be proven, so… why should anyone believe you?
"Have fun rotting in hell."
hahaha… have anger issues do we? Thanks for the love. Jesus would be so proud.
BTW.. I noticed you also didn't answer ANY of my questions. So typical.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:37 pm 139.alex said …
"Yet again, there is no proving ___ and there is no disproving ___. I can't do it. AND NEITHER CAN YOU"
You fill in God for the blanks. Using your logic God exist! Try leprechauns, they exist. Try the Tooth Fairy, it exists. Try the might Zeus, he exist. Are you dense?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 9:46 pm 140.Someone101 said …
I told you I have answers but you don't want to hear them. Everytime I answer you just pick apart the things you can put down and leave the rest alone. So why should I answer any of your questions? So we can go through this cycle repeatedly? That's just stupid and A WASTE OF TIME. Damn you people don't know how to read.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:13 pm 141.alex said …
"I told you I have answers but you don't want to hear them. Everytime I answer you just pick apart the things you can put down and leave the rest alone."
You're eight years old?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:25 pm 142.someone101 said …
Fine, here's some questions and answers.
Who created God?
A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims – that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:28 pm 143.someone101 said …
The skeptical worldview
Before we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
Problem with the skeptical worldview
Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism – that all beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.
The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:30 pm 144.someone101 said …
I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly. How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have? Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?
I now assume you'll read the above, please reply if you have any other questions. Have fun debunking all of that. I'm eagerly awaiting your replies.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:39 pm 145.someone101 said …
Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the atheists who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God. However, recently, the "new atheists" think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation. Consider the non-physical concept of love. We all accept that love exists, although it cannot be directly measured by science. However, if we observe those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals' actions. For example, we might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly helping each other in various ways, and they come to each other's defense when the other is threatened in some way. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God's imprint on the physical world.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:41 pm 146.DPK said …
Some homework for you.. read, and then we'll talk about the problems with your cut and paste "answers". Next time, save the bandwidth and just post the link rather than copy and pasting someone else's ramble. Now, when I show you how your arguments don't hold wanter, are you going to go all psycho again?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:44 pm 147.alex said …
"So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims".
The bible also makes outrageous claims, read the whole chapter on Genesis. Just because the bible said something like "it rained" and it was true, it doesn't make the bible the supreme authority. The bible says something like "stone adulterers", does that mean you do it?
So what if time is a property of the universe and didn't exist before the big bang? You suggest that god is the creator? I counter suggest that Obama's ancestors created the universe. I'm as qualified as you in making this suggestion. I bet you have an advanced degree in theology?
why won't god heal amputees? IT'S NOT HIS WILL!
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:46 pm 148.someone101 said …
The atheists' logical argument
What I have found is that atheists like to say that their arguments against God's existence specifically exclude the God of the Bible as a God who could exist. However, in reality, atheists produce generic arguments against a generic God whose characteristics and creation do not match those that are described in the Bible. Atheists may not accept what the Bible says, but they cannot say the God of the Bible cannot logically exist and then ignore what the Bible has to say about the characteristics of God. If the atheist states that the God of the Bible is logically impossible, he cannot pick and choose which arguments from the Bible to accept in order to "prove" his point. Let's formalize the atheist's arguments:
1. God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
2. A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
3. The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
Therefore, God does not exist.
The Bible's Response
The Bible does state that God is "all powerful." In the Old Testament, one of God's titles is "El Shadday," which is translated "God Almighty."2 The Bible also states that God is loving.3 In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.4 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.5 So, we can agree that the first statement is a correct interpretation of what the Bible says about the characteristics of God.
The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it "good"6 and "very good,"7 but never "perfect." In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was "not good."8 The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect,9 but was designed to be temporary10 and will be replaced with a perfect universe11 that will be permanent.12 Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary.13
Why two creations instead of one?
Why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn't God have created a perfect universe in the first place? This is a good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. One can find the reason for the creation of the universe in the first few chapters of the Bible. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them, which He had with Adam and Eve before they sinned (Genesis 2). Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to "Love the Lord your God…"14 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will. If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would essentially be programmed computers. Such beings would be incapable of love, since love involves making a choice – which requires the ability to choose not to love. For example, I can program my computer to say "I love you" when it starts up. Does this mean that the computer really loves me? Of course not! Likewise, God could have programmed humans to say that they loved Him, without the possibility of rejecting Him or performing evil deeds. However, these programmed beings would exhibit about as much true love as my computer – not a very satisfying relationship. Therefore, God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).
What does God want?
God's purposes in creating the universe go beyond merely creating free will beings that love Him in this temporary universe. Jesus explained the ultimate goal of God in the parable of the banquet:
Jesus replied: "A certain man [representing God] was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.' But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.' Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.' Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.' The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.' 'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.' Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. (Luke 14:16-23)
This parable tells that God wants not only a relationship with humans in this universe, but a relationship with billions15 of these creatures in His future, perfect creation. If God's purpose is to have relationships with free will beings in a future creation, then there must be a means by which these beings can make a choice to enter or not enter into this relationship. The means by which we make this choice is exactly the message of the Bible.
Therefore. the Bible says that God allows temporary, bounded evil16 in order to allow free will beings to have the ability to love and to make choices. I am going to propose something which seems to support the atheists' arguments regarding evil. I agree that there is a lot of evil in the world. In fact, there is too much evil in the world from what would be expected from chaos theory or the laws of physics. Evolution does not explain the vast amount of evil done by mankind. None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind have. No other mammals kill arbitrarily. They only kill to eat and survive – but not mankind. Just watch the nightly news or read your newspaper. Look at all the evil perpetuated in the last century alone – 6 million Jews killed by Hitler, 40 million Russians killed by Stalin, 2 million Cambodians killed by their own government in the 1970's. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. In addition to these atrocities, there have been hundreds of massacres committed in virtually every nation of the world. The Bible says that the presence of evil is due to the spiritual component of our nature – something that animals do not possess. God endowed His spiritual creatures (humans and angels) with free will to love God or to oppose Him. The most powerful created being (the angel Satan) rebelled and led one third of the angels into opposition against God. Those humans who oppose or ignore God follow Satan into rebellion – either consciously or unconsciously. Some people blame the evil on "society." However, society is composed of individuals who make individual choices. Most of the evil is committed by people who oppose the will of society. In contrast, there are many examples of societies in the animal kingdom, especially among the An order of mammals including man, apes, monkeys, etc., often characterized by large brains and flexible hands and feet.primates. None of these societies have the capacity for evil that we have. We are different from all other animals on our planet – a fact that has no scientific or evolutionary explanation.17
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:46 pm 149.alex said …
"Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps".
false. just like "you're either an atheist or you're an idiot".
stop the nonsense. homosexuality is not a choice.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:51 pm 150.someone101 said …
Here is an article for you on amputees:
Marshall Brain, founder of "How Stuff Works" is also the author of an anti-Christian website, "Why Does God Hate Amputees," which has been renamed to "Why won't God heal amputees?" Brain's main point is that God does not (hence the "hate" title) or cannot heal amputees, presumably because He does not exist. Does this argument provide a valid case against the existence of God?
Amputees have never been healed?
The premise of the argument is that amputees have never been healed and that all other "healings" throughout the history of mankind have really been due to natural, but rare, events. However, there is at least one healing of an amputee that has been recorded. When Jesus was being arrested prior to His trials, the disciple Peter took a sword and, missing the mark, sliced off the ear of the high priest's servant:
And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:50-51)
Jesus responded by calling a halt to the violence and healing the man's ear. It should be noted that He did not pick up the severed piece of ear, but merely touched the stump to heal the man's ear. Although not quite as dramatic as replacing entire legs, it nonetheless represents a miracle that is beyond any possible naturalistic explanation, since humans cannot instantly (or even over time) regrow ears.
Bible made it up?
The common objection to his argument is that the Bible just made up this miracles, like all others it reports. Of course, this objection is offered without any proof of being correct. It is just assumed that the disciples would do anything, including lying, in order to propagate their lies. The funny thing about the assertion is that it directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus, which was fiercely against the hypocrites. So, the disciples are being accused of doing exactly what they preached against. Again, no evidence is offered that they ever did any such kind of lying. What they skeptics won't tell you is that there is actually evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. The problem with the idea that the disciples made up the miracles of Jesus is that the hostile witnesses of the time (the Jewish religious leadership) never denied that those miracles took place, but attributed them to the work of Satan.1 In his rebuttal to Jewish Celsus, Origen reported Celsus as saying Jesus had obtained His miraculous gifts while in Egypt (obviously by the power of sorcery).2 If the miracles of Jesus had been made-up, the Jews would have denied they ever happened, rather than attribute them to the work of the devil. It was, in fact, the miracles of Jesus that convinced a large number of people that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. So, the extra-biblical evidence actually supports the Bible's claim that Jesus performed numerous miracles, including the healing of an amputee.
The experiment to "prove" Brain's point
Marshall Brain has designed an experiment to "prove" that God cannot heal amputees. The experiment goes something like this. Pick an amputee (must have both legs severed, just one would not be good enough), and have millions of Christians throughout the world pray for his healing. According to Brain, this proves that God does not exist. The main problem is that the experiment has never been done. So, in reality, Brain has proved nothing. Even if the experiment were to be run, there are some problems with its design. The first wrong assumption is that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do. Healings do not necessarily require large numbers of people praying, since most recorded healings have involved just one prayer. The second wrong assumption is that God heals all who are prayed for. Even the Bible records examples of Christians – even apostles – who were not healed, despite prayer.3 The third wrong assumption is that every Christian has the gift to heal people. The Bible clearly says that this is not so.6 A fourth wrong assumption is that somebody can be found who is "deserving." According to the Bible, none of us is worthy of being saved.5 However, God, in His love, saves the undeserving through His mercy.4 God does not heal everybody of every infirmity in this life. I began working for my current boss in 1983 at the UCLA Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Within two years, I developed Crohn's Disease, the most severe form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which has no cure. I found myself unable to do things using my own abilities and strength. After two months of being bedridden in severe pain, I cried out to God, even though I was a One who believes in the existence of an impersonal God.deist deist at the time (I had gone from an agnostic atheist to a deist in college). Within three months all symptoms of Crohn's disease had disappeared. That was over 25 years ago, and no symptoms of the disease have ever reappeared. However, thousands of people have gone through our Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinics and not been cured. I am sure that most of those people have prayed to God, but are still suffering. For some reason, God chose to heal me, so that I would know that He was personally involved in the lives of people. God acts to produce eternal, spiritual outcomes, and not just temporal, physical changes.
Jesus says to become an amputee!
The really ironic thing about Marshall Brain's experiment is that Jesus addresses it exactly opposite from what Brain says. Jesus says there are more important things than having limbs. In fact, He suggested that people amputate their limbs (or gouge out their eyes) if those parts helped them to sin:
"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:30)
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. (Matthew 18:8-9)
The main thing that Mr. Brain has failed to understand is that this life is a mere short prequel to the life that is to come. Nobody is going to avoid all the discomforts or escape life intact. In fact, your destiny is death. If God healed everyone's illnesses, there would be no death. God wants to do more than just heal your physical bodies, which are temporary. God wants to heal your soul, which is eternal. God wants to make you perfect!7 However, God does not want to force anyone to act against his own will, so He give us choices. Agree to give up your "right" to sin and go along with God's plan, and He will reward you with a perfect soul in heaven.
Brain is incognito
I would have much more respect for Mr. Brain, if he would sign his name to his writings. Originally, he listed himself as author of the pages on his website. However, now, his name has disappeared for some reason. Be a man, Mr. Brain and stand up for what you believe!
Why does God love Marshall Brain?
The main question that needs to be asked is not why God hates amputees (which He doesn't), but why God loves Marshall Brain? As you can probably tell, I am not a great fan of Marshall Brain. However, God loves him dearly8 and wants to spend eternity with him.9 I'm not quite there yet. However, if God can change the author of this article from an atheist into a believer, He can certainly do it for Mr. Brain. If you are a Christian, pray for Mr. Brain. Changing him into a lover of God would certainly be a miracle greater than replacing someone's legs.
Conclusion Top of page
Contrary to the claims of Marshall Brain, God already has healed amputees physically. The objection that the Bible just made up the healing miracles of Jesus was never put forth by the skeptics of Jesus' day because the people of the time had seen those miracles first hand. Mr. Brain's experiment to pick a "deserving" amputee and pray to have him healed has never been done. So, his conclusion that God would not ever heal an amputee remains untested. God will heal amputees and everybody else who wants to be healed spiritually, to receive perfect spiritual bodies in heaven.10 It's quite a deal, and a much better one than the alternative offered by Marshall Brain.11 Mr. Brain thinks that technology will solve all the world's problems. However, what technology is really good at is giving us "better" ways to kill each other and more free time to commit sin. No thanks, Mr. Brain. I prefer a place in which righteousness dwells.12
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:55 pm 151.alex said …
someone101, you're blabbering.
It's your god. You need to prove it. I don't believe in god and I don't have to prove shit.
Your child believes in the Tooth Fairy. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy and I don't have to prove shit.
Your boy George W. believes in WMD. Regardless of whether they exist or not, which btw didn't, I don't have to prove shit.
…recognize the pattern.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:57 pm 152.someone101 said …
My my, your replies are getting shorter and shorter. Yes I copied and pasted, why? You asked questions, here's your answers. You put me down for not answering them, I'm answering them now. You're replies have grown weaker. Im a bit disap. You want me to leave you alone now? Tell me, and I will happily do so.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 10:59 pm 153.someone101 said …
Your job as an atheist is to PROVE to me that God does NOT exist.
You have failed to do this just as I have failed to prove he DOES exist.
Because it cannot be done.
But if you want to ask questions I am more than happy to find answers for you.
You don't have to prove "shit"?
False, you aren't doing your job then.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:01 pm 154.someone101 said …
You find a way to question the existence of God. I find an answer.
You find a way to question the existence of God. I find and answer.
You find a way to question the existence of God. I find an answer.
Take your own advice and RECOGNIZE THE PATTERN.
And you think I'm the dumbass….
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:03 pm 155.alex said …
ok. I will repeat your EXACT POSITION.
I believe in allah and you can ask me anything and I will answer.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:05 pm 156.alex said …
atheist: i don't believe in allah.
me: allah exist. lookey in koran.
atheist: i don't believe in hell.
me: you will know when your ass isa burnin.
atheist: i don't believe in creationism.
me: you don't know shit. evolution is a hoax.
….and the beat goes on….
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:07 pm 157.someone101 said …
How about this?
I RESPECT YOUR BELIEFS and I will NOT question you or YOUR beliefs.
This is how the world should be. It should not consist of blogs or other means designed to offend Christians or bash their religious beliefs.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:08 pm 158.someone101 said …
Are you finally beginning to understand that the religious debate is a never ending battle and we are wasting our time here?
That's what I took away from your previous post.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:10 pm 159.alex said …
I cannot respect somebody that believes in nonsense.
all gods are the same, allah, zeus, RA, the sun god etc. i understand this site may be offensive, but the god in the title is really generic.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:12 pm 160.someone101 said …
I'm sorry I'm a tad confused by your explanation.
If you believe in "Allah" it means God.
We see this 17 times in Genesis.
How are you an atheist if you believe in Allah?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:13 pm 161.someone101 said …
Unless you were taking on a sarcastic way.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:14 pm 162.alex said …
I haven't entirely discounted the possiblity of god. Not the biblical god, or anything, but a true powerfull ass god who is not concerned with my beliefs or my piddly shit activities. the god doesn't pass judgement, rewards, and/or punishments. if such a god existed, it's irrelevant whether i believe or not.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:15 pm 163.alex said …
"How are you an atheist if you believe in Allah?"
….dude/dudette, i was jesting….
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:17 pm 164.someone101 said …
So you believe there may be a supreme being, just not necessarily Christ? I can respect that believe it or not.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:19 pm 165.alex said …
I said I didn't discount the possibility. Read what I said. If that bad ass god mofo existed, he/she/it could care less about my beliefs.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:21 pm 166.A said …
"I haven't entirely discounted the possiblity of god. Not the biblical god, or anything,"
Why one but not the other?
Mr Q, Lou, anonymous you agree?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:22 pm 167.someone101 said …
MAYBE. The fact that you don't discount the possibility of a "God" is what makes it respectable. It just bothers me when people say EVERYTHING happens by chance. I have a hard time grasping that just because the chances were so slim to none.
Finally, a reasonable discussion.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:25 pm 168.A said …
"but the god in the title is really generic."
Alex how do you know? Are you Marshall Brain?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:25 pm 169.A said …
@134 Burebista,
What a great find. It had been rumored Brain was behind the site now we have proof. Obviously he doesn't even believe the nonsense he posts.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:27 pm 170.alex said …
see, the difference is I have nothing to defend. i try to be good and I don't need a holy book. I don't quote or try to push/legislate biblical based beliefs.
if somebody says, there's no possibility of god, i shrugged and say close enough to my belief of .0000000000001% that god exist.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:30 pm 171.alex said …
"Alex how do you know? Are you Marshall Brain".
no, i admit i don't know Mr. Brain. maybe, i was presumptous. somebody correct me? is it the egyptian, greek, filipino?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:32 pm 172.someone101 said …
I think the .000000001% is a little exaggerated. But if someone were to say that there's no possibility of God, I'd ask them to prove it. I'm a bit of a bitch if you haven't noticed already.
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:36 pm 173.alex said …
someone101, why so touchy? if you're right, all atheists will all go to hell and there will be more room in heaven for you and your crew. your god can take care of himself. quit defending him and quit quoting and pushing the biblical agenda. (not you personally, but a lot of y'all).
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:40 pm 174.alex said …
"Why one but not the other?"
why one but not the other hundreds?
on 16 Feb 2012 at 11:42 pm 175.someone101 said …
I would just want proof that there was no possibility. The fact is that there is a possibility. I was more so trying to prove a point than push the biblical agenda. The point being that nothing can really be proved when it comes to this subject. People don't have to agree (obviously) I'm just tired of the bashing on a subject that will never be solved. If that makes sense? I'm not saying Christians don't bash on atheists, they clearly do and this blog proves that I do it to, however, I only do it when provoked unlike others. I'm not saying it's all perfect, in the end we are all just people walking the same earth that came from somewhere people may never be able to answer whether it be the big bang theory or creationism or whatever it is that you believe. I just wish more people that strongly disagree with whatever it may be would just say, "Look, I respect that you have an opinion on the subject, however, I disagree." And leave it at that. Not to turn it into an argument but more of a discussion. And at the end of the day when everyone still disagrees without arguing that the subject just gets left alone, not turn into religious/atheist bashing. It just doesn't make sense to do that especially on such a touchy subject and on a subject that has no scientific answer.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:30 am 176.Lou (DFW) said …
134.Burebista said …
"It is Someone but admit it."
Hor is back.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:32 am 177.Lou (DFW) said …
140.Someone101 said …
"Damn you people don't know how to read."
You sir (Hor?), are an idiot.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:45 am 178.Lou (DFW) said …
144.someone101 said …
"I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly. How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have? Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?
I now assume you'll read the above, please reply if you have any other questions. Have fun debunking all of that. I'm eagerly awaiting your replies."
Your comments are nothing but rambling, incoherent nonsense.
There's only really one reply required – one that includes evidence of your imaginary god.
And stop writing that you're "done" when you you continue babbling on and on. Can't you help yourself, or are you OCD about this?
Repeating this one more time – where is your evidence for you imaginary god? That's not a question that can be "debunked." Only answers can be "debunked," not questions. I guarantee that your answer won't need to be "debunked."
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:52 am 179.Lou (DFW) said …
124.Someone101 said …
"If you think every region is equally as silly that proves your ignorance to me. There are crazy religions out there full of a bunch of BS. I dont belong to one."
You don't belong to a "crazy" religion, or no religion at all?
"Evil institution of the church? If they're so evil then why do they give food and money to the poor? Probably because people like you in your 'reality' don't see what reality is really there. Poor starving people that CHURCHES (not you) are trying to help."
The Catholic church is reportedly one of, if not the richest, institutions in the world. Why is that? And how many hundreds of millions, if not billions, has the church paid because of "Priestly Pederasty?"
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:03 am 180.Lou (DFW) said …
144.someone101 said …
"I can continue to blow this blog up with common atheist questions answered, but I bet that will annoy most of you rather quickly."
Translation – I will copy & paste so much that most of you will stop reading most of my comments, and eventually ignore me, thus allowing me to declare a victory.
"How about rather than starting arguments on religion vs atheism, you just do your own research like I have?"
See above.
"Is it really that difficult or do you enjoy the fight?"
Fight? Really? You consider what you do to be a "fight?" Your "fight" is similar to an astrologist debating with an astronomer about Big Bang. You confuse "fight" with the bluster of a school yard bully who has nothing to offer but anger expressed with his fists.
If you really want to "fight," then supply a KO that will take us out. Provide evidence of your imaginary god. Until you do that, you can't even step into the ring.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 181.someone101 said …
And whose to say you can step into the ring until you provide evidence that god doesn't exist? I'm just beginning to see this blog as pointless because nothing can be proved. You can believe what you want, and I have every right to believe what I want. You call us names, so what? I just don't understand this. Why is there a need to debate something such as religion. There is no right or wrong answer because it's all based on peoples opinions on how they interpret things. There are no observable truths to either side of this debate. Nobody saw the Big Bang happen, nobody witnessed Adam and Eve. Look, you're an atheist, you don't believe in God, so why do you do what you do? Why do you even care about who believes and who doesn't? What difference does it make to you?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:40 am 182.thisispointless said …
It's true, you can't prove that evolution exists anymore than you can prove that creationism exists. This whole blog is rather pointless and will never end. It went from discussing amputees into discussing whether or not God exists. It's easier to say that he doesn't, but there is still a possibility that he does. So why do you all continue to throw what each other write back into the other person's face to only begin the cycle all over again?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:43 am 183.Anonymous said …
Randy, thank you so much for the best line ever. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at a blog post. That was hilarious. I hope you don't mind if I use that one myself?
Someone… gosh, so many excuses, so few answers. Why don't you try answering some questions? Is it, perhaps, because you've only been taught how to lash out in anger? Seriously, dudette, you seem really upset by all this. Why is that?
Again, moan, whine, complain, throw temper-tantrums, cut and past, do whatever you like but you won't change the fact that no-one is interested in proving a non-existent, illogical, impossible, fairy-story god to be false. You're going to have to put on your big-girl trousers and take on the challenge and prove it to us.
Why don't you prove to us that Zeus isn't real? Go ahead. We all agree that Zeus does not exist, now you prove it.
Respect for your beliefs? Without proof that this god of yours exists? No, not a chance. Not going to happen. Get used to it.
If you don't like being ridiculed in public then stop saying ridiculous things in public. You see, we don't need your respect so your offer is empty. Of course, what you are really saying is you can't defend your irrational belief in a god, so you're going to make yet-another emotional argument in-lieu of a sensible one.
You mentioned Satan, I've always wondered why Christians hang their hat on this one. You've ignored questions so far, but maybe we'll get lucky and maybe you'll have some conscience or something… so.
Why did your god create Satan? If this god knew that Satan was going to rebel, then he's self-destructive.
If Satan can trick your god then Satan is more powerful than your god who is neither omnipotent nor god.
If people are being tricked by Satan then your god is an abusive asshole for punishing them when he, himself, created the problem and can't contain it on his own.
So, yes, tell us about Satan.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:45 am 184.wow said …
You all think y'all are so perfect dontcha? Man you all have a lot of learning to do. From the posts I've read through this seems far fetched, and yes, pointless. I see both sides, really, I do. However did you know that atheism is considered a religion? Hence as why on social networking when it asks what religion you are, you say atheist.
Lou(DFW):"You don't belong to a "crazy" religion, or no religion at all?"
I find it odd that you would write this. Since Atheism is a religion, and you define all religion as crazy.
Are you sure you aren't agnostic?
Or are you just full of ignorance?(:
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:03 am 185.someone101 said …
Look, no matter what I answer you are just going to laugh because you don't believe in it, so why would I make a laughing stock of myself trying to explain why I believe God did what he did to a group of non-believers? Like, if you want an honest debate, and not a throw it in your face argument, I'm open to that. But if I answer your questions and you make harsh remarks saying that I'm full of ignorance and stupidity, having no validation to what you are saying to me, then why should I waste my time? If you want to ask questions such as, "Why would God create Satan if Satan is destroying everything?" and I give an answer, and you ask another question, fine. I'm cool with that. I'm not cool answering questions that you are going to turn on me and throw into my face.
Did you ever think that maybe I was just smart enough?
Look, I can defend God until I'm blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything. I can give valid points just as you can as to why he doesn't exist. If you want to ask questions, then number them so I can answer them. I'm not prepared to read through context to find and dig up every question, I'm a college student, I'm busy. But I can find time to answer questions that you pin on us to try and disprove something that can't be proven or disproven.
So for your first question, why did God create Satan?
He didn't, he created an arch angel named Lucifer, and the bible as you might all know doesn't mention this subject much. Satan, wanting God's powers rebelled against God. To which God cast him out of heaven and down to earth. Where Satan than began to destroy and twist God's word. Just as we find in Genesis where he tells Eve it is okay to eat from the tree, which she does, and then gives the fruit to Adam.
For all we know God may have planned this?
We don't know, the bible doesn't specify and I'm sure you will all take that above statement and use that against me, but look, it's the truth. I don't read too much into the bible, I take it literally, I don't see any symbolism, it is what it is.
Then the question is if God was willing to let this happen then he's cruel and not what you claim him to be.
To answer this, it can be seen in today's world. I believe that God created us in his own image. Whether it be through the works of us or whatever. The destruction in this world is caused by sin. People doing things they shouldn't. Do christians sin? You bet your ass we do. Nobody is perfect, and, if God made us in his own image, does that make him not perfect? Nope, God even mentioned that first time he flooded the earth it was "no good." But perhaps when the bible claims a perfect god it refers to Jesus,, who lived a completely holy life without sin. He's perfect here on earth, he does not sin, he heals not physically perhaps but mentally. I do believe that priests who rape people and other christians committing such things should be punished, and in their own way they will. Have you heard of the different levels of heave? I didn't think so, well, depending on how you live you life, if you are a believer, you may be in one of the lower levels of heaven. I know the world is all about revenge these days, that's what it's all about. The bible however, teaches forgiveness. I'm sure we have all done things, surely not as a bad as rape, but still things we aren't proud of that we feel the need for forgiveness for. It doesn't make what that person did right, I never said that. The problem with discussing religion is that it is hard to explain, because there are exceptions, something might seem like a contradicting statement, but it's hard to explain in a way to make it understandable.
So go ahead, bash away at this, I know you all will, which is why I didn't want to post my point of view anyways. this makes sense to me but it won't make sense to you, and you'll nail me in the head for that. I know how you people work. And when you can't argue a statement you ridicule the person who wrote it. I didn't pick apart any of your statements as I probably should have, because it seems I have recieved ridicule for that as well.
If you have questions to the above please number them. And I will reply.
This is all my point of view.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:17 am 186.someone101 said …
May I ask some questions?
1. How do you explain miracles? Is it just all by coincidence? Such as people coming out of three year comas, etc.
2. Explain the tragedies of 9/11 and why one of the building stood standing longer, allowing more people to be able to escape. How one of the planes miraculously happened to hit an area in the building that was under construction, meaning noone was present in that area of the building, perhaps saving hundreds of lives?
3. Explain to me why one of the bill boards in New Orleans after hurricane katrina had the orginal poster ripped off of it and underneath it revealed a billboard saying, "We need to talk… -God."
You all really believe this is by coincidence? Or do you have a scientific reasoning? By the way, the above was true.
Try Snopes.com
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:18 am 187.Anonymous said …
(1) Why do Christians have double standards when it comes to proving the existence of their god versus others?
If you want to insist that your god must be disproved first, then you MUST accept that all other gods, until proven otherwise, also exist. Yet you don't.
If you were to ask a Muslim, they would quite likely tell you that Christians are delusional. At a guess, one of the "evil" religions you mentioned earlier might have been Islam? It's OK, they hate you in return.
Somehow you expect special treatment. You expect logic to be turned on its head. You expect a pass from rational argument. Why is that?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:38 am 188.Anonymous said …
My "scientific reasoning" tells me that you are so desperate to believe in miracles that you confuse things that happen anyway with things that were caused by some divine intervention.
An earthquake could hit somewhere and a million people be said to have died. One person could, by luck, be found that survived. You'd call it a miracle, I'd say that that a million minus one being killed was a tragedy of epic proportion.
This is also known as argument by selective observation, cherry picking, or as the fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:01 am 189.someone101 said …
1. We don't really have "double standards" as I stated, it's hard to discuss religion because so many things go into it.
Answer this for me.
Assuming you believe in the Big Bang, where did all of the matter come from along with the gases that caused the big bang? Did they just miraculously appear? And you think my logic is flawed?
What was anything before the earth formed? How did the gasses get there? Logically explain to me what was present before the big bang, and how those elements were placed there?
What? Out of thin air? That doesn't seem logic. Are you now going to turn logic on it's head?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:09 am 190.Severin said …
167 (Horatio?)
"It just bothers me when people say EVERYTHING happens by chance."
WHO said everything happens by chance? Some idiot?
We discussed it many times, didn't we?
Put a glass of water on your kitchen table and estimate the chance to fing the water in the glass after a week.
NOTHING happens by chance. EVERYTHING is happening according to strict laws of physics, chamistry,…
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:15 am 191.someone101 said …
"NOTHING happens by chance. EVERYTHING is happening according to strict laws of physics, chamistry,…"
Then explain to me how particles that formed together to create the big bang just "according to strict laws of physics and chemistry." appeared out of thin air and formed together to create the big bang?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:15 am 192.Severin said …
189 Someone 101
"How did the gasses get there?"
The same way god did.
Can you kindly describe for us how did god get there, please?
Where did he (she, it ?) come from?
Of thin air?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:16 am 193.someone101 said …
You still didn't answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:17 am 194.Lou (DFW) said …
184.wow said …
"I find it odd that you would write this."
Who cares what you "find" to be odd. It's irrelevant.
"Since Atheism is a religion, and you define all religion as crazy."
By definition, Atheism [sic],is not a religion. It's really not even an "ism."
"Atheism [sic] is a religion" is simply a theist lie used to place the rejection of theism into the same context as the delusion of religion. Just because you can't defend your bat-shit crazy delusion doesn't give you the right to label our rejection of it a religion. Labeling Atheism [sic] a religion doesn't somehow legitimize your religion.
Your belief in god is a religion that is no different than belief in Zeus, Thor, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, etc. Atheists reject ALL OF THOSE beliefs. Therefore, Atheism [sic] is none of those things. It's not a religion.
Anybody who claims that "Atheism [sic] is a religion" is simply being intellectually honest. It's that simple.
Now, stop arguing about semantics and present evidence for your imaginary god.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:19 am 195.someone101 said …
The problem here is with a temporal understanding of the universe. Get rid of the concept of time, and there is no problem with things that always were, such as God.
And recent research, especially at the level of quanta (the very small) shows phenomena which appear to exist independently of time itself.
Our whole idea of "before" and "after," while useful at the level of our own existence as a kind of classification system, may not have any actual basis in reality. Get your head around that idea, and God as an "always" kind of being is not so hard to grasp.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:22 am 196.Lou (DFW) said …
189.someone101 said …
"Assuming you believe in the Big Bang…"
Big Bang isn't a belief, not in the way that religion is a belief. Religion, and therefore belief in god, is actually faith.
"…where did all of the matter come from along with the gases that caused the big bang? Did they just miraculously appear?"
It's irrelevant to your claim for god. Knowledge of how that happened, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant to the FACT that you have no evidence for god.
"And you think my logic is flawed?"
NO! Not at all. Logic is "the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning." You have yet to exhibit that.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:23 am 197.Lou (DFW) said …
193.someone101 said …
"You still didn't answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere."
I'll answer it – it's not really known how.
Now, please answer my question – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:25 am 198.someone101 said …
How about you present evidence of there not being a God? We can't see him, we can't hear him, therefore he doesn't exist right?
Well we can't see evolution, we can't hear the big bang, therefore it must not exist right?
You call my beliefs bat shit crazy and an illusion simply because you have nothing better to say. You seem to be all talk because you have failed to provide me with evidence that God does not exist. You say you have nothing to prove, yet you continue to try and prove he doesn't exist.
"Who cares what you "find" to be odd. It's irrelevant."
This whole blog is based on opinion and has no evidence supporting or disproving the existence of god. This whole blog is irrelevant if it's based on opinion, since that what you seem to be jumping me for.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:27 am 199.Lou (DFW) said …
195.someone101 said …
"Get your head around that idea, and God as an "always" kind of being is not so hard to grasp."
That's all you have – an "idea."
Now, "[g]et your head around [this] idea." Your reasoning is circular – a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:30 am 200.Severin said …
"appeared out of thin air and formed together to create the big bang?"
They did not.
What is wrong with the idea that matter/energy was not created at all? Why would it be necessary for matter/energy to "appear" from somewhere? They did not "appear", they simply WERE THERE. Always. They never came from anywhere, never went anywhere, just existed, and changed its form according to "built-in" natural laws.
If this idea of "just being there without comming from somewhere" is good enough for a god, WHY, the hell, is it wrong for anything else, including matter/energy?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:31 am 201.someone101 said …
Lou said:
"You still didn't answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere."
"I'll answer it – it's not really known how.
Now, please answer my question – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?"
It's not really known how? But you all seem to be so sure it existed. So then I should be allowed to say that it's not really known where God came from considering you can't even explain to me one of your views of your atheistic beliefs.
Where is your evidence for the big bang if you don't know how the gasses got there?
Maybe GOD put them there? Can you disprove this?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:32 am 202.someone101 said …
The fact is, you can't, and you know you can't disprove it.
Can I prove it? No.
Are we wasting our time?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:32 am 203.Severin said …
"You still didn't answer my questions as to how gasses became present out of nowhere."
I did answer: they did not come from anywhere, they were always present.
Now your turn: how and where from did god get there?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:35 am 204.someone101 said …
They did not "appear", they simply WERE THERE. Always. They never came from anywhere, never went anywhere, just existed, and changed its form according to "built-in" natural laws.
If this idea of "just being there without comming from somewhere" is good enough for a god, WHY, the hell, is it wrong for anything else, including matter/energy?
So let's say it was always there, but that just means you shouldn't ask where God came from, since he was always there. But don't you agree that those gasses and energy all just HAD to be in the EXACTLY RIGHT SPOT for it to combust and begin expanding.
So if "just being there without coming from somewhere is good enough for energy/matter, then why isn't good enough for a God?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:37 am 205.Lou (DFW) said …
198.someone101 said …
"How about you present evidence of there not being a God?"
How many times has that flawed idea been explained to you? Are you actually that damn dumb or are you simply being stubborn because that's the only way for you to avoid admitting that you have no evidence for god?
"We can't see him, we can't hear him, therefore he doesn't exist right?"
No! You most perfectly demonstrate why astronomers don't debate astronomy with astrologists.
"You say you have nothing to prove, yet you continue to try and prove he doesn't exist."
Show me where I did any such thing. I'm not at all trying to "prove" that god doesn't exist! You've been told over and over and over again that that can't be done. There is only one thing that you must do rather than provide your continuous idiotic babbling – provide evidence for your imaginary god, not reasons why you can't.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:37 am 206.Severin said …
"How one of the planes miraculously happened to hit an area in the building that was under construction, meaning noone was present in that area of the building, perhaps saving hundreds of lives?"
How one of the planes miraculously happened to hit an area full of people and killed themm all?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:42 am 207.Lou (DFW) said …
204.someone101 said …
"So if "just being there without coming from somewhere is good enough for energy/matter, then why isn't good enough for a God?"
It MIGHT be if only you had any evidence for god! Are you now going to continue with your stupid line of reasoning by asking for evidence of "energy/matter?!"
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:47 am 208.Lou (DFW) said …
198.someone101 said …
"This whole blog is based on opinion and has no evidence supporting or disproving the existence of god."
No, it is isn't. But even if it was, we don't care about your OPINIONS about your imaginary god. What part of "evidence" don't you understand?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:52 am 209.someone101 said …
You have no more evidence than I do! I've repeatedly stated over and over and over again that you cannot prove or disprove God and that the belief is based on opinion? Am I that damn dumb? REALLY? You said that disproving him can't be done, but when I say that proving him can't be done either I get ridiculed for that? You don't see me ridiculing you for saying that your belief is idiotic because you have no more legitamacy than I do.me asking for evidence of energy or matter is the same thing as you asking for proof of God. You can't prove to me, or show me that it was there. I can't prove to you or show you that God was there. I can tell you what the bible says, I can explain terrible things happening today, but I can't explain god's reasoning behind it.
If you ask me, I find it hard to not believe in God in the same way you find it hard to not to believe in the big bang.
If I asked you to explain proof of the big bang and how materials got there you couldn't do it.
I don't know what more you want me to say. My beliefs are based on my opinion of the bible, just like yours are based on opinion.
Nothing here is based on fact.
Only theories.
Theories which cannot be proven.
Whether they have to deal with the big bang or God.
Yet again, wasting our time.
I have explanations for questions, just as you do. we can answer back and fourth, but in the end our answers answer absolutley nothing.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:54 am 210.Severin said …
"But don't you agree that those gasses and energy all just HAD to be in the EXACTLY RIGHT SPOT for it to combust and begin expanding."
I do agree, so what? Why would we need a god to put things on right spot?
If you knew elements of physics, you would understand the problem better, and you would see that god was not necessary for anything.
"So if "just being there without coming from somewhere is good enough for energy/matter, then why isn't good enough for a God?"
It is. The problem is in the fact that everything works perfectly without a god, so we don't need any.
You are free to call matter/energy a god, if you please.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:55 am 211.Lou (DFW) said …
186.someone101 said …
"1. How do you explain miracles?"
Simple, they don't happen. How do you explain Bigfoot and alien abduction? Why is it only a few wackos are part of those experiences?
"2. Explain the tragedies of 9/11 and why one of the building stood standing longer, allowing more people to be able to escape. How one of the planes miraculously happened to hit an area in the building that was under construction, meaning noone was present in that area of the building, perhaps saving hundreds of lives?"
WTF? If those planes hit those buildings, exploded into flames and debris, crashed to the ground, and EVERYBODY walked away unharmed, then THAT would have been a miracle. But it didn't happen, did it?
"3. Explain to me why one of the bill boards in New Orleans after hurricane katrina had the orginal poster ripped off of it and underneath it revealed a billboard saying, "We need to talk… -God."
Explain to me why your god saved a measly billboard, but allowed all those churches and the people who worshiped inside them to be destroyed by said hurricane. Yeah, we need to talk – as in WTF is wrong with your god.
"Try Snopes.com"
Try pulling your fat head out.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:55 am 212.someone101 said …
My evidence of God? Walk outside and look around. Look into space. You want to sit there and tell me that by some scientific reasoning everything happened to come together to combust and expand aka big bang? You want to sit there and tell me that the gasses were always there but when I say who put them there? Or perhaps that God was always there that that isn't good enough for you? Lets pretend for a moment since you all believe Gases and matter created the world that that gas and matter was what we consider to be god. Then you would believe right? But no, it's just gas and energy and matter. You say my logic is flawed, however, you're the ones saying that everything exploded into what we now have.
Evidence is right there in front of you. Stuff like that doesn't just happen.
You blame it on physics, I don't.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:57 am 213.someone101 said …
Sevrine, you say things work without a God. They also work with one.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:58 am 214.Lou (DFW) said …
209.someone101 said …
"…I say that proving him can't be done either…"
I asked for EVIDENCE. Do you have any evidence that god exists – yes or no? Anything that can be explained without supernatural intervention is not evidence for god.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:59 am 215.Lou (DFW) said …
"213.someone101 said …
"Sevrine, you say things work without a God. They also work with one."
Which one?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:03 am 216.Lou (DFW) said …
212.someone101 said …
"Stuff like that doesn't just happen."
Do you understand the phrase "God of the gaps?"
How about argument from ignorance? Even if you don't, you demonstrate it beautifully!
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:03 am 217.someone101 said …
I'm speaking of Christ from the bible.Evidence? I told you, look around. sorry but I don't believe that matter and energy colliding by chance resulted in this world. The big bang? Sure, but I believe someone was there facilitating it with a design.
How do you explain things such as the fact that if we were any closer to the sun we'd burn and any further we'd freeze? physics? By chance we are right where we need to be.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:07 am 218.Severin said …
"How about you present evidence of there not being a God? We can't see him, we can't hear him, therefore he doesn't exist right?"
I do not claim there is no god, I only do not see any need for exiatance of one. Maybe god exists, but he/she/it does not fit anywhere!
E = mc^2 does not onclude god (for example: E = mc^2 + god).
2+2 = 4 does not include god (2 + 2 = 4 + god).
No gods in any eaquation I know!
"Well we can't see evolution, we can't hear the big bang, therefore it must not exist right?"
That is wrong, of course.
We can see both consequences and laws of evolution and consequences and laws of the BB that clearly tell us both are wstill going on (big bang, in fact, is still going on, as well as evolution is, isn't it?).
Read about it! Learn!
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:14 am 219.Lou (DFW) said …
217.someone101 said …
"I'm speaking of Christ from the bible."
What's more likely – that all of the the other religions are wrong except yours, or that all of those and just one more is wrong? You're an atheist about all gods except yours. So "prove" that all of those other beliefs are wrong, but yours isn't.
"By chance we are right where we need to be."
Yes. And all the other planets that aren't, aren't. It's that simple.
Do you accept that one day the sun will expand and all life on earth will cease to exist? We won't be "where we need to be," will we?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:15 am 220.Someone101 said …
The bible is also evidence.
Me saying Thay you can't are or hear the big bang was mocking atheists saying we can't are or hear god so they must not exist.
To answer the whole beginning of the big bang with god perhaps you'll find this helpful:
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:17 am 221.Someone101 said …
"Yes, and all of the planets aren't, aren't. Its just that simple."
Really why not?
Sheesh, to think Thay life came from nothing, Thay would suck. I almost feel pity for you.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:24 am 222.Someone101 said …
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:32 am 223.Severin said …
"Sevrine, you say things work without a God. They also work with one."
Please see my post #206.
You have 2 plains that hit a building. One hits the area with more people present and insatantly kills 500 people.
Another hits the area with less people present, and kills instantly 3 people.
WHICH of those 2 examples is a "miracle"?
WHY is one of them a miracle?
WHAT, in fact, did god in this example?
So, things with god involved work exactly the same way they work without god involved.
It is not the evidence for non-existance of god, no! It is only an evidence we don't need one.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:11 pm 224.Anonymous said …
We should nominate this thread for the Night of The Living Sock Puppets awards.
Tat didn't last long. Someone101 said she'd answer questions but, what a surprise, she lied. Right of the bat she ran away. Look what we got to why they want a different standard of proof for their god versus the equally silly other gods.
'We don't really have "double standards" as I stated, it's hard to discuss religion because so many things go into it.'
It's only hard because you're totally nuts. It's only hard because you're delusional. It's only hard because you don't want to think.
If it's so hard then why are you here?
And, of course, rather than face the fact that there is no god, not yours, not anyone's, you have to retreat to poor little whining theist who says "prove to me how big bang/evolution/universe came about". That's just an excuse to run away from facing the fact that you have nothing to provide because it's all a figment of your imagination.
So, let's try this: Provide evidence for your god. If you can't then face it. Your god doesn't exist.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:54 pm 225.Anonymous said …
Someone101, how about a straight answer, a yes or no.
You claim that people can't disprove that your god exists. You've been asked to disprove that Zeus exists. You didn't do it. Let's be really clear about this.
Given that your position is that your god is real unless proven to you otherwise; and given that you can't disprove that the god Zeus exists. Do you then agree that the god Zeus exists and is as real as your god?
It's a yes or no answer.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 1:18 pm 226.Someone101 said …
Man you guys really focus on that first commandment don't you?
Love how that's you're only line of defense.
Look, I have a bible written about my Go.
The first demandment states, "You shall have no Gods before me."
Let me at that again, "You shall have no gods BEFORE me."
It doesn't say other Gods don't exist, it states that Christ, is FIRST. Whose to say that christ, commonly referred to as, King OF ALL KINGS, meaning that he is above all other Gods. I don't think other religions discuss creationism, I haven't looked much into it.
So you can stop throwing the first commandment around and continue to call me "delusional" all because you have absolutely nothing better to say to me. How of I know this? You are repetitive.
What I consider as evidence you'll consider crazy because you are completely closed off to the very idea. But lets try this for evidence:
Could you agree that there is evil on this world? If not then you're the one who is bat shit crazy. Many things happen against the odds, if numbers don't like then how do those things happen?
The Bible: instant evidence.
all the evil on the planet: evidence of Satan
You can't have a Satan without a God.
All of you atheists say the same thing, "It happened because that's just how it happened." Nome of you believe in miracles, you see the good things that happen and shrug it off. You're ONLY defense is that you all say God doesn't exist because you can't are him, you can't talk to him, you hear pf Christians doing bad things, I could go on.
To you we are bat shit crazy, and to is, well, you're all bat shit crazy.
Evidence of God. Really? I can and have given you evidence, but you reject it and twist it around in some sick way.
I asked you for evidence of how the particles causing the big bang got placed. You all said you didn't know how. I'd I said, "I don't know how." When it comes to evidence you'd all rip me to shreds.
You all claim the particles were just always there but then you ask where god came from and we reply he was always there it'd not good enough for you.
and you think we are the hypocrite? Please
You cant even give evidence to say there is no god. The link I provided earlier shows how god fits in with the creating of the universe. And eleven if he didn't whose to say that maybe God didn't want people to crunch numbers to prove his exsistance.
Any more arrogant questions I can answer for you people?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 1:30 pm 227.Someone101 said …
For all we know God made it Thay way. Maybe he didn't want people to crunch numbers. Einstein even talked about how there could have been a supreme being initiating things. You all only hear what you want to gear and only reply to what you can defend.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 1:49 pm 228.Someone101 said …
We could all say that what happened on 9/11 was terrible. A plane hit where a lot of people were present, the second was delayed and hit where noone was currently present, one building states standing longer allowing more people to get out, one plane took ten minutes more to reach the destination allowing for more people to escape. One plane headed for D.C didn't make it there. Hmm, what a coincidence.? Really?
I suppose babies are just a coincidence also.
along with someone you love dying but end up being able to stay alive.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:39 pm 229.Lou (DFW) said …
228.Someone101 said …
"I suppose babies are just a coincidence also."
In a way, yes. Each and every individual on this planet is a "coincidence." Just for a second, put away all of your passionate, idiotic ideas and delusions. Think about all the billions of individuals that will ever live, yet somehow against extreme odds your parents met. Next, somehow against even more extreme odds the exact sperm and egg from your parents required to produce YOU combined to do it. Against astronomical odds, and despite a virtual impossibility, YOU exist!
The odds that "By chance we are right where we need to be" are infinitely better than for YOU ever being born. Yet, here YOU are.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 2:42 pm 230.Lou (DFW) said …
226.Someone101 said …
"Any more arrogant questions I can answer for you people?"
Yes, those that you never answer.
If you can't "prove" that Zeus doesn't exist, then by your convoluted logic, he must exist.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:17 pm 231.Xenon said …
You will find Lou doesn't stay on point. Rather than dealing with the possibility of God, he admits God is real and moves on to discussion about a particular God. A god, to my knowledge nobody accepts as real.
A fallacy of logic atheist spend a great deal of time practicing.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:30 pm 232.Lou (DFW) said …
231.Xenon (aka Hor) said …
"Rather than dealing with the possibility of God, he admits God is real…"
Show where, IN FACT, I admitted that. Unless you do, that makes you a liar.
"…and moves on to discussion about a particular God. A god, to my knowledge nobody accepts as real."
Here's the usual double-standard practiced by Hor, his sock-puppets, and his ilk – "MY imaginary god exists unless you prove he doesn't, other imaginary gods don't exist because to my knowledge nobody accepts them as real. I don't have have to prove that other imaginary gods don't exist, but you must prove that mine doesn't."
"A fallacy of logic atheist spend a great deal of time practicing."
I wish I could say the same of you. But your replies are nothing but lies, not "a fallacy of logic."
I have no desire to discuss a particular god. All I want to see is evidence for ANY god, even yours.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:31 pm 233.Someone101 said …
Thank you xenon. I could not have said it better myself.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:33 pm 234.Someone101 said …
Thank you Lou, fir proving xenons point.
I've shown you my evidence.
you disagree with my evidence.
that's your damn opinion.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:48 pm 235.DPK said …
Someone's convoluted reasoning makes my head hurt.
Let's review:
14 billion years ago there was a "big bang" that caused our present universe to start expanding. What caused that event is not known because there is no evidence left.
Therefore, it only stands to reason that an all powerful being, who had existed in perfect state beyond matter, energy, space and time for an infinite length of time, must have decided to create an imperfect universe out of absolutely nothing and invent the concept of matter, energy, space, time, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces. Further more, he decided to create this entire universe to be unimaginably vast, containing perhaps more that 500 BILLION galaxies of stars each containing 200 to 500 billion stars, for the sole purpose of creating, 14 billion years later, a flawed race of humans, destined to "sin", the vast majority of whom will be cast into eternal torment for all eternity because they cannot live up this beings expectations. And, he created this race of flawed humans because he was lonely and wanted "a companion".
Now, this all powerful and all knowing being created this universe with the full awareness that it was imperfect, and would eventually have to be destroyed and replaced with a perfect one. On a side note, at some point in infinity, he also created a race of angelic, non-temporal beings to populate his transcendental world and carry out his chores and tasks that he (presumably) was too busy to do himself, despite living an existence outside of time.
Following so far? Because remember, you can't disprove any of this, so therefore it must be true, or at the very least, you must respect the very real possibility that it IS true.
Now, one of these angelic beings who the perfect being also created also turned out to be flawed (see a pattern here) and led a rebellion against the perfect being (who, of course, knew full well this would happen when he created him in the first place). So, what did he do? Did he destroy him? Did he simply un-create him, or fix him, or maybe forgive him and make nice again? Maybe listen to his gripes and figure out why he would rebel against a perfect being? No, instead in the entire universe, he decided to send him to earth to fuck with the other part of his creation, so that they would be lead down the path of evil as well.
Why? Pretty simple, he needed to have a reason to re-incarnate himself as one of his temporal beings, so that he could be murdered as a sacrifice to himself to appease himself for the horrible sin, specifically eating a forbidden piece of fruit from a special tree he had put there, so that his special creations could be forgiven and come live with him in eternity.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Must be true, right?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:52 pm 236.Lou (DFW) said …
"234.Someone101 said …
"Thank you Lou, fir proving xenons point.
I've shown you my evidence.
you disagree with my evidence.
that's your damn opinion."
Evidence is not a "matter of opinion." You still don't understand the concept of circular reasoning, do you?
And you didn't answer the question, to wit, DOES ZEUS EXIST? YES OR NO?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:56 pm 237.Lou (DFW) said …
233.Someone101 said …
"Thank you xenon. I could not have said it better myself."
The ONLY thing you can say better is to provide real evidence for you imaginary god – not fairy tales and anecdotal evidence. But you can never do that because you don't have it. All you have is faith – a belief in something for which there is no evidence.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 4:05 pm 238.DPK said …
Not only no evidence, but makes absolutely no sense at all.
Someone ultimately keeps coming back to creation and the god of the gaps argument… "we don't understand, so this must be true…" That is so glaringly false… if you don't thin so, there here is a listing of 20 different creation stories:
Explain to us exactly why you discount ALL of these as being false, but ask us to accept YOURS as true?
What's different about yours? The only acceptable answer is that you have some evidence to support the idea that your myth is true…. but what is it? Show us.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:01 pm 239.Lou (DFW) said …
220.Someone101 said …
"The bible is also evidence."
No, it isn't. The bible is a simply book written by ancient goat-herders. It's not evidence of anything except ancient goat-herders.
"Me saying Thay you can't are or hear the big bang was mocking atheists saying we can't are or hear god so they must not exist."
First of all, that's not true. Second, so what if it is? Even if the Big Bang didn't happen, it's irrelevant to your claim for you imaginary god.
"To answer the whole beginning of the big bang with god perhaps you'll find this helpful:
No, I don't find it "helpful." Practically every physicist and astronomer in the world rejects "fine tuning." To help you understand this better, then read "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us" by Victor J. Stenger.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:41 pm 240.Lou (DFW) said …
212.someone101 said …
"My evidence of God? Walk outside and look around. Look into space."
LOL! (as Hor would write) Whenever I "Look into space," I can't in my wildest imagination accept that a supernatural being created the universe. The universe is evidence that there isn't an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god. It's too poorly designed.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:47 pm 241.Lou (DFW) said …
someone101 said
"I asked you for evidence of how the particles causing the big bang got placed. You all said you didn't know how. I'd I said, "I don't know how." When it comes to evidence you'd all rip me to shreds."
(sigh) You simply don't get it. The claim is god exists. The discussions on the blog are about "God and religion in our world today." We aren't here to discuss cosmology, and neither are you. The inclusion of cosmology is simply a diversionary tactic used by theists when they can't provide any evidence for their imaginary god.
Forget about Big Bang, it's irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to discuss cosmology and Big Bang, then go to a forum that does so.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:51 pm 242.Lou (DFW) said …
228.Someone101 said …
"One plane headed for D.C didn't make it there. Hmm, what a coincidence.? Really?"
You obviously don't understand the definition of the word coincidence. There's nothing at coincidental about the 9/11 events.
Your thoughts and comments are unbelievably convoluted and nonsensical.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 5:58 pm 243.Someone101 said …
I did answer your question. Zues COULD in fact exist. I have faith, just like you have faith that there is no god. Again, faith is an opinion. So the fact is we are sitting here arguing over opinion. I have my own personal reason for believing while you rely on science as your evidence but your evidence is no greater than mine. I don't see where you come off mocking me considering we have the same amount of evidence supporting our own opinions on religion. I'm not trying to convert any of you, but your talk about how terrible Christians are is upsetting. Just because they believe something you don't does not give you the right to bash them.
Its an opinion whether you like it or not. In my opinion god exists and in your opinion based on your own 'evidence' is no greater than my opinion based on MY 'evidence.'
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:20 pm 244.Lou (DFW) said …
"243.Someone101 said …
"I did answer your question. Zues COULD in fact exist."
No, you did not. Does Zeus exist now, i the same context that your god exists – YES OR NO.
"I have faith, just like you have faith that there is no god. Again, faith is an opinion."
No, it isn't. Just like you guys try to redefine atheism, now you try to redefine faith. faith, in the context of this discussion, is the belief in god. Rejecting that faith is not faith.
"So the fact is we are sitting here arguing over opinion. I have my own personal reason for believing while you rely on science as your evidence but your evidence is no greater than mine."
No, it is not the same. I'm not presenting ANY evidence to support a claim THAT I AM NOT MAKING. There is only one claim to consider here – that god exists.
"I don't see where you come off mocking me considering we have the same amount of evidence supporting our own opinions on religion."
Then you're blind as a bat.
"I'm not trying to convert any of you, but your talk about how terrible Christians are is upsetting. Just because they believe something you don't does not give you the right to bash them.
Its an opinion whether you like it or not. In my opinion god exists and in your opinion based on your own 'evidence' is no greater than my opinion based on MY 'evidence.'"
I am relying on YOUR evidence to form my opinion about god – I am not relying on science in any way whatsoever.
Let's review – you used circular reasoning, then argument from ignorance, and now a straw man – a fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:22 pm 245.Someone101 said …
Not to mention as I've stated repeatedly this is a stupid subject to debate over because it's all voiced by opinion and how we interpret our observations. What I see ad miracles you see as coincidences. If you've been trying to shake my faith by this blog you've done just the opposite. Gearing your "delusional" and "bat shit crazy" ideas has done nothing but show me how fucked up your so called "logic" is. We can agree to disagree which would be the smart thing to do, but since you think everything just happened so perfectly and haven't shown me any evidence yourself as to show that God does not exist but you find idiotic reasons to try and support yourself I presume you'll continue rambling and calling me names and telling me imdellusional because you're all too stupid to see that this is going nowhere. If I walk away you'll proclaim some type of "victory." What would that be? The fact that I am now thoroughly convince that God does exist and your explanations that he doesn't are down right ignorant and "delusional."? That would be a loss for you. So keep talking. You're only making me believe more and more that a God does exist, which is the exact opposite of what you set out to do. My goal wasn't to get you to believe in God, more so to quit the harassment. Again. Just agree to disagree with me. Its not that hard. Because we are both fighting uphill battles.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:52 pm 246.DPK said …
That you fail to see logic and reason on so many levels is proof that you ARE delusional. That's not name calling, that's an observation. There's a difference. The problem with your "can't we all get along and respect one another's opinion" pleading is that the fact is there is no middle ground here. One of us is absolutely 100% right and the other is 100% wrong. YOU are the one making the claim, that a being called god exists and possesses certain qualities and characteristics, like being perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving, and involved in the physical world on a daily basis, performing miracles and answering prayers. For this you present no evidence that any of it is true… and you admit that. In fact, you even concede, based on your own flawed reasoning, that Zeus could exist.. but clearly you KNOW he doesn't correct??? Now. let's review… based on your standard of evidence, even Zeus could exist, but he doesn't. Based on your standard of evidence, Santa Claus could exist, but he doesn't, based on your standard of evidence, Yahweh could exist, but in THAT case only, you are certain he does. Now look at the definition of "delusion"
"A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness."
When the shoe fits…………..
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:53 pm 247.DPK said …
"Not to mention as I've stated repeatedly this is a stupid subject to debate over because…."
And yet, strangely, here you still are debating it.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:12 pm 248.someone101 said …
"That you fail to see logic and reason on so many levels is proof that you ARE delusional."
Where is your evidence of that? You don't agree with what I have been saying.
To me, you're logic is flawed, and to you my logic is flawed.
See the pattern here dumbass?
This is a never ending argument between two sides.
Sure, one of us is 100% correct, you believe that to be you, I believe that to be me.
Agree to disagree. Love how you didn't really mention that.
Where did I say that Zeus doesn't exist?I didn't, there you go again putting words into my mouth. For all I know maybe he does exist.
I believe the correct definition of delusional is as follows:
persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
INDSIPUTABLE EVIDENCE. Where's yours?
YOU CAN"T PROVIDE ANY because there is none.
I never said that I could either. What I MYSELF consider evidence you do not. Right there, that is a matter of opinion. If you can't see that then you must have been dropped on your head and hit by a brick as a baby.
I can just as easily call you delusional by using that definition.
You said, "That you fail to see logic and reason on so many levels is proof that you ARE delusional."
WHAT DEFINES LOGIC? Let me tell you.
Logic:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
You have your own way of reasoning why we are here, and I have mine. SCIENCE THAT DEALS WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA OF VALIDITY.
Who do you validate our earth?
What's your reasoning?
And it's just that, YOU'RE reasoning. With which I don't agree with.
You can't use scientific evidence to disprove God, you've said it yourself, you can't prove OR disprove a negative, yet you continue to try to disprove it. the fact that you can't = US WASTING OUR TIME.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:17 pm 249.Lou (DFW) said …
245.Someone101 said …
"Not to mention as I've stated repeatedly this is a stupid subject to debate over because it's all voiced by opinion and how we interpret our observations."
Yet you wasted a copious amount of time and energy coming here to do exactly that.
And as usual, you babble on and on without directly answering the questions asked of you.
"If I walk away you'll proclaim some type of "victory."
Wrong. This isn't a contest. But you're making it one in order to avoid the inevitable conclusion that you have no evidence for your imaginary god. That's not a "victory" for anybody.
"You're only making me believe more and more that a God does exist, which is the exact opposite of what you set out to do."
(sigh) I didn't "set-out" to do any such thing.
"My goal wasn't to get you to believe in God, more so to quit the harassment."
I see. Rather than simply admit you have no evidence for your imaginary god, now it's about stopping imaginary harassment.
"Just agree to disagree with me. Its not that hard."
That's right, simply admit that you have no evidence for your imaginary god, and keep your delusion to yourself. It's that simple, not hard at all. You want us to "agree to disagree" with you, but you don't afford the same consideration to those who don't accept your delusion being forced upon them.
"Because we are both fighting uphill battles."
No, WE are not. But you are because you have no evidence for your imaginary god. I'm not fighting any such battle, especially against you. But you try to make it into a battle by intentionally misrepresenting what those who reject your claim write and say, while avoiding the inevitable conclusion about your claim.
If you live in the US or most other countries, then you are free to believe and worship according to your religious beliefs.
The only battle atheists have to face is the one required to prevent nutcases like you from forcing your delusion upon those who reject your fairy tale.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:34 pm 250.someone101 said …
I'm not trying to force my beliefs.
I have answered questions, if you read you'd know this.
I will agree to disagree just to end the debate.
I've tried sharing my evidence only for you to say that it's not what you personally consider evidence (opinion.)
I believe in God. That's all there is to it. I can't comprehend the world just being as it is all by change. To me that doesn't seem logical. Unfortunately today we want proof of everything, sometimes it can't be provided. There are questions that atheists can't answer, just as their are questions that I cannot answer, that's why it's just easier to agree to disagree than spend endless amounts of time arguing. I have my own personal beliefs, I don't see how that makes me delusional considering my beliefs are based upon the observations in my own life. Observation, that's my evidence. I don't want to spill my life story all over the internet, but I've had some breaks, and to be quite frank I shouldn't even be here (logically). because a scientific explanation to my parents as to why they wouldn't be able to have me, but somehow I"m here. You say that's how things work, that's fine. I say no way, there's way more to it than that. It's an interesting debate at that. and I respect that you're all brave and voice your opinion, however, you call us nutcases and other such names, while you yourselves have some nutcases in your clan as well. Nobody is perfect, no organization is perfect. This is the world we live in. I have many friends that are atheists, believe it or not, but I respect it because anything I say isn't going to change it. We all have our reasons for believing what ever it is that we believe. I do believe in God, some of the things written in the bible confuse me, because I don't see everything in the bible as morally right if it were to take place in today's world. I'm clearly not a bible thumper or I would have placed verses on here left and right. I struggle to read it at times, but at the end of the day God just makes more sense to me than nothing at all.
I see where you are all coming from, I do.
I can't explain why I believe, I just do. Call it faith, whatever.
Call me names, whatever. But when it comes down to it I can easily call you what you call me.
I don't worship the bible and every word in it, I go to church, I worship God, I go home and live a normal life just as all of you.
I don't go door to door trying to get people to come to church, as a matter of fact, I find it highly annoying when churches do that.
I understand some "holy" people out there have done terrible terrible things. I know what I'd like to happen to them, but the bible tells me otherwise. Call it a contradiction, whatever.
There are many different forms of religion because they all believe in something a little bit different. No religion is perfect, hell, mine isn't perfect. There are some things said that I don't completely agree with because in today's world we want to see people punished for their wrong doings.
To me, nutcases are the ones that strap themselves to bombs and kill people. That's my definition of a nutcase.
Religion has gotten this world into a lot of problems, reasons like ones we are discussing now. You saying there is no God, me saying there is one. People get pissed and go out and try to prove it and when they can't because you can't prove or disprove it, they get pissed and do terrible things. Those people are the nutcases. Can't we agree to just disagree? Which I am very open to.
Because this is honestly going nowhere.
I can't explain everything.
You can't explain everything.
Why can't we just leave it at that?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:47 pm 251.DPK said …
"Where did I say that Zeus doesn't exist?I didn't, there you go again putting words into my mouth. For all I know maybe he does exist."
My bad, I assumed you knew Zeus didn't exist. I stand corrected……
Ok, so now we are arguing what you call "logic" with someone who thinks it is entirely possible that Zeus exists.
Case closed.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:49 pm 252.someone101 said …
I never said he existed, I said he could exist. Clearly my last post to said absolutely nothing to you. I'm not arguing for Zeus, I'm arguing for my personal God. My logic differs from yours apparently. Sorry you can't seem to realize that.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 7:52 pm 253.someone101 said …
Logic as defined earlier has to do with science.
a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Science with the formal principles of reasoning.
My reasoning differs from yours.
Thus, my logic differs from yours. That doesn't make me a nutcase. And if it does, then you are just as easily called a nutcase.
Again, getting nowhere.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:02 pm 254.Lou (DFW) said …
251.DPK said …
"Ok, so now we are arguing what you call "logic" with someone who thinks it is entirely possible that Zeus exists.
Case closed."
No kidding!
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:04 pm 255.wow said …
Even if the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. We cannot fully comprehend God, therefore we cannot be completely sure that He possesses or does not possess certain qualities (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence). Thus, any argument that attacks these qualities in an attempt to disprove the existence of God is ultimately irrelevant, since we do not know if God has these qualities or not. However, I believe in the Christian God, so my arguments will defend the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity.
The air we breathe cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet it most certainly exists. The force of gravity cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet we know that it exists. Emotions, values, beliefs, and thoughts cannot be found by using any of our senses, yet they are as real as rocks or trees. Emotions can be "felt", but this feeling is not physical. Thus, simply because something cannot be found through the use of the five senses does not mean that it does not exist.
Some atheists say that no God has been found through the use of the senses, therefore no God exists. But simply because God cannot be found by way of the senses does not mean that He does not exist. Christians believe in a supernatural or non-material God. They believe that God has manifested Himself in material form and in material ways on certain occasions (such as the Incarnation, and when He spoke audibly to Moses at Mount Sinai). However, God is spirit (John 4:24), and in His "normal" state He cannot be found by the use of the senses. Therefore, any attempt to reach God by way of the senses would be virtually pointless.
Wind can only be seen indirectly (leaves moving, dust scattering, trees swaying, etc). Christians believe that, like wind, God can be seen indirectly. They believe that He can be seen indirectly through Creation (Nature), conscience, morality, etc. They also believe that a "touch" from God can be "felt". This feeling is spiritual, though sometimes it may produce physical or emotional sensations. Thus, even though a natural or material God does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. A supernatural or non-material God can be just as real as a natural, tangible God.
The word 'conscience' can be defined as "the internal sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody's thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong." This 'conscience' is consistent, it always urges us to do right, and is not merely one of our desires or preferences. Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Suppose you hear a cry for help from a drowning man. You will probably feel two desires: one desire to give help, the other a desire to keep out of danger. But you will find inside you, in addition to these two desires, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. This thing that judges between the two impulses, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. This third thing is our 'conscience'.
What is peculiar about this 'conscience' is that everyone has it. It is not specifically for the kind, the intelligent, or the strong, but it is found in every human being all over the world. This 'conscience' is inside us; it is not something that we ourselves have made or something that has been given to us by other people. If we did not make this 'conscience' and it was not given to us by others, then where did it come from? We might say that it was in the subconscious part of our brains, and it revealed itself at that very moment and let us know what the right thing to do was in that certain situation. But how would our subconscious know what is right or wrong in a situation? How would our subconscious know the difference between right and wrong? Thus, there must be something or someone else who put those ideas of right and wrong into our subconscious. The question is: "Who or what put those ideas there?" For the answer we must turn to the two main world views.
One world view is the Materialist world view, which basically states that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a series of chances, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. The other world view is the Religious world view, which basically states that the universe and everything in it was created by a Being, a God. This Being is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. We can hardly expect matter and space to know the difference between right and wrong, so the only option left is the Being, the God.
But why would this God give us a conscience? I believe that the reason is this. God has given us a conscience so that we will know what the right thing to do is in a certain situation. God wants us to obey our conscience and do what is right, so that we can live in harmony with our fellow man. Some might say that this is an invasion of privacy. They say: "Why doesn't God just leave us alone and let us do what we want?" But indeed He does just that. God does not force you to obey your conscience. He gives you a conscience so that you will know what is right: it is your choice if you obey your conscience or not. God gives you both options, lets you know which one is best, then leaves the choice to you.
Rational thought (reason) is used constantly by human beings. We use it in our sciences, we use it in our businesses, and we use it in our everyday lives. Many times we use it to seek and find truth. But, where did rational thought come from? What is the source of rational thought? If there is nothing but Nature, then the universe is the greatest thing that exists. The universe is made up of inorganic matter, energy, and space. One can hardly expect inorganic matter, energy, and space to possess rational thought, thus something besides the material universe must have produced the rational thought used by human beings. Rational thought cannot be an invention of man, for it would take rational thought in order to produce such an invention.
Since rational thought (reason) could not have come directly from the material universe, it must have come into existence by a historical process. The type of mental behavior we now call rational thinking must have been "evolved" by Natural Selection, by the gradual weeding out of types less fitted to survive.
Once, then, our thoughts were not rational. That is, all our thoughts once were, as many of our thoughts still are, merely subjective events. Those which had a cause external to us at all were responses to stimuli. Natural Selection could operate only by eliminating responses that were biologically hurtful and multiplying those which tended to survival. But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight, or even remotely tend to do so. The relation between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known. Our physical vision is a far more useful response to light than that of the cruder organisms which have only a photo-sensitive spot. But neither this improvement nor any possible improvements we can suppose could bring it an inch closer to being a genuine knowledge of light. It is admittedly something without which we could not have had that knowledge. But the knowledge is achieved by experiments and inferences from them, not by a refinement of the response. It is not men with especially good eyes who know about light, but rather men who have studied the relevant sciences. In the same way, our psychological responses to our environment–our curiosities, aversions, delights, expectations–could be indefinitely improved (from the biological point of view) without becoming anything more than responses.
Apart from Natural Selection, there is also experience. Experience that was originally individual, but then was handed on by tradition and instruction. There are some experiences that may account for rational thoughts. For example, if a man drinks from a river he will learn that the water in the river quenches his thirst. He may pass this information on to others, and then they will also know that the water in the river quenches thirst. Thus, this experience eventually becomes the rational thought that water from a river quenches thirst.
But experience cannot account for all rational thoughts. The concept and invention of money was an act of reasoning, a usage of rational thought, which could never have come into existence by experience. The concept and invention of proper names, as a way to identify someone or something, was another act of reasoning, another usage of rational thought, which could never have come into existence by experience. The written alphabet, the metric system, spoken language, and sign language are inventions which came about by rational thought, not experience. Similarly, one must use rational thought in order to create an organized game. A person may learn by experience that he can kick or throw a ball. Yet it does not follow that he will create a game called "Football" based solely on that experience. The inventor had to use rational thought in order to create the specific rules and regulations used in the game. Thus, experience alone could never have produced the game of Football. Likewise, every organized game came about by rational thought, not by experience.
If rational thought did not come about by a historical process, then how did it come about? It must have come about by a different process and from a different source (one other than the material universe, Natural Selection, and Experience). Since the rational thought used by human beings was not produced by the universe, and it did not come into existence by a historical process, it must have been produced by something other than Nature. This "something other than Nature" must be rational, otherwise it could not have given rational thought to man. This rational something that is other than Nature is God. Therefore, one must conclude that the source of rational thought is God, and the process is that God gave human beings the ability to use rational thought.
Of all the questions asked about the universe and human existence, the greatest is "Why?" Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? Atheists claim that the universe has no meaning, and therefore human existence is ultimately without purpose. But if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. If we have no purpose, we should never have found out that we have no purpose. If the universe and mankind have no reason for being here, we should never have been able to discover that they have no reason for being here. The Bible states that God made mankind to have a relationship with Him, and He made the Earth as a dwelling place for mankind. The Bible gives an explanation for the existence of Earth, and it states the reason why mankind was created.
The earth is in such a precise order that it is highly unlikely that everything just "appeared" and just "happened" to be in perfect harmony. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the Sun so that all living things can tolerate the temperatures, it has the perfect combination of gases in the atmosphere, and a form of oxygen in the ozone layer protects the earth from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. These are only some of the hundreds of things that have to be exactly the way they are or else no living thing could survive on Earth.
The water cycle provides the earth with a bountiful supply of water, so there is enough for every living organism. The earth rotates on an axis, providing sunlight to every location on the planet. Because of this, vegetation is able to grow virtually everywhere, thus providing food and oxygen to animals and people. The weathering process transforms rocks into soil. Without soil, plants cannot live and grow. If plants cannot live and grow, then no other form of life can exist. In other words, there would not be life on Earth if the weathering process did not occur. Noting the complexity and necessity of these processes, it is nearly impossible to believe that they are merely a product of chance.
The process of photosynthesis has far-reaching implications. Like plants, humans and other animals depend on glucose as an energy source, but they are unable to produce it on their own and must rely ultimately on the glucose produced by plants. Moreover, the oxygen humans and other animals breathe is the oxygen released during photosynthesis. Humans are also dependent on ancient products of photosynthesis, known as fossil fuels, for supplying most of our modern industrial energy. Thus, virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. This process reflects intelligent design, not chance. And every design has a Designer.
If there is nothing but Nature, then the universe is the greatest thing that exists. The universe is composed of inorganic matter, energy, and space. If all living things came into existence by spontaneous generation, then every living creature came from inorganic matter, energy, and space. So, if all living creatures were composed of inorganic matter, energy, and space, where did consciousness come from? How did we come to know that we exist, that we are human beings, and that we possess thoughts and desires? It is not conceivable that inorganic matter, energy, and space could possess consciousness. A rock does not know that it exists, light does not know that it travels at 186,000 miles per second, and air does not know that it is composed of many different chemical elements.
But perhaps consciousness came into existence by natural processes such as Natural Selection, mutation, and adaptation. Perhaps these processes, over time, produced the consciousness present in living creatures.
Natural Selection can operate only by eliminating those things that are biologically hurtful and multiplying those things which tend to survive. But Natural Selection cannot multiply something that does not exist. Consciousness had to exist before Natural Selection could multiply it. A multiplication of the senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) by Natural Selection could never have produced consciousness, for the multiplied senses would simply be better senses; they would never turn into something else, namely consciousness.
Mutation and adaptation can change the physical characteristics of living organisms. For example, a mutated ant might have five legs (instead of the normal six), and a Siamese cat that has adapted to a cold climate might have thicker fur than a normal Siamese cat. But the physical is very different from the conscious. No amount of changes in an organism's physical characteristics could ever produce consciousness in that organism. Another form of adaptation occurs when a creature purposely changes its behaviors in order to adjust to its new environment. But a creature has to be conscious of its own existence and of the existence of the environment before it can purposely change its behaviors. Thus, neither mutation nor adaptation could have produced consciousness.
But perhaps living creatures simply came to the realization that they existed, and from then on they were conscious beings. But, how did creatures without consciousness come to the realization that they existed? When a being realizes that it exists, it has the thought that it exists. In order to have thoughts, a being must have the ability to think. But thinking is a conscious behavior–a being is aware of what it is thinking and the fact that it is thinking. Since thinking is a conscious behavior, it can never be the cause of consciousness. Thus, a being could never have had the thought that it existed unless it already possessed consciousness.
Since the consciousness found in living creatures cannot be a product of the material universe, natural processes, and thought, it must have been produced by something other than Nature. This "something other than Nature" would have to be conscious in order to produce consciousness in other living beings. This "something other than Nature" must have the power and ability to give consciousness to living beings. The only "something" that is conscious and has the power and ability to give consciousness to other living beings is God.
All plant and animal life relies on the Sun's presence. Earth would not have any life on it without the Sun's energy, which reaches Earth in vast amounts in the form of heat and light. The oceans and seas store this energy and help keep the temperature of Earth at a level that allows a wide variety of life to exist. Green plants absorb sunlight and convert it to food, which these plants then use to live and grow. In this process, the plants give off the oxygen that animals breathe. Animals eat these plants for nourishment. The Sun's energy also creates wind in Earth's atmosphere. This wind can be harnessed and used to produce power. The Sun's energy also produces the movements of water, which people harness to produce electricity.
The Sun's gravitational pull holds the solar system together. The planets, asteroids, comets, and dust that make up our solar system are strongly attracted to the Sun's huge mass. If it were not for the Sun's gravitational pull, Earth would float off into space. After some time of floating off into space, Earth's temperatures would become too cold to support life, and every living thing on Earth would perish. If the gravitational pull of the Sun was stronger than it currently is, Earth would be drawn closer to the Sun and the temperatures would be too hot for living organisms to survive.
The Sun gives heat and energy, produces electricity and power, propels the process of photosynthesis, and holds the solar system together by its gravity. The Sun is designed perfectly to conserve life on Earth. This perfect design hardly seems to be the product of chance.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state of entropy long ago. But we are not in a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. The universe would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.
All natural events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of entropy, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence, otherwise we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than that which it has caused to exist. This uncaused cause must be supernatural. Supernatural meaning that it is completely 'other' than the universe, it is not natural to it. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural. There is only one option for this supernatural uncaused cause: God.
Some atheists have maintained that the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable. But the existence of evil does not negate the existence of God. If God is evil then the existence of evil makes the existence of God even more probable. However, I do not believe that God is evil; I believe that God is good. If God is good, then why is there evil in the world? The answer is 'Free Will' or 'Choice'. God allows human beings to have the freedom to choose between good and evil, and the choices a person makes can affect others as well as himself. Wars can be caused by the evil actions of a few individuals, but many will suffer the consequences. God even gives people the choice of obeying Him or not. God has revealed His will to mankind, and when people follow it great good is the ultimate result. But when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result.
For God to create beings in His own image, that are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings that are capable of freely loving Him and following His will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures that are free to love God must also be free to hate or ignore Him. Creatures that are free to follow His will must also be free to reject it. Thus, we conclude that God is capable of destroying evil, but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function.
Some people think that they can imagine a world where creatures have free will but have no possibility of doing evil. I cannot. If one does not have the choice of doing evil then one does not completely have free will. I can choose to love someone or choose to respect someone, both being good things. I have the ability to choose to do one or the other. But unless I am able to choose to hate that person as well as love or respect them, then I do not truly have free will. If I cannot choose to hate that person then I do not have every choice available, thus I do not completely have free will. To completely have free will, I must be able to make an evil choice (to hate the person) as well as good choices (to love or respect the person).
If the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable, then wouldn't the existence of good make the existence of God probable? The existence of evil makes the existence of Satan probable, not the existence of God improbable. There is evil in the world because there is a completely evil being that constantly causes suffering and pain. Satan influences people to do evil, thus people commit evil acts and many suffer as a consequence of those evil acts.
Not a great deal is known about animal evil, but it is obvious that some animals suffer because of evil acts committed against them. Man has the ability to choose between good and evil, and he has the choice of helping or harming other species as well as his own. Thus, some animal suffering is caused by humans. God gives animals free will also, and many times they use it to afflict pain on other creatures. The evil actions of one animal may affect many, such as a bobcat killing a mother duck may lead to the death of her newborn ducklings. Satan influences human beings to commit evil acts and afflict pain on others, thus Satan may have also corrupted the animal creation.
Some atheists say that the Christian God cannot be omnipotent because He cannot create a being more powerful than Him, He cannot undo the past, and He cannot create a triangular square. The following paragraphs are in defense of the Christian concept of the omnipotent God.
Can God create a being that is more powerful than Him? If God is infinitely powerful then nothing can be more powerful than Him. The only way something could be more powerful than God is if God's power had a limit. But God's power does not have a limit, thus nothing can be more powerful than Him. The question is not one of omnipotence, but rather one of existence. A being more powerful than God cannot exist, because God is infinitely powerful.
Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? If God is infinitely powerful then He is able to lift anything. Thus, there can be nothing too heavy for Him to lift. The only way for there to be a rock too heavy for God to lift is if God's strength had a limit. God's strength and power do not have a limit, thus nothing can be too heavy for Him to lift. Once again, the question is not one of omnipotence, but rather one of existence. A rock too heavy for God to lift cannot exist, because God is able to lift anything.
Some might say that, because these things cannot exist, God is unable to create them, and therefore He is not all-powerful. They would say that He has a limit since He cannot create these things. But the whole reason why these things cannot exist is because God IS all-powerful. God has no limits, thus things that would surpass His limits cannot exist. Nothing can be more powerful than God, since He is infinitely powerful. Nothing can be too heavy for God to lift, since He is able to lift anything.
Some people say "Not even God can undo the past." I will suggest that He can. God created all time: past, present, and future. Since He created it, He can do with it as He chooses. If He wanted to, He could turn back time, stop time, repeat time, or even undo time. This does not invalidate God's omnipotence by any means.
Some people state that not even God could make a triangular square or a spherical cube. I would suggest that He can. God created both the triangle and the square, and if He chooses to, He could make an object containing qualities of both. Indeed, He could make an object that is both a triangle and a square. Just because we cannot comprehend how this is possible does not mean that it is impossible.
The Bible states that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Some people say that, because God cannot lie, He cannot do everything, and therefore He is not all-powerful. God, as a being, has a particular nature. Just as a man as a being, or an eagle as a being, possess a nature of their own. For God to lie is for Him to go against His very nature. God can indeed lie, but not without ceasing to be God. If God lies then He goes against everything He is, and He then ceases to be God. For example, as a human being I cannot produce wings and fly among the clouds. That is against my human nature. If I were all-powerful I would be able to produce wings and fly, but not without ceasing to be a human being. An eagle, by its very nature, cannot dive into the water and begin to breathe with gills. If it were all-powerful it would be able to do so, but not without ceasing to be an eagle. Thus, God cannot lie: if He does then He ceases to be God.
What I mean by saying that God ceases to be God is that He ceases to be the same God. God is truth: and if God lies then He ceases to be truth. He would still be the Creator of man and the universe, but He would cease to be the truthful, omni-benevolent God that He is. In other words, God cannot lie without ceasing to be the same: He cannot lie without ceasing to be the God that He is. If God lies then His entire nature changes, and if His nature changes then He is no longer the same being. As was noted above, if I produce wings and fly then my nature is changed, and if my nature is changed then I would no longer be a human being.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:06 pm 256.someone101 said …
Dear wow,
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:06 pm 257.DPK said …
"I'm not arguing for Zeus, I'm arguing for my personal God."
Here is what you fail to comprehend… to me there is no difference. The reason there is a difference to YOU is not because your logic differs from mine, it is because you choose to ignore logic completely. If that is your definition of "reasoning" then you are absolutely right, that makes you a nutcase.
Anyone looking objectively at the evidence would have every bit as much reason to believe in Zeus as they would in your "personal god", because the evidence for both is exactly the same ZERO. The only reason that you believe in "your personal god" and not Allah, or Krishna, or Ra the sun god, or the flying spaghetti monster is because of the cultural indoctrination you have been subjected to. The ONLY reason. If you disagree, then show us the proof that YOUR god exists that is different from any evidence that ALL these other gods do not. Until then, you are simply blowing wind into a burst balloon.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 258.someone101 said …
Mk, the cycle continues.
Why should I try to prove God when you can't prove the non existence of God?
Barking up a tree here.
I defined logic for you.
Did you forget to read that part?
Or did you just ignore it because it goes against what you're saying?
To YOU there is no differences between those two Gods, to me there is a ton. We don't have a book on Zeus, we have one on Christ, the bible. They may be no different to you, but they're different.
I'm not here to prove other God's don't exist, I'm merely here to defend my God.
Logic is being able to scientifically understand something.
Atheistic view: The world formed from matter and gas and just happened to be in the exact right place.
I think WOW Covered this in one of his paragraphs.
Christian View: There was someone there with intelligent design making it happen.
That's what simply makes more sense to me?
You're logic = you're a nutcase.
That's MY opinion, just as you have yours.
You fail to show me proof that God doesn't exist, you do that, then I will show you evidence/proof that he does.
Fact is that you can't show proof that he doesn't exist.
I can't show proof that he does exist.
Again, barking up the wrong tree here.
not to mention, WOW who must have been typing for days to come up with all of that, answers all of your questions in a LOGICAL way. Read much?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:36 pm 259.wow said …
A Buddhist group, known as the Mahasanghikas, considers the Buddha to be an eternal, omnipresent, and transcendental being. They speculated that the human Buddha was but an apparition of the transcendental Buddha that was created for the benefit of humankind. In the Mahayana Buddhism of China and Japan, the Buddha himself is said to have transformed into a divine being, or a god. Some Hindus regard Buddha as an incarnation of the god Vishnu, who came in this form in order to teach a false doctrine to the pious demons.
The man called Buddha died, so these Buddhists and Hindus worship a dead god. This god (Buddha) died, so he was conquered by death. If death conquered him then wouldn't death be superior to him? Wouldn't death be the true god? If death had conquered a god, wouldn't it also be able to conquer its subjects? It would be able to, for if it were stronger than the god it would also be stronger than its subjects. Then why are we still living? Jesus Christ is the only god that died and rose again. He became alive again, thus conquering death, for He was superior to death. We are still living because our god is a living god, a god more powerful than death.
Why was death present in the first place? The first man (Adam) sinned against God, and because of his sin death entered the world. This sin also separated man from God. Why do we still die if our god is a living god? We all die because we have all sinned. Jesus did not have to die, but He gave His life as a sacrifice in order to reunite man with God. Now we can have a relationship with God and receive eternal life. After we die we can have eternal life because Jesus has given it to us. He is able to give it to us because He is superior to death. The other gods (eternal Buddha and Vishnu) cannot give us eternal life, for they are both inferior to death.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:44 pm 260.Mikey said …
Since you all seems so concerned with "questions" that someone101 attempted to answer, here, I have written an article you can read that will answer these questions you have asked. I've posted it here from my website for you to read. I apologize for the length.
1. Problem of Evil: If God is all-powerful, and He is all-good, meaning He would remove evil to the extent of His power, then evil should not exist:
Straw-man argument. The Bible does not teach that God is good in the sense that He removes evil to the full extent of His ability (cf. Rom. 9:17). Without this definition of goodness, God's goodness does not contradict God's omnipotence and the existence of evil. God is good in the sense that He is the ultimate standard of goodness. Since there is no standard higher than God that could bring Him into judgment, if God allows evil to exist, it necessarily follows that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing it to exist. Some atheists argue that, by any decent human standards, God should not allow as much suffering and evil into the world as He does; but this is just begging the question of atheism, that human standards are ultimate and can bring judgment against God.
While the Christian is said to have a problem with the existence of evil, the atheist has a problem with goodness. He has no basis for saying that evil exists, since he has no absolute standard of goodness to judge it by. Thus the atheist must rely on the God of Christianity to even make this objection.[1]
2. If God is all-powerful, could He create a stone too big for an all-powerful God to lift?:
Straw-man argument. It is not the Christian view that God is all-powerful in the sense that He can do any absurd thing that might enter into your head. He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do whatever He wills, but He can only will that which is according to His character. God cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, and He cannot do logically contradictory things. As all-powerful, he can lift a stone of any size and weight. (Even if the assumption of this objection is granted, it presents no barrier to God lifting the stone. If God can do one contradictory thing, which is to be an all-powerful God yet not powerful enough to lift the stone, then He can do a second contradictory thing, which is to lift the stone too big for Him to lift.)
3. If a sovereign God exists, man is determined, not free:
Atheism has its own problem with determinism vs. free will, so this issue can't be used to choose atheism over Christianity. But in fact the Christian solution to this problem is better than any atheist solution could be. Atheists say that the human will is subject to the fate of environmental determinism, which is law without any sense of free will, or a product of randomness, which is freedom without law. A few atheists, like B.F. Skinner, have been courageous enough to embrace determinism; but most claim that the human will is spontaneously free. This is inconsistent with their commitment to naturalistic evolution. But whichever view the atheist holds, the human will is a product of the impersonal and amoral. There is no more moral significance to randomness than there is to materialistic determinism. Either way, the atheist view excludes the possibility of the existence of moral laws that humans have the moral freedom to obey or disobey. At least in the Christian worldview, morally responsible humans are a creation of an absolutely moral personality. There is a distinction between God's being and man's being, whereas the atheist denies that humans have a distinct nature from the impersonal, amoral sources that gave rise to humans. An exhaustive explanation of how God creates morally responsible creatures is impossible. Heck, we haven't even discovered a cure for the common cold. So how can we expect to exhaustively understand something as mysterious as the human will?
4. The Inquisition, witch trials, crusades, etc. where Christians unjustly killed others:
Ad hominen. Marxist philosophy is not invalid simply because some Marxists have acted inconsistently with Marxism. Likewise, the Christian philosophy of life is not untrue just because some Christians have acted in a very un-Christian manner. Besides, officially atheist governments in the 20th Century slaughtered many more innocent people than Christian governments ever did. So this issue can't be used as a justification to choose atheism over Christianity. Furthermore, when atheists kill innocent people, they are being consistent with the atheist worldview, because if human beings are just bags of molecules, they have no value.
5. God's commands in the Old Testament were cruel. Hell is cruel:
Begging the question. To call God's commands cruel is to assume that there is a standard of goodness higher than God. In the Christian worldview, what God commands is right by definition because there is no standard by which God can be judged. Let's put the show on the other foot. What if a Christian said that atheism cannot be true because its ethical teachings are contrary to the ethics taught in the Bible? Has atheist ethics been proven wrong by this statement? No, the Christian has merely made an assertion that assumes the truth of Christianity, not an argument that proves its truth. Ditto for this objection of the atheist.
6. If God defines what is right and wrong, then He could arbitrarily change what He declares to be right and wrong:
Everybody has some ultimate standard of right and wrong. If that standard is not absolute and self-sufficient, then definitions of right and wrong can be changed arbitrarily. The Christian God is an absolute, self-sufficient being. He is unchanging in His moral character. His commandments are a reflection of His moral character. The atheist bases ethics on a universe of purposeless flux, thus the atheist has the problem of arbitrary ethics.
7. Christians are arrogant and arbitrary to claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong:
This view is self-refuting because the atheist is claiming to be right in rejecting the truth of Christianity and that Christians are all wrong. As Alvin Plantinga says, "These charges of arrogance are a philosophical tar baby: get close enough to them to use them against the Christian believer, and you are likely to get stuck fast to yourself."[2] (Non-judgmentalism is similarly self-refuting: If it is wrong to say others are wrong, then it is wrong to say that it is wrong to say others are wrong. Christian humility does not mean saying that everyone else is right and the Christian is wrong; it means submitting to God's revealed word and proclaiming God's word to others as He commands.)
8. All religions are basically the same. Christianity cannot claim to be the only way of salvation:
There are similarities between Christianity and other religions, but there are also differences. To look at the similarities but ignore the differences is intellectually dishonest. It amounts to the fallacy of equivocation. For example, several religions command people to love, but love is defined differently. Buddha commanded love for your neighbor, but not because your neighbor has any value, but merely as a means to destroy your own individuality and be absorbed into the oneness of the universe. In Hinduism, heaven is a big sex orgy. Is that truly love? There are legends in other religions of resurrection from the dead, but the fact these religions teach that those who were resurrected are products of an ultimately impersonal universe in which all being is ultimately one, as opposed to the Christian teaching of Christ's dual nature and the absolute distinction in being between Creator and creation, gives a very different meaning to those resurrections.
Very few religions are, in fact, theistic. Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism are atheistic. Hinduism has many gods, but impersonal forces ultimately control the universe. The only religions that teach a personal and sovereign God similar to Christianity are Judaism and Islam. But they have their origin in the same Biblical revelation; thus the truth of each one can be evaluated by their conformity to that common revelation. And the Christian would argue that Judaism and Islam do not consistently hold to the concept of an absolute God, such as in their view that salvation is by human works rather than by God's grace.[3]
9. Isn't it unfair to send people to Hell who have never heard about Jesus?:
People are condemned for sinning against God. Rejecting Jesus is merely one of many sins. The fact that some criminals are pardoned does not change the fact that those who are punished are getting their just consequences. Also, even though everyone in the world has not heard about Jesus and the way of salvation, God and His law are known to everyone in creation through the facts of creation (cf. Rom. 1-2). Every fact of man's environment, including man's own consciousness, is a God-created fact and thus revelational of God. The depth of man's rebellion against God is seen in the fact that man is confronted with God's revelation every moment of his existence, yet so many people still refuse to acknowledge and obey Him.
10. By appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible, the Christian is guilty of circular reasoning:
Not necessarily. There is a difference between demonstrating the internal consistency of a belief system and the fallacy of arguing in a vicious circle. In fact, atheists are often guilty of begging the question when they raise this objection because they are demanding a naturalistic (i.e. "scientific') explanation for a Christian claim rather than considering the possibility that a supernatural explanation is the true explanation.
11. The Bible cannot be an objective guide to truth because so many people disagree on the right interpretation of it:
a. Just because students give different answers to the same question on a test does mean that there is no right answer. Most likely it means that many of the students did not study enough. To use another analogy, if people disagreed about the shape of the earth, that would not mean that the earth is therefore shapeless.
b. There are difficult teachings in the Bible, but its central message is clear enough for anyone with normal intelligence to understand. Those Christian denominations that believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith (sola scriputura) may have their disagreements, such as whether to baptize babies or only adults, but there is enough agreement that they call each other brothers and sisters in the faith. The greatest disagreements come when other authorities are said to be equal or higher than the Bible (e.g. Roman Catholicism and church tradition, Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society).
c. And has anyone noticed the disagreements that exist between atheists and the right interpretation of atheist philosophical writings? If I am going to be an atheist, should I follow Plato or Aristotle, Sartre or Skinner? Both atheists and Christians are in the same boat as far as having internal disagreements.
12. The Bible is not a book that was dropped out of heaven. So it is absurd to claim that it is infallible. The Bible was written by fallible humans, conditioned by the cultures in which they lived. Any sort of revelation would be distorted because the interpretive activity of the human mind intervenes between God's revelation to a person and that person's act of writing the revelation:
Begging the question. This argument assumes that the mind of man is autonomous from God. The mind of man presents no barrier to God's communication because it has been created by God. God created humans to communicate with Him. As a creation of God, the human mind is itself revelatory of God. Sin does not negate man's creaturehood. Christians can admit that the human writer's personality shows in the writing. God can use the writer's personality, while suppressing any sin associated with it, to write what He wants written because man's personality is itself God's creation. (Infallibility is, in fact, an inescapable concept – see 17 below.)[4]
13. All the contradictions in the Bible:[5]
a. First, the more superficially one reads the Bible, the more "contradictions" will be found. If I said, "It is raining," and then said, "It is not raining," I have contradicted myself only superficially. I could have been talking about two different times, or places, or even used "raining" in two different senses. Thus, there is a sense in which interpretation must precede logical analysis.
b. Second, the Christian handles apparent contradictions in the Bible the same way that an evolutionist handles problems that arise in the theory of evolution. If an evolutionist cannot solve some minor problem in the theory (i.e., how the human eye evolved, gaps in the fossil record), does he abandon the whole thing and become a creationist? Not likely. He simply chalks it up as a minor mystery that can possibly be solved by further research, or he may even admit the possibility that the difficulty will never be solved because the fossil record is incomplete. Why? Because 1) he thinks that despite this problem there is tons of other evidence in favor of evolution, and 2) creationism is not an option because he thinks that commitment to the naturalistic worldview is necessary for the very possibility of science and reason. In the same way, the Christian regards apparent contradictions as minor mysteries that might be solved with further research, or may never be solved because the archeological record of Biblical times is incomplete. Why? Because the Christian is making an irrational, blind leap of faith? No. Because 1) despite some apparent contradictions, there is tons of other evidence supporting the reliability of the Bible (which includes the Bible's own claim to be infallible – cf. John 10:35), and 2) abandoning the Bible for atheism is not an option because the existence of an absolutely rational Creator as described in the Bible is necessary for the very possibility of logic, science and ethics.
c. Both the atheistic evolutionist and the Christian recognize, at some level, that as finite creatures, humans can never have all the facts. Consequently, apparent contradictions, or "difficulties," are inevitable in any belief system. As atheist evolutionist Richard Lewontin correctly observes about his compatriot's arbitrary double standard, "What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity 'in deep trouble.' Two's company, but three's a crowd."[6]
The only way to really decide between opposing belief systems is not pointing out minor mysteries in other systems, but looking at the most basic presuppositions of the belief systems, what is claimed to ultimately determine the nature of the universe. The winner in the dispute will be able to demonstrate that his system of belief provides the preconditions for human rationality, so that science, logic and ethics are even possible. Having rejected an eternal relation between laws of logic and particular facts in the mind of an omniscient God, the atheist must believe that logic, as a principle of unity abstracted from particular facts, ultimately determines the nature of the world (e.g., rationalists like Parmenides and Plato), or the atheist must believe that unrelated particular facts are the source of everything that exists (materialism), or the atheist will believe in the ultimacy of both abstract universals and abstract particulars (Kantianism). In any of these cases, because logic and facts begin in exclusion from the other, there is no basis for them to later become related to each other in the human mind. An abstract unity (a blank) and an abstract particularity (chaos) are both irrational (cannot be objects of knowledge), and trying to create the rational from irrational is like adding two zeros and expecting to produce a positive number. Thus existence of an absolute God, as the source of both the unity and particularity of the world, is necessary for the very possibility of human rationality and knowledge.[7]
14. "God" is a meaningless term, like the term "blich":
Straw-man argument, begging the question. This assumes that God exists in something like Kant's noumenal realm as an empty abstraction. Kant's God is not the Christian God. The Christian God has a concrete character, and that character has definite implications for human life (heaven, hell, sin, creation, etc.). If God had other characteristics, there would be other implications.
15. Saying "God did it," does not explain anything. I want to know how God made a cow!:
As finite creatures, exhaustive explanations of anything are impossible. What evolutionist has exhaustive knowledge of the evolutionary process? Does that mean that evolution is no explanation? The issue between Christianity and atheism is that the possibility and existence of science, logic, and ethics at least makes sense in a world created by an absolutely rational, absolutely moral God; whereas a worldview in which the universe is ultimately determined by impersonal, amoral, non-rational matter cannot make sense of science, logic, and ethics.
16. Belief in religion may be emotionally meaningful, but it is not rationally meaningful. Faith and reason are independent of each other:
Begging the question. This is not the Christian view of faith and reason. When the Christian appeals to faith, he is not appealing to the non-rational but to an absolutely rational God.[8] It is the atheist, believing that the finite human mind is the most advanced mind in the universe and that the universe is ultimately non-rational, who is appealing to the non-rational when he believes something that has not been grasped by the human mind. Thus, the view of religion assumed in this objection is actually a description of atheist spirituality and faith rather than Christianity. (See below for more on science and religion.)
17. To believe in religion is to be closed-minded and believe things on empty authority. The atheist and agnostic are open-minded skeptics; they believe only on the basis of evidence, and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads:
As a famous philosopher has observed, "doubting itself presupposes certainty."[9] To be skeptical of everything would mean that a person has no beliefs, like a vegetable. You should not be so open-minded that your brains fall out. One cannot be skeptical of the truth of something unless one accepts a standard of truth by which other claims can be judged. Infallibility is an inescapable concept. Everyone has some ultimate standard of truth. If God is rejected, another ultimate standard will take His place, an idol. As ultimate, there is no higher standard that can criticize it. The State (Hobbes, Hegel), the Communist Party, nature (Marquis de Sade), the will of the majority (Rousseau), experience (Hume), the artistic impulse, academic freedom, and many other aspects of God's creation have served as infallible idols for modern society.[10] Both the Christian and non-Christian have an ultimate authority that they will not question and in terms of which they judge (are skeptical of) other claims to truth.
The atheist's universe is closed to God. The atheist is close-minded in rejecting the possibility of God from the outset, as when they define science as a search for naturalistic explanations, which means that it is a foregone conclusion that they will never discover evidence for the supernatural. Thus when they claim to believe things only on the basis of "evidence" and will follow the evidence wherever it leads, they have rigged the game by defining "evidence" from the start to exclude God. They are being close-minded to the very possibility of finding evidence for Christianity. The atheist position is logically self-refuting, for it amounts to an absolute claim that there are no absolutes. It is an absolute claim that the Bible and Christianity cannot be true, and that "science," which can give only probabilistic truth, is the source of all genuine knowledge. Not only is it self-refuting, but the atheist's ultimate standard undermines the possibility of rationality because that ultimate standard is non-rational. On the basis of the wholly non-rational the rational cannot arise and cannot be explained. To be skeptical in a way that is morally and logically sound, one must have a rational, absolute standard of truth by which to judge other claims. Only in terms of the ultimacy of an absolutely rational God and His revealed absolute word, can a person be rationally and morally open-minded and skeptical.
18. Creationism is a pseudo-science because science is, by definition, a search for naturalistic explanations:
Begging the question. This definition of science assumes that the world can be explained without God, which is the very point in issue. By excluding supernatural explanations from the outset, it is a foregone conclusion that the evolutionist will find evidence only for a naturalistic origin of life.
19. Christian faith is an irrational wish-fulfillment by primitive, ignorant minds that our mysterious and dangerous world be governed by a loving, wise divine Father. As science and reason advance, the need for religion will fade away like the smile on the Cheshire Cat:
Begging the question, straw-man. Just because something is desired does not prove that it is not true. Furthermore, it is not the Christian view that humanity has evolved from non-rational ooze into rational minds. The atheist is actually describing the irrationalism inherent in the atheist worldview. Since man is the highest rational being on that view, appeal beyond the human mind to faith must be an appeal to the non-rational. The Christian view is that man has always been in contact with an absolutely rational God. The Christian appeal to faith is not a leap beyond reason but an appeal to the absolutely rational Creator. The claim could be reversed: Atheism is an irrational wish-fulfillment that there be no God whom the atheist must obey and be judged by. Whether one or the other view is the product of an irrational desire depends on an objective argument that that view is not true. The Christian argument against atheism is that, given its view that the universe is ultimately non-rationality, rationality could never arise from it.
20. Science unites people because it is objective, observable and testable so that everyone can agree on it. Religion divides because it concerns subjective, untestable beliefs so that there can never be resolution between groups who hold different beliefs:
Straw-man. This mischaracterizes both science and religion, at least the Christian religion. One of the great myths of the modern age has been that "facts speak for themselves." The reality is that all facts are interpreted facts. In the twentieth century many philosophers tried to develop a theory of knowledge based purely on sense experience, but their failure is now widely acknowledged in philosophical circles. Laws of logic, mathematical concepts, and other abstract concepts, for example, are not observable entities. Experiments cannot conclusively falsify a particular proposition, because any one person holds a large network of beliefs. Faced with apparently unfavorable evidence, a person could choose to abandon one of his other beliefs in order to protect a more cherished one (like deny that the instruments recorded the event accurately).
Furthermore, Christian religious belief is a belief in objective truths. God's existence is a fact, even if no human acknowledged it. The Bible endorses empirical tests to determine whether an alleged revelation from God is genuine, such as the test for fulfillment of prophecy (Deut. 18:22). And there are objective, rational proofs for the existence of God, proofs which involve the necessity of an absolutely rational, moral, all-knowing Creator in order to account for the possibility of human reason, morality and knowledge.
Ultimately atheism reduces to pure subjectivism because truth is ultimately judged by the human mind. Truth becomes whatever the individual person decides it is. Only Christianity can account for objective truth because there is a transcendent, absolutely rational, unchanging God who is the ultimate standard of truth.[11]
21. Whether religious claims are true should be tested by scientific standards because science is a standard that everyone can agree on:
Beyond the argument above (20), this objection is begging the question. It assumes that sense experience is the only source of truth. As such it excludes the possibility of the supernatural from the outset. It attempts to unite all people by requiring Christians and any other people who believe in the supernatural to become born-again liberals. Liberals are a small, elitist sect who can't seem to get along with any other groups of people who hold a different belief system.
22. Infinite regress, and all the other problems of the traditional proofs for the existence of God:
I don't subscribe to those arguments, so I can't be saddled with their problems.
23. The fact that atheists have been unable to solve certain mysteries is no argument for the existence of God. Any appeal to God as an explanation for the physical universe is an illegitimate appeal to the "god of the gaps."
Atheists claim, on the one hand, science (which they wrongly assume is the same as the naturalistic worldview) has been extremely successful at solving mysteries, at producing knowledge hand over fist. On the other hand, they say, an appeal to God stops all further inquiry. The materialist methodology is a knowledge producer, and theological methodology is a knowledge stopper.
The problem with this argument by the atheists is that it shows a lack of awareness of the transcendental necessity of the existence of God for the possibility of knowledge, which I explain in my essay "Christian Civilization is the Only Civilization – In a Sense of Course." Assuming naturalism, knowledge is not possible, science is not possible. An appeal to God to explain science is not an appeal for the purpose of simply plugging some gaps in the materialistic scheme. Rather, it is an appeal to that which is logically necessary for the possibility of science. The naturalistic worldview does not merely have gaps that need to be plugged; it is one big hole that cannot account for the intelligibility of anything in life. On the basis of an ultimately non-rational universe, rationality is not possible.
An implication of Christian theism is that there are some things that humans will never know. We will always remain finite. There are miracles on occasion, preventing the possibility of following a chain of material causation as an explanation. But the regularity in nature that is the norm could only be possible on the assumption that God rules the universe. Only because an absolutely rational God is the Creator of humans and nature is a rational investigation of nature by humans possible. Lack of knowledge of some things is a small price to pay for the possibility of humans having knowledge at all, and for all the fruits that God-ordained science can bear for life on earth.
That some events are miracles and thus beyond scientific inquiry does not mean that science is not possible in all other circumstances. The God of the Bible has, in actuality, promised that He will maintain uniformity in natural processes as a general rule (Gen. 8:22). Admittedly, an absolute, self-determined God could, in actuality, perform miracles so often that no regularity of nature would be discernable; but if the argument for Christian Civilization above is sound, the existence of such an absolute, self-determined God is necessary for the possibility of science. Excluding a miracle-performing God does not leave one with a world of uniform natural law, but a world of either pure chaos or a unity devoid of all content, or an insoluble mixture of both. While the theistic view puts the processes of miraculous events and all other knowledge that God chooses to withhold from humans beyond the capability of human discovery, these things are ultimately rational, having their origin in an absolutely rational God; whereas, in terms of non-theistic worldviews, any lack of unity must be regarded as irrational, having its origin in irrational chaos.
Scientist Arthur Jones makes some good points:
It is commonly claimed by secular scientists that creationism is a "science stopper." The contention is that to ascribe anything (e.g., the origin of living organisms) to the direct action of God is to cut off all scientific inquiry. This seems such simple common sense that it has been very persuasive. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to show that the argument is fallacious.
A number of general points can be made. First, the argument is based on ignorance of all the different ways in which Christian faith can enter into science and of how fruitful these have been. After all, many of the great scientists of the past were committed Christians and many of those were consciously exploring the implications of their Christian faith for science. Second, whereas the direct action of God may cut off one type of explanation, others will remain and may even be enhanced. To say that God created the different kinds of animals and plants certainly cuts off explanation in terms of evolutionary continuity. However, it leaves wide open scientific investigation of every other pattern of relationship (ecological, developmental, etc.) between these kinds. Scientists have been so indoctrinated in the belief that all patterns can only be explained historically in terms of the happenstances of Darwinian evolution that many wouldn't even know to look for explanations in other terms. Third, there is abundant documentation of the fact that evolutionary naturalism has often stopped scientific research. To take just one example, the evolutionary assumption that certain organs or features are vestigial has often long delayed the (fruitful) research into their functions
on 17 Feb 2012 at 8:55 pm 261.DPK said …
255.wow said …
"Even if the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all."
This is true. But it also does not mean that one DOES exist either. To assume he does, we need a reason.
Your post is too long to point out ALL the false premises, special pleadings, and straw man arguments you have presented… so let's just start at the beginning and point out why your entire argument is based on nonsense. You make endless false statements and then proceed to draw conclusions from them… like this:
The air we breathe cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet it most certainly exists.
What? That is simply factually false.
The force of gravity cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet we know that it exists.
Your implication is that gravity is beyond physical perception… it is not. It can certainly be perceived and demonstrated.
Emotions, values, beliefs, and thoughts cannot be found by using any of our senses, yet they are as real as rocks or trees.
They are real in that they are chemical processes in our nervous system which can be quantified.
Jump to the conclusion… if you want to define "god" as the natural laws that govern the operation of the universe… have at it. That is Einstein's "god" and there is no denying there is order to the universe. But, if you want to make the jump form that to a personal god who interacts in the physical world, demands worship and obedience, gives a single fuck about what happens to you, loves you, judges you for sins, and will reward or punish you for eternity over whether or not you believe in him, you're a long way from that. If god interacts with the physical world, he must leave evidence of that interaction. That is the nature of the physical world. There is none, zero, nada. So wax philosophical about how we can't explain every aspect of the universe in which we live, that does not, in any way shape or form, lead to the inevitable conclusion that god or gods therefore exist.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:07 pm 262.Wow said …
Look, its simple. You broke down my arguments comparing to yours and said, "Factually false"
So you can see air? You can hear air? Be a little more elaborate with the details would you? Or is it that you have nothing better to point out?
Speaking of quantifying our biochemical pathways, sure they can be quantified, but can the feeling be explained?
You only call the "false premesis" because that's how you choose to see them. Fact of the matter is I can answer every question you throw at me, it won't make a difference.
Someone101 said "We are wasting our time."
I agree.
You Atheists only take what you can defend and defend it but leave so much of the post that you haven't defended. I though this was a blog debating existence of God?
You can't prove a negative, and you can't disprove it either.
You ask for evidence, there is none.
I ask you for evidence. There is none.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:34 pm 263.Lou (DFW) said …
How many characters of B.S did Wow, Someone101, and now another sock-puppet named Mikey post without producing any evidence for their imaginary god? They can lie about atheists and what we allegedly believe or think, but they NEVER, EVER produce any legitimate evidence for their imaginary god.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:50 pm 264.Mikey said …
Lou (DFW)"They can lie about atheists and what we allegedly believe or think, but they NEVER, EVER produce any legitimate evidence for their imaginary god."
Where did I lie about atheists?
How come you, "NEVER, EVER" produce any legitimate evidence for your world without a God?
To someone101 and Wow,
I suggest we leave these people to themselves. They want to throw our religion around, yet refuse to give evidence of there not being a God. At least, not anything that we can't answer. They have no more evidence than we do. So, I believe, for the fun of it if you will, we ignore these people. They have nothing better to say than what they have excessively repeated over and over again, that we have no evidence. They are clearly no better than us, having no evidence themselves. Hah, funny how they call us the hypocrites isn't it?
So stop replying to them, as someone101 put it best, we are wasting our time.
Let them think their ways and call us nutcases or whatever they may wish to call us, just as one of you said, we can just as easily call them the same. They have no legitimacy to their claims, they simply think what they want, and ignore anything they can't defend or disagree with. You're arguing with a brick wall.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:52 pm 265.someone101 said …
Could not have said it better myself!
Thanks Mikey.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:54 pm 266.Lou (DFW) said …
262.Wow said …
"So you can see air? You can hear air? Be a little more elaborate with the details would you? Or is it that you have nothing better to point out?"
Don't be stupid. Air has physical properties than can be measured and quantified. So does gravity and any other absurd example you can think of to erroneously compare to the lack of evidence for god.
"Speaking of quantifying our biochemical pathways, sure they can be quantified, but can the feeling be explained?"
Do you have a point?
"You only call the "false premesis" because that's how you choose to see them."
Wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, but of truth. Evolution and creationism/ID don't get equal-time in schools because it's not "how you choose to see them." Evolution is science, creationism is a fairy tale – as are all aspects of religion. We don't teach the reality of Santa Claus and leprechauns in school because they aren't real, not because of "how you choose to see them." You're comment is blatantly false and absurd.
"Fact of the matter is I can answer every question you throw at me, it won't make a difference."
"Fact of the matter is" the only thing that will "make a difference" is providing evidence for your imaginary god. Until then, all your answers and C&P from other sites is is irrelevant.
"You Atheists only take what you can defend and defend it but leave so much of the post that you haven't defended. I though this was a blog debating existence of God?"
You can debate that or the existence of Santa Claus until you're blue in the face. The only thing that really matters is evidence.
"You can't prove a negative, and you can't disprove it either.
You ask for evidence, there is none.
I ask you for evidence. There is none."
YES! We know! There is no evidence for your imaginary god. That's all you had to write.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:55 pm 267.alex said …
"Christian View: There was someone there with intelligent design making it happen."
Christians MUST defend a bullshit bible. No matter how you spin it, the bible is bullshit. Your god is bullshit. You think I'm afraid to go to hell? You're smugly thinking: you'll be afraid mofo, when yo ass is burnin. Who's the afraid mofo? You Christians can't even contemplate that after you're dead, dat's it!
If you want to make a case for your Christian God, please don't use the bible. It just doesn't work here. Same with the Koran, etc.
By definition, atheists do not believe in intelligent design. We have our own ideas and we understand that not everyone agrees. We believe in Science, but the site is not "whywontsciencehealamputees". It's about your god. Enough of the distractions. Prove it. If you counter, prove not, I'll…..
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:56 pm 268.Xenon said …
"Your post is too long to point out ALL the false premises, special pleadings, and straw man arguments you have presented"
Cop out….You ask and you fail to provide rebuttal.
"if you want to define "god" as the natural laws that govern the operation of the universe… have at it.'
Thanks, but I though we have permission to believe whatever we desire? One step further, they provided plenty of proof for a personal God.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:58 pm 269.Xenon said …
alex said "mofo"?
Are you a grade school student alex? Well, at least you cleaned up your vulgar filth that your own friends told you to tone down.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:00 pm 270.wow said …
"Evolution is science, creationism is a fairy tale"
Oh wait, YOU CAN'T
And we are full of bullshit?
You have NO evidence WHAT SO EVER of an earth that does not contain God, so why do you CONTINUE to probe us for evidence!
We've asked repeatedly for YOUR evidence that there is no God, yet you repeatedly DODGE the question, and then make assumptions that we DODGE your questions! We answered ALL OF THEM. You have answered NONE OF OURS.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:02 pm 271.wow said …
EVERY EVIDENCE THAT YOU COME UP WITH CAN BE EXPLAINED IN A THEIST WAY. Thus, you have NO evidence that he does not exist.
Case is fucking closed.
Nobody wins, just battling this never ending fucking blog.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:11 pm 272.DPK said …
You people are as dumb as a bag of rocks. I cannot show you evidence that god does not exist anymore that I can show you evidence that Tinker Belle does not exist because he exists only in your imagination and you have defined him as being undetectable.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:17 pm 273.wow said …
So why is it that WE get bashed when we say we have no evidence of God but we believe that some things have happened because of a said God?
That's no worse than your defense on how he doesn't exist.
Face it, you have no claims, your just as bad as we are.
You go on to say, "It's in your imagination." That is NOT a fact, it cannot be proven. It is merely your opinion.
Again, talking to a brick wall.
You are all hypocrites.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:18 pm 274.wow said …
Where did we define him as undetectable?
Christians believe he has caused many miracles.
Real undetectable huh?
Guessing you just made that one up for another cop out, since that seems to be all you are good for.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:20 pm 275.wow said …
"I cannot show you evidence that god does not exist"
You just said it YOURSELF.
So why do you ask of evidence from us?
Hypocrite Hypocrite HYPOCRITE.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:21 pm 276.alex said …
"vulgar filth", uhmm, sorry, I'm the only one that's vulgar? True I got carried away and I adjusted.
More distractions? Your god proof? Oooh, look, it's windy outside!!! Your god proof? Oh, evolution is shaky!!! Your god proof? (crickets chirping…)
I'm not in grade school. I like to use colorful and original language, not like the Christian cut and pasters.
At least, I don't masquerade as sock puppets. You know they have free proxies you can use. Even a grade school student would know that.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:23 pm 277.Lou (DFW) said …
264.Mikey said …
"Where did I lie about atheists?"
I wrote "they," not you specifically.
"The atheist's universe is closed to God. The atheist is close-minded in rejecting the possibility of God from the outset…"
"The atheist position is logically self-refuting, for it amounts to an absolute claim that there are no absolutes."
Need I continue?
This is very simple, despite all of your posturing and bluster. Theists believe that at least one deity exists. Atheists reject that belief because their is no evidence to support it. This is not about philosophy or logic. It's about a claim for which there is no evidence. Why can't you simply admit it and keep your delusion in private in the churches subsidized by the US taxpayers?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:24 pm 278.Seriously said …
There is no evidence to support either theory mentioned here.
You can't provide evidence that there is NO God.
You can't provide evidence that there IS a God.
What are you guys arguing over again?
You are all stupid.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:26 pm 279.Lou (DFW) said …
277.Lou (DFW) said …
"Atheists reject that belief because their is no evidence to support it."
Correction: there, not their.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:26 pm 280.Mikey said …
If you would like us to keep quiet I suggest you don't post blogs debating whether or not something does or does not exist.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:29 pm 281.Lou (DFW) said …
275.wow said …
"So why do you ask of evidence from us?"
Because you are making a claim that is otherwise a matter faith. What part of that don't you understand?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:30 pm 282.alex said …
"keep your delusion in private in the churches"
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:31 pm 283.Lou (DFW) said …
280.Mikey said …
"If you would like us to keep quiet I suggest you don't post blogs debating whether or not something does or does not exist."
That's not what we want. We want you to provide evidence for your imaginary god, or keep quite about it, or have at in your taxpayer subsidized churches. Isn't that enough?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:33 pm 284.alex said …
next thing you know, we'll have to swear to a bible and they'll start stamping god in our currency, ….oh wait, arghhhh…
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:34 pm 285.Mikey said …
You're making a claim that there is no God.
Where's you evidence?
You have none.
"Because you are making a claim that is otherwise a matter faith. What part of that don't you understand?"
You are making a claim not based on the faith that there is a God, but based on the faith that there is not a God.
There is no evidence to EITHER theory.
Face it, you have NO evidence.
We have NO evidence.
Get over it already. Holy shit.
What part of that don't YOU understand?
You're making a claim with no evidence
So are we
You are a hypocrite.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:44 pm 286.alex said …
linus: behold the great pumpkin!
me: where? where?
linus: you must find him in your heart.
me: nope. try again. need proof.
linus: the great pumpkin will fry you. can you prove not?
me: uhhmm, nope. can you prove the great pumpkin?
linus: i cannot and you cannot disprove. you are a hyprocrite.
me: shrug. ….keep coding java.
linus: i demand that we teach in school that the great pumpkin created the universe.
me: wait! #*@!<!%&
posters: tone it down! you're upsetting people.
me: ok, (frown) keep coding java.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:46 pm 287.Anonymous said …
I call you a hypocrite for demanding evidence from us for our theory when you yourselves can't provide evidence for your own theory.
Nice try on your post up there, unfortunately, it just shows that you're a dumbass.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:53 pm 288.alex said …
"Nice try on your post up there, unfortunately, it just shows that you're a dumbass."
It's really a v-e-r-y s-i-m-p-l-e m-e-s-s-a-g-e. There I spelled it out. Sorry, you didn't get it.
Did you cut and paste dumbass? Link please.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:00 pm 289.DPK said …
262.Wow said …
"So you can see air? You can hear air? Be a little more elaborate with the details would you? Or is it that you have nothing better to point out?"
are you a freakin' moron? You have never heard the wind, felt a breeze, smelled a fire, or seen a haze? Do you know why the sky is blue, and not black?
I admit I didn't fully read your diatribe… no need, when you lead off with false and stupid statements, your argument is DOA. You cannot build a rational position on a false premise, which is what you have done, over and over and over. You are too dense to even realize that you cannot disprove a negative, yet you continue to demand that we do, as if it makes any kind of sense at all. It's like trying to teach calculus to a dog. Ain't happenin'. You either just don't understand or you have your fingers in your ears going "nanana" like a 3rd gradeer.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:20 pm 290.alex said …
It baffles me why people can't understand that negatives cannot be proven. I really believe that once theists understand this concept, they will understand the atheist's position. Let me try again.
Muslim: Allah is the Great God!
Atheist: Nope. Prove Allah.
Muslim: Can you disprove the existence of Allah!
Atheist: Nope.
Muslim: We both cannot prove. I win. Allah exist.
(cut and paste)
Christian: Jesus is the Son of God!
Atheist: Nope. Prove Jesus.
Christian: You cannot disprove the existence of Jesus!
Atheist: Nope.
Christian: We both cannot prove. I win. Jesus exist.
Is it possible that Allah and Jesus both exist? Why not Zeus and other gods?
You take a position on a god, then prove it. If you say you can bench 800lbs, interested people would probably ask you for proof. If you ask to prove that you cannot bench 800lbs, what would a rational person answer?
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:24 pm 291.Lou (DFW) said …
285.Mikey said …
"You're making a claim that there is no God."
No, I'm asking for evidence of your claim.
"Where's you evidence? You have none."
Rejection of a claim is not a claim.
"Because you are making a claim that is otherwise a matter faith. What part of that don't you understand?
You are making a claim not based on the faith that there is a God, but based on the faith that there is not a God."
Hilarious stuff! Faith is belief in god. By definition and convention, rejection of faith is not faith!
"There is no evidence to EITHER theory."
Rejection of a theory is not a theory.
"Face it, you have NO evidence.
We have NO evidence.
Get over it already. Holy shit.
What part of that don't YOU understand?"
I understand it perfectly! You have no evidence for your imaginary god! Thank you for playing. You may leave now.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:52 pm 292.Wow said …
You have no evidence for your theory God doesn't exist!
thank you for playing, you may leave now.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:57 pm 293.alex said …
"You have no evidence for your theory God doesn't exist!" therefore god exists.
"You have no evidence for your theory Zeus doesn't exist!" therefore zeus exists.
"You have no evidence for your theory the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist!" therefore the Tooth Fairy exists.
get the fuck outta here.
on 17 Feb 2012 at 11:58 pm 294.DPK said …
Wow, you're really someone101, right? You said you were in college, please go and ask one of your professors to explain it to you. Not believing in gods is not a "theory" any more than there is a "theory" of not believing in Santa Claus, or a "theory" that everything in the world is held in place by tiny angels flapping their wings real hard, or a "theory" that the moon is not made of green cheese. Your idiocy is showing, give it a rest. It is annoying for others, and embarrassing for you. Of course, for someone who readily admits that you consider it entirely possible that Zeus is in fact, real, might be too much to ask.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:00 am 295.Wow said …
"You can't prove a negative."
You can't disprove it either dumbass
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:03 am 296.alex said …
"You can't disprove it either dumbass"
I can kick your ass with my pinky. Can you disprove it? Language enough for you?
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:03 am 297.Wow said …
You people don't get it. Your beloef is that no god exists. We believe the opposite. Neither belief, if you will, has no evidence.
Get over it.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:06 am 298.alex said …
I believe in the great pumpkin and you don't. Who's right?
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:10 am 299.alex said …
…ding, ding, ding! time's up. the correct answer is the non-believer. I haven't proven my case for the great pumpkin. just like your gawd.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:59 am 300.DPK said …
Not believing in imaginary beings is the default position, dumbass. It is not a position that requires proof or evidence because it does not make a claim, anymore than rejecting a belief system that claims Mickey Mouse is a real talking mouse is a "beloef" (sic).
Didn't you ever hear of "Russell's Teapot" or "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You are the definition of an irrational idiot.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 3:36 am 301.ReligionIsStupid said …
"Wow", "Seriously", "Someone[101]" is taking the "Mi[c]key".
How shall I put this? For. Fuck's. Sake.
Look, people, it's really, really, simple. *IF* this god existed you'd be able to prove it. But you CAN'T. You can't prove it because, he doesn't exist.
Someone101, you proved it to yourself. You are an utter hypocrite and a liar. You deny having double standards but that is EXACTLY what you demonstrated.
You say God is imaginary, please tell me the scientific and mathematical facts that prove this.
That's what you wanted others to do to prove your non-existing, made up, fairy-tale, god doesn't exist. But, wait, what standard do you employ to prove he exists? Well, look, it's totally different. You hypocrite.
You were asked to apply the same standard to Zeus. You danced around that. Again, you're a hypocrite.
You simply want to apply two totally different standards. The impossible to meet one for "disproof" but ONLY of your god, not of anything else, and the "anything goes" standard of proof where no-evidence at all is good enough for you. You're a hypocrite.
What kind of person asks someone for a greater standard of disproof when they, themselves, won't offer ANY proof at all? Oh, yes. A hypocrite.
You mentioned that these arguments are strengthening your faith. Yes, that's the sign of a really good mind-fuck. One of the interesting things about humans is that they will fight tooth and nail to maintain irrational beliefs rather than face reality. Rather than entertain cognitive dissonance, you are performing Olympic level mental gymnastics to to deflect the conversation away from YOUR requirement to prove YOUR case.
Do you think you are smug and clever saying "well, they can't disprove my god". Well, as DPK said, that's because you simply define your god to be untestable. Why would you do that? Oh yes, you're a hypocrite… and a coward.
As for all these attempts at false equivalence, pleas to get along, appeals to ignorance, and all sorts of distractions. Are you all really that stupid? You think comparing air, of which we can measure, manipulate, test, affect, contain, constrain, and whatever with something that doesn't exist is a valid comparison? Are you folks mental or something? No, don't answer that.
Provide the evidence that this god of yours exists. Defining it as a "personal god" in an attempt to hide it away is only making your case worse.
OK, let's let you proceed as if you have a personal god. If it's personal, then you must have some personal interaction. If it's personal then it's tailored to you and that cannot happen without some kind of overt action. If it's personal and I often see it described as a "relationship" then it's a two-way street. You cannot possibly have a *real* [personal] relationship with someone, or something, that leaves no trace. The only way for that to happen would be if you were delusional.
So, someone101, which is it? Do you have a "personal" god as you described or are you delusional? In it's the former, then please tell us about the personal attributes of this god. Please tell us how this relationship is personalized to you. Please tell us how you know its real and not a delusion. If it's the latter, then carry on dodging and ducking. You're fooling no-one, not even yourself.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:09 am 302.zomgod said …
Quick question. Those of you who don't believe God exists, do you celebrate the holidays that would imply that you do? Christmas? Or is that just "free shit day"? Easter? Or do you just have some weird fetish for a bunny and it's eggs? And nobody gives a fuck about hanukkah or quanza so don't even go there.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:10 am 303.zomgod said …
Ignorance is bliss so all you fuck's must be feelin' pretty good right now.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:12 am 304.zomgod said …
Since I don't really want to read this clusterfuck, one of you want to make some Spark Notes and get then to me? That'd be sick
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:14 am 305.zomgodddd said …
You wouldn't have a penis without God!
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:14 am 306.zomgod said …
God gave you the right to create and destroy with that cock!
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:41 am 307.lol said …
God's existence is just as likely as you all having social lives.
That doesn't work in my favor. Buttfuck.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:41 am 308.lol said …
on 18 Feb 2012 at 5:47 am 309.lol said …
Bring some joy to your lives.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 1:01 pm 310.alex said …
"Bring some joy to your lives."
try stepping on some dog doodoo and youtubing it?
it's god's will.
on 18 Feb 2012 at 8:46 pm 311.Severin said …
"Hmm, what a coincidence.? Really?"
But, if you want more complex answer to your "really?", you have to tell us what WAS it, if not a coincidence!
So, WHAT was it?
on 18 Feb 2012 at 11:50 pm 312.Megabyte said …
Beliefs are like anything else. God is obviously the default position. Cultures from the beginning of time until modernity have believed in God. The perceived gods may not agree, but nevertheless, a higher entity exist to the vast majority.
In order to change this position, those who have this minority belief must present proof to change this belief. They do not and (hold the typing), they cannot which is why their belief continues to this day to be the small minority.
I cast aside the minority position well over a decade ago due to advances in science and personal experiences. Until the atheist position has more to support it, they will continue in great frustration and frankly fear.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:16 am 313.Lou (DFW) said …
312.Megabyte said …
"Beliefs are like anything else."
No, they aren't.
"God is obviously the default position. Cultures from the beginning of time until modernity have believed in God. The perceived gods may not agree, but nevertheless, a higher entity exist to the vast majority."
Ignorance is the default position. Man educates himself and removes himself from that position.
"In order to change this position, those who have this minority belief must present proof to change this belief."
Hor, this one of the dumbest things you posted.
"They do not and (hold the typing), they cannot which is why their belief continues to this day to be the small minority."
Sad that you must justify your ignorant belief system with an an appeal to the majority.
"I cast aside the minority position well over a decade ago due to advances in science…"
"…and personal experiences."
Your personal experiences are nothing but that.
"Until the atheist position has more to support it.."
The atheist position is provide evidence of your imaginary god. Yet you NEVER, EVER do.
"…they will continue in great frustration and frankly fear."
Yes, unfortunately, we do – fear of ignorance and blind subservience to myths and fairy tales that obstructs and prevents the advancement of knowledge and truth that is the basis of humanity. Unfortunately, without that, humanity is bound to primitive behavior similar to wolves howling at that moon – pathetic creatures afraid of their own shadows.
The exact condition under which the great religions of the world have ruled the ignorant, religious masses.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:35 am 314.DPK said …
"Beliefs are like anything else. God is obviously the default position."
Lou is absolutely right… what you are really saying is that ignorance and superstition is the default position, and has been since primitive times. You seem somehow proud of that fact. Tragic. Remember, the default position for the mentally ill, until scientific enlightenment showed us otherwise, was that they were possessed by demons. The default position for droughts, storms, earthquakes, and crop failures was punishment by angry gods. Yes, this was the majority belief, and in some backwards parts of the world, still is. And you champion ignorance and backwardness like it's a badge of honor. Your inability to let go of your silly, childish belief system is a major hurdle to the progress of humanity, but, little by little, it erodes. One day, soon, I hope, ridiculous beliefs in gods, magic, and other spiritual woo woo will take their place alongside bloodletting, exorcisms, and yes, howling at the moon.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:42 am 315.alex said …
"God is obviously the default position".
all babies are born religious! that's why my cousin's name is hesus. what a bunch of crapola. that's why you morons wage crusades. conquistadores anyone?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:45 am 316.alex said …
"In order to change this position, those who have this minority belief must present proof to change this belief."…troll
on 19 Feb 2012 at 2:14 am 317.Megabyte said …
"what you are really saying is that ignorance and superstition is the default position"
Of course in your small minority opinion. But again, until you can offer something, anything of substance your opinion will remain baseless.
The fact you don't understand or desire to acknowledge God in no way makes it superstition. Some atheist are genuine, looking for a reason to believe while others are ideologues and will never believe regardless of what they find.
Great job with the insults and name calling. I guess you all fired your best shots.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 2:30 am 318.alex said …
"Of course in your small minority opinion. But again, until you can offer something, anything of substance your opinion will remain baseless."
hence, your tireless crusading about converting other people into your fold. you don't practice birth control so that you can begat more morons to sustain your majority. you keep championing creationism in the hope that the masses will remain clueless and not bother with original thought.
the flat earth morons used to be the majority. you still a card carrying member?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 2:34 am 319.ReligionIsStupid said …
Of course he is a troll. Horatiio posts here under many different sock-puppet accounts. One of those is Megabyte.
What he delights in doing is putting up red-herring arguments in order to quash any argument where proof of his god is requested. We could simply ignore him, or we can let him embarrass himself and demonstrate his intellectual dishonesty.,
Megabyte states that belief in god is the default and tells us: "Cultures from the beginning of time until modernity have believed in God."
Hor capitalized God rather that saying god or gods, so appears to be making a specific claim to a specific god – by convention, Yahweh.
So, "Megabyte", I challenge you to provide proof that "Cultures from the beginning of time until modernity have believed in God." – Don't forget, in order not to look like a blithering idiot, you will need to prove how cultures hundreds of thousands of years old believed in something that wasn't invented until two thousand years ago. Good luck with that.
Next, if you want to try this argument from antiquity you must be arguing that the earlier gods were valid. These gods were not your god. Therefore your god does not exist. Congratulations Hor, let's keep going though.
If belief in gods is the default then you need to disprove all the other gods. Remember, you argued that this belief has existed since the beginning of time. You are also contradicting yourself. For your god to be the one, then this people were incorrect and your argument folds into the dust.
You've been asked this before, but I'm willing to give you a chance to win your own argument; hence you need to show how your contradictory statements regarding belief in all gods translates to a belief in a specific god.
In other words, your argument hinges on you producing *proof* that your god is the one true god. Please proceed.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 2:36 am 320.alex said …
"Of course in your small minority opinion".
btw, christians are a minority in the world's total religion population. you represent all the religions?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 2:48 am 321.alex said …
webmaster, please, please install the WordPress plugin for filtering idiots.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 4:03 am 322.DPK said …
What Hor fails to comprehend is that "Cultures from the beginning of time until modernity have believed in gods"… that were ALL completely imaginary! hahaha.. what a dufus. Of course, after millions of years of primitives worshiping gods who simply did not exist, NOW all of a sudden we are supposed to accept that HIS current god is actually real, unlike all the others on the garbage heap of discarded myths and legends. And this appeal to majority argument is supposed to carry some weight.
pffffttt…… next.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 6:21 am 323.Lou (DFW) said …
317.Megabyte said …
"Of course in your small minority opinion."
Minority opinion? Really? That's the best you can do? Continue with an appeal to the majority?
"But again, until you can offer something, anything of substance your opinion will remain baseless."
It's not an opinion. Everybody, as you clearly demonstrate, is born ignorant – the default position.
"The fact you don't understand or desire to acknowledge God in no way makes it superstition."
Wrong again. You were given you every chance to provide evidence of your imaginary god so that we can understand and acknowledge it, but you NEVER, EVER do.
"Some atheist are genuine, looking for a reason to believe while others are ideologues and will never believe regardless of what they find."
And? So what? How is that relevant to the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god?
"Great job with the insults and name calling. I guess you all fired your best shots."
Best shots? For you? Shooting a fish in a barrel doesn't require any marksmanship. That's saved for the difficult targets – one of which you aren't.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 6:22 am 324.Lou (DFW) said …
232.Lou (DFW) said …
231.Xenon (aka Hor) said …
"Rather than dealing with the possibility of God, he admits God is real…"
"Show where, IN FACT, I admitted that. Unless you do, that makes you a liar."
Still waiting…
on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:20 am 325.ReligionIsStupid said …
Thinking out loud here, but I wonder why people continue to engage with the troll?
Every time Hor posts he gets destroyed and humiliated. He then runs away and returns as one of his many imaginary friends to start the same old ridiculous and pathetic arguments all over again.
At this point he has absolutely nothing to lose by behaving in an unscrupulous manner – he's certainly not going to win the argument. It's been proven time and time again that he's intellectually dishonest, he won't answer any questions, and he'll post outrageous lies.
I wonder if there a better way to expose this character other than to be drawn into his never-ending irrelevant arguments? Just food for thought.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:02 pm 326.Anonymous said …
Quick question. Those of you who don't believe God exists, do you celebrate the holidays that would imply that you do? Christmas? Or is that just "free shit day"? Easter? Or do you just have some weird fetish for a bunny and it's eggs? And nobody gives a fuck about hanukkah or quanza so don't even go there.
Ignorance is bliss so all you fuck's must be feelin' pretty good right now.
God's existence is just as likely as you all having social lives.
That doesn't work in my favor. Buttfuck.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 9:03 pm 327.Lou (DFW) said …
326.Anonymous said …
"Quick question. Those of you who don't believe God exists, do you celebrate the holidays that would imply that you do? Christmas? Or is that just "free shit day"? Easter? Or do you just have some weird fetish for a bunny and it's [sic] eggs?"
I do, but what difference does it make to you? How is it relevant to the fact that there's no evidence for an imaginary god?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 9:09 pm 328.Anonymous said …
If you don't believe in God, then why do you celebrate the holiday? So to you its free shit day and your fetish with the Easter bunny and its eggs? Where do atheists come off calling Christians hypocrites when they celebrate holidays that center around God? What difference does it make to me? Well, you're an atheist who celebrates a holiday you shouldn't because you don't believe in it. Hence, hypocrite.
As far as evidence goes, what do you believe those holidays are? And where did the dates come from? Where did they originate? You said so yourself that you don't believe in God, so clearly you won't admit it comes from the celebration of God's life and death. So, when you celebrate Christmas or free shit day, what is it that YOU are celebrating?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 9:15 pm 329.azreal said …
i believe that December 25th was borrowed from an old pagan festival. Where do the dates come from indeed
on 19 Feb 2012 at 9:20 pm 330.Godzilla said …
on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:45 pm 331.Lou (DFW) said …
328.Anonymous said …
"If you don't believe in God, then why do you celebrate the holiday?"
I celebrate the seasonal holiday, not the birth of an imaginary zombie.
"So to you its free shit day and your fetish with the Easter bunny and its eggs? Where do atheists come off calling Christians hypocrites when they celebrate holidays that center around God?"
It's not "free shit day." I pay for all the gifts that I give.
"What difference does it make to me? Well, you're an atheist who celebrates a holiday you shouldn't because you don't believe in it. Hence, hypocrite."
You seem to be very thin-skinned and argumentative for no justifiable reason.
But the truth of the matter is that xmas isn't really about celebrating the birth of an imaginary zombie.
"As far as evidence goes, what do you believe those holidays are? And where did the dates come from? Where did they originate? You said so yourself that you don't believe in God, so clearly you won't admit it comes from the celebration of God's life and death."
Of course I could, but it's the celebration of a myth.
"So, when you celebrate Christmas or free shit day, what is it that YOU are celebrating?"
I'm not celebrating anything specific.
When children and adults celebrate Halloween, what are they celebrating? are they honoring the saints and praying for the recently deceased?
Now, please answer my question that you danced around. How is an atheist celebrating an alleged religious holiday relevant to the fact that there's no evidence for an imaginary god? Alleged atheist hypocrisy about an alleged religious holiday isn't.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:49 pm 332.Lou (DFW) said …
330.Godzilla said …
Oh please! Really?
Virtually nobody believes in prayer, even when they claim otherwise. If prayer actually worked, sick and injured people wouldn't go to the doctor. It's that simple. And we haven't delved into all the medical studies that show no evidence that prayer works as claimed at
Why won't god heal amputees? Prayer NEVER works for that.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 11:26 pm 333.alex said …
"If you don't believe in God, then why do you celebrate the holiday"…
who the hell is celebrating? it's a freakin day off. am i a hyprocrite for accepting money with god reference?
distraction dismissed. where your god proof?
on 19 Feb 2012 at 11:41 pm 334.Anonymous said …
I wasn't providing evidence for anything, more so proving a point that atheists are hypocrits for celebrating a Christian holiday. Sure you buy the gifts, according to the bible Jesus was brought gifts. So your practicing a Christian tradition, thus you all = hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite.
By the way, free shit day is referred to you getting gifts that don't cost you anything. SMH. at you people.
on 19 Feb 2012 at 11:44 pm 335.alex said …
Fuck christmas, i hereby renounce it. happy?
on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:22 am 336.ReligionIsStupid said …
I wasn't providing evidence for anything, more so proving a point that atheists are hypocrits for celebrating a Christian holiday. Sure you buy the gifts, according to the bible Jesus was brought gifts. So your practicing a Christian tradition, thus you all = hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite
If he's a hypocrite, then what are you?
Can you please explain how you get the date of December 25th for Christmas from the bible? Or, perhaps you never actually looked to see if that date followed from your book? Probably not.
Also, what's your excuse for celebrating Christmas and Easter considering that they are pagan in origin?
And nobody gives a fuck about hanukkah or quanza [sic] so don't even go there.
That's fine, but if you are going to dismiss the old testament then you might as well recognize that without it your whole system of myths and legends falls into an abyss.
So, help us out here. How does Christians celebrating pagan festivals and following pagan traditions prove the existence of your god? If anything, believing that the traditions of festivals that apply to other gods and spirits are specific to your religion is a good example of how myths and legends evolve over time.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:56 am 337.Anonymous said …
Yet again, I told youI wasn't giving any evidence you thick skulled son of a bitch. If you'd read the whole post instead if only choosing to read what you can defend you'd know this. Again, SMH
More so, what'd your excuse for celebrating them? You're an atheist afterall. Aren't you?!
And to answer your question. I'm not Jewish hence me not giving a fuck aviyt a JEWISH HOLIDAY.
Yet you call yourself atheists when you partake in the Christian condition of Easter and Christmas?!
If you aren't a semi retarded atheist then I don't know what to call you. Oh yes. A Hypocrite.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:11 am 338.ReligionIsStupid said …
337, why do you think that people you don't know celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are you psychic or just psycho?
on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:35 am 339.Lou (DFW) said …
337.Anonymous said …
"Yet again, I told youI wasn't giving any evidence you thick skulled son of a bitch."
(sigh) Another whack-job on the blog.
You don't have to tell us you aren't providing any evidence for your imaginary god, It's obvious that you aren't. The reason being that you don't have any because your imaginary god doesn't exist.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:36 am 340.Lou (DFW) said …
338.ReligionIsStupid said …
"337, why do you think that people you don't know celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are you psychic or just psycho?"
Obviously psycho.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:52 am 341.hai said …
Lol you a bunch of hypocrites yo
on 20 Feb 2012 at 4:16 am 342.Anonymous said …
You seemed to have failed.to answer my question.
I'm going with semi retarded hypocrites.
Why do they celebrate Christmas and Easter?
Because that's what they believe in. That's their business. Not mine.
So tell me, why do you partake in Christian traditions if you're atheists?
on 20 Feb 2012 at 7:38 am 343.ReligionIsStupid said …
Apparently my question was too difficult for some. I'll expand upon it:
[Considering that I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter] why do you think that people you don't know celebrate Christmas and Easter? I'm sorry it's so redundant, but my question seemed too difficult for you without the obvious part.
It's also really puzzling how you [#342] get angry about celebrating a festival outside of your superstition but you can't understand people not celebrating a festival that they don't follow. Again, sorry for the Captain Obvious bit but you seem to need things spelled out.
Now, you can answer mine.
Can you please explain how you get the date of December 25th for Christmas from the bible?
Also, what's your excuse for celebrating Christmas and Easter considering that they are pagan in origin?
How do Christians celebrating pagan festivals and following pagan traditions prove the existence of their / your god?
on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:15 am 344.Ian R said …
The more I read this blog the more I like Christians and the less I go with the non believers. So the believers are crazy so what…The world is full of crazies and there seems to be quite a few agnostics amongst them. God the creator, possibly not but however we came about is a tantalizing conundrum and until science can come up with the answers why not dream a little. It's wrong to mix religion in its pure form, with the crooks, con-merchants and the exploitative rabble that inhabit our airwaves and churches. To believe in God is dumb but so was voting for George W Bush!
on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:14 pm 345.Anonymous said …
Dear ReligionIsStupid,
Yet again you prove the point that you people can only read what you can defend for if you read it all you'd see post #337. Sigh.
As for your previous post you yet again, failed to answer my question. Wow, for a third time you have danced around it. Let my ask it in a different way:
Assuming that you don't celebrate Christmas or Easter since that's what you state, please explain to me why many atheists do?
Post #337 will answer your questions, unless you refuse to read it simply because you disagree with what it states.
I understand people following traditons that they believe in, I don't understand atheists that celebrate/practice Christian tradition when they don't believe in it. Yet again, semi-retarded atheists.
So will you answer my question? Or find a way to dance around it for the fourth time?
And foe the third time, (if you would have read post 337) you'd know I'm not trying to show evidence. I'm proving a point that many of you atheists are hypocrites for celebrating Christmas and Easter when YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM.
Seriously. SMH.
so answer the question already.
or dance around it so I can ask it again and again until I get an answer out of you stupid people.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:17 pm 346.Lou (DFW) said …
345.Anonymous said …
"Assuming that you don't celebrate Christmas or Easter since that's what you state, please explain to me why many atheists do?"
It's been answered for you. Xmas and easter are parties. Their reason doesn't matter. You can go home now. Thanks for playing.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:27 pm 347.ReligionIsStupid said …
Dear idiot, what do you think "don't celebrate" means? As for what other people do, you'll have to ask them. Unlike religion, there isn't a rule-book for non-believers.
You have a blind spot don't you? You can't conceive of celebrating a non "Christian" festival yet you can't conceive of someone not celebrating a "Christian" festival.
You seem to delight in telling people that they are dancing around questions while not answering yourself.
The hypocrite is you.
Truly you are an idiot of breathtaking caliber. "Here's your sign".
on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:35 pm 348.alex said …
"Assuming that you don't celebrate Christmas or Easter since that's what you state, please explain to me why many atheists do?"
Atheists do NOT. You say they do, but you don't know shit. It's a day off. Just like I don't celebrate Sun-Day when it happens.
I do know that you are a dipshit. Whazamatter, can't find an abortion clinic to bomb? or any faggots to roll? or any adulterers to stone? Oh, never mind. You don't do those things, but I bet when your brothas do it, it's all good.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:52 pm 349.DPK said …
Dear idiot, christmas is as much a secular holiday for many, many people as it is a religious one. Let me ask YOU a question, do you put a christmas tree in your house and decorate it?? Did you know your god forbids that and you are a sinner?
"Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (King James Version)."
So, explain to us why you celebrate a pagan holiday with pagan traditions when you claim to be a christian? Hypocrite.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:44 pm 350.Anonymous said …
I posted a link.
Yet again, I'm not answering questions intolerable you answer mine. Over had atheists admit that they celebrate Christmas. Please tell me now, why do they do this?
Yet again I actually answered you questions in an earlier post you just refuse to read it. Christmas is not a secular holiday. Its a religious one. Many atheists celebrate Christmas. Argo, hypocrites.
When did I disclose my religion to you? Foe all you know I may be an atheist who doesn't celebrate thaws holidays but is trying to prove a point that you should not either.
one atheist admitted on here that they celebrate christamas. Claiming its a ocular holiday = lies. Its not its origin is Christian based.
Yet again, not answering my question and saying I didn't answer yours when I clearly did earlier.
Your on a roll hypocrites.
keep it up.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:50 pm 351.Lou (DFW) said …
350.Anonymous said …
"Over had atheists admit that they celebrate Christmas."
What is are "Over had atheists?"
"Please tell me now, why do they do this?"
What part of it's a party don't you understand?
"Yet again I actually answered you [sic] questions in an earlier post [sic] you just refuse to read it. Christmas is not a secular holiday. Its [sic] a religious one."
Yes, xmas is a religious holiday. However, the term has come to be used to describe the general holiday season. If not, then please explain to us what Santa Claus and Frosty The Snowman have to do with the celebration of the birth of your imaginary zombie.
"Many atheists celebrate Christmas. Argo [sic], hypocrites."
Was Jason an atheist?
No atheists actually "celebrate" xmas. By definition, they can't.
"When did I disclose my religion to you? Foe [sic] all you know I may be an atheist who doesn't celebrate thaws [sic] holidays but is trying to prove a point that you should not either."
You obviously failed. Don't you get tired of that?
What are "thaws [sic] holidays?" Are they "Ocular" holidays?
"one [sic] atheist admitted on here that they celebrate christamas [sic]. Claiming its [sic] a ocular [sic] holiday = lies. Its [sic] not its origin is Christian based. [sic]
Yet again, not answering my question and saying I didn't answer yours when I clearly did earlier.
Your [sic] on a roll [sic] hypocrites.
keep it up. [sic]"
You are on a roll. I don't think I ever saw so many writing mistakes in one comment.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:02 pm 352.Anonymous said …
So now you have nothing to defend yourself with so you insult my me with typos. Ooo aren't you bad?
And yet you still don't answer my question. You say Christmas is known as a secular holiday, no.
You partake in gift giving (Christian based.) You probably decorate a tree every year (Christian based) yikes, some atheist you are.
The fact is that you practice Christian traditions which you gave so admitted to doing, you an atheist? If that's try you're quite the hypocrite. Youre missing the point, no matter how clearly I state it.
Who said anything about frosty the snowman? Or is that your lame defense? Hmm many Christians believe that snow is a reminder of purity and forgiveness since its white. Frosty the snowman is made of snow is he not? Thar defense is just as lame as the one you tried to state earlier.
You have done nothing but convince me that you are all beiligerant idiots who when not blessed to answer a question try to ask another one to turn it back around. Sigh, yet again, I tell you, you're hypocritical atheists who have no argument or explanation as to why you partake in Christmas traditions that stem from the bible. Some atheists you are.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:04 pm 353.Anonymous said …
*when not able to answer
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:07 pm 354.Anonymous said …
And Christmas is not a party its a day.
holiday season sure but centering around the origin that stems from the bible. No matter how you say it its still Christian based.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:23 pm 355.alex said …
….let's get back on track.
some atheists are hypocrites, smell bad, or downright annoying. so what?
where is your god? in yer head? just like the voices?
i spell gud.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:27 pm 356.Anonymous said …
Haha so no defense this time. Look,
Atheists partaking in Christian traditions such as exchanging gifts and putting up trees = me being convinced you're all hypocritical idiots.
Case closed.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:30 pm 357.alex said …
S-O-M-E /= all.
learn grasshopper. praying will not help. go home.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:48 pm 358.Anonymous said …
Which is why I asked why S-O-M-E partake in it and yet still no answer. Maybe I will go home, seeing as you are all too retarded to answer a simple question. So, Thay being said, good bye you hypocritical atheists! Have a good Easter and Christmas!
Thanks for confirming the obvious there Alex.
you poor pitiful atheist you. Of you'd read yous know what I was asking. Sigh, you poor people can't read can you.
Ta ta for now you crazy hypocrites!
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:48 pm 359.Lou (DFW) said …
352.Anonymous said …
"Sigh, yet again, I tell you, you're hypocritical atheists who have no argument or explanation as to why you partake in Christmas traditions that stem from the bible."
We have answered your questions several times, but to what end? You continue rave and rant about something so completely irrelevant and idiotic as celebrating xmas.
"Some atheists you are."
There are no degrees or levels of "atheism." One either rejects theism or not. The fact that a person celebrates xmas or easter holidays is 100% irrelevant to the definition of atheist.
There's something wrong with a person such as yourself who obsesses so much about whether or not an atheist celebrates xmas. It has been explained to you before – an atheist cannot, BY DEFINITION, "celebrate" the birth of an imaginary god. Regardless of the fact that an atheist participates in the customs and traditions of xmas, he is not "celebrating" or "commemorating" the birth of "god." If that's not clear enough for you to understand, then no doubt you will post another nonsensical, idiotic rant about it.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:51 pm 360.Lou (DFW) said …
"358.Anonymous said …
"Sigh, you poor people can't read can you[?]"
Says the guy who wrote "Of you'd read yous know what I was asking." LOL!
on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:45 pm 361.DPK said …
"You partake in gift giving (Christian based.) You probably decorate a tree every year (Christian based) yikes, some atheist you are."
haha.. you are such an imbecile you don't even know what the hell you are talking about. Neither customs are "christian based"…
"Gift giving was common in the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, an ancient festival which took place in late December and influenced Christmas customs. Christmas gift giving was banned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages due to its suspected pagan origins.It was later rationalized by the Church on the basis that it associated St. Nicholas with Christmas, and that gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh were given to the infant Jesus by the Biblical Magi."
"Long before the advent of Christianity, plants and trees that remained green all year had a special meaning for people in the winter. Just as people today decorate their homes during the festive season with pine, spruce, and fir trees, ancient peoples hung evergreen boughs over their doors and windows. In many countries it was believed that evergreens would keep away witches, ghosts, evil spirits, and illness."
on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:47 pm 362.Anonymous said …
You still don't get it. Its not that you celebrate it, its that you partake in Christian conditions. Or traditions that stem from the bible which makes you a hypocritical atheist. Oh gee sorry my writing isnt perfect. Why don't you typing all of this on a phone and we will see how you do.
So yet again you prove inevitably that you're either A, a dumbass atheists who partake in Christian conditions or B, a hypocrite.
Again, case closed.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:55 pm 363.DPK said …
Not to mention, as I pointed out to you in 349, but you conveniently ignored, bringing christmas trees indoors and decorating them is expressly forbidden by the christian god in the bible… so if you are doing this, you're going to hell…… hahahaha.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:04 pm 364.DPK said …
"You still don't get it. Its not that you celebrate it, its that you partake in Christian conditions."
No, dumbass, it's you who are partaking in Pagan traditions…. that makes you not only a hypocrite by your definition, it also makes you stupid, not to mention obsessively fixated on a completely meaningless point. So what if atheists celebrate a cultural holiday? If you go to Jamaica and dance during Junkanoo, it doesn't make you a follower of Voodoo. Well, by your logic it does.
I'm an atheist, I celebrate the christmas holiday, if you sneeze, I say "bless you", I say "one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance, I use currency with "in god we trust" printed on it. So what? How does that in any way provide any proof that the god you claim exists actually does? It doesn't. Ok, so if it makes you happy, I'm a hypocrite, but you're still dumb as a sack of potatoes. Ya can't fix stupid.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:07 pm 365.alex said …
"you're either A, a dumbass atheists who partake in Christian conditions or B, a hypocrite"
nicely done. pick a number, any number.
yer either wit us or against us.
yer either going to heaven or going to hell.
weapons of mass destruction or very well hidden.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:09 pm 366.Anonymous said …
Again, did you not click the linkbi posted earlier?
Again, did you not read that I wasn't trying to provide evidence, I was merely making a point that you're hypocrites?
I read your thing on Christmas trees, ever wonder why they make fake ones?(;
Yes, my work here is done.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:21 pm 367.alex said …
"Yes, my work here is done."
You'll be back. Your brainwashing is strong. You're compelled to defend your useless god.
Next time you see homosexuals holding hands, you'll run to your beloved bible and seek out passages to give you to courage to dish out some faggot justice. Oh Lordy, Lordy. Give me the strength, the righteousness, and the kung fu, to defeat the big black African who is dating that white girl. What, it's not in your will? Ok, I will just troll the internet looking for atheists web sites, whom I will then incessantly pester with nonsensical arguments until I declare victory.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:29 pm 368.Ben said …
Are you just the sock puppet as we have all always suspected?
Things that fail the "Deciding to do Better" moral decision methodology.
1. Slavery
2. Abortion
3. alcoholism
4. Drug use
5. Gambling
6. Lying (Relative according to atheist)
7. Cheating (Another relative one)
It is a complete failure.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:37 pm 369.Loptilou said …
I'm a Christian, I don't run to my bible every time I see a couple holding hands that are gay, as a matter of fact I have a few gay friends. I am white and a member of my family adopted an African American, my best friend is engaged to an African American. No the bible doesn't agree with that, however, I don't let that dictate my life.
Your perception is wrong on many Christians, its not that we say one thing and do another, more so I'm about if that makes you happy, then okay. I feel the bible is a tad outdated myself, but I still follow many aspects of it, and if you'd like to call me a hypocrite for that then okay. It seems someone else has riven you to be hypocrites yourself.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:53 pm 370.alex said …
369.Loptilou said … "Your perception is wrong on many Christians"
i may generalize, but ALL the atrocities perpetrated in the name of the bible are done by self professed theists, no?
true dat, i may be all those things you mentioned, but so what? what bad things have i done? other than maybe curse, point out the obvious, and maybe write bad prose……
if yer religious and keep it to yourself, we cool, but for the others, bring it.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 10:17 pm 371.Loptilou said …
Hey I'm okay with that. I'm just putting it out there, we aren't all bible thumpers lol.
on 20 Feb 2012 at 10:24 pm 372.Lou (DFW) said …
368.Ben said …
"Are you just the sock puppet as we have all always suspected?"
We? Hor, Biff, Ben, Xenon, Rostam, etc., etc., etc.
"Things that fail the "Deciding to do Better" moral decision methodology.
1. Slavery
2. Abortion
3. alcoholism
4. Drug use
5. Gambling
6. Lying (Relative according to atheist)
7. Cheating (Another relative one)
It is a complete failure."
And? Do you have a point that is anyhow relevant to the fact that you don't have any evidence for your imaginary god?
on 21 Feb 2012 at 12:08 am 373.Lou (DFW) said …
362.Anonymous said …
"Its [sic] not that you celebrate it, its [sic] that you partake in Christian conditions."
How does one "partake" in a "condition?"
"Or traditions that stem from the bible which makes you a hypocritical atheist."
Biblical traditions:
Please specify where any part of that xmas "condition" is described in the bible. It must be referenced in the same part of the bible as is December 25.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:09 am 374.Tildamarie234 said …
I think anonymous is referring to when the wiseman bring gifts to Jesus? Which is what is represented by exchanging gifts at Christmas time. So, you partake in gift exchange means you partake in a Christian bible based tradition. Which makes you a hypocrite.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:20 am 375.alex said …
"So, you partake in gift exchange means you partake in a Christian bible based tradition. Which makes you a hypocrite."
da man says, you may call him a hypocrite. feel free to call me an asshole, dimwit, ignorant, hell-destined, infidel, etc. (like it matters).
now, i call you to produce your god proof. no? that makes you a ___________? after all this is an atheist site.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:28 am 376.ReligionIsStupid said …
Yes, he's still to explain where the Christmas that he celebrates can be found in the bible and that includes the date. Still, he seems to live on a one-way street of information, just like the other regular theist posters.
Perhaps by "partake" he means live in a country where there is someone else who is a Christian who you may interact with in some fashion. Sort of how celebrating a commercialized American Christmas replete with pagan customs is in keeping with biblical tradition but not having a Christmas tree, or decorations, or lights, and so on, makes someone a hypocrite.
Speaking of which, I wonder what our friend would do when traveling abroad. What would he call someone for visiting the great cathedrals in Europe, temples in Asia, Pyramids in Egypt, Mayan and Aztec ruins in South America, Stonehenge and so on, and would he change his term depending on if they were religious (his of course) or not?
Oh, by the way, too bad for Tildamarie that the church originally banned gift giving at Christmas due to it actually being a pre-existing pagan tradition. Only later did they retrofit it to the Christmas story so "ya'll be good little pagans, ya hear". Still, we won't let facts get in the way of a good rant, right?
So, now back to the plot. Just why won't god heal amputees?
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:32 am 377.ReligionIsStupid said …
Alex, I'll take hypocrites for 600 please.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:37 am 378.alex said …
for $600. "I went to see the Virgin Mary, but it's too late".
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:40 am 379.alex said …
…the correct question is:
What the pope said after meeting Bill Clinton in heaven. That Bill iso crazy.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 3:38 am 380.Lou (DFW) said …
374.Tildamarie234 said …
"So, you partake in gift exchange means you partake in a Christian bible based tradition."
In one comment he wrote "partake in the Christian condition."
"Condition?" How do you partake in a condition? And how is xtianity a condition? Is it a delusion?
on 21 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 381.ReligionIsStupid said …
Lou, fortunately the cure for the Christian condition is the same as it is for most religions… A good dose of critical thinking.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 6:38 am 382.Tildamarie234 said …
Fyi, im assuming condition = tradition..
Probably a typo
on 21 Feb 2012 at 6:40 am 383.Anonymous said …
Yep, typo on my part. My bad. I've proved the point I wanted to prove.
Yes, NOW my work here is finished.
Tata! (;
on 21 Feb 2012 at 12:19 pm 384.ReligionIsStupid said …
Is this another of Horatiio's sock puppets? The fool is 100% wrong about the origins of his holiday, he can't read, can't spell, can't comprehend English, can't see that how silly his fixation with something that isn't even happening is, and the only point he's proven is that he's delusional and a fucking idiot.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 1:48 pm 385.DPK said …
"the only point he's proven is that he's delusional and a fucking idiot."
"I've proved the point I wanted to prove.
Yes, NOW my work here is finished.
Tata! (;"
Yes, yes you have…….. LOL.
on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:19 pm 386.Lou (DFW) said …
383.Anonymous said …
"Yep, typo on my part. My bad. I've proved the point I wanted to prove."
Sure it was. This is a tpyo. Substituting condition for tradition is a Freudian slip – one that you made THREE times. Religion, and therefore xtianity, IS a condition – a state of being, one marked by beliefs that have no basis in fact, and for which there is no evidence.