Well, I'm not an atheist, but I think I'll take a stab at the question...our morals come from empathy. I say this because the worst criminals in our society are not atheists, but sociopaths. Or, as it's now called, afflicted with anti-social personality disorder.

Amy,

Sorry, but the video is right off.

Ignoring the fundamentals will always get you into trouble.

The fundamental being ignored?

Pssssssssssssssssssst,

All you atheists,

The Bible was written by humans.

I am going to second Ken. The Bible was written by and interpreted by humans. Has anyone met him to know that he has endorsed any of the things in this video just because people wrote it in the Bible? The same as people say there's no proof of a God because they don't believe in one are always the first to use the Bible they don't believe in as their argument against it. Because you don't believe in God does not mean your morals are any more in question than someone who believes in a God just as not all who believe are Bible thumping idiots.
There are fundamentalists that do horrible things in the name of God and religion. There are also many people who quietly take comfort in having a faith or belief that there is a God that don't try to inflict their views or beliefs on anyone.

Interesting that in order to defend Christianity the first two commenters have to violate one of it's most sacred beliefs: that the Bible was written by God. No change in revelation over time which is the usual thing seminaries teach you when you go for an M-Div (which I almost did after many years of study). (It would have been better if they filled it with horrors from the new testament, of which there are still plenty.)

You can certainly still believe in God, but if you believe in the Christian one, you must believe all this as well, you can't just pick and choose what you believe, if you do that you are no longer following the religion, but making up your own ideas and your own morality, which is what atheists are accused of doing.

So, either follow the morality that man made regardless of what is in the Bible (the average Christian) or follow the morality that man made regardless of what is in the Bible (the average atheist). Sounds like the same thing, and once you realize your morality never came from God in the first place, where does that leave God's place in the world?

Stalin's morals were questionable. So were many of the Popes. Religion or lack of it can't negate the human factor, and a lot of humans suck. Can we move on? I believe in God, and I love chocolate. Neither one should really bother you.

First point:

Vox Day shows in his book, The Irrational Atheist, that an atheist leader is much more likely, statistically, to murder a significant part of his country’s population than any religious leader (p. 241). In addition, statistically a larger percentage of atheists are incarcerated.

You can download the book for free here, and verify these facts: voxday.blogspot.com

Second point:

No Bible-believing Christian would deny that human beings wrote the Bible (Hint: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John...those are names of HUMAN authors). What Christians believe, however, is that God uses humans as instruments to write His Word, in the same way people used to use secretaries, or how Obama used Bill Ayers as a ghostwriter for his autobiography, or how you are typing posts right now using your keyboard attached to a PC.

>>an atheist leader is much more likely, statistically, to murder a significant part of his country’s population than any religious leader...

Reply: The atheist leaders you speak of did not kill anyone because of a lack of a belief in something, they kill because they too closely resemble theocracies. "A totalitarian state is in effect a *theocracy*, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible." George Orwell

The textbook standard definition of atheism is a belief in nothing. Not failure to believe, but an actual belief in the nothing. So officially, yes atheism is a belief system.

TED, I'll have to admit that the post from plutosdad confused me. He seems to be saying that, in order to be a Christian, you must believe in biblical literalism -- the belief that every word in the Bible is literally true. I'm not aware of any mainstream denomination that holds biblical literalism as one of its tenants.

I've said before that Judeo-Christianity can be viewed as a system of morality independent of the supernatural aspects. I think an atheist could read the Bible and profit from it without accepting any belief in a supreme being. I'm often curious about what atheists draw upon for source material in constructing their morality systems.

Also: I think part of the problem that we always have with these discussions is that the English language uses the word "atheist" to mean two different things. First, there is the person who has looked over the evidence and concluded from their studies that the existence of a supernatural being is not possible. Second is the person who rejects the existence of a God because they reject everything that might in any way tend to constrain their behavior. This type of atheism comes from a narcissistic/sociopathic belief system; this atheist rejects God because, in effect, they have appointed themselves to the role of God. I really wish we had two different words for these things.

One way for a believer to annoy an atheist is to fail to conform to the orthodoxy he or she insists you must conform to.

I don't know if this is on topic or not, as embedded videos don't show up here at the office.

Atheists are merely people who don't believe without evidence

Nobody believes anything without evidence.

I'll have to admit that the post from plutosdad confused me. He seems to be saying that, in order to be a Christian, you must believe in biblical literalism -- the belief that every word in the Bible is literally true. I'm not aware of any mainstream denomination that holds biblical literalism as one of its tenants.

I agree. It's obvious (at least to insiders) that the many Christian groups disagree about many aspects of theology, from the most central (how to achieve salvation) to the most trivial (music style).

I've said before that Judeo-Christianity can be viewed as a system of morality independent of the supernatural aspects. I think an atheist could read the Bible and profit from it without accepting any belief in a supreme being.

In fact, from a humanist perspective, Judeo-Christian morality is strengthened by the absence of any God, because it has stood the test of time without supernatural backup. Christians believe that Judeo-Christian morality is what it is because God says so, but if God does not exist, then Judeo-Christian morality is what it is because it works. Survival of the fittest applies to belief systems too.

One way for a believer to annoy an atheist is to fail to conform to the orthodoxy he or she insists you must conform to.

Didn't someone say something like that in a recent conversation, but with regard to liberals and conservatives? Liberals accept diversity of appearance and require conformity to ideas, while conservatives accept diversity of ideas and are indifferent to appearance. In general, of course; there are always individual exceptions.

I'm sorry to see you endorsing something pitched at an adolescent level of thought. Makes me wonder how much attention to pay to whatever else you say, but then, I know that people do compartmentalize.

I suppose if I took a few minutes, I could lay out the logical fallacies contained in this video. But that's something you might want to try yourself.

Perhaps someday, you arrive at a grownup understanding of religion, morality & God. Just remember, Jesus was a practicing Jew. Could be he had an understanding you lack. Might be worth finding out what it was.

But the video is right that morality is a choice. So, how do we know what the right choice is? In fact, how does the concept of a "right" choice make any sense, without some kind of God?

But, as the old song goes, you gotta walk that valley by yourself. Ain't nobody else can walk it for you.

For you to understand yourselves, it would help if you found Sex and Culture online, free. It was written by Unwin, and is a scholarly work.

He discusses societies by the sexual freedom women have in that society, and the effect it has on the society. He reports that historically the first generation of women who have complete sexual freedom will ALWAYS live to see the end of their society. This included the Roman Empire and others.

But, relevant here is the effect on religion. The religious beliefs of societies is predicted by the sexual freedom of women in a society.

Society can only change its religious beliefs if its members individually change theirs.

So, y'all, mostly being sexually liberated as far as I can tell, have no more choice in your "religious beliefs" (anti-traditional religion) than primitive folk do with their worship of nature.

Aesop had a number of fables on this.

Oh, let me not forget. He also said a society can have sexual energy or social energy. Which explains why our cars and electronics are now being built by other nations, etc.

>>The textbook standard definition of atheism is a belief in nothing. Not failure to believe, but an actual belief in the nothing. So officially, yes atheism is a belief system.

That's not the standard definition at all, momof4.

Atheism means "without a belief in god."

Atheists are merely people who don't believe without evidence -- they really can't be connected as having some belief system. Roman Genn points out that Stalin's religion was communism.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 23, 2010 6:28 AM

Amy,

So I guess atheists are like doubting Thomases (was that St, Thomas Aquinas?, ... not sure) and doubting Thomasinas?

Incidently, the fact finder in your posit is, uh, human.

Bet old Roman Genn doesn't have the last name of Polanski ... sounds Polish doesn't it?

Is the Pope a German?

You bet!

from merriam-webster.com:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Sigh...last I checked, mirriam-webster was the standard for dictionaries:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Let's repeat that: one who BELIEVES that there is no diety.

"He reports that historically the first generation of women who have complete sexual freedom will ALWAYS live to see the end of their society"

"He also said a society can have sexual energy or social energy"

Unwin can tell it to Nell Gwyn. Or read some Samuel Pepys. The court of Nell & King Charles II, the Merrie Monarch, was a hedonistic fuck-fest even by modern standards. But Restoration England was still a golden age compared to the years of Puritan rule & civil war that preceded it. And it was absolutely brimming with sexual AND social energy - witness the recovery from civil war and the Great Plague & Great Fire of London, the founding of the Royal Society, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren, the Hudson's Bay Company, etc etc. Nell died in 1687, when Britain's best centuries were still ahead of it.

And if suppressing women's sexuality was the key to success, then Somalia & other traditional Islamic countries wouldn't be the worst shit-holes on earth.

there are roughly 1.5 billion Buddists, and roughly that same amount of Hindi in the world and yet? Morality must be understood opposed to Judueo-Christian belief... especially the belief of 3000+ years ago? The question is, at the time were the other religions of the world any different? Did the Egyptians not enslave all who they conquered? How 'bout Alexander? The Romans? The Khan did some very interesting and forward thinking things with his conquests, but he also slew many. And he took to wife the virgin daughters of peoples he conquered to solidify his hold on them.

Do we still have wars like that today? Do we still do ANY of the things this person rails against today? If we were to actually take the Bible literally, we would have to do that, wouldn't we? Oh, wait, only the Jihadis take their writings so literally.

I know it's sometimes tiring when people try to evangelize you to a belief... but somehow, I manage to forgive vegans for their disdain of me and murrmuring how meat is murder. Belief is an interesting thing, and even nihilists usually believe in themselves...

So instead of demanding that everyone come to your belief in nothing, wouldn't it be better to STATE what you do believe, and let everyone else be free?

THEN you get to say to them, "Now that belief systems are understood, we can talk public policy together, understanding that compromises will be made."

An Atheist demanding that all religion is bad, and shouldn't be allowed, is no different from an ultra-conservative of any religion who insists that everyone is going to burn in hell. Either way, they have decided that they themselves are in fact god. Which is why those mid-20th century non believers killed more people in their cults of personality than any religious war...

Morality is rooted in the compassion and understanding of our relation to others, taken to a logical extreme, IMHO. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. What morality isn't based on an extension of that idea?

Here is the Wiki compare

If a religion chooses to go beyond that, is there a problem? We say "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is not passive... and over the eons it has been said it has been enlarged, so that a neighbor is anyone.

At least this is the way I see it.

"If we were to actually take the Bible literally, we would have to do that, wouldn't we?"

It's crazy to take the Bible literally. Can you imagine what the world would look like if we took THIS command literally?

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

--

"Oh, wait, only the Jihadis take their writings so literally."

So do the Amish.

Cousin Dave,
I just meant, the Bible is either written by God or Man, that does NOT mean all the events are literal (they could be allegory or metaphorical).

Many scholars will say for things like slavery, that God has issued change in revelation over time. This excuses the "bad" parts of the Bible that we no longer consider moral. That is one explanation.

Other people say "oh no it's not a change in revelation, that was not God at all, it was man writing what he wanted" I hear this increasingly especially from lay people who have not studied much or thought it through, because if you say that, then what does that say about the parts of the Bible you happen to like?

Basically when they say it was written by man for the parts they don't like, but written/inspired by God for the parts they like, it is just an excuse to not really think critically about what they believe. Which is why in seminary they teach explanation 1, not the 2nd one.

If you morals truly come from God, then you don't get to decide what is moral and what is not. Making that decision is technically "blasphemy" which is "making yourself equal with God".

Of course most Christians do this, not out of thin air of course, but certainly our morals no longer come from the Bible, they are loosely based on the Golden rule, which was around long before (in 2 forms). And if you are making up morality yourself, or using your culture as a guide, well then it's not really from God, or if it is it's not from the Christian God, because that same morality was around far longer than Jesus or the Jewish people were.

God does not condone slavery in the Bible, He just accepts it as part of the human condition.

And why not? If you believe that people today circa 2010 are really "free" -- check on the national debt. What do you owe? Did you know that the Bible defines "slavery" as owing debt? How much in taxes did you pay last year? Oh yeah, the Bible defines "slavery" as paying more than 10% of your income.

"Morals" coming apart from the Bible are as testable and real as Unicorn farts. We are blessed, though, that most atheists follow Christian morality. I'm not complaining about that, given that I don't want to murdered or have my car stolen.

plutosdad --

"God has issued change in revelation over time"...

This just happens to be the whole foundation of Christian theology. The change was Christ. This is why Christians are not Jewish, and not under obligation of avoid ham dinners, or to wipe out or enslave neighboring Canaanites.

But the whole "Jesus Christ coming to save us" thing isn't really taught at modern seminary anymore (it was replaced in the curriculum by classes on how to make your gay vegan cousin feel good about not clubbing baby seals)... so you actually make a very good point.

"An Atheist demanding that all religion is bad, and shouldn't be allowed, is no different from an ultra-conservative of any religion who insists that everyone is going to burn in hell."

Atheism prohibiting people from practicing their religion is NOT the same as...

People practicing their religion (holding certain beliefs about some people going to Hell)

Amish are ultra-conservative. Do you fear the Amish? Meanwhile, the atheist Communists murdered 200 million people in the 20th century....

>>2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Reply: This is silly and smells of bias. My non-belief in Santa Claus is not a doctrine, and I do not regard it as a disbelief in the existence of Santa because phrasing it that way seems to assume Santa's existence. My lack of belief in the supernatural is not an affirmation position, and deep down we are all atheists to someone else's deity anyways. I simply reject your deity as summarily as you reject Vishnu.

>>Let's repeat that: one who BELIEVES that there is no deity.

Momof4,

I know you prefer that definition on its own (period!) and that you prefer NOT to give weight to the qualifying discussions that immediately follow in most (detailed) online entries.

But even the definition you prefer does not automatically support your further assertion: "atheism is a belief system".

Atheism is best defined as "a belief in no God", OR "no belief in God".

Nobody believes anything without evidence.

People check their horoscopes to enjoy the poetry?

Some people believe in horoscopes because they observe correlation between the (extremely general) predictions of a horoscope and their own experiences. That's evidence.

Some people believe in horoscopes because someone they trust does. That's evidence too.

Neither of those things constitute proof, but proof and evidence are not identical: evidence is a superset of proof.

Do we still have wars like that today? Do we still do ANY of the things this person rails against today? If we were to actually take the Bible literally, we would have to do that, wouldn't we?

I don't know of any part of the Bible with a general command to go out and engage in wars of conquest. I also don't know of any part of the Bible that justifies the Crusades.

Generally,

Nobody should be using Wiki. This is not a definitive source.

Conan,

I like your style.

Mom,

I like your style, too, but I use mirriam-webster also, so I guess we are both wrong.

Remo,

I don't have to tell you what grandaddy of all chatroom sites proudly featured "Amish Online". Please also remember that Christians and Jews worship the same God. Some Jews regard Jesus as a heretic, and then there really is a "Jews for Jesus" segment, one of whose members is always getting batted away at LAX by Robert Stack in the original "Airplane".

I also have nothing against truly peaceful people, who, unlike myself, almost never make that cheerful invitation to " ... step outside, and discuss this further" ... and wish to have an honest debate on the merits.

Aetheists have a right to their incorrect opinion.

All the people who are ok with flying manned planes into manned buildings in order to, pick one:

Declare their idiotic, 700 years after Christ was born, pedaphile prohet-fueled fantasy ideology, masquerading as a religion, a.k.a. Islam, the "best on the block" ...

Expect 72 virgins to be handed to them by a "Boys, you did a great job on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and let me get you your "72 Packets" as a reward." god ...

and heartily endorse honor killings, clitorechtomies, and suck up all kinds of taqiya from God knows how many countries.

All you English teachers out there, I know this was a doozie of a runner. Please humor me.

Fast forward to a scene I hope doesn't happen:

White House ... Obama ... "I'm A Dinner Jacket Did What Today?" ... "He bombed Israel with one of those big mushroom thingee bombs?" ... "Obviously we need much harsher (oh my!) sanctions!"

"Nobody should be using Wiki. This is not a definitive source."

nobody said it's difinitive, but it is a GREAT aggregator of difinitive sources... what you choose from there is your call.

pseudonym- Wouldn't Jericho qualify? and the Crusades were religious wars to take back areas that were conquered by other religions. More political/religious than biblical.

Saying the bible was written by humans is about as useful as pointing out that it is now written on paper.

True, but essentially not very useful to know.

I'm all for evidence Amy, but the very same aspects of human nature which are written about in "Mistakes were made...but not by me", also limit our receptiveness to information that conflicts with our favored world view. In short, nothing shy of an honest to goodness angel stopping by, or a visit by god himself, would be sufficient to change your mind, because anything less could be discounted.

Certainty of anything not testable is in itself as irrational as faith without reason.
That is why I'm an agnostic.

If I have a favorable bias for religion in general, and I do, my reasoning is that it is more useful in its best form to society than a belief in nothing at all.

True an intelligent person such as Amy would rationalize that it is in her best interests not to be an antisocial amoral bitch, and consciously choose a live and let live, do unto others, golden rule form of morality that has nothing to do with religion. Enlightened self interest would be a good term. Some might choose to behave simply because they fear the law & the consequences of their behavior, for lack of the intelligence to recognize the importance of the best interests of all.

But the great multitudes I doubt, would have much of a moral compass, without the story that is religion. As a tool of social construction & support, it serves human need far better than its atheistic counterpart. I will concede that it may be misused to produce much human suffering.

But that a hammer can be used to kill and destroy, does not mean it cannot be used to build a house.

>>Some people believe in horoscopes because someone they trust does. That's evidence too.

Reply: Really!? This passes for evidence in your world?

>>proof and evidence are not identical

Reply: Just for fun, I checked dictionary.com and its thesaurus and "evidence" was the primary definition of "proof."

pseudonym- Wouldn't Jericho qualify?

That was a specific instance, where (in the story) God says "You group of people, go capture the city of Jericho." It's not a general command like "spread the gospel to other nations" is.

Some people believe in horoscopes because someone they trust does. That's evidence too.

Really!? This passes for evidence in your world?

Yes: evidence, as defined in the dictionary, is a very weak word. Hearsay satisfies the dictionary definition: "An indication or sign."

proof and evidence are not identical

Just for fun, I checked dictionary.com and its thesaurus and "evidence" was the primary definition of "proof."

What a coincidence! I used dictionary.com to formulate my post also. Best to be correct, you know.

What was your point? Are you claiming that the only valid definition of the word "evidence" is identical to the word "proof"? If so, reread the page at dictionary.com that I linked to.

I suppose if I took a few minutes, I could lay out the logical fallacies contained in this video. But that's something you might want to try yourself. Posted by: punditius

Ah yes, the wise beliver who knows so much he refuses to enlighten anyone.

You do realize that under the tenet of your religion punditius that by refuseing to defend your faith your god will condem you to hell.

Many scholars will say for things like slavery, that God has issued change in revelation over time. This excuses the "bad" parts of the Bible that we no longer consider moral Posted by: plutosdad

What a load of horseshit. If god is perfect and all knowing and all powerful then why would he need to change? ANd tell me why should I take the thought of the scholars of your mythology more seriously than those of the wiccan faith? Or the scholars of the norse faith? Or those really delusional D&D fans who belive Ed Greenwood is a psycic seeing into alternate dimentions?

This just happens to be the whole foundation of Christian theology. The change was Christ. This is why Christians are not Jewish, and not under obligation of avoid ham dinners, or to wipe out or enslave neighboring Canaanites.
Posted by: Remo Williams

Sorry remo you are wrong, the firt christians had to convert to judaism first. Later christin leaders felt convers would be eaiser if they didnt have so many restricitions so they began phasing out the more objectionable requirements

Meanwhile, the atheist Communists murdered 200 million people in the 20th century....
Posted by: Remo Willams

Leaders and numbers remo, put up or shut up.

Meanwhile how many people did mother tersea kill?

All that money raised in her name, how much went to food and medicine, and how much went to shoving bibles down the throats of those dying of starvation?

The textbook standard definition of atheism is a belief in nothing. Not failure to believe, but an actual belief in the nothing. So officially, yes atheism is a belief system.

Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

As for standard definitions:

A deist is someone who believes in the existence of a non-intervening creator of the universe.

A theist is a deist, with the additional restrictions that the supreme being: intervenes in the universe; sustains a personal relation with its creatures; provided a particular set of revelations; and that all contradictory "revelations" are wrong.

Which means all religious believers are theists.

And that there is nothing to distinguish between an atheist and a deist except spelling.

"Nobody should be using Wiki. This is not a definitive source."

nobody said it's difinitive, but it is a GREAT aggregator of difinitive sources... what you choose from there is your call.

pseudonym- Wouldn't Jericho qualify? and the Crusades were religious wars to take back areas that were conquered by other religions. More political/religious than biblical.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at February 23, 2010 1:03 PM

Swiss,

Wiki is a conglomeration of scholarly inputs, and also inputs from schlubs like us. The fact checking is horrendous, JMHO.

I am not getting the point of your second paragraph.

I recommend this site for a perspective on what the crusades did, and why we need a modernized version of them again'

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile, the atheist Communists murdered 200 million people in the 20th century....

Leaders and numbers remo, put up or shut up.

What, you don't believe him? Even Stalin's defenders concede an 8 digit death toll. I thought this was common knowledge.

China's Great Leap Forward starved 30 million. In the 1960's Solzhenitsyn estimated that the Gulags took 66 million. The Holodomor is estimated to have killed between 2.5 and 10 million Ukrainians according to Wikipedia. Stalin claimed to Churchill in 1942 to have killed 10 million who resisted collectivization. Add those up, correct for duplicates and you're over halfway there.

I just read the Wikipedia page about the Soviet Census of 1937. They expected the Soviet Union to have 180 million people, and when they measured 162 million, they destroyed the results and sent the census organizers to the gulags.

I wish somebody would figure out what a fallacy is before engaging in argument about religion.

I note that arguments supposedly about God™ actually turn out to be about the Bible™.

I use the ™ to indicate popular opinion of KJV content. Religious discussion pointedly denies the evidence present all around us to focus on a book.

And the book is packed with trash.

Here is what religion gets you

http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-who-failed-to-say-amen-starved-by-cult-court-20100223-ovav.html

Pseudonym were those people killed for not accepting atheism? Or for not accepting the vision of the state the new leaders were pushing?

Why is it everytime a athiest kills someone its in the name of theism but say the hunndereds of thousands tortured to eath by the inuisition were the result of 'a few misguided souls'?

In every single country in the world when a new idology comes to political power people die. The only difference is in the 20th century there were more people around.

Even Stalin's defenders concede an 8 digit death toll. I thought this was common knowledge.

Communism is a religion.

It had a revealed text, deity, priesthood, heresies, inquisitions, etc.

People who don't believe without evidence are not Islamists, Catholics, or Communists.

"Live and let live" is, at its core, an a-moral (not immmoral) worldview. To each his own, go along to get along, if it feels good to you, and doesn't hurt me, then go for it. There is no actual moral imperative or code there other than "leave other people alone." You can't have "morality" unless it is defined by something...a moral code. Otherwise, there is no such thing as right and wrong.

I guess even "live and let live" can't really be said to be amoral, because it contains the imperative to "let live," thus implying to not let live is "wrong."

Why is it wrong? If it's survival of the fittest, then killing the weak should BE a moral imperative, right? To help optimize the race? So why do we see killing as wrong? A tiger or a hyena doesn't see it as wrong. They see it as necessary for survival. What makes us different?

We all live by a moral code. It's merely a question of where we get the code from.

"Atheists are merely people who don't believe without evidence"

Disagree. Agnostics don't believe without evidence. Atheists have examined the evidence and made a choice not to believe.

Atheists have examined the evidence and made a choice not to believe.

Posted by: Steve B

Wait, someone came up with evidence of a deity? Well then, what is it?

>>Atheists have examined the evidence and made a choice not to believe.

Steve B,
We have a problem here with the definition of "evidence", I think!

For brevity's sake, few of us bother to add "objectively verifiable" every time we write "evidence" but that's often what we mean.

Personally, I don't accept as "evidence" an opinion supported by faith alone when it comes to the Big Stuff.

Let me ask you religious folk something. You ever stop to consider your god is some knd of cosmix 3rd grader and our existence is his half assed science experiment sitting on some shelf in his parents basement storgage room?

Because there is an much "evidence" for my theory as there is for your god

For brevity's sake, few of us bother to add "objectively verifiable" every time we write "evidence" but that's often what we mean.

Personally, I don't accept as "evidence" an opinion supported by faith alone when it comes to the Big Stuff.

One of the definitions of "evidence" is "proof", and that's why I don't object every single time Amy says "without evidence". But if she meant "proof" surely that's what she'd say, writer extraordinaire that she is. And nobody believes only things that have been proven; in practice, people form their belief systems out of hearsay.

In philosophy, there's no such thing as "objectively verifiable" evidence. Rejecting solipsism is a leap of faith. I believe solipsism to be false, but I can't prove it, and neither can you. Behaving as if the world is real decreases the discomfort I experience, but that doesn't prove anything, it just increases my confidence that I've made the correct choice.

In science, evidence is something that points towards a conclusion, but is not necessarily conclusive in and of itself, and false evidence (evidence that points towards a false conclusion) absolutely exists.

>>In science, evidence is something that points towards a conclusion, but is not necessarily conclusive in and of itself, and false evidence (evidence that points towards a false conclusion) absolutely exists.

With respect, Pseudonym, you keep throwing around synonyms in your discussion of definitions in this thread as if you're on to something frightfully interesting - and I'm not sure that's the case.

We could get into a side discussion about logic being a branch of philosophy that deals with objectively verifiable assertions - but so what?

In matters of religious faith, evidence - the sort I'm talking about, the sort of evidence that can be tested - ain't the point.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're saying:)

One of the definitions of "evidence" is "proof", and that's why I don't object every single time Amy says "without evidence". But if she meant "proof" surely that's what she'd say, writer extraordinaire that she is.

For there to be any evidence in a matter, by definition that evidence must provide the means to choose between mutually exclusive statements about the matter.

Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is not the son of God. Mohammed is Allah's prophet. Mohammed is not Allah's prophet, Joseph Smith is ...

There is absolutely no way to choose between these religious statements.

Why? Because there is no evidence for any of them.

solipsism? psued you are really grasping at straws now if you have to haul out that argument.

And skipper, acording to religious txt every god had special minions running around doing allsorts of stuff like bringing the dead to life, curing paralisis, parting arious bodies of water by thought alone.

Where are these people now? Why has god stopped showing his power? Why does a god who murderd a man for toughing a box do nothing as priests molest children?

Also skipper by your reasoning "There is absolutely no way to choose between these religious statements" I could just as easily be god

>>by your reasoning "There is absolutely no way to choose between these religious statements" I could just as easily be god

Well, your comments do sometimes seem to be written in a divine code, lujlp:)

lujlp: "Wait, someone came up with evidence of a deity? Well then, what is it?

If I thought you were genuinely interested in the answer, I'd take time to address it. However...

In science, evidence is something that points towards a conclusion, but is not necessarily conclusive in and of itself

Exactly. I guess it boils down to what you are willing to accept as "proof," or what, for you, rises to the level of "evidence."

I don't believe simply because some sunday school teacher when I was in the 3rd grade told me to. I believe because I have seen enough collaboration and personal experience which jives with what the Bible says to develop a comfortable level of "evidence."

No, I cannot slice you off a piece of "God" and examine him/it under a microscope. Of course, evolutionists are still trying to find out how a dinosaur became a bird, or vice versa, or....

A great deal of the scientific method is examing evidence to develop a theory, OR, as it has come to be today, developing a theory and then finding evidence to support it. See "evolution."

"Evidence" points towards a conclusion, based on (hopefully) an objective analysis, as well as the inter-relations between various mutually supporting events/items, etc. Some of which MAY be anecdotal, but which still fits within the overall narrative/construct.

No, I cannot "prove" God exists, but I've personally seen/experience enough "evidence" to support my "theory" that He does. Naysayers cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but, based on THEIR evaluation, they have come to the conclusion that he/she/it does not.

That, to me, differentiates the agnostic from the atheist. The agnostic is still open to the possibility. The atheist has said, "No frickin' way."

>>Of course, evolutionists are still trying to find out how a dinosaur became a bird, or vice versa, or....

Exactly, Steve B.

Because the "still trying to find out how..." explains why science moves forward, and dogma does not.

Also, I consider myself an open-minded atheist. You give me an objectively verifiable dollop of copper-bottomed evidence that god exists, and I'll definitely look into it.

For there to be any evidence in a matter, by definition that evidence must provide the means to choose between mutually exclusive statements about the matter.

What do you mean by "the means to choose"? Hearsay can be true or false, and someone hearing it can agree, disagree, or postpone forming an opinion.

Evidence is something that points, sometimes erroneously, to a conclusion; it's frequently insufficient by itself to determine the truth.

Also, I consider myself an open-minded atheist. You give me an objectively verifiable dollop of copper-bottomed evidence that god exists, and I'll definitely look into it.

Have you investigated the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It is part of what convinced the famous atheist philosopher Dr. Antony Flew to become a deist.

Perhaps you didnt notice it last time but I debunked the Kalam 'argument'

And Steve how do you know that you 'proof' doesnt piont to the exstance of Kali rather than the god you think it does?

lujip:

And skipper, acording to religious txt every god had special minions running around doing allsorts of stuff ...

Maybe I should have been clearer.

When I say there is no way to assign on objective truth value* to any of those religious assertions (Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons must respectively believe the affirmative of one of those mutually exclusive pairs, and the negative for all the rest), that means there is absolutely no way to prefer one over another.

As both a matter of logic and historical experience, the existence of mutually exclusive statements within a system means that anything, no matter how bizarre, can be stated within that system. Religions both individually and collectively have proven this for every minute of their existence.

There is an alternative. Absent an ability to exclude contradictory statements -- because there is absolutely no evidence either way -- then conclude all such statements are completely devoid of any truth whatsoever.

In other words, all immaterial religious statements, and therefore all religions, are completely empty of any truth; they are neither right nor wrong. They are worthless.

* that is, one available to any observer

Also skipper by your reasoning "There is absolutely no way to choose between these religious statements" I could just as easily be god

No, you couldn't. Define what it is to be god. Invite observers to measure the difference between you and the definition. The evidence -- that is, the difference between lujip and the definition for "god" -- would allow any observer to assign relative truth values to the statements "lujip is god" and "lujip is not god".

---

Steve B

You appear to have fallen into a trap.

For all religious believers, their religion is an expression of god; all other religions are not. Which is exactly like saying any religious believer is an atheist with respect to all the other instantiations of god.

So, presuming you are an adherent to a specific religion, you are an atheist thousands of times over. By comparison, and atheist is exactly like you, plus one more god.

In contrast, being an agnostic is take the position that the question is unanswerable.

With respect to every religious depiction of god, I am an atheist. There is no end of evidence contradicting their core revelations.

As to whether something exists that qualifies as godlike, I am an agnostic, because every answer to that question is self contradicting.

Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have already been there.

If some people are comforted by their idea of "religion", where's the harm? Except, of course, those radical islamists that want to kill us all. I think their "idea" of religion is tragically skewed. But most Christians, Jews, Hindis, Buddists, Wiccans, pagans, Amish, etc. and so on, find some comfort in believing there's a reason for the unhappiness that occurs in their lives, and they're hoping for a chance of something better in an afterlife. Some people believe in reincarnation (reinTarnation for the some of the hillbillies out there!), and that you have to come back to this mortal world multiple times in order to learn whatever of life's lessons that you didn't learn on your first, second or even 100th go-round. I think that truly evil people, like sociopaths, probably have no concept of "religion" per se, although there are some that fake it pretty well. They learn to go through the motions in order to fit in, but it holds no truth for them. I don't know that there's a "God" or "Goddess" or any other "Supreme Being" or "Beings" out there in the great beyond, or even if there is a great beyond. I was reading somewhere (I forget just where) some theory that as "gods/goddesses" are no longer needed or people stop worshipping them or something, they just fade away to be replaced by whatever else the people put their faith in. So maybe the strength of any "god" depends on how many people have faith in "him/her/it". I dunno. Might as well go for a soda. http://tiny.cc/mightaswell

Arguing religion is pointless, but here goes my two cents .... All I have to do is look into the eyes of one of my dogs to realize their has to be a supreme being in play to have created us and given us such a sweet companion.

For all religious believers, their religion is an expression of god; all other religions are not. Which is exactly like saying any religious believer is an atheist with respect to all the other instantiations of god.

Strictly speaking, atheists don't believe that false religions are created by supernatural beings in order to deceive people.

>>Have you investigated the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It is part of what convinced the famous atheist philosopher Dr. Antony Flew to become a deist.

I haven't investigated that (unlike lujlp!) I'm afraid, Pseudonym.

From a brief glance, I'd probably be out of my depth since I am not a scientist (and most certainly NOT a theoretical physicist!).

Then again, nor is Dr. Flew.

Here you go Jody - Pseudonyms argument is numbered in 5 steps and this was my response to his post of this supposedly famous argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
fair enough

2. The universe began to exist.
Assumes facts not in evidence, mankind has barely begun to scratch the surface of science and the answers it might hold, for all we know the universe has always existed and is as timeless and uncaused as the god further down in this argument, the point is we don’t know and assuming a magic man did it is pointless, stupid, and encourages people not to better with what little time they have in this life

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As I just refuted argument #2 this argument is invalid

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
Assumes facts not in evidence, see reply to augment #2. Even assuming that the universe was created by a god that is not evidence in and of itself that god itself was not created by some other even more powerful being

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
Flawed conclusion as there is no evidence that the universe was created out of nothing, nor is there any evidence it was done so by an uncreated all powerful god. Any such evidence that could definitively prove the universe was created by a god would, in and of itself, be proof of such a god. And with such proof we wouldn’t even be having this conversation

The very fact that we are having this conversation is proof that there is no proof of gods existence

Isnt circular logic fun?

Posted by: lujlp at November 15, 2009 12:07 PM

Sold!

And that's a helluva lot shorter than the wiki entry too, lujlp.

(To be honest, I'm going to have to read them both a few more times...)

lujip does as concise an evisceration of that argument as I have ever seen.

And Steve how do you know that you 'proof' doesnt piont to the exstance of Kali rather than the god you think it does?

There is "know," and then there is "believe to a reasonable degree of certainty." I can't "know" that God exists anymore than science can "know" how, when, and why (or if) the universe began. We can attempt to develop theories, and apply evidence and research to support or reject our theory. I propose that much the same process takes place in most people's religious faith, even though it doesn't necessarily rise to or achieve the level of empirical "proof" which science requires. And while there are natural "laws," there are also many foundational concpets in science which are still considered only "theories." I theorize that God exists based on what I have seen and experienced.

To suggest that "dogma" does not change, whereas science does, is in some respects fallacious. My UNDERSTANDING of my faith, and of its scriptures, has definitely grown, changed, and evolved as I continue to learn, grow. Things I took as true when I was younger, I now have discarded in favor of what seem to be "more correct" interpretations. Doesn't necessarily mean that the facts have changed, merely my understanding of them.

Many scientists' adherence to the "dogma" of evolution, global warming, or many other pet theories is every bit as "faith-based" as many religionists, and defended with every bit as much fervor and vitriol against blashphemers! ;~P

"Hey Skipper,"

I am absolutely an atheist when it comes to believing in a 12 armed hindu god, reincarnation, or buddhist "ascension" to a higher plan through my own efforts. I don't believe that Allah and Yahweh are the same god, merely interpreted differently. The traits asceribed to the respective deities are irreconciliable, and therefore cannot bescribe the same entity.

Of course I believe I'm right, and other's are wrong, or I wouldn't "believe" what I believe, right?! Some would consider it "arrogant" to suggest such a thing. Why? Modern PC crap insists that I never actually commit to a viewpoint, since it might "offend" someone else. Ptbbb. Screw that.

I agree that they can't all be right. Either one is right, or none of them are, as they are all essentially irreconcilable. They can't all be "right" unless it doesn't really matter and we are just making stuff up to make ourselves feel better. Which I do not believe.

"You give me an objectively verifiable dollop of copper-bottomed evidence that god exists, and I'll definitely look into it."

And the converse is true, as well. Provide me hard-coded, hands-on verifiable proof that God does not exist, and I'll definitely look into it.

And the converse is true, as well. Provide me hard-coded, hands-on verifiable proof that God does not exist, and I'll definitely look into it.

Posted by: Steve B

For the sake of this agrument I am going to assume you are either a christian or jew.

God, if he exists, by most stanndards is perfect and therefore unchanging. He once had people roaming the earth raising the dead, curing the sick, he himself used to drop mountains of people, turned them in to pillars visited all manner of death and destruction on anyone he felt like whether they deserved it or not.

Yet somehow he never does any more. If god exists and is perfect and unchanging then why did he change?

And why does our sense of morailty find abhorent just about everything the god we claim to worship wholeheartedly endorsed?

Hit submit too early.

Now, how is this objectivly verifiable?

When was the last time you saw a crowd of christians stone an adulterer?

When was the last time you saw a baptist kill a quaker over religion?

The bible put the second coming at the fall of Jeruselem in 70AD. It never came, and theolgins have claimed the end of the world at the end of nearly every century and millenum since.

And we are all still here. The fact that the bible has been so heavilly edited and winnowed down from scores of books to a couple dozen is a fact most christian are completely ignorant of, and those that do know often choose to ignore it.

The biggest argument against gods existance is the fact that we are having this conversation.

Take the christian craetion myth. God created man in a garden. And spent nearly all his time with the humans he created. One day when god was conveintly absent the devil possesd a snake, snuck in and tempted man.

This story suggests one of two things. 1 - god is not all powerful, 2 - god let the devil in on purpose and set up adam and eve to fail, meaning god is not benevolent.

So right away your creation myth destoys at least one of the two pillars supporting the idea of your god.

To top it off god curses the snake, the only creature in the entire story how did nothing wrong.

Want more proof of gods lack of existance? The story of Job.

In this story we learn either god is just one giant prick. If he is all knowing then he know he can not lose the bet with the devil, so why does god make a man suffer needlessly, kill dozens of people, to prove his superiority over a leser being(satan)?

So was god tricked into letting a man suffer for no good reason by a lesser being, in effect proving he is not all knowing? We saw a simmilar lack in knowledge when god cursed the snake.

Gods supposed attributes are: All powerful, all knowing, perfect(never needing to change), and depending on your brand of faith benevolent.

But we see in the creation story alone a lack of one if not two of those atributes (power or benevolence, & knowledge)

In the story of Job we see a clear lack of benevolence and a possible lack of knowledge.

And by virtue of the fact there are no holy men running around curing paralysis and rigor mortis today we see that god has changed meaning he can not be perfect.

Now if you want to claim that there is no evidence disproving a capricious saddistic asshole who screw mortal over or not as the mood fits him, I'd have to agree.

But the very texts most religious people rely on are all the proof you need that the god they and you worship does not exist.

Assuming of course you are a christian or a jew.
I cant really recall whether or not youve been specific as to your beleif system

Sorry that should have read

Now if you want to claim that there is no evidence disproving a capricious saddistic asshole of a god who screw mortal over or not as the mood fits him, I'd have to agree

"And the converse is true, as well. Provide me hard-coded, hands-on verifiable proof that God does not exist, and I'll definitely look into it."

What are you defending? The idea of God, or the Bible™?

Because no matter what deity you insist is in charge, in your world it had to produce what you see around you.

Unfortunately for Bible™ fans, the real world is at odds with what that book says, however esteemed it might be.

The real issue becomes, "Does the God of the Bible™ exist?"

Nope. That's because physical evidence - "evidence" not having that special meaning to the religious of "what I'm reading right now" - directly contradicts its claims.

That's what allows the existence of other religions in the first place. Just as "alternative medicine" which actually works is called "medicine", reality takes precedence and enforces itself over fantasy; it exists regardless of what you believe.

Go look at fallacies. My earlier comment stands.

"That's because physical evidence...directly contradicts its claims.

Depends on in what context you are evaluating the evidence. Merely applying the same standard of proof to the atheist worldview that it applies to mine.

luljp, if all you can get out of Job is that God is an asshole, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

The simple fact is that if God exists, and exists in a form such as most religions tend to suggest, then he doesn't need our permission to do what he does, nor does it always have to make sense to us.

God, by the Judeo Christian model, is a trans-dimensional being existing outside our linear time constraints. So, attempting to define or understand a transdimensional, non-linear existence in our liner, sequential, and three dimensional existence is always going to be a challenge. There is a saying that the more you know about quantum physics, the more sense the Bible makes.

That is the logical "fallacy" of this line of thought. WE determine what standards are used to define or prove the existence of God, and when WE determine that he/she/it has failed to meet our threshhold of proof, then WE conclude that he/she/it doesn't exist.

Think about it. We say that for God to exist, he must act, behave or interact a certain way...according to us. This makes no allowance for the possibility that He does exist, and isn't really all that interested in our definitions of who or what he is, but rather, that we understand HIS definitions of who and what he is.

Two diametrically opposed and fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews.

In the spirit of full disclosure, yes, I am a Christian. And while not a six-day creationist, I do believe that we can and should take most of what's in the Bible literally.

>>There is a saying that the more you know about quantum physics, the more sense the Bible makes.

Well, you learn something every day, Steve B.

I didn't know there was any such saying!

lujip does as concise an evisceration of that argument as I have ever seen.

That lujlp believes he has eviscerated the KCA says more about him than it. If you're interested in what it says, look it up; my half-baked summary barely scratches the surface.

Wikipedia describes some criticisms of the argument. The objections that seem most credible to me are along the lines of "how do we know that nothing pops into existence spontaneously, without a cause?" All we have so far are our observations of the natural world, which are quite finite.

If it is possible to have "imaginary time" (an amount of time equal to some constant multiplied by the square root of negative one) then the Big Bang might not have been a singularity and time might not have had a beginning. (That sentence should make it obvious that I am not a quantum physicist.)

Steve B, first we live in 4 dimentions not 3.

Second we can say how god should act because the bible you believe in says we were made in his image. Given everyone on earth does not have the same physical chareteristics and facial features that means the image we were created in was a one of a mental and reasoning capacity.

Jebus said we were heirs of god, and therefore logic would dictate if we are like him then he is like us.

And if he is like us then we can attempt to understand and assign value judgments to his actions.

And yes the only point of the story of Job is to point out gods hubris

>>luljp, if all you can get out of Job is that God is an asshole, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

Steve B,
Seriously - what do you take from the story?

(I am not demanding scholarly notes - I am genuinely interested in your take as a Christian.
I'm not even trying to argue - just curious!)

Steve B:

Of course I believe I'm right, and other's are wrong, or I wouldn't "believe" what I believe, right?! Some would consider it "arrogant" to suggest such a thing.

I think you missed my point, which is this: there is no way to distinguish between the truth value of Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, et al. Each disbelieves all the others for precisely the same reason: lack of evidence.

Taken together, as you must since since all these claims are religious, these claims are worthless; they are nullities. They have as much relation to truth as saying "purple dreams sleep more furiously". The statement is grammatically correct, but completely indistinguishable from its opposite.

So saying you believe you are right doesn't make any sense, because Sheikh al SteveB could make precisely the same claim about Islam, and there would be no adjudicating between the two of you.

BTW, there is certainly one conclusion to be drawn from Job: he was a coward.

Skipper, perhaps you are missing MY point. By your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as "truth," or if there is, there is no way for us actually to know what that is? Your view seems to be that all religious views are equally crap, because you have presumptively established that they can't possibly prove what you have already predetermined does not exist? We obviously won't agree, because the foundations of our arguments are diametrically opposed.

If I believe I am right, and the good Sheikh believes HE is right, either one of us is, or neither is. I "believe" I am, therefore, I will continue to operate under that assumption until proven different. But, as you say, it is difficult to prove an "opinion." Unlike you, I believe it IS possible for one of us to be factually correct (or more correct) in our beliefs; i.e. - it is possible to know the Truth.

there is no way to distinguish between the truth value of Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, et al.

I disagree. I readily admit, however, that it is a subjective judgement until we actually die and find out the real answer. In the meantime, I plan on holding on to my own carefully nurtured delusions in favor of someone elses.

Jody,

The essence of the Book of Job, to me, lies in about the last 3-5 chapters, where Job (who, yes, is a whiny, self-abosrbed little snot) gets himself schooled by both Elihu and God for talking smack. God's responds with, in essence, "Who are you, you snot-nosed little runt, to question the means and methods of the creator of the universe? Dude, I am GOD after all. Even the mightiest creature or fiercest temptests of the earth are nothing next to me, and you REALLY think I'm going to get my feelings hurt by your simpering laments!?"

"Surely I spoke of things I did not understand..." admits Job at the end.

The way I see it, it's like a soldier in a platoon. He get's cold, wet, hungry, often endures great hardships and deprevation. He has to believe, to "trust" that his commander knows what he's doing, that whatever it is he's being asked to go through is serving some higher purpose. That what may not make sense to his eyes, at the platoon level, is part of the grand strategy at the regiment, division or higher level.

People are so quick to talk about the "cruelty" of God (one of Job's themes), whereas the Christian (or person of faith) is more willing to accept the idea that whatever I'm a going through, could be serving a higher purpose, if even just to make me a better person.

If all I ever do is carry on about a cruel, unloving God who doesn't do things the way I think He outta, who won't give me what I want, or who let's bad things happen in the world so he must not be "good," then I am defintely acting like the "before" Job. I personally would rather be like the 'after' version.

To me, the book of Job is about the demonstrating/revealing the sovereignty of God, not about God using Job as a whimsical plaything for his sadistic amusement. Obviously, some disagree. {{shrug}}

Steve the point you seemed to have missed is that in this case the "higher" purpose in this case was a bet god was suckered into.

Satan knows god is all knowing, satan knew the outcome would be as god said. Its not like an unrepantant fallen angel with a full knowledge of god and his abitlities who chose to rebell anyway would learn a lesson.

"Depends on in what context you are evaluating the evidence."

No, it doesn't, and you're not using the "context" excuse to escape reality.

"Evidence" is not an unsupported allegation in a book, no matter how esteemed it is. If, for instance, you are claiming that a) the Bible™ is inerrant, and b) a global "Flood" occurred, then you must continue to show how things outside the Bible™ support those allegations.

This is a fine example of how the faithful use words differently, sort of like the pigs in Animal Farm. Sorry - evidence is supported by observations that do not depend on the faith of the observer.

"Context" does NOT dispose of the need to show a chain of events supporting your allegation, nor does it dismiss those that show, for just that one instance, that natural processes occurred throughout without seawater intrusion.

If your faith is more important to you than anything else, including the truth, then you'll just have to reject anything which isn't twisted to suport what you've decided already. The really huge strain on my irony meter occurs when, if you're like others besotted with faith, you deny the real world by holding your book up to block your vision of what its main character was supposed to have built!

"Evidence" is not an unsupported allegation in a book"

The point I've been trying to make is the most Christians, in my experience, don't merely rely on the words in a book. There are evidentiary things which SUPPORT those words. However, according to the "scientific" community, those things cannot ever be evaluated in a "scientific" context, because as soon as you attempt to use any observation, causality, or physical evidence to support a creationist or religious worldview, you are summarily branded as an unscientific, religious kook, and your conclusions or theories are summarily dismissed. Thanks for that.

So you create a standard that for a religious view to be taken seriously, it must meet a scientific level of scrutiny, and yet, you ensure that it is never evaluated in a scientific "context" because it just, just, just ISN'T!!

My point is that only one conclusion is allowed in the current "scientific" world. All evidence must be evaluated in terms of evolution. No competing theories need apply. Free and open inquiry? Not so much, eh?

"evidence is supported by observations that do not depend on the faith of the observer."

Except for the "science" behind global warming, of course. L.O.L.

It certainly looks like you've got all the answers figured out, and don't need to be bothered with alternate theories or opinions. Kind of like one of those very same close-minded, blinders-on religious fundamentalists you so disdain. {{snicker}}

Steve B, your allegations are simply false, and if you knew the first thing about the investigative process that brought you everything from clean water to the processor on your desk, you would know that.

Creationism doesn't fail because of evolution. Creationism fails because its promoters can't string two things together. They haven't even realized that attacking another viewpoint doesn't prove your own.

Amy's reply is subtly inaccurate - it is your assertion that there is a prejudice against your particular sort of "proof". In reality, just as "alternative" medicine which works rapidly becomes known as "medicine", a properly addressed proof stands on its own.

"Science" is hostile to ALL proofs, not just those you favor. You don't get special treatment for good intentions.

Try this simple test: point at something which has been "created". I think you'll fail for two reasons. You haven't bothered to define "created" ("something from nothing" doesn't cut it), and you don't know anything about natural processes. Everything you can see was converted from something else. No violation of the law of conservation of matter/energy, or cause/effect, has occurred on the scale insisted upon by those who would mutter a few words about "creation" as if they understood anything.

Show your work, and you win. Make unconnected noises, and you lose.

Not because of opinion, or "context", but because those who build real things have been taught that natural laws cannot be set aside. This is contrary to the expressed wishes of the religious, and that is why those remain fantasies.

This silly little film only has examples from the old testament. Nothing from Christ who revoked all that earlier stuff. The early horrific stories in the Old Testament are to remind what things were like before Christ.

Everyone here who ignores that simple point is as ignorant as the people who made this film. They don't know anything about what they are commenting on and they did not try to ask anyone to find out. This is simply to 'Shock'. It doesn't make any point.

I am not a Christian but I know what it is. If you had used Islam as your example you would have a point: not all religion is good.

Does anyone here have even the remotest understanding of Christianity or The Bible?

The bible was written by men. Many men. Over thousands of years. It is recognized that it is NOT written by God. Few people beleive it is infallible. The new Testament is largely written by the Apostles. Not God. The Apostles were building the early church. Corintheans is just a series of letters sent by one of the Apostles.

This entire thread is full of strawmen. The New Testament refutes the Old Testament. To say the bible Promotes what is in the Old Testament is a lie. Jesus brought a New Deal.

How does one compare religions? Easy, if a religion teaches to love everyone then it is a good religion. If it teaches that you are allowed to kill people at whim if you think you have been insulted or it forces people to worship under threat of death then it is a bad religion. Easy.

You must stop pretending that the Old Testament is what is taught by Christianity. It is there to remind you of life before Christ. Christ refuted the Old Testment's 'eye for an eye' by teaching forgiveness.

I am not a Christian but I am no idiot to fall for the strawmen in this silly little film.

Steve In Tulsa I find that most often the people most ignorant of what relgious texts say are those who belive in them.

Jesus did not bring a new deal, he said nothing will pass from the old law until the heaveans and earth pass away.

As the earth is still here the old law still applies.

And here is a brain teaser for you.

Assuming for the sake of argument Jesus did bring a new deal and none of the old testement laws apply, then why do chritians quote the old testement in regards to homosexuals?

"Steve B, I will believe in astrology and god the day actual evidence is presented"

That's the tragi-comic thing about this discussion. Several commenters have said that they will "consider" believing if any actual proof is ever presented.

And yet, these same commenters insist that it's impossible to provide proof, since god isn't real, and therefore, any attempts to provide "evidence" are just the desparate, grasping cries for legilitimacy of deluded religionists who can't be bothered to study science.

So, as I said before, you require proof while at the same time making it impossible for anything supporting the concept of a divine creator to be accepted AS proof. A self-dfeating argument.

So, really, you aren't actually interested in finding any proof/evidence.

I never said I could "prove" God exists. I readily concur that it's not possible to definitively "prove." What I've said all along is that, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to conclude that God exists. You disagree. So be it.

Steve your being an idiot. We're not the ones refusing to look at proof. You're the one refusing to provide any on the basis that we will refuse to look at it.

A failure to spaek on your part is not a failure to listen on mine.

You say there is evidence, why is it so FUCKING hard for you to just say what it is?

"Several commenters" is also not me, and apparently, Steve B, you haven't read my post at all.

Got a problem with how others approach your favorite ideas? You don't have to listen to me. Listen to Saint Augustine:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

He wrote that over 1600 years ago, and yet the faithful have yet to wake up and realize that if you want be taken seriously, you have to know what you are talking about in the real world.

Take the hint!

Steve B, you haven't read my post at all

Oh, I read your post(s). I'm merely ignoring your baseless character assassinations, and not dignifiying them with a response.

Things like, "if you knew the first thing about the investigative process" and "and you don't know anything about natural processes. Assumptions based on facts not in evidence. You don't know anything about my educational background or life experiences. Rather, you presume that because I have come to different conclusions than you, that I'm not as smart as you. Pure self-rigtheous arrogance.

Amy,

You ask for proof. I could provide a littany of things I consider proof. Things which are a matter of public record, on websites across the internet. Information you also have access to, and to which you've doubtless already been exposed...and already made the determination that they are meaningless. I honestly don't think I could provide you anything you would accept as conclusive proof. I don't have any new, heretofor undiscovered smoking gun that decisively makes the case for creationism vs. evolution.

I'm not dancing around or avoiding the issue. I truly believe that because I have presented myself as a creationist, any evidence I might provide is already suspect and tainted in your view, and thus will not be taken at what I consider to be "face value." If I'm wrong, please tell me, and I'd be more than happy to carry on this conversation in email, or another forum.

However, here are some of the things which lead me in the direction of design:

- Evolution requires you increase complexity in violation of the law of entropy. How do you add information (increase the complexity) to a closed system? How do you explain that DNA is self-repairing and error correcting?

- Why aren't we awash in transitional species? If evolution is a natural law, why isn't it still going on across all species? Why such distinct speciation?

- Punctuated equililbrium. Seriously? Okay, what punctuated it? Why?

- Cambrian explosion. If evolution is a gradual process taking millions of years, why did it all of a sudden happen in such a geological short period of time? Pls explain.

- Explain environmental adaptation of species without anthropomorphizing "nature" or "evolution," or using words like "created" or "designed" or "engineered." Try it. It's harder than you think.

- Science once stated as irrefutable fact that the expansion of the universe was slowing down after the big bang. It's now believed that it is, in fact, accelerating. If Science can be that wrong about someting like that, believe me, the jury is still out on a lot of things.

However, here are some of the things which lead me in the direction of design:
so once again rather than provide this proof you claim to have you ask questions?

- Evolution requires you increase complexity in violation of the law of entropy. How do you add information (increase the complexity)random mutation to a closed system? How do you explain that DNA is self-repairing and error correcting?

First of all there is no 'law of entropy' And entropy its self is a measurement of how organized a system of atoms in a closed system are. The second law of thermodynamics actually states that entropy will increase over time, not decrease. BY the way, ever hear of cancer? It happens when the DNA of a cell becomes so damaged as to replicate new cells improperly and irregularly

- Why aren't we awash in transitional species? If evolution is a natural law, why isn't it still going on across all species? Why such distinct speciation?

Humans have smaller jaws now then we did a thousand yrs ago. People today are being born without wisdom teeth. Read here on Galapagos Finches http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2007/Continuing-Saga.aspx

- Punctuated equilibrium. Seriously? Okay, what punctuated it? Why?

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory which explains why there are no "transitional" species. It says that rather than gradual changes over massive periods of time there are quick changes over shorter periods of time. It theorizes that once a species has settled successfully into its ecological niche there is little reason for it to change until there is a geological or ecological event large enough to require the species to adapt or die

- Cambrian explosion. If evolution is a gradual process taking millions of years, why did it all of a sudden happen in such a geological short period of time? Pls explain.

First the ’explosion’ was a time frame of nearly 100 million yrs. Second over the last 25yrs evidence of pre Cambrian life has been found which puts the pace of evolution during the explosion phase much closer to other time frames, though still slightly higher. There are a couple theory’s that deal with this. 1 Snowball earth - massive ice sheet covered much of the worlds surface causing mass extinction and genetic bottle necking just prior to the Cambrian era. In effect little more than an optical illusion. 2 Oxygen levels in the atmosphere rose as plant spread allowing for larger life forms to develop, larger life forms which could move longer distances and reach new ecological niches. You can see them all here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9Cexplosion.E2.80.9D

- Explain environmental adaptation of species without anthropomorphizing "nature" or "evolution," or using words like "created" or "designed" or "engineered." Try it. It's harder than you think.

I just did after your second question. You want another? Pine beetles. The recent series of mild winters has failed to ill off enough of them as in years pervious. This results in dead trees, which results in fewer nuts for rodents which increase completion for the remaining nuts. Meaning that based on the slight differences in the various genetic subsets of these species, the ones best able to adapt will survive passing those particular traits on to the next generation in greater frequency. Do you see how it works yet?

- Science once stated as irrefutable fact that the expansion of the universe was slowing down after the big bang. It's now believed that it is, in fact, accelerating. If Science can be that wrong about something like that, believe me, the jury is still out on a lot of things.

Science is a collection of knowledge, it can not speak. Therefore it can not state anything, let alone irrefutable facts. Some scientists believed the universes was a closed system, said they thought so, and looked for evidence. While at the same time other scientists said they thought the universe might be a static system(expand to a certain point and stop, staying balanced between the expationist force of the Bang and the contracing force of the universe's gravity), said they thought so, and looked for evidence. And there was YET ANOTHER group who thought the universe would expand forever, said they thought so and looked for evidence.

Steve, having doubts and questions about science is not proof that your religion is correct.

The only thing it proves is you are not willing to find the answers to those questions.

Steve, having doubts and questions about science is not proof that your religion is correct.

The only thing it proves is you are not willing to find the answers to those questions.

My problem is the certainty with which so much of the scientific community declares things to be nearly immutable, though, by your own words, they are still simply "theories." There are "theories" about the cambrian explosion, "theories" about the Big Bang, etc. The things you 'know' thanks to science are merely your best guesses based on available evidence.

Such is your faith in science. Such is my faith in God. I do not, and never have, thought that the two needed to be mutually exclusive. I think science is a great way to analyze, evaluate and understand the natural world. That it cannot reliably be used to do the same for the super-natural world, does not mean, to me, that this world does not also exist.

You require that I prove God exists. I readily admit I cannot. So in turn, I require that you prove evolution. Reproduce it in a lab. Let's watch it in action.

Again, we are examining the same evidence, and coming to different conclusions about causality and methodology. However, since religion is involved, that we differ in our analysis of the facts apparently makes you enlightened, and me merely an idiot.

Wait, which one of us was it that is the close-minded ideologue?

Sad.

REad up what the definition of theory is in relation to science Steve

Eveolution has been recreated in a lab. You see it in lab animals, you can see it in yeast cultures. And I linked an acticle to it showing how over the last 50yrs finches in the Galapagos have been changing beak sizes due to ecological pressures.

And you arent examining shit. You are asking simple questions that I learned the answers to over 15yrs ago in high school.

Every question you asked has been asnwered between 20 and 150yrs ago and yet somehow you STILL dont know the answer.

That suggests your ignorance is willful and intentional.