I serve the children of the Great Pug Buddha. Everyone else can do whatever they like.

Love that, Pirate Jo. Gregg is slave to the tiny opportunistic Chinese Crested. He's started to call her "Tsetse."

Next up, 50 proofs of why anthropogenic global climate change is real. (Hint: the evidence for warming is all around you).

I'm not a believer.

I'm just a respector of the traditions, values and achievements of the Judeo Christian world.

But these so called *proofs* are a crock of simplistic kindergarten crap that has no relationship to why the average Christian (or Jew) believes in God.

Most Christians and Jews accept stories about miracles and events in the bible as allegorical.

Parables to teach you how to live, not recorded history.

I haven't read all the 50 yet, but I'd like to comment on #21, the Core Message.

The "Core Message" is not "Worship me." It's way more diabolical than that. The real core message is simply this:

"There is something wrong with you, and you can't fix it without outside help."

Once that core message has been fully internalized by the victim, the game is over. And that is what we must fight against.

What bothers me is when people say, 'God/Jesus loves you and proves it because he is always with you'. Well, okay.....so what? What does that do for me? The car is always parked in the garage, but it doesn't do a damned thing for me just sitting there. I have to do it for myself. If there is a god, he gave me a brain, to think for myself; a heart to feel what's right or wrong; a body to do for myself. The idea that a spirit makes my life better merely by always being beside me, that I have to do nothing else but know it is with me, is mind boggling. If that were true, why have I spent 57 years busting my ass to work, raise children, maintain a marriage, be a dutiful daughter, etc.? I could have just been sitting on my ass eating bon bons and letting god do all the work to sustain me.

There is a big difference between religion and God. All religions are equally valid/invalid and religion in and of itself does not prove the existence of a God. Therefore making mockery of or pointing out the holes in a religion does not disprove the existence of God.

You can only know God through faith, and you cannot have faith if you require proof. Once you have faith the proof is self evident.

Having said that, believe what you want to believe, I'm not going to try and prove the unprovable.

Amy,

God does not need your worship. But as a parent sometimes you break down and tell your kids 'Because I'm the daddy, so do what I say!' Similarly God broke down and said 'I am God, do what I say!' God wants the same things any good parent wants, for us to grow up and be mature, responsible individuals. Unfortunately many of us still need 'Because I'm the daddy!' orders to behave appropriately. As proof see the previous thread with JD as well as those he was railing against (none of whom were on this blog).

These proof will convince few. Especially since Brain barely understands what he is reading in the bible. Look at his proof 51. Baal is not a god. The text makes it clear Baal is plural, 'the Baals', not a singular god as Brain interprets. Baal is Hebrew for master which was often used for the local city god, but could also apply to master craftsmen. As for his proof, unless we are all authoritative prophets our inability to call god to act is insignificant. Elijah said my god is real and your is false and here is the proof I can get my god to do stuff and you can't. The people he opposed said they represented their god and could get him to do stuff too. So when Elijah got shit done and they couldn't stop him that was the proof.

By the same proof the president of the US doesn't exist. For I now command Obama to bring us all an ice cream cone! So according to Brain if Obama doesn't get you a cone he must not exist.

"Beyond the lack of evidence for the existence of god, the idea that a Supreme Being would need constant worship is just too Junior High Megalomaniac -- isn't it for you, too"

Only if we conceive of a Supreme Being as human. But an actual Supreme Being would be something beyond the tests of our senses.

Wow, Ben. You don't understand proofs at all.

Meanwhile: "All religions are equally valid/invalid and religion in and of itself does not prove the existence of a God."

I find that when someone talks about God™, they are actually talking about the Bible™, not about a supreme being capable of doing more than is in there.

These people also do not recognize the limits and errors inherent in the language they use, to wit: the paradox, seen as a joke, in the line, "Can God™ build a rock so heavy that He™ can't lift it?" The line is inherently ignorant that weight is a force, provided by the action of gravity on mass.

There is a tremendous amount of ignorance in religious debate.

From a pure logic perspective, it is impossible to prove that something metaphysically possible does not exist. A square circle is metaphysically impossible, therefore it does not exist. A unicorn is unlikely to exist, but perhaps we just have yet to find one. Personally, I put god, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters in the same category, but I will vigorously defend the right to believe in any or all. :)

In Douglas Wilson's response to Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" (the book is "Letter from a Christian Citizen") he says something like "you want scientific proof of Jesus' rising? What about the witnesses at the empty tomb? What about Doubting Thomas and his probing fingers? What more scientific proof could you want?"

Sheesh.

And, in the same vein: I never understand why Bible skeptics are ready to believe that Mary was sleeping around but not that Mary got pregnant by Joseph and the whole controversy was just made up.

"From a pure logic perspective, it is impossible to prove that something metaphysically possible does not exist."

Fortunately, you've just provided me with another example of the limits and errors of modern language. "Metaphysical" is itself a fiction, invented for those who could not explain something without resorting to abstraction; it's just newer than "miracle", often similarly deficient in cause/effect reasoniing.

So far as religion goes, followers insist that real things happen because of their method of begging invisible entities. These are testable, and religious claims fail.

One of the easiest to defeat is the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" claim, frequently offered by Great Flood™ fans. Unfortunately for them, we can show physical evidence of things occurring during any Biblical time period they care to name which preclude such a Flood™.

The problem of claims made in ignorance is not new.

"By the same proof the president of the US doesn't exist. For I now command Obama to bring us all an ice cream cone! So according to Brain if Obama doesn't get you a cone he must not exist."

WTF. I can't believe I am responding to this blather, but here goes.

If I am Bill Gates and I say I will donate a few million to Obama, I cam almost guarantee he will show up with a ice cream cone. Or, I can donate money and get invited to a meet and greet and I will shale Obama's hand.

In other words, if I am a little motivated, I can prove to myself in the physical realm that Obama exists.

"The problem of claims made in ignorance is not new"

Neither is it restricted to religion.

I just find it incredibly naive and presumptuous, with science expanding and revising what we know about the universe on almost a daily basis, that someone would actually set up fifty strawman proofs as to the non existence of * God* as described by a fundamentalist subset of Christianity.

There is no logical system that allows you to prove a negative.

However unlikely it may be that Jesus Christ was the son of God, it does not follow that some God, somewhere, in the universe does not exist.

You can't establish a general truth by disproving a specific case.

"In Douglas Wilson's response to Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" (the book is "Letter from a Christian Citizen") he says something like "you want scientific proof of Jesus' rising? What about the witnesses at the empty tomb? What about Doubting Thomas and his probing fingers? What more scientific proof could you want?"

Imagine 180 years from now… We are all dead and everyone who ever new us is dead. Somebody has a revelation that the divine came down to earth and manifested In Amy (after all she is the Advice Goddess). That person has a revelation that if we follow the Advice Goddess's advice we will be saved from fire-breathing Demon “Al Sharpton” who is waiting to eat our souls when we die.

That person then writes a book describing how Amy performed the miracle of her restored Pink Rambler and cast out the carb demon. That person also writes about how 1000 people saw her rise from the dead by appearing at a Paleo conference after she was reported dead. They went to the Urn where her ashes were supposed to be and THERE WERE NO ASHES!

Now go ahead another 60 years after this person wrote his tome about Amy and now the government feels it is its best interest to promote Amyism,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The only reason this scam won't work now is because we have audio, video and photographs. There was none of that in the Roman era.

That is why people can laugh at the Book of Mormon. Smith wrote it a thousand years too late

This was a topic I explored on my old
A Liberal Christian vlog. I got a few angry responses from other Christians about me questioning the word of the Bible. This was my final post regarding aspects of Christianity and I wish I had done my original plan to comment on Christ's "Resurrection" to see how many more Christians I could have gotten reactions out of.

You cannot prove God exists or does not exist. All of those proofs mentioned in the linked article only prove the writer is a petulant brat.

You also cannot prove the higher planes of psychic existence theorized by Buddhist dogma exist. You cannot prove they don't exist. Buddhists attempt to achieve these higher levels of consciousness because they believe it is possible; that they do exist.

Religion is either the oldest con game in the world or a universal truth that requires an open mind and a leap of faith.

It is an attempt to explain the strange noises in the night. Or an attempt by humans to understand the world (not just the physical world) and to find a universal truth buried deep in our psyches.

The skeptic stands little chance of seeing the point; and the believer won't listen to the skeptic's argument.

Regardless the existence of God or the truth of religion (they're not the same thing, you know), having a common belief itself has been crucial to the development of human civilization.

And, despite all the advancements of our collective knowledge over the years, some sort of religious (or quasi-religious) belief system, will drive civilization forward from here - for better or worse. Humans need that belief system. Unlike animals we can't go aimlessly from day to day. We need a larger purpose.

Religion is one of Pratchett's little lies that lets us go forward and believe the big lies.
____________________

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? [...]"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Terry Pratchett (RIP), by the way, was a self-proclaimed atheist; albeit one that, if his writings are any indication, appreciated religion.

People, people, people. You're arguing about the probable, not the possible.
Look, with our own technology it's possible to set the stage for a burning bush to talk. We can hold someone three days in the belly of a submarine. We can get a virgin pregnant through artificial insemination. We can even place a star in the sky to lead someone across the desert.
The Bible was written in the language of the people of its time and we've read it that way ever since. I beseech you to open your minds.
What if the star in the sky was the mother ship and the three "wise men" came to check on the kid to make sure the birth went well. If you substitute Extra-Terrestrial for the word 'angel' in most of the Bible stories it works out. For example, in Exodus 19 the angel lays down a smoke screen until the sea can be parted.
Not to get too Star Warsy on us, but maybe angels are super-intelligent beings, Jesus was selected for his DNA to bring us a message of hope, and God is actually the Life Force in the Universe. But how do you explain that to superstitious, pre-literate societies? We need to grow up first.

Define "miracle": an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Define "tangible": capable of being precisely identified; capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch

Define "magic trick": the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.

"You would want real, solid, tangible proof."

"3. Neither of these miracles left behind any evidence. Nothing that we can see, nor anything that can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study."

Obviously an "illusion" would not fool party goers into believing water was wine (assuming the wine was "tangible" in taste/smell/texture).

Equally obviously neither the wine nor the party goers are available to study/test in a tangible fashion.

Amy is honest but this guy's stuff sounds stupid.

But we do know that "eye witnesses" are not a reliable source of information so maybe the Bible is not a good source of information.

However, the disciples (except for one) believed enough to have died for their convictions (cop-outs available & no gun/knife to the head reason to stay "Christian"), so they obviously believed they saw tangible "miracles" and not "illusions".

So, do I go "there is nothing around for me to study" or do I go "Damn, those guys believed! I wonder ..."

Personal choice.

Radwaste, I basically said that absence of evidence does not prove absence. I contend that that is logically true. I would also agree that absence of evidence, when rigorously sought and within our limits of perception, strongly suggests absence. So, while I cannot prove definitively that god (or a unicorn) does not exist, I see even less evidence for existence, and can conclude absence, even without definitive proof.

Radwaste and David,

Reading comprehension issues?

Brain's 51's proof god (namely the biblical one) does not exist is this. The bible says in Kings:18 the proof god exists is he did something when Elijah told him to. Other people tell god to do stuff and he doesn't do them. Therefor god does not exist.

I had a few comments on this,
1. Brain doesn't even understand what is written. Proof, he refers to a god Baal which is not a god but instead a title. Hence his claim 'the bible says this' is false.
2. Brain claims that since god does not act when arbitrary people tell him to he therefor must not exist. As a counter proof I told Obama (who I strongly suspect exists) to provide ice cream. But he didn't. If Brain's proof was real then Obama doesn't exist any more than god does. Personally I reject Brain's 'proof'.

Honestly I just picked that one at random, realized it was a horribly shoddy proof, and pointed out the flaws. I didn't even bother reading the other ones. I expect they are as badly flawed as this one.

And yes, I recognize that just because Brain is wrong doesn't mean god exists. It just means Brain is wrong.

This has to be the most outstanding proof I've ever seem for the existence of God.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/09/do-atheists-exist.html

He died a long time ago and none of his personal writings exist today. And the only evidence we have of him are the fragmentary writings on his disciples. But god damn it, I believe Socrates existed.

Ben, and just like Socrates, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. :)

However unlikely it may be that Jesus Christ was the son of God, it does not follow that some God, somewhere, in the universe does not exist. - Isab

Fair enough. But then you must also admit the possibility that I am god, inhabiting a corporeal form and limiting my own awareness so as not to cheat my way thru life.

You can't establish a general truth by disproving a specific case. - Isab

Likewise you can not establish a general truth by claiming the impossibility of disproving it is proof that it is valid.

You cannot prove God exists or does not exist. All of those proofs mentioned in the linked article only prove the writer is a petulant brat.

You also cannot prove the higher planes of psychic existence theorized by Buddhist dogma exist. You cannot prove they don't exist. - Conan

Likewise you can not prove we arent being constantly ear raped by giant, miniature, invisible, purple, trans dimensional space goblins.

However, the disciples (except for one) believed enough to have died for their convictions - Bob in Texas

So did the residents of Jonestown

By the way, not all Christians believe in everlasting punishment. I don't, for one. And for the very reason given in the original post: it is antithetical to the very nature of a loving God to punish His creation with unspeakable agony for all eternity.

Likewise you can not establish a general truth by claiming the impossibility of disproving it is proof that it is valid.
Posted by: lujlp at April 6, 2015 4:20 PM

Correct., but not applicable to the question at hand.

Proof is a mathematical concept. The closest you get to proof in science, is overwhelming evidence.

The bible and the Torah are literary documents, that have been subject to many revisions, selections and translations over thousands of years.

This is why thinking Christians and Jews don't take the scriptures literally, and refuting them logically is a waste of time.

It proves nothing, one way or the other about the existence or non existence of a god or gods.

Sorry Amy; but, that writer is an idiot. Just a simple idiot.

If he knew something about the religion that he is mocking it would be one thing; but, he doesn't even have some of the most basic ideas correct.

For example; take "proof" #21, in which he seems to be totally mocking "EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD"

To the uneducated, yes, it seems quite cannibalistic; but, given the context both the literary and historical what Jesus was saying is that he was the sacrificial lamb.

It was quite common, and it would have been understood by all who heard him, that he was not saying eat me you sick cannibals! What he was saying was that he was the sacrificial lamb and it was common practice back then to eat the animal after the sacrifice to God.

Even today, in many parts of the world where they still offer food to the gods; the family will sit down and eat the gods' food after it has been left out for a while. They know that the gods cannot really eat any of the food, and they wouldn't waste it either. So, let it sit out for a while and then eat it yourself.

Jesus' reference to eat my body and drink my blood was just such a reference that those living within that context would have easily understood and not misunderstood as this author and, even, many Christians misunderstand as well.

I'm all in favour of free speech - even mocking other's beliefs speech; but, for crying out loud! Mocking is only good and fun if one knows what one is talking about.

You're a good example of educating oneself; reading up on the Koran to take a swipe at Islam. Too bad this author didn't do the same.

And it isn't like there isn't a whole bunch of people available to help him learn about Christianity.

So, no, that author really is an idiot - just plain dumb! And that really negates anything of value that he might have said.

"That is why people can laugh at the Book of Mormon."

Nope. Really - that is - based on evidence - his self-imagined "translation" of Egyptian hieroglyphs was completely fictional. Joseph, you see, had never heard of the Rosetta Stone, and so he had no idea that the Book of The Dead, parts of which he was "quoting" actually said very different things than he asserted.

Joseph Smith was a liar, whatever his motivation. That's why he can be derided.

"So, no, that author really is an idiot - just plain dumb! And that really negates anything of value that he might have said."

You are simply cherry-picking to avoid the truth: that the Bible™ promises things, in simple language, which are simply never delivered.

Meanwhile, for the sake of argument, I hope YOU never say something stupid. If you do, then we must disregard anything else YOU have to say.

That "logic" (it's not) sure looks different now, doesn't it?

I'm still amazed at how much time and energy people put into mocking Christianity and calling believers idiots at pretty much every opportunity they get. If they don't believe that's their choice, but why spend so much time actively trying to prove the point that anyone who thinks differently is a moron? Why isn't it good enough to not personally believe without seeking to tear down the ones that do?

I think the proofs Brain offered were not well thought out and just mocking in nature. And like others have already said, just because you are lacking in evidence for proof doesn't mean something isn't.

Yes Radwaste, when you start talking about how aliens built the pyramids we can ignore your knowledge of Egyptology. Similarly we can ignore Mr. Brain's knowledge of the bible, or lack there of.

What about Doubting Thomas and his probing fingers?

I'd say they weren't welcome in certain places.

Doubting Thomas' wife to Doubting Thomas: "THOMAS!!! What in God's name are you doing??!! Get your fingers out of THERE!!!!"

I'm still amazed at how much time and energy people put into mocking Christianity and calling believers idiots at pretty much every opportunity they get. If they don't believe that's their choice, but why spend so much time actively trying to prove the point that anyone who thinks differently is a moron? Why isn't it good enough to not personally believe without seeking to tear down the ones that do?

Yes, when you scratch a militant Atheist, you find an SJW underneath.

Contempt for people who don't agree with you, and assuming they are stupid, is insulting to origins and history of the culture that formed the basis of just about everything that is good in the world today.

The dismissal of Judeo Christian values and philosophy as the foundation of our Republic is both flippant and ignorant.

God doesn't just exist. He's also pissed. The Devils won.

He has a very limited definition of God.

Anyone else on here read Rod Dreher's blog? What I'm struck by when he and his commenters talk about belief is that they value arguments on metaphysical grounds (and often chide non-believers for ignorance of spiritual and philosophical justifications of faith) while non-believers argue from statistical likelihood (or "scientism" as Rod puts it).

I used to be religious and now I'm not. My sense is that for believers, the existence of God is self-evident, while it's nonsensical for non-believers, which means each spends a lot of time talking past the other.

Lujip if you make the claim that you are God you would have to demonstrate evidence. Also the people of Jonestown did not willingly poision themselves. They were held at gunpoint and forced to give it to thier children then themselves. They were murdered by thier prophet.

Jesus's followers/diciples were crucified, burned to death and fed to lions by people who opposed their faith. Ironically by people who believed thier rulers were sub-gods themselves. As were the Jews who were persecuted by the Egyptians thousands of years earlier.

I read some of the proofs. It is very apparent that he has a real problem with evangelical Protestants. Home of the prayer of Jaybez/God gave me more than he gave you so must like me better nonsense. Ohh and rhyme of the anchient mariner is Devils music and Pokemon are satans minions. Cause all his proofs are arguments against that culture.

I personally believe that the old testament makes perfect sense for a people who are just barely not tree dwelling monkeys anymore. And things like mixed cloth.. Totally scientific. Different fibers carry different parasites with different killing methods. Plus different drying times. Do you want a moldy, nit infested robe with a side of rank smell. Cause without modern methods of blending fibers that's what ya get.

I look at the Old Testament as a father looking down at his booger picking, sibling hitting brat and screaming "don't do that anymore".

Ben, you really need to find and read about fallacies.

I know you think you don't use them, but you do. The proof is in your defending your previous fallacy.

You have said something wrong. Therefore, nothing you say is right.

That's what you're defending. It's so sad.

Meanwhile...

Lujip if you make the claim that you are God you would have to demonstrate evidence.

I didnt claim I was god. I claimed I MIGHT be god and had deliberately constrained my powers and awareness to experience life without cheat codes

Also the people of Jonestown did not willingly poision themselves.

A lot of them did, sure some were shot, and the kids didnt know what was going on, but the majority of the adults were willing participants

Care to be specific Radwaste?

Care to be specific Radwaste?

Posted by: Ben at April 7, 2015 12:26 PM

Don't worry about it Ben. Everyone here knows that Radwaste doesn't understand the supposed logical fallacies he is accusing you of.

He still thinks that the Law of Thermodynamics is iron clad evidence for his belief in Global warming.

Lujip, Christ used his cheat codes according to everyone who knew him. He performed miracles. His deciples went to thier deaths proclaiming his nature as both fully man and fully God.

The people of Jonestown, the ones who went willingly and murdered those who didn't, died to cover up for thier leader. It was suicide for Jim jones as well. He planned his death and everyone's around him as well. Christ begged in the garden for this cup to be taken from him. He didn't want to die. He didn't want anyone else to die. When Peter pulled his sword Jesus told him to put it away. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Totally different reasons these two men had for being followed by others.

Lord knows I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. Conan has certainly shown me the error of my ways. But just saying 'hey you made a mistake somewhere' isn't much of a counter argument.

I will admit, I never thought anyone would think I was seriously trying to prove Obama doesn't exist. Just didn't see that one coming.

Wow, that bit on theology is like the equivalent of hearing "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still chimpanzees."

There's just so much wrong with the author's understanding of what theology is that I wouldn't even know where to begin to correct him.

If Joey Smith was born around 500 BC it would be much harder to prove he was full off it. Just look at the people who claim the world is ~6000 years old(and have the science to prove it).

"That is why people can laugh at the Book of Mormon."

"Nope. Really - that is - based on evidence - his self-imagined "translation" of Egyptian hieroglyphs was completely fictional. Joseph, you see, had never heard of the Rosetta Stone, and so he had no idea that the Book of The Dead, parts of which he was "quoting" actually said very different things than he asserted.

Joseph Smith was a liar, whatever his motivation. That's why he can be derided."

Isab: Most Christians and Jews accept stories about miracles and events in the bible as allegorical.

Perhaps that's true when it comes to miracles and events, but there are other things they take literally. For instance, this classic, in John:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I'd bet the vast majority of Christians take that literally. My older sister sure does. She's slightly conflicted about it -- she knows in her heart that a (supposedly) loving God wouldn't deny "access to heaven" to people who don't "accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior" (the way that Patick feels...see * below) -- but she's so thoroughly indoctrinated that she believes someone like Ted Bundy would "go to heaven" if he "accepted Jesus" while a secular doctor or nurse who spent a good portion of their life treating poor people in Africa would be "shut out of heaven" because "we don't know why God does what he does."

Personally, I think it was meant to be a metaphor and when you view it that way, it applies to people in all religions (and people who aren't religious at all.)

- - - -

* By the way, not all Christians believe in everlasting punishment. I don't, for one. And for the very reason given in the original post: it is antithetical to the very nature of a loving God to punish His creation with unspeakable agony for all eternity.

"Just look at the people who claim the world is ~6000 years old(and have the science to prove it)."

Don't know if you believe this, and don't care. Whip on down to the "Earth Studies" section.

Oh, and if you like...I stumbled on this.

https://blogofjoab.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/christianity-versus-atheism-a-debate/

It's a short entry about the 2011 debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens. (You can see that on Youtube - it's two hours long.)

Quote:

"Having read the crux of the debate I believe that Douglas decimated Hitchens, but then I approach it as a Christian. I was particularly happy to see Douglas issue what amounts to an altar call to Hitchens in the final installment of the debate. You can read it here, and I urge you to access all six parts of it. One final note, to be fair, atheists argue from a position of disadvantage. Why? Because their position is a precipice which defies intellectual logic. How ironic that God not only reveals Himself to man in everything around us, but that He also trumps the most brilliant argument in favor of atheism without lifting a divine finger because atheism is flawed logic from the start."

Funny, I was always under the impression that "logic" wasn't a word that fundamentalist types like to use much. Even though, as Sam Harris points out in "The End of Faith," religious leaders pounce on any concrete "evidence" they can find of the supernatural - and broadcast it to the fullest.

Whoops. Unless there was more than one debate, according to the IMDb, that debate was from 2009.

The blog link says it was written in 2007, which is two years before the earliest the debate is said to have occurred.

"He still thinks that the Law of Thermodynamics is iron clad evidence for his belief in Global warming."

I can't think of a better way to show the principle that "just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not true". After all, you claimed that heat transfer didn't occur in an open system, which is about as wrong as anyone can be.

You don't understand the problem. You don't understand fallacies. If you were talking to Dilbert...