Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Sunday, June 27, 2010

What government is for

Last night Laurie's brothers and I had a debate with your typical young liberal. You don't want to stereotype, but here it is- basing arguments on emotion rather than logic, making generalizations based on revisionist history, and unwilling to hear when his own words contradicted themselves. The type exemplified by Paul McCartney last week when he said that doubters of global warming are comparable to those who don't believe there was a holocaust. (Let's see: one is a theory, which by definition is an unproven assumption based on observation and one is a proven fact attesteded to by eyewitness testimony and mass graves. Yeah, I see the connection, Paul.) Anyway, I don't want to rehash the whole conversation, but I am going to quote one phrase of his that sums up the whole argument and the wrong headedness of it:
"The government is there to protect the minority from the majority."

NO IT IS NOT!!!!!!

Our friend spoke alot about the founding fathers' intent ( a subject I told him he would be well served reading George Washington's diaries to get some real facts about) but if you look at that intent, a goal such as he expressed would have been better served by never revolting. The government they fought against was protecting the interests of the minority- the elite that were running the colonies from England. They revolted because the majority, living in the colonies, were not being served by absentee landlordship. You see, Joshua, the truth is that a government such as you described is what was already in existance. It goes by various names: monarchy, one-party state, dictatorship. You can use that last one in the old Roman sense. I'm not necessarily hinting at oppression, just the lack of majority voice.

What the founding fathers created here was a - in our friend's own words- a representative democracy. In this Government, the goal is THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE MOST PEOPLE. The declaration of Independance (surely a good example of the founding fathers' intent) says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "
That does not mean that a lone man can say, "I don't believe in God, the government should eliminate all places and events that expose me to religion." That is tyranny of the minority, which is what the founding fathers were trying to escape. What it can be applied to is, "I don't belive in God, I don't think I should be isolated from my classmates in a public school setting because of it." While that does happen- to no great extent- our friend seems to think government persecuting him for the sake of religion includes "in God we trust" on his money and "under God" in the pledge of alliegiance and moments of silence. He honestly belives that the government is harming him by allowing these! To this, I say: Don't read your money! Leave "Under God " out when you pledge alliegiance! Don't pray when you keep silent! The Muslims might have a case on these things, saying that they might be committing a sin if they did them. An atheist or agnostic only has annoyance, it's not like the God that doesn't exist is going to send them to the hell in fairy tales to punish them for doing so. If you are truly atheist, religion is foolishness that cannot harm you anymore that a group of people playing a game across the street. If you belive you are being harmed by these things, you are not being an atheist- YOU ARE BEING AN ACTIVIST AGAINST GOD. Thus, by giving any notice to it, you are implying belief that there is a god of some sort.

Now, our friend was intelligent and well spoken. But as Chuck said, "There is 'education' and there is EDUCATION."

One last way to look at it. My theory of government says that, if a senior class votes to have an invocation at graduation and one person is opposed, find a way to accomodate the person without disrupting the happiness of the majority. Our friend's way says that everyone else must suffer to placate the minority. Which really makes more sense? Keep in mind that our friend's theory of Government is not limited to its affect on religion. What if the lone man wanted no girls present? Or blacks, or Mexicans? What if he was offended by kids with long hair, or black shoes? The ACLU protects minorities, thus we have cases where homeless child predators are allowed to live in parks across the street from schools because chasing them out would violate their rights. Tell me again who we want to protect.


  1. Last night I thought that we were having a fun debate, but either you didn't understand the points that I was trying to make or you have purposely twisted my word aroud to serve your own needs. I'm still willing to be civil about this, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and deal with this post one paragraph at a time.
    Paragraph 1
    I think that it's absure and stereotypical that you assume that I'm basing my arguements on emotion rather than logic. By very definition Athiest are more logical than religious people because we came to our beliefs (or lack thereof) by reason instead of faith. I can't speak for all Athiest on this point, but I myself have read The Bible (more than once), A Case for Christ, A Case for Faith, The Left Behind series, The Koran, The teachings of Budda, and other Religious texts from a variety of religions. I've also read several Atheist books that I would strongly recommend to other religious people (Christians specifically) such as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, A letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I think that basing an arguement on one viewpoint without bothering to look at other possible answers and trying to get an objective viewpoint is basing arguements on emotion rather than logic.
    As to the last sentence of the paragraph. "The government is there to protect the minority from the majority"
    This quote is taken partially out of context. The government IS there to protect the minority from the majority. If this wasn't true then we would still have slavery. Woman's right's wouldn't exist. I don't even want to get started on all the atrosicties that the Christian majority has done in the name of God.
    Paragraph 2 and 3
    As to the founding father's intent. The founding fathers wanted a nation free of the influence of religion. George washington may have been a Christian, I personally don't care, but if you look at the treaty of Tripoli (written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams) it states in Article XI: As the government of the United States of America is not in a sense founded on the Christian religion.
    Our founding father's wanted a government where everyone has a voice, not just the majority or the minority.
    I'm not saying that the government should ban religion. That would be the minority trying to control the majority. I'm that the government sould keep religion out of the government. As you said yourself when quoting me, this is a Representative Democracy. This is not a theocracy. You may not think it's just a big deal when we have a prayer in school, or have "In God we Trust" on out money, but it's hard to be a nation of religious equality when the government chooses one religion over the others.
    Also I would like to point out that you called me an "Activist Against God". This is close, but not quite accurate. As a Athiest I am a "Activist Against Religion". Just as Christian try to convert people to Christianity, I try to teach people about Athiestism. By giving notice to Christianity I'm implying that it is correct, just that the religion itself exist.
    Last Paragraph.
    I really hate to say this, but this paragraph is completely flawed. The thing that you're failing to take into account is the seperation of church and state. There is no law that says that no girls can be present at a graduation, but the seperation of church and state says just what you're trying to refute, that church affairs must be seperate from state affairs. Unless the school is a private school with no government funding then it really doesn't matter what the majority wants.
    Now I wrote this hurriedly and might have missed something. If I have just point it out and I'll write a response

  2. Although I enjoy a fun debate, ones like these are better left to face-to-face events. It takes too long to correct misunderstandings in written communications such as these. Un-intentional lines are drawn, anger gets stirred and no-one is benifited. I will make these small observations.
    England was both a dictatorship in government and in religion and in the name of their religion(as a front) and thier King did some of the most horrendous acts known to mankind. Our founding fathers sought to avoid both as they established this new world.
    Government should not be alowed to establish nor abolish any form of religion. Religion, as well, should not be allowed to dictate the functions of Government.
    Josh, real Christianity is not a religion, not a building, not a ritual, and it is easy for me to see why Athiests exist, because religion is a set of rules made up by men mis-using the Bible and the Name of God and Jesus to further thier ruse. I myself am anti-religion but not anti-God, for a fool says in his heart, "there is no God," God himself being evident in the things that are made.
    The religious have intentionally injured a lot of people both physically and emotionally that makes Them wrong not God. That is why in the Bible God is quoted as saying, to the religious, "My Name is blasphemed umong the gentiles(non-believers) because of you."
    I am not going to convince you of a God, you have guided your education to disprove His exhistance and I'll leave you to that.
    Just one question, your ability to think and reason and recognize that you can think and reason, where does that come from?
    One last thought.
    If I came from nothing and I return to nothing, then everything I live for now I should live unto myself for it benifits me nothing to benifit you nor my fellow man, all is irrelevant. Live fo today for tomorrow you die.

  3. Thabk you. anon. And I would like to point out that my main point was not the religious gr4ounds, but what I perceive as his misconception that government needs to "protect" minoritiesw, at least in the way many activist judges and legislators interpret it
    I do agree, anon, with your points, though. As I've told my son, everyone thinks John Lennon had the right idea with "Imagine", but I can't myself imagine a more lonely or meaningless existance if he were right.

  4. Thank you anon for your comments. I feel that I must clarify that I cannot disprove God. It is illogical to say that one can disprove the existence of God. I say that I'm an Atheist because I give the existence of God the same statistical probability as the existence of the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, or Faeries.

    It's about 10 at night, so I'm not going to write as long as a post as I did above.
    I'm just going to leave this by saying that it is a logical fallacy to think that I life with out God is meaningless and/or lonely. I think the the more meaningless existence is the life that's lived without science or reason.

    Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidence -Carl Sagan

  5. I couldn't go to bed without addressing this statement that anon said at the end of his/her post.

    "If I came from nothing and I return to nothing, then everything I live for now I should live unto myself for it benifits me nothing to benifit you nor my fellow man, all is irrelevant. Live fo today for tomorrow you die."

    This is a common stereotype that the religious have attributed to the non-religious and it is incorrect. You said

    "your ability to think and reason and recognize that you can think and reason, where does that come from"

    My ability to think and reason have come from evolution, and also does my willingness to benefit my fellow man. If you have trouble understanding my reasoning for this I suggest you read this study done by Social Psychology Quarterly.

    I have to say that I am quite enjoying this discussion and am hoping that it continues as this is one of the more civil conversations that I have had of late.

  6. Facinating, Josh, there is nothing stable about science nor psycology. Along with medicine the fields are in a constant state of change with new evidence, theories and conjectures. Yet these studies show me how complex and diverse this world (and beyond) truely is. I too am facinated with the study of the human mind and psycology, but you really did not answer my question let me rephrase it. Where does the ability to think a thought come from? And you speak of evolution as if it were fact. It is still called the "theory of evolution" why...because there are no facts, yet it is taught as factual and used by, self proclaimed, intellectuals as factual. That is no less a religion than Muselam, Budism, or your favorite Christianity. You cant prove it yet you believe it. Facinating! Something that just existed because it always was, blew-up, sent billions of particles into space in an interdependant elipse that made them all relatively stable to the central burning mass. then as the third rock from the burning mass cooled it just happened to contain all the elements to give and sustain life from many diverse, single-celled creatures that got bored with their single celled exhistance and decided to become multi-celled creatures one that decided to (over billions of years) become that's quite a belief system. Prove it! I know, just wait another billion years and you'll have enough data.

  7. Dear anon. You seem to fail to understand how the scientific method works. Science isn't a study of facts, but is a study of "best guesses".

    Did you know that Gravity is a theory?
    Scientist can't prove that gravity exists, but it is currently the most logical explanation of why objects fall to the ground. If a better explanation comes along then scientist will replace Gravitational Theory with the New Theory.

    In the same way Evolution is a Theory. There is a substantial amount of evidence behind evolution (in fact you can see evolution at work in drug resistant bacteria or selective breeding) and evolution has yet to be proven wrong by the scientific community. If you can show me peer-reviewed case studies disproving evolution then I will gladly substitute it for another theory. That's how science works. Saying something is a theory doesn't make it less credible, the amount of evidence behind the theory determines the credibility.

    As for your reference to the Big Bang Theory, I'll willingly admit that I don't understand how the super condensed ball of matter got there, but until a better theory comes along I'll continue to stand by it. I will not however insert a deity every time I don't understand something about the universe. If you look at the history of religion the entire purpose was to fill in gaps in human understanding, the problem with religion was the it refused to step aside when science came along and filled those gaps in understanding.

    I do like how you're combined the Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution, but you're knowledge seems to be lacking as far as the latter is concerned.

    Evolution isn't in any way a conscious decision. It's a process of natural selection. It isn't random at all. Single Celled organisms became Multi Celled because it was beneficial. They didn't decide anything. It was a biological imperative to survive. Survival of the Fittest.

    As for science being a belief, I suppose you could say that's true. But unlike religion it's a belief based on reason rather than unquestioning faith.

    Also if you want to know my ideas about human thought, you should look into determinism. Wikipedia gives a pretty good definition of it here My personal favorite definition is in The Pleasures of Philosophy by William Durant, but unfortunately I let someone borrow my copy and now it is lost.

  8. "As for science being a belief, I suppose you could say that's true. But unlike religion it's a belief based on reason rather than unquestioning faith."
    This is why you and I will never quite agree. You see, I can agree with the big bang up to the point where it started, and then faith tells me, "And God Said Let There Be Light." Because, you see, number one it is illogical to my mind that something can come from nothing. Science has never shown any evidence that it can or has and man will never rationalize a way to explain it apart from God. (Yes that is a theory, but seeings as science has not overthrown it in 4,000 years I feel I can give it the same weight as any other theory.) And number two, you are dead right on this point:
    "As for science being a belief, I suppose you could say that's true. But unlike religion it's a belief based on reason rather than unquestioning faith."
    But you see, that is what God requires of us. I give it to HIM based on 1) what I have been taught; and 2)how HE has manifested it throughout my life. As for proof, HE opens HIMSELF up to those who open themselves up to HIM. I don't pretend to know the logic of HIM, nor am I about to chase it down. As John Adams said:
    "Now, my friend Jefferson, suppose an eternal, self-existent being, existing from eternity, possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, in absolute, total solitude, six thousand years ago conceiving the benevolent project of creating a universe! I have no more to say at present. It has been long, very long, a settled opinion in my mind, that there is now, ever will be, and ever was, but one being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it." - Letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 14, 1818
    That is the heart of why you and I will never quite agree- I accept that there is a being that is more intelligent than man.

  9. This is circular reasoning. You believe in God because God tells you to believe in him. You're using you belief in God to verify the existence of God. This is by far the weakest argument for belief. The only proof that you have for the existence of God is because you know about the concept of God. You can use this same type of reasoning to justify the belief in any type of creator. It's like saying that I believe in Thor because Thor exists.
    This is faulty because it's all circumstantial. If you were born in Japan you would believe in the Shinto religion, if you were born in Rome a few thousand years ago you would believe in the Greek gods. There's no verifiable evidence to support your claims and your hypothesis that God exist is just as likely as any one of countless other gods existing.

    You say "Science has never shown any evidence that it can or has and man will never rationalize a way to explain it apart from God. (Yes that is a theory, but seeings as science has not overthrown it in 4,000 years I feel I can give it the same weight as any other theory.)" this is incorrect. This is a odd version of Pascal's Wager, but what you're not taking into account are the infinite number of religions that not only do and have existed, but all the possible religions that could exist. If I was to say that the universe was created by a omnipotent dog vomiting the universe into existence there would be no way for you to prove me incorrect. No make "dog" the value of "x" and "vomiting" the value "y" then you have an infinite number of possible creation situations that are all equally likely. This is a philosophical paradox called Russell's Teapot.

    As for personal revelations. I suggest you check out neurotheology. Again I'm going to post a Wikipedia article that gives a pretty accurate definition (Mainly because I'm too lazy to type out my own definition)

    Alright. I'm in the middle of class so I'm going to end this here. Looking forward to your post.

  10. Is it OK for me to kill you now? Why or why Not? Answer this question and I will proceed. I have no plan on doing so I just want to know if it's OK with you or not.

  11. I'll assume that anon's question is directed at me.
    Also anon's question is ridiculous.
    I was wondering when the Morals without God argument was going to pop up.

    I don't really feel like arguing this point since it's been dis-proven so many times that I just don't feel that it's worth my time.

    Instead I'll just copy and paste a response from this site

    This is the idea that without a god we’d have no basis for morality. However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.

    In Plato’s dialogue called Euthyphro, Socrates asks a man named Euthyphro whether something is good because God says it is, or does God announce something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness?

    If something is good because God says it is, then God might change his mind about what is good. Thus, there would be no absolute morality.

    If God merely announces something to be good because it has intrinsic goodness, then we might be able to discover this intrinsic goodness ourselves, without the need for god belief.

    Christians can’t even agree among themselves what’s moral when it comes to things like masturbation, premarital sex, homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

    Christians reject some of the moral laws found in the Bible, such as killing disobedient children or people who work on the sabbath. Therefore, Christians must be applying their own ethical standards from outside the Bible to be able to recognize that these commandments in the Bible are unethical.

    Other animals exhibit kindness toward one another and a sense of justice. Morality is something that evolved from us being social beings. It’s based on the selfish advantage we get from cooperation, and on consequences.

  12. Then this discussion is no longer worth while. I was looking for an original thought from you since you have read the Bible several times. You know what religion is but you have no clue about YHWH (God) just like many who call themselves religious or spiritual or even Christian. Everything science uncovers reveals to me the exhistance of a creator to you the exclusion of one. I can see my creator in everything, as deep as you want to dig and as far as you can reach. You on the otherhand can only see an amazing accident. I am truly sorry that some religious person hurt you and turned you from God to seek your form of religion.

  13. That entire statement that you just made is full of assumptions and has no place in the logical discussion that I was trying to have.

    A. You have no means to judge the level of my education on YHWH (God). I'm would say that I'm more educated about the Abrahamic gods then the majority of the religious population.

    B. I never claimed that existence was a amazing accident and neither does science. I suggest you actually read my posts before you comment on them.

    C. It's a false assumption that some religious person hurt me and turned me away from God. I was a Christian for a long time. I abandoned religion because it's illogical. No one turned me away from religion nor did I have a bad experience. My only problem with religion is that it flies in the face of reason and all that horrible thing that have been done in the name of religion. No one kills in the name of Atheism. That's not to say that Atheist don't kill people, but I've yet to hear of someone killing because of their Atheist beliefs. On the other had religious people not only kill people all the time in the name of their beliefs, but they are usually encouraged by their religion to do so. The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, 9/11, The Spanish Inquisition, These are just of few examples of the things that religion gets to take credit for, and you can't argue that "True Christian" didn't do those things because their holy books told them to do so.
    Deuteronomy 13:13-19
    Exodus 22:20
    Mark 6:11

    D. Atheist is not a religion. This is a common mistake that even I myself made before I actually to the time to research the matter. Saying that Atheist is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair color.

    E. I can't deny the existence of a creator and that's not what True Atheism is about. True Atheism states that the likelihood of your specific god is extremely unlikely. I believe I mentioned that point earlier. I'll try to write it as an equation
    Probability=(Specific Religion)/(Current Religions)+(Possible Religions).
    X=1/(~33000 Different forms of Christianity)+(270 Major Religions)+(X number of Smaller Religions)+(∞ number of possible religions)
    Probability of Specific Religion Being Correct = 1/∞ or Infinity to One

    This is not saying that one specific religion isn't correct. It's just saying that the specific religion that you choose is astronomically unlikely to be the right one and that without more data it's illogical to choose one specific religion while ignoring others that have the same odds of being correct as yours does. In fact the odds are that the correct explanation of the universe hasn't even been thought of yet or could even possibly be imagined.

  14. I was hoping to get this post in before you responded, Joshua, because the first thing I would have said is that the theory that someone hurt you doesn't wash. I can easily see how an intellectual - or in some cases, a pseudo-intellectual- might make the same assumptions and believe the way you do. To say that is wrong headed and unhelpful. However...
    "This is circular reasoning. You believe in God because God tells you to believe in him. You're using you belief in God to verify the existence of God. This is by far the weakest argument for belief. The only proof that you have for the existence of God is because you know about the concept of God. You can use this same type of reasoning to justify the belief in any type of creator. It's like saying that I believe in Thor because Thor exists. "
    This totally ignores what I said. I said faith- not knowledge or proof- I give because God asks it. My Proof, on the other hand is in creation all around me; the things of the inspired Bible, which archaeology bears out in many, many instances, teaches me so; personal revelation- and I feel I know the difference between it and neurotheology- has shown me that I am in His hands. That is not circular reasoning- it is not "I believe because I'm told to believe". It was mentioned earlier on about those who don't believe refuse to see, and I already posted what John Adams said about insects contemplating God, so I feel my need to justify my faith with proof is well-covered.
    Now, onto your latest post.
    A. There is a difference between knowing about God, or knowing about any God, and KNOWING GOD. No education can teach it, no book can do it justice. Until one is willing to open himself up (not learn about it, or quote it from Wikipaedia) to the Supernature that exists around us as well as the nature, you won't get it.
    B. If existance doesn't spring from God, and isn't an amazing accident, then what is it? I say again, science has never proven something arising from nothing, and most things over tim devolve from order to chaos. Are you saying that there is some kind of natural force or drive that arrainges the molecules of the universe to greater heights of sophistication, a la evolution? If so, how do you prove it? (and remember saying "look around, it's happening" is not proving it any more than you believe I've proven God exists.)
    C. I already agreed with you on part of this point; for the rest, I explain that if man could get God's instructions right, we'd be in a much better place. But we do not- man is fallen, and even his attempts to carry out "the will of God" are hopelessly flawed. And as for all the deaths religion has caused, how about we look at Soviet Russia and all the deaths an Atheist state caused?
    D.Much like evolution, I say if it oinks it's a pig, but who cares? It's just semantics.
    E.Again this is a point I know we'll never agree on, but youre equation works because you factor in "All possible religions" and factor out ONE TRUE GOD.
    F. "In fact the odds are that the correct explanation of the universe hasn't even been thought of yet or COULD EVEN POSSIBLY BE IMAGINED." If this is true, why couldn't the active hand of God- which at this point you can't imagine- be the present factor. You deny His existance but this statement makes it sound as though you'd accept any explanation but Him. How does it fit your scientific model to reject any untested theory explaining an unsolved mystery, only on the basis that it involves "the g-word"?

  15. You are right Joshua, I mis-spoke about you being hurt by religous people or better yet chose the wrong words in haste. I despise "religions of man" they hurt, misalign, distroy, manipulate, confuse and imprison week and un-imaginative people. They frustrate, anger, isolate and segregate others. Religions make no sense with that we are in perfect agreement. Everytime man gets free he seems to find another cage to hold him.
    You constantly attack religions and God (a title not a name) as if they were one and the same. They are not synonomus. And horrible people do horrible things in the name of God, in the name of research, in the name of science, in the name of medicine, in the name of psycology, and in the name of government, shoot they even do horrible things in the name of love. And our history is riddled with examples of all both individuals and groups of individuals.
    Your scripture choices are interesting, however they do nothing for your point and because you do not want understanding of scripture you read it like a novel and pull out verses (just like religionists do) to suit your purpose. You do not believe? Don't. I am not going to convince you. I have looked into evolution and it doesn't add up. You threw out a facinating equation for the existance of one true religion (not one true creator) apply that to the probability for the exhistance of one happenstantial human cell with impossibility being a factor of ten(10) to the fiftyith (50)pwr we get something like 10 to the 470,000th. So mathmatically one true religion cant exhist and mathmatically you can't either yet here you are.
    Well it has been fun my friends, I wish you well.

  16. I just had about 3 pages of information written down that I just accidentally deleted, so I'm a little pissed right now. I'm going to give myself sometime to cool down and then I'll come back and discuss the points you have just presented.

  17. Let me start off by apologizing for the long wait. It's been a busy couple of days.

    I'll start off by going through cw martin's points in the order that he posted them in.

    In your third paragraph you said "I feel I know the difference between it and neurotheology". I find this statement extremely arrogant. You're claiming to know the difference between something you couldn't possible know. Anyone who's had a religious experience can say the same thing, but not all religious experiences can be correct.
    Also you stated that because of your religious experiences your logic isn't circular. This is incorrect. You must ask yourself why are you attributing your specific religious experience to your specific god. If your answer has anything to do with the bible or the way you were raised then you are believing because of your upbringing and not because of the religious experience. You also have to ask yourself whether you might be deluding yourself as to whether or not you even had a religious experience.

    Now I will discuss your post by the letters you assigned them.

    A. This paragraph assumes that I have never personally opened myself up to "God". I was a christian at one time. I also sincerely believed it. Arguing this point is useless because I can't argue with you that I actually knew something that I don't believe in. I can tell you that I believe that I knew God at one point just as well as you currently do, but once again this line of discussion is pointless because there is no way for me to prove this to you.

    B. Currently the best answer for the existence of life is evolution (Which contrary to popular belief isn't random but has everything to do with the law of probabilities). I haven't said either way as to whether there is some kind of natural force in the universe. I don't have enough evidence to disprove the existence of a creator. If your proof of God is the fact that the universe if infinitely complex, then you must argue that something even more complex must be behind it. If a god is behind it then something even more infinitely complex must have created the god. I need proof and logic before I will believe in something and if the thing that I believe in has been disproven then I will stop believing in it. Religion doesn't follow this method, instead religion forms it's beliefs around a world that it doesn't understand and then refuses to move when parts of it have been disproven. If there was a God and I was made in his image then faith makes no sense. I can't believe that a benevolent god would give me the ability of logical deduction and then require me to believe in him on faith alone.

    C. You can't attribute the deaths cause by Soviet Russia and other Atheist states on Atheism. These deaths weren't carried out in the name of Atheism, these deaths were carries by horrible people who just happened to be Atheist. Hitler was a Painter, but we don't think that all painter's are genocidal manics. The fact that Hitler was a Painter has nothing to do with why he killed people, just as Atheism has nothing to do with why people in Atheist States kill people.

    I'll finish this in a second post seeing as I've reached the max character limit

  18. D. semantics are important. semantics are how people twist other peoples words around and make them sound like they're saying things that they aren't. Connotations can win or lose an argument and twisting peoples words to give yourself the upper hand is deceitful and I refuse to win and debate that way.
    E. My equation doesn't factor out "ONE TRUE GOD". In fact if you're looking for a specific god instead of a specific religion the odds get longer. You have to remember that every religious person believes that their specific god is the "ONE TRUE GOD" and they can't all be correct (Except in religions that believe that all religions are correct, but there are currently very few of those).
    F. The scientific method doesn't reject any untested theory. It tests untested theories. It chooses the most likely explanation for the given hypothesis. If and/or when that hypothesis is disproven then the scientific method accepts the better one.

    Most of anon's post is objective, so I'm only going to argue the last few lines where he argue's about the equation that I posted and them posts one of his own.

    This equation that you posted is incorrect. The Law of Probability states that given enough chances even the unlikely will occur. Say that the odds of human life are 1 in 10 to the 470,000th. Well as far as current scientist can tell the universe is infinitely large. So saying that mathematically I can't exist isn't exactly true. If fact the opposite is true, the odds are strongly in my favor. Realistically by a purely mathematical stand point the probability of me existing is 1, because I do exist. Odds are human aren't the only intelligent life in the universe. If you believe that we are then you don't understand just how big the known universe really is

  19. Joshua:
    First, I find it arrogant that you can say to me"you're claiming to know the difference between things you couldn't possibly know" and then turn around and defend yourself on another point by saying "this... is pointless because there is no way for me to prove it to you". In addition to being hypocritical and condescending, you, sir, are not a privy to the personal relationship between my savior and I. I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Now we can continue this on the basis of we have differing points of view, as you rightly chastised me for at the beginning, or not.
    Second, I think perhaps that you and I are at differing levels in our knowledge of God- not to be hypocritical or self-righteous, but my knowledge has led to faith, and yours has not.
    Third, Something more complex than God need not be behind Him- if you accept God as a person of faith (not belief) does, you accept that in most ways He is beyond human understanding. I realize that you cannot accept God on this basis, but it is exactly what He asks, especially considering the intellect He gave us. He is our superior, not our equal, and He grants us knowledge of Him that we humble ourselves in worship to Him no matter how intelligent we are.
    Fourth, I find it amusing that you can blame "religion" for all the terrible things done in its name, no matter how misguided the doers, but the Soviet atheists doing the very same thing get a free ride.
    Fifth, true enough about semantics; I just don't feel it applied to the particular point.
    Sixth, I beg to differ- your equation did factor out One True God because your equating of "God" and "religion" is incorrect.
    Finally, you reject God because He cannot be quantified. But God is the Superior of science and nature, having created both.
    Have a good 4th of July, dude.

  20. I have to echo Chris' sentaments Josh. The knigs of Spain and England in conjunction with thier power hungry clergy killed the innocent using God for their evil to influence the masses to their side so you blame it on Christians period, while excusing an athiest for the same practices. And, of course, they didn't do it in the name of athiesm because athiesm is a non-thing. If you pick the ugly done in the name of God to dismiss God, what do you do with the good done in the name of th same God? I know, it doesn't suit you purpose so you ignore it. So you make people defend the ugly, that's easier, nice ploy created by politicians and lawyers.
    God can't exhist by your mathmatics so you rule him out of everything, therefore everything else is possible and only everything else.
    I will not argue the probability of life elswhere, if God is a creator then why would He quit creating?
    To you God does not exhist because you can't measure, touch, taste, hear, or see Him. He does not fit you logic mold. And because of that everything in exhistance MUST have some other reason for happening and you will spend your life energy to that endevor.
    To you, my conversion ( I was not raised in church) to a belief in God and my savior Yeshua is some kind of bio-chemical dysfunction, and yet that strange occurance delivered me into a wonderful, loving and peaceful exhistance where there was once nothing but pain and confusion and I am not the only one. So I am greatful for this dilusion of the mind you have created. I can't wait till you figure out how to give other people this experience (albeit less God) so they can quit being miserable, thieves, and murderers and experience peace, joy and loving-kindness. Hurry up the world is starving. I know how to do it, but Athiests the world over are tying my hands, but that's because I can't do it without Yeshua and he doesen't exhist either...right? No, he exhisted but he was a half crazed lunitic and a lier,right? Interesting, a nut changed my life! Not only mine but this crazed idiot changed much of the world.
    You can try to reason away my experience with your science, biology and psycology to yourself. But you can't reason away my experience to me.
    I am not a church-goer because I don't believe in the box. I do however believe in Yeshua (Jesus) and YHWH (God) and that they can be experienced and known by all and therefore it is my duty to love and care for all. Including you, Josh. My God has given me an imense love for all and the desire that all could experience the same.

  21. Gentlemen,
    I will not continue with this post if you both do not agree to dispense with name calling and demeaning conjectures toward one another. In fact, Chris, it would do us well to show that we can be both logical AND Christians.

    Oh yes, one more thing Josh, I like how you think I'm being objective only when I appear to agree with you.

    Very few religions believe in a singular deity.
    Though I have not searched the world over for every known religion I know of only three; Judiasm, Christianity (Judeo-Christian) and Muslim. Others have gods of varing authorities but not singular.

    Religion is the opiate of the masses, of this I agree, however, you need to pull your head out of "religion" to understand God. And God can be understood. You don't understand God through religion.

    I will not negate your former life as a Christian except to ask if you were not just a religionist in a Christian church? I've met them, some, seamingly, well meaning people. I know that sounds arrogant on my part as if I knew what the right way is, problem is I do, I just don't know yet how to keep from making another box.

  22. Sorry It's taken me so long to reply to these posts. I've very busy with college right now and am having trouble finding free time.

    There's a lot of information here that need to be discussed and I'm going to try to do so to the best of my ability without going over the max character limit.

    Let's just go over the relevant issues starting with cw martin's post.

    1. defines Arrogant as making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

    I'm sorry, but I fail to see how I fit this definition.
    I am in no way claiming to know your relationship with your "savior". I'm just pointing out that there's a good probability that your relationship with you savior could be nothing more than your mind playing tricks on you. This is not an insult to your intelligence or character as a person, just a logical alternative to your argument. Claiming that you just "KNOW THE DIFFERENCE" is not a valid argument.

    2. Pointing out that your knowledge of God has led you to faith and mine has not does nothing to further your argument, because I could simply argue that because of my non-faith I have a greater knowledge than you do. Let it be understood that this is not what I am stating, just understand that implying that faith in god means a higher knowledge about God is not always a correct statement.

    3. Your argument that I'm blaming religion on misguided followers only works if I acknowledge that the followers were misguided. This is not a point that you and I agree one. Many of the religious atrocities throughout history were done not only with the knowledge of religious authorities, but also with their permission. If you read that bible it encourages many things that would be deemed immoral by todays standards (A lot of things in the old testament are so bad that I'm pretty sure that YHWH isn't the hero of the story, but instead the villian.)

    4. You might not feel that semantics applied to that particular point, but you'll find that a lot of atheist will disagree with you on that point.

    5. If you feel that my equation is incorrect then please point out where it is flawed and I will revise it.

    6. I reject your god because he is illogical. If I am created in god's image then god would be a logical being. For an Omnipotent, Omniscient being it makes no sense for him to require faith for believe. (I'm not even going to get into the problem of evil and sin). It's obviously Ok for god to prove his existence because did so all the time in the Old and New Testament, so why not now.

    I'll be dividing my post so as no the hit the max. character limit

  23. In this post I'll be commenting on Anon #1's post

    1. I don't dismiss the good done in the name of religion, but you have to ask yourself "does the good done in the name of religion outweigh the bad things done in the name of religion.". You also assume that the good done in the name of religion wouldn't happen if it weren't for the religion that it was done in the name of. I disagree. People would do good things whether religion was there or not.

    2. You seem to fail to grasp the math behind my equation. The equation simply states that without more evidence the probability of any specific religion (or god) is very unlikely. If you can provide some substantial evidence that can be factored into the equation then I'll use it, but I've yet to be presented any such evidence.

    3. I will gladly spend my entire life searching for the reason for existence. I don't understand why you are willing to settle. Again I argue that if we are created in god's image then I believe that he would reward positive inquiry more than blind faith.

    4. In your last paragraph I am glad to hear that your conversion has made you a better person. The strive to be better people is a benefit to humanity no matter how it is come by. That being said you seem to be stating that everyone that doesn't believe in god is miserable and that Christian aren't thieves and murderers. I assure you that this is not the case. I'm am completely happy with my existence, I would also argue that belief in an afterlife has a tendency to make people worry less about the one that they are currently living while people who don't believe in a afterlife fully understand how precious their current life is.
    Also the argument that because Jesus change much of that world that must means that he was correct is a disturbing argument. Hitler changed much of the world, was he correct? Evidence makes statements true, not the devotion to those statements.

    5. You are correct that I can't reason away your experience to you. Stubbornness will do this. If you wanted to believe that light bulbs had fairies inside of them I wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise unless you were willing to listen to reason. The point is that you should be willing to be proven wrong. It's hard to move forward when your bogged down down by immovable ideas.

    I will continue in the next post

  24. In this last post I will discuss the comment made by anon #2

    1. I don't think people are being objective only when they appear to be agreeing with my. I think people are objective only when they appear to be objective.

    2. The fact that you only know of the Abrahamic Religions is a little sad. I would agree that my focus is on those 3, but I have taken the time to research other religions as well.

    3. The only other thing that I can add to this post is to point out that I was a Christian in both the Church aspect and the belief on my own aspect.

    I eagerly await your responses

  25. Hello again; I am hungry hot and smelly, so I shall try to be brief. First point: if I told you that what you know about your mother (hypothetical, don't have a cow) was all a figment of your imagination, that the woman you know couldn't possibly exist, you'd likely be offended- at least untill you called the padded wagon for me. This is why I was offended because my relationship with my Father is every bit as real as any relationship I have in life.
    Second, Until you can truly grasp what I mean about the difference between faith and belief, I think we're at a dead end here.James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." Belief does not equal faith.
    Third, I was including religious "authorities" in those who can be misguided. I use the term followers not of man but of God. As for God being the villian,I'll let you take that up with Him at your leasure.
    Fourth, I have pointed out at least twice why and where your equation is flawed. But since you cannot accept my premise even (seemingly) on a hypothetical level, I think this point too is at a dead end.
    Finally, as to the illogic of God, He even admits that much.1 Cor. 3:19 :"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." To those who have a personal relationship with Christ, He proves Himself in a million ways every day. As for those who don't, it is told in the parable in Luke 16:31, "But Abraham said, 'If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead.'" For me, that means that is just about time to simply pray for you and hope that God has something better in mind for you. Time to eat, see you later. Anon, it's all yours.

  26. OK, I'm full, and smell better, so let me say I hope I wasn't too growly a while ago. I guess I'm not built for these no-compromise discussions anymore, even though I grew up around them. It wouldn't have been worth the time for me except for one thing. Realizing that we come from diametrically opposed viewpoints and only a gift from above will ever change that. But if you're right, I lose nothing. I won't be disappointed, because I'll be dead and that will be that. If I'm right, hell awaits you. And because I don't like thinking about that for anyone, I try to plant the seed. And I might not be any good at it, because I'm another one of those often misguided people who try to do what God wants but flesh gets in the way. I cannot approach it from cold analysis, because He's been my life for me, He's gave His life for me, and it's not logical by man's logic and it never will be. But it was there in all of my darkest hours and was behind any great triumph I had. If God were a mathmetician, perhaps what He does could reach you on the level that you ask for. But God is an artist, and the logic is in the eye of the beholder. Have a good evening.

  27. Josh!
    Am I a class project?
    Do you have an original thought of your own or should I just ignore you and start reading the books you quote from? Tell me from your own experience why I shouldn't believe.
    Hitler! Now that was a waste of brain power! You'd had been better off with Stalin or Lennon, Because their work continues to affect.
    You didn't read my posts! I have looked into other religions though not all! most of which believe in multi-gods. The three mentioned were the only ones I currently know of that believe in One Diety.
    I have to work now I'll post more later.

  28. Anon. Maybe you should read the books that I have quoted from.
    I'll admit that a lot of the things that I'm saying have been said before, but I fail to understand how that lessens the logic behind them. Original thought is something that's very hard to come by. Do you have any original thoughts, because all I've read so far in favor of Christianity are the same arguments that I've seen dozens of times before on other threads.

    If you would like to read some material from people more knowledgeable than me on the subject matter then may I suggest some reading material for you. One should never be afraid to read books that conflict with one's viewpoint for that is how one gains perspective. How about trying:
    God is not great by Christopher Hitchens
    The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
    A letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
    Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin

    I myself have read some Christian literature that while I did not agree with I found very entertaining.
    A Case for Christ, A Case for Faith, The Left Behind Series.

    Along with various blogs, forums, research papers and case studies.

    Also if you think that Hitler's work doesn't continue to affect people then you are sadly mistake. No doubt that I could have used other people in my example (Stalin, Lennon, Omar al-Bashir, Mao Tse Tung, Ivan the Terrible, or many others), but Hitler is one of the most recognizable.

    I'll leave it at that until I see what else you have left to post.

  29. I am talking to you.
    I want to know why YOU became athiest.
    I don't even want to ague with you about it.
    I'm not trying to defend religion, I've already told you I deplore religion.
    You have a background in Christianity, what made you decide it was wrong? Someone telling you it was stupid? Someone attacking what you couldn't defend? Was it someone else or you, personally discovering it was wrong? Are you the originator of your thinking or an diciple?
    I've considered the books you've mentioned and found the first two were considered rantings even by their own peers, perhaps I would consider the Sam Harris book but I have very little time.

  30. I suppose it a mix of Someone telling me it was wrong and personally discovering it was wrong.

    As a Christian I just felt that a lot of the things about my religion weren't adding up, so I started researching them. Finally after a few years of research I finally had to admit that religion just didn't make logical sense. Since then I've continued to research the matter from different perspectives, but currently I still find the atheism has the most logical reasoning behind it.

    I don't know where you got your reviews about the first two books on my list, but I can tell you that I've read them and they are anything but rants. (Well maybe Christopher Hitchens does rant a little, but for the most part he has a very reasoned viewpoint)

  31. For as many reasons as you can give for evolution other scientists and educators refute with as much fervor.

    Dr. Murray Eden, of M. I. T.
    “It is our contention that if random is given a crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery of new natural laws – physical, physico-chemical and biological.”

    Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection. "Profusion of Living Fossils," Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

    "Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)

    Those are only a few excerpts of writtings by many like minded scientists and educators and why I wanted to hear your personal reasonings. We can send quotes from others, more educated than ourselves, till the primordial ooze drys up, to no avail.

    It is a shame you did not experience Jesus outside the realm of religion and religious excersize.
    Faith has become a doorway to experience for me and millions of others. I know the God that you can't because you refuse to see what is obvious to me.
    To me, and many others, creation and creator, are just as facinating and worth examining. I just accept the fact that everything was created but that doesn't make it less worth investigation.

  32. A few things

    Henry M. Morris is a Young Earth Creationist (A ideology that has been disproven beyond logical debate.) and is considered the father of Modern Creation Science. He has also received heavy criticism from the scientific community for cherry picking his information and misrepresenting research to suit his own goals

    Jonathan Wells is a AIDS Denialist and Intelligent Design Advocate.
    Also his best know book is Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?(and I quote) Reviews describe the book as misquoting its sources and taking minor issues out of context, basing its argument on a flawed syllogism.

    And Murray Eden has been discredited by his peers. Other than that I'm having a hard time finding any information on him

    It's fine to throw quotes around, but be sure to make sure your sources are reliable. Also if you can find me a reliable scientist who disagrees with the theory of evolution (preferably with a degree relation to evolutionary biology or just biology in general) who's not a Christian and is a reliable source.

    There is a reason that the majority of the scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution and the majority of the scientific community that doesn't just happens to be of various religious beliefs that don't coincide with evolution.

  33. Oh, I almost forgot.
    In you last paragraph you said something that bothered me and I wanted to address it. You said
    "It is a shame you did not experience Jesus outside the realm of religion and religious excersize."
    This statement is odd. If I'm understanding your reasoning correctly you're stating that anyone who was a Christian but is no longer a Christian was apparently never a "True" Christian in the first place. As an Atheist I can't refute this because in order to do so I would have to acknowledge Christianity as a fact. I can simply state that from my viewpoint anyone who was a Christian but isn't any longer simply stopped deluding themselves and that it's a shame that you have to seen the world with the blinders of religion on in order to appreciate it.

  34. 2 quickies, guys. First Josh, I did rewad the web address about minorites,and here's my point. Majority should be, and I think does, involve ruling without it being oppression. My concern is that the "willingness to compromise" proposed in the last bullet point is increasingly me compromising and Joe Blow who runs to the ALCU for every stubbed toe demanding without any respect to my position in return. Second, "In you last paragraph you said something that bothered me and I wanted to address it. You said
    "It is a shame you did not experience Jesus outside the realm of religion and religious excersize."
    This statement is odd. " To you I'm sure it is, and it goes to the heart of why we aren't understanding each other. I've gone to church my whole life, to Catholic school for eight years which means church every morning every day. But I met -really met- Jesus in high school, on my knees on my bedroom floor with no one else around except the demons who'd have rathered I didn't. If I could ever get one thing through to you, not on an "ok, you've said it 100 times, I get it" level but on a true "I grasp what you're saying" level is that religion does not equal faith. If you had met Jesus outside the box as we did, perhaps you wouldn't be hopelessly demanding a god that can be measured, weighed, and distributed to the masses by US mail. And yes, I do believe that anyone who has left the faith never had it in the first place.

  35. So, again, as long as everything is YOUR-sided, your logic, your thinking, your model, your math, your science, your scientists, your educators and your rules, then and only then is there credibility. Then I believe we are done here.
    To me all things are possible and worth finding out, to you only your model of intellect is possible. Who has on blinders?
    And yes, I am saying you, as with many who attend the cookie-cutter churches, had the FORM of godliness but denied the power. You found religion but not Christ.
    So I'll now leave you to your god of human intellect as I'm sure you'll leave me to my delusion.
    I'll leave you this Jesus Christ is foolishness to them that perrish but He is life beyond measure to them that believe.
    So when extra-terristrial life forms abduct thousands of humans in a single day and the world starts preparing to battle them when they return, look for me, if it happens in my life time, if I or Chris can't be found, ponder why us and not you!

  36. You argument is just unreasonable. You say that everything that I say is "My-Sided", but for the most part I'm just saying the same thing that the best and the brightest of the current generation are saying. You can't just reject scientific evidence because it doesn't agree with your religion. If your thinking that way, then next time you get seriously injured instead of going to the hospital why don't you go to church and ask God to heal you. Religion is all fine and dandy, but when it comes down to a true test of faith, when it's a matter of life and death, you're going to choose "MY" science over "YOUR" religion. At least we've become more civilized. Galileo was arrested because he didn't agree with your religion. The Catholic Church arrested him when he started telling people in him theory of a heliocentric universe. The Catholic Church said that saying that anything other that a geocentric universe was heresy. Now we realize that he was right all along. And before him religion would kill anyone who didn't agree with them. Religion is barbaric and I hope that one day the human race will eventually evolve past it.

    You can leave me to my "god of human intellect", I don't understand why you see intelligence as a bad thing. It's like you view it as something shameful that I should hide and never talk about. Only religion would tell people line up like sheep and never question the world around them.

    I believe you are correct in one thing at least. I believe we are done here. If you refuse to provide reliable sources for the claims that you are making then I don't see how much further in this conversation we can go. I'm sick and tired of this belief that religion is above questioning. If I told you that I created the universe you wouldn't believe me. You wouldn't start worshiping me. Why? Because I can't prove it. You can't prove that I'm lying, but that's not the point. If I make an extraordinary claim then I am required to provide evidence equal in measure to the claim that I am making. This is how the world works. And religion shouldn't be exempt from this.

    So when the years go by and the world doesn't end, and your savior never comes, and the rapture never happens, I'm sure you'll keep making excuses. If I'm wrong (Which is highly doubtful) I'll accept it. I won't feel bad that I didn't believe. There's a great quote that I read somewhere and it said "God made me an Atheist, who are you to question his judgement". Have you ever thought that maybe if god exist then he would reward the curious mind more than the blind devotion. Maybe that's the ultimate test of all.

  37. Oops. I forgot to respond to cw martin's post.

    Here is the point that I don't think you seem to grasp. I don't see religion being taught in schools as being on the same level as "Joe Blow" running to the ALCU for a stubbed toe. Religion is something that I feel is brainwashing and damaging to children who aren't of the maturity to understand it. It's like showing violent movies to a 5 year old. They don't understand what's going on and they might even be traumatized by the experience. When I decide that I want my children to learn about religion I'll do it at I time when I feel that they are of an age when they can intelligently make a decision on the matter.

    Also, I understand what you are saying about understanding Jesus. You're trying to convince me that because you are a Christian you know about Jesus in a way that I couldn't. I agree with this. I believe that you are deluded and the way you have been raised. I believe that I use to know Jesus in the same way that you do now because I believe that I use to be just as deluded, but now I am now longer. Lol, in a way I guess you can say that I believe that I was "saved" from religion. I refuse to believe in a god that refused to provide evidence for his existence. If such a god does exist then I don't regret not believing him, because such a god isn't worth my time.

  38. Fact 1 Jesus of the Bible is an historical fact. Fact 2 Those that follow Jesus' teachings are known as Christians.
    1+2= Christianity exhists.

  39. Fact 1 Jesus of the Bible is only a historical fact if you accept The Bible as a reliable source (Which it's not because in order for something to be a reliable historical source it needs to be corroborated by other documents of the time period. Also all of the gospel of the bible that mention Jesus were written generations after he supposedly existed and they all contradict themselves. Fact 3 I never said that the Christian religion didn't exist, only that the Christian God doesn't. Look up Russel's Teapot sometime. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean that your beliefs are correct. And I have no reason to believe they are correct nor humor you about them when you refuse to give me evidence as to your beliefs existence. If I told you that I believed that fairies existed you wouldn't humor me, you would think I'm delusional. In this sense I feel that same way about the Christian God. To you your believe might be important, but to me you're talking nonsense.

  40. WOW, I thought you were educated!
    There are more corroberating documents concerning the historic Jesus than Hommers Illiad. Including detractors of the individual known as Jesus. Also litterary examinations, of Mark most notablly, put those writtings within 50 years of the events.
    Prove the Gospels contradict themselves and I believe there are several foundations willing to give you large sums of $$ for your proof!

  41. Religion, religion, religion! You can not see the difference between a creator and religion. Too bad! I can not give you what you do not want! If you want evidence, YOU look for it. I googled it, it's there, in terminology that you understand (I'm not a neuro-biologist I don't understand some of that language) But, I have a feeling, if you found it, you would just discredit it or its' messenger because it doesn't fit your leaders model.
    Jesus was not mentioned in my home, I was not raised in the church so stop trying to force me into your un-founded neuro-theology mold!
    Love, patience, kindness, serving others, honoring others above yourself, these things are Jesus teaching, I can see how you are tramatized by it.
    This is my last post here. Josh I will let you have the last say. Be as beligerant as you choose, I will not reply.
    Thank you Chris for this post. It was fun! I thank YHWH , the Creator, and my Lord, Yeshua for deluding me amd millions of others.

  42. You see , Josh, I agree about you having the choice in raising your children. I think there are some overzealous people out there, and some just plain forgetful, who fail to get permissions from parents and make us all look stupid. No problem there. Where I have a problem is when you have these things with all the proper authorizations and some idiot comes along and says that "you can't do that because it is a public building and I don't care if everyone there approves. I am an atheist and I just want to cause trouble." And don't tell me that doesn't happen, because we both know it happens on both sides. As to your other paragraph to me, I can't help but wonder why it is you continue to hide behind this "delusion " gig and will not even in your words recognize that religion is not faith, and religion is not God. I wish just once you would thoughtfully think about that and respond even hypothetically, but you hide behind the terms "religion" and "delusion" as if there's something you're afraid of.
    Finally, you are "deluded" if you believe the Bible has no corroborating evidence. Perhaps none that you can look at without stepping out from behind your shield of illogic/delusion/religion, none that might make you want to change your mind. But, as anon said, I know there's nothing we can say to get you to turn one inch and look at it if I told you. I could tell you a lifetime of events that prove the existance of God, but what good does it do? You would only deride them, or say it's more delusion, or ignore it as you have much of what I tell you.
    Instead, I'll just keep praying for you, realizing that you might just be one of those things that God says "no" about. Ezekiel 33:8 says, "When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand." I believe I have fulfilled my responsibility.

  43. I am the evidence of my beliefs exhistance.

  44. By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

  45. OK...I Lied...More posts...LOL!
    The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.

  46. Evidence is in your face, you choose to make it something else.
    Not my problem!

  47. I'm sorry, but it is at this point where I must opt out of this conversation. My college course load has just picked up and I just have no time to post comments anymore.

    Thank you for the semi-intellectual discussion (Mainly on CW Martin's part)

    I can only recommend that you read up more on the Theory of Evolution because I don't feel that anyone in this forum quite understands the concept. (The Anon who posted the comment about irreducible complexity definitely doesn't)

    It was fun even if I didn't change anyone's viewpoint. "If you could reason with religious people, there's would be no religious people" -House

    And finally I bid you farewell. I'll probably still check the comments for a while, but I probably won't be commenting anymore.

  48. You must be a political science major of the liberal-socialist agenda.

  49. Computer Electronics and Engineering Technology Major

  50. "Anonymous said...
    You must be a political science major of the liberal-socialist agenda."

    I thought that was a little beneath you, anon. For someone who wanted to forego the name calling, that is.

    I'll save my name calling for the Rev. Jackson (see last post) and other deserving idiots. Lord knows I have a wide field to choose from.

  51. Glad you thought that was name calling. I thought it was an observation. Why?
    You didn't reply to any of my points or correct me if I was in error you merely disrespected me (assuming my ignorance) or the author of a point I quoted. That's what politicians do instead of actually responding to a tough question or point.

    You can't reason with anyone if you assume a posture of intelectual superiority and project that the individual and their comments are beneath you. I will listen to someone who respects me wether I agree or not, but, I am deaf to the pompous and arrogant.

    Any belief worth having is worth the effort to preserve it. You believe that the theory of evolution is a correct one so you cannot be easily swayed and you'll spend little time, if any, reading, serious, opinions that differ. Why would you expect different of me?

    "Lord knows..." LOL! That's funny comming from the athiest!

  52. Anon, dude! look at the name on the post you just responded to and try again!

  53. Sorry CW it was late I was hurying and at work.

  54. I read yours and Josh's post as one post.

  55. Well, I really am done with this.
    Josh, it was fun. Good luck with your studies.
    You did make me realize how ill prepaired I am to argue science and statistics. But since this post I have reviewed mathmaticians, micro-biologists, historians and Doctorates in many fields on both sides. If these can argue points more logically than the three of us to no avail what good are our arguments if we just keep deferring to them.
    I know in whom I have believed, that is sufficient for me. God, through Christ Jesus, has given me an incredible life where there once was no life at all.

    CW, God bless you brother. You'll be in my prayers from here forward. To Him, who is able to do above and beyond all we can ask or think, be glory and honor and praise. Amen!

    P.S. Doesn't the word Athiest in the true Greek mean "against God," not, "no God?"