If you'd like to start the argument fireworks gently, then watch them evolve into nuclear exchanges, just ask someone, "How do you tell fact from fiction?"

That's ridiculously difficult for some people to answer.

And so far as religious atrocities go, don't miss the EgyptAir Flight 990 report, in which we see a number of irrational moves by a pilot muttering "I rely on God" - as he dooms the plane. Don't miss where he shuts the engines off. That's never called for, in any flight situation.

While on the subject of religious nuttery, any one see the ruckus Pope Nazi I caused in Africa last week?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090318/ts_nm/us_pope_africa_aids

From the article
"The Church teaches that fidelity within heterosexual marriage and abstinence are the best ways to stop AIDS."

Didnt the church also claim until the 1940's that the earth was the center of the universe?
Didnt they also say non catholics were deserving of perpetual slavery?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_diversas

Why anyone listens to those child molesting peices of shit I'll never understand

Religion is a cruth for people too weak to behave ethically without the threat of magical retribution

Well, it sure is a good thing those poor, stupid, ree-lijuss folks have you around to set 'em straight.

>>Well, it sure is a good thing those poor, stupid, ree-lijuss folks have you around to set 'em straight.

That's slightly scooting past Amy's point, old rpm daddy.

If some folk want to add metaphysical magic to their words - and think "I pray for X to happen" is better than "gee, I hope X happens" - fine, whatever.

In the meantime, please don't forget to fly your plane properly!

On assholes who want to pray instead of doing anything useful:

http://perkyskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/03/im-so-mad-im-gonna-blog-about-it.html

"Let me ask you this-- if a "Healing" actually worked, why does ANYONE ever die? Doesn't EVERYONE wish really hard for their loved ones to recover?"

God answers prayers, sometimes the answer is no. Like the dalai lama said, and I paraphrase, sometimes not getting your hearts desire is the best thing that can happen to you.

Not that the pilot wasn't an asshole. God helps those who help themselves, right? By giving you a brain and talents. Not that plenty of nopraying pilots don't kill their charges regularly.

"the Church teaches that fidelity within heterosexual marriage and abstinence are the best ways to stop AIDS."

Aren't they? Do people who have sex with one person who is also only having sex with them typically spread STD's? Has HIV gone airborn?

I'd add that fidelity within a homosexual marriage would also be pretty good at stopping AIDS, but I don't expect the pope to say that.

Also, it works if both people are monogomous; if one person wasn't infected before and doesn't know it; if the blood supply is clean, like it is in the US; if a person (man or woman) isn't raped; etc.

>>God answers prayers, sometimes the answer is no.

Momof3,
Okay then - have a stab at explaining why it's always "no" to amputees?

(I've never seen a believer even attempt a good answer to this one!)

"Do people who have sex with one person who is also only having sex with them typically spread STD's? Has HIV gone airborn?" What, needle sticks in hospitals don't happen in Texas, nor does IV drug use??? Also lesbian sex has a very very low incidence of HIV transmission.

"God answers prayers, sometimes the answer is no." Mind giving me an arbitrary example of him saying yes??

"I've never seen a believer even attempt a good answer to this one!" Unfortunately I have and if you know nothing about bone behavior post amputation you buy it.
http://tiny.cc/H3flX

"Do people who have sex with one person who is also only having sex with them typically spread STD's?" That's an argument for monogamy not heterosexuality, nice try though.

>>I've never seen a believer even attempt a good answer to this one!"

>>>Unfortunately I have and if you know nothing about bone behavior post amputation you buy it.
http://tiny.cc/H3flX

Oh my - well, I stand corrected, vlad:)

"What, needle sticks in hospitals don't happen in Texas, nor does IV drug use?"

Oh please, needle sticks occur for what percentage of HIV cases? Please tell. If less asshats were out there spreading it, needle sticks wouldn't be such an issue as there would be fewer people capable of infecting you. IV drug use wouldn't spread it, if people were lifelong monogamous and didn't GET it in the first place to spread. Not that I feel sorry for drug users. They make their own problems.

The world has natural laws (set up by god to run the universe without his constant interference, some of us think) and one is humans don't regenerate limbs in full. Another would be gravity. Praying for the natural laws to not exist is rather silly. Besides, God's will be done is the first thing taught about prayer.

Oh goody, if lesbians (and one assumes all women) have low incidence of spreading it, then we can blame evil men for this too!

Arbitrary example? Ok, not that you would believe any one, but here goes.

I got toxic shock as a teen. It was misdiagnosed as the flu for 3 days. I was essentially dead when they got their act together and started treatment. The survival rate for established toxic shock is quite low. I survived. You can say odds, others can say prayer. WHo knows?

My daughters are monoamniotic twins. They have greater than 50% chance of both dying in utero, and a very slim chance of both surviving. Yet they are running around quite healthy today.

Current pregnancy, I was told the baby had died and sent home to miscarry. No heartbeat, the sack was shrinking. Yet here I am 8 months later, hugely pregnant with that very healthy baby. Good thing I asked to wait on the D&C.

Believers will always think prayer, nonbelievers will always think odds etc. Same old thing.

As I understand the theology propounded by my Christian acquaintances, god always answers "no" to amputees because, once a limb has been severed, it's his will that it stay severed. Same principle as after an ovum is fertilized, it's his will that the baby get carried to term. Doctors who reattach limbs and perform abortions are doing the devil's work. Miscarriages are the devil's work too.

How do they know this? Because what god does is always good and the what the devil does is bad. When a tornado ripped across the eastern part of our county, demolished a number of houses and barns, and killed a couple of people, God got the credit for sparing the survivors. Most people were scared to blame the devil out loud for the wrecked property and terminated lives, but in the supernatural realm he was the only suspect left .

A woman paddling a canoe down a stream north of here passed a tree gnawed part way through by beavers. As if it had been aimed, that tree toppled onto her head and crushed her skull. The deputy who investigated was quoted in the local paper as saying something to the effect that we don't know what god had in mind, but bringing that tree down at just that time in just that place must have been part of some larger plan. God's ways are mysterious.

Oh, did that paper ever get a flood of letters chastising that poor cop! The tenor of the responses was that god is *never* responsible for evil, only for good.

How can this principle be reconciled with the severed-limb problem? Easy. Sometimes god gives the devil permission to do evil.

You can do an experiment to check the validity of this idea for yourself. Keep track of events. After each one, ask yourself, "Is this blessing/catastrophe consistent with the hypothesis that god permitted it to happen?"

You will find in every instance that the answer is yes! YES! YEESSSS!

Glory hallelujah.

>>The world has natural laws (set up by god to run the universe without his constant interference, some of us think) and one is humans don't regenerate limbs in full.

Momof3,
What's a "miracle", then - if not the awesome bending of a natural law?

I guess you're saying amputee miracles are simply Not On The List?

The essential quote from Respectful Insolence (whose work is linked above at the tiny url link:

If you scroll down the page to the MRI from December 13, 2006 and compare it to the MRI from July 25, 2002 and the X-rays from 1995, you'll see that there really is no significant "regrowth." True, there does appear to be some remodeling of soft tissue and bone, but that's to be expected after her operation in 1995. In fact, even if you believe that there's been some bone lengthening, the amount of lengthening observed over six years looks trivial on her imaging studies. Even if her leg truly were regenerating, at the rate documented on her website, I can safely (and sadly) conclude that Carole will almost certainly die of old age before she regrows enough bone to mean anything.

Let me ask you something: If you were a doctor, had a patient with a limb that was regenerating 20 years after it had been amputated because of trauma, and had compelling, unequivocal evidence to prove it, what would you do? I know what I'd do. I'd submit a case report to the New England Journal of Medicine! That's what I'd do. If I had the goods that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, Carole would be world-famous, and so would I!

In the end, although I'm sure it's comforting to Carole that she feels so loved by Jesus, she is deluding herself if she thinks that Jesus is growing her a new leg, which is one reason that I considered her story too depressing for an installment of YFDoW. However, I have to wonder why she thinks she is so blessed. She's had a hard life, with a veritable panoply of injuries and illnesses, including two auto collisions, one of which claimed her leg, a heart valve disorder causing her angina, a serious injury to her rotator cuff, serious difficult swallowing due to scleroderma, and a variety of other health problems of hers and in her family. If Jesus was responsible for her improvement after each of these illnesses, why is it that He doesn't get the blame for inflicting these injuries and illnesses on her in the first place?

In college, we talked about whether anything could prove the existence of God, and settled on the Potato Chip Theory.

Take a thin slice of raw potato. I can't bend it without breaking it. You can't bend it. No power on Earth can bend it. But, drop it into hot oil, and it bends by itself, in beautiful and mysterious ways unpredictable and unknowable by Man.

The power of God was in that potato chip all along, so God exists.

-----
When God talks to you through your inner voice, it is even better than prayer. Obama experiences this every day, in his own words.

Obama and God

Believers will always think prayer, nonbelievers will always think odds etc. Same old thing.”

Every single believer has a series of miracles that helped reaffirm their belief in god. Ask any person who believes in God and they will always answer with stories of near death experiences. But what I don’t understand is why god would take particular notice in an Americans life but refusing to allow the same graces to someone living in the third world. Africans have stories of rape, child soldiers, and starvation as daily reminders of gods grace to man. But of course saving momof3’s babies and preventing her premature death were more important than their problems. The truth is Nature is pretty indifferent to any suffering and it has only been the compassion of science and the mind of man that has alleviated our own pain.

“Oh goody, if lesbians (and one assumes all women) have low incidence of spreading it, then we can blame evil men for this too!”

All women don’t have low incidence of spreading it, only homosexual women. (Think about prostitutes). And it’s got nothing to do with blaming evil men, it’s just men’s nature to take risks that lead to the spread of AIDS.

> I'd add that fidelity within a
> homosexual marriage would also
> be pretty good at stopping AIDS,
> but I don't expect the pope to
> say that.

We should at least consider the possibility that the reason the Pope doesn's say that is that he's nobody's fool. There's perhaps no office in the world where, by dint of the voluntary nature of an organization, it's more important to respect human nature.

> That's an argument for monogamy
> not heterosexuality, nice try
> though.

A nicer try than you think. Every time gay marriage comes up, someone brushes past the argument that it would encourage monogamy. And then you try to pin them down on it, and two things become clear: [A] They don't really want to encourage monogamy as a fixture of social strength, and [B] they certainly won't put up with having it encouraged in their own lives.

> then we can blame evil men
> for this too!

Well, we can blame evil masculine nature.

Listen, since about 1987 the politically correct take on HIV is that anyone can get AIDS. But not only that; also that anyone is likely to. If you've been on a date in the last quarter-century you've seen how nutty this can be. In the 90's especially, a huge number of impressionable, NPR-listening zombies were cowering in the corner with their fingers crossed, waiting for AIDS to explosively devastate straight life the way it had mauled gays in the Castro district and Santa Monica Boulevard....

But the shock wave never came.

And I think the reason it never happened is that women aren't by nature inclined to have frequent, casual episodes of anal sex with men who are strangers to them. But a critical number of gay men were inclined to do that.

A whole lot of their heterosexual brothers would do it too, if they could find women who'd put up with it. In the United States, where we teach girls to have at least a shred of self-respect and adherence to personal boundaries, it doesn't happen.

(Everyone reading this has known a couple wherein for years, a ninny husband pestered his wife to try it, and she just said "Ewww, gross...." But those couples are just kind of comical. In cultures that don't have our traditions, things get ugly.)

Maybe Catholicism isn't the best way to stop AIDS in Africa. (When I was the schoolboy, the gutter joke about Catholic girls was "Virgins in the front but martyrs in the back.")

But M3's right: Contemporary Catholic practice portends the kind of modernity that's protected the heterosexuals on this blog from this disease. Don't kid yourself.

Good reads on this issue are: The First Sermon of the Buddha, A Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides and Ethics by Baruch Spinoza.

> it's just men's nature to take
> risks that lead to the
> spread of AIDS.

Exactly! Woo-hoooooo, Purplepen! Look at her go!

(How did you get to be so wise? You were raised by a kindly grandfather or something, right?)

"and one is humans don't regenerate limbs in full."

It can be done with a little help from the scientific community, though.... Look at a company called Tengion. Here's a story on them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/22/sunday/main3960219.shtml

None of my biology teachers have even heard of this yet. They're not able to hypothesize, let alone discuss the science of this. But it's nothing short of awe-inspiring, with or without theology.

"(Think about prostitutes)"

In the West, at least, non-IV drug-using female prostitutes have exceedingly low rates of AIDS, and they do not spread the disease at all. From "The Prostitute Paradox", Robert Root-Bernstein:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rbprostitute.htm

"Paradoxically, no heterosexual epidemic has occurred, and no evidence of female prostitutes transmitting HIV or AIDS into the heterosexual community exists for any Western nation. Reports from prominent researchers in the US, Britain & Germany have all concluded that acquisition of HIV by men from female prostitutes is almost always drug-related. In fact, sexual acquisition of HIV & AIDS among female prostitutes themselves is almost unknown in the absence of concomitant intravenous drug use"

This was written in 1993, but the conclusions still hold today. So no, God is not punishing wicked Western women with AIDS for having lots of sex, and hetero women who don't use IV drugs or hang out with creeps who do really are nearly AIDS-free, courtesy of nature.

My dad is dying; he's become more and more frail withing the last few weeks, and he has stopped eating. Dementia has set in pretty good. He didn't know his own granddaughters last night. I'm just praying he goes quickly and without too much pain. I don't care if the gods are listening or not.

I do not put this in my column, because I don't want to ever let irresponsible idiots think they can go without condoms, but if you aren't a gay man or an IV drug user, or sleeping with a gay man or an IV drug user, your risk of getting HIV is extremely low.

Sorry folks, missing an "r" in that link:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rrbprostitute.htm

"God's will be done is the first thing taught about prayer. " If hid will is done regardless why pray. He's going to do his thing, and while praryer may comfort the prayee it has not been shown to do shit clinically. Look at Orac's site he addresses it many time.

"Believers will always think prayer, nonbelievers will always think odds etc. " If god and random chance are the same thing don't you think there is a problem here, logically?

not really vlad... either way it's unknowable. religious people don't wan't to think of this existence as an accident. Regardless if the creator is "just" in a way they understand. There is a lot more to it, but I don't think anything I say would sway an atheist seeking proof. By dfinition 'god' superceedes proof. The same way more dimensions than 4 do, the same way dark matter does at the moment.. We may someday learn of those, or not.

on the other hand, vlad? You wanted a yes in your earlier post. You woke up alive today, that was yes. Everything else is gravy.

So Andy it is your contention that heat is mystical unkown force that defys all explination?

Seriously?

Take a thin slice of raw potato. I can't bend it without breaking it. You can't bend it. No power on Earth can bend it. But, drop it into hot oil, and it bends by itself, in beautiful and mysterious ways unpredictable and unknowable by Man. - Andrew

Explian how prigles are all the same shape then

Moron

er,luj, I thought pringles where moded from ground potato... though the whole potato thing is kinda an interesting lame thing.

> I don't want to ever let
> irresponsible idiots think
> they can go without condoms

Paglia's talked about that, too: A (slender) silver lining from the AIDS crisis is that young women are finally having some of the authority over their own sexuality restored. Too many are raised to believe that their feelings and those of the boys who surround them are identical. (Prager did a few great minutes about this on his radio show today.) That little rubber boundary can give them some assurance about things that shouldn't too readily mix even as it protects them from disease and pregnancy.

Beside the point Swiss.

My point was that andrew finds heat to be unearthly magic

"in beautiful and mysterious ways unpredictable and unknowable by Man." That's the equivalent of saying that a double pendulum is magic. Neither is, just because we can not control all aspects of a situation does not not mean it's random nor magical.

"You woke up alive today, that was yes. Everything else is gravy." I woke up alive today because nothing killed me. Had I not woken up alive today the coroner would have rules on COD. God would not have killed me something else would have. You want to argue salvation in a future life fine no way to confirm or deny that. You want to argue divine influence in this world then you've got eons of innocent blood to explain away.

If god is such a petty little supreme ruler....

Don't confuse "Supreme Being" with "Supreme Ruler."

It could very well be that God is stuck following the same laws of physics as the rest of us.

Didnt the church also claim until the 1940's that the earth was the center of the universe?

I believe that was the 1640s.

And even then geocentrism had been a controversial element of theology within the church with several (now saints) arguing in favor of the ancient Greek helocentrism.

Didnt they also say non catholics were deserving of perpetual slavery?

That was said in 1452 and [mostly] reversed in 1537.

Although no staunch advocate of the Catholic Church, I do wonder for how long is an evolving (albeit slowly) religious organization to be condemned for now-disavowed beliefs and statements? Is there a statute of limitations? Or are we to condemn people in adulthod for their beliefs in Santa Claus during childhood?

You want to argue divine influence in this world then you've got eons of innocent blood to explain away

Dont forget the child raping agents of christ

Could anyone point out the passage in the bible where in god gave his priest a thumbs up to putting their dicks in children?

If god does exist he cared more for an inanimate box of rocks then he does for humanity - rape a child god could care less, touch the precious ark of the covenant and the bible gives examples of people being struck dead

Explain that before you try to explain away the pointlessness of prayer

Conan it wasnt until the 40's that the church admited it was wrong for punish galileo.

If they truly belived in heliocentrism whay did they wait until 50 yrs ago that they were wrong for punishing one of heliocentrisms most well know proponet?

"If god does exist he cared more for an inanimate box of rocks then he does for humanity" Here I'm going to disagree. All this states is that the person writing (or editing) the book feels this way. The bible was written by man under the influence of god (so they say), and later edited by man under the influence of greed (so history shows).

Dont forget the child raping agents of christ

I have not. And the Church should be condemned for its egregious behavior in that fiasco.

That travesty was committed by today's church, not some 12th century church struggling to define faith in an age of ignorance. And today's church should be held responsible for its actions today.

...it wasnt until the 40's that the church admited it was wrong for punish galileo....

Galileo was punished for advocating and teaching heliocentrism after being told not to by an official of the Church. He was not specifically punished for his belief, but for advocating said belief in spite of orders not to.

Perhaps the Church's delay admitting wrongdoing had to do with GG's disobedience. Perhaps the paperwork got lost.

I don't pretend the Catholic Church is always right. I don't pretend is is a beacon of light in a dark world. But I also don't view it as the wellspring of all evil and ignorance in the world.

It's a 2,000+ year old religious institution that, unlike one I could name, isn't actively trying to plunge the world into darkness and slavery.

Differentiating between "religious" and "nonreligious" makes it easy to overlook the fact that every worldview is chock full of baloney with the occasional lucky nugget of truth. What any person thinks is based on their personal experiences, and no worldview is scientifically rigorous. That sounds bad until you realize that scientific rigor has a less successful evolutionary history than leaping to conclusions. So when criticizing someone's worldview, be mindful that your house is glass too, because humility and perspective lead to more accurate philosophy.

That said, my subjective experience tells me that trying to be objective is usually the least bad way to predict the future, but I'll be totally honest with you and admit that my prosperity to this point could be 99% luck.

Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

I disagree with whydoesgodhateamputees.com: he doesn't say when, or in what form, and "if you believe" then your prayers will be introspective, not a shopping list. God already knows what we need, what choices we will make and what is going to happen to us.

See for example "The Lord's Prayer" where each "request" is a reminder of how we should live. "Give us our daily bread" reminds us to be content with what we have, "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" reminds us to forgive others (and that what goes around comes around), and so on.

"Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains" doesn't mean that the absence of mountains playing hopscotch disproves faith, it means that faith is an extremely powerful motivating force, and I think we can agree that that's true, for better or for worse.

It's frankly ignorant to view prayer as a method for requesting and receiving supernatural favors. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of another person's religion, but if that's what you think your own religion says, I suggest thinking it through a little more carefully.

Pringles are the spawn of the Devil. They are only pretending to be a potato chip.

The hot oil is Mans (ok, and Woman's) way of revealing the Godliness of the chip.

Hot, oily, unpredictable, curvy, delicious, and divine. The potato chip. It bends, but why? I think it is not wise to look too closely into miracles.

Pseudonym the lords prsyer is proof of god falibility and therefore no existance

Just before instructing his followers in a rote prayer, he admonishes them not to use rote prayers.

Does no one ever see that?

And andy stick your arm in hot oil, it will bend as well.

Hers some more magic for you, get some strips of leather - thin like shoe laces, soak them for a few hours in water, tie them around your balls, and go sit i the sun to see more of gods wonders

Lujlp -- you seem extra pissed at religion today. I think Andrew's chips might be akin to the flying spaghetti monster. Not sure he's in need of castration for a bit of tongue in cheek! But if he doesn't quit talking about chips I'm going to end up going to buy a bag which will put a dent in my two-weeks-to-our-beach-trip-get-fit- plan. For which your suggested punishment might be just!

Pringles are the spawn of the Devil. They are only pretending to be a potato chip.

Pringles are made from a potato dough (potato flakes + water + other ingredients) cooked on a special machine. They're less than 50% potato.

Still, they come in a can that can be used to make a WiFi antenna. How cool is that?

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

"God answers prayers, sometimes the answer is no."

"Quack, quack", the sound of the Faithful ducking.

You're simply and plainly denying the Bible itself:

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

James 5:15-16: "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up."

These do not say "maybe" or "might". They say, "will". Evidently, this is another of those religious definitions that don't really mean what they say in everyday use.

If you actually have evidence - something you can show anybody - that prayer worked, or works, there's a man who will give you one million dollars right here.

The difference between luck and skill is that the skillful can demonstrate their skill at any time. Be my guest.

It's not a "test", of God™ or Jesus™, because the words that say prayer works are right there in the Bible, describing the ordinary use of prayer.

Isn't it interesting that when an ordinary person says they will do something, they're obliged to do it or be seen as dishonest, but the King of the Universe™, which we constantly hear is omnipotent, gets a pass?

lujlp....that leather strap, sit in the sun shit was hilarious! You gave me the energy to go work out...thanks.

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

Probably because Jesus knew that "Ask, and it will be denied you; seek, and you will wander lost; knock, and your knuckles will be bruised." wouldn't get him many followers.

Besides, when you went out to find your first job, your parents didn't tell you, "Apply at the hardware store. The guy will turn you down and you'll feel silly."

No, they said, say it here with me, "it can't hurt to ask."

You make a compelling argument against the existence of God but I choose to continue to have faith.

Something people don't often remark: God gave you brains to actually use them.

"And it’s got nothing to do with blaming evil men, it’s just men’s nature to take risks that lead to the spread of AIDS."

This comment reminds me of the story from the movie "Crying Game".

"While Fergus guards Jody, they develop a bond. Jody, in particular, tells him the story about the frog and the scorpion: the scorpion, wishing to cross a stream, asked the frog to let him ride his back over the stream. When the frog asked the scorpion how he could be sure that the scorpion would not sting him, the scorpion replied that if he did sting him, it would mean death by drowning for both of them. The frog complies, carrying the scorpion on its back across the stream. Before they reach the other side, however, the frog feels pain and realizes that the scorpion has stung him. He protests, "Why did you sting me, Mr. Scorpion? For now we both will drown!" The scorpion replies, "I can't help it, it's in my nature." "

I always thought that the "Ask and you shall find" thing referred to salvation, and not, say, a new bike. I'm not much of a Bible person, though.

I apparently have a very different concept of Gods than the rest of the readers. My concept of the Gods has them working within the bounds of natural law.

If they are bound by natures limitations how can they be gods?

nature kills everything, right? Death is a major component of nature.

Bender could bend that potato slice. He can bend anything.

Tornado flattens brothel: act of God

Tornado flattens church: act of nature

----

It is worth noting that god != religion. Giving the correct answer for existential questions -- dunno -- makes a mockery of all religions, but says nothing about God, or lack thereof.

----

Until recently, the UN was in full catastrophism mode regarding aids (guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/aids.health), until facts on the ground become so incontrovertible that the august organization was finally forced to give up the game.

IPCC, anyone?

----

As usual, Conan wins the thread.

"You make a compelling argument against the existence of God but I choose to continue to have faith."

My food will digest better.

Amazing how something that requires "faith" cannot be conclusively proven to non-believers. By the way, the lack of proof mentioned also does not conclusively demonstrate the opposite. There is also no conclusive proof God does not exist. Since there is no evidence proving conclusively God exists or does not exist, we can only state God might exist. Anything beyond that requires "faith".

Substitute aliens on another planet for God and retry the logic. No evidence exists to conclusively prove aliens exist. Yet, most people would agree there is a possibility that aliens could exist. We simply do not know conclusively one way or another.

Hey, why not argue whether correlation equals causation next?

http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/

Cheers,

LoneStarJeffe

Yes, God's main concern is really getting you that promotion or whatever goody of the day you ask for. Hell, even parents don't do that, and they aren't divine.

Proving a negative is a logical absurdity.

Theories set out to prove what is, not what isn't. People saying "prove god doesn't exist" are not following proper logic.

The reverse, attempting scientific proof of god, is also a logical absurdity, because scientific proof requires repeated testing, and nobody has ever been able to devise a test that would verify the existence of a deity.

Any such test would require some form of interaction to prove the successful ability of the test to function. Therefore attempting proof in a scientific manner is as logical as using a metal detector to look for unicorns in your sock drawer.

----------------------------------------------

Someone once said:

"For those without faith, no proof is enough, for those with faith, no proof is needed."

----------------------------------------------

What it boils down to for me is simply this:

Augustus said, "Live justly, if there be gods, and they be just, they will judge you by your virtues. If there be no gods, then you will have left behind a worthy example to those who come after you. If there be gods and they are not just, they are unworthy of worship."

Whether or not god or gods exist is a question that can be debated without end with no resolution and no change of positions for anyone.

Not least because the question of its truth is the wrong question to ask.

Rather we should ask, does this belief serve a social purpose that makes the belief worth holding onto and perpetuating?

To that I answer that every great social movement that has improved the lot of the human condition, the quest to end human bondage and promote human liberty, the great works of art which ennoble the human spirit, from David to the sistine chapel's great mosaic, has had its roots in the body of judeo-christian theology. This belief in a universal moral law has, even with its pitfalls, done more good than any atheist idea ever has.

Atheism by contrast, for all its pretense of rationality, has little historically to recommend its virtues as a social unifier, promotor of human decency or morality, nor equalizer of the human condition. To the contrary, atheism is the doorway to relativity, which itself is the doorway to a morality of personal convenience. This particular brand of morality is actually very close to the paganism of ancient europe, in which moral conduct was...much more loose, to say the least.

Perform the "lost wallet test" in any city in the country. (The lost wallet test is conducted by strategically "losing" a wallet with a little money, and some identification sufficient to allow the owner to be easily found) Ask those who turn in the wallet about the reason for their honesty. I can all but guarantee you will be told it is due to their religious upbringing or belief.

I am not arguing that every religion is a good thing in and of itself...but a serious look at the utility of the IDEA of god would do die hard atheists no harm at all.

Certainty about anything unknowable is pretentious & presumptuous.

That goes for the religious and the religiously irreligious.

There is an old Indish saying, "Call on God, but row away from the rocks."

The pilot really might have benefited from that.

Perhaps god could do anything, that does not mean that he will, or should.

Life is full of obstacles, trials, pains, and problems, expecting god to simply pull those aside for you makes him out to be your personal servant.

We're given, whether by nature or divinity, the ability to do things for ourselves, to learn, adapt, and overcome, and it is doing so which makes us great, both as individuals and as a society. God doing everything would yield a similar result to the government doing everything, a bunch of pampered, spoiled, lazy people incapable of self support.

If god exists, I doubt he'd want that. We are responsible for our own condition, we are responsible for how we react to those situations.

Put another way:

A great storm happened in a town in which a godly priest lived, as the water level rose a large vehicle bearing some of his neighbors offered him a lift out of the area, "No," he said, "God will provide." The water level rose further, he retreated to the second floor of his home, out the window, he saw a boat, whose pilot offered him a way out, "No," he said, "God will provide." The water rose higher, and he retreated to the roof, and as he did so a helicopter came over head, lowered a rope, and offered him a way out. "No," he shouted back, "God will provide." Well the water kept rising, and he died. As he reached the gates of heaven he asked of God, "Why oh lord, didn't you provide?" To which God answered, "My son, I offered you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you want?!"

We have the means to help ourselves, to ease our own pain and each others, if we're not willing to do that much, why should god give us what we want?

religion does not make the person a morally better human being than the next person who don't believe in any god. in fact, i see islamic people who pray excessively are known to be extremely uncivilised and extremely power crazy. I, a freethinking hardworking independent thinking person with pure good heart and a good inner goodness don't need to depend on any unproven god to think for me. we, freethinking normal kind human being can use our own brain to think for ourselves what is good for us. thank you very much.

and, by the way,(in reply to one of the you know who post above), I was born with a brain of my own. my brain don't belong to any god.

What's all the fuss about? The plane was invading God's airspace, so He got pissed off and ignored the prayer.

I have found that the best way to prepare oneself for death is to read Schopenhauer. The worst way is to read "The Inferno", because its scenes of hell will scare you shitless, and would have made even Jeffrey Dahmer repent (though perhaps not until he lay on his deathbed).

Uhh..check back in about 30 years, and I will let you know if the Schopenhauer worked.

Those of you who might use the "aliens on other planets" probability as an example of faith, be advised that that is wrong. We have evidence of life in the universe: us. So, absent any basis for thinking we are unique in that regard, we merely expect to see more life somewhere else.

Get some rigor for your definitions.
Expectation is the assumption that having seen something once, it is likely to follow again. Hope is optimism for an uncertainty which is proportional to the degree of change an event would bring if it occurs. Faith - discarding the breathless noise in Hebrews - is an artifact based on assumptions made without evidence. Further, faith cannot exist except in the presence of doubt. This phenomenon, which I call the Irony of Faith, is amply illustrated by everyday events; you cannot have faith about something of which you are sure. You express faith as the Emperor's subjects observed clothes: to avoid unpleasantness. This has its uses, but it has its abuses, too.

Substitute aliens on another planet for God and retry the logic. No evidence exists to conclusively prove aliens exist. Yet, most people would agree there is a possibility that aliens could exist. We simply do not know conclusively one way or another.

-LoneStarJeff

Tell me lone star do the alien have a manual that tells us how to live, and encourge us to pass laws based on faith in their unkowable pressence rather than science and reason?

God may indeed exist, I am willing to admit that possibility, we might be nothing more than the equivalent of a 3rd grade science project sheved in his parents basement.

But the god according to the bible was willing to kill people who touched his favorite box of rocks - but is unwilling to do anything about people who rape children in his name

I dont see anything particularly godlike in that do you?

You want proof that god does not exist?
I cant give it to you.

But I can give you proof that there is no biblical god
Malichi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not

Here god says he does not change. But tell me when was the last time you saw a prophet restore sight, limbs, health?
When was the last time you saw someone tap a roch with a stich and cause water to spring out?
WHen was the last time you saw a river or an ocean parted?

If god does not change then where are all the fucking prophets?

I believe there is likely a higher power, although I take the bible as man-made - not literal, but full of errors and propaganda, like almost every religious text that inspires people to kill others or themselves.

But I think it misses the point to concentrate on the 4 yr old being raped or all the suffering and struggling that exists in the world. Nothing says this is supposed to be a cushy, easy existence...if it was, we wouldn't NEED faith. If God gave us everything we asked for, there would be no value to faith at all. Everyone would believe in the Santa Clause in the sky.

True faith is believing in something even without hard proof. It's entirely possible that God wants to strengthen our faith and our spirits by giving us hardships and struggles to overcome, not spoil us like bratty children. Look at Helen Keller. Would she have had as much to offer without the deficiencies she had to overcome?

Likewise, might the raped child not grow up to have more empathy for the suffering of others - perhaps becoming a counselor or victim's advocate?

I'm not saying there is or isn't a God. But I've always thought it was foolish, from a practical perspective, to be an atheist. If you're right, then you'll never know because you're dead. But if you're wrong, you'll be the one trying to explain to God why you had no faith.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence of life after death, in the form of ghosts or lingering spirits, so it seems wiser to me to allow for the possibility of an afterlife, which may indeed include a God...or not.

But I would return the wallet out of my own sense of fairness, not any religious leaning.

Indeed, people who do not have any specific religious leaning are known to be more fair and honest.

>>Whether or not god or gods exist is a question that can be debated without end with no resolution and no change of positions for anyone.

But don't hold your breath if you've lost a limb.

Just before instructing his followers in a rote prayer, he admonishes them not to use rote prayers.

It wasn't a rote prayer the first time, silly.

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

James 5:15-16: "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up."

An equally straightforward interpretation of those quotes is "Introspection leads to enlightenment," which is clearly true.

These do not say "maybe" or "might". They say, "will". Evidently, this is another of those religious definitions that don't really mean what they say in everyday use.

Actually, everyday use is imprecise. In my dialect people say "can" when they mean "may" or "will" and "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less." Translation is also imprecise when there aren't any native speakers of the source dialect. Life would be much easier if humans had only ever spoken/written in lojban.

If you actually have evidence - something you can show anybody - that prayer worked, or works, there's a man who will give you one million dollars right here.

Do I get to define "prayer" and "works"? Because I guarantee you that introspection does eventually lead to enlightenment.

If you're saying that no supernatural entity will magically give someone whatever they want, then we agree.

Indeed, people who do not have any specific religious leaning are known to be more fair and honest.

In my experience, Mormons are known to be more fair and honest, but that doesn't make their theology accurate.

Lovelysoul - you are a whisker away from arguing that the holocaust was a good thing because it gave the Jews the chance to develop empathy.

"There's a lot of anecdotal evidence of life after death" - you mean, there's a lot of anecdotes. I don't think there's any actual concrete evidence, like a bucket of ectoplasm (as opposed to a photograph of ectoplasm).

The usual argument for gods is that it is hard to understand why the universe exists. How can that be? How can it just have come out of nothing? So people like Ray Comfort say you can't have a building without a builder. This may be true, but then you can't have a builder without a builder-builder either, so it's no use as an explanation.

Seems to me the only way the universe could come to be is precisely out of nothing, because where else could it have come from? If it was created or whatever by something, then there is no explanation. But don't ask me to explain how it could come out of nothing. I can't even imagine "nothing."

That does not preclude the possibility that god appeared out of nothing and created the universe - but as an explanation, it is unnecessarily complex, given the lack of convincing evidence for god.

Ray Comfort is evidence that god does not exist. If god existed, why would he choose such a bozo to argue on his behalf?

Flynne, I'm really sorry to hear about your dad. I'm not sure about the whole God thing, but I'm keeping you in my thoughts today.

"Lovelysoul - you are a whisker away from arguing that the holocaust was a good thing because it gave the Jews the chance to develop empathy".

No, I'm not saying "good". Yet, we can only relate to that term from a human perspective. We all naturally think it's "good" when we don't suffer and "bad" when we do suffer, but the reality is there are very few lives, if any, without suffering of some sort - whether you're enduring a holocaust at the age 24, or dying of terminal brain cancer at age 65, or impaired by some accident. None of us are likely to get out of this with a purely "good" experience. So, I think it matters most how we deal with suffering.

And I think it's unlikely that humans do not have free will - to cause suffering for others as well as relieve it. To believe that God would - or could - intervene in every situation where humans strive to harm each other seems simplistic.

I really don't believe in an omnipotent presence that's up there giving me a gold star for returning a wallet while refusing to regrow an amputee's legs. That seems to be a concoction of people's fears - just to believe there is a "father" watching over us every second.

Yet, just because our mortal fears and limited human perspective would lead to such an erroneous translation - or a bunch of erroneous translations - doesn't make the idea of a God or creator less valid.

WLIL:

"Indeed, people who do not have any specific religious leaning are known to be more fair and honest."

Can you back that with any facts or stats whatsoever? If not, let's label it as your unsupported opinion only.

Have you read "Who really gives"? Great book. They set out to prove your assertion, and proved the opposite, and were fair enough to admit it.

Our free will is one of the largest themes in the bible. God reaching down and stopping you from doing X would negate the fact that he gave us free will.

I am a mom. I love my children more than my own life and then some . But I do not stop them from every mistake, even ones that might hurt them or others (in a small way, they're only 4) because that's how you learn. Nor do I give them everything they want or try to make life "fair" for them. Doing any of the above for them would be doing them a disservice in the long run.

Yes, you could say homosexuality being a sin was an error in translation, or a translator's bias. But then, we'd have to discount all sins that way. I really doubt something mentioned as often as homosexuality or greed was a mistake.

Translation is also imprecise

It's interesting to me that it's never "imprecise" when the religious are using it to justify anti-homo behavior, etc.

That goes beyond precision; it takes willful ignorance to turn "love your neighbor" into "god hates fags."

>>Nor do I give them everything they want or try to make life "fair" for them.

You'd certainly be whistling in the wind if you tried to help anyone regrow a limb, momof3.

I'd also like to add that one of the problems with organized religion is that people do erroneously interpret that God is up there, watching, judging, and planning everything, so they act as if everything that happens, good or bad, is "God's will". But, if that is the case, where is our accountability to others? What is our purpose for even being here?

The holocaust is a case in point. It could've been prevented. Many people ignored what was happening and chose to do nothing. Is that God's fault? Is that really God's choice? Or is that a failing on our part?

With free will, we have the ability to cause suffering and (more importantly) to relieve it. If there is a God, with any sort of lesson to teach or plan in place, I think that might be part of it.

Two things momof3, I cant think of two or three places homosexuality is mentioned, but greed which is mentioned far more often and considered on of the big 7 doesnt carry a death sentance

Second why is god againt homos but has no problem with rape and gangbangs?

Read the song of soloman lately?

To believe that God would - or could - intervene in every situation where humans strive to harm each other seems simplistic.
-lovelsoul

Our free will is one of the largest themes in the bible. God reaching down and stopping you from doing X would negate the fact that he gave us free will.

- momof3

And yet according to Exodus god intervened and caused the pharoh to change his mind about releasing the jews. Wouldnt that qualify as interfering? puppet string pulling?

momof3 - "You can say odds, others can say prayer. WHo knows?"

You ask "who knows" as if no-one knows. In fact, pure random chance accounts for lots of things that happen, whether spontaneous recovery from disease, or being struck by a meteorite. For example, we can predict with some accuracy how many people will be stabbed to death in London over the next 6 months, because the randomness averages out according to well-known statistical laws that have been known for centuries. For the individuals involved, whether perpetrator or victim, it feels like an act of special creation, involving free will, unpredictable circumstances and personal tragedy. But when you step back, these separate random trees form a forest with a simple shape.

Statistics really should be taught at school. It would make people less likely to be taken in by spurious claims.

Just because God intervened one place doesn't mean he's EVERY place. I think that's the stretch of belief that man has made, and I'm not sure that's even supported in the bible, is it?

I'm no biblical expert, but I thought it says God created us "in his own image", and none of us are omnipotent or could intervene and answer the prayers of a trillion people at once. We can only help people one by one, or a few at a time, as we see a need, but not everyone everywhere. So, maybe that's all God can do, or chooses to do.

I think humans, being basically self-interested, simply want to believe that God takes such an interest in us that he is everywhere at once watching our every move, which is kind of irrational. It's a thought that gives many people comfort, but that doesn't make it true. Yet, the fact it may be untrue doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Norman: Ray Comfort is evidence that god does not exist. If god existed, why would he choose such a bozo to argue on his behalf?

God has a far greater sense of humor and irony than we can comprehend? :) If God exists, it seems apparent that he/she/it/they pretty much leaves well enough alone and lets us grow up (or not) on our own.

Personally, when I'm nice to people, it isn't due to any fear of divine punishment or guilt. It's the fact that most people won't be kind when they see the world as being predominantly unkind. So to get the ball rollin' there should be a few people willing to be nice first. That, and in a utilitarian view, society benefits as a whole if people are generally less shitty to each other. Maybe my hippie wife has had undue influence on me, who knows?

momof3, of course I can say with much confidence that people who have no specific(extreme) religious leaning are known to be more fair and more honest as compared to those islamic people, who treated poor nonbeliever like myself shabbily in their islamic ruled country.

I do know abit about the bible. That's about all I can say.

It is nice to hear that you are a mom and that you love your children very much. Your children are indeed lucky to have you as their mom. And I do think you are on the right track to being a great mom to your children.

And yet according to Exodus god intervened and caused the pharoh to change his mind about releasing the jews.

The example of Pharaoh is a good one because it counters the claim that every person has free will over every decision. Which makes sense, since we know that classical conditioning does actually work. My opinion is that we're only responsible for the things that we're responsible for, and that the number of those things is not zero.

But then, we'd have to discount all sins that way.

The beauty of it is that a Christian has already had their sins discounted, but strives to avoid sin anyway in order to please God. Making a sincere effort to identify what is sinful in order to avoid doing it is great, but since one can't actually earn salvation by doing good things it's not necessary to be 100% successful. In practice this means it's ok to agree to disagree about lots of stuff.

momof3....remember this?

"The world has natural laws (set up by god to run the universe without his constant interference, some of us think)"

Doesn't that apply here?

"Can you back that with any facts or stats whatsoever? If not, let's label it as your unsupported opinion only."

I know...of course not.

Free will ... anyone who's tried to stick to a diet know otherwise.

one part confusion for me is why so much vitriol in the attack? It isn't mentioned in the BBC piece, but the guy praying to have his plane rescued was from Tunesia, and likely Muslim. If he had been Christian, I garundamntee they would have mentioned it. Yet pretty much all the seeking of proof seems to be Bible based. Anybody bothering to ask the Hindi what they believe? Or the Buddists? ~90% of Japan identifies some type of Shinto or Buddism, but I don't see anyone raking them over the coals on why they exist.

Most places in the US identify Believing in "God" a lot, and some others don't. According to Gallup Poll, the western US has a lot more people who are spritual, than believe exclusively in a "God"
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/109108/Belief-God-Far-Lower-Western-US.aspx"

So what of it? Attacking someone's belief system in the whole is stupid if you only want to modify one behavior. Islam is a different boat because they seek the subjugation of all. The other mainline religions don't.

If Mormon evangelists bug you, tell them you'll see them in hell and slam the door. If the stance on gays bugs you, tell a Christian to prove it. Once they start reading the actual verses they thought showed proof against, it may seem a bit hollow to them.

I just don't see the sense in this. You want to prosecute pedo-priests and their co-conspirators? I'm there with you. No different than if anyone in a position of trust or not does such things. Should I not believe in God because humans are sinful, or evil or selfish? So who am I punishing there exactly? In the religion I follow, those are the precise reasons we needed saving.

I know numerous commenters and our hostess with the mostess don't believe in anything but themselves, that is fine by me. I don't come here for their faith, I just want their brains.

What I want to know is why the favor can't be returned. Are you so concerned with my eternal life that you can't stand the thought of me believing in a flying pizza monster. Oh, wait... you don't believe in that.

Then what do you care what I believe in as long as it doesn't hurt you?

Atheists have been just as guilty of genocide as anyone else, and if I stick you in a depravation tank, in a day you won't be able to prove your own existance, much less an gods.

Oh, you poor dumb religious person, how can you possibly be happy believing that your life will go on beyond this one, or that you should love your neighbor as yourself, or even that you have free will? You should know that you're gonna die alone, your neighbor couldn't care less about you, and that your only free will is to react to the situation at hand based on chance.

Oooh, I'm all tingly, sign me right up.

Just to irritate all y'all I'm going to pray for your immortal souls anyway, for no other reason than I like you, and there isn't squat you can do about it.

You ask for proof and I give you none. Look out into that big universe and make up your own mind how you will react to it. The odds of your own birth in that universe are so close to nil as makes no difference, just like the odds that there is some kind of fluffy puppy named god that decided to make you, just because. Yet here you are, so the odds that moment must have been 1:1. I'm happy enough with that, I just wonder why you feel the need to bust my chops over it at every turn.

Swiss I'm down with anyone of ant religion who doesnt try and legislate their narrow version of morality and make my life miserable

And if you have accsess to an isolation tank I'd love to spend a day or two in one

SwissArmyD - could it be - no, surely not - surely we haven't all ended up on this blog because we like to argue?

Jody, you are stuck on that limb thing, aren't you?

"momof3....remember this?

"The world has natural laws (set up by god to run the universe without his constant interference, some of us think)"

Doesn't that apply here?

"Can you back that with any facts or stats whatsoever? If not, let's label it as your unsupported opinion only."

I know...of course not."

I'm not getting your point. I made it clear that God being the one setting up the natural laws was opinion. That there are natural laws is not opinion, it's fact. So, your point was?

Big daddy watching my every move and saving his faves, or uninvolved science project creator, I don't care, and I do believe.

no, Norman actually I came for the Ice Cream and a Nash Rambler much like the one I used to own... and arguments are quite the best too :D

sorry lujlp, the iso tanks went out in the 80's I think, it wasn't a growth industry. unless we are in one right now and just don't know it...

"Swiss I'm down with anyone of ant religion who doesnt try and legislate their narrow version of morality and make my life miserable" lujlp

now THIS! This is an important something to which I heartily agree. Separating personal belief from public policy, OI! wish that was an easier one to convince people of...

>>Jody, you are stuck on that limb thing, aren't you?

That made me smile, momof3!

Yes, I was going on a bit - a personal thing (not me, my late sister). But your comment has released my steam in an odd way - which is good!

Big daddy watching my every move and saving his faves, or uninvolved science project creator, I don't care, and I do believe

I don't care - momof3

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldnt care about gay people fucking

Love these threads, everybody has an interesting perspective. Two points:

First, I think on the specific issue of the pilot, it's a bit unfair to God to judge Him according to the occasionally idiotic actions of those who choose to follow him.

Second, assuming the person praying isn't at the controls of a passenger airplane, why do people care if other people believe in prayer? I'm sensing some serious antipathy towards people who may take comfort from prayer and I'm not quite sure I understand why....

scott - can you show any examples of this serious antipathy? Perhaps it's no more than robust statements of position.

One person's act of god is another person's happy coincidence. One person's serious antipathy is another person's robust statement of position.

Actually, I went back through and the ones that seemed harsh tended to come from a small number of sources. Only they could tell you if it's antipathy or not.

Happy coincidence or act of god ... I was undercharged for an online order from a large international company recently. I wondered whether to own up to them or accept it as a windfall. No individual in the company would be out of pocket, but I could be several tens of pounds better off.

I asked a friend. She said I should own up as otherwise I would suffer due to karma. However I thought by the same argument, perhaps this was a reward due to karma. There is no way to tell.

In the end I was so busy I forgot to do anything, so I kept the cash.

Comments?

Probably happy coincidence. My experience with large international companies suggests that they aren't on god's side.

Pseudonym, go to the link, and demonstrate what you can do. Real things are easy to show other people, even when the mechanism isn't obvious.

-----

If you are like most people, you have no idea what "odds" or "probability" or "statistics" are, and are similarly clue-free about fundamental laws of nature. Here's the short course:

All probability observations have an "event universe". For a coin toss, the only possible results are "heads", "tails" and "edge". We define these terms unconsciously in setting up the game. With the Lottery, the "event universe" is just one set of (typically six) non-repeating numbers.

This is not "random".

"Unpredictable" does NOT mean "random" except to people who don't think about it at all. These people are called "losers" at Vegas and other venues where gambling is allowed.

Why do I bring this up? Because the universe, the one we occupy, has laws of physics. It is not "random". At least four fundamental forces work on all matter and energy all the time: magnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
All this means is that the combinations and permutations of matter and energy are a non-denumerable figure.

You might know that Pi is an irrational number: a non-repeating decimal with no "end". If you were to flash on wit for a minute, there would be your clue about both the complexities of the world you watch and the limitations of measurement.

But ignorance is so blissful that gripping whatever Mom and Dad handed us tightly is preferred to actual learning.

I find that just plain sad, even before the IDers start lying.

Uhhh....fidelity within a monogamous relationship (hetero/homo notwithstanding) and abstinence until entering a monogamous sexual relationship IS a great way to prevent the spread of STDS and AIDS.

But.....culture, culture, culture.

"Yes you do, otherwise you wouldnt care about gay people fucking"

I don't, Luj. Bang away at whatever hole makes you happy with whatever tool at your disposal. Where I end my support-by-not-caring is at the word marriage. And that's been gone over enough lately here.

And it's not that I suddenly care that they're sinning or going to hell when they talk marriage, I have enough sins of my own to worry about. So while I'm religious, I am not anti-gay. You need to learn the nuances of support. Not supporting absolutely anything a set of people want with no limitations, does not mean condemning them.

Jody, so sorry about your sister. I'd be stuck on that too in your shoes :)

Hamsa - "fidelity within a monogamous relationship (hetero/homo notwithstanding) and abstinence until entering a monogamous sexual relationship IS a great way to prevent the spread of STDS and AIDS."

Not quite right. It WOULD be a great way, if certain things were different. But it evidently IS NOT a great way, given the way things actually are. The Pope makes the same mistake, so you are in grand company!

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

momof3 you think homosexuality is a sin, you think marrige is sacred and needs defending

You believe these thing because you were taught to, not becuse they were "trurhs" revealed to you by god

You simply can not hold these veiws and then say you believe god might be an indeffernt force

Because if you truley belived he were indefferent you would not be a cgristian

"but is unwilling to do anything about people who rape children in his name"

No, I think they did it because they were selfish sick bastards, not that they were offering up raping children to God...

Andrew, Conan, loved your posts.

please use the quote in context

I never said that preist were offering up their acts to god

I said they were doing it in his name - they used their position as god's employees as a sheild

And my point was god cared more for one box of rocks then all the children molested by his represenitives.

Ifgod has the power to kill, and uses it to punish those who touched the ark, why is he so unwilling to do anything abot pedophile preists using him as a sheild?

Ifgod has the power to kill, and uses it to punish those who touched the ark, why is he so unwilling to do anything abot pedophile preists using him as a sheild?

lujlp,
I'm not being a spokesperson for the other side here, but I've just remembered the "get out of a tight spot" card often played at this point.

It's all dealt with in the afterlife!

Limbs get replaced, bad priests get boiled and maybe even your favorite pet frolics again too!

If its all dealt with in the afterlife then why did god bother to kill those who touched the ark?

>>>If its all dealt with in the afterlife then why did god bother to kill those who touched the ark?

Er...um.. oh yes, mistranslation!

But if the bible is mistraslated how are we supposed to know what truly is gods will?

Nothing fails like prayer.

As someone who's lucky hetrosexual marriage didn't give her AIDS, pish posh on all the pointing fingers saying that's the cure. It made me high risk because he'd had homosexual relations in the past and because he was a drug addict (though to my knowledge he never shot up). Remove those two factors, the blood transfusion following childbirth in 1983 also made me high risk. And, for the record, I waited for Mr. Wrong.

Robert, as an Atheist who's returned a wallet or two in her time, I take offense at that overgeneralization. Face it, some nonbelievers would, some wouldn't -- and the same thing goes for believers of whatever ilk. I'm willing to bet in similar proportions. What's that tell us? That personal morals has more to do with indvidual personalities -- not belief or an absence thereof.

Momof3, with all due respect, putting our differences aside, yes, and I'll give you that you're a good mom or seem to be by what you post here, you'll let them learn from their mistakes but if one of your 4 year olds was screaming Mommy, help! as they slipped off the top step, you'd bloody well race to catch them. Because you are a loving mother and because you give them a reason to have faith in you.

Why do Atheists care so much about others belief? I'll put it another way since we've all said because laws forcing us to conform to others' belief sets has been said to death. Point blank: because believers are frantic when the supreme being(s) of their choice are disregarded and get rather hyper about it. Because, in short, they don't leave us alone in our disbelief.

Pseudonym, go to the link, and demonstrate what you can do. Real things are easy to show other people, even when the mechanism isn't obvious.

I did, and I was disappointed: they're not looking at prayer at all, but for scientific proof of the supernatural, which is a contradiction in terms. If you say "Pseudo, do that" and I do it, every time, would it satisfy their test? Only if their test is poorly designed.

I don't think there are any "supernatural" phenomena that do not involve intelligent actors, and scientific experiments don't deal well with those.

Pseudonym, you're simply not reading the Challenge.

You create your own test at the Challenge. Say what you can do that is unusual. Then, you do it.

You might have a big problem with that, especially if you haven't thought carefully about how you use the word, "supernatural" in a universe which runs by laws of nature; if you're religious, the tenets of your religion might include the requirement that that universe was built by your deity. That defeats any claim whatsoever that anything is not "natural".
"Supernatural" is a null, a blank, a catchall designed to halt thinking while it means what the speaker thinks it means.

If you can show that prayer affects reality in any way - for instance, you make a book fall off a table in another town - you can claim that prize.

Your claim would be something along the line of, "I can utter or organize the utterance of a specific sequences of phonemes specifically ordained by {insert religious label here} that results in {name repeatable effect}".

Slide a book off a table. I'm betting you won't do it, even though moving a book off a table is vanishingly petty next to the rampantly abundant benefits and astonishing discrete events prayer is routinely asserted to bring.

Want a real bittersweet time? Go to the JREF Forums and read the pitiful ranting of those genuinely deluded people who are convinced they have a "power", but cannot seem to form simple sentences or understand how anything works. One woman insisted she had telekinetic powers, when all she was doing was pushing on a table. Wow.

You create your own test at the Challenge. Say what you can do that is unusual. Then, you do it.

It's not that simple. They care about supernatural powers, not whether I can type at an unusual speed. Since I don't claim to have any supernatural powers, or any way to demonstrate supernatural phenomena on demand, I don't think they'd care about me.

"Supernatural" is a null, a blank, a catchall designed to halt thinking while it means what the speaker thinks it means.

I'm willing to go with a dictionary definition: "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws." (I just deleted a longer definition but I'll go with whatever dictionary definition you want.)

E is the set of all events
N is the set of all events that do not violate the laws of nature
S = the set of all supernatural events
S = E - N

The only things close to supernatural events I've experienced are improbable thoughts that turned out later to be life-changing. Was it God putting the thought in my head, or was it random chance? Either way it's not testable.

If you can show that prayer affects reality in any way

Of course prayer affects reality: my mood and thoughts, and subsequent behavior, are real.

But if the bible is mistraslated how are we supposed to know what truly is gods will?

Search me, lujlp.

I was merely tossing out sample answers - as just another atheist (who generally does return money not rightfully hers - probably out of both conscience and paranoia. As T's Grammy said, no particular group can claim a lock on individually honest behavior).

I'm just curious, luljp, if personal faith bothers you in some way? I get the impression it does. I wonder why?

This is my impression of personal faith and God.

Let's say I was best friends with George Clooney. A man who has everything, good looks, millions of adoring fans, money, power and sway in any situation. But imagine that everytime I needed a favor I had to begin by telling him he was the greatest actor that has ever lived and the most powerful man I have ever had contact with and will ever have contact with. In fact after he did me any favor I had to forever be in his debt, tell everyone about it and remind Clooney, myself and others of his GREATNESS. Wouldn't you think what a fucking asshole? That's my impression of this personal God people seem to believe in. Why would an all powerful, all knowing God need to be defended? And why does he need your praise. An

My second complaint about ths God is the personal faith he demands. There are whole groups of people suffering starvation, murder, rape, torture but he takes the time to help you. Yes you, a person who happens to live in a developed country. Why would he favor one person over another? Why would he consider you so important? And that's the core of my beef with personal faith. There is this All Knowing, All Powerful, All Loving, God and he gives more of a shit about you than he does about other people. Ask anyone who follows a religion and they will tell you how God saved them in one form or another. God did something fo me because I am so important. Can you see how belief in this God is self-absorbed nonsense. It's not really about God, it's about how much more important you are in the grand scheme of things because you believe that you have been offered spiritual enlightmenet that very few other people have. What a bunch of selfish bullshit.

Ah and let's not forget eternal paradise for you and your loved ones.

Stupidity bothers me, ignorence bothers me, sheeple shuting off their brains and just accepting what they are told without question or thought bothers me.

You need to feel connected to something bigger? Fine. You need to fell like you know what lifes all about? Fine. You want to ive your life in accordance to the dictates of some religioous leader who says he knows how god wants you to live? Fine.

But what gives you the right to set up public laws that force those of us who dont belive as you to live ina manner you find palatable?

I've never said there was no god, I said there was no christian god - his own damn book has so many contradictions that it does the work for me.

All I've ever said is that I have seen no evidence of a god. Suppose over the last 2000 yrs christianity had claimed that indiscriminate sex was gods will? Do you really think that any of you would have decided on your own that what you we being taught was wrong and came up with something else?

What makes you belief in jesus any less ridiculas the an aztecs belief in tezcatlipoa? or a greeks belief in demiter? or an assyrians belief in istar?

Why are all of those religions relegated to the realm of mythology and yours isnt?

What pisses me off about religion is that it propogates acceptance, not the acceptance of others, but the acceptance of all the evil that goes on in this world.

How many people have sat back and watched their lives destroyed, and did nothing to stop it because "they'll be punished in the next life"?

I got news for you, according to the bible everyone gets into paradise.

How many people sit back and do nothing about pollution, corruption in government, bettering their own lives and making the world a better place for future generations because they think it doesnt matter and this life is just a momentary pit stop on their way to something better?

Is there a god
1 no - so why do I have to live my life according to the moral dictates of people dead centuries ago

2 yes
If yes does he intervene
1 no - so why do I have to live my life according to the moral dictates of people dead centuries ago - if he dosent intervene the the bible is fiction

2 yes
If yes then why does he no longer do so, I dont see any new religious text, prophets miricles, according to the bible he is the same as he ever was and unchanging

So why the change?

Unless todays religions are just the same old mythologies and irrational fears in a shiney new package

Faith is a crutch for people to weak to behave morally without fear of punishment, or too sacred to face reality and admit they dont know

does that answer your question?

FYI by 'you' I meant a third party foil, not you individually

"They care about supernatural powers, not whether I can type at an unusual speed. Since I don't claim to have any supernatural powers, or any way to demonstrate supernatural phenomena on demand, I don't think they'd care about me."

Nice, and wholly typical example of moving the goalposts / straw man / appeal to consequences.

If you can make something happen through prayer, show me.

It would be "supernatural". What else would you call the muttering of incantations to summon a deity to do your bidding, and alter a cause/effect process?

The difference between luck and skill is that the skillful can duplicate their feat. That's all there is to it.

Say what you can do and do it.
If you can't, then, well, it's simple: you can't.

Religion is in the news for hiding pedophiles, stoning gays, killing women for "honor", and in the past it imprisoned Galileo and burned the astronomical records of New World natives. And we're supposed to be in awe of an "ark" that never sailed and a missing body.

I suggest that this is more deserving of your respect.

Skills and hard work bring results, while faith is busy making excuses.

"They care about supernatural powers, not whether I can type at an unusual speed. Since I don't claim to have any supernatural powers, or any way to demonstrate supernatural phenomena on demand, I don't think they'd care about me."

Nice, and wholly typical example of moving the goalposts / straw man / appeal to consequences.

I think you're arguing against something I haven't claimed (a "straw man") but I can't figure out what it is. Please elaborate. (It could be my fault; I have a short attention span.)

If you can make something happen through prayer, show me.

Reread my posts: I'm the one claiming that prayer is introspective, not magic.

What else would you call the muttering of incantations to summon a deity to do your bidding, and alter a cause/effect process?

I agree, if that happened it would qualify as "supernatural".

Say what you can do and do it.

I can introspect, and by so doing, gain greater understanding. Abracadabra! Where's my million dollars?

"I never said that preist were offering up their acts to god

I said they were doing it in his name"

'in his name' means for the greater glory of God, done as his representative...that they take on the mantel of Christ during those acts (battles during the Crusades, giving Holy communion)I don't remember Christ ever advocating child rape.

And so I said,no they did not rape children for the greater glory of God, they did it because they are sick bastards.

Oops, sorry for mixing quoting styles.

Well said in that last, lujlp! I get the same thing when I speak out against religion.

What enrages me is they say that there's no harm in religion and then when you point out the harm inherent in false beliefs, they cry foul. Those people aren't true believers!

Way too fucking convenient an out.

And, frankly, I'm sick to death of all the stereotyping of nonbelievers. (Another harm of religion, btw.) I "sin" way less than most of those who judge me for not believing as they do (said judging in and of itself makes them fucking hypocrites; of course, it comes with the territory, you can't be religious and not be a hypocrite since it's irrational).

thanks