For those worried about the advance of Islam, doing your best to mock and undermine the Judeo-Christian heritage of our society is working at cross-purposes, don't you think? (Think of it as a "back-fire.")

Jay, it's not by ingesting a poison that you fight another poison. We should lampoon Islam to death instead of "respecting" those savages. We can learn a lot from Mr Hitchens's answers on the question about hell and redemption; you can't con a free and honest man.

I think that if you gathered the famous Christian theologians of the past, the Doctors of the Church, such as Augustine, Francis Xavier, Bernard of Clairvaux, Ignatius of Loyola et. al., Hitchens would still wipe the floor with them.

You know how everyone's bitching about all the prescription drugs being found in the public drinking supply?

How about lacing specifically targeted areas of Europe's water with birth control pills?

Oh that won't work? Idk what to do then.

[BTW, is commenter Jeff out there today? Note Hitch's phrase "tone of voice", OK?]

> And then, of course, there's the
> fact that he's highly rational

He's smarter than me, but I'm starting to think he's got especially showy muscles rather than perfectly proportioned, general-purpose ones.

Carolla used to talk about how people would come up to Michael Jordan in the late '80s and say "Teach me to dunk, Michael! Teach me to dunk like you do, right now! C'mon, teach me!!"

And Jordan would say "OK, first, use your 33-inch vertical leap to position yourself next to the..."

And the person would interrupt: "But I only have a 13" vertical leap!"

And Jordan could only stand there and look at the guy.

In the surrounding clips of that panel, Hitchens repeatedly infers that humanity is evolution's best achievement. And with absolute certainty, he promises that the next product of evolution —the one that specifically replaces and derives from us— will be more intelligent than we are. He thinks it's all about brains.

This is what comes from being the smartest kid in the classroom. But of course, there's zero reason to believe this is true. We happen to be intelligent, but there's no reason to think that was evolution's goal for this planet. (Not unless you think a rational God was directing these things. It's pathetic, and telling, that no one on that panel bothered to call Hitchens on this fallacious reasoning. We might not expect the God-bothering savages to recognize and defend the mechanisms of natural selection, but they should have heard –in Hitchen's melodies of predestination– the song of a fellow traveler.)

The lion thinks it's all about the claw. Every species has a favorite adaptation or to two by which it plans to stave off extinction. It never works out that way. Evolution is deaf to our vanity.... Reproductive fitness is the only metric.

We happen to be intelligent, but there's no reason to think that was evolution's goal for this planet.

Evolution is deaf to our vanity.... Reproductive fitness is the only metric.

> but reason is what differentiated
> us outside of the animal realm.

We're not "outside" the animal realm. The only 'differentiation' is the scope of our admiration of ourselves. For example, the worms which will one day slurp the fluid from your eyeballs will be no more impressed then if they were excavating that carcass of a wildebeest. ("He's a little too salty in this part", they will say.)

> we have thought ourself outside
> of the evolution system.

Nothing, nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. We've having a good moment. But as George Carlin once put it, nature will one day scratch her back, and that will be it for us.

> ...until we perfect genetic
> engineering, surgical nanomachines
> and mind uploading

I like Star Trek too, but none of that has anything to do with it. You're like the giraffe who mocks the short-necked sloth. I don't think you quite get the point.

> The next evolutionary step will
> be chosen by mankind, not mother
> nature.

Pathetic fantasy. The next evolutionary step is to bang a pretty blond... Or a brunette, if you prefer. Make her squeal and come crawling back for more... That's how to take the next "evolutionary step".

Comments like this are why we shouldn't seek community even with other atheists. Like Hitchens and Toubrook, in the end they can prove all too fond of comforting, self-aggrandizing exceptionalism, no matter how delusional. It's precisely the nasty habit they would claim to despise in the faithful.

Upon review, this is my favorite passage:

> As far as I am concerned, this
> is a huge success;

No words better describe the egocentricity of the religious believer. It comes up all the time when listening to radio's Prager and other faithful people. (Prager's probably the one I make time for most often, about an hour a month.)

"As far as I am concerned" translates as I'm not very bright but I'm scared as Hell!

"[T]his is a huge success" translates as I got my new Tivo installed, my wife might let me see her in her bra this weekend, and I don't think the IRS has caught up to me with that vacation house deduction yet... I may be terrified, but I got mine, buddy!

Yeah. Earth is "a huge success". If you don't believe in a judgmental God, then it couldn't have been a failure, right?

Very myopic thinking here. Whether or not a Supreme Being exists, religion, as an institutionalized belief system, serves a human purpose -- or it wouldn't be historically ubiquitous. Get rid of the white-bearded cloud-sitter -- and something else will take his place: Stalin, Money, Sex, Gaia -- whatever.

At least most of the major religions make a stab at promoting the Golden Rule. Get rid of them, and promote the Golden Shower instead? ("Do unto others before they can do unto you, baby! And make DAMN sure you get yours!")

Judaism and Christianity are "poison"? Well, sometimes you DO have to "pick your poison," as they say. Better then to choose carefully, don't you think?

As for the Supreme Being? The more I learn about singularities, astral physics, quantum physics and string theory, the more impressed I become. If SB exists, he's DAMN good and unbelievably elegant!

When Unification Theory is finally worked out, they can instead just as well call it "The Hand of God."

Oooopsie! Should be "astrophysics" in the last post.

I don't buy that Hitchens is wrong at all about intelligence.

People screw up all the time thinking about evolution. They don't bother to check to see if what they are talking about is the definition the other guy is talking about, much less what the biologists mean. And then they start talking about "random chance". That's totally wrong, because the universe has laws of physics. A universe with a law of physics cannot be random. It can be unpredictable to an observer, particularly one without information about the feature set of the process being observed, but "unpredictable" ≠ "random".

The process of natural selection selects for what works, not any ideal. The appearance of intelligence, translating into an improved ability of self-defense, is indeed such a selection, and so Hitchens is right in that regard.

Please note that intelligence can be defeated if it is recognized and obliterated by a mob of lesser capacity but the will to survive, and by natural disaster affecting the whole community.

It can also be unable to use effective tools in its survival. T. Rex might have had a relative who was an amazing singer, condemned to death by natural catastrophe when tool use wasn't in his feature set.

There is merit is saying man will take the next step in evolution, because genetic engineers are getting closer to replacing "Hi! You're cute!" with a laundry list of features for you to order in your next child.

Religion seems to be prompted by fear -- of the unknown, and of each other.

>I don't buy that Hitchens is
> wrong at all about intelligence.

Nice neck you got there, Mr. Giraffe! Do you suppose there are more giraffes or sloths on the planet? Which has been living in its modern form for longer? Which is better equipped to deal with a completely uknown future?

It's amusing, positively comical, the people think brains are the future of life on this planet... They're so certain that improving brains are what will carry us along, and not something else... Like maybe an arm with two elbows, or a better digestive system, or sharper eyesight, or some other but no-less-likely adaptation.

Nopers... It's gotta be the brains! Why do you suppose that is?

> A universe with a law of
> physics cannot be random.

Turns out Raddy believes in God. Who knew? Whooda thunkit?

"Comments like this are why we shouldn't seek community even with other atheists. Like Hitchens and Toubrook, in the end they can prove all too fond of comforting, self-aggrandizing exceptionalism, no matter how delusional. It's precisely the nasty habit they would claim to despise in the faithful."

Thanks. Now we're on to Jay R, who will brag about his kids.

OK, "community" was the wrong word... Shoulda said "alliance"

What's up, Crid? I'm hoping in my next life I come back as a dolphin, or something cool. I will deny any and all involvement with humans. In case I get my wish, I gotta ride my bike while I can, since dolphins don't have bicycles, thanks to Gloria Steinem.

Happy May Day!

Comments like this are why we shouldn't seek community even with other atheists. Like Hitchens and Toubrook, in the end they can prove all too fond of comforting, self-aggrandizing exceptionalism, no matter how delusional. It's precisely the nasty habit they would claim to despise in the faithful.

Judaism and Christianity are "poison"? Well, sometimes you DO have to "pick your poison," as they say. Better then to choose carefully, don't you think?

The Christian faith slowed the human technological advance for 15 centuries. The muslim faith is, right now, keeping hundred of millions of people in the dark. Looks like the same poison to me.

Toubrouk -

The Christian faith is responsible for the existence of movable type. The Bible was the first mass-printed book.

It's also responsible for the works of Bach, Beethoven and countless other composers. Ditto the works of Michelangelo.

The Christian faith is what saved the world from the depredations of 14th century Islamic conquest.

You might want to cut it a little slack.

Of course, the Christian faith, with time, lost a part of their unsavory customs of burning witches and the like. I also agree that comparing Christianity to Islamo-faschism is like comparing a common cold with the Ebola Virus.

This being said, I don't want to be sick, period.

But, hey, that's just me. ;)

Crid, that's false.

All matter and energy we can observe is acted upon at all times by at least four fundamental forces: gravity, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

The combinations and permutations possible in these interactions is a very large but finite number if simple counting of the interactions is the operation.

Consider this: Lotto counts six balls out, numbered from 1 to nn, no duplicates. The result will always be numbers in that range. It's not "random", because the result universe was dictated by the rules of Lotto. It's unpredictable, though, enough to make a "hit" by a given person extremely unlikely. Notice something? It's also ruled tightly enough by probability that the member states can count on income from Lotto.

Now, change the numbers to atoms, elements produced in various stellar furnaces. You don't get to set the time period of the "game" or the number of balls in the lottery - but the four forces, at least, behave the same way every time. How do we know? Because the strong and weak nuclear forces work the same all the time. We know this by watching novae and nuclear reactor decay products behavior.

(One of my sources is Nuclides and Isotopes, GE Nuclear Energy, in your library at 723.x)

You get local order with high variability. We live in a thin film of atmosphere some 93 million miles from a continuously exploding fusion bomb, with radically different conditions all around us, and we think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

But there is no God™ required to do any of this.

-----

BTW - intelligence, as a survival trait, does not rule out other effective traits at all. It also selects against itself in intermediate steps. Intelligence in employing technology in the short term can produce fatal conditions. Easter Island was once heavily wooded. The Earth's oil and coal resources are a fixed quantity, etc.

Anybody have a link to a transcript, or a summary? I want to skip past the presentation and focus on the content.

Presentation can be important when trying to influence a third party, but I'm more interested in the philosophical arguments themselves. Who "wins" the presentation is less important to me than my response to the questions raised.

Brian, the gutenberg bible was printed in the 15th century, I'd say Toubrouk claim of 15 centuries was accurate

Rad -

I don't care how you try to weasel your way out of it, you are claiming that the universe is the result of random chance.

In your case, the Universe is the DM, and every time an interaction came along, the DM rolls 1d20 against chaos, and anything other than 20 results in chaos.

For life as we presently perceive it to be to happen under those circumstances would require the DM to roll nothing but 20s.

The die is weighted. The fix is in.

There is a creator.

And he rolls nothing but 20s.

lujlp - it is useless to have this conversation with you. Your mind is so poisoned by your hatred of religion in general and Christianity in specific that you could never accept that on balance Christianity has done more to advance humanity than any other philosophy.

Your willful conflation of Catholicism and Christianity serve as proof of that.

Brian-

If you had Billions of years to roll the 1d20, you will notice two things at the end; First, the dice would have been turned into a ball due to excessive usage well before the end of the first century and, Second, that with only 5% of chances, you could influence a lot. I have played way too much games where a "Crit" had save the day to NOT consider the power of 5%

> I'm hoping in my next life I come
> back as a dolphin, or something cool.

I couldn't *be* anything cooler! Look at me... This is as good as it gets!

> I gotta ride my bike while I can,
> since dolphins don't have bicycles,
> thanks to Gloria Steinem.

A contender for blog comment of the month.

> What will happen the day scientists
> will find the way to tweak the
> human DNA to remove genetic
> diseases out of it?

There will be no such day... That's just not in the cards. Biology is too integrated for the kind of mop-up operation you're dreaming of. And even if that could happen, there's all the non-genetic illneses to deal with.

> Things like Albinism will vanish
> out of the planet.

Albinism? Huh?

> This is only the beginning.

You can say that again.

> The Christian faith slowed the human
> technological advance for 15 centuries.

Overwrought. Hrissikopoulos described the church as "the crazy hippie mother of science, law and philosophy." It was the first human venture with the resources to explore those things. They wouldn'ta happened with out it.

> Looks like the same poison to me.

A cousin poison, and not a perfect poison.

> I don't want to be sick, period.

Apparently not! You dream of an angelic form with no boundaries or hazards...

> if simple counting of the interactions
> is the operation.

Who says that it is? I think you're out of your depth here. If the world of physics had brought conclusive about the existence of God, someone would have written it up in the LA Weekly.

> intelligence, as a survival trait,
> does not rule out other effective
> traits at all.

Nor do other forces demand intelligence.

Funny how you guys have all these religious enthusiasms; angel bodies, endlessly bountiful nature, preordained, heavenly outcomes... (Outcomes which just happen to flatter the human spirit). But religion? No, huh-uh! Nothing but rationality over here....

A distinction without a difference.

Shoulda written that as nor to other adaptations require intelligence.

"I don't care how you try to weasel your way out of it, you are claiming that the universe is the result of random chance."

I'm not sure if you can't read, can't think or just won't, because I've just explained that what you see is not random. Just as the result of the lottery will always be in the number set, and not be "5, 21, incense, orange, Buckwheat", a gram of Radium-226 will always decay as it has been observed to decay. Of course, such things are alertly watched. It wouldn't do to have your atom bomb go off by itself because someone was praying for that.(/sarcasm)

You should be glad that this order exists and can be manipulated. It is why everything around you works.

It's not magic. You cannot point to an example of "creation" - something appearing from "nowhere" to show evidence of a "creator". Everything you can see was converted from something else, and the laws of cause and effect, and the conservation of matter/energy are strict.

The best an honest person can say about how things we can see and measure got here is "I don't know".

However, I have already described the process by which events transpire from the past, through the present, into the future.

You are free, of course, to make something else up.

OK, So you've now gone from "it's not random" to "it's inevitable".

Not only can I read and think, I do a considerable amount of both.

You are asking me to accept something no less incredible than the idea that God came along and snapped his fingers and put the universe into motion.

You claim that since there are a finite number of states of matter, the universe is not random.

But what you're missing is one critical point - the universe is a finite state machine. And most of its control inputs are -- wait for it -- RANDOM.

When does a Cesium atom decay into Barium? Who knows. We know that it does, but there is no way to know when the next decay event occurs. Which is why we have atomic decay random number generators.

You cannot claim that a finite state machine with random inputs is not random. Yes, it's perfectly deterministic. So are the Lorenz equations. But that particular determinism (Lorenz) is dependent upon how accurately you can state your initial conditions.

Your computer is a finite state machine, and all its inputs are deterministic. But let a cosmic ray go through the registers, and you've just blown that determinism to hell.

Of course, you fall back on the concept of the laws of physics. Where did they come from? Have they always existed? Were they authored?

The best an honest person can say about how things we can see and measure got here is "I don't know".

Then why the rabid insistence that there is no God?

"We happen to be intelligent, but there's no reason to think that was evolution's goal for this planet."

Evolution doesn't have a "goal" - you're anthropomorphising a process! A completely dumb, physics-based process. It has no "desires" or "goals".

As far as I can see, *we* get to make the rules about what "matters" to the planet, since we're the highest intelligent beings known to ourselves - therefore, *our* goals are the planet's goals, simply by virtue of them mattering *to us*. Who else is there? Chimps? Orang Utans? Dolphins? I don't think so.

This is *our* planet. Not "evolution"'s. To suggest we should bow to (and make way for) the imaginary projected "desires" of a process that does not even have "desires" does not make any sense at all.

We rule. This planet is our backyard.

Likewise for nonsense like "mother nature" - that's also just an anthropomorphization of something that doesn't exist.

The fact is, "we are the universe, thinking". The universe has spawned thought capabilities amidst chaos. If we desire to take those capabilities to new planes (e.g. perhaps an always-connected borg-like collective intelligence hooked into machine intelligence created by ourselves will reveal new insights we can't imagine now), it *means*, by definition, that the universe "wants to" take those capabilities to new planes - because 'we are the universe, thinking'. And that's not to be confused with an anthropormophization of the universe.

Humans anthropomorphize extremely readily, and one needs to learn to watch out for that in one's own reasoning.

BTW, I don't necessarily think we're seeing the end of civilization, just the end of Western civilization. Some societies may well be strong and advanced and intelligent and hardworking enough (and not suicidally self-loathing like Western culture) to carry the baton of civilization forward even as the West ultimately sinks into a third-world Muslim status --- for example Japan, and perhaps combined with e.g. China / South Korea etc. Japan don't take no "immigration" nonsense, because they have brains.

David, you are correct in everything except your last paragraph. IN which you could not hope to be more wrong.

Japan is expelling excess workers at a time when their native-born population is crossing the tipping point of total annihilation. Japanese women are simply not reproducing.

China's "one child" policy is setting them up for a similar demographic implosion in 30-50 years.

Look around you. Note the vast quantities of stupids that are reproducing at a tremendous rate. Note that intelligent people are not.

Intelligence is not a trait that is required for species survival. In fact, if our own society is any example, I'd say that intelligence is actively selected AGAINST.

And that is ultimately why Islam will win. Complete unthinking devotion to the cause, and the will to reproduce in litter-sized quantities.

Oh, and one more thing - the death of Western civilization is the death of civilization.

Western Civilization (and more specifically the Anglosphere) is responsible for the bulk of technological innovation since the dawn of the industrial age.

Take that away and replace it with 13th century Islamism, and we're all riding camels between tents again, and living in puddles of our own filth.

brian, if you run Lotto long enough, you will cycle through every number combination, even though you won't be able to call each shot. The atom bomb goes off when triggered even though the decay of a particular U-235 atom can't be predicted.

These are two sides of the phenomenon I have cited: your environment came about in a location and manner that was not predictable by our reckoning, but equipped with a full set of laws to manipulate. Understanding the limits of measurement and control is one of the key goals of statistical study.

As for the existence of God™, the one championed in the Bible™ is pretty easily shown to be a delusion. The processes in action now don't require any guidance, and in fact do not show any interference based on the begging of a suppicant or whatever faith.

Consider the idea you've put forth about "random" inputs. Just what about these make them "random", as opposed to merely too complex to evaluate?

Here's an example: Out here in the sticks, we have a stray/feral dog problem. Say my neighbor shoots at one in his yard, and startles a deer. The deer picks the best path he can to get away from the gun, and crosses a road, only to be hit by a car. The car is heavily damaged and crashed into trees.

If the gunshot had come at a different time, the deer would not have been in that position. If the person in the car had dropped a quarter in the McDonalds drive-through, he would have missed the deer. Yet, the car's position and speed on the road was determined by all of the circumstances leading to the crash, as was the presence of the deer.

This is a principal factor in arguments about "free will", which some religious people think depends on their religion because it's complicated enough they want to be lazy and call out "fate!"

Fortunately for us, the power of abstract thought lets us explore "what if?" situations and prepare for some of these things. That we cannot predict when the deer will jump out does not interfere with our ability to recognize that this is what deer do, and we can counter this by watching for them, by observing prudent speeds and by building vehicles that deal reasonably well with such impacts. These are all choices which manipulate local forces in our favor.

"You are asking me to accept something no less incredible than the idea that God came along and snapped his fingers and put the universe into motion."

Brian, sounds just like the Big Bang, doesn't it? The physicists tell us that everything (matter/energy)in the universe instantaneously came into being out of what we would have to define as "nothing." Whatever caused that moment of pure creation may be ascribed to The Creator. When we deny the concept of The Creator, we only admit our own puny intellectual limitations.

Atheists attack an anthropomorphic version of God -- the bearded cloud-sitter who decides which sparrow will fall from the tree -- and then revel in self-satisfaction. Wrestle with the origin/cause of the Big Bang for awhile, then get back to me. If you come back with anything other than "it is unknowable," then you are a liar or a fool.

I can appreciate an agnostic for their honesty. Atheists, on the other hand, are self-important frauds, who are as ridiculous as those who DO believe in a bearded man looking down from the sky.

From now on, I think I shall refer to the Big Bang as the "God-Fart."

brian, catholics belive in jesus christ - how exactly does that expell them from 'christianity'?

Rad, you can not begin to compare behavioral response of deer to quantum interaction.

You also can't compare it to the creation of the perfect set of circumstances to create self-replicating molecules, multi-cellular life, consciousness, or anything else about the planet as we presently perceive it.

In order to get to where we are today, a very long set of highly unlikely events had to happen in a specific sequence. In other words, whatever mechanism that brought the Earth into being ONLY ROLLS 20s.

Of course, if everything came about as you say, then the likelihood of there being another form of biological life in the universe is nil. And we can stop looking.

Also, I dont hate christianity, I hate stupidity - and as we live in "christian nation" christianity is all there is to rail aginst in this country.

Were I living in canada or europe I would spend my time blasting islam and muslims as they would be the bigger bunch of shit heads.

But alas, the only religous shit heads with power in this country right now are the christians

So suck it

brian, catholics belive in jesus christ - how exactly does that expell them from 'christianity'?

It doesn't. And I didn't say it did.

Christianity is a faith.
Catholicism is a religion.

Therein lies the difference.

Religion is inherently political. If you look at all the wars that atheists try to tie to "Christianity", you find that they were almost all on behalf of Catholicism, and therefore Rome.

In other words, they were not religious wars, they were political. Catholicism is a political system like Communism or Democratic Republicanism.

After all, Muslims believe in Jesus Christ, and nobody would ever argue that they are even remotely Christian.

(and before you ask, yes - Islam is a political movement masquerading as a faith.)

But alas, the only religous shit heads with power in this country right now are the christians

So suck it

"Shut up.", he explained.

Also the bible claims god is unchanging - so where are the prophets and miracles, and resserections, and people being stuck dead for questioning gods will?

Better yet brian, a prophet of god once asked followers of the god Baal why Baal could not appear and defend his alter that had been thown down and destroyed.

SO my question to you brian, why has god never appeared to defend one of his chirches as they were being burned down? IS he a true god capable of defending his property, or is he as hollow and as false as his clever little test showed Baal to be?

Accoring to muslim mythology jesus was nothing more than a prophet, so they dont "belive in him" the belive he existed - big difference

"Five ostensibly intelligent people. One man who is willing to discuss this topic on the basis of fact, evidence, probability, logic and intellectual honesty. And four men who clearly seem incapable of it."

Except that no facts are presented. A random date is in itself unprovable. I agree that the Christian offer no counter facts (scientific facts). The bible is evidence though.

All are non-scientists and they don't offer anything except their beliefs.

To say the Christians are intellectually dishonest is projecting their own beliefs.

The bible is evidence though. - anon33222

Evidence of what?

"Evidence of what?"

Lineage and Jesus Christ for starters

So then you would agree then that the Oddesy is proof of the witch Circe and the river Styx?

And that Beowulf is proof of trolls?

And that egyptian hieroglyphs are proof of the existance of Set, Isis, and Anibis and the death and reserection of the great lord Orisis?

Is that what your saying anon?

lujlp: Is Jesus Christ imaginary?

What are you saying?

Yes

Tell me anon, what makes your mythology, and it is mythology, any more valid than the egyptians, assyrians, greeks, romans, or norwiegns?

What makes your god so powerful? When was the last time he stopped a lynching or a church burning?

Whos to say that 10,000 yrs from now some anthropologust wont run across a nerds basment lair and conculed that we worshiped the X-men or the Green Lantern?

And what makes the 'moral lessons from the bible any more sacred then those found in comic books?

And Pontius Pilate is fictional too?

God is powerful enough to create the world and confident enough to allow man to make his own decisions. Thus, God doesn't stop man from doing stupid things such as allow lujlp to make ignorant comments.

Amy Alkon: I don't worship The Tooth Fairy and The Tooth Fairy is merely a tooth fairy, not a God.

Your word tricks don't work.

My argument was about God and Jesus Christ and there is evidence for Jesus Christ as there is for Pontius Pilot who crucified him. Is Jesus Christ lying or mad for claiming to be God? That's a theological discussion.

But, what if I dressed up in a funny outfit and carried a serious-looking symbol and presented you with a big book with tales of The Tooth Fairy? Would you then be in conflict about who to kneel and insist "You are totally cool!" to on Sundays?

"What if" you actually argue my points instead of making things up. Ooops, I thought only Christians make things up.

Christians do look for evidence as I have stated and you ignored.

What if you just ignore God and be satisfied with your decision.

Seems like people have a big problem with Christianity. No other religions gets people upset. Nevermind about Islamism since it gets a pass.

"But, what if I dressed up in a funny outfit and carried a serious-looking symbol and presented you with a big book with tales of The Tooth Fairy?"

Hmm.. The Book of Mormon.

Anon you asked if jesus christ was imaginary, not if some guy named jesus who claimed to be a god was imaginary - there is a sublte and distinct difference.

You say god "is powerful enough to create the world and confident enough to allow man to make his own decisions. Thus, God doesn't stop man from doing stupid things such as allow lujlp to make ignorant comments"

If that were true pelase explain the portions of the bible wherein god commands his followers to kill.

Or the passage where god has hi smouth peice challenge Baal to a appear and defend himself when god seems unable to answer his own challange.

And how is the book of mormon any different from the bible? And why does the same fictional bullshit garner so much scorn from you when it comes from a 1800's crack pot but not a 800's crack pot?

And what points did you argue?
That a man named jesus did exist but may or may not be god?

Thats not really a point, its a question - And one that damns you to hell for having enough doubt to even ask the question.

What was the second point you argued? GOD IS ALL POWERFUL - if that were true he would defend his places of worship as he challeged other gods to do.

What do we call someone who refuses to meet the challages he issues to others? A hypocrite.

Congradulations anon you worship a hypocritcal god who endorses rape, murder and slavery, and stands by while his representives on earth molest children.

Care to explain who god managed to move his lazy ass enoug to kill the guy who dared to touch the ark of the covenant to prevent it from falling durring transport but cant seem to care about the priest touching children?

What kind of sick fuck do you really worship?

Also, I dont hate christianity, I hate stupidity - and as we live in "christian nation" christianity is all there is to rail aginst in this country.

Allow me to introduce you to this fascinating thing called "politics".

It could be worse - you could have a system of government where in order to even be in the running for the presidency you have to be a christian...

> Evolution doesn't have a "goal" -
> you're anthropomorphising

You're reading backwards, and making my point precisely. Not a problem, I'll take it, but you'd look cooler if you played with a forehand volley.

> We rule. This planet is our
> backyard.

It we ruled, even in the part you call our "yard", things would be much different. We wouldn't need all those hospitals, for starters.

> *we* get to make the rules about
> what "matters" to the planet

What's the oldest rule we've made? Name a rule we've made that will survive us. The air in your lungs is the shit of tiny creatures that thrived for billions (with-a-B) of years. I'd say we're playing by their rules, wouldn't you? (That's what they said in scuba class, anyway: Don't fuck up your breathing, Dude.)

> If we desire to take those
> capabilities to new planes (e.g.
> perhaps an always-connected
> borg-like collective intelligence
> hooked into machine intelligence

Jesus, you guy are absolutely drunk on science fiction.... It's fascinating to see how many of you roll through a typical weekend with these kind of daydreams rattling around your skulls.

You're still part of the problem, though, just like the Christians and the Muslims. You fellers —with your braincases swollen so rapidly that your ears have fallen to the sides of your heads— are certain that intellectual candlepower is the future of life on earth... Some of you think the rest of the universe will be impressed. In fact, some of you think that's why the universe was created, such that human-style intelligence can blossom and grow.

How exactly is this different from a believer who thinks Allah's got it all mapped out, or that Jesus has a personal interest in the outcome of his life? See the Hitchens book: In his clearer moments, he understands that this isn't about us.

The lion thinks it's all about the claw... The giraffe thinks his Creator has a really, really long neck... The parrot thinks the Almighty is a gossiping chatterbox... The sea slug thinks God is the slimiest motherfucker who ever squirmed....

And the blog commenter wants cosmic love for his intelligence.

PS- Brian's stealing my stuff again.

"Of course, if everything came about as you say, then the likelihood of there being another form of biological life in the universe is nil."

No - you're not applying the principle consistently. Cause/effect works the same on deer and cars as it does between O2 and H2 molecules. The example is just to show a hint of the complexity without using the word, "quantum", which is often abused.

Also, if I run Lotto in the state of South Carolina, that does not prevent Georgia from participating in MegaMillions. Events are not prohibited from simultaneity.

Heh. Why are astronomers reasonably sure there is life in the Universe? Because we are here. And there is enough variety visible in their telescopes to see favorable conditions exist elsewhere.

If you want to claim we are exclusive in some way, you have to show how.

-----

Crid, don't forget the cockroach and radiotolerans. Simple durability counts.

Note that there is as much evidence for the existence of The Tooth Fairy as there is for god.

I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be open-minded. What is this evidence of the Tooth Fairy of which you speak?

This might help:

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

"Types Of Evidence: Intuition, Personal experience, Testimonial, Anecdotal evidence, Scientific evidence."

Intuition is a feeling, suppose I "felt" that god ordered me to kill 500 schol kids.

According to you that is 'eveidence' that god wanted those kilds dead.

As a child I felt there were monsters in the dark - was that evidence of monsters?

Personal experience - fine show me a person who had a personal experince with god and as a result had the same physical changes that the bible claimed were eveidenced in those who saw god.

Testimonial - personal exerince repackaged, not a seperate catagory.

Anecdotal evidence - personal expirence yet again

Scienific evidence - none exists or it would have been broadcast world wide long ago

So you have only 3 types of evidence -
1. subjectivly interpritve personal feelings
2. personal experince - which amamazingly NEVER has physical proof to validate it &
3. scientific proof - of which you have none

As to the evidence of the tooth fairy?

When I stuck my tooth under my pillow it was gone the next morning and replaced by money

Now if you would be so kind as to share your proof of god

"Are you agnostic about the existence of a race of tiny people who run around your house, sliding down the dishes in the dishrack, while you're sleeping?"

No, Amy! The Borrowers exist! My proof? Where are all the missing socks?!! Who hides your car keys, hmmm? Sure, deny The Borrowers exist -- and leave yourself at their mercy!! Didn't you read the books? They were wonderful.

Ok. Santa doesn't live at the North Pole. But, isn't children's BELIEF in Santa a good thing? And, isn't an adult's belief in all of the things that Santa has come to REPRESENT also a good thing? So, would you also destroy Santa Claus if you could just because he's not "real" as you define it? If so, why exactly?

"Now if you would be so kind as to share your proof of god"

Lujlp, our most brilliant scientific minds tell us that somewhere around 14 billion years ago the entire universe (all of the matter/energy which has ever existed) instantaneously came into being out of absolutely NOTHING in a flash. You now exist only because stars died and expelled their heavy elements into space, which much later coalesced into our solar system. You are literally comprised of star dust.

Ok. Your turn. Please state your evidence that there is no Creator.

If your argument is that The Creator doesn't seem inclined to sweat the small stuff, i.e., what WE care about, then ok. The Creator put into motion a process that gave us a world, gave us life, and gave us a chance. Why should He stick around and tinker further? What do you think He could have done better? What if God's primary concern is not your welfare, but that of the microbes? Perhaps we exist only so that microbes will eventually be able to get off this rock and into space!

BTW, the physicists also tell us that everything that COULD happen DOES happen -- just not in the universe that WE can perceive. They also tell us that there are many more than the 4 dimensions of space/time that we can perceive. So, maybe it's not a problem with The Creator. Maybe it's a problem with your limited view of what is possible.

I am reminded of two caterpillars endlessly following each other around the rim of a teacup -- firmly convinced that there is no evidence of humans.

> don't forget the cockroach and
> radiotolerans. Simple durability
> counts.

Aha! So you take the point after all. The mode of life is microbial. As Gould puts it: Bacteria represent the great success story of life's pathway.

(Have I mentioned watching '28 Days Later' this weekend? Fabulous movie. Shot on home video cams, but dramatic as hell. I've never even been to London, but the Picadilly Circus sequence is just jaw-dropping. The perfect feature to enjoy during a fizzling public health crisis.)

Anyway, let's have no more talk about how intelligence is a game-changer for the cosmos, or how our setting was built all so that we could express it.

For the record, Gould often offered beetles as our champion life form. He cited previous argument, and spent much of his life augmenting our understanding of them with field research.

For the record, Kinsey dug beetles, too. So to speak.

lujlp: You turned from ignorant to incoherent. I won't respond to obvious stupidity on your part.

To continue Jay R post, the multiverse theory is the strangest scientific theory to come out recently. The probability of life coming out of a billion universes is billions times worse. Meaning impossible.

The scientists should keep digging their graves.

Jay - chrisian dont argue that there is a creator who set things in motion and left to go jerk off or something.

They claim to worship a being who moves in mysterious ways, and calls people home when they die horribly, and heals people of sickness, and has a personal interest in how we shave the skin off of our dicks, and will send us to an eternity of torment if we call him by the wrong name or go to church on the wrong day.

You want to claim there is a being who set things in motion - fine. But that would mean you find the christian god as false as I do.

Is that what your saying Jay?

And anon refusing to defed your self in a debate means you lose. Also you have failed your gods commandment to defend him and will therefore be sent to hell upon your death.

Tell me, why do you worship a being who condemns you to an eternity of firey torment for not standing up for him wen he is supposed to be all powerful?

Lujlp,

Gets your facts straight: Christians worship Jesus, who they believe is the Son of God, The Creator. It is through Jesus, or more accurately through his remaining Holy Spirit, that all of the said good things occur. So, Christians actually worship an IDEA -- a "Spirit" -- which basically exhorts them not to be shitheads.

So, if you want to argue that there are no angels on the head of the pin, go right ahead.

I find it bizarre that I am (rhetorically) asked for reasons that I believe that God exists. I do not ask you why you find flowers pleasing or why you find joy in Bach (or Rammstein, or whatever). I totally "get" that my fundamental admiration and joy in partaking of the Christian tradition is illogical, but what of it?

I visited a pilgrimage spot dating back to the 8th C yesterday and listened to the mass. It was all about loving other people, and was, well, uplifting. Especially because I was situated on the terrasse of the church looking over the Vosges. Beautiful.

I guess that the problem that people have with Christianity is that they are against gay marriage. Well, there are plenty of atheists against it too, trust me.

Make up your mind JayR, a uninvolved creator, or the christian god who sent his some and supposedly cares about us.

Becuase until you stop bouncing back and forth between two completely opposite concepts there is no way to argue with you.

Also the first comandment is to have no other god before god.

Unless you are a trinitairn and belive that god and the son of god are the same being - in which case please explain why god asked himself to forgive the romans rather thn just saying he forgave the romans

Then again if you are not a trinitarian worship jesus instead of god, you are going to hell

Lujlp,

You miss the forest for the trees you find so fascinating.

Criticizing the concept of the Trinity is like arguing that ice, water and steam cannot be the same substance.

Well Jay you and I are made of the same substance does that make us the same being?

Everything in the universe is comprised of protons electrons and nutrons, does that mean everything in existance is the same being?

Also you failed to explain the point where Jesus talked to god as if he were a different person

Truth be told I dont care if you are a trinitarian, but if you are then you do not believe in a creator who 'set things in motion and wandered off' or who cares more about the 'microbe' so why did you argue that as a defection to my questions?

Liz – send me an email. (I like Bach)

> I find it bizarre that I am
> (rhetorically) asked for reasons
> that I believe that God exists.
> I do not ask you why you find
> flowers pleasing or why you find
> joy in Bach

If this is just a matter of taste, then fuckit, we're done. So far, I haven't killed any of those assholes who think Deep Purple was better than Led Zeppelin. But the stakes are higher than that.

> the problem that people have with
> Christianity is that they are
> against gay marriage. Well,
> there are plenty of atheists
> against it

I are one.

> Criticizing the concept of the
> Trinity is like arguing that
> ice, water and steam cannot be
> the same substance.

Loojy's (probably) right: That's much more weird than it is expressive.