Atheism and Critical Thinking

2012 ,    » 1,376 Comments

Atheism and Critical ThinkingThis is a web series by a UK artist and secular humanist (QualiaSoup) discussing critical thinking, science, philosophy and the natural world.

He discusses the following: Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof. Explaining the concept, refuting common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are sometimes 'fervent'.

A look at some of the principles of critical thinking. Faith has no place demanding agreement or punishing disagreement.

A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded. A brief look at the pointless exercise of telling people, rather than asking them, what they believe.

A poor understanding of probability leads many people to put forward supernatural explanation for events that are far more common than they think. A look at the pitfalls of arguing against science from incomprehension or emotion. A challenge to the claim that a belief in science requires equal faith to the belief in a god.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 1 hour, 32 minutes)

Ratings: 8.48/10 from 131 users.

More great documentaries

1,376 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Mediaskop


  2. slpsa

    This ought to bring out the religious crazies pretty quick. I await the ridiculous claims and debates so we may further prove religion and people who believe in it are seriously damaged humans. Or just fearful humans. Take yer pick.

  3. Matt van den Ham

    Such a brutally heavy lawsuit against religion. Such massive detail and such solid points through and through, great stuff!

    We need to evolve from religious and political thought and challenge everything openly and freely and should expect the same in return. Keep religion out of schools, politics and business!

    I have never accepted religious thought even though my parents had me baptised Christian and tried to push Christianity on me. My own personal belief is that 'god' is that spiritual spark in your brain and body that represents hope, ambition, dreams/future, goals etc. religion has merely replaced those 'good' emotions and feelings about human compassion, kindness and goodness with their own ideas. It's like christianity robs you of your natural instinct to self-reward for doing something 'right' or 'good', and filters all those spiritual emotions and redirects it to god or jesus in the mind. Once you join this evil religion, you are now a mental slave to god, constantly thinking about christian dogma or guilt emotions and fear and irrational beliefs. How can the logical and creative mind exist within such a timid and fearful mental plot. It's pretty sick to worship a martyr! /wiki/Martyr

  4. Dean Edgington

    Very true. Which then leads to the questions: Which Lord? Which things are we to know/not know? The answer depends on the religion they belong to. There is little convergence, just blind faith and dogma! Religious people need to grow up a bit.

  5. Admir Efendic


  6. Juraj Filkorn

    changeles mind is by definition non functioning? what? can some elaborate?

  7. over the edge

    @Qamer Wasim
    i have had this debate before. the verses he refers to are open to interpretation, in conflict with other verses (on occasion) and many of these ideas and truths were known before the Koran. if you could please give me the best one or two pieces of this evidence and i will look at it/them. a list of many items all at once only serves to dilute the conversation and makes properly studying any one assertion difficult. please be specific as possible in order to avoid confusion.

  8. rorix2

    I have a problem with associating atheism with science. Atheism asserts that God absolutely does not exist. Any real scientist will tell you that since there is no evidence to prove God's existence or non-existence, believing that it definitely does not exist is belief without evidence; otherwise known as faith.

    Just sayin'.

  9. robertallen1

    I was about to write something like this, but you beat me to it.

  10. robertallen1

    For example, Aristarcus who lived 2,300-2,400 years ago posited a heliocentric model. Aristotle who lived at about the same time posited a reflected lunar light. I'm almost certain you've done this, but if you search for "Koran - moon - reflected light," there's a fine article on the subject by Jochen Katz and William F. Campbell.

  11. Epicurus

    thats not the modern definition of atheism.

    an atheist is anyone who doesnt believe there is a god.

    we only dont believe there is one because we lack the evidence to say there is one. now if evidence came forward we would happily change our minds.

    no atheist should actually claim knowledge that god doesnt exist. as you pointed out, that would be as silly as saying you know there is one.

    however if you dont think there is one because of insufficient evidence, what are you?

  12. robertallen1

    Right, but as Dr. Dawkins basically says, there has not been enough evidence to convince him that there is a supreme being--and this is certainly scientific.

  13. Juraj Filkorn

    i watched it. my knowledge of history is limited, but the arabic world at that time was very literate. for instance many stars and constelations have arabic names, because arabs named them first (or at least it pervaded into modern times). Both astronomy and mathematics were advanced (other fields also), and quoran, mohamed, could have taken inspiration from this pool of knowledge. i do not know whether the quoran and height of arabic literacy were together on the time scale. if so, many of the citations and their interpretation as a proof of god are just wishful thinking, not taking into consideration other circumstances.

  14. Vlatko

    @Matt van den Ham,

    ... Christianity robs you of your natural instinct to self-reward for doing something 'right' or 'good', and filters all those spiritual emotions and redirects it to God or Jesus...

    Very well said.

  15. over the edge

    vlatko and myself had this very debate with someone on "science and Islam" three weeks ago and the response was lets just say predictable. that is why i asked the poster for one or two examples instead of a long list. sometimes i think that some people are just throwing out as many ideas as they can in the hope that the person responding might stumble on one or two and take that as a win. some think quantity is better than quality. what i am expecting next is the same copy paste false probability list that usually gets sent as a response.hoping i am wrong lol. but in direct response i am not sure i read that particular article will look it up and let you know thanks for the suggestion

  16. robertallen1

    Thanks. The article is only about a page long and I would appreciate your take on it.

  17. robertallen1

    P.S. This is the same thing that the bible bunnies do: interpret a la a priori.

  18. slpsa

    Well, with all due respect, all that is required to know there is no God is education in many different sciences. Or, just have a brain and be a capable, discerning, critical thinker. Only children and the fearful brainwashed buy that nonsense. You hardly strike me as a non critical thinker given your past posts. Cmon now. Really?

  19. Achems_Razor

    I watched this doc and it is very good, I recommend it.

  20. Jack1952

    To say there is no God is a black or white argument and not scientific. We have seen no evidence of the existence of God which leads us to conclude that he doesn't exist. However, if evidence does surface that does prove his existence, we must examine this proof to verify its veracity. It cannot and should not be rejected out of hand. That would not be a scientific approach nor would it show a predilection towards critical thinking. Since that evidence has not been demonstrated thus far we can say fairly certainly that the probability of his existence would make it seem highly improbable.

  21. Epicurus

    you can say you know the claims made for a particular god are false or illogical, but you can not say you know for certain that there is no god thing of any kind.

    this is just being intellectually honest. there MIGHT be some god thing. it could have created the universe with the intent to make it look natural. there could have been a being that started it all and then pissed off.

    of course i dont believe that is the case but i would never say i know it is not.

  22. bbga

    Interesting, but I've heard all this before.

    Credo quia absurdum. It's not whether it is empirically true, but whether it is true for you... to paraphrase Kierkegaard. If it appealed to our reason, then it wouldn't be a question of faith.

  23. slpsa

    Whilst I respect your personal opinion and your input, I reject, straight out of hand, the existence of any God or Gods. I was raised a devout catholic, my beliefs were shot to crap when I was 14 and able to attain honors in school and use my brain for something other than worshiping a false entity. There need not be any evidence, only critical thought and a sense of being fine with life and death as a normal part of what we call our existence. All religions always boil down to the same thing all things do. Someone is/will be making money from it. Enough said.

  24. Achems_Razor

    That's right, I agree with Epic, to say outright that there are no gods et al. the burden of proof would lie squarely on his shoulders to prove there is no gods, would probably lead to the cosmological argument that was and is still raging from Plato's days.

    Better to say one does not know, I garnered that much at least from this doc.

  25. LesterWise

    @Qamer Wasim - I like the way he, the speaker in your link uses vague scripture to "prove" a prophecy or modern knowledge that their book was privy to. Of course there are these verses as well...

    "Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets."-- Joseph 12:4 -- How many?

    "They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him. HUD 11:5 -- Allah seems to think that your brain is in your heart.

    "Allah it is Who raised up the heavens without visible supports, then mounted the Throne, and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service, each runneth unto an appointed term; He ordereth the course" Surah 13:2 -- I believe that the sun does not move and it is the center of the universe. It has no course.

    "And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;
    Then eat of all fruits" Surah 16:68-69 -- Bees actually eat nectar and pollen.

    I could go on if you would like. Any ancient text only reveals and reflects the limited knowledge that the writers had in the specific time period in human history when it was penned. They can not be counted on for anything more than overrated poetry and biased historical descriptions.

    If you want to have a personal relationship with a supernatural being that is completely up to you. I just can't believe in imaginary friends.

  26. robertallen1

    I like to translate this misquote from Tertullian as "I believe because it makes no sense." Are you familiar with Mencken's comment? "Needless to say, Tertullian started off as a lawyer."

  27. bbga

    Robert (I'm going to assume that is your real name) I took Latin in school as well as multiple philosophy courses...

    Misquote? Nah, I understand what it means - "I believe because it is absurd" ergo it is a matter of faith.

  28. bbga

    Unless you took it that I meant the Latin phrase was a quote from Kierkegaard, which isn't what I meant... what I said AFTER that is from S.K.

  29. robertallen1

    Your assumption is correct. Now, what's your name?

    The quotation from Tertullian (de Carne Christi V, 4) is: " . . . et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile," not absurdum.


  30. Derrick Casey

    I don't know if there is a god so I must be agnostic about it. I don't believe in god/gods so I am an atheist.

  31. bbga

    Optimum bonum!

    Brian here

  32. robertallen1


    You've juxtaposed a superlative next to its corresponding adjective (or substantive)--e.g., the best good. Don't you mean summum bonum?

  33. bbga

    My Latin instructor taught me that meant "very good"... it's been 20 years though, maybe I'm wrong...


  34. robertallen1

    Then all you need is the superlative, but with a caveat. In English, we often use, "Very good" or "very well" as a phrase of assent, just as the French say "trés bien" and the Germans say, "sehr gut." There is nothing like this in Latin. As a matter of fact, "yes" and "no" in the contemporary sense did not exist in the language either.


  35. AntiTheist666

    Summum bonum – ultimate importance – highest good.

    Used by that that backstairs christian Immanuel Kant, along with categorical imperative et al.

    The Crucified One

  36. slpsa

    I am willing to go out on a limb and put my best professional foot forward. If you want to believe in non existent sky fairy's, then that is your burden to carry in life. Look, there is 0 logic to any debate about God or not a God, even if you sit on the fence and say we cannot prove there is not one, but neither can we prove the opposite. It is talking in circles, and blaming smart people for keeping it real. The fence sitters apparently just do not want to get caught with their pants down if it ever proves God exists, they play politics with it rather than stand up and be truthful to themselves. How many times have I heard, you cannot prove he does or doesn't. Hogwash man. Be a real man, stand up and say it. Do not hide behind big words and catch phrases. Call me a bookworm that keeps his head in numbers and figures/facts, but I cannot take seriously anything than I was forced to swallow for my entire childhood. Anything that is ever forced on us in life is always BS. Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy. Yeah, yeah whatever....Heard this, debated it, disagreed, another day comes and goes. I prefer realism and real life, can see, can feel, can taste, can smell, can read, can understand type of thinking. Made up BS does not crack the top ten important things to get you through life in a good, positive and self gratifying manner. One where you can help others and be a good person without relying on false pretenses and man made stories to guide you through to the end, when the lights go out forever. Some of us are ok with that. I am. I do not need to prescribe to a mass hypnosis or mass stupidity to achieve my goals or get and give respect to those who deserve it. I wish all people felt that way, we would have a more peaceful place to live man. Religion and its associated ridiculousness has killed a lot of fckin people brother. No debate to be had. I would assume any path that does not lead to past mistakes would be the clear choice. Reality would work, but again, back to the money angle, religion has it uses for those who worship the almighty dollar my friend. That is always the bottom line of everything. Money/power. It is easy to see through it.

  37. bbga

    Funny, this is turning into figuring out Latin...

    well, summa means "high" or "highest"...hence the English term "summit"...and "summa cum laude" meaning "with high praise"... it doesn't mean "very"(not usually).

    I guess you could say "valdum bonum"?

    Funny, reading Horace, Virgil, etc. I never came across these phrases. I'll get back to you on that...


  38. bbga


  39. robertallen1

    Have you finished Jest, Satire yet?

  40. robertallen1

    The word "very" also did not really exist in Latin, at least in the modern sense, so the superlative was used. Therefore, altissimus homo could be taken to mean not only the tallest man, but a very tall man, depending on the context.

    P.S. Do you mean validum bonum?

  41. Achems_Razor

    To whom were you talking to?

  42. bbga

    Yes, I misspelled it. But, it's wrong anyway.

  43. robertallen1

    Let's just say unusual.

  44. Epicurus

    but that doesnt mean that there isnt some god thing.

    there is no line of logic that can show for certain there is no god-thing.

    if you can present me with a syllogism i would love to see it.

  45. Enook

    great doc, well thought out, this is a great site

  46. phidius13

    agnostic - without knowledge ..... i know that i do not know.... science's great accomplishment has been that it recognizes that it is falsifiable. any scientific theory can be challenged when given proper course of testing. is it possible that a singular or poly theistic deity exists? science has not been able to justifiably discredit a singular or polytheistic deity, whichever it may be..... on the other hand, the christian and catholic bibles have been read front to back and attempted to be proven to be true. in most cases they have not. does this negate its validity? I am sure that they can be picked apart in detail for their ravages of the worst parts of human kind but what does it make it? a parable... a storybook. not to be taken as writ history but as a reminder to "love thy neighbour" "do not steal" and so on.... religions greatest challenge is staying relevant. its continuing message are those same things. some would argue that as a social species, it is required that these be kept because if everyone went around and killed, stole, and slapped your parents around, it would tear the social fabric apart.... its extremist belief in one thing that stokes up so much fervor against that one thing. and this can be anything! its precisely because we cannot and we do not have unequivocal proof of god(s) that it will forever be something that plays out in the human psyche.

  47. slpsa

    This is why i usually do not debate religion and God. Logic is logic. See, smell, hear, taste. I have never seen a god, heard a god, felt a god, tasted a god, smelled a god. I have never heard of anyone credible seeing one either. I detest circular nonsensical arguments like this one. If it really matters, with all due respect to peoples opinions, this topic is just plain nonsense. No disrespect intended, but playing word games with it is just as annoying. I need not present a thing to anyone. If you think there is a god, then you are crazy. That's it. To even argue if there is or not is in itself, rather psychotic. Some of the people saying this to me are people I know are not stupid or ignorant, I have read many of your and others posts. It astounds me to see the reactions over this one topic. I cannot say there is no God? Really? Well here. There is no God. Prove me wrong. It always ends up in this game. One side wanting proof from the other, only one half is playing with a full deck, the other with a quarter of one. I really hate to think some people are that shallow on this one. If I cannot see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, quantify it, photograph or tabulate it, test it or break it down, then it simply does not exist. There are no metaphors for these fairy tales to be proven right or wrong. Sorry man. I check out now, I hate to insult people I respect when they want to drag out and use big words for a ridiculous idea such as religion and a god existing. It makes me want to roll a big fat one and contemplate why smart people are so open to anyone having to prove or disprove. Logic is what it is. No lines needed. No syllogism either.

  48. John Krisfalusci

    watch when ur verging on death you too will regret what you just said and reconsider. TRUST me

  49. robertallen1

    You're the last person I would trust.

  50. over the edge

    thanks for the tip . i don't think i read that particular paper before (bookmarked now for future reference). while my knowledge of the Koran is not as complete as my understanding of christian writings the need to play word games and interpret the text (after translations) seem the same.

  51. over the edge

    John Krisfalusci
    it is statements like this one that make others question the amount of actual investigation that the religious put into something before stating something as fact. on what are you basing this claim of regret on? do you know this poster? i tend not to trust someone who ends a statement with "trust me". you want someones trust earn it instead of demanding it.

  52. robertallen1

    I'm really anxious to hear your comments about the article.

    Now that I think of it, some of the fallacious arguments the documentary left out were quote mining, arguing from authority and a priori interpretation (not always due to translation).

    P.S. Speaking of translation, did you know that the so-called virgin birth was due to a mistranslation, as was Moses and Co.'s alleged excursion to the Red Sea?

  53. Samuel Morrissey

    And exactly why, should he trust YOU? you whom have shown yourself to be singularly untrustworthy, willing to repeat lies over and over even when shown the fallacy.

    Are you at the point of your own death? Do you have new evidence you can present? Or is it possible that people in this position may simply be more willing to be deluded? Does this make the delusion any more real?

    Someone like you could learn a lot from this doc, did you watch it?

    Try again, and take note about the part on open mindedness.


  54. robertallen1

    May I add "and what open mindedness means."

  55. phidius13

    i think that the documentary dissuaded people from getting personal

  56. over the edge

    i really liked the article. it is in line with other sources i have come across. i particularly liked the statement near the end that if you use these translations of these words in other areas the result is interesting (first time this was directly pointed out to me) "if you insist that the Arabic words "noor" and "muneer" imply "reflected light, then based on the use of these words in the Qur'an, Muhammad is like the sun, and Allah is like the moon.Do Muslims really want to say that Muhammad is the source of light, and Allah is only his reflection. " i knew about the Moses translation but i am not sure that i remember if i heard about the virgin birth. do you have a source for this? that would be interesting. as i stated before (and you have cited him as well) Bart D. Ehrman is a great source for many of these facts and i suggest anyone interested in what is actually known for sure he is a very good source for information. the doc in question did touch on many tactics and missed or lightly touched on others. i strongly suggest you visit QualiaSoup youtube page and watch other playlists. i have viewed them all and they are just as interesting and as good as this playlist

  57. Epicurus

    "If I cannot see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, quantify it, photograph or tabulate it, test it or break it down, then it simply does not exist."

    i agree but i also know that we dont know everything yet. i just cant say i know there is no god. (i will say i know there is no christian god or any other god/religion humans have come up with)

    i will also say, if you twisted my arm, that there is no intelligent creator. but i just cant say i know that because i cant give any proof.

    btw, syllogism is basically logic.

  58. Epicurus


  59. robertallen1

    I'm glad you found the article helpful--and I too liked the statement near the end.

    In re the virgin birth: It was a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah meaning young girl into the Greek parthenos meaning Virgin (parthenogenesis) and the error was propagated to translations in other languages. Incidentally, Immaculate Conception which refers to Mary's birth is not at all mentioned in the Bible, but was something proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, which I call a year for papal bull, neither does the old saw "the lord helps those who help themselves"--and I think you can see why.

  60. over the edge

    i know that this has been addressed by others but here is my two cents. you stated "Atheism asserts that God absolutely does not exist" i disagree. while some atheists do say that many don't. like stated in the doc atheism tends to be defined differently by different people and if you wish to know what atheism means to a particular person ask them. defining a person while only knowing they are an "atheist" is the same as assuming someones stance by learning they are "liberal" .

  61. Glen Hale

    Sadly we will always have religion in some form and therefore wars for ever.

  62. DerekC

    If the universe is intelligently decipherable, it HAS to be intelligent in its origin. The mind of man cannot even begin to understand the design of the cosmos. But the design undoubtedly exists, and on an infinitely complex scale. How is it that anybody can accept the idea that the cosmic design can eventually be understood by mind but MIND didn't think it to begin with?

  63. DerekC

    Everything you see, hear,feel, taste or smell is God. Did you think it all up and figger it out yerself?

  64. Aaron Deville

    one of the best documentary ever!

  65. robertallen1

    "If the universe is intelligently decipherable, it HAS to be intelligent in its origin." What a glaring non sequitur.

    How do you know design exists? As a matter of fact, how can you tell when something's been designed and when something hasn't? As a matter of fact, what is design?

    Talk about uncritical thinking!

  66. robertallen1

    How do you know this or is it something you "figgered" out.

    You're everything that the documentary is about (and against).

  67. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    If i hadn't thought up the universe and everything there in, this conversation would not exist. You're welcome.

  68. Epicurus

    how is it god?

    everything you see hear feel taste or smell is matter. so god is material?

    god is nonthinking?

    you completely broke down god into something insignificant.

    just asserting those things are god, does not make it so.

    WHY do you say those things are god?

  69. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    Btw, I'm getting real tired of christians. I'm thinking of smiting them soon. Such silly make believe stories and archaic rituals. Anyone ever been to a catholic mass before? I literally can't help laughing out loud at the nonsense that is performed on a daily basis in these wastes of space and resources called churches. Seriously if you have never been you got to check it out. There is no comedic act anywhere that can make you laugh that hard. Oh ya, and they cannibalize their god in this magic ceremony that turns wafers and wine into pieces of flesh and blood. How sick is that. And hilarious. I only made christians to entertain me, not annoy me with their self righteousness about how insane they are.

  70. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    I think god was at deer creek in noblesville, IN on june 28th and 29th. My church was the mothership and i ate magical wafers with fractal images on them and we all held mass for 2 days and sang about the multi beast, and how our hands and feet are made of mangos. I remember something about guitars gentley weeping, and please me have no regrets. All nonsense, except in the eyes of Me.

  71. Achems_Razor

    It may sound weird but the only thing that makes sense to me is the quantum world, quantum mechanics et al. None of this man-made religious garbage, not to far in the distant future perhaps 1,000's of years religion will drop by the wayside and dissipate into the cloak of invisibility from whence it sprung.

    We are here because we collapse the wave-form en-mass and form reality from all the illusion of space and time (spacetime) and latch on to "one" of the vibrating strings that give rise to all we know and see, (string theory) which to me will be at the forefront of scientific endeavor.

  72. Daniel Jones

    So what is the general consensus on the ubiquitous presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature? I've always found it more than intriguing, even possible evidence of intelligent design. And I'm neither an Atheist, a deist or transhumanist. Just curious.

  73. Kateye70

    Hehe...I was going to use the "uncritical thinking" line but RobertAllen1 beat me to it!

    DerekC, you started with an "if" ("If the universe is intelligently decipherable").
    You did not support this argument, except by saying that there is a presumed design (just saying 'undoubtedly' does not make it so!).

    You then drew a conclusion, again unsupported, that therefore the origin must be intelligent.

    Understanding what we can is not the same as understanding everything. One can accept the infinite wonder of the universe without requiring there to be someone ultimately responsible for it...because then, who created that someone? and so on and so on.

    "Cosmic design" is a human concept. Wishing something to be so is not the same as providing proof that it *is* so.

  74. robertallen1

    Maybe in 1,000 years religion will exist only as a historical curiosity.

  75. robertallen1

    The same as with pi and e. They're descriptions, not hard-and-fast rules.

  76. LesterWise

    I think DerekC is trying to make the God of the gaps argument. Lack of understanding in any particular field does not prove the existence of a God. And why God as the designer? Why not an intelligent alien? Who created the creator? More questions come from his answer. As Robert alluded to, he is indeed the type of person that this video is trying to address. He should ask himself why he requires to prove his God when there will never be any proof available? I think he is beginning to question his faith and I hope that he finds his way. You gotta let go the idea of being "right." Enjoy being wrong. Question everything always. Even your own cherished beliefs.

  77. robertallen1

    Right, but even if we accept Mr. Jones' protasis, the apodosis does not follow. In other words, if we can decipher something, it is because there is intelligence in its origin. Therefore, if we can't decpiher something, it's because there is no intelligence in its origin. Example: Michael Ventris was able to decpiher Linear B because there was intelligence in its origin. Linear A remains undecipherable because there was no intelligence in its origin. I'm sure that you can find other reasons to pick this apart, but it still amounts to uncritical thinking.

  78. robertallen1

    I, for one, have to be right, even when I'm wong.

    But more important, your earlier blog echoed Dr. Dawkins who in a debate with William Lane Craig asked why we can't just appreciate and try to understand the fascinating world around us without trying to bring in some third outside party. Back in the 80's, during a lecture to students, Dr. Drawkins also stated in essence that the truth is far more fascinating than anything mankind has made up about it.

    P.S. During a debate with Bart Ehrman, Mr. Craig offered a mathematical proof that the resurrection probably occurred.

  79. LesterWise

    @Daniel Jones - The fibonacci sequence is truly fascinating. Once again though, I think that our lack of understanding does not equal a supernatural explanation. Maybe it's the simplest way for nature to evolve? Since everything is made of the same basic elements, it stands to reason that there might be some common similarities when one sees the final outcome.

    I don't know if you like hard rock, but the band Tool was heavily influenced by mathematics and relied heavily on the fibonacci numbers in the song Lateralus. Brilliant really.

  80. LesterWise

    I've also read a mathematical proof that dragons actually did exist. And yes, I read the book The God Delusion years ago so I'm sure that the points in the book stuck with me. The consequent to his point would lead one to incredible amount of fallible proofs. I like picking your brain Robert. Do you have any good literature you can suggest that you've read lately?

  81. robertallen1

    On what subject?

    I would like to work up a mathematical proof that religion doesn't exist or that Catholicism is merely a trivial singularity.

  82. Kateye70

    I'm absolutely convinced dragons do exist! I'm glad to hear I'm mathematically correct, 'cause I fight them all the time. They are oddly persistent in my universe, but fortunately they do not require weekly worship.

  83. LesterWise

    I don't know, I like philosophy. I read mystery novels but I'm always reading a historical, religious or atheist themed, and conspiratorial books.

  84. .

    I am grateful to the atheists for dissecting religious claims to supernatural. I was born and indoctrinated (against my wish) in religion. But even as a child I wasn't convinced, I was skeptical, but did not dare question anything, what do you do? it's all around you, everyone believes the same thing, dissent is prosecuted and crushed. Keep it up folks, there are too many victims of religion out here, too many buildings of great architecture (mosques, churches, synagogues, Vatican, etc.) full of fictional stories. Religion is mind control, illogical, unscientific, divisive and promotes tribal mentality.

  85. RikG01

    @ Daniel Jones. Law of large numbers, mate. There are thousands of billions of forms of life in nateure that exist or have existed. That a handful show possible correlation with Fibonacci sequences is not only highly likely, but mathematically innevitable.

    To even contemplate this as proof of a "creator" requires that you entirely ignore the staggeringly important fact that Fibonacci number sequences do not occur in nature, thousands of millions of times more than they do occur. It's a matter of misunderstanding the relationships between things, between cause, effect and description.

    It's like, if I were to say;

    "I was watching a butterfly and saw it die, therefor I must have the power to kill things by looking at them".

    That two things happen to co-incide is not proof of any interaction between them. Just because I looked at the butterfly did not necessarily cause it to die. Furthermore, what about the hundreds of butterflies I watched that did not die? What about the millions of things I've seen in my life, why didn't they die as I looked at them?

    Our world is based on principals which can be defined and understood through Mathematics. To say that these things are possible BECAUSE of mathematics would be ludicrious. It's a means of understanding, not creation. Newton discovered the equation for calculating gravitational effect, this did not give him the power to move planets or fly.

    That we can see Fibonacci numbers in a few liforms out of billions isn't evidence of intelligence, it's evidence that life and nature take many forms and that numbers can be used to describe these forms.

    The flower's beautiful shape corresponds with Fibonacci sequence, it is not created by it. Just as the butterfly died while being watched, not because it was being watched.

  86. robertallen1

    Heaven help us if they didn't exist but you were mathematically correct anyway.

  87. robertallen1

    Would you be interested in a work about the history of dictionaries? How about one on creationists? How about both?

  88. robertallen1

    Right. Mathematics is a descriptive tool, not a prescriptive one. Newton obtained his equations basically through observation. Euler obtained them through deduction. Other fine mathematicians, such as Gauss, Cauchy and Taylor obtained them through both.

    But far more than that, math often provides viable answers to the question "what if."

    However, with all this in mind, what I like most about mathematics is the art form.

  89. wald0

    I see nothing wrong with saying "I don't know"- in fact I think if one really wants to hold to the spirit of the scientific method, not just the literal definition, then this is technically the most correct answer currently available. Yes, it is splitting hairs in a way, and can easily appear to be only a question of pointless semantics but, if we are going to use science as our defender, the scientific method as our mode of thinking- we have to present a position that we can defend down to the detail while remaining true to these ideals. Since, technically speaking, no one can disprove the existence of any god with 99.9 % scientific accuracy, saying you know with absolute certainty that no god exists is not defensible within the guidelines of the scientific method. Science uses a scale to quantify how certain they are of certain theories, 99.9 % certainty is generally required before most scientific institutions are willing to go out on a limb and annouce a new discovery and what it means.
    In the end I suppose it is a matter of opinion but, in my opinion we can't use science as a defense unless we are willing to tediousely follow the guiding principles of that discipline- in other words, we must practice what we preach. And in this case that means admitting we don't know with scientific certainty whether any god exists or not. I don't see this as a weakness in our argument but as a definite strength.

  90. Kateye70

    Vlatko, just had to say thanks yet again. I followed the link above in the doc description to QualiaSoup's youtube channel--very interesting! And more to the point--I had a revelation!

    In fact...I found the name of god: Jean Francois Poujot! The Haitian who created the wonderfully delicious banana that is so perfectly designed to fit the human hand..and to be inserted into the human mouth...with it's own biodegradable wrapping!

    (Please, please don't tell me it all started with a mutation...)

  91. kaitse8

    Nice documentary indeed!

  92. over the edge

    i find it encouraging that after a little over a day there has been only one poster referring to a specific god and claiming proof. there have been a few creator/designer claims, but even with those the arguments they use to justify their claims are getting more end more desperate (in my opinion). it wasn't that long ago when there would be multiple claims of "my specific god did it and here is why". then they went to "it was created and my specific god cannot be proven wrong" now with few exceptions we get " it could have been designed" with no mention of a specific god. it is still early and i might have just jinxed it but as i said i find the trend encouraging

  93. wald0

    Well there are several thing to consider when pondering this observation-
    # 1- its over hyped considerably, check out Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio Exposed on Keen Talks and you will see what I mean.
    # 2 The Fibonacci sequence is a logical sequence, not just some odd, random sequence of numbers. Its a sequence which lends itself to fractal geometry, which has it's own inherent benefits and is generally how nature creates what seems a totally random and odd display of structures but really boils down to a few simple shapes being repeated in a fractal manner. So to ask why we see the Fibonacci sequence in nature may be the same as asking why nature utilizes fractal geometry- because ti is a very simple way of creating variation and seemingly random structures.
    #3 some kind of set pattern has to be transferred with the ocassional random variation in order for evolution to work- why not use the Fibonacci sequence, its simple and easily encoded and gets the job done.

  94. norlavine

    Elegant! You could give some tips to the scientists fumbling with their various and seemingly incoherent descriptions of the 'elusive' Higgs boson because your analogies invoke such clear images. xx

  95. robertallen1

    As if the scientists know nothing about math.

  96. Guest

    "très bien"

  97. Daniel Jones

    just youtubed it. Thanks for the tip :-)

  98. Daniel Jones

    All Fibonacci replies appreciated peeps.

  99. jeffroko

    Big waste of time... The entire argument. Nobody will ever totally prove or disprove the existence of God. The fact that Atheists try to place a burden of proof on believers shows how insecure they are in their BELIEFS! The burden of proof of God's existence is an attempt at provocation. Personal beliefs are most inspirational when they are on a personal level between man and his maker.

  100. over the edge

    if your beliefs are personal and they are not pushed upon others or stated as anything more than a belief then i agree no proof is needed. but if you think these beliefs should govern other people's choices,education.personal freedoms or is used as justification to limit,judge,kill or demean others than the burden of proof is yours. the statement "Atheists try to place a burden of proof on believers shows how insecure they are in their BELIEFS!" was not only directly addressed in the doc but i will ask anyway what are the atheist "beliefs"?

  101. wald0

    Athiests didn't decide the burden of proof is on believers, it simply follows logically that this is the case. Atheist don't have one standard for the assertion that god exists and then another for other assertions- we have one standard, outlined by the scientific method, that we expect anyone making any assertion concerning the nature of reality to meet if they hope to be taken seriousely. Like the documentary explained, if anyone wants to hold a personal belief without requiriing proof that is of course their right, and as long as it remains personal who cares- it is when they start trying to intergrate their belief structure into our educational system or our political system, when they use their belief to justify destructive and dysfunctional actions and policies that affect us all, when they try to marginalize and demonize those who disagree- that we object.
    Now you may see that objection as a waste of time but, I see it as necessary if we ever hope to survive as a species, to make war and violence at least minimal, to understand the great mysteries of life, etc. In my opinion religion is just like capitalism, it had its uses and helped make us what we are but its time is over. Cultures evolve when new ideas are introduced and old ones fall away, natural selection is calling- can't you hear the wolves at the door?!?- its time for change again!!!

  102. DerekC

    In this case we are talking about the definition of God. I'm fine with aliens. At some point consciousness has to be at the beginning.

  103. DerekC

    If you wanna go that way, you hafta have consciousness coming from something unconscious. It can't happen. Design doesn't/can't come from unlike itself.

  104. DerekC

    At some point I quit. If you don't see design what is science about?

  105. DerekC

    The universe must be a certain way or science wouldn't work.

  106. DerekC

    As I commented above: In order for science to work, the universe has to be a certain way.

  107. over the edge

    are you prepared to provide actual specific proof? don't you see your circular argument? look at these quotes side by side and explain how this doesn't go in circles forever "At some point consciousness has to be at the beginning." and "you hafta have consciousness coming from something unconscious. It can't happen. Design doesn't/can't come from unlike itself." and "If the universe is intelligently decipherable, it HAS to be intelligent in its origin" so who designed this original consciousness? it is complex and that requires design right? then who designed that designer and so on ........

  108. Epicurus

    you have not proven that there is design. order is not design.

  109. Epicurus

    that certain way does not have to be designed.

    it is ordered, and predictable. that does not equal design or intelligence.

    if you assume everything must come from something then where did the designer come from and what did he do for eternity before designing and why would he all of a sudden decide to?

    what is it about a universe that is 99% hostile to life, looks designed?

  110. DerekC

    S'cuse me? If'n ya don' can science work without structure (design, pattern, idea, whatever...)???

  111. DerekC

    I'm fine with "ordered." Gotta have an Orderer".....

  112. DerekC

    Sometimes words don't serve. I agree with you.

  113. DerekC

    Of course. We wouldn't have biology if life weren't "designed," "ordered," "patterned," "structured," "predicable,"... about predictable...

  114. DerekC

    Ya can't have order without a designer for the order.

  115. DerekC

    This is all silly. Some people are looking for a drinking fountain in the pouring rain.

  116. DerekC

    Are we using words to investigate or argue?

  117. DerekC

    Pardon me Ep, but "ordered" demands an "orderer" BY DEFINITION!!!


  118. DerekC

    If something is "predicted" I have most humbly and with infinite patience pointed out--there--BY DEFINITION--must be a "Predictor"

  119. DerekC

    "Proof" demands a corresponding level of consciousness. You can explain basic arithmetic carefully and definitely in easily understood terms, but if yer explaining it to your pet parakeet, he ain't gonna get it.

  120. robertallen1

    Why don't you study it and find out?

  121. over the edge

    you stated ""ordered" demands an "orderer" BY DEFINITION!!!" where is this definition located? if four quarters fell out of my pocket and all of them are heads that is ordered isn't it? who designed them to fall that way? you see the universe as designed but the fact you perceive it that way does not make it so. please give specific examples of this design and an explanation of why any existing explanations for these phenomenon are false.
    you also stated to me "Sometimes words don't serve. I agree with you." then why would you even try to claim something you cannot put into words without contradicting yourself? just stating that predictions need a predictor, ordered needs an orderer , design needs a designer and so on proves nothing. where is your actual physical proof?
    now i am going to ask some questions that i would like to get an honest answer to. who is this designer in your mind? is it a religious god? do you believe in a religious god? the reason i ask is your arguments seem to me (only an opinion) to come from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron or the like

  122. robertallen1

    You have it backwards. Science does not "work;" it searches out, no matter which way the universe is.

  123. robertallen1

    As several posters have tried to enlighten you, order ? design, but you don't seem to get it. Second, probability, like statistical variance, is living proof of lack of order. And you still haven't answered the question: what is design and how would you know it if you saw it? Once more, order ? design.

  124. robertallen1

    Another non sequitur. Does the concept of randomness mean anything to you?

  125. robertallen1

    Are earthquakes and their cousins, tidal waves, predictable? Is evolution predictable? Only retroactively.

  126. robertallen1

    Epicurus asked for proof and you provided an assertion. That must mean that you have no proof. If you play blackjack and the cards come out a certain way, does this mean that someone/something ordered/designed it to do this?

  127. Shawn Lewis

    Semantics aside: The universe had a beginning. I don't think there's any argument there. Since there was a beginning there must have been some mechanism/force/reason it began. I choose to believe that mechanism/force/reason was God. There is no argument or evidence that proves my belief wrong; however the anthropic principle does lend credit to my belief. This is really no different than saying, for instance, a particle called the higgs boson must exist because of x, y and z, but we've never seen it; in fact, we'll never see it, but we're still going to look for proof of it's existence. There's as much proof that God exists as there is that an up quark exists. And I find it rather hypocritical to make a documentary specifically to persuade people toward atheism and say that people with faith have no place demanding agreement.

  128. robertallen1


  129. robertallen1

    And if something itches, there must be an itcher, right? What does this have to do with order vs. design?

  130. DerekC

    Don't mind me. I'm still growing. Hell, I'll probably be figuring out the universe for at least another 20 minutes. Then I'll change my mind in the next twenty.

  131. DerekC

    Shawn Lewis. VERY well said. I wish I could have done it so adroitly...:-)

  132. over the edge

    Shawn Lewis
    you stated "There's as much proof that God exists as there is that an up quark exists." really? ok what is this proof? which of the 28000000 gods do you believe in and why is yours more likely than the others?

  133. robertallen1

    Another non sequitur. Just because something begins does not mean there has to be a reason for it. Also, which universe are you talking about? If you mean the one with whichwe are familiar as the only one, then it can't have had a beginning in the usual sense of the word.

    You've obviously learned nothing from the documentary. If you assert the existence of a supreme being, you must provide proof and not try to foist this responsibility off on those who don't believe you. Without proof your assertion is worthless, even though there is no contradictory evidence. It's like my averring that Banshees created the glaciers--and no, the antrhopic principle lends no credit to your belief, only comedy.

    As for your comment on the Higgs Boson particle, I suggest you read up on how Pluto was discovered. Your background in science is obviously quite limited.

    At least atheists are responsible only to themselves and can't come crying to or blaming a third party of questionable and unknowable existence. This makes modern day atheism a lot more intellectually healthy than theists and by the way, what do you mean by " . . . people with faith have no place demanding agreement."

  134. Achems_Razor

    Listen to the ones that are talking science to you, we are only here because of "quantum jitters" from the quantum foam that when it jitters enough will coalesce and form virtual particles that are in itself illusive and going in and out every (Planck, Planck) second from this and other reality's.

    The whole universe is formed by complete chaos, chaos theory, uncertainty theory, an unlimited vast sea of probabilities, that form your day to day living I may add, forming your present personal reality taking into consideration interactions. Hell by definition we or anything else is not even real, what is matter? nowhere to be found in any atoms, virtually empty, therefore we are basically made of energy.

    The only grand design you are referring to is laid out rather succinctly in Stephen Hawking book "The Grand Design" read it.

  135. DerekC

    Achem... "Hell by definition we or anything else is not even real, what is matter?"

    I couldn't agree with you more. We are all asleep and dreaming.

    And as Shawn was saying, what difference does it make whether you say,

    "In the Beginning, There was only an immeasurably small point of infinite mass that went BANG!"


    "In the Beginning there was void, and Spirit moved on the Face of the Deep."

    It's all da same. Words are symbols and symbols are infinitely removed from what they represent. I have a hard enough time communicating with my wife and we've been married 40 years. Here we all are--perfect strangers--discussing the ultimate question(s) of the universe. Think we'll get it all taken care of by tomorrow?

  136. Shawn Lewis

    To robertallan1: Newton's first law of motion states that "every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it." In the beginning there was no motion; then there was. Something caused it. And yes, if something itches there is a cause. Furthermore, why do I have to provide proof that God exists simply because I believe He does? I didn't demand proof that God doesn't exist because you don't believe He does. The reason I didn't ask is that our answers would be insubstantial to each other. You can no more "prove" that God doesn't exist than I can "prove" that he does making your assertions just as "worthless" as mine. I have found compelling reasons to believe God exists, and you've found compelling reasons to believe He doesn't.
    My background in science isn't limited at all. Both Pluto and the Higgs boson were postulated prior to proof being found, one out of spite and one out of mathematics. The discovery of Pluto is not proof that the Higgs boson exists, neither is is what it was originally theorized to be (a planet), so I'm not even sure why that was brought up.
    Not all people who believe in God blame Him when things go wrong. Your comment makes no more sense than me saying that all atheists blame other people when things go wrong because they have no higher authoritative moral standards to live by (to be clear, this is not something I believe).
    But at least I didn't make any unsubstantiated, misinformed personal accusations.

    To over the edge: I never defined my God. I never said I had proof. I just said I believe. I was simply making a comparison. The point is that there is no hard, substantial, tangible evidence that I can point to and say "God exists" or "the up quark exists".

  137. DerekC

    Oh--Achem...I have read Hawking and I like him very much. I started off with his "brief History of Time," and have followed him pretty closely.

    You and I would probably find we agree much more than we disagree.

  138. DerekC

    I'm passing the mike to Shawn. You say what I'm saying only better. Good luck in the parakeet

  139. over the edge

    Shawn Lewis
    first off claiming "There's as much proof that God exists as there is that an up quark exists." ok the up quark has been observed. it has mass,spin and charge. this has been done under controlled conditions and reproduced by others. if god had as much evidence where is your equal proof that has been observed and replicated under controlled scientific conditions? and again which god are you referring to/ can you even define it and propose a way of testing it?

  140. robertallen1

    How do you know that in the beginning there was no motion? How do you know that something caused it? How do you even know that Newton's First Law of Motion applied at the so-called beginning?

    Contrary to what you write, throughout your posts you have asserted the existence of a supreme being, not a merely belief in same. The facts speak for themselves. Therefore, you must either provide proof or state uncategorically that it's merely your fairty-tale belief. On the other hand, I don't need to provide proof that a supreme being doesn't exist, because again contrary to what you write, I never made such an assertion. So you're the one making unsubstantiated and misinformed personal accusations.

    And speaking of distortion or outright misrepresentation, show me where I used the discovery of Pluto to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson. If you re-read, you will find that I suggested you read up on the discovery of Pluto and I did this as an analogue to the method used for Higgs Boson because, again despite what you write, your understanding of science is extremely limited.

    Your reading of my paragraph on the merits of atheism is as skewed as your reading of the rest of my post. At least atheism examines the facts and only the facts and doesn't need to posit a creator the way you do.

  141. robertallen1

    That's what I mean, a very limited science background. That's also what I mean by someone making statements about something of which he knows nothing. And please note the usual tactics of strawman, shift of burden and other tactics limned in the documentary, a perfect textbook case.

  142. over the edge

    Shawn Lewis
    all your posts say is that i believe in something i cannot or will not define. we don't know everything so i believe in a god. and things require a cause.the thing is you can believe anything you wish but you have provided no proof for your belief and don't even define your belief in any way that others can test for themselves. you did say that you have as much proof as there is for the up quark but still haven't shown it so you did make a claim. like the doc stated we can sit here forever and list things not proven wrong all day . none of that adds up to anything that means squat to anybody but those who already believe as you do. science is about asking questions making observations and figuring out how things actually work. your assertion or belief states here is the answer i believe. it answers no questions provides, no insights and can't even be defined. so go ahead believe that if you wish but there are those of us that require more and we are trying to get some answers so if you don't mind if you cannot define your god and provide positive proof for it or at least a way we can test and look for this proof please don't compare your belief to science in any way shape or form i find it insulting.

  143. over the edge

    i am truly getting frustrated this is the third or fourth thread i have been on in a week that i honestly don't see how the opposing posters even watched the doc let alone took it seriously or understood it. i am getting close to "losing my religion" as my mom would say (pun intended)

  144. Jack1952

    It is intuitive to conclude we must have a designer for order to exist but knowledge is not governed by intuition. It is only a tool to be used in an attempt to understand the world around us. We have to look past what we think we see and know to understand what really is the truth. A four year old once told me, quite earnestly, that the wind blowing was caused by the trees moving. The more the trees moved the harder wind would blow. He lacked the experience to form the more sophisticated and correct conclusion. He did not have the adequate information available and his mind had not developed enough to consider all the variables involved. It just seemed right to him. For us to conclude whether there is a grand designer we have to know more about the universe. For it to seem right is not enough. We need evidence to show whether our intuition is correct or not. Without it we are but four year olds.

  145. DerekC

    Jack--"Except ye become as little children..."

  146. Chrispy777

    Robert, I fail to understand your failure to understand (and accept) the vast differences between us. A change of heart is the only measure that will bridge that gap (for either of us), which is as wide as the universe, itself. The atheist's arrogance in believing that he is the only one capable of critical thinking, will negate any meaningful dialogue, so please do us all a favor, and let it go. As much as you would like to think that your brain is fully in gear, on this subject of God, it's actually your heart that is the real focal point of the argument. Your hatred and vehement disdain for those like me, prove that it's a heart issue, otherwise it wouldn't interest you in the least. As a person who prides himself on his adeptness at logic, reason, and ultimate truth, you ought to ask yourself why you even care.

  147. over the edge

    before i respond i need to ask was this post a response to me or robertallen1 as you did start the post with "Robert"?

  148. Samuel Morrissey

    That doesn't address his argument. Why don't you try?

  149. Jack1952

    The documentary didn't say God didn't exist. It says that there is no evidence of his existence and until there is we cannot arrive at this conclusion. As for the Higgs boson particle, scientists in Geneva have just announced that they have discovered what they are sure is the Higgs boson particle.

    The idea that such a particle must exist came as the result of a great deal of research and based on scientific models that seem to say that this must be true. There is no scientific research that gives us a model that leaves us with the conclusion that God must exist. If there is, please enlighten me.

  150. DerekC

    Jack--I take it then, that you don't think the wind is caused by trees blowing about?

  151. Samuel Morrissey

    Crispy777, you addressed 'Robert' but you replied to Over the Edge - your post is incoherent, and seems to be an attempt to project your feelings - 'disdain' 'vehemence' 'arrogance' onto him.

  152. Samuel Morrissey


    Jacks argument is that believing that the universe requires a designer is comparable to believing that trees make the wind blow, and is well put. If you think differently, as you appear to do, defend your position and explain why Jacks argument is wrong, in your eyes.

  153. Jack1952

    Science places the burden of proof on any claim that one makes. It would be inconsistent to insist on proof on any idea proposed but not where God is involved.

  154. wald0

    I can't speak for Robert but I, personally, and every other atheist I know could not care less about what you or any other person personally believes- but you knew that already didn't you? What we do care about is the fact that your so called personal beliefs have invaded our politics, our educational system, are used for justifcation of all kinds of dysfunctional and destructive actions that effect us directly, and are used to marginalize and ostracize anyone who doesn't accept them as truth. You guys know very well that religion is not just some personal belief held by people, but saying it is sure makes it seem unfair when someone attacks it- doesn't it? Its funny how seemingly important concepts held by religions, such as honesty and intellectual integrity, seem to go right out the window when religious beliefs are challenged.

  155. over the edge

    great reply. i was waiting for confirmation on if the post was meant for me or not. but now either way no need .you said it better than i would have.

  156. DerekC

    Okay we go:

    Our(!) perception is linear. We experience time sequentially. First the wind blows, then the trees move. But sequence in time/space is merely a belief like everything else. Suppose we remove ourselves from the time/space continuum and view it from outside? Then it is all in the same Or--if we wish we can go backward. First the trees move, THEN the wind blows.

    Cause and effect are one; they cannot be separated except in a person's belief structure. The four year old who sees the trees move THEN the wind blow has a thought structure no less valid than the "adult."

  157. Samuel Morrissey

    Firstly, sequential time is not merely a belief. It is a testable observation. Secondly, your reference to the 'space/time continuum' apart from sounding like star trek, is irrelevant in this case, as we are not talking about relativistic spacetime.

    We are talking about cause and effect, however. Your argument is that cause and effect are somehow interchangeable or indistinguishable from each other. They are not, if time ran backward, cause would still precede effect, though effect would be experienced first. If time was stopped, cause and effect may appear to be simultaneous, but this does not mean that they are the same thing. Cause will still be cause, and effect will still be effect, no matter what arbitrary demands you make upon time.

    [edit] Also consider when arguing about cause and effect that it is part of the claim for a designer 'cause' creating the universe 'effect' . In effect your argument is self defeating.

    We are not talking about the validity of thought structures, between the adult/child. We are talking about the accuracy of their conclusions. So which is more accurate?


  158. DerekC

    I have no interest whatever in defending my way of thinking, and your response is precisely why I avoided stating it. I only laid it out because you insisted. Your disagreement with my belief system is merely your belief system and if you are fine with what you think so am I.

    Most people will die to defend their opinions (that's why Oprah is rich). I am not one of them. My beliefs are just as useless and mercurial as yours. If you really want to have a meaningful conversation tell me what you know.

    Then we can talk. In meantime, may the Force be with you...:-)

  159. DerekC

    The more a man knows, the less he believes--
    --Oriental Proverb--

  160. Samuel Morrissey

    Well excuse me for thinking that being as you posted a reply (to me rather than Jack whose argument you failed to address), you actually wanted to discuss, now I am left wondering why you posted in the first place if as you state you have 'no interest whatever' - my mistake.

    Tell you what I know?

    OK Derek, I know that some beliefs are more valid and carry more weight than others, namely those built upon logical reasoning, observation, testing and evidence as opposed to those depending on a priori or circular deterministic assertions.

    But then you have no interest, what's it to you anyway?

  161. Samuel Morrissey

    The more a man believes, the less he knows.

    --an identical statement--

  162. DerekC

    Nope...still yer opinion.

  163. DerekC

    And if you will note carefully, I didn't say I had no interest, I said I had no interest in defending my way of thinking.

  164. Samuel Morrissey

    So then in your opinion, the belief that the trees make the wind blow is as valid and holds as much water as the belief that convection currents combined with the rotation of the earth amongst other things makes the wind blow?

    [edit] for clarity, the question put to you (for the 2nd time) is; which belief do you think is more accurate?

  165. DerekC


    For clarity; my position is that ALL beliefs are nothing more than that--beliefs. All are equally invalid. All that matters is Truth. And for clarity--Truth is that which can be known.

  166. wald0

    Thanks for the compliment but, I am trying to stay out of this really. Every once in a while though someone asserts something as truth that I just can't let pass. Most people don't even realize the underlying assumptions their statements imply. Many times this is because they are simply repeating an argument they heard someone else use which ….. Ahhh see, I was getting involved already. Never mind, carry on…….

    P.S. I will say this though, the statement "order demands a orderer", besides being horribly incorrect from a grammatical point of veiw, is merely the Anthropic Principle regurgitated in another form- it answers nothing. Look up the Anthropic Principle on google and you will find endless counter arguments for this pointless assertion of fine tuning.

  167. over the edge

    "I am trying to stay out of this really" i have noticed lol. all i can say is "everytime i think i'm out they pull me back in " the Godfather

  168. Jack1952

    No. The trees moving their branches about does not cause the movement of air which we call the wind. Its possible I thought so when I was four but not for a long time.

    If you find this concept confusing it is no wonder you cannot understand this documentary.

  169. robertallen1

    Now you can understand my position (not that you haven't).

    Are you familiar with NCSE, National Center for Science Education? Although I'm not a science teacher or even in the sciences, I took out a membership ($35 per year). I'm sure you've heard of Eugenia Scott who publishes its newsletter. Your thoughts.

  170. over the edge

    i am familiar with the NCSE while i know i have read some of their papers i cannot recall any one in particular. they are a great resource for information and i have watched many discussions on their youtube channel (very informative but they tend to be dry)most recently i watched one on "The Texas evolution wars" and was surprised at some of the creationist antics that still exist

  171. robertallen1

    You've obviously not watched the documentary or not used your head to do so. Religion (theism) has no place in any scientific discussion--as a matter of fact, it has no place in any intelligent discussion about anything other than religion (philosophy).

    Atheists may not be the only ones capable of critical thinking, but when it comes to such, they beat theists like you hands down for by not needing some supreme being whose existence is questionable and by nature unknowable, they can look matters more directly in the face--and that's all that matters, not your so-called, catch-all heart, whatever that is.

    I care because those of your clades are not content to keep their pie-in-the-sky Disneyland within their own purview, but rather endeavor to infuse it into public schools (especially science classes) and governments.

  172. robertallen1

    "Our(!) perception is linear." What about curves in space?

    By definition, time is sequential, so your statement that we experience time sequentially says absolutley nothing and does not justify the four-year-old's belief structure about the sequence of the wind and the rustling in the stress, for it is simply wrong, despite the toddler's perception and yours--and speaking of YOUR perception, cause and effect cannot be separated in YOUR belief structure and only in YOUR belief structure.

  173. robertallen1

    Mr. Morrissey has science to back him up; you have nothing. So don't equate your ignorance with his knowledge.

  174. robertallen1

    In other words, logical reasoning, observation, testing and evidence is simply opinion which is just as good as a priori or circular deterministic assertions.

  175. robertallen1

    I agree. Some entertainment value would be nice.

  176. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    There are a few religions that provoke interesting thoughts and do very well at trying to explain what it means to be conscious, and what you should do as a conscious being. That being said, all religion is just the imagination of people throughout time trying to explain the meaning of existence and reality with no physical evidence to prove w/e religion they believe in. None. There is no testable proof that any of it is real. You can ask, "what about faith!!???" but faith just means you are insane. Take that as you will. A person who believes something, and the only proof that it exists is that you have a strong feeling that it is real (which is NOT proof), is nuts. Some religions like christianity (ha! our fav religion to pick on as atheists) do nothing but make the masses conform to the idea that if you believe in these ancient texts you will live forever in heaven. Therefore not giving a squat diddly (see vlatko i learned how to swear nice) about the present existence. Which is your only chance at consciousness. You get one chance to experience life, and you throw it all away talking to yourself on your knees, and hoping to do it forever in the clouds. Now if you can see how horrible that thought is, you can see why atheists abhor organized religion. I personally have no major problem with buddhism, or even rastafarianism to name a couple, but monotheistic religions disgust me. K rant over. I'll probably do it again in different words in a week when we get another religious doc. =P

  177. slpsa

    my poor brainwashed brother, I seriously doubt that. You assume I have something to be sorry for and assume I cannot face my end alone. In that you would be incorrect. I need no fake deity nor religion to face the inevitable. Regret is for people who do not think their way through life with eyes wide open.

  178. slpsa

    Exactly. The last person on earth I would trust is a religious nut job. Trust and respect is earned, not given freely according to my rules of life. Assuming I need to cry out to some fake God for comfort as I speak my last words and draw my last breath are assumptions of the worst kind. I need nothing of the sort. If I can die like my parents did, with my family and friends by my side, holding my hand and speaking soft loving words into my ear, that my friend, is all I need to go to sleep forever. If it goes down another way, so be it. I have no regrets, never will, and I certainly can deal with anything of the sort on my own if this turns out to be the case. Crying to something or someone who does not exist is not part of the act of life for me.

  179. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    There is no such thing as a "heart" issue. What you are trying to say is it is a faith issue. Anyone with faith in something that they cannot prove exists is insane. Sorry, but you and every other person who believes in some silly deity because they know in their "heart" (which is a muscle that pumps blood through out your body if you did not know) are wackos. I feel sorry for you. Just because the thought that there is a big eye in the sky watching over you makes you feel warm and fuzzy does not prove that it exists. I do not understand why you people cannot see why this is crazy thinking. As a member of our species, i ask you to stop it, because you are embarrassing us all with self righteous crazy talk. Just grow up all ready, and put the imaginary best friend away for all our sakes.

  180. slpsa

    Yeah, as a young man, I had some serious issues with being forced eat someones body. It was traumatizing to say the least.

  181. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    A box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through

  182. slpsa

    That was a Jeff Healy concert silly boy, and I thought we told you not to eat the brown acid!!! hehe.....

  183. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    I had to do it 3 times a week for 8 years, I feel your pain.

  184. Jack1952

    When you get in your car you always turn the key to start the engine. That is the sequence that is necessary to drive the vehicle. The engine will not start before you turn the key. It is not opinion. Your intellectual argument is not supported by practical application. If it was, you would spend a lot of time waiting for the car to start without having to turn the key. Listening to the radio might help to pass the time but you know that you have to turn that on also...don't you.

    The point of my story about the four year old (true story) is about how we arrive at conclusions. We can never arrive at a correct conclusion unless we have the empirical data to back it up. I don't see how such a simple idea can be so confusing for some people.

  185. Jack1952

    This verse in the Bible refers to how one should approach their faith. The Bible also says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". In other words, faith has no evidence. It just is. If a person wants to have a faith in a creator that is a personal matter. He should also have the intellect to understand that he doesn't require evidence to have that faith. He should be willing to admit that he believes even though he cannot prove that the idea he has faith in cannot be supported by evidence. That is what is meant by "Except ye become as little children". Belief without a child.

  186. Shawn Lewis

    Ok, well this is annoying. I posted on here initially to provide my opinion and was only responded to with non-sequitur, tautologic and straw man arguments and personal attacks. I’m waiting my time trying to debate the existence of God on this thing because evidently people here have the emotional maturity of third graders. The fact is that the universe is something we live in and still cannot completely define. Saying there is no God is being as closed minded as atheists claim theists are. We just don’t know what happened or who’s out there.

    I'm done.

  187. robertallen1

    Talk about the emotional maturity of a third grader. Anyone who aspires to be an elementary school teacher can simply read your posts and then apply for a position. Besides, what does emotional maturity have to do with the existence of a supreme being? Now, intellectual maturity coupled with accuracy is something else--and you obviously could use a liberal dose.

  188. Shawn Lewis

    Thank you for proving my point robertallen1.

  189. robertallen1

    What point? That you lack the intellectual capacity to tackle your subject with anything approaching competence?

  190. Kateye70

    You are assuming that the universe was 'designed' in the first place.

    I don't know the answer, but I'm not going to make assumptions.

  191. Vlatko

    @Shawn Lewis,

    "We just don’t know what happened or who’s out there."

    Of course, which means my hypothesis could also be true: "On Titan, there is a Unicorn who is the master of this Universe."

    Also every other religious claim could also be true, such as the one in the African mythology which says that "the elephant is always the wise chief who impartially settles disputes among the forest creatures."

    Having no logical, theoretical or empirical means to examine all those distinct hundreds of thousands ridiculous claims that exist at this time, science doesn't bother with YOUR God at all. It has many better things to do.

    So when I say "On Titan, there is a Unicorn who is the master of this Universe", what would you say to me? Or even better, what would you say when I want this belief to be taught to small children, along with the science classes.

  192. wald0

    See, its all fun and games until someone losses an eye.

  193. zureal

    I can't watch it because of the bad animation. It hurts my eyes to see the faces with only one eye.

  194. Jack1952

    I am quite willing to debate the existence of God but you first must provide a platform from which we can begin a debate. You claim that he exists. I offer that there is no evidence so I highly doubt his existence. Provide the evidence and I will examine it and we can discuss it. I can assure you that it will not become a personal attack on your intelligence. My mother attended school until grade five in the Netherlands, yet she taught herself to read and write in English. Obviously she possessed a degree of intelligence even though she was a devout Christian. I respected her beliefs even though I did not share them. I can do the same for you.

    You are correct that no one really knows if a God truly exists and to reject that existence, outright, is close minded. That would imply absolute knowledge. However, I can say we need proof to allow his existence to be known as fact. That is not unreasonable or aggressive in nature.

  195. robertallen1

    Your statements are correct, but I don't think you need to rationalize, apologize or treat the matter shamefacedly in any way.

  196. robertallen1

    I have no problem with the content, but rather with the presentation. Like Mr. Ra, the narrator rambles on in an all-too-fast monotone with all-too-fast animation ostensibly to complement his points. If public speaking is not his forte, he should confine himself to scripting and find someone else for the delivery.

  197. Chrispy777

    Birds of a both don't know what the flock you're talking about. Here's the crux of the matter: One of THE most basic tenets of science is cause and effect. For such a huge effect as the universe (which includes your conscious efforts to understand and explain, in a VERY limited way, what you see before you), it is eminently logical, reasonable, and axiomatic, to conclude a creator. The burden to prove that God does NOT exist is a much grander problem for you to solve, and the level of faith which you employ is infinitely stronger than mine, because your common sense (if utilized) will always tell you something different. The truth could not be plainer. Willful ignorance is your specialty, because you side-step (or ignore) the most fundamental principle that science HAS established, i.e., crudely put, "you don't get something from nothing"....never, ever, ever, EVER! Please try not to gloss over what I just said....but I know you will. You'll cite something "scientific," and chide me for failing to be scientifically-minded, and that I have failed to offer any real proof. Allow me to quote, quite aptly, from the God/Man, Jesus Christ; Intellectually, the atheist will "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Atheists vainly attempt to cloud the issue by constantly challenging a theist to explain which "god" we are talking about (among millions), or to demand an answer as to where God came from. These are nothing but distractions from the core issue, and if I could answer the origin of God, I probably wouldn't be wasting my time on you clods. Heck, you guys can't even explain the Higgs/Boson particle, and that's just ONE mystery, among quintillions, in the universe. If you guys could master but 1/10 of 1% of all that there is to know, then 1. I'd be very surprised, and 2. you would realize the futility of arguing against the existence of a Supreme Creator, and finally 3. have a nice day! :)

  198. jeffroko

    There's no such thing as a burden of proof for a belief which is based on faith and will never (nor need ever) be fully proven.. does that make sense? I don't see your objection as a (complete) waste of time.. I don't think public schools should have anything to do with religion. I don't see any point in trying to prove one way or another how we got to this place in history.. The better bet is to work on how we can get to a sustainable and peaceful way of life. I like your avatar by the way. 8D

  199. Samuel Morrissey

    Derek, sorry for the late reply, I had to take my elderly father for a hospital visit, much as I indeed wanted to continue this discussion, I was not able until now.

    I have not once attacked your beliefs, merely questioned the logic behind them. You seem to equate beliefs with opinions with theories with facts, similarly as you confuse cause and effect, but there are very distinct differences between these things. This is not simple semantics, they have many both subtle and profound dissimilarities and their proper usage is of utmost importance if you are to be clear - for clarity.

    And no, all beliefs are not equally invalid, some are more valid than others, again, why do you not address the question, do you really think believing the trees make the wind is as valid as believing that convection and rotation does? Consider that one of these is clearly closer to 'truth' which brings me neatly to my next point. If truth is all that matters, surely beliefs that reflect it are more important to you than those that don't?

    Truth... now, there is a powerful word, one should be very careful when employing it. I completely agree it is the crux of the matter. I ask you, how do you think we come by it - all that which can be known? There is to my knowledge only one method available to us.

    I do not expect you to answer that question, as you evidently prefer to deflect, but please consider what the answers are for your own benefit.


  200. jeffroko

    Atheists belief is that there is no creator. I must not have made it that far in this particular show. It was very long winded, and I got the feeling the creator has an unhealthy love of his own voice (however monotonous). I can't sit here and watch something that attempts to place a burden of proof on a belief based on faith, therefore needing no proof. I don't particularly believe that my beliefs should govern others choices... Maybe humanity would be better off if believers got their own act together, and their beliefs started to actually govern their actions.

  201. jeffroko

    yay. birds don't get math. try leaving less comments. people are more likely to take you seriously.

  202. Samuel Morrissey

    Because you can't understand it, does not mean they can't explain it.

    You have not watched the documentary.
    Logic, reason and rhetoric demand that the burden of proof is with the claim maker. God/ divine creator/ purple sprouting broccoli beasts from Betelgeuse/ Whatever/ is your claim - it is not up to anyone else to prove you wrong, it is up to you, to prove yourself wrong, if you expect your claim to be considered in any way at all.

  203. over the edge

    1.other than the vague " cause and effect"where the cause does not necessarily have to be a god in general or your god in particular. what is your proof for "it is eminently logical, reasonable, and axiomatic, to conclude a creator."?
    2,i never said god doesn't exist so i have no burden to prove that.
    3. where did i make any claims on how the universe came to be? what did i say that would require the response of ""you don't get something from nothing"
    4. why are you bringing up the higgs? why is it my responsibility to explain it when i never brought it up or claimed it exists? are right science does not have all the answers. and i not only don't claim to know the answers to the universe i will readily admit that my understanding of the universe and its origins are so limited that i can only say i don't know as an answer to "how it began"
    6. why is it clouding the issue to ask for a definition of the god you believe in? i would have thought asking for clarification in order to properly understand where the person that i am debating is coming from would be a good thing. am i wrong?
    7. again i am not "arguing against the existence of a Supreme Creator," i am asking for evidence that i can examine for myself.
    in closing you are asking me to justify claims i never made and trying to push the burden of proof on me. i will back up any statement i made or apologize for an error if i am wrong. all i ask in return is the same from you. does that sound fair?

  204. over the edge

    maybe i am reading the comment wrong so feel free to correct me if that is the case. i do not remember stating that "Atheists belief is that there is no creator" . i do not speak for any atheist other than myself but all i say where creator is concerned is that i have not been presented with any evidence that a creator exists or is necessary to exist. your particular approach to your faith is fine with me and if you express it that way i will never try to place a burden of proof upon you. it is only when someone claims their belief as fact,tries to inject it into where it doesn't belong forces it upon others that the problems start with me

  205. Guest

    Since Religion and Science took different path, science has always tried to prove or disprove that God does exist or not (if indirectly), and it will continue to do so until it can.
    I realize that most commenters will argue this, but that still remains my opinion.

  206. robertallen1

    How much science have you studied? Obviously not very much, for you don't even know that cause and effect is not one of THE most basic tenets of science, for the only tenets (if you can call them that) of science are hard evidence, replication and falsifiability, all of which are absent from your amusement park asseveration of a logical, reasonable and axiomatic universe with a creator at its head. Did it ever occur to you that the forces of nature don't operate "reasonably" or axiomatically," and that such devices are an a posteriori means of describing the world around us without in a natural way with no need for cloudland?

    Like a typical creationist, you try to shift your responsibility to prove your assertions onto those with the temerity to pooh-pooh you and when that doesn't work, try to denigrate them and reduce their knowledge to the intellectual level of your unfounded beliefs.

    Quote mining doesn't work and marginalizing the importance of issues such as which god you're talking about and his provenance only display the vacuity of your thought. All those who've responded to you have offered some form of proof for their assertions; in return, you've offered only assertions.

    P.S. Your scientific ignorance also extends to the Higgs/Boson particle. How about reading up on it in a real science journal before commenting on what you perceive as the inability of scientists to explain it.

  207. robertallen1

    I think his beliefs should be attacked because from his posts, he wants to spread them about and render those around him as ignorant as he.

  208. robertallen1

    Are you sure? I wouldn't want to see another inquisition or witch-burning.

  209. robertallen1

    Textbook case of strawman, don't you think. Obviously, he either doesn't subscribe to a word of the documentary or feels that it doesn't apply to him.

  210. robertallen1

    However ill-informed.

  211. over the edge

    the list of people i think didn't even bother to watch a documentary that they feel qualified to comment on keeps getting longer. i am serious even if i am half right this trend is disturbing

  212. Vlatko


    You say because of "cause and effect" it is logical, reasonable, and axiomatic to conclude a creator? If that is the case the "cause and effect" rule must apply to the creator too, which begs the question: Who created him? Everything must have a cause right. By your logic you're ending up in infinite creation regress, which is far from the premise of the existence of the creator that you're trying to describe.

    If you exclude your God from the "cause and effect" circle, that means you're making an exception, without any reasonable and logical explanation, except maybe the standard religious rhetoric of God being eternal, omnipotent, etc. Attributes which are logically and philosophically impossible.

    You also say "science HAS established, i.e., crudely put, 'you don't get something from nothing'

    I don't know from where are you getting your "science" but science says quite the opposite. You can get something from nothing indeed (quantum mechanics).

    You say: "Heck, you guys can't even explain the Higgs/Boson particle, and that's just ONE mystery, among quintillions..."

    Science and atheists don't claim that they know "everything". What they claim is that the scientific method is the best tool for arriving at the most reasonable conclusions.

    However you turn it, the burden of proof is on you. You make an extraordinary claim just because it makes sense to you. But ultimately that is not the problem. The problem is when you try to impose your belief onto others just because it "makes sense" to you.

    While we're at the senses you must learn to abandon them at some point.

    "No longer you're justified to say 'that idea in science is not true because it doesn't make sense.' Nobody cares about your senses. Your senses came out while you were growing up: something is in your hand, you let go of it - it falls, tip the glass - water spills. You assembled a rule-book for how nature works in the macroscopic world. The microscope takes you smaller than that, the telescope takes you bigger, and other laws of physics manifest themselves in those regimes that you have no life experience reckoning." - Neil deGrasse Tyson.

  213. Vlatko


    By saying God what do you exactly mean? In order science to begin to disprove something we need to establish what that actually is.

  214. Samuel Morrissey

    Hmmm. I do not think science has ever truthfully even attempted either, because as has been stated many, many times, the only rule is; making a claim burdens the proof/disproof upon the claim maker.

    God(s) existing or not is not a claim that science makes or has made either way, ever.

    Some atheists would like to disprove god. Even so it is not their burden, unless they claim to be absolutely certain that no god(s) exist.

    I myself as I have expressed before, have my doubts about all things. Absolute certainty is simply a naive idealisation in my book.

    I choose to live and think as an atheist and I am a hard line agnostic.

    Each to their own, of course. And opinions are welcomed for what they are.


  215. DerekC

    Shawn. "evidently people here have the emotional maturity of third graders...I'm done." Ha! You couldn't make it in the parakeet cage either, huh? I'm sympathetic. It's a gap that not only cannot be bridged, those you are trying to reach do not WANT to be reached. The most futile of communication efforts...:-)

    You have presented the most salient and cogent concepts here, and your words were wasted. For what it's worth...I hear you. Loud and clear.

  216. robertallen1

    I don't want to rub your nose in it, but please recall your observation yesterday about the quality of those commenting on this thread.

  217. over the edge

    lol i was waiting for that from someone. and yes i deserve it

  218. DerekC


    Again, I have no wish to convince anybody of anything. As I said, if you are happy with your way of thinking, so am I.

    You are obviously sincere in your inquiry, but yer just gonna hafta let me off the hook. Our perceptual constructs are too different; we speak different languages. For you to understand my language would take decades...literally. A bat that uses echolocation couldn't be further from your perceptual arrangment than mine.

    To quote Alexander Pope:
    "Say first of God above or man below,
    What can we reason but from what we know?"

    I respect your thinking. You obviously do not take it lightly. It will take you to where you are going...:-)

  219. robertallen1

    And what a shame that you do.

  220. robertallen1

    You try to rationalize your lack of counterarguments (read proof) with the self-serving assertion, "You'll never understand me because we're worlds apart," as if there is somehow alters the facts.

  221. Chrispy777

    Okay, Vlatty....if quantum mechanics can create something from nothing, where's the proof? Have you ever witnessed something coming into existence from nothing? For that matter, where did quantum mechanics come from? Extraordinary claims, buddy, require extraordinary proof. How can you be so blind, that you'll acknowledge, as an expert in science, that the universe is governed by laws, yet refuse to acknowledge through The Governor and/or The Law-giver? Get back to basics, before you try to snow me with your empty arguments.

  222. DerekC, I rationalize my lack of counterarguements with the self-serving assertion that I just don't give a rusty @#%&.

  223. robertallen1

    "The universe is governed by laws"--wrong, the laws describe what we know of the universe. If anyone needs to get back to the basics it's you. How about reading something about particle physics and quantum mechanics--and I don't mean in some creationist piece of nonsense--before making comments about them which expose your lack of education.

    And speaking of basics, his name is Vlatko, not Vlatty or buddy and when you have to resort to diminutive vocatives, you've admitted the lack of valid arguments.

  224. robertallen1

    If you're so insouciant, why are you posting?

  225. DerekC

    rob...okay...if you've been paying attention...and to drag this down to the nasty level that seems to prevail...obviously you haven't--I've said several times that I am interested, but not in defending my thinking.

  226. robertallen1

    You've obviously forgotten your last comment.

    As for defending your thinking, you can't defend what doesn't exist.

  227. slpsa

    As you find it hypocritical, I find it offensive that people are made to be that shallow and brainwashed by a bunch of books written by men for men to live a good life. Most educated scientifically trained people do not believe in fables and fairy tales. One mans religion is an others man's bad joke. People with faith deserve a kick in the arse for being so stupid, so afraid of their own mortality, or afraid of their own choices, good or bad, semantics aside. There is no gods, and no devil and no heaven and no hell. There are only human beings who cannot handle their own futures and cannot face death like a person should. Religion is the bane of our existence, and the sooner all those bible bunny's wake up and get it, the more peaceful of a world we will inhabit. Semantics aside, religious freaks need a rubber room, not a pat on the back. I was raised in a devout catholic family, and when I reached the age of 13 and started down a path of reading and educating my self, the truth became clear. These people are lying to me and everyone else, only a child would believe such nonsense. I thought of that when I was 13, it seems a few billion have not grown up yet or educated themselves as to the improbability of the claims made by all the " holy books ". I think as one poster said, these weak people need to be smited, more than they need a fruitless, circular debate with people who have enough sense to call it what it is. BS.

  228. slpsa

    with all due respect Mr Robert, you know as I know, this debate with the true believers is a waste of energy. Do not ask for logic or proof, there is none. Back to the circular debate once again, Everyone has to prove something to the other guy. And vice versa. An endless amount of drivel in between, the result is always the same. The burden of proof is on the believers, and always has been. Nothing has changed whatsoever. The bible bunny's got squat to back it up, the other side has logic, science and intelligence to use as fuel. This argument has not changed since Jebus was a cowboy. Or was he? lol....this s**t always makes me laugh, but cry at the same time, You know what I mean?

  229. slpsa

    I'm on it. I am quite used to time restraints. I will endeavor to give us all the definition of the meaning of life by mid morning, tomorrow.

  230. slpsa

    The rubber room is down the hall, especially prepped for people like you. Free rent and food as well. Good deal for you. I'd take it man. You have no proof, other than regurgitated BS we have all heard from tens of thousands upon tens of thousands that came before you. You got nothing. Period. Unlike the educated people in this place. We do not have to grasp at old sayings, statements or lines of crap to get our point across nor do we have to prove the impossible to get ours across. You guys are the ones touting this fake deity, not us. So that being said, show me a picture of Jesus and God and all they entail. Hardcover would be fine if that is possible, after all, God can do anything right? I'll have a double cheeseburger to go with that proof as well, God should be able to fix me up I am sure.

  231. robertallen1

    We both obviouly find it offensive when ignorance is passed off as knowledge. The problem is that those like Shawn Lewis and Derek C try to inflict their twaddle on others who are so uneducated and gullible as to swallow it.

  232. DerekC

    Moving right along. Do we wonder why we get nowhere?

  233. slpsa

    Exactly. People love to spout off about things in which they have next to 0 knowledge of. This guy using Newton's Law as an example is enough said. I am an engineer by trade, this has been my calling my entire life. To listen to bible bunny's twist and use what I know to be unbreakable as an example that some supreme being made all of this, it not only ridiculous, it borders on insulting real professional's knowledge base. When that guy can prove to me that Newton's Law was involved in the big bang, you all let me know. Until then, I will be curled up in the corner in the fetal position, laughing my guts out until it hurts to the point of wanting to commit hari kari or stab myself in the eye with a lead pencil, repeatedly. I love satire and comedy like anyone else, this type is not even funny anymore. It is insanity to debate bible bunny's, but here I am anyways. I cannot and will not ever shut up when people talk nonsense.

  234. DerekC

    Here we are discussing the highest matter in the universe. How much progress can we expect from conversing on the level of, "Yo mama."

  235. robertallen1

    Speak for yourself.

  236. robertallen1

    If you don't mind my asking, just what type of engineer are you. I don't think one who drives a choo-choo.

  237. slpsa

    I do not think there is hatred of anyone, just pity that you are so empty and fearful, you need to believe in fairy tales and fables to get you by. You insult educated people by implying our brains are not in gear. Well, I guess we needed that tidbit of awesomeness to inform us we are damaged goods, of course, coming from a bible bunny, that really means a lot to me and will affect me for the rest of my days posting on TDF. Touche my friend, I believe it is people like you who infect this planet with BS and fear over nothing. God is for wimps and fearful humans, not smart ones or educated scientific types. It will go the way of the steam engine eventually, the numbers say so. Irrelevant to our happiness and needs of the time. You can live your dream. I will live in the here and now and reality based knowledge.

  238. Samuel Morrissey


    Again, I wonder why you reply. I have not asked you to convince me or anyone else of anything, I have asked you some simple questions in order to get a better idea of what you think, and what your position really is. Your deflection albeit eloquent, maybe even well meaning, is similar to saying 'it simply cannot be explained' or at the least you are unwilling to, which basically concedes that you have nothing to say, which is why I wonder why you bother to post at all. All I know about you is that you support Shaun Lewis' posts which are of the creationist/ID ilk, and you like to avoid answering questions.

    Likewise I am not trying to convince you of anything, I was trying to get a better understanding of you and why you post what you do, but I realise that you do not wish to share. That is OK with me, sorry for bothering you. You are off the 'hook' - and I am no fisherman.

    If you are interested, why not ask a few questions yourself? I suspect sadly, that you believe you already have the answers.


  239. slpsa

    You said it Jacko. The burden of proof is on the bunny's. There is no proof. Period. It is considered idiotic to try and prove God exists in any scientific forum, unless it is a religious one. I have seen a thousand debates on this subject, every single time it comes up on scientific threads, it is discarded, abused, bemoaned and chastised as BS. I live in that world, so therein lies my thoughts.

  240. George

    Dont worry. TV replaced religion long time ago. So no escape from brainwashing to masses.

  241. slpsa

    Amen bro, a f****In men. Well said. Thanks for that.

  242. robertallen1

    No, those aren't reasons for pity, but rather for hate.

  243. DerekC are absolutely right in your entire assessment.

  244. Achems_Razor

    As @robertallen1: said "and when you have to resort to diminutive vocatives you've admitted the lack of valid arguments".

    How true, I find that most religee's as you, when they are running out of ammo, out of steam, they always resort to ad hominem, or name calling, as in your case.

    They/you, have no where else to go when they have exhausted their circular logic.

  245. Kateye70

    The documentary illustrated what critical thinking is, and why, in the author's well-reasoned view, it led to his atheist viewpoint--while pointing out that 'atheism' has as many different meanings as does 'theist.'

    If a theist of any persuasion can give an equally-well-reasoned response, using critical thinking, please do so.

    But only if critical thinking rules are applied to the answer. If you are not sure what the rules of this debate are, please review the material in the documentary and apply them to your point of view.

    @Crispy777: It is due to Vlatko's hard work and dedication we are even having these discussions, and he deserves our respect. 'Nuff said.

  246. slpsa

    I was forced for 13 years. The early ones I do not recall, but I would guess noone touched my peepee since I came through it with my intellect and body intact. I just had to, sorry, it screamed at me to say that. Is it God that tells those Priests to touch young peepees? Or is that just normal for God to let his servants abuse young people? This is the part noone ever addresses. The sick f***s who spread the word of God but yet, behind closed doors, they are deviates of the worst kind. God in all his infinite power, allows young boys and girls to be sexually abused eh? Any group that allows such lowlifes to be associated with it is reprehensible beyond imagination. Therefore, the bunny's can take all this BS and shove it where the sun don't shine. It is lies and more lies, and the Catholic Church seems to me to be a breeding ground for pedophiles. You can take that and them and choke on it. Rant over. Sick f***s, all of them.

  247. slpsa

    Yes, we all need to worship a religion that hides and protects pedophiles. I see how that could be important. Your type of people just plain scare me. To think they are actually in on foreign policy and decisions. A nightmare is what that is.

  248. jeffroko

    I think this documentary illustrated what baseless propaganda is. It asserts that we as believers must provide proof of God's existence. But that is the whole point, there is no proof and we believe by faith alone. There is evidence though for example the bible and other texts which explain the life and death of Jesus. The majority of scientists and historians will agree that Christ was a historic reality. The bible may have its flaws, but where faith comes into it is when you start to believe that the story of Jesus as described in the bible is accurate. Who knows what is possible? No amount of Figgs Boson material is going to prove one way or another that God does or does not exist. We'll probably find out when we die though.

  249. Samuel Morrissey

    When this doc came up, I was really interested to see what religious folks would make of it, whether or not they would actually watch it before commenting and so on. I hypothesised that someone of faith who had enough gumption to actually watch it would be unlikely to comment as whatever their argument pro theism would likely have been effectively countered logically in the doc itself. So far it seems my hypothesis is holding.

    I also wonder if many will not comment in the hope that this doc does not get so much attention, which is amusing to me because it is not primarily about theology of any kind, rather it is about critical thinking and the definition of atheism, which surely has great value whatever your position and can only help strengthen your reasoning ability, if only to understand what you are arguing against.

    I myself think this one in particular deserves more attention than most, whether you are theist or not, so...

    @Kateye70 - If i may quote you.

    'If a theist of any persuasion can give an equally-well-reasoned response, using critical thinking, please do so.'

    Yes, please do so. I for one would sincerely like to read it, and currently you are severely under represented on this comments board.


  250. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    Christianity is the 2nd most powerful institution ever devised by man. Besides banking. Not a fan of either. Its just a way to get people to step in line, and its so deep rooted in our society it will take millenia to exorcise it. If we ever can. Maybe if we find out how to fold space and time, and discover vast inter stellar civilizations out there, it would disappear. But i doubt it. I'm sure they will try to explain that we are special amongst the billions of other sentient species in the universe, and god made us in his likeness to taunt the other species. Because of course evolution is a tool of satan to make the flock stray from his light and blah blah. Ya i went to church, i can talk churchy. Though i'm pretty sure the catholic school i went to had no pedophile priests (it definitely had gay nuns though), the fact is that it has more pedophiles in it then nambla. Anyone respecting such an institution is beyond contempt. And jesus was a man. Thats it. A man. Not a god. A dude who said some stuff that made some jews angry and the romans killed him for being a rabble rowser. The end. If he walked on water then he was an alien, but I'm pretty sure some old dieing apostle, or crazy midevil dictator, made that crap up to add some spice to the story. If you take all the bogus miracles out of the bible, it would be the most boring thing ever written. Who would read that? So lets give these dudes super powers so people read this stuff man!

  251. robertallen1

    I like your second-to-the-last paragraph about his not being around to witness god's alleged creation of anything, The important thing is not so much that he's ignorant of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (how many are aware of it?), but that he made an assertion about something of which he knows nothing. I guess by definition, it's impossible to find a creationist who doesn't. One way or the way, it is he who should return to the basics, not you.

    I know you don't like to reveal much about yourself, but I'm curious. What is your mathematical background?

  252. Kateye70

    "There is evidence though for example the bible and other texts which explain the life and death of Jesus. The majority of scientists and historians will agree that Christ was a historic reality. The bible may have its flaws, but where faith comes into it is when you start to believe that the story of Jesus as described in the bible is accurate."

    I've been doing some reading on the subject, and since there are no first-hand accounts extant (nor have any been for about 1800 years, give or take 50 or so), the biblical scholars seem to think that there *probably* was a historical Jesus.

    But they also know that everything any bible says about this person has been cobbled together from handed-down oral traditions, stories and rituals, which subsequently were translated, re-translated, (re-re-etc.), so that whoever this person was, very little of his own words actually come down to us.

    I've read a translation of the "Q" document, and it only amounted to a few pages of English translation. As for the rest of the biblical 'filler', it was all written by men, for their own purposes and not always worthy ones.

    Granted, I am a not a biblical scholar, nor have I learned any of the ancient languages the original texts were written in, but I don't think *any* of the stories written generations after his death--for purposes which had nothing to do with the teachings of this presumed wise man--bear any resemblance to him. I sure have major doubts that any biblical stories come close to accuracy.

  253. slpsa

    Your post is why I have nothing but the utmost respect for you Vlatko. On topic, and pretty much logically bullet proof statements. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a need for non believers to prove a damn thing. The burden of proof is undeniably on those who partake in such fantasy's. I have a little more disdain in my big heart for certain things about religion, one of them being what I previously mentioned, the fact that some of them breed pedophiles by trying to tame a human beings sexual feelings that come as naturally as the sunset comes each day. They expect some of us to support their beliefs and causes, but never once do they mention the deeds done behind closed doors to innocent little children on behalf of the idiotic rules the Catholic religion teaches. Is that what " Gods Will " is all about? Buggering children? You make me ill, some of you. I am a father of four grown children, my feelings towards the Church are well established at this point. What should be done to these sick bastrds is not becoming of my general attitude in life, but at heart, real men feel seething anger when children are abused. To say this taints my view is a correct statement. Anything that entails such things does not belong in a civilized world or in good men's hearts. They cannot defend it in any way shape or form, and to even suggest we put any " faith " in their claims while they harbor sexual predators within its structure, well, you can do the math yourself. They deserve a cell or worse and so do the liars that protect them. They spread intolerance and make rules for everyone to live by, while perverting any sense of morality with their hidden crimes. For that, they are despised, and with them, all people who subscribe to this madness.

  254. DerekC

    In any classroom on any subject the person in authority is the professor, and he/she is the final word on any disputes. But in a room without a professor there is no final authority. Everybody here thinks he knows more than everybody here and that the final-word microphone is rightfully his/hers.

    In this kind of environment, nothing is settled, everybody leaves pissed off and the janitor is left to clean up the sandwich wrappers, parakeet feathers and popsicle sticks left all over the desks and floors.

    Nothing can be settled or understood without a structured format and an authority to lay it out. It is not going to happen, and in in the interest of avoiding the flying sandwich wrappers and hysterical parakeets, I am following Shawn's lead. I herewith hike up my skirt and split.

  255. slpsa

    As a redneck would say. " And Bob's your Uncle. " Exactly my friend.

  256. Samuel Morrissey

    It is unreasonable to believe something without a reason for that belief. It is especially unreasonable to expect others to believe it without good reason.

    If you simply believe it, that's fine, all well and good. It is your right and privilege. If you express it to others, as an assertion rather than an opinion, you cannot avoid the burden of proof. It is created the moment you express your belief, by the fact that you express it. It is part of how language works. It is not propaganda, it is how we communicate ideas, information and so on.

    Some people may not ask you to shoulder that burden, but you are being unreasonable to deny that it is your burden to those who do require it from you.

    Faith? Where is your doubt?!

  257. slpsa

    Well, that being said, I have to dumb it down for people like you, so I use colorful, uneducated language. I am sure if you read my posts from other subjects, you might notice the level of intellect dropped steadily as I had to explain simple concepts of life to simpletons. If you cannot understand big words and scientific talk, we have to resort to hood talk. After all, I have watched Jesus Camp and understand what level I must be at to even attempt to communicate with idiots. They use dumb arse redneck talk, I come back at them with hood talk. It is not really rocket science, you must adapt to your surroundings and work with what you are given. When it comes to this topic, the idiots have a head start to be totally honest with ya bro.

  258. Vlatko


    Nothing exceptional about my mathematical background. I had a good understanding of Pre-Calculus and Calculus and its application in various fields like electronics, automatic control systems, and methods of operations research. But that was long time ago (when I was at uni).

  259. robertallen1

    By the Q document, do you mean the concordance of similarities among three of the synoptic Gospels? If so, it was developed more as a scholarly tool than anything? Have you read any works of Bart Ehrman?

  260. slpsa

    38 years in Civil/Materials Engineering, moved onto Structural later on. I have 4 certifications as well. I now work in the mining industry though. Geo-technical Engineering is my forte now. Hence, you now understand my take on things like 9/11. You cannot just talk s***t to me and expect me to zip it. lol.....

  261. robertallen1

    @Vlatko, Over_the_Edge, Epicurus, Achem and, of course, anyone else with knowledge, not naked belief:

    Two questions:

    1. Is there really much difference between a modern day atheist such as Richard Dawkins, and an agnostic? They both seem to be saying that because there has been no evidence to establish the existence of a supreme being, they refuse to believe in one.

    2. Like the term theory, doesn't the term law have two meanings, one in the legal or pedestrian sense as a precept and the other in the scientific sense as a description of a phenomenon with nothing jussive intended?

  262. Vlatko


    I agree. Organized religion is a far cry from what it tries to sell to the masses.

  263. robertallen1

    I was just curious because you had mentioned Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which as I understand it is more of mathematical concept than anything.

  264. robertallen1

    Does your field require much math and if so, of what type?

  265. Kateye70

    Yes, I do mean the concordance, and I do realize it's a scholarly tool. But since I will never learn ancient Hebrew or Greek, it's all I have to go on.

    I currently have 3 of Ehrman's books on my ipad, "Lost Christianities" "Jesus, Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus", although I have only read a little of the first so far.

    I am not a practicing Catholic (have not been since about age 15 or so), but I am always curious as to the all-pervasiveness of religion's hold on society. Also, I am always curious. (I am a Kat!)

  266. slpsa

    Circular ad hominem arguments are so 1400 BC. You will one day get it. You have said twenty posts of nothingness. It is not new. It is the same every time.

  267. Epicurus

    no it does not. there are many things that are ordered and not intentionally.

    look at solar systems or stars.

  268. Diego_Garrido

    Fair play to you, I was actually thinking exactly the same; folks, please watch the doc, most of the 'arguments' ye are giving have been dis-proven in the video.
    And Yes, this doc is about critical thinking, brilliantly expressed, I have to say.

  269. robertallen1

    All three are worth reading. So what's stopping you?

    I was not criticizing you for using the Q source, however synthetic it is. After all, some of the best biblical scholars have availed themselves of it. I compare it to proto-Indio-European in the sense that the "language" though synthetic constitutes a wonderful description of the evolution of western languages.

  270. Epicurus

    "Newton's first law of motion states that "every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it." In the beginning there was no motion; then there was. Something caused it."

    that law doesnt apply to quantum physics and that is the state the singularity was in.

    "Furthermore, why do I have to provide proof that God exists simply because I believe He does?"

    why would you believe ANYTHING without proof?

    "I didn't demand proof that God doesn't exist because you don't believe He does."

    just like you dont demand proof that unicorns dont exist. that wouldnt make sense.

  271. Kateye70

    The only thing stopping me reading is time and tired eyes. I downloaded them a couple of weeks ago because someone mentioned Ehrman on this site, in a different discussion. Also, they are not books to read straight through like a novel.

    My interest in seeking out the Q document was to see what Jesus was really teaching, when stripped of all the added stories and political layers, and I came across it--oh, 15 or 20 years ago? It is more intellectual curiosity than a rigorous field of study for me. I don't think I was ever coerced into believing the bible was an 'inerrant' document, for which I thank my parents, so I have always felt perfectly free to look for the nut inside the shell.

  272. Lorna Kennedy

    Religion has provin again and again to be, fatal, for millions. One religion against another, repeated through out history, in an ever changing soup of beliefs and customs. It is the believers that i believe need saving or they might just kill each other off and probably take the rest of us down with them.

  273. robertallen1

    As I've told you before, your parents obviously did a good job on you.

    Actually, you can read Dr. Ehrman's books straight through like a novel; that's one of their beauties. When you have finished one of them, I would be interested in your impressions.

  274. robertallen1

    It would be nice if the rest were left out of the battle.

  275. robertallen1

    Thank you for the confirmation.

  276. I AM POP SLAG.

    " For such a huge effect as the universe (which includes your conscious efforts to understand and explain, in a VERY limited way, what you see before you), it is eminently logical, reasonable, and axiomatic, to conclude a creator. " it isnt.
    thats like saying "because my shoes are still where i left them earlier it is eminently logical, reasonable, axiomatic to conclude i have banished the shoe stealing goblins from the house. cause and effect see? effect= myshoes are where i left them
    cause= antigoblin sigils on the door"
    how dare you even use the word logic...

  277. Lorna Kennedy

    I get an overwhelming feeling of doom when I see how much power religions have throughout the world. And sometimes it is hard to sit back and shut up when I feel like their wars are going to come to my door. ... So i post something on this page as if it will make me feel better. I didnt because its not enough. I cant start a war to stop it and i wont start a war because I think i,m right. So i,ll sit back again and watch helplessly while the wars continue. What a sad way to be when so many have kept the ancient mindset from the time of the bible, when lets face it they were not very well educated nor had the knowlege that we have now. They were just fairly good at filling in the gaps when they didnt understand things.

  278. I AM POP SLAG.

    didnt you mean you had no way of defending your way of thinking

  279. robertallen1

    Only, since the enlightenment, they've not been so good at it any more.

  280. jeffroko

    You are in effect asking for the reason that God created everything. If you continually ask for evidence for something which cannot be reasonably proven, you are asking for public mockery. The arrogance you have in placing a burden of proof on something you obviously don't understand is misleading by its attempt to discredit beliefs which cannot be proven factually incorrect.

  281. over the edge

    Samuel Morrissey
    completely agree

  282. jeffroko

    But it is possible that the story of Jesus' life is factual as written. Even after being handed down from however many generations have been between now and then. That is where faith and striving to live in the example of a faultless man come into play. When you look at the lives of those who do, and those who don't (live by Jesus' example) you begin to see why someone would choose to live by blind faith. It casts a much more beautifying effect on what some would refer to as a meaningless existence.

  283. robertallen1

    Faith=abrogation of thinking=lack of evidence=fraud.

  284. Douglas Roberts

    You are correct that FALSE religion is the cause of most of the world's wars etc

  285. jeffroko

    Where's the honor in doubt? I see honor in faith in an all knowing, all forgiving, all loving creator of conscious, yet-imperfect beings with free will. Reason is used to prove points which are irrelevant when it comes to a personal relationship with one's creator. I have doubted creation, but I realize that the evidence is too overwhelming when I think of all the countless blessings, the near-death experiences, and other close calls, that I decided it's too much of a coincidence that I have come this far and have such a beautiful existence despite my past. I can't say I blame anyone for doubting God's existence in a world so screwed up by humanity's free will.

  286. robertallen1

    " . . . it is possible that the story of Jesus' life is factual as written." Nonsense. There are too many conflicts among the synoptic gospels.

    And by the way, what is a faultless man? I find the biblical account of "Jesus" to be the story of a conceited fool ("I am the way, the truth and the light." John 14:6 ) with a warped sense of values (the story of Doubting Thomas, John 20:24-29) and an officious meddler (chasing the money changers from the temple, one of the acts contained in all four synoptic gospels). How can anyone live by "Jesus'" "example" when we have no idea what his example was?

    What it all amounts to is the "beautifying effect" of idiocy and wilful ignorance.

  287. robertallen1

    FALSE religion, what a tautology.

  288. over the edge

    to try to answer your questions first i must say that the definitions of atheist and agnostic are being expanded and reinterpreted to the point of uselessness to define a persons stance in my opinion.
    1. i believe that atheist and agnostic concern two different views. the first concerns belief and the second concerns knowledge
    2 yes

  289. robertallen1

    The honor in doubt is called intelligence, something lacking in people of faith. What you have decided is your own business, but quite frankly it's illogical and silly.

    However, prove to me that there is a creator--and don't try to wiggle out of it.

  290. robertallen1

    Thanks for your reply. However, the way Dr. Dawkins defines modern day atheism just doesn't seem to be all that different from agnosticism. However, I would appreciate an elaboration.

  291. jeffroko

    Idiocy and willful ignorance must be your forte. I get the feeling Jesus may have been on to something when he tried to rid a place of worship from something as filthy as a monetary trade. Can you imagine what a world would be like if everyone gave willingly of their time and resources to the betterment of others' lives without the exchange of money taking place? Or a world where people weren't expected by society to do monotonous work against their will to earn a living? Think about it for a little while. You have stated that the notion of the possibility that the account of Jesus' life is true, is nonsense. You just may know for a fact that it's all an elaborate lie, but the proof will never show it's face. It takes a lot of faith to actually believe that the elaborate whole of the universe came to being spontaneously. No scientist will ever prove how the consciousness of a man really exists. Some things only God himself can know. Maybe some day he'll let you in on that little secret, if you ask him nicely ;D

  292. jeffroko

    faith=fraud?! Try making a complete sentence starting with, "faith is fraud because..." I'd like to hear the extrapolated version, if you don't mind.

  293. robertallen1

    You obviously haven't studied the bible in a scholarly sense--and any other study is worthless. The contradictions render all the accounts suspect, so at least a good part of them must be untrue on their face. Of course, this take reasoning, something you're dead set against.

    And speaking of reasoning and knowledge, how embarassing to find that there are grown-ups like you who believe in the resurrection and all the other little twaddle tales found in a book of which you have not the least understanding.

    Contrary to your assertion, it does not take a leap of faith to verify the "Big Bang," merely an examination of the evidence with a knowledge of basic physics and, of course, an education--and a rational one at that. So don't insult my intelligence by trying to drag through the mud of your ignorant and unfounded beliefs (read faith), such as "No scientist will ever prove how the consciousness of a man really exists." Is this something your fairy godmother told you or did you discover it on your own and if so, how?

    "Some things only God himself can know." Before you can even make such an outlandish statement, you must first prove that there is a god--and faith is a pathetic, puerile and vapid answer, so don't even attempt it.

    P.S. Spare me what passes for your Eutopian visions. Just try to live without money and see how far you get.

  294. Achems_Razor

    You religee's always talk as if your big JC was real, since you are talking as if he was real, you are making a claim that he existed as written in your bibles, none of you religious has even determined to us (skeptics) satisfaction that your big JC was a moving and a-grooving deity, instead if he existed at all was just a mere tiny, inconsequential carbon unit, a mortal.

  295. robertallen1

    It is a complete sentence, but to bring it down to your level, faith is fraud because it relies on the unsubstantiated, the unprovable and the nebulous. In addition, it's an abrogation of all intelligence and reason. He who seeks credence from others based on faith is merely a charlatan and a huckster and those who believe based on faith are mere dupes and mental pygmies.

  296. Chrispy777

    Greetings, Pops. You're too kind, in laboring to give me an example that refutes my point, but you've labored in vain. You've failed to acknowledge a shoemaker. Didn't anyone ever teach you that there's no such thing as the "spontaneous generation of shoes," and that even shoe-goblins have a progenitor?

    Q: How did the shoes get in my house? A: I brought them in, from the car. Q: How did they get in my car? A: I put them there, after I purchased them from the store. Q: How did they get in the store? A: They were shipped there, from the factory. Q: How did they get in the factory? A: Materials were shipped to the factory, where the shoes were assembled. Q: Where did the materials come from? A: Laces were made from cotton, leather from cows, and rubber from living plants and petroleum. Q: Where did those materials come from? A: They just popped into existence, in a rudimentary form, billions of years ago, and over time, became more complex. Ah. Got it.

    Ignore First Cause, and you look like an ignoramus. It's no wonder there is such a disconnect, with atheists. Their logic centers make enormous leaps over the most obvious evidence for God, and then they feel it is their God-given right to use His own creation against Him. No one has the last word on this topic, but two seconds after your final breath, is when you'll realize that Chrispy was right.......but then it's too late to change your mind. Right now is the time to change it. Oh, and by the way......I didn't make up that last point. God told me, in His bible.......and now I'm telling you.

  297. jeffroko

    Well I Never! I've been called many things my good man, but Charletan?!? Huckster!?! I do appreciate you bringing it down to my level, and your attitude of superiority is duly noted, though unprovable 8D (I hope you're having a good time). You sell these conclusions you've jumped to as if they were facts. You've resorted to name-calling which drops the dignity bar and denotes a very basic fear. You can no more prove that matter spontaneously came into existence from nothing (a.k.a. created itself) than anyone could prove that an infinite being created all matter.

  298. Kateye70

    Possible, but not likely. Most of what was written down are stories made up decades and centuries later. I'm not sure why one must suspend disbelief in the stories in order to comprehend the truth.

    You don't have to have 'blind faith' in order to strive for a moral life. You just have to be self-aware and willing to make the effort. Jesus was *a* teacher and should be honored for that. But he was not the *only* teacher. Edit: He was also not the only ascetic preaching in his region. Perhaps he was simply more charismatic than most, and was therefore remembered.

    The path should be justification enough; the beauty comes in the effort made. It's a personal path, however, and each person walks it alone. It's the height of arrogance to assume that one's own path is more meaningful than someone else's; one has no way to make or validate such an assessment.

  299. Kateye70

    "You can no more prove that matter spontaneously came into existence from nothing (a.k.a. created itself) than anyone could prove that an infinite being created all matter. "

    So you agree that there is no proof either way?

  300. Achems_Razor

    How do you know where you will be 2 seconds after your final breath, it is the same as knowing were you where before you were born?

    Describe both visually since you seem to know.

    God told you, in "his" bible? You are even doing a bad job with your trolling, give it up!

  301. Kateye70

    I visited your wiki link and while there found a link to another page on "apatheism", which contained (amongst several) the closest definition I've seen to my own conclusions:

    "Absence of religious motivation: This apatheistic argument states that morals are present in human society and do not rely on religion to be a part of the human experience. Apatheists recognize that religion may provide a "comfort" for many people around the world, but apatheists do not need religion to be content with the morality of their lives and therefore live without it[citation needed]. This is known as "moral apatheism"."

    Morality comes from within, not without. (Ok, so here's where I might go off on a tangent speculating on the evolutionary survival value of morals in a highly-socialized species, but I'll restrain myself.)

  302. robertallen1

    "God told me, in His bible . . . " I can't believe an adult wrote this, especially someone, the extent of whose knowledge of the former consists of unspecified "obvious evidence." First cause, while consistent with your vagueness, simply doesn't cut it.

    You have no idea how silly you sound when you refer to yourself in the third person.

  303. over the edge

    "Morality comes from within, not without. (Ok, so here's where I might go off on a tangent speculating on the evolutionary survival value of morals in a highly-socialized species, but I'll restrain myself." why restrain yourself? with my having to stay out of the cosmology debate because of lack of knowledge i would like your take on the evolution of morals.finally something i feel qualified on lol (ego is a funny thing while i enjoy learning new things from others it feels better when the exchange goes both ways) while this thread may not be the place to discus this topic (or it may be depending on how you look at it) . if you haven't watched it there is a great doc here at tdf "Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?" if you wish to watch or comment there. your thoughts would be appreciated

  304. robertallen1

    Any rational, educated person is superior to you. Your statement that it takes faith to aver that matter spontaneously come into existence is symptomatic of an appalling ignorance of science coupled with a complete and deliberate misunderstanding and distortion of the concept, so typical of a huckster and a charlatan (please note the spelling).

    Don't confuse fear with disgust and don't try to command a dignity which you don't deserve.

  305. robertallen1

    Your head's certainly in the right place; however, there is no way of knowing if "Jesus" was a teacher. Most likely his "teachings" came from those who followed him which explains just about all the contradictions. (I implore you now more than ever to read the three books you have by Dr. Ehrman). If we go by the writings of Pliny the Elder and Lucian who lived a century to a century-and-a-half later, "Jesus'" charisma, if any, extended only to a small group.

  306. robertallen1

    That one sentence about God and "his" bible literally floored me as well. It's hard to picture such a statement coming from a sentient mind.

  307. robertallen1

    Please don't restrain yourself. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

  308. robertallen1

    One way or the other, like you, I would very much like to hear Kateye70's thoughts on the subject. I'll bet they're a lot more intelligent and well-thought-out than what we've been confronted with today.

  309. slpsa

    You name it. Algebra, geometry, different kinds of calculus, like vector calculus for instance, physics, trigonometry, statistics may even be required. Depending on which field you are practicing in, they are all relevant at some point. You may or may not need those courses, again, depending on what field you are going into. A more specific question would narrow down the answer somewhat, but I am sure you get the idea. You work, live and breathe in a world of math. And no, God is not a number and cannot be quantified. :)

  310. slpsa

    You will someday come to the same conclusion many of us have, being brought up in a religious family. You have been lied to, and lied to big time pal. Get over it, and move on. God does not fix things, you do. Enough said.

  311. Chrispy777

    Hey, give me some credit, Robert. I've stopped calling you "Alien." You can't expect me to evolve too quickly, or perhaps I'm becoming a "hopeful monster"....I can only hope. It's nice to see you defending your atheist buddies. You've got the "brotherhood of man" thing down, now let's see if you can incorporate the "Fatherhood of God," by believing in a sure thing.

    I will admit to you...I've only read light treatises, and have seen documentaries on particle physics ("Down The Rabbit Hole," and one is located on this site, about "Higgs/Boson," which I will recommend to you), but your obvious conclusion (pertaining to my limited knowledge on these subjects) is that unless I can engage in "particle physics speak," (as you apparently can), that this somehow marginalizes me, and labels me as one who has no credentials, to stand toe-to-toe with you. Very arrogant and presumptuous of you, but exactly what I would expect. If you watch the Higgs/Boson doc, that I just referenced, it ought to become painfully obvious to you, that the level of intellect necessary to grasp these concepts is well beyond the average schmoe, and is, admittedly, above those who are the principle players, in this grand search for the "God Particle." Now tell me, "science wizard" does something so illusive and unsearchable, not only come to be, but be so complex a problem that even the evolved brains of "trained" scientists and intellectuals, are barely capable of wrapping their heads around it, let alone put their finger on it? You vainly attempt to figure out how a combustion engine works, without first acknowledging and consulting the mechanic, who assembled it.

    The idea that religion is responsible for justifying oppression and murder is a fact I wouldn't deny (naturally, I have no part in such paganism or Roman Catholicism), but by the same token, the acceptance and promulgation of evolution exceeds in scope (for the last century) of the detrimental effects of a belief system that excludes God, and dismisses the necessity of a morally principled society. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of FAVORED RACES (my caps) in the Struggle for Life," is a highly inflammatory title, which full title is rarely spoken of, for obvious PR reasons, and rarely known among its own proponents. Hitler's "Eugenics" program was solely based on "Darwinian Evolution," and was grounds for the "Angel Of Death," Josef Mengele, to perform his butchery. Needless to say, 20 million deaths, at the hands of the Nazi regime, rid this world of genetically-inferior undesirables (from their perspective). Are we done, here? No, of course not. Go've got the last word.

    ps Stephen Hawking ain't got nothing on me! .....might as well throw in Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, and of course YOU, Robert.

  312. robertallen1

    God's not a number? Why, that goes against the very principles of numerology.

    What I find fascinating about vectors is that they don't represent just one entity like a line, but rather an infinite group which provides a more liberal interpretation of parallelism. By the way, I finally found a simple, accessible explanation as to why cross-products are computed the way they are (i.e., via determinants) and another on LaGrange multipliers. I've also found a simpler proof of the chain rule using linear approximation. Are you at all interested?

    Speaking of calculus, I also like differential equations. Do they have much use in your line of work?

  313. slpsa

    Is that like a double double?? LOL! The futile nature of that statement overwhelmed me for a moment as well Robert. A double falsehood, or double oxymoron, take your pick. Just wow. There is grasping at straws and then there is pulling down redwood trees in a single sentence. Just wow. Yes, you keep wondering all you like jeffroko, it seems to me, it is pretty obvious why people do not believe in your false God. Statements like you made there say it all, without any doubt whatsoever. I cannot help but feel sorry for your kind at times. Then I remember the pedophiles abusing young children and being harbored and protected within your beloved Church. Your type makes me physically ill quite honestly. Hypocrites of the worst kind and smart like a bag of Doritos to boot. How awesome.

  314. Chrispy777

    "Except ye become as little children..."

    "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

  315. slpsa

    We do not need a false God for this bud. It is called Zeitgeist and the guy that had these ideas is not God the last time I checked. Stealing Jacques ideas is about the speed of a bible thumper. Good job on stealing. But we already knew the Church breaks every single Commandment they tout. Unless raping young kids is not a sin, I guess.

  316. slpsa

    You were was the star actor in Jesus Camp weren't you. I already figured it out. Busted......

  317. slpsa

    Rubber room material, no doubt about it.

  318. Chrispy777

    I only add hominem grits, when I'm in the south. Your citation of pilates and flatulations continues to side-step the obvious. No, I didn't witness God creating things, but since we're here, I've logically reasoned that He must be, also. My position makes more sense, and is an outgrowth of the observable known universe, and its governing laws. "Uncertainty Principle," indeed. Are you sure of that? LOL

  319. over the edge

    how dare you capitalize the "FAVORED RACES" as if to try to make evolution look racist. have you read the book? if not please don't speak of something you know nothing about and if you have you would know that that statement was not directed at humans. that particular title was for a edition of the book that did not even mention humans. so let me ask you seeing as you wouldn't dare comment on a book you never even read what was he referring to with that title? finally Nazis i was waiting for that one one of the favorite tricks of a religious person. first off hitler was a christian and never denounced it or excommunicated. second science is a tool used to discover how the natural world works, it is silent on the application of this information and does not claim any moral high ground or teachings. in short it unlike religion it never tries to justify terrible acts. finally are you going to address the factual links presented to you by others or continue to ignore them. are you going to be a christian and apologize for falsely accusing me of saying things i never said? or are you not interested in learning anything and being intellectually honest?

  320. slpsa

    Circular arguments are not your original idea, we have heard this before, it is nothing new. More typing from you that amounts to nothing. Do you not tire of circular arguments? You bunnies just cannot process the burden is on you to prove what you say, it is not on us to prove you wrong. Again, being crazy is nothing to be proud of and trying to prey on people who are not intelligent enough to understand they are being lied to is reprehensible. We can go further and say: Is it God's will that the people who are tasked with spreading the word like to touch young boys peepees? This is why my sad friend, you are not taken seriously, are ostracized for the most part by a large percentage of posters for your ridiculous ad hominem arguments. You and people like you protect and harbor, sexual predators. I do not think anymore needs to be said. Sexual predators are forgiven, sheltered, covered up and hidden within these dens of " sin ". Yeah, some great bunch of people that is. A shining example of humanity.

  321. Chrispy777

    My ammo stays the same, and cannot change..."In the beginning, God...". I have yet to hear a logical argument detailing where the universe came from, and who caused the Big Bang, and just how did a massive explosion become ordered and complex,with regular orbits. Don't bother....I already know what you're gonna say.

  322. slpsa

    The truth is, he is right. Liars and crazy people/pedophiles can be easily called those names. Psychotic is better though, it fits the bill much tighter. You bible thumpers are all the same. You want us to prove you wrong, it is not our job. It is yours to show us undeniable physical and scientific proof he exists. We are back to square one, after 320 posts. You want us to prove you wrong, we cant be bothered to debate truth with fools, we suffer you enough every day in life. Look around the globe and be happy about how many religious wars are in motion and go pray to your uncaring make believe friend if it floats your boat. But at the end of the day, you sick f***s make my stomach turn. It is not even worth debating such obvious BS at times, but I cannot let fools pass by unchecked and unhindered. You all need a special island for the lot of you to practice your warfare, intolerance and hatred. Leave the rest of us normal intelligent people the hell out of it. For humanity's sake, wake up and smell the coffee.

  323. slpsa

    Yeah, God told me many things too, but I had drank about 2 40's of Irish Whiskey at the time. It is pretty foggy to this day, I do not recall what he said, but it was something about " your a dumbass son! " Then I woke up with a really bad hangover, and I promised God I would never drink again if he took my headache away. I lied though, I drank again. So what does that make me? A sinner?

  324. Epicurus

    i would explain to you. but you already have your mind up.

    you didnt use logic or reason to get to the position you are so why would anyone think you would use logic or reason to get out of it.

    if you think a book just saying some words is enough for you, fine. but just realize that anyone with half a brain thinks you are stupid.

    what is the hindu creation story and why dont you believe it?

  325. Samuel Morrissey

    Who said anything about honor? Moreover, where is the honor in suspending the most powerful critical function of mind? Where is the honor in believing things that may be lies, without checking first?

    More to the point, what is the point of believing something that cannot be checked, for true or false? Why would you do that? It indicates you are content and willing to accept and repeat lies as truth, with faith as your excuse. That is both dishonest and dishonorable.

    You cite coincidence as your evidence, but as I mentioned in a previous post, this argument is well covered and soundly refuted in the latter part of the doc, did you watch it?

  326. Epicurus

    "Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of FAVORED RACES (my caps) in the Struggle for Life," is a highly inflammatory title, which full title is rarely spoken of, for obvious PR reasons, and rarely known among its own proponents."

    He initially decided to call his 1859 book “An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through Natural Selection.” But with publisher persuasion, he changed the title to “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

    In the book, he writes the word “races” when he talks about “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and then proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants."

    Reference to the cabbage race won't make Darwin a racist. It merely refers to the variety of the cabbage. Even if he's a racist, the book's title doesn't reflect his position.

    Today’s word “races” isn't like "races" in Darwin's book title and content. In his later book, Descent of Man, he favors the cultural level of the northern European. He says that cultures that lack in technological advancement or modern education are “savage races.” And he expects the civilized races to absorb them eventually. As far as that goes, he may be a cultural snob, but he insists that all living humans are one species. That is, his theory of evolution says there aren’t any lower human species in existence in his day.

  327. robertallen1

    Obviously, you haven't learned that evolution has nothing to do with a supreme being or a system of morality. Obviously, you haven't learned that biological evolution and social darwinism are two different animals. Obviously, you haven't learned that your belief system upon which your criticism of evolution is founded (and a rickety foundation it is) has nothing to do with science. Obviously, you haven't learned that whether you like it or not, evolution is a fact.

    Obviously, you haven't read any Darwin. Obviously you are unaware that the term FAVORED RACES has nothing to do with racial bias, but rather with biological survival. So describing the title of one of Darwin's important works as inflammatory constitutes a polemic distortion indicative of a lack of education and constitutes an unforgiveable attempt at deceit so common to religees.

    It goes beyond the pale of rational, realistic and intelligent thought to posit that one must consult the designer of an internal combustion machine to find out how it works. You examine it and learn--that's what science is all about. The "'evolved" brains' of scientists" (as you pejoratively put it) have a much better chance of finding out what they don't know now than any product of your parochial mentality. Yesterday's mysteries are tomorrow's commonplaces. So by attempting to put them down, you only put yourself down.

    Obviously, you don't know as much as you think you do. Obviously, your ignorance and lack of intellection are engendered by your religion. So the sooner your "god" is gotten rid of, the better.

    P.S. You're right. Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould have nothing on you. These leaders in their fields are intelligent, educated and don't make uninformed statements.

  328. robertallen1

    I don't think you meant to write this to me.

  329. slpsa

    Again, certain types of math are job specific, there are literally billions of computations used in engineering depending on which line of work you are into. Differential equations are numerous and have different uses.There are first order, second order, highest order, LaPlace transform, Fourier series differentials. Vector representations of solutions of linear systems is cool stuff for sure. This is just scratching the surface really though. It is literally, eat, sleep, breathe and ingest math, everyday I work. You have to love math, or this job is not for you, put it that way. We are talking shop here, I feel like I am teaching

  330. robertallen1

    Once again, you have no idea how silly you sound quote mining, especially from the bible.

  331. Samuel Morrissey

    Faith (when given as reason) is fraud because it denies the responsibility of the burden of proof, and curtails intellectual development by refusing the duty of doubt and honesty.

  332. slpsa

    The word logic being used in any post you have made so far is frankly, offensive to intelligent people. There is no logic in one sentence you have written.

  333. robertallen1

    You cannot logically reason out a fact or pass conjecture off as an "outgrowth of the observable known universe," whatever that is and "its governing laws," whatever they are.

  334. slpsa

    Meh, I am lost, its late, I for sure have yet to disagree with one word you have posted, so yeah, wrong

  335. robertallen1

    And your intelligence is like your ammo. What makes you think the universe has to come from something, much less from your little pixie friend? What makes you think there's order? Did it ever occur to you that the concept of order is a posteriori.

  336. robertallen1

    From the large number of religees in the world, perhaps it is the intelligent who are abnormal, sad as it may seem.

  337. Guest

    I wrote:"Since Religion and Science took different path, science has always tried to prove or disprove that God does exist or not (if indirectly), and it will continue to do so until it can."(or as long as we can)
    I think:
    If infinity exist ahead of us, then infinity exist behind us. If infinity exist then god exist. What is god? "Anyone's guess for now" is my anwer. But it is by searching that we will find.
    It is easy to understand that a word like God has spread the world over. The word god is not that old but the concept of the mystery of life itself likely goes as far back as before humans could talk. The question: Who am i and what is outside of me? Does not require one to know how to talk. We assume our predecessors knew very little because we compare what their knowledge must have been according to artifacts and tools that are found but who knows how they used their mind...not necessarily their brain.
    When i say that we have been pregnant of the idea of god for eons and that we will one day give birth to it, I don't know what that could be. The union of all people's conciousness seen as a mass, is "the" creator of our immediate present, it can take any direction, especially if infinity is. Could it be that when the whole world comes to realize that we have this power, that the world will also realise that we can direct it in any direction we wish.
    Certain scientists bring the idea that we are nothing but energy, what could that mean? Where could this idea go? Where could someone take it? Where could millions take it?
    I am not bothered by people who believe in the God of their religion, i say, let them be. Stop the fight any way possible, but at the same time let's invest in the power of alliance.
    To take life without tension is to change the way humanity has always fonctioned and it start with the self in all possible situations.
    I expect to be misundestood because words never represents the depth of what we feel.

  338. robertallen1

    No, just a drunken mathematician.

  339. slpsa

    They are whatever the psychos say they are, subject to change at anytime, at the writers whim, no logic needed. Along the lines of say, an angry woman perhaps. Rules are subject to change at anytime, without the expressed or implied consent of the opposite party. That metaphor is perfect.

  340. slpsa

    I do wonder sometimes if it us that is crazy and blind to truth. Then I woke up from my bad, bad, dream. Nope, still here, and still correct on all counts.

  341. robertallen1

    So you use LaPlace transforms and Fourier series in your daily work. I envy you. Personally, I take mathematics from the point of view of an art form--and I still feel like someone lower than an amateur in the field(s). So you've taught math, too. How did you like it?

  342. slpsa

    Well, organizations, such as say, oh, the Vatican, who harbors pedos and religions that protect them, should bother you. But who I am I to say? I will say this in defense of my hatred of the Catholic religion. I am a father of four, two sons, two daughters. That is enough reason for these idiots to bother me, greatly.

  343. robertallen1

    "If infinity exist, then god exist." Where is the logic in that statement. "If infinity exist ahead of us, then infinity exist behind us." Isn't this merely a sententious way of saying that infinity is infinite?

  344. robertallen1

    How uplifting--for about a minute.

  345. slpsa

    I taught for 4 years, in the US, and decided I would rather insert bamboo shoots under my fingernails than suffer another semester teaching people who for the most part, were ill prepared to meet the stringent requirements needed for engineering degrees. Not a slight on Americans, once again, but a slight on how poor they prepare students for College and University degrees that require math skills, above and beyond what the education system passes off as adequate knowledge. I cannot say anywhere else if different at this point, I have never taught anywhere other than the US, but that being said, noone in my classes seemed to struggle so badly with engineering concepts like they did when I taught US students. I was educated in Canada, from start to finish, even my recent certifications. It seems as though the Canuck system better prepares the students for this career anyways, but again, I have not taught in 28 years to see if this has changed or not.

  346. slpsa

    I taught Engineering Concepts, by the way. Yes math, but with a twist or a billion or three.

  347. robertallen1

    Just about all the intelligent, well-informed and educated posters on this site are Canadian. So being from Los Angeles, I feel somewhat left out. As I informed you, my mathematical bent (assuming I have one, for I am far from a mathematical genius) is more towards the abstract or theoretical as opposed to the applications such as engineering, physics, population dynamics.

    You've given me your opinion on the caliber of math students, at least from an engineering point of view. Do you have any thoughts on higher math textbooks in general, on subjects such as calculus, abstract algebra, differential equations, differential geometry, etc.?

  348. robertallen1

    Another question. What do you think of Andrew Wiles?

  349. Vlatko


    You're bound to be misunderstood. You're talking in vague concepts. As if two people read the Bible and they interpret it differently.

    Since you "defined" God as "anyone's guess for now" lets look at how silly is this sentence:

    Science is trying to disprove anyone's guess for now. Or science is trying to disprove the union of all people's consciousness.

    There is no "definition" of God and science is not trying to disprove something which is not defined in the first place. Further more it doesn't fit the scientific method. Otherwise science would have been examining the possibility of the existence of my unicorn on Titan - the master of the universe.

  350. ASAP902


    being scientific minded and being religious are not mutually exclusive events. Albert Einstein (a not very well scientist), once said :

    Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

    the way you rant in your ivory tower-esque tone makes you sound no better than a fundamentalist of any religion talking out of their ***hole. You may be educated (it's very easy to boast being something you're not over the internet), but in all reality you sound like a r*tard.

  351. Vlatko


    Forget your senses. To paraphrase one FB comment: If we were only guided by "what makes sense", we would still believe that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth, but through evidence and logic a.k.a science we know the Earth is not flat and the Earth is not the center of the universe. "Our senses" are not equal to the truth.

    Your position makes sense in the same way as tor the 4 year old makes sense that trees make the wind.

  352. aptnw

    You speak of science as of a deity

  353. Achems_Razor

    Really, you know what I am going to say? is that the same as you knowing what happens to you 2 seconds after you die?

    You better go back to trolling school, or better yet, ask for your money back.

  354. Achems_Razor

    Az...see I can understand you some times. You said..."The union of all peoples consciousness seen as a mass, is "the" creator of our immediate present, it can take any direction especially if infinity is."

    That is a round-about way to say that with all our collective thinking we make our day to day reality and en-mass form the present reality as in accordance to "Julian Barbour's theory "the end of time" that time is nothing but an illusion, and that everything is static and everything that is, and was, and will be, already happened, waiting for us to pull out our unlimited probabilities at our disposal every Planck second and flipping the universe every Planck second to give us our flow of linear time. Right? Makes sense to me!

  355. Daniel Jones

    I can no longer read this sanctimonious and duplicitous scientific technocratic dictatorship propaganda malarky anymore without getting sick. Me thinks the gents in the "inner temple white coats" doth protest far too much for someone supposedly giving of their time freely to camp out on "Talking point" topics like this.

    I possess a BA in Ancient History and an MSC from the Centre for Alternative Technology, am neither a lib or a conservative, a democrat or a republican, a christian or even a Pagan. I am by definition simply seeking truth and I am willing to share my perch with the truth wherever I find it.

    I see nothing here but agendas. Scientific technocratic bullying of anyone who seeks to keep a human/spiritual element to the world view is treated with far too much contempt by a small number of trolls here who I can only assume either have large trust funds or benefactors with dubious agendas.

    Science was never meant to be the ultimate answer to anything. It is not a religion. It is not a political system. It is not a cult. It is a language used to describe the world around us and nothing more.

    And for anyone who bothers to research it - right up until people as recently as Openheimer or even Nasa's intelligencia - the world's greatest scientists and inventors accepted that there was something higher than mankind.

    Without a ''governor" on the limits to what can and should be built, science without a moral compass will be the death of humanity as we know it and the birth of the dead cyborg culture we are seeing becoming the dominant force at this very minute with far too much dubious political backing for comfort.

    You can no more trust a scientist than you used to be able to trust an inquisitor in the middle ages.

    Science has become a wh-o-re to the highest bidder and regularly poisons the world and its people every day for profit and power. Vaccines, toxic wastes, establishing "safe" levels for crap that shouldn't be there in the first place and on and on....

    I had a near death experience many years ago. I did the whole tunnel thing and everything else some of you may have heard about. I even did it with scepticism. I actually tried to pinch my cheek - but I didn't have one. I looked both ways up and down the tunnel at the same time because I was a mote of consciousness that could see 360 degrees at once. The tunnel showed me everything I had ever done.. and more besides. I tapped the white light at the end and knew if I crossed I wasn't coming back. So I turned back - and on the way back to my body I detoured and visited 2 people who later confirmed the visit. No question about it because I made sure I could test them later. That was the point. The entire time I was filled with a sense of knowing/understanding that is indescribable. A sense of peace and knowledge of order and harmony amidst the chaos.

    Now if it were up to the left brained scientists in the crowd my whole story would be consigned to the dust bin.

    Fortunately the world has not yet totally succumbed to the mind numbing constraints of an imbalanced world view that seeks to label and constrain what is naturally meant to be free and full of love and compassionate curiosity and replace it with moronic regurgitated rote learning.

    Science is as yet light years from a universal equation that explains everything. Until that time it should remember its place in the scheme of things and stop trying to prove its point at the end of a toxic gun because more and more people can see the emperor is quite naked under that lab coat.


  356. Vlatko


    Are you still here?

    A deity is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred.

    Give it another try.

  357. RikG01

    Haven't seen Keen Talks before, thanks for the link, Vlatko.

    You realise though you've just stolen my free time for the next week....... mwahaha

  358. ThisDarkChestOfWonders

    Oh man this is one of those threads that wont quit huh

  359. RikG01

    Oh! Thanks very much. I'm hoping that wasn't sarcasm, normally my explanations of things are so dreadful, even I need them explaining to me...

    RE: Higgs Boson, I kinda understand the principle (I'm not a physicist) but not well enough to explain it any better than we've already seen. Where is Pr. Brian Cox when you need him?

    Help me, Pr. Brian, You're my only hope...

  360. Vlatko


    Don't call people r*etards. Strike one. You just came, you don't want to go early.

    Quoting Einstein out of context is really something. Now read what he really thinks about religion.

    Further more scientists are not robots and are allowed to have their feelings and opinions, religious included, don't you think. For example Tesla was in love with a pigeon. That's right, he said: "I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life."

  361. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    ...a small number of trolls here who I can only assume either have large trust funds or benefactors with dubious agendas.

    Large funds... Benefactors... dubious agendas... I don't want to be rude, but are you sure you're all right.

    Science was never meant to be the ultimate answer to anything.

    Who said that it was in the first place. On the contrary science is only the best tool devised for arriving at the most logical, reasonable, empirically proven conclusions. No one here said that science is almighty. without a moral compass will be the death of humanity as we know it

    We tried the "religious moral compass" for the last 2000 years and look where we are. Can we try for a while to be moral without religion? Can we?

    Vaccines, toxic wastes, establishing "safe" levels for crap that shouldn't be there in the first place...

    Don't blame science. Blame capitalism, corporations and politics. The system is in perfect setup for science misuse and abuse.

    I had a near death experience many years ago

    I don't want to rob you from your "near death" experience, "tunnels" and everything, but I'm puzzled what that has to do with religion and God.

    Science is as yet light years from a universal equation that explains everything.

    Yeap, we said it before. We don't pretend to have the universal equation, nor that we will have it in near future. On the other hand religions are the ones who claim to have all the answers. Why don't you turn the tables around.

  362. ASAP902

    I don't believe that's a misquote, he clearly states what he's saying, so what if there's inconsistencies with other quotes by him, people are inconsistent.

  363. Vlatko


    I didn't say it was a misquote. I said you quote him out of context. Two different things. Read all his letters and everything else where he refers to religion, to form an opinion whether he was religious or not.

    Even if he was, that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

  364. RikG01

    Interesting, so you have absolutely no belief in a God? Since no 'god' can be known, existence of a god cannot be, per your statement, true.

    I can get with that. I have absoutely no belief in any gods. In fact I have a really tough time understanding how other people can. The idea seems ludicrous to me, an infininte, invisible, perfect, infallible sky-man who's bigger than infinity and came before infinity but didn't have a start itself (contradiction) and with infinite power and infalibility, created entirely fallible life in it's own image (contradiction).
    Then spent thousands of years doing nothing but be obsessed with the life only on that planet, demanding worship (contradiction, if something has needs, it is not perfect or infallible).

    Don't get me wrong, I think that other people having beliefs is fair enough, whatever floats yer boat and all that, and difference makes life interesting. I just can't quite understand it myself.

    All the arguments presented for the existence of God amounts to less than would prove the existance of Hogwarts, Elves or Darth Vader.

  365. Daniel Jones

    ...a small number of trolls here who I can only assume either have large trust funds or benefactors with dubious agendas.

    Large funds... Benefactors... dubious agendas... I don't want to be rude, but are you sure you're all right.


    Science was never meant to be the ultimate answer to anything.

    Who said that it was in the first place. On the contrary science is only the best tool devised for arriving at the most logical, reasonable, empirically proven conclusions. No one here said that science is almighty.


    We tried the "religious moral compass" for the last 2000 years and look where we are. Can we try for a while to be moral without religion? Can we?


    Vaccines, toxic wastes, establishing "safe" levels for crap that shouldn't be there in the first place...

    Don't blame science. Blame capitalism, corporations and politics. The system is in perfect setup for science misuse and abuse.


    I had a near death experience many years ago

    I don't want to rob you from your "near death" experience, "tunnels" and everything, but I'm puzzled what that has to do with religion and God.


    Science is as yet light years from a universal equation that explains everything.

    Yeap, we said it before. We don't pretend to have the universal equation, nor that we will have it in near future. On the other hand religions are the ones who claim to have all the answers. Why don't you turn the tables around.


  366. RikG01

    "Since Religion and Science took different path, science has always tried to prove or disprove that God does exist or not (if indirectly), and it will continue to do so until it can.
    I realize that most commenters will argue this, but that still remains my opinion.

    I sort of agree, but gods aren't the target of science one way or another. Understanding is the target of science and if that understanding leads us to discover there is or is not a god, it's kewl but not a priority. It's just one more thing on the list of discoveries waiting to be ...well, discovered.

    Half the problems that face the atheistic community come from Thesists [falsely] claiming that we're out to get them and "God". It'd be better all around if they understood that gods don't register with us one way ot ther other. We're interested in factual truth, wherever the factual truth may take us.

  367. Samuel Morrissey

    @Daniel Jones - from the comment policy :

    8. How do I write a good comment?

    You write a good comment by not insulting others, by not using CAPS LOCK, by not using repetitive punctuation, and by sticking to the argument if you don’t agree with someone. Remember, the minute you insult a person in a debate, you lose.

    I have already posted that people of faith are under represented here, and earnestly asked for some critical contribution, as has Kateye70 and some others, most of us have not once insulted anyone, rather we have been insulted; by others and now by yourself.

    And you call us trolls?

    How very DARE you?

  368. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    1. Don't write in CAPS LOCK. It looks like you're yelling. Read the comment policy.

    2. Scroll up and down. The "science brigade" didn't insult anyone. At least not like @ASAP902 did, with name calling.

    3. What is your solution? Religion to stay in bed with politics instead of science? Science is just a tool Daniel, not dogma, not organization. Get used to it. At least try to make clear distinctions. As a tool, can fall into anyone's hands, good or bad, honest or corrupt.

    4. Yes there is great unknown out-there, but that is not the reason for building shrines dedicated to supernatural beings.

    5. What part from this you don't understand: Science doesn't pretend to have the universal equation, nor that it will have it in near future. Science never claims to be all knowing.

  369. Daniel Jones

    Sorry bout the caps - was an attempt to format for clarity. There were 3 different levels of text there.

    Sam if you feel singled out I apologise. I actually never had you in mind to be honest. And I do not want to name names and I said a small number to make sure I was not painting all with same brush.

    I will not bother pointing fingers at the main perpetrators of the intellectual bullying that has taken place on this thread but you can take your "How dare you?" right back because I do dare and I will always defend an underdog in any unfair fight.

    And to be clear on this point : I AM NOT A CREATIONIST. It's been 30 years since my last confession thank you and I agree more with the general sentiments here than I disagree. I am compelled to offer a counter rebuttal purely based on the degree of psychological intimidation I have seen here being directed at kind souls who merely want to believe in a world that has a God in it.

    The implication that they are somehow degenerate apes is offensive and my gut tells me ultimately wrong in spirit if not in letter or actual fact.

  370. Kateye70

    Ouch! (hands over ears) you really don't have to shout to get a fair fact, I can't read your wall-o-text for all the caps. Quotes ( "these") work just fine.

  371. Guest

    You have such words to explain it. Mine sound like a child song played on a piano, yours may be the same song but played by an orchestra.

  372. Kateye70

    For those of us engaged in discussing a documentary about critical thinking but continually confronted with decidedly NON-critical attacks, this has been a long, and sometimes painful, discussion.

    A few of us are getting worn down by having to repeat over and over again the very points made in the documentary--which too few of those trolling from the religious point of view seem to have even bothered to watch, yet want us to listen to their opinions on.

    You've walked into a room full of already-engaged posters, so that is why you got the impression some people are being dumped on. (IMHO, some of them actually deserve it, too.)

  373. Daniel Jones

    1) yes sorry for caps. Explained above. 2) I disagree with this statement but in order to disprove it I would have to reveal specifics and I am trying to fix this thing without it getting nasty. 3) Again you demonstrate more of this duality based logic. This or that nonsense. We need both to survive or we will ultimately lose. Choosing one over the other is like lemmings being stampeded over 2 political cliffs every election. Yes it's a tool but science is well and truly on it's way to enabling the end of life as we know it. It's time for a wake up call. Scientific genocide is as real as religious genocide. 4) How do you know that? Have you ever had an experience that occurred in an expanded state of consciousness that compelled you to do so? If not until you stand in the shoes of someone who has you have no right to judge them for attempting to honour that experience in the only way they know how. 5) Yes I understand that it does not have the universal equation. However until it does it's acolytes are not allowed to treat "holistic" or "theistic" thinkers/believers as if they are pond scum barely worthy of respect or even life.

    Peace Vlatko :-)

  374. Guest

    Once again you take my words and play cards with them.
    Which was expected as i wrote at the bottom.
    And yes people on your side (some aren't) are trolling, if you want i can quote many phrases that belong in the trolling verbiage.

  375. Daniel Jones

    Thanks for the trolling support Az. And also for not naming names too. Counterproductive.

  376. Guest

    Just a question...why is caps not right in your estimate but using bold words ok?
    And if someone says you are trolling is it the same as calling them trolls?....i can copy paste a few of those (not yours).


  377. Daniel Jones

    OK understood. Long tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs. I'll sign off on this one and hope I was wrong.

    I've always valued the open mindedness of this site and was just a bit shocked at the changes I was seeing. Perhaps it was just a bad thread to hop into.

  378. RikG01

    I'm confused, are you saying that religion is needed for a moral agenda? Because frankly we know for a fact that is enitrely incorrect.

    "I see nothing here but agendas. Scientific technocratic bullying of anyone who seeks to keep a human/spiritual element to the world view is treated with far too much contempt by a small number of trolls here who I can only assume either have large trust funds or benefactors with dubious agendas."

    You see agendas, trust funds and benefactors, based on the fact that people here disagree with religious argument?

    Based on what? What evidence leads you to such conclusions? What prevents the posts on this forum, simply being from people who think differntly than you about religion and the nature of the universe? It's a bit of a strange reaction to have;

    "These people disagree with me, no one individual can possbily have a different opinion to must be a conspiracy....."

    People are disagreeing with the religious postings because those posters are using the exact methods to try to disagree with the video, as are seen in the video and apparently they haven't even watched it before coming to their conclusions. Seems pretty simple to me but maybe I'm missing something.

    Re: "near death experience". Good for you. You've apparently witnessed something different and survived to talk about it. That really doesn't change the matter hand, nor is it evidence of the existence of the supernatural. I'd love to see evidence of the supernatural, sadly, everything I've seen can be explained by logic (curse you, reason!!).

    It's all very well wanting to see magic and unicorns in the world, that's what freedom of religion is all about. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean you get to sit in judgement on those of us who don't want to dismiss reality in favour of personal fantasies.
    I also missed where a commenter regarded a 'unicorner' (heh I invented a word) as a degenerate ape. If they did, that's pretty unusual and pretty unfair but you can't use it to paint the whole forum.

  379. robertallen1

    Strawman! Strawman! Strawman!

    "You can no more trust a scientist than you used to be able to trust an inquisitor in the middle ages." Well, you can no more trust a religee or self-appointed arbiter of morality than you can a mad dog.
    And by the way, just who is to determine this "moral compass?" [read cork on knowledge] which you're hawking? Some religee who uses his fairty-tale belief system as the basis of his campaign against stem cell research, abortion and birth control? Some ignoramus who knows nothing about physics, biology or for that matter any other scientific discipline who believes himself qualified to pass judgment on what scientific research should be pursued what shouldn't (like someone whom I've recently been reading)? Someone who believes he knows what should be (like that same person)? In short, some uneducated boob trying to dictate to the educated?

    You're right. It would be a shame to consign your pointless anecdote to the dust bin when it can furnish so much amusement and recreation to any intelligent, discriminating reader.

    By "Openheimer," do you mean Robert Oppenheimer? Who are the "Nasa intelligencia [SIC]? " Who are these "worlds greatest scientists and inventors [who have] accepted that there was something higher than mankind?" Why do you hide behind the shield of vague generality? Are you afraid of being unmasked or confronted with the embarassing proposition that merely saying it's so doesn't make it so, no matter who says it.

    Talk about lack of critical thought--non-existence is more like it. And to think this twaddle comes from someone who prides himself on his education.

  380. Guest

    No all religious conversation turn this way. Actually you could copy paste half the comments on these thread and they would fit right in the thread of other docs.
    Thanks for trying to bring peace, it is refreshing! Cool picture with the crow, i have a similar pic with a small bird that nestled himself in my hand for 10 minutes after i rescue him from a green house window.

  381. Kateye70

    Daniel, I have to answer this: "3) Again you demonstrate more of this duality based logic. This or that nonsense. We need both to survive or we will ultimately lose. Choosing one over the other is like lemmings being stampeded over 2 political cliffs every election. Yes it's a tool but science is well and truly on it's way to enabling the end of life as we know it. It's time for a wake up call. Scientific genocide is as real as religious genocide."

    The problem for most of those defending the concept of critical thinking is that there are 'defenders of religion' who are seeking to deny the value of it.

    If your population can't understand the science, how the hell can they combat it's negative effects? As pointed out, science is neutral. It's humans who choose sides and commit genocide with whatever weapons are available. The first hominid who chipped a flint off a stone and stabbed someone with it had the beginnings of genocide in their hand.

    Just to bring in a current real-world example: The Texas Republican Party posted their 2012 platform, which specifically wants to PROHIBIT teaching children the skills needed for critical thinking, on the grounds that it may 'undermine their fixed beliefs.'

    If that doesn't scare the pants off of anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool party-liner, it should. When you look past the obscenity of it, just ask who benefits from having children NOT taught to use their critical faculties? Society as a whole? Some subset of society? Which subset?

    What happens when these children grow up and are unable to tell reality from fantasy, because they don't have the skills to separate one from the other?

    Just think about having whole generations of adults who are taught to be gullible and incapable of reasoning their way out. We already have much too large a percentage of the population who can see the problem but won't bother to challenge it. What happens when they can't even tell there's a problem.

    Again, who benefits?

  382. robertallen1

    Suggested additament: "Quoting Einstein out of context is really something DISHONEST."

  383. robertallen1

    Please re-read. Vlatko clearly indicated that it was a quote OUT OF CONTEXT. What an unforgiveable distortion!

  384. Guest

    Gods are not the target of science, the fundamental idea of a "god" (whatever it is) is though, god being the utmost unknown....again this is my opinion.

  385. Samuel Morrissey

    Apology accepted for my part, though you may want to extend that to some others also.

    The problem is, if you refuse to name names, then you are generalising, which makes it impossible for me to tell whether or not your comments are directed toward me.

    If you find someone to be insulting, why not call them on it directly by replying to their post? it is what I do, as you have just experienced. And calling anyone or generalising any group as troll(s) is as much an insult as any other.

    So you like to play devils advocate? well that's nice and I understand that feeling. What would be more appropriate however, would be your thoughts about the documentary itself, if you would be so kind.


  386. RikG01

    Yes, if you say that "god" means the unknown, but then, why not just say that the target of science is the unknown? It's more precise, doesn't risk alienating the religious and doesn't imply that the non-religious are seeking to remove 'theism' from the world.

    It's just semantics and PR but unfortunately, in heated debate (where most forums tend to reside as it's tough to recognise the sentiment and emotion behind a paragraph on a page) it's a good choice since people will look for anything to misinterpret, especially if they theink they're being attacked.

  387. Guest

    Most people if quoted from different periods of their life would be shown to have altered their perception along the way. Quoting them at 15, 25, 35, 45, 55 and so on, is not out of their context, it is showing that through certain thoughts they progressed towards their end thought.

  388. robertallen1

    One person says something and this makes it so.

    Has the "science brigade" called anyone a r*tard, much as I'm sure its members would like to?

    Finally, accusation does not constitute rebuttal. So don't delude yourself, you haven't turned the tables on anything nor are you capable of such.

  389. Vlatko


    ...god being the utmost unknown... again this is my opinion

    What are you trying to convey for God's (utmost unknown) sake. Are you saying that science is against discovering the unknown. Science is all about the unknown.

  390. Vlatko


    You're unfair, and you're definitely biased. He's trying to bring peace. Come on.

  391. robertallen1

    "Intellectual bullying." What a strawman! If you're idea can't stand up, it can't stand up and no use being a crybaby about it.

  392. Vlatko


    No, I don't take your words and play cards with them. I'm just quoting you. Whenever confronted you whine that you've been played.

    And no, people on "my side", in this thread do not insult nor troll. Now take off your biased glasses for once please.

    All of them were trying to be polite. Even @Robert was doing his best not to insult anyone.

    You're definitely not fair.

  393. Vlatko


    Really, so why do you complain that you've been sort of constantly misquoted or quoted out of context.

    If what you claim is true, why don't you say that you've just "progressed."

  394. Samuel Morrissey

    Hi Az,

    I was merely highlighting the portion of the comments policy for Daniel that he was in breach of. If you read there it explains how to use bold, italics and underline for this type of highlight. Overuse of course would appear to be in the same vein as overuse of CAPS. The odd bit of CAPS is OK for a highlight I think.

    I may have called people trolls on occasion, sometimes because the definition of internet 'troll' fits their behaviour, i.e they are just posting to irritate and get reactions, or sometimes because they are posting with such ignorance that it is like a child with their hands over their ears shouting on and on; 'MeMeMeMeMeMe!' and sadly often do not even seem to be aware of themselves.

    By the way, I answered your statement about science objectively trying to prove/disprove god, and I think Vlatkos last reply on that matter was very sincere. He didn't twist or 'play cards' with your words, he answered as best he could, with the limited information you had given him.

    What I would like to know is - what do you think of this documentary, its content and presentation?


  395. robertallen1

    In other words, because you related without evidence what you term a near-death experience, together with what you describe as its attendant events, we have to believe you--and if we don't, it's because we haven't experienced something similar. It's just as the documentary says: shift the blame to the intelligent skeptics.

  396. Daniel Jones

    I think there is general confusion here between religions, their dogmas and spirituality. Budhism is a very different animal to Roman Catholicism for instance. You can be spiritually minded without ever being tied to a dogmatic religious political system.

    A world where science was in bed with spirituality would be a perfect ideal for me. Spirituality would imply a system of morality and an internal compass that is sadly lacking in a mechanical android mindset. Unfortunately uniformitarian science would have us all believe that we are merely carbon based accidents in a clockwork universe and that all that ails us can be cured with science via chemistry, physics or what have you.

    Allopathic medicine is a perfect example of science gone wrong as it believes petroleum-based products are the only cure to all ailments despite killing more people than heart attacks in the US every year. Holistic/naturopathic medicine is more like science with spirituality infused into it and its emphasis on the human condition is palpably different. Anyone who has ever been fortunate enough to experience the difference in treatment will attest to this.

    And I absolutely agree that the dumbing down of the population is tragic. And in the bible belt no less. I also believe it's no accident but that's another matter.

    I call for more rigorous science education in schools along with a firm foundation in ethics, philosophy and history. And let's not forget music because no other discipline better demonstrates the pure magic that comes from fusing mathematics with soul in a way that does more to prove the existence of spirit than almost any other human discipline I can think of.

  397. robertallen1

    More than sorry to hear about what's happening in your home state--it scares the pants off me too. Have you heard of NCSE, National Center for Science Education, of which I'm a proud $35/yr. member?

  398. RikG01

    "Most people if quoted from different periods of their life would be shown to have altered their perception along the way. Quoting them at 15, 25, 35, 45, 55 and so on, is not out of their context, it is showing that through certain thoughts they progressed towards their end thought.

    Yes, excpet when you use a quote taken at 25, then fail to point out the other quotes from the rest of the life, which completely refute the first quote, that IS dishonest. And it's exactly what was done, hence people pointing out that it was out of context.

    You can't just "say, Yeah well he MAY have said it in 'this' context once..."
    Einstein was not in favour of religion over science, the only people who claim otherwise are creationists or people who've read what creationists have said, then not bothered to find out for themselves.

  399. Daniel Jones

    Can I suggest just simply reading the thread? The answers you claim to seek are found within. Have a great day :-)

  400. robertallen1

    Are you alleging that this was the case with Einstein?

  401. Daniel Jones

    Cool. Mine was a wild visitor just learning to fly. He stayed for a few hours and I have photos of him on the shoulders of my kids and nieces. It was absolutely wild but tame enough that I never feared for my eyes or my daughter's.

  402. Daniel Jones

    Wow. Just wow! You are a precious one. Bullied much at school?

  403. RikG01

    Gosh darn you, Samuel Morrissey. You and your...."Back on Topic" grrrr

    It's actually a really good series, clear, concise, funny and interesting. I recognised far too many creationist or con-job tactics, so it was good to see someone refuting such falacy and championing critcal thinking.

  404. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    2. Whatever specifics you reveal, you will not find anyone from the "science brigade" calling the others r*tard. BTW the man who used the word r*tard, you actually defended him. You think he is HUMANIST.

    3. What duality? You refuse to define science in a proper way. Having said that you find science guilty on no basis. You say: "Scientific genocide is as real as religious genocide." That is completely dishonest statement, because science and religion are two completely distinct incomparable categories (tool and dogma).

    4. You're telling me that building shrines to unknown supernatural beings is a way to go. And in order to have the right to argue against it I have to experience an expanded state of consciousness? Are you saying Scientology, Johnstown, are way to go.

    5. "holistic" or "theistic" thinkers/believers are not treated as pond scum, unless they try to interfere with education, politics, public life.

  405. robertallen1

    "Unfortunately, uniformitarian science . . . " Strawman one.

    "All allopathic medicine is a perfect example of science gone wrong . . . " Strawman two.

    "A world where science was in bed with spirituality would be a perfect ideal for me." Well, maybe for you, but it goes against the warp and woof of science, just as hollistic medicine which you've described as "science with spirituality infused."

    And speaking of the spiritual, can you prove that it actually exists--and don't try to use your pathetically ignorant example of music to do so.

    Let's face the facts. You don't mean a firm SCHOLARLY foundation in ethics, philosophy and history, you mean an inculcation into your way of non-critical thinking. If anyone is guilty of dumbing down the population, it's prescriptive people like you.

  406. David Ewer

    Great series - thanks Vlatko x

  407. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    That is the problem. Robert wrote wall of text to you as counter argument and you return with simple subtle insult.

    What does "Bullied much at school" have to do with anything he said?

  408. robertallen1

    Is this to pass as a refutation?

  409. Daniel Jones


    Prove to me that you love your mother. Prove it to me right now. Got any kids? Prove to me that you love them. How about a dog? Prove that you love that.

    Then we'll talk about what you need to have proof about.

    You need to get on with living life and stop trying to suffocate it mate. Your vibe is so sulphurous you do your own arguments a disservice every time...

  410. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Again you didn't say anything related to his arguments. Just old good subtle patronizing, on how he should live his life.

  411. RikG01

    Wow, you must have had some REALLY strange experiences of the medical world and you've a bizarre idea of what science is.

    I've never once met or read a scientists or atheist who was without a moral compass because they chose science over fairies. Infact most of the great scientists and atheists in history were or are vegetarians, even vegans, as they have a strong moral compass. Certainly equal to most spiritualists and definitely far stronger than many religious people who are only too content to eat meat and judge people who disagree with their beliefs as hellbound, amoral or even evil.

    You will certainly see from history that while scientist may have created powerful technology, it was leaders and military (who often claim to be led or at least backed by God) that turned those creations into weapons, and used them. Scientists, atheists and intellectuals are often the first to speak out against wars (usually started by the religious or on religious grounds) and have famously lamented when their creations have been used to kill or bring harm.

    I've rarely seen such lamentation from religious people who have slaughtered in the name of their god. When you look at the facts of history, you'll find you've got it backwards.

  412. robertallen1

    I don't believe I asserted that I loved my mother. I don't believe I asserted that I even have any kids. I don't believe I asserted that I have a dog. So, unlike you who assert the existence of spirituality and whatever, I don't need to prove anything. Obviously, you didn't watch the documentary, preferring instead to run off at the keyboard.

    Spare me your milk-and-water advice. Coming from you, it's an insult to the intelligence.

  413. robertallen1

    True, all the way back to Archimedes and certainly before.

    False dichotomy screams out from just about all of his posts.

  414. over the edge

    Daniel Jones
    you stated "Spirituality would imply a system of morality and an internal compass " why can't our moral compass come from ourselves? why do we need spirituality to give us our morals? when we as humans learn that we are responsible for our own actions and can take credit for behaving well and being charitable and conversely taking responsibility for our missteps instead of giving credit to good to a god or blame for bad to a devil. i would like to try a world like that some day.

  415. Daniel Jones

    Rob you are welcome to keep a world where the only things that can be discussed are those that can be proven. Really. Keep it. I wont even try to borrow it mate. It's all yours.

    And I dont recall my little vignette being a challenging statement that required proof. It's no different that saying I had eggs for breakfast really.

  416. Daniel Jones

    Fairies are not the opposite of science. That's just sophistry at play.
    And I am first and foremost an historian and I disagree with your interpretation of it. Simple really, and you're more than welcome to your opinion. Plenty of room here for more than one.

  417. Kateye70

    Mmmm, I really don't think most of the critical-thinking side of the debate have any issue with anyone's personal spirituality, and many here run the gamut from true non-believer, to those willing to wait and see, to actual church-goers. None of us take kindly to being condemned to hell, however.

    There was quite a lively section of this thread that made a point of distinguishing between one's personal beliefs, and the imposition of those beliefs onto the rest of the population, which is what the religious dogmatists continually seek to do.

    Which again brings up the documentary, which also dealt with this very issue.

    And since religion (as opposed to spirituality), by its very nature, is a social power structure, it naturally seeks to consolidate power in traditional human ways, such as early childhood conversion, coercion and thought manipulation.

    Ever wonder why ads are aimed primarily at children, teens and young adults? It's because brand loyalty fixed in childhood influences purchases made decades later.

    Older adults are more likely to question the validity of advertising claims, and to dismiss them, while continuing to purchase brands that claimed their own loyalty in childhood.

    It's why the Jesuits long ago said, "give me the child and I'll give you the man." It's why children are sent to religion classes/schools/camps etc.

  418. over the edge

    Daniel Jones
    i speak only for myself but i don't think anyone said "only things that can be discussed are those that can be proven" i have said many times before if your beliefs make you happy and don't interfere with anyone else or their beliefs go ahead. the problem usually starts when someone tries to state a belief as fact,tries to force it upon others,tries to influence the rights of others,uses the belief to spread hate or intolerance,uses it to indoctrinate children or claims something as scientific that clearly isn't. like it or not but i will stand up every time those things are done.

  419. RikG01

    Another strawman, Rob, nor anyone else has advocated a world where only the provable is disussed. Infact it's a ridiculous thing to say, if it weren't for he discussion, dreams and questions of scientists and intellectualls who questioned the way things are, you wouldn't be here with us having this discussion as the internet wouldn't exist, nor the technology to create or use it.

    In fact, stopping discussion, questtions and ideas, is the typical act of the relgious state, not the scientific.

  420. Daniel Jones


    This may be your site but the patronising has been coming from you a lot lately mate so lets just call a spade a spade.

    This forum has degenerated into a state where comments like this are supposed to represent your majority science based view:

    "And speaking of the spiritual, can you prove that it actually exists--and don't try to use your pathetically ignorant example of music to do so."

    Why should I bother to throw more pearls before such swine?

    Seriously tell me why I should bother?

    And stop with the "answer the argument" tact because it's based on circular logic that practically eliminates all possibility of your opposition ever being able to respond to your question in the first place.

    How can we debate the existence of the supernatural when by definition it can never be an empirically demonstrable in vitro experiment that yields a numerical value that satisfies the left brain.

    I can say that my 20 year old memory of a near death experience is more clear than what I did yesterday but I'm afraid that even if I'd brought my astral camera to the event you would only claim that I'd photoshopped it.

    So I refute this hung jury and clearly state my case that I have watched the drivel that this argument is based upon and have nonetheless formed my own interpretation.

  421. Daniel Jones

    Why do you assume that spirituality is another word for god or religion? I didn't say it so why do you believe it?

    My own experience of spirituality has always felt like it came from my centre and yet resonated with every atom of everything in the universe at once. God and religion never even crossed my mind to be honest. Electromagnetism will undoubtedly prove to play a large part in the dissemination of this "energy" in the end I have no doubt. But I am making no contentious statements here merely musing.

    If anything I think morality is a natural progression from innate spirituality and that we are all innately spiritual beings, some of whom listen more clearly to their moral compass than others.

    And I agree totally with your last statement on credit and blame.

  422. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Of course I was not patronizing. I was just pointing out to you that you're equally guilty as the ones you accuse.

    By using the word "swine" you're just proving my point even further. And in the same time you're convinced that your words are "pearls." What an irony.

    You're entering the discussion with desire to defend spirituality, near death experiences, religion and what not, while accusing science.

    If you're unable to answer the questions and arguments posed at you, I wonder why you want to discuss in the first place?

  423. Kateye70

    @over the edge: "if you haven't watched it there is a great doc here at tdf "Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?" if you wish to watch or comment there. your thoughts would be appreciated."

    A little late in seeing this post, but you reminded me--that's another book I had downloaded, but got sidetracked before reading. I'll bring it up to the top.

    I believe I did watch that documentary a while back (which was probably why I bought the book, lol). I think I'll go give it another watch, and then look through the book to see where I left off--without forgetting the rest of my reading list!

    I think what appealed to me is that Sam Harris managed make a coherent thought out of my own musings, and I had one of those "Aha! That's what I meant!" moments.

  424. robertallen1

    And as the documentary clearly stated, no one would normally ask for proof of what you had for breakfast anymore than when you last brushed your teeth. But again, I keep forgetting, you haven't watched the documentary, preferring merely to comment on what you haven't seen and what you know nothing about.

  425. robertallen1

    You're a fine one to speak of sophistry--and just why aren't fairies (and by this I assume you mean an unfounded belief in them) the opposite of science?

  426. robertallen1

    Another strawman, wouldn't you say?

  427. robertallen1

    Or tries to pass belief off as fact.

  428. robertallen1

    And what a shallow, vapid and conceited interpretation it is ("Why should I bother to throw more pearls before such swine?")

    P.S. Just how does the "answer the argument" tact eliminate all possibility of the opposition being able to respond the question in the first place and how is it circular? Or is this merely a smoke screen for your lack of intellectual depth?

  429. Daniel Jones

    1) So you've never heard of the quote "Pearls before swine?" It's in the Bible apparently Matthew 7:6 according to google. It is an accepted phrase meaning a waste of time.

    2) I entered the discussion in order to defend an underdog viewpoint and I used personal experience, including spirituality and other facts to demonstrate that my point was valid even if not conclusively provable. Only to be heckled as an id**t at almost every turn.

    3) I am more than capable of answering these questions and holding my own in debates of any size or description. Don't think for a second that this is in any way intimidating. I enjoy discussions but I do not enjoy playing the tool in in a theatrical spectacle with an a priori assumption that science is right because i says so and a determination to make all others feel small.

  430. Daniel Jones

    Always clearly differentiating between the two but often overlooked by those looking for Straw Men under the bed.

  431. robertallen1

    Well, you're exalted in my book. Of course, my book's not the bible, but rather the encyclopedia.

    Could you please tell me more about what's happening with education in your state? Have you heard of NCSE, National Center for Science Education?

  432. Daniel Jones

    If it was any longer than 11 minutes I would have had to have switched it off to be honest.

  433. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Actually the documentary is 1 hour and 32 minutes long (web series). Watch the rest and come back. Lot of nice arguments inside.

    Edit 1: Hahaha... you've edited the comment to save yourself from an embarrassment. You thought that the documentary is only 11 minutes long.

    Edit 2: You've restored the original comment. That is honest.

  434. Daniel Jones

    Agreed. Only watched first part. Will get back tomorrow. And what was wrong w my reply to you just now?

  435. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Nothing wrong. Just watch it.

  436. Kateye70

    Wow, exalted! I feel special, now! =D

    Strictly speaking, Texas is not my state, since I moved away at age 4, but I have a lot of family, extended family, and friends there. As far as what's happening in education seems pretty sad. When I googled the Texas Republican Party platform, I came across a blog article by John T. Harvey on Forbes dot com ("The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform") which delves into the issues facing the Texas school system and could inform you much more than I. But in a nutshell, they are balancing the budget by cutting education funding while touting the importance of education >.<

    I know teachers, both retired and currently working, who are appalled, and struggling with the limitations already imposed and with still more being threatened. One of my World of Warcraft guildmates is a teacher in Dallas, and I have been listening to her rants for the last couple of years. (Not to mention the occasional hysterically funny readings of student essays she has gifted us with over ventrilo.)

    I had not previously heard of NCSE, but I have now, and bookmarked the page for later reading. Thanks!

  437. Daniel Jones

    No there was no bad intent other than i was watching it again just now to be sure i hadnt missed anything, realised my error and simply wanted to avoid a feeding frenzy based on an honest mistake.

  438. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    1. Yes I heard of the quote. But you didn't use it correctly. To refresh your memory, you've said "such swine", referring to @Robert.

    2. If you want to defend your underdog viewpoint, you need to make it without: "I don't have a proof, but please believe me."

    3. "that science is right because i says so". I don't recall anyone saying that. The science is right simply because countless of times over the last several centuries turned out to be right by all accounts.

  439. robertallen1

    What does the "=D" at the end of your first line stand for?

    NCSE is a fine organization. As I informed you, I'm a $35/year member--and I'm not a joiner. So it's worth your while to check it out. Some of its REPORTS are on line. Meanwhile I will check out Mr. Harvey's article.

    P.S. What is the Warcraft Guild.

  440. robertallen1

    I really like the last quote. Would you mind providing the sources for both of them? I wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of creationist tactics.

  441. Kateye70

    Hehe, my complete lack of credentials is now being exposed.

    The " =D " is just an emoticon for a grin (I use = instead of : for eyes because...I like it).

    I play World of Warcraft, an MMO (hope I'm not explaining too much: Massively Multi-player Online game). In the game, players can group into social units known as 'guilds.' I've been in a number of different ones, and have made some wonderful online friendships that have extended beyond the game into Facebook and phone calls. I haven't had the opportunity to meet any of my guildmates in person, but that's due to geography, not willingness. Sadly, none of them live within driving distance.

    p.s. the " >.< " at the end of the next paragraph is another emoticon, for a frown.

  442. Epicurus

    personal experience by its very nature is subjective. that is not a good way to base a world view.

    how come near death experiences are always culturally consistent? you never have a hindu having a christian NDE or vice versa. know what i mean?

    perhaps the experience is a psychological one and is not actually real but more like a dream.

  443. robertallen1

    How can a point be valid if not conclusively provable? Considering the mentality embraced in your trip down memory lane, you should expect the heckling of which you complain and if it makes you feel small, it's done its job and done it well.

    So far, you've made a poor showing of being able to hold your own and given a stellar performance as a tool (or do you mean fool?).

  444. robertallen1

    I see. And just where can I find this teacher's rants and amusing anecdotes?

  445. Daniel Jones

    In answer to 1) you're right but it seemed in the same spirit as his thrust. I succumbed to the parrying instinct.

    2) I never said anyone had to believe me. But a witness to an event is seen as evidence in a court of law so it should at least be allowed into a discussion that relates to what has been observed - provided the witness doesn't bind the listener into believing him. It should still be shared with the debaters with an honest intent to add value to the discussion. The evidence would be circumstantial at the very least. Certainly not worthless or as claimed evidence for something it never was as has been implied.

    3) Many scientific theories are presented as irrefutable facts. Take Plate tectonics for example. There is an Earth crustal displacement theory that contradicts the taught paradigm and Albert Einstein thought it was good enough to write a forward to Hapgood's thesis on the subject. You would never even know it existed if you didn't dig into it.

    There is un undeniable hubris in the scientific mindset. It assumes where it has no right to tread simply because it has managed to label and quantify what it can see and observe. It's the small quantum bits and bobs it has trouble reconciling as perfectly at the moment and it is within the world of the impossibly small that I personally believe without proof that many unifying answers will be found.

    I read "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" many years ago and recommend it highly to anyone seeking a bridge between eastern philosophy and physics.

  446. Daniel Jones

    Actually my near death experience involved a Pagoda, 12 golden sphinxes and a giant ball of white light that could have been anything. So mine had Asian and Egyptian references. I am completely open to any interpretation as to who or what I was conversing with (the white ball in the pagoda). I have never ever labeled it. It is an open question mark that I await more data on before deciding. I merely shared the event as is...

  447. jeffroko

    Right.. I maintain my view that there is no proof either way. And those who say one side or the other should try to prove the other incorrect are going to continue to waste everyone's time including their own in a futile search.

  448. Kateye70

    (Sorry for off-topic discussion Vlatko)

    Since we communicate in a chat channel while in the game, or verbally using the Ventrilo or Mumble voip, those words are sadly lost to the ether. You'll just have to trust me on this...She is an excellent teacher and highly dedicated to teaching her 'kids' critical thinking skills.

  449. Daniel Jones

    Any point is valid in life Rob. Particular the true ones. The trick in life is to learn to weed out the wheat from the chaff. That's easily done in a laboratory but much harder in the real world in human interactions.

    Being a proud father I shudder to think what a family life would be like if conducted under your rules of engagement. It sounds like a post apocalyptic reality dictatorship where human experience is relegated to the backseat and nothing but scientific rules and dogma prevail. I don't think I'd be mister popular for long anyway.

    And I've made a good enough showing to get you flapping from the start so I take that as a sincere compliment and I'm not even kidding.

  450. Lorna Kennedy

    Evangelical christians like many other religions flood their sences with rythems and dance ect and basically trip out and experience hallucinations because their brains are reacting to too much stimuli In a near death experience ones body must be under a major amount of stress and i do believe they experience the same result. I like your culture point. I,ll have to use that one if you dont mind.

  451. Lorna Kennedy

    At least science is changable and open to new evidence even if they are wrong they can admit it and make the changes. We will never know everything but is that not wonderful. If i believed in god i would have to disbelieve so many of the wonderful facts nature is still showing us. We are on this earth to learn and pass it on to the next generation so our species can survive.

  452. Daniel Jones

    If there was a god why do you suppose he would not work through the periodic table to manifest his/her creations? Why would god not allow for evolution within his paradigm? Why would you have to abandon science? Surely everything science had ever discovered would continue to be true whether there was or was not a god. And, again to be clear, I am not a christian creationist.

    And what makes you think science always admits when it's wrong? Do you have proof of that statement as some here would demand?

    I attended a lecture by Jacques Benveniste shortly before his death. A hugely influential and successful scientist who followed the truth and threw away a successful career because he threatened the vested interests of the status quo. So no I do not believe that science finds it any easier to admit when its wrong than religions. They are both influenced by human frailties.

  453. Samuel Morrissey

    I totally agree with you when you say 'there is no proof either way.'

    The problem is, that means exactly; it is not worth discussing outside the realm of creative fantasy, the same as fairies, unicorns, polka dot pudding plants etc.

    Therefore if people decide to bring it up in reasonable discussion, then by doing so they create their own burden of proof, in order to validate the usage within that discussion. It is not a demand the sceptic makes, rather an obligation created by the proposition itself. If you cannot satisfy this burden, you can and should withdraw the proposition from any rational discussion.

    Not only do the proposers generally deny this responsibility, they then demand that the sceptic who has proposed nothing should shoulder it instead. This is a grotesque double standard, and your post implying that both viewpoints are equally flawed, highlights the fallacy within your own view, whatever that may be.

    But all this is clearly covered in the documentary, did you watch it yet?

  454. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Just watch the videos. They tackle all of your concerns.

    Anyone can be and it is a witness of some form of their own personal experience. That is completely subjective and it is useless argument in any form of discussion, especially this one (atheism, religion, etc.) It can serve only as an anecdote, nothing more.

    Some theories are irrefutable. Some are far away to get into mainstream, but offer quite interesting explanations. Some are laughable, and some are literally blunders (as shown in the past). Science is a self correcting process and nothing comes close to it, when it comes to explaining the world around us in every aspect. It is also true that even the greatest scientists are not immune to mistakes, not even Einstein. Believe it or not he got wrong not once, not twice, but 23 times (google it). But he was corrected (by himself and others) because of the very nature of the scientific method.

  455. robertallen1

    Your knowledge of the law and what constitutes evidence is as limited as your knowledge of everything else. Eyewitness testimony has to be beliveable. If I stated on the witness stand that I observed the tooth fairy in my sleep or saw Santa coming down the chimney, my testimony would undoubtedly be impeached as would yours if you were to testify as to your supposed near-death experience. So another of your false analogies bites the dust.

    To set the record straight, the concept of plate tectonics is accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream geologists (the only geologists who count) the world over--and there's no use lying about it.

    In your life-death struggle to argue from authority, you do just the opposite. Einstein was not a geologist, he expressed some serious reservations in his introduction to Hapgood, a salient fact which you fail to mention, just as you also fail to mention that Hapgood's earth crustal displacement theory has been discredited by those in the field, the only ones whose opinions count. be that as it may, great men are sometimes plainly wrong, such as Darwin on genetics and Newton on imaginary numbers--and that the beauty of science is that, regardless of the stature of those who make them, errors are corrected and concepts refined as new information comes in--which is more than I can say for anything you've espoused.

    Don't try to elevate your chimeric beliefs to the level of anything booting serious consideration, speaking of which, how can a unifying answer be found without proof?

    P.S. Just why would anyone want to read a work seeking a bridge between eastern philosophy and physics when the two are entirely separate?

  456. robertallen1

    Who cares what you maintain about matter spontaneously coming into existence, considering that you have neither the knowledge nor the background to maintain it? In short, your uncritical and untutored observations are worthless.

  457. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Jacques Benveniste introduced the "water memory" and was embarrassingly debunked by well-known skeptic James Randi, and fraud expert Walter Stewart. No one was able to replicate the original results of Benveniste, thus his theory went down the drain along with his reputation.

    You also mentioned Hapgood (was not a geologist BTW) who's theory is riddled by logical and factual gaps.

    The above tells me you lean to conspiratorial worldview.

  458. slpsa

    Just when I thought it was safe to reenter the conversation, it turns out even more delusional humans have joined the circular debate. We ask for proof, we ask the thumpers for proof, serious proof, they cannot even give one example. They cannot do it, we all know it. That's that. They turn it around on you and blither on. It is not our job to prove a damn thing. The basic problem is a math problem at its core. You got 0 to start with and end up with 0. I could apply some engineering equations to spell it completely out for the mathematical types, but 0 is still 0, regardless of which way they try to spin it.

  459. robertallen1

    First of all, my name is Robert.

    "Any point is valid in life . . . particular the true ones." Does this mean that although a point is false it is still valid? And this is what you call a good showing? Well, maybe in your own mind, but frankly your self-flattery on a level with your obnoxious delusions and conceit.

  460. slpsa

    Eating psycilocibin will do that to you. I had a near death experience at 20 years old too, I saw a a different set of meanings though. What the f--k a bent fork and a talking bread machine has to do with God is beyond me, but hey, it is all in the eye of the beholder right. Some good advice is to just lay off the drugs, those delusions will pass at some point.

  461. Lorna Kennedy

    I,m not focusing so much on the admitting when they are wrong. And your right its a human fault to not want to admit when they are wrong. I just think having a scientific view on life answers more questions and opens up yet more questions to be be answered. I find religion stops me in my tracks of having a curious interest in the world around me. Even within christianity there are so many different takes on god that they cant all be right. However i,m also really curious about what it is in the human brain that makes us have to believe and belong to these groups. I think its in our make up a survival instinct to trust and follow blindly what we are told by the people in power. I dont want to be insulting and i,m sorry if i insult anyone i,m just really interested in this subject. I believe you believe, what I,m interested in is why you do and not just because of what you tell me but every factor, race, country of birth, childhood, ect every factor comes into play as to why people believe in a god.

  462. Epicurus

    and your personality is probably one that is more open to other cultures and ideas.

    more new agey if you will. and your NDE fits that.

  463. slpsa

    you forgot they use it to sexually abuse children, then cover it up and protect the abusers. This in itself creates loathing and contempt for anyone who associates themselves with pedophiles and monsters under the umbrella of the purple sky fairy that rules us all. Please, get a grip, get a clue, get a brain. Seriously, all you bunnies.

  464. Epicurus

    you are right, thanks. i edited the comment to include the sources.

  465. slpsa

    When you force your opinions and beliefs on others, ones that are akin to being completely off your rocker, I find it more than offensive you question a mans love for his mother, his kids and his dog. You do a disservice to the human race blithering on and on and on about nothing. Another guy with 20 posts of nothing. We should bow to thee over thy awesomeness.

  466. robertallen1

    You want proofs? I'll give you some. Darwin's view of genetics, Lamarckian evolution, disease caused by bodily humors, eugenics, phrenology, geocentric universe, do you need more? So, once again, you've lied?

    And let's get the story on Benveniste straight. His experiments in homeopathy failed, not because of any vested interests, but because they couldn't pass the double-blind tests conducted thrice by Nature, one of the most reputable scientific journals. Again, you've lied.

    So why should we believe anything you say about a god or your near-death experience?

  467. slpsa

    Actually, I have referred to them as such more than once, because the truth hurts, they take offense. I am from the science brigade, I call em like I see em, much to the chagrin of some people I work with from time to time.

  468. Daniel Jones

    Robert you come across as so hopelessly ignorant sometimes. I mean really, please grow up and have a conversation like an adult. If my kids acted the way you did I'd feel a complete failure as a parent. Did no one ver teach you any manors or are you always this special when you feel threatened?

    "First new ideas are ridiculed etc etc then they are accepted as given" Your protests that the establishment disagree is a hollow one considering vested interests must always die out before new growth can take place. And the establishments retreat to the pillars of the establishment for self justification is easily seen through given enough time or space to see clearly. You're obviously still in the thick of the trees and haven't got the whole picture yet. Give it time and have patience.

  469. slpsa

    Well that being said, I tire of suffering fools, someday's I regress into out and out insults and colorful language to accompany it, other days I use the language of the professional I am. It depends who is talking, what they are saying and their intellect level. We do have to dumb it down sometimes. That being said, I apologize for writing some of what I said, but it does not change the fact, religious nut jobs are what they are.

  470. slpsa

    Whose rule is that? Really? You lose a debate the second you use insults? Is that the same guy who made the rule if you do not vote, you have no reason to complain? Surely this is a joke and not a serious statement?

  471. Daniel Jones

    If a conspiratorial world view means I dont believe everything the establishment sells me hook line and sinker yes. Just what vested interest was Benveniste threatening? The pharmaceutical industry. And you seriously want me to believe they would sit there and do nothing when their empire was threatened by a serious validation of homeopathy? Please.

    The actual facts of their debunk are unique and never occurred before in the history of Nature. They arrived with a tv charlatan with the intent to discredit the work of 5 labs. No surprise they achieved their mandate. No such effort was ever made before. You don't get published in Nature in the first place if you aren't peer reviewed.

    I spoke with a great man. I can no more prove it than fly to the moon but I know of at least one scientist who ruefully (truly he wished he hadn't bothered) followed the results of an experiment to the end - no matter the cost to his career. He went for the truth and politics and vested interests be damned. Respect.

    And it all boils down to simple electromagnetism in the end and will one day be no more mysterious to the open market than quartz crystals being the basis for all modern electronics.

  472. robertallen1

    And I'm really curious about what it is in the human brain that makes someone feel he owes someone an apology when he doesn't or should even care whether the other person feels insulted or not by being asked a perfect valid question. Keep up the good work and forge on, giving no quarter.

  473. slpsa

    Yes introduce those concepts and books at an earlier age, like we do in Canada. That would go a long way to fixing the problem Rob. Off topic, but hey, why not, God is a useless topic most times anyways.

  474. Vlatko


    Actually it is a line from the Comment Policy of this site, which I think is valid. You lose credibility in the eyes of the spectators when using insults in a debate. No matter how truthful you are, if you use bad language to convey that, you'll not make a point.

  475. Daniel Jones

    Actually it was a bit more traumatic and serious than that. Thanks for the advice though. I'll keep it in mind.

  476. Daniel Jones

    Agreed. I never saw an angel, jesus etc and I am allergic to churches.

  477. slpsa

    Ahhh, Fermat's Last Theorem. This man is pure genius. He figured all of this out at 10 years old. How awesome is that Rob? He has used the Iwasawa Theory on elliptic curves and complex mathematics to create totally real fields. If there is a God of science and math, it is this man. The purple sky fairy has got nothing on this guy.

  478. Samuel Morrissey

    Technically, in a debate ad hominem is part of a long list of logical fallacies, any of which basically concede the debate on the grounds of being unable to reasonably argue your position, which should consequently be withdrawn.

    Anyway It is not my statement, it is in the comment policy.

    And it may well simply be a humorous way to encourage people not to sling poop at each other.

    And I say, if you do vote, then you have no reason to complain!


  479. robertallen1

    From you comments and your factual boo-boo's (read out-and-out lies), you should feel like [...content removed by the mod...].

    Your frustration at failing to disprove anything I or other informed posters have posited is now apparent in the tenor of your posts.

    No, I don't feel threatened, only disgusted.

  480. Daniel Jones

    You must not have read my posts. Shame really. They contain more honesty and zeal for inquiry and the search for truth than your attempted attack.

  481. Daniel Jones

    Lied? Wow you are getting really desperate. Try reading something other than Wikipedia for your facts Robert.

  482. slpsa

    Coming from a bible thumper, I am sure that means alot to me. I could care less what you and your ilk think. I live in the here and now and in the numbers of life, You live in fantasy. Enjoy it. Insulting me means nothing. It is normal behavior from your type. Nothing new, just more deflection of direction and running from reality. Lash out when you cannot win. We know, been there, done that. You must be new.

  483. slpsa

    There was no attempt son. I just did it, period.

  484. slpsa

    Yes exactly. You vote for whom? LOL. You bunnies are entertainment for me, and not much more son.

  485. robertallen1

    No, you spoke with a quack. And Benveniste's allegation of vested interests and your unsubstantiated and unfounded endorsement sound more like sour grapes than anything else.

  486. robertallen1

    I'm still awaiting your opinion on Andrew Wiles.

  487. Samuel Morrissey

    Hmmm, you are calling me a bunny? and then son?

    Correct me if I am mistaken, but that seems like it might be meant in a derogatory way.

    In which case, I think possibly you have mistaken me for someone else?

    If not, what exactly have I said that you disagree with?

  488. Daniel Jones

    I never said I believed in a god. I believe it may be possible. Through my own experiences and observations I have been witness to events that cause me to suspect that there is a much bigger picture than we have currently been given as reality. The ultimate truth remains to be seen. And science will be useful for describing that ultimate truth when it's found. It's just that I don't believe that science is a replacement for truth or a transhumanist religion of sorts.

    My own software has always encouraged me to avoid groups until further notice. I have never found comfort in crowds.

    The only religions that ever interested me were the ones that cut out the dogma, insistence on faith and the middle men and insisted instead on direct experience. In spiritual terms that is the closest thing to a proof you're ever going to get.

    And you did not insult me and I thank you for your courtesy:-)

  489. Daniel Jones

    You're either very naive or very duplicitous. The entire pharmaceutical industry is supposed to be described as not being a vested interest? Are you serious? Do you have any idea what was at stake on multiple levels? It was huge and would have affected far more than just them. What about the minute amounts of crud in your drinking water for instance. Who would pay for that clean up? I cant even bother to go on. I feel like I'm making people suck eggs over the patently obvious here.

  490. robertallen1

    Actually, Dr. Wiles didn't figure it out when he was ten years old; according to him, he first became interested in math at that age. And let me refine your statement a bit, it's genius with a lot of hard work and thought (over 7 years) and one major frustration or bugbear which it took him, I believe, a year-and-a-half to overcome. He's a modern example true scholarship. Maybe he'll succeed in proving the Goldbach Conjecture.

    Incidentally, I've read two books on him, an intelligent and well-informed one by Simon Singh and an idiotic and ignorant one by Marilyn vos Savant who because she once did well on an IQ test feels qualified to call Dr. Wiles into question for using hyperbolic functions. Like you, I hate ignorance passing for knowledge.

    It's amazing how much good, new mathematics came out of all the failures.

  491. robertallen1

    What they really contain is a bunch of outright lies coupled with unsupported contentions being passed off as facts and a whole army of strawmen.

    Again, the untoward conceit.

  492. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    You really do believe in homeopathy. Well this is getting serious. Spiritualism, religion, homeopathy, NDE, crustal displacement theory... what a mix.

    The controversy was in 1988. To this day no one was able to replicate the results from the experiments. Not to mention Randi's $1 million prize-money if the test succeeds.

  493. robertallen1

    You asked for examples and I provided them.

    Once again, you're unable to refute me. So it's you who are getting desparate and sounding more obtuse.

  494. robertallen1

    All you're doing is trying to pass off conspiratorial allegations as facts--but again, you've never been a great one for proof.

  495. robertallen1

    I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me.

    For your list, everything Mr. Jones supports smacks of quackery.

  496. Vlatko


    I think you should apologize to @Samuel. Probably you've made a mistake.

  497. Daniel Jones

    Actually your assumptions partially incorrect. I never once said anywhere that I believed in Religion. In fact it implies dogma and I have explained my position on that. I only posited crustal displacement as an example to illustrate that there are always counter theories to accepted ones and these are rarely given space, even when they come with some serious weight behind them. Homeopathy works on animals and children so it avoids the placebo affect and is worthy of serious consideration, and is by a large number of users and practitioners. Spiritualism, NDE you have me there.

  498. Lorna Kennedy

    Its my first time ever interacting like this on a computer. I,m glad my first time is on this topic. I live in a very catholic area of west Ireland so i have forever made appologies for my beliefs as i will sometimes end up insulting my friends. A reformatory school in my local village run by christian brothers is the sole cause of many deaths of children and i have had the pleasure to meet many of the now grown children that survived their buggery and brutality, not such a pleasure to hear thier stories of torture (all in the name of god?). I visit the mas grave of children from four years to sixteen. A case of slipped in the bath, slipped in the bath. Poor mites. And people around here knew what was going on behind those wall and in blind belief never questioned the brothers because they had faith. Its long closed now, thank god? no thank knowlege. This is where my curiosity of religion spawned. And as i started reading and learning, again and again history has shown only the suffering and spilling of blood of the innocents. I,m reading a book about Jerusalem.Look how much blood has been shed in the name of god in just one tiny place on earth. Have we not learned anything from our history. Religion is a dangerous game where no one religion can be right and no one can prove them wrong.Scary.

  499. Daniel Jones

    Your implication that a conspiratorial allegation is any less valid than an establishment one sounds like a terrible argument. In fact conspiracies have always and will always exist in the form of quangos, cartels, monopolies, fraternal orders, establishment groups. As an historian I can assure you that one small group has always conspired to remain in power against the wishes of a much larger group and known they would lose power if the truth ever got out. This is axiomatic of every civilisation we have ever known and first started with the priest cults and temples long before it was politicised. Now its merely been monetised but its the same thing. Economic weapons of mass destruction certainly qualify as a conspiracy in any of their guises.

  500. slpsa

    woopsy. For sure it was not meant for you. We are on the same page here Sam. So sorry, hit the wrong reply. Doh. You are one of my favorite posters. Again, not meant for you sir.

  501. slpsa

    I did give it Rob, scroll

  502. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Hey, no one was able to replicate the results from the experiments since 1988. That is 24 years. No one was able to collect 1$ million prize-money. Do you know what people are capable of for $1 million.

    You sincerely believe that pharma is preventing this "discovery?" You can't be serious. Did you ask yourself what would be the net worth of that kind of a patent? Probably gazillion of dollars. You know what people would do for gazillion of dollars? For example what would a Russian tycoon do for $100 billion pharma patent. He would start World War 3 to get his hands on that "patent."

    Of course all of the above would be possible (at least in a movie) only if the "patent" was valid. But simply it is not, thus no one is interested in it. Daniel, homeopathy is a complete quackery. Get over it.

  503. slpsa

    I did, it was a fast hit of the reply button. I must admit, I have had a rather horrible day, it seems to be coming out in my reply's today, time to step back, reassess and collect more sober thoughts. i am man enough to admit such things, always have been. Sam is one of my favorite posters. Not a snowball's chance in Hades I would ever disagree with pretty much every word he has ever spoken. True story.

  504. Kim Alsøer

    Atheist !, do people that don't believe in Gods really need to have a brand name? why cant we just call the religious people idiots and close the case.
    otherwise we also have to find a name for those that don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese. We could call them cheese holes, so we know they dont believe in the green cheese moon concept, its nice to know what they are , ya know.;-) .

  505. slpsa

    Yes, they claim, it is " God's Will " they stick their man penises into little children and it is in the name of God when they kill. Hardly a religion or group of followers that deserve recognition or adoration, never mind the fantasy world they claim exists. They deserve prison and to be abolished.

  506. ASAP902

    Lol from your type
    Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

  507. Lorna Kennedy

    I dont like to call myself an athiest because then i belong to a group. I like my independant life and live by morals internal ie i dont have to write them down to know something is wrong or right. We are just a species like any other species striving to survive and grouping together wipes out the competition. So yeah i think your right. I dont want anyone to brand me. But i dont want to play a part in any war. That being possibly a war on religion.

  508. Daniel Jones

    Well if the proven efficacy of homeopathy can be put down to the power of mind over matter to heal it opens up another huge can of worms doesn't it? Homeopathy still exists and still works independently of Benveniste or his experiments.

    And you have missed the point on the Patent. There can be no patent on water memory and that is a huge part of the problem. It would ruin fortunes and make new ones freely available.

  509. slpsa

    I was vague about that part, what I meant was he knew at ten the theory could be proven and if a ten year old could do it, there had to be more. vos Savant is about as fake as it gets, I am happy to see I was not the only one who saw through her. I read 5 pages and tossed it into the trash bin. I have not read the other one, although I have heard of Mr Singh. I am searching it as we speak.

  510. Guest

    It seems the name Rob slides when it comes from you. Haven't you read a dozen times "Rob" does not like nicknames.

  511. Achems_Razor

    Off topic but I was thinking that myself. lol

  512. slpsa

    Yes, your type mate. We have been here a while, this is not a new debate and neither are the BS arguments. As one intelligent poster suggests, Religion is full of charlatans and hucksters, which is the least type that offend me. It is the blind faithful who attach themselves to institutions that bugger young children and protect the criminal monsters, add to that, the mass ignorance associated with pushing religion on people who have half a brain to know better. You can believe in floating sky fairy's all you wish, but the minute you open your traps about how it is us that have to bear the burden of proof of your false deity's and proceed to state it as fact that gets posters with any intellect ire's up. Again, think what you like, but do not think for one minute the lies people like you post will not be opposed, blown to shreds and ostracized. People tend to get that way when others are blatantly trolling or blatantly lying.

  513. slpsa

    I was never much good at following norms. Hence the math head on me. Soz, I will endeavor to use Robert, no probs AZ.. :)

  514. slpsa

    Your a Rogers Customer. Enough said. LOL! You must like paying more than you have to for your fancy smart phone. Does God have a decent plan for wireless? If so, you should get one and switch from the most expensive one, I am sure God can fix you up. Just trying to help you out.

  515. slpsa

    And btw AZ, my name for the record, is Rob/Robert/Robbie. I do not care which one they use. Names and their variants do not annoy me whatsoever. I have been called many things, a$$hole is not new. LOL.

  516. Guest

    az, no

  517. slpsa

    OI! LOL! another touchy guy huh? Ok, i will conform. No caps in az name. check. Do not call Robert Rob. Check. Anyone else?

  518. slpsa

    Kudos to you Robert, for not tearing me a new one for calling you your name. LOL. In the future, i do not mind being nudged gently to conform to whatever name makes your toes twinkle. You can call me the Rebel Engineer if that suits me and it makes one feel better.....rofl....

  519. robertallen1

    I'll bet you have a delightful accent. Ireland can't be such a dreadful place if it produced the likes of George Bernard Shaw and Jonathan Swift. Have you ever heard of Samuel Lover or Charles Robert Maturin?

    While I appreciate the autobiography and can understand your shyness, so far you have nothing to be ashamed of and a lot to be proud of and if your friends feel insulted when you speak your mind, they're not your friends.

    Please keep your posts coming.

  520. robertallen1

    My knowledge of history is probably just as great if not greater than yours, so don't try to play that card.

    Now, where is your evidence of a conspiracy on the part of the pharmaceutical companies against your false idol? "As a historian, I can assure you . . . " cuts it just about as much as your glittering generalities.

  521. slpsa

    Likewise for Lorna. We like new friends around here. Although my time is limited, and i do not post for months at a time due to work, you will find you are not judged around here too harshly, that is unless you tout obvious lies. As seen here. Lesson 1. Religious threads usually degrade quickly into not friendly territory. The rest of them spark excellent debate most times. The best posters here are more than friendly. Good people, and Vlatko is the man. Nuff said.

  522. Guest

    Hey Bob, I was joking, touchy guy? a joke!
    You are having a hard day? May be all this arguing is making your neck stiff.

  523. robertallen1

    I would appreciate your thoughts on Mr. Singh's book after you have read it. However, I must correct you on something. According to what Dr. Wiles stated about himself in a documentary I saw about him, he became interested in mathematics at the age of ten, learned about Fermat's last theorem (at that time, a double misnomer if I ever heard one) when he was sixteen and forgot about it for twenty years. He never indicated that while a teenager, he knew it could be proved. He simply never considered it. Now, if he could only prove the Goldbach conjecture, he would have two major mathematical break-throughs under his belt.

  524. Samuel Morrissey

    No worries, I thought as much, just wanted to make sure. (or give you the opportunity to cordially retort if I had thought wrong) Had to go fix a friends computer so I was away for a little while.

    Thank you for your compliments, I assure you I do not deserve them.

    Humble regards,

  525. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Well, if there is no patent, if homeopathy already works and it is in practice, where are the healed patients? They should be all over the news 24/7, and pharma should have gone bankrupt long time ago.

    Are we in a full scale word wide conspiracy?

  526. RikG01

    To be fair elements of the Pharmaceutical industry do have some serious conspiracy S*** and evil activity under their belt.

    Jones is absolutely, entirely and completely wrong though in the assertion that it's against homeopy etc. That stuff doesn't need a conspiracy to stop it, logic, reason, good old facts and experimentation do that nicely. Besides, most of the homeopathic "treatments" on the market are owned or supplied by groups like GlaxoSmithCline...the very people Jones would accuse of being in the "conspiracy".

    Question, Daniel, why would they be against something else that can and does make them money? The people who are against "naturalist medicine" are the ones who don't want (frankly) gullible people to get hurt by them. You'll find that most critics are actual scientists, doctors, previous victims or the families of victims. Dan, you really should pay attention to this video and others on critical thinking, you might save yourself some long-term harm or a few quid which would otherwise gone on useless quackery.

  527. Lorna Kennedy

    Religion was beaten into you around here.From a very young age. Those first few years of learning, so important. The church was the law. Its how they were brought up. If they were born in the east it would be a different god, same type of brain washing. My close friends dont believe in god but its a small place around here and many do and they are good people. As long as they dont shove it down my throat. But the church still has too much power in this country.

  528. robertallen1

    And they have too much power here as well. I say tax "the hell" out of them.

  529. Lorna Kennedy

    I know religions seem to be preocupied fighting each other but if it came down to the world divided,one half believes in god the other doesnt. Would it cause a war.? Both would want the power to rule and would do anything to get it. Death and corruption would ensue from both sides. Maybe? I dont know.
    Good to meet ye all. Interested in all sides as i think religion is more about the human mind and make up rather than,..god. Still, debating is great esp this way as one cant throw anything heavy at ones opposition.

  530. RikG01

    Amen to that, brother. Especially the Cult of $cientology and Catholicism, those mega-rich feckers can spare a few bob to improve hospitals and things that actually matter. Paying taxes is the least they could do.

  531. Samuel Morrissey

    That's the best pun so far. Even if it isn't a pun.

    I'll drink to that.

  532. robertallen1

    Another proof of science admitting it was wrong: homeopathy.

  533. robertallen1

    And going out of business is the best.

  534. robertallen1

    Now that you mention it, I'm not to sure whether it is or not, but it should be.

  535. Lorna Kennedy

    So how does this work?. Do ye comment on every documentary. Ye seem to know each other. Or is that just since comments on this documentary. If you dont mind me asking.

  536. robertallen1

    Every documentary has a separate comment thread. So just go to the documentary and add your comment.

  537. RikG01

    What Roberallen1 said re: comments. Aside from that, if people seem to know each other I think it's just the joys of debate but yes, I think you do tend to see people pop up on different docs. Prolly cos the reason we're here is an interest in information in general.

    Let's face it, people who love to learn, love to argue about it.

  538. over the edge

    Lorna Kennedy
    first off welcome. az usually does that she must be slipping stated "Ye seem to know each other." i am not sure if any of the posters know each other outside of this site but many of the posters are regulars and interact a lot so in a sense some know each other. Vlatko owns the site and Epicurus and Achems Razor are the moderators. you also stated "I dont like to call myself an athiest" just so you know comment long enough and that label will be applied so stick to your guns. this is off topic so again glad you joined us and let the games begin

  539. aptnw

    Still here?
    Just the occasional visit is all.

    And "give it another try" with someone who edits at will?
    No thanks.

    [edited by the moderator who edits at will]

  540. Jack1952

    The question is not who caused the big bang but what caused it. Science does not assume a who and does not start its investigation with this assumption. Scientists also concede that all knowledge has not been attained and quite freely admits when things are unknown. Not knowing all the answers does not leave us with religious beliefs as the default explanation.

  541. Epicurus

    i was so tempted to edit this to say something funny....

  542. Chrispy777

    If you know Roman Catholicism, then you know that that pagan religion, which "claims" to be Christian, is responsible for condemning Galileo for the "round earth" heresy. If you know the bible, then you know that it stated that the earth was circular, about 3000 years before Galileo. Read the bible, might learn something. We know that the earth is not the center of the solar system, or the galaxy, but how do we know that the earth isn't the center of the universe? Have you measured it to be so, and are you acquainted with the opposite boundaries, on the edges of the universe? We just might be smack in the middle. I'd rather be a four-year-old, with two eyes, and a child-like view, than to be an intellectual, whose head is buried in the sand.

  543. Achems_Razor

    "How do we know that the Earth isn't the center of the universe?" There is no center of the universe, anywhere that you happen to be in the universe is where it is expanding from. Say if you happen to live in the Andromeda Galaxy that is where the universe is expanding from, and so on, so no center.

  544. over the edge

    Galileo was found guilty by the Roman inquisition founded by Pope Sixtus V how is that not Roman Catholicism? could you please show me the exact passage(s) that claim the earth is circular? and could you also let me know if you think the OT is a book of facts because they get a lot wrong and are pretty brutal. or are you selectively reading the OT?

  545. Chrispy777

    Is the universe not expanding from a centralized point? If the "big blow" were true, then the point of explosion must be the center.

  546. Chrispy777

    It IS Roman Catholicism, which I abhor and reject, entirely. Read on, from the King James (caps are mine): Isaiah 40:21 "Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you, from the beginning? Have ye not understood, from the foundations of the earth?
    Isaiah 40:22 It is He (God) that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that STRETCHETH OUT THE HEAVENS AS A CURTAIN, AND SPREADETH THEM OUT, AS A TENT TO DWELL IN." (sounds like an apt description of an expanding universe)
    Also, take note of the incredible scientific insight of this verse: Job 26:7 "He (God) stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and HANGETH THE EARTH UPON NOTHING."

    Roman Catholicism is fraught with pagan practices and superstitions, and doesn't follow the bible, anyway....mostly just "church tradition."

  547. Achems_Razor

    No, the point of explosion is not the center of the universe, there was no point of explosion. Everything was contained in the singularity no matter how small. The singularity itself went bang and in the singularity was the conglomeration of everything that comprises the universe. There was no one point of the singularity that exploded first.

    An analogy would be like blowing up a balloon and all the galaxies are on the outside of the balloon and expanding further apart from one another as the balloon is being blow up.

    Or like raisins in raisin dough expanding further apart as the dough is heated up to make raisin bread.

    Cannot put this any simpler for you to follow.

  548. Chrispy777

    This documentary had me bursting out laughing at so many points, that I don't even know where to begin! His numerous examples of a+b=c are so biased and stacked (in his favor), that in order to do a proper critique, I'd have to stop the doc every other second....but I won't waste my time. Good laughs, though. His relentless and intelligent-sounding delivery can over-power and over-shadow the naive and gullible, who are either already sold on his viewpoint, or who don't have the mental capacity to break things down, intellectually, for themselves. This guy is an absolute intellectual fraud, but he seems to be the poster-boy for the deluded atheist and the empty-headed evolutionist...........makes sense.

  549. robertallen1

    If you assert that the bible states that the earth was circular, you must be prepared to quote chapter and verse. Don't ask us to take your word for it, because I can assure you we won't.

    On you go rattling away on subjects, such as astronomy and history, of which you know nothing, just like the four-year-old child you wish to be.

  550. over the edge

    that's it? the "CIRCLE OF THE EARTH," a circle is flat isn't it? the earth is a sphere. the earth has foundations? i thought it was hung on nothing? in one post you quoted two passages that obviously contradict each other. again i will ask what religion do you follow? i think it is important to understand where you are coming from but if you say that you refuse to answer i will not ask again

  551. robertallen1

    You don't get it. The center of the universe is only relative to where you are. But, like the four-year-old child you wish to be, you can't be expected to get it.

  552. over the edge

    "the empty-headed evolutionist" this should prove interesting please expand if you can

  553. Chrispy777

    I appreciate your examples, Achems, and yes....they were as simple as anyone could make it. It's interesting how that the balloon had to have, in the nature of common sense and logic, someone to purse their lips around the point of entry, and apply air pressure, in order to expand the balloon. Likewise, the raisin bread requires a skilled baker, who joins ingredients together, in an intelligent, effective manner, and applies the proper heat conditions, for a successful loaf to be created. My point is, no matter what earthly example you use, I can show you the absolute necessity for a Creator. As you deny this inescapable conclusion, you render your intellect impotent.

  554. robertallen1

    Interpreting the "circle of the earth" mentioned in Isaiah 40:22 to mean a sphere or globe is not only ignorant but dishonest, for such a concept of the earth was unknown at the time. The passage can refer only to the vault of the heavens over which god is supposed to reside.

    Job 26:7. Calling a typical representation of the cosmology of the time an incredible scientific insight is yet another gross and dishonest distortion.

    In short, it takes an intellectual with his head in the sand to understand these things, not some four-year-old child who knows no better than to attempt to deceive.

    Now, Mr. four-year-old child, who are you to say who or what follows the bible which you obviously know nothing about?

  555. robertallen1

    No, you can't put it any simpler--FOR AN ADULT, but by his own admission, Crispy would rather be a four-year-old child than a head-in-the-sand intellectual.

  556. robertallen1

    Talk about those who lack the mental capacity to break things down intellectually for themselves, talk about being delusional, talk about being empty-headed, talk about not being able to refute a single argument in the documentary--but most of all, talk about a four-year-old child in comparison with a head-in-the-sand intellectual who has actually studied his subject and probably others--it's beyond laughter.

  557. robertallen1

    What's worse, but expected, like the four-year-old child he wants to be, he completely and ignorantly misinterprets both of them.

  558. Chrispy777

    I reject religion. "Religion" can be summed up in this statement: "Man's search for God." I am a bible-believing Christian, which conversely, can be summed up as "God's search for man." I am independent and non-denominational, and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as my Saviour. I accept the bible as the revelation of God, BY FAITH, and I believe that my faith is reasonable and logical, and that it's not only NOT contradicted by science, but that science is fully supportive of my faith. Now, having said that, I am all the more an easy target for you (and others) to cast aspersions. Have at it, already have a rancorous rapport with me.

  559. over the edge

    this is getting more and more entertaining. the more
    Chrispy777 posts the more i realize that he/she has no proof for or idea of what he/she is talking about.

  560. robertallen1

    So you believe in the resurrection and accept the bible as the revelation of God--and BY FAITH yet, and furthermore by a "reasonable and logical" (and by extension oxymoronic) faith, just like a four-year-old child who can't be expected to think and analyze as would a head-in-the sand intellectual. When was the last time Santa Clause came down your chimney?

  561. Chrispy777

    Go ahead, split hairs over the words "circle" and "sphere." The issue of the earth having an invisible foundation, consisting of invisible forces, such as gravity and inertia, is plain for my puny mind to grasp, therefore it must be a cinch for yours.....or do you just like throwing a monkey wrench into things, and see if things grind to a halt?

  562. robertallen1

    Maybe Crispy777's a computer-generated incarnation of Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or Rick Perry--or heaven forfend, all three.

  563. robertallen1

    No monkey wrench is needed to have you grind to a halt. You do it on your own.

  564. over the edge

    lol nice try

  565. slpsa

    That was in jest Now that I know you are a female, that mistake wont repeat itself, I know az is a girl now. You are another of my favorite reads, you will probably never find me opposing you or patronizing you.

  566. slpsa

    That was not the impression I had the way it was taught to me, but perhaps you have read more than me about his history. I tend to pay more attention to the elite mathematicians and their actual work than their history, as it pertains to my work. Albeit, it has not really ever been part of my work to use Fermats Theorem, that is for things that go beyond my scope of expertise, although I have dabbled in reading about it. it is not beyond my comprehension, but practical use of that level of math is much beyond what is required in any of the engineering work I am certified to do. I stand corrected again, thanks for the info.

  567. slpsa

    I can only surmise, life there could not have been easy as a kid. I have visited that gem of a Country, and the sad tales of its history do not reflect the beauty it entails. This Country should be an example of why religion needs to be shunned.

  568. Chrispy777

    You're correct, Robert. In a battle of wits, I should refrain from trampling over an unarmed man.....just wouldn't be decent of me. Uhhhh......Robert? Where are your stout, intellectual explanations, to counter my valid, real-world examples of the demand for a Creator? So far, all I've been reading is your juvenile, ad hominem attacks, of which you (so often) accuse me of leveling at you. The subject of God is an atheist's "Achilles' Heel." You dance around it, side-step it, ignore it, and try to cloud the issue by claiming a superior intellect and greater volume of please wow me. We don't have an eternity, here.

  569. slpsa

    Indeed we do like to debate and argue, but the two most divisive topics there are always end up long, and sometimes heated. 9/11 and religion. Baddaboom, baddabing.

  570. Chrispy777

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Atheists, like you, need plenty of prayer. I will speak, on your behalf, to the God that you deny. Perhaps one day, you'll seek His grace, and you will be found, of Him....and I'm not being sarcastic, here.

  571. over the edge

    i didn't have a problem with your post until "it's not only NOT contradicted by science, but that science is fully supportive of my faith." so lets look at this using critical thought shall we
    1. god is supernatural science only deals with the natural world. so while not in conflict they are forever separate
    2. please explain noah's flood and particularly where the water came from and went to and see if it contradicts science.please be as specific as possible
    3.look at Matthews and Luke's birth passages Matthew has Herod in charge while Luke has Quirinal governor of Syria. they ruled at different times and the census mentioned didn't take place til Herod was dead. luke said they were there because the census and Joseph had to return to his ancestral home. what there is no record of the Romans requiring that and at the time it would be impossible for many to travel that distance not to mention the empire would grind to a halt and collapse.
    these are only a small example and i can give you more if you like but not only does the bible contradict science but logic,itself and history as well. on top of that it has been edited and translated multiple times as well as not being written down til long after the supposed events.

  572. slpsa

    there are no naive and gullible empty heads around here. The only one we see at this moment is descending into very familiar territory, the one where they get aggressive, post in caps, insult and degrade the educated, and basically make a mockery of any position other than their own. I already told you 430 posts ago, your material and outlook is not new, nothing you can call your own, it is not original insults, degradations, or flat out denials. You bunnies all share the same traits. You have nothing. But empty words and faith based promises of an everlasting peace if we follow the religion of liars, charlatans, hucksters, and pedophiles. When you come up with some original material, we will be here waiting for it. The funniest thing is, I have no doubt you will attempt to do so, I also have no doubt that it will be more BS and name calling rather than anything useful to debate.

  573. robertallen1

    I have to admit that I have a long way to go before I can understand it the way I would like to and may never get there, but it's worth trying. As I informed you, my mathematical bent is more towards the theoretical whereas yours is more towards the practical--and one certainly feeds into the other. I mean three hundred years ago, who would have thought of the role complex numbers would play in everyday existence? Who would have thought of the role non-Euclidean geometry would play in our understanding of the universe? On second thought, perhaps the feeding is mutual. The mathematical solution or modeling of a practical problem has often led to the enrichment of theoretical mathematics as with Stokes' theorem.

    Some of my favorite mathematicians (besides Newton and leibnitz): Gauss, Riemann, LaPlace, Legrange, Bernoulli (the whole family), Cantor and, of course, Euler and naturally Wiles. My guess is that you agree, but can certainly add others just as respectable and respected.

  574. robertallen1

    Shunned? Stamped out is more like it.

  575. robertallen1

    You're the one positing the demand for a creator, so you're the one who has to come up with the proof which is obviously your Achilles' Heel. Obviously you were too busy laughing like a four-year-old child to understand one of the basic tenets of the documentary.

  576. slpsa

    It has degraded into a mud slinging match, just as it does every time. Again, your act is not new, in fact, my troll detector is going off every four minutes or so. I am leaning towards pretty much saying you are of that nature. Noone can be that ignorant or blind. Oh wait, we have seen thousands of them here before you, who am I kidding. You are not new, nor are your disparaging remarks to people who hold a vast pool of knowledge collectively. You speak to us as children that need educating. You are the one who sorely lacks education in every field associated that you have typed about. Your only expertise lies within your own mind. Somehow, because you are Christian, you are better and smarter than the educated because you are a righteous bible bunny. Let me ask you this smart Christian guy, how do they get the caramel in a Caramilk bar? Exactly, you have no clue do you. God must have put it there. I knew that. Now take your meds, its late, your mummy will get mad if you stay up on the interwebz too late. You will be cranky, four year olds need their sleep you know.

  577. robertallen1

    Where did I state that I was an atheist? Where did I complain of ad hominem attacks referred to in your previous posts. This is as imaginary, fanciful and inaccurate as your interpretation of the two biblical passages, but what can one expect from someone who would rather be a four-year-old child?

  578. robertallen1

    No, you are not being sarcastic, just silly.

  579. slpsa

    You cannot be serious. LOL. I am sure, he does not need your help in life or the afterlife either. So what, is there a Heaven Bouncer, that is going to bar him? I bet his name is Mr T Junior. Why not, anything is possible right? He seems a good man Robert, that is all that is required in anyone's life. I am sure he sleeps well at night with no worry's about being judged by the flying sky fairy and his bosom buddy's. I do not either. I sleep very well knowing I do the best I can, to be the best Dad I can, the best husband I can, the best person I can be. By helping others, and being a good person, I leave a legacy of goodness and morality, and no made up creator is needed to thank me for it. I will go to sleep forever not caring what lies ahead, but being satisfied with what I left behind. A better world for giving a s**t about others. Even people like you. I forgive and live and let live pretty quick, I need no fake God to do those things. I do it by my own free will. If you knew what kind of guy I am, you might lighten up a bit. My family and friends is what matters. The rest is window dressing.

  580. slpsa

    Actually, now that my day has ended and iIlook back on how this debate has went and how my day unfolded, I feel pity for the people in this world that cannot get by on just being good people to the rest. I feel sorry for people like Chrispy. I feel sorry that we have to come down to this type of disagreement and use colorful language to disagree while debating it. I think the frustration level of this debate always brings out the worst in people, and I admit, today it brought out my bad side. If I offended, my apologies, there are always better ways to speak to each other. I teach my children this, but yet broke my own rules. You Chrispy, I assume, can understand that.

  581. Chrispy777

    Be careful, might be chastised by Robert for going too light on me, or for sounding too reasonable, introspective, and impartial. No offense taken, to anyone. Robert and I are like friends, and we've traveled this path, aforetime. Take care, you guys. You may see it as my convenience, but your argument is not with me, but God. If I'm wrong, then there's nothing to worry about.....but if I'm right....? This "know-nothing" is moving on, but I assure you, I am not a troll. However, like a troll, I am in the minority position, and receive 7-9 emails, to your one or two, and am compelled to defend what I believe, however lame or misguided, in your eyes. I'm at an age where I have formulated what I call, "Chrispy's Uncertainty Principle:" "Did I mail that letter, or is it still sitting on my desk, at work?"

  582. aptnw

    You prove my point

  583. Chrispy777

    Proof? Just look around you, Robert. It's everywhere you look, and everything you touch. Ciao, Bob.

  584. Jack1952

    I cannot understand why your belief in a creator is any different that a Muslim, Hindu or Pagan. They all have source material to draw from. Why is yours correct and their's wrong? Have you even studied any other belief system in enough depth to give you the qualification to emphatically state that your belief must be the correct one? Most of the religious people on earth follow their specific faith because of where they were born and the influence of family and local society. Can you honestly deny that your environment had nothing to do with how you arrived at the beliefs you hold?

    Science may allow for a creator but has not in any way provided the evidence the leads to the conclusion of his existence. Just because the human race is capable of creating a product does not automatically prove that all things require a creator. Your search for God has not led you to any evidence except that which you find in your own mind. That is not enough in a science class.

  585. Vlatko


    Good I just edited your comment. Cheers.

  586. Chrispy777

    Before you commented, I didn't know Jack.....but now I can say, "Hey, now I know Jack!" Hi, Jack! (wink wink)

  587. Jack1952

    Hi, Chrispy.

    Now that we have the introductions out of the way, I am still curious about the questions that I posed. I would really like to know why your beliefs are the correct ones.

  588. Daniel Jones

    Vlatko I am not going to waste my time in another mud slinging match today but your statement about homeopathy is just too ignorant to let pass.

    The worlds most expensive racehorses are often treated with homeopathy. Easily googled info on homeopathic veterinarians.

    Europe and Australia are full of medically qualified homeopathic doctors making good livings. And even Naturopathic doctors legally allowed to prescribe medicines. Again just google it it's not a conspiracy.

    In the UK you can still get homeopathic treatments as part of the NHS of all places. No conspiracy under that bed.

    Funny thing is though, the pharmaceutical industry inspired Codex Alimentarius is attempting to make homeopathy and every other form of supposedly alternative medicine illegal at the behest of the UN, while labelling nutrients like vitamin C as toxins and things like oven cleaner, windshield wiper fluid and drain cleaner as acceptable food additives.

    If you're looking for a real conspiracy start with Codex.

    I'm done here folks. It's been fun :-)

  589. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    Well, so why do you complain? According to you homeopathy is mainstream after all. At first you whine that it is suppressed, now you claim it is accessible worldwide. Which one is it?

    Anyhow, I wish you all the best with it, of course if you ever decide to try it out.

  590. Daniel Jones

    I complained about nothing other than your claim that it was a bogus treatment. In my opinion the pharmaceutical industry's opinion that homeopathy is a bogus treatment is bogus itself and betrays their vested self interests. And I'm tired of being held to account by corrupt institutions with premeditated agendas to discredit their competition.

    I and my family use homeopathic doctors regularly btw. My kids are unvaccinated and healthier and smarter than their peers too.

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

    And later "So many reforms would be necessary to restore integrity to clinical research and medical practice that they cannot be summarized briefly. Many would involve congressional legislation and changes in the FDA, including its drug approval process."

    (Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

  591. Samuel Morrissey

    'I and my family use homeopathic doctors regularly btw. My kids are unvaccinated and healthier and smarter than their peers too.'

    First, how do you measure their health or intelligence, and likewise how do you measure their peers?

    Second, do you have any evidence that your results are actually indicative of any effect of the homeopathic treatment?

    Third, do you any have controls in place to eliminate your own personal bias?

    I do not think necessarily that homeopathic treatment has any therapeutic effect at all. 2 years ago I knew 2 people suddenly diagnosed with late stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma, both with tumors as big as tennis balls, at similar times, at similar ages, both male. Both had developed as a result of long term liver damage from undiagnosed, asymptomatic Hepatitis C. The consultant oncologist gave them the same prognosis, i.e. without treatment, 80% of people presenting this condition are dead inside 6 months.

    One received Transarterial Chemoembolisation, and is still receiving Kinase Inhibitor chemotherapy as part of an on going drug trial at an NHS hospital, the other refused conventional medicine and chose homeopathy amongst other holistic therapies.

    Now I know only 1 person, as the other has been dead for 21 months.
    Thankfully, my father for whom I care full time, still has a very good quality of life, the only thing he has to do is take 2 pills, twice a day, with occasional tiredness being the only side effect, and for the last six months his tumor has not grown at all. We went to the Silverstone F1 last weekend.

    You are making the claim that homeopathy is effective, can you satisfy your burden of proof?

  592. over the edge

    Daniel Jones
    here is a quote from the same doctor (Marcia Angell, MD)
    "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been
    adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may notwork. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered
    alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments
    should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."
    The New England Journal of Medicine -- September 17, 1998 -- Volume 339, Number 12
    Alternative Medicine -- The Risks of Untested and Unregulated

  593. Daniel Jones

    Yes agreed. Equal playing field. We currently do not have an equal playing field though do we?

  594. over the edge

    Daniel Jones
    there is nothing stopping the level playing field (i suggest you read the full article). what she proposes is scientific testing of these alternative remedies along with peer reviewed evidence before accepting any cure alternative or not. nobody is stopping these remedies from doing the proper tests other than the unwillingness of the supporters of these remedies themselves or their failure when they are exposed to these tests

  595. Kateye70

    Thanks for the link, very entertaining!

    If nothing else, this long discussion has given me several interesting new links, and for that, I thank everyone who has provided them!

  596. over the edge

    you are welcome. if interested there is one of their entire shows here at tdf "The Atheist Experience: Ray Comfort Interview" if you haven't been exposed to mr comforts train wreck of thought before grab your drink of choice before watching

  597. Vlatko

    @Daniel Jones,

    But we do have equal playing field. Homeopathy supporters are free to prove their method in an independent, repeatable, falsifiable manner. Plus they can collect Randi's $1 million prize money.

    Don't tell me big pharma is not letting them. They can use any of the private laboratories and research centers across the world. Is this a world wide plot?

  598. robertallen1

    I guess people like Chrispy 777 bring out the pity in you. However, by proffering them an apology when the occasion does not warrant it, you play into their hands, for they want nothing better than to lay some guilt at your door..

  599. Epicurus

    by not vaccinating your children you risk others health. thanks for that. any kids out there who might not be ABLE to get vaccinated because of some condition will now have to worry about your children spreading a disease because you believed conspiracy bulls*** about vaccinations causing harm

    *facepalm* its all fun and games until you harm your kids or other peoples kids.

  600. robertallen1

    Spare us Pascal's wager. If you're wrong, you've wasted time which could have been spent on better things.

    The biggest insult is not your wilful ignorance and your determined support of it, but your my enmity towards you as any form of friendship.

  601. robertallen1

    Subjective observation is not proof. You obviously did not watch the documentary. So in the future, please don't claim that you didn't unless you actually do.

  602. robertallen1

    As usual, you got it wrong--and from your past performance, it seems to be deliberate. In the United States, homeopathic treatment of horses is not FDA-approved. In the UK, it is looked down upon although tolerated. Now, where is the support for your allegation that the pharmaceutical industry or the UN is making oven cleaner, windshield wiper fluid, etc. acceptable food additives while labelling vitamin C as a toxin? Sounds fishy to me.

    P.S. Quacks such as Benny Hinn and L. Ron Hubbard make/made good livings too.

  603. slpsa

    Well, I was taught to turn the other cheek at times, and apologize if I felt like I went too far. Again, no God needed to be a good person and do the right thing. Guilt at my feet means nothing as well, I have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about, nor would I carry any guilt over my beliefs. If we can do these things of our own free will, my point is made.

  604. robertallen1

    The subjective opinion of one person is evidence only of that person's opinion and nothing else.

    So by being unvaccinated and subjecting them and untowards others to who knows what, your kids are somehow healtheir and smarter than their peers. What makes you think so? Do you possess the medical records of some of their peers and compare them to those of your offspring? On what do you base your children's superior intelligence? If I had a father like you, I would gladly break the fourth commandment.

    Obviously you don't live in the US where it would be very difficult for you to get away with having your children unvaccinatted, especially if you lived in a populous area.

  605. robertallen1

    Thank you. This shows DJ up for the liar and cheat he is. However, I fear for his unvaccinated children and those around them.

  606. robertallen1

    Is that your answer to the quote from Over_the_Edge which showed your quote up for the out-of-context distortion that it is.

  607. robertallen1

    No, I suggest that you take it straight like the stalwart woman I know you are.

  608. Samuel Morrissey

    I will read the article, but;

    I have made no claim whatsoever regarding the effectiveness of petrochemical medicine, whatever that is exactly, I am not a chemist. I am not debating assertions made by the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. You may be right though I doubt it. However this has no bearing or indeed any link at all to the fact that; I am debating your claim that homeopathy is effective, in any measurable way.

    Quite apart from the fact that my statements were simply descriptions of events as they occurred, not tit for tat argument, your arguments are empty and serve only as deflection. Alive because they said no? You ignore the possibility that them being alive may not be a result of not having treatment - They might have had said treatment and still be alive, no?

    For graciousness sake however, I'll consider answering your questions, if and only if you answer mine. I asked first, and you need to grant me the same respect you are now requiring from me.

  609. over the edge

    you are welcome. what is scary is that i think he thinks my post helps prove his point. how do you debate selective interpretation on that scale?

  610. robertallen1

    I don't know the way things are in your country, but in the US, parents who refuse to have their minor children vaccinated face serious criminal charges such as child endangerment.

  611. Kateye70

    Hahaha! Caution from over the edge is duly noted! I have indeed watched the doc in therefore:

    I think a *banana* daquiri might be in order--the only reason I would bother to watch any more Ray Comfort tripe would be for entertainment value only.

    (I get really disgusted with people who manipulate religion for their own personal fortunes--kind of like the guy on late-late-night TV that I see sometimes, earnestly explaining why viewers should send him $2000 "seed money" so their prayers will multiply their dollars and return to them in some unspecified but undoubtedly godly way, magically multiplied...and points to *himself* as proof that this does indeed happen! Ha! Go figure how *that* happens!)

  612. over the edge

    not so here in Canada.while health care is a provincial mandate and some provinces have requirements it is my understanding that an exemption isn't hard to get. private schools and daycare can require vaccination for admittance as far as i know but i do not have children and i am not sure of these claims so i reserve the right to be in error

  613. Guest

    You have written number of times that you are not an atheist, could you state what you are?....just for the record.

  614. robertallen1

    Speaking of puling pecuniary pleas, are you familiar with the one made a few years ago by the late Oral Roberts?

  615. robertallen1

    Thanks for the info. But not having one's children vaccinated is dangerous both to the children and the community at large.

  616. robertallen1

    Fair question for once. Someone who doesn't know and doesn't care and resents those who profess to know.

  617. Guest

    I can also understand your statement but what i see out of this is that the world has been arguing this way for eons and apparently will continue. We may think that religions will be exterminated by proving our point to one person at a time but it is not likely.
    Of course many people read this, those who are already agreeing with you, still will unless something drastic happens in their life and they have a change of heart (seem to happen that way for many), those who disagree with you, still will unless something drastic happen in their life and they have a change of heart (also seem to happen this way for many).
    Religions are prevalent in many countries all over the world, and it creates wars, what we have here is a model of a war small scale. Put all of us people in a room with a few glasses of wine, and you'll get someone punch an other because of the way this conversation went, religious person or not.
    Many people are willing to let go of religion association all together but they are not willing to let go of their personal feelings towards life and the spiritual conversation they have with themself because that conversation feels right within their dimension. If, as science says, there are 11 dimensions and the possibility of us being in many of them at the same time, then it is understandable that some people are in a dimension where they view spirituality as the true reality.
    I have written before, the word god (or it's many synonymes) will not dissapear overnight, now or ever, because it is passed down from generation down. It will have to be reinvented in order to transform into what fits our progressing reality. I wish science could give a new meaning to the word creator. A definition that could be taught in school so our children can be imbued with a new way to see the world that lives inside of them so they can pass it on. For science to be able to do that, it would have to be said that that definition is liable to vary which is the opposite of what religion teaches.
    That is the reason i say science is preoccupied with proving or disproving god, and that god is the ultimate mystery. God is ibviously not a man in the sky, but it could be humans on earth assembled. To reach that it will have to be a concept children adopt.

    I am not a good writer and many will look at this and find holes, some will read it with the intent of finding holes...hell i could find holes if i try, i could edit it a thousand time and still it would not convey what i am trying to say exactly.
    But what i most want to say is fighting has to stop, one person at a time from within. It's like when you see a movie, in all of them if you watch looking for something good you will find even in the worst movies.
    This is the result of my first coffee, time for the second one!

  618. Guest

    Ray Comfort the clown is still in business because atheists the thiests alike suggest his talks. I say we ignore him. Ignoring someone is better than fighting it, it often hurts more where it should.

  619. over the edge

    point taken

  620. Guest

    YOu prove my point.

  621. Guest

    You are right, anyone can choose not to vaccinate their kids, and school cannot refuse them. It has been like this for quite some time, which places Canada as a good country to do study on the benefit of vaccination or non vaccination.
    Does anyone knows if this study is being done?

  622. robertallen1

    As you have been informed by a number of the more knowledeable posters, science is not preoccupied with proving or disproving the existence of god and why you harp on this crotchet of yours is beyond undertstanding. I suggest that you read up on science before conjecturing away.

  623. Bill Young

    Reguardless if people like it or not, as long as society keeps pace and large scale civil collapses don't happen religion will continue to die out. In less than 500 years natural death will be a thing of the past. Our culture, Science and advancements is the difference between the past and the present. We progress at rates in measurements of months, not decades anymore. A true Golden Age of Humanity is close.

  624. robertallen1

    Tell that to the phonies at "The Atheist Experience."

  625. robertallen1

    What point?

  626. Guest

    I have, that's the reason i say what i say.

  627. Guest

    Telling you is enough, you of all people paid the most attention to that video, you almost went banana over it.

  628. Kevin Pepperoni

    Atheism need not be a positive denial of god, but anything that is not theism (atheism). Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

  629. Guest

    What if someone was to tell you that you are god and every one else is too and that the true essence of god is putting all that dough into a lump to work the future.
    God is just a word that was given many definitions, drop every single old definitions and transform god into something that fits for now, something that fits quantum sciences discoveries of the micro, something that is like sourdough...ever growing and changing. Easy to tell that to a kid, sure would make more sense than trying to make them read the bible.

  630. robertallen1

    It's obvious that you haven't. Tell me how are geologists preoccupied with determining whether or not a supreme being exists or, for that matter, chemists or zoologists?

  631. robertallen1

    You know as well as I that it wasn't so much the video as the show itself, so don't distort.

  632. robertallen1

    How does this respond to Mr. Pepperoni's post?

  633. over the edge

    you say the fighting has to stop.but i find you are always asking the atheists or non religious to tone it down. why do you not hold the religious posters to the same standard? also an i am not accusing you of this but in history usually when a movement that challenges the status quo gets going and their arguments cannot be refuted what has happened? to answer my own question they get asked to tone it down.they get asked why they are so angry.they get labeled as troublemakers or accused of not having the right morals. name me a social movement that has happened where the group in control had to give up some power and i will show you a group in opposition that got angry. anger is not necessarily a bad thing it is what you do with that anger that defines if it is good or not. yes i am angry. but can you look at my reasons and tell me my anger isn't justified?

  634. Vlatko


    But of course. Every new age hippie is saying that since the 60s. Just go to some new age spiritual seminar or commune and you'll hear those words over and over again. You've been listening too much of Osho, Krishnamurti, etc.

    What if someone was to tell you that you are immortal being who have forgotten its true nature and you have to aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in your past in order to free yourself of your limiting effects.

    What do you say?

  635. robertallen1

    It's not the fighting that has to stop, but the wilful ignorance and its perpetuation.

  636. Guest

    not in a way you can understand.

  637. Vlatko


    Well... he was not impolite, and he didn't insult you. He just asked a question, but yet you responded with anger. A classic example of a subtle insult. Hmmm. Are you not practicing what you've been preaching?

  638. Guest

    I don't see how this is an insult. And i mean it. Not that i know better than Robert, but that my view is different, almost opposite in certain ways. Do you think if i explained my view in more words than i already explained to Kevin that Robert would have agreed? Or do you think it would have made him attack me. I try as best i can to stay out of attacks, coming from me or from others. I don't always succeed especially with Robert, you and a few more.

  639. Guest

    But of course?

    If you started your post naming one thing that is positive in my comment you would have shown your intention of peace. You looked for holes and you burried yourself in one.

    I have been listening to regular good people talk around me, people i meet on the street, people every where i go, people i look into the eyes, people from all walks of life....and i have been reading arguments on TDF for 2yrs or so, always the loudest arguments are about the same thing.

  640. Guest

    i didn't feel insulted.

  641. Vlatko


    Attacked??? I almost never talk to you, except for the last few days. It is very obvious that you're blaming people, and taking sides while you're sharing the same subtle characteristics with your "opponents." I just decided to weigh in, nothing more.

    If you can't see your last insult towards @Robert, that only proves my point even further.

  642. Vlatko


    ...burred myself in a hole. Another subtle insult. See you're not different after all. You're not making peace, but still you ask from others to be peaceful. I'm disappointed.

    P.S. You didn't answer my last question.

  643. jeffroko

    Faith must be present on both sides of the argument in the ever-present atheist/creationist battle.. neither side can prove with certainty that God does not exist. So faith is the tie that binds anyone to either belief.

  644. Guest

    Your last question was:
    Are you not practicing what you've been preaching? I answered that truthfully for me.
    The previous one was:
    What if someone was to tell you that you are immortal being who have forgotten its true nature and you have to aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in your past in order to free yourself of your limiting effects. What do you say?

    Am i an immortal being? As i identify myself with the whole, yes i am.
    Have i forgotten my true nature? The whole has.
    Do i have to aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in my past in order to free myself of my limiting effects? (providing that i understand your question) The past is the root of the present, do i dwell in my past experience as a human? no, i learn from them and i try to adjust my goal for the futur.

  645. Vlatko


    Fair enough.

    Your answer tells me that you have a good chance of becoming a Scientologist. Your beliefs are quite similar to theirs, if not the same. My question was just a paraphrased quote from wiki about what Scientology believes and teaches.

  646. jeffroko

    I tried to watch it, but there are so many better things to do than watch what tries to come across as the irrefutable side in a debate (it goes nowhere in proving creationism wrong).. but if it were. the author would be here on this board defending his argument against the one true statement that comes from it.. there is no proof to either side of the debate. This doc is a piece of propaganda fueling a debate with no definitive answer. I'd like to point out that one side (of the debate) gets pretty heated when challenged, yet the other stays calm and firm in their beliefs. That's where unscientific themes come into play, Honor, Trustworthiness, Courage, Patience,and Grace. Which side does more name calling and childish finger pointing? And which side has definitive evidence as to the truth or falsehood of a supreme being? Neither.. Faith is the only guide.

  647. robertallen1

    Therefore, you have not expressed yourself well.

  648. robertallen1

    I think you need to examine what's behind your admitted lack of success.

  649. robertallen1

    Your subjective observations of people or anything else have no place in science. The reason I mention this is because you are constantly commenting on what you misperceive as the nature of science.

  650. robertallen1

    After all this time and effort, you still don't get it--and naturally, you still haven't watched ALL or the documentary. If you assert that a supreme being exists, you must offer valid, solid proof, not conjecture, not interpretation. If someone says that he does not believe in a god because so far there has been no evidence, he has not made an assertion and there is nothing to prove--but I guess it's too much for you to understand.

  651. Guest

    If that is how you see scientology....then you will you see my words as scientology. I don't, actually i have very little clues as to what scientology is and i don't care to know.

  652. robertallen1

    So now you admit that you haven't watched it and yet you state, "This doc is a piece of propaganda fueling a debate with no definitive answer." How would you know or are you just using your faith as a guide?

    Anyway, if you haven't watched the documentary, what business do you have commenting on this string? Yours seems to be a classic case of trolling.

  653. jeffroko

    I wish.. I was only the girl on the cover of the DVD though, *sigh..

  654. Guest

    "You looked for holes and you burried yourself in one." tried to burry me in that better?

  655. robertallen1

    You don't care to know a lot of things, such as science and biblical scholarship, but you constantly pass judgment on them. Vlatko is right. You are a scientologist's dream.

  656. Andrew Morrissey

    An Agnostic ?

  657. Guest

    I know what's behind my lack of success.

  658. Vlatko


    No I don't see them in any way and It doesn't matter how I see your words. I was just quoting. They actually believe in what I've described in my question to you.

  659. robertallen1

    As I indicated a few days earlier, there does not seem to be much difference between a modern-day atheist such as Dr. Dawkins and an agnostic.

    Any relation to Samuel Morrissey?

  660. robertallen1

    Good. So either change or live with it.

  661. Guest

    Scientologists can dream whatever they want, it doesn't affect me.

  662. robertallen1

    Beside the point, as usual.

  663. Guest

    I do care to know a lot of things, we all do.

  664. Guest

    Everything is always slightly or enormously (and everything in between)...beside a point.

  665. Guest

    You make me laugh. You would just love me to fuel your argument, there are enough people doing that here.

    Have a nice day.

  666. Jack1952

    Faith has nothing to do with it and it is not a belief. The scientific method is a way of understanding the world and is neutral in its belief system. It uncovers what it uncovers without prejudice. It is not faith that says that there is no empirical data that supports the existence of a creator. It is fact. Faith lies in the realm of the religious. They are the ones who believe without the evidence. They could even be correct but all they have to go on is the faith they have in their creator.

    I have asked on this thread if there was any proof of a God's existence that has been arrived at using the scientific method and no one has answered. I can't help but wonder why.

  667. Chrispy777 jove, my man, you have scads of time to waste on this site, and your desire to waste time on me, speaks volumes. I will biblically psychoanalyze you for free. You're scared. Weak and scared, that you're wrong, but desperately fighting to be right. Read the bible, often, and get a REAL education.

    ps I'm responding to this particular thread because I did watch the documentary, and because you made a huge faux pas. Re-read it, and you'll see what I mean. Get a grip,'re losin' it.

  668. jeffroko

    I needn't do what science tells me to do. You just want me to do that, so that you'll have PROOF to believe something that requires FAITH. But, it doesn't work that way. When you say "I don't believe in a god", You also say "I believe there is no God." But asking you to prove that would be a waste of time (I have faith).. kind of like watching a documentary that tells me I have to prove every belief I have. Can you say "mindless followers?" Trust in the all-knowing DOCUMENTARY.. By our leader QUALIA SOUP? I wouldn't put it past them to be complete liars who can use big words and confuse people. Oh boy, better watch the documentary again.. I think I'll start quoting the bible. "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!"

  669. Jack1952

    If one claims that bubblegum causes rabies, I would want to see the evidence that supports that claim. Until that evidence is presented I will not believe it. It is not faith that motivates me but doubt.

    This film says it best. One starts out in life not knowing anything as the default position. Any knowledge accrued should be verifiable or you stay at the knowing nothing stage. At that stage no one knows of the existence of a creator. He is at the knowing nothing stage. For one to know of a creator's existence from that nothing stage he has to hear it from outside. When one is told that there could be a creator one has the right to ask how the tellar could know this. Like the bubblegum claim, there should be evidence or there is no reason to believe it. It's not that difficult a concept.

  670. Jack1952

    Its so simple a concept and yet most theists don't get it.

  671. jeffroko

    You don't know what you're talking about (what authority are you on faith?). Faith has everything to do with belief in God. Whether you do or you don't, there is no proof either way (you know this, so stop asking). Evidence, feelings, emotions, but no proof. The scientific method is better at proving things like your bubble gum and rabies theory.. a very interesting one at that. Science has it's place, but it's better at helping people physically than spiritually. Peace

  672. robertallen1

    Except for science and biblical scholarship.

  673. Kateye70

    No one is telling you to do what 'science' tells you--science doesn't tell you to do anything at all. 'Science' is a method, not a being.

    In this documentary about critical thinking skills, you appear to have missed the point.

    Critical thinking requires that you apply a methodology to a problem.

    The narrator gives you the methodology, but it is not something he made up--you can google 'critical thinking' and find a myriad of courses that teach this skill.

    That's all critical thinking is. A skill.

    Anyone can learn it.
    It does not require faith.

    Anyone can apply it.
    It does not require belief.

    All it does is return a result, which you are free to accept or reject.

  674. Lorna Kennedy

    Are you saying reading the bible, one book and hey presto your educated. Please. Read as many books as you can regardless of difference of oppinion and on as many topics as possible. Including the bible if one is to have an opinion on it, boring as it is. Read the koran, read read read but make up you own oppinion not just be gullible enough to think its 'gods word'. (excuse the pun).

  675. Kateye70

    Hmm. So if science should stay out of religion, does it follow that religion should stay out of science?

  676. robertallen1

    If you actually watched the entire documentary, it did not sink in, but this comes as no surprise. Your temerity in advising me to read the bible often and get a REAL education is risibly hypocritical in light of your signal misinterpretation of the two quotations you provided yesterday or is this merely an example of "biblical psychoanalysis."

    Once again, you have not been able to respond to or refute anything posited by me or several of the other posters which makes you the scaredy cat.

  677. Bill Young

    I guess it isn't a shocker the religitards start chiming in and totally missing the entire video. Probably not even watching it themselves. I'm glad you view your belief in ''God(s)'' as an after-life insurance policy and I'm sure a all-knowing God(s) not going to notice it either. Since you're basically stating your opinion as an fact. I'll ask you where's your evidence for your belief? Where's your burden of proof? You obviously didn't even watch 6 minutes in. A moronic double standard and asking that religion doesn't need to prove itself. It's amazing the people who know the least amount on a topic are the fastest to state their ''opinion.''

  678. robertallen1

    As you haven't watched the whole documentary, nothing you write about it is of any validity and as I stated before, you have no business commenting on this thread. Now, if big words confuse you, stop blogging and go back to school--as a matter of fact, considering the state of your knowledge and intellection, you should go back to school just on general principle.

    P.S. I think you had better refrain from quoting from a book you know nothing about.

  679. robertallen1

    For most, but for some, it's impossible to graduate from the know-nothing stage.

  680. Bill Young

    Seems like you're the one who's scared, weak and lacking an education. You probably are emotionally starved hence the way you act and speak to people. Probably very unhappy and bullied often in real life. Certainly you're not bright at all, I'm sure I alone read it more than you do x10. You're a grade A loser and religitard, in a real debate I'd chew you up and spit you out 100 times over while you make a fool of yourself. You're one of those who ignores the questions posed to you, while you run your mouth. I suggest maybe getting a job, a real education and not pretending to speak on behalf of a God when you don't even attend church and probably don't read the Bible yourself, ever.

  681. robertallen1

    Before you can make that statement, you must scientifically prove that spirituality exists.

    As you have still not watched the document, you have no business adding to this string.

  682. robertallen1

    Obviously anyone can't learn or apply it.

  683. robertallen1

    Let's be fair. Not all of the bible is boring. What could be more exhilarating than Chronicles I and II?

    You never answered my question: Have you ever heard of Samuel Lover or Charles Robert Maturin?

  684. robertallen1

    Your last post about this turning into a religee's comedy hour did not appear no the thread. Did you delete it? Actually it's more like Dumb Down Derby.

  685. Lorna Kennedy

    Poetry right? Excuse my ignorance.Oh and true some bits are great stories, some bits are guaranteed to fr*ak your kids out.

  686. Jack1952

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). That is your authority.

    Pasted from the Mirriam-Webster's dictionary. Another authority.
    a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
    b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
    b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

    Notice definition 2b. You see. I do get it.

    If I am not told of the existence of a creator till I'm sixteen years old that doesn't mean I have spent the first sixteen years of my life having faith in the non-existence of a creator. I would be in a state of total ignorance of such a concept...a state of not knowing. When I'm finally told of this idea, with no evidence to back it up, I can either accept it or not. If I accept it as fact, I do so on faith. If I feel the idea lacks merit I will reject it on the grounds that I have no faith in the idea. No faith. None. I am still in a state of not knowing...the state of knowledge at which I began at as a newborn.

    Spirituality is allowing one's imagination to be accepted as fact. Whether it comes from the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu holy books or the tribal shaman, neither of these spiritual beliefs has any merit over another. Your faith in one over the other does not make it so. It is quite likely your upbringing and the environment you live in which decides your choice of spiritual beliefs. Why does the accident of birthplace make that choice the correct one?

  687. Giacomo della Svezia

    Saying that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been observed or proven to exist is a logical fallacy, for science also suspects things to exist but lack the proof. Until some convincing argument - not necessarily empirical evidence - has been put forward for its existence it would therefore be wise to be doubtful.
    I would call myself an agnostic, for the more I learn, the more I realize that I know very little for certain, and I am not convinced either of the existence or the non-existence of a so-called divine entity. I am inclined to think it exists and all living beings are part of it, but every human being will have to discover this personally by experience.
    Of course experiences can be a trick of the mind, like near-death experiences. Still I think the mind with its self-consciousness and power of thinking is our only real tool to come up with an acceptable idea of the world.

    N.b. You lose credibility when you start writing insulting comments.

  688. robertallen1

    @Lorna Kennedy
    No, 19th century Irish novelists.

  689. Jack1952

    Science suggests. The religious know. Science looks for proof. The religious do not need or want any.

    In a way you argue against yourself.

  690. Giacomo della Svezia

    I always do. : )

  691. Giacomo della Svezia

    I like Gautama Buddha for his advice to his followers to find things out for themselves. I would like to argue that not all religious people are the same.

  692. Jack1952

    I have to agree. Hurling insults is not a very mature way to engage in a discussion.

  693. slpsa

    I like the Spanish guy who claims he is Jesus and asks for money. His name is actually Hay-Zuess, but ya...rofl. These people just make me laugh. I am beginning to actually think some of these people posting are Jesus Camp disciples. I guess God hates homos too, funny that has not come up yet. They harbor pedos, but hate homosexuals. Very nice dogma there. Talk about sick humans. Notice I have mentioned the pedo thing about 6 times now, not one word from these people about that is there? Not one. Is that a coincidence they ignore it? Highly unlikely. They do not touch that subject, because there is no defense. They know they will be exposed for the frauds they are if they have to debate the pedophiles actions. Never mind hushing it up and protecting em. That part is willfully ignored by every single one of them, right here in this debate. I mentioned it many times, and nothing said from that Camp. Imagine that guys....

  694. slpsa

    I understand what you are saying. I will not pick it apart, you are entitled to your opinions and for the most part, I agree with you. But sometimes, what you say is in direct contravention of my scientific background, and like all scientists, I only want to get the the end part as fast as possible. Every time I go down this road and debate this subject, every single time, it turns ugly, with name calling and disparaging remarks all around. I have no illusions in my lifetime, this mystery will never be solved, all i know is this. I do not need a God or sky fairy to make me a good man, husband and father. I do not need to worship anyone or anything to feel good about my life and my family. I endeavor to leave behind good things. This is what my life outlook is, others are entitled to have their own.

  695. Lorna Kennedy

    Well i will be ignorant no longer and have a look for them then.

  696. robertallen1

    They are both interesting, each in his own way. By the bye, did you know that Handel's Messiah was premiered in Dublin?

  697. Jack1952

    Very true...and I don't have to agree with someone to show show respect for him/her.

  698. Chrispy777

    Religitard? You make that one up, yourself, Bill? Clever boy. Perhaps you could let Robert speak for himself...he's a big boy. You, on the other hand...? You come at me from out of left field with a fairly harsh attitude, for someone whose read the bible at least 100 times. "Grade A loser?" What, do you work for Eggland's Best? I was rarely bullied as a child, but quite recently, I've been bullied by some guy claiming to be an adult, named Bill Young. Grow up, man, and be a man. Stop acting Young.

  699. Lorna Kennedy

    That, i did know. Its Irelands ancient history im interested in. The fact that there is so much more to discover is exciting but that our countries financial situation is up in a heap, means in my life i wont fulfil my curiosities. Religion, again, ties in deeply to our roots. We have druid place names and mesolithic monuments all around me. All have wondered pondered and mapped the skys. How advanced they were for their time. I would just love to know more. During the boom we lost alot of our sites as building was far more inportant. Look where that got us. Same the world over but thats another topic.

  700. Jack1952

    I can answer from our camp. I think it unfair to argue against the belief of a creator based on the actions of those in one religious group. This group does not support paedophilia as policy but made decisions of a political nature which were ill conceived and self serving. The ones who made these decisions do not represent all religious people or even anywhere close to it. You posit an argument that attacks character but not the veracity of the existence of God. One has nothing to do with the other.

  701. robertallen1

    How good's your Gaelic these days?

    Does the name Robert Briscoe mean anything to you?

  702. Giacomo della Svezia

    That's another thing Buddha teached his followers: to respect other religions/opinions.
    I'm not saying I have chosen his religion, I'm trying to think critically, but also to keep an open mind. But it's the most tolerant religion that I have heard of, unlike some.

  703. Chrispy777

    Hi, Lorna! How ya Doone? My claim is that if you read, understand, and believe the bible (primarily), you WILL get an education. It's filled with history, valuable lessons (for life), and is rich in wisdom. It has, over the millenia, changed millions of lives, and it's a sign of the times that it has lost the elevated status it once held, among all the books in the world. I never said NOT to read any other book. There was a time, in our country, that the focal textbook in our classrooms, WAS the holy bible, and pushing it aside has not helped our society, despite the naysayers.

  704. Lorna Kennedy

    Ye should all come to the grave ( yes grave singular) of over a hundred young boys raped starved beaten and murdered by the church a mile from my home. There is an overwhelming feeling up there and i bet all ye believers will say its god but no way, its a feeling of death, injustice, horror and shame. If you have a god really would your god do that.

  705. Lorna Kennedy

    It may have helped many people but the bible and other religions (and they have their books too) have managed to actually murder alot more. Christian beliefs all over the world have caused divides. But so have other religions because in your way of thinking someone has to be right about their god. But i am anti all religions because i think they are dangerous. They cause social divides.

  706. Achems_Razor

    Yes I deleted it.

  707. Kateye70

    ok, I'm not Lorna, but really? Read the bible to get an education? Which bible? which edition? which translation?

    I read my family's RC bible as a child, just because it was a beautiful book with gilt edges and wonderful color plates illustrating the stories, both old testament and new. Does that bible count?

    Someone here has stated the King James version is the definitive one, and yet the original texts were in Hebrew and Greek. Even the earliest extant new testament documents are translations of lost documents that were written from oral traditions long after the events presumably took place (or may not have).

    The English language itself has changed since 1611; words have gained new meanings and lost the ones they had in the seventeenth century; common phrases that were understood by the general population then have been replaced by new phrases and the originally-intended meanings lost.

    The more I read on biblical scholarship, the more I realize how self-delusional it is to put one's faith in a single document.

  708. robertallen1

    What a laugh. You've obviously not read or understood the bible and you've certainly laid bare the state of your education and wisdom. Yet you advise others to follow in your fraudulent footsteps.

    No thinking and cognizant person (such as Lorna) obtains anything approaching a sense of ethics and morality from a book, least of all from a motley, 2000+year-old collection. From what Lorna has previously posted about herself and her environs, it seems safe to say that she regards the elimination of the bible from public school classrooms as an improvement, both in terms of education and society at large. On the dark side, what can you expect from someone whose idea of history, science and the world around him is confined to wishful conjecture.

    By the way, what are you doing posting here, when by your own admission you haven't watched the documentary?

  709. Lorna Kennedy

    And i dont think the bible should be pushed aside. It has alot to answer for. But it is also a historical document which should be preserved as so, a historical document tied into our history from then to now. Now being i would love to be able to advance and start looking after more inportant things.

  710. robertallen1

    Yes, their god would do and has done that. See the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah and the assistance rendered in various massacres all contained in the history-filled bible renowned and elevated for its "valuable lessons (for life)" and richness "in wisdom."

  711. robertallen1

    Why? I thought it was cute.

  712. robertallen1

    Once again, hats off to your parents.

  713. Lorna Kennedy

    Chrispy its also important to debate. So please prove me wrong. Has it not destroyed and been the cause of so much suffering also. Not to sound pushy but your opinions give me a better understanding of a religious mentality.

  714. Chrispy777

    "Push one of Epi!" LOL! I hear that all the time on "Grey's Anatomy."

    Just on a societal level, our species is filled with prejudices, whether real or imagined. Evolution feeds into those prejudices quite nicely. Evolutionary thinking pervades our world, and is the latest indoctrination (for the last century) of a faith-based world view, that is anything but scientific. Various forms of evolution, such as cultural, spiritual, and technological, have led many to conclude (as did Hitler) that there are levels of biological evolution, within the species, Homo Sapien. It's no stretch to say that, based on evolutionary principles, many people still think that European stock are inherently better than the pygmies, dwarves, or black people. I'm not saying it's true, but that the theory leaves open the possibility, and people will use it as justification, thereby denigrating and disrespecting certain peoples. "If the root is evil, so will the fruit be."

  715. Lorna Kennedy

    Ha robert just browesed to see which religious doc got the most comments.( And the most topping that chart are religious ones surprise surprise). Why i am no longer a christian and i found you delving in there too. Fair play to ya.

  716. Vlatko


    One of the surest ways to become an atheist or agnostic is to read the Bible. For an inquisitive mind reading the bible usually means the end of the road to faith.

    Also surveys say that atheists and agnostics are most knowledgeable about religion, which means an average non believer knows more about the Bible and religion in general, than an average believer.

    Are you a biblical scholar? if not, the chance that all non believers here know more about the Bible than you is very big.

  717. Jack1952

    Here is an aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story that is very seldom discussed.

    When God informed Abraham of his intention to destroy these cities, Abraham tried to talk God out of it. He began to negotiate with God with the intention of trying to save these cities. The Bible holds Abraham as an example of the mercy humans should show one another. Most people have never heard of this story and only know of God's destructive vengeance. They know nothing of how God, in the Bible, wants us to behave when faced with human "wickedness". Selective reading to bolster their own moral superiority, maybe.

    If one is to use the Bible as their moral compass, it would be in their best interest to read and understand the entire book, not just the sections which help to inflate their egos.

  718. Lorna Kennedy

    Nice reply. And nice to know. Thank you.

  719. Chrispy777

    Hi, Kateye! "Textual criticism" is the intellect's term for denying the scriptures. In the final analysis, the textual critic mimics the serpent in the garden, by asking, "Yea, hath God said?", and just like the serpent, once God's word is questioned, the follow-up statement is outright denial, "Ye shall not surely die."

    I think the Authorized Version is the definitive English version, being translated from the Textus Receptus, but my main point is to place an emphasis on the grandeur and scope of the bible, as a tool for learning to read and write, and a complete source-book on how to live one's life. There is no other book that can compare to it.

  720. robertallen1

    Your ignorance is positively universal. Biological evolution has nothing to do with social Darwinism and whether it agrees with what passes for your philosophy or not, evolution is a fact--but again facts and you have never met up.

  721. robertallen1

    You've hit the nail on the noggin. It's the modern day atheists and agnostics (who you have previously agreed are pretty much the same thing) who come off as knowledgable and intelligent, not the theists. Maybe the Enlightenment means something after all.

  722. robertallen1

    And more power to you.

    Now, have you heard of Robert Briscoe?

  723. robertallen1

    But remember, Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed anyway and Lot's wife turned into a high-sodium diet just for trying to exercise a bit of critical thinking through observation.

  724. wald0

    Both history and current data confirm the well known fact that in the U.S. the most racist area is and always has been the southeastern U.S (my home).- you know, home of the KKK, segregation, and the Birmingham church bombings, the death of MLK, the civil rights marches, etc.This same area is and has always been the most religious, in fact it is known nation/world wide as the bible belt. This is the same area, Tennessee to be exact, where they fought and lost the supreme court battle to teach creationism as a valid scientific theory- in other words you can't find a place in the U.S. where less people beleive in evolution or more people believe in creationism, yet it is clearly and by far the most prejudice area in the country.
    Yes, some sick men in this world used Darwin's theory to play into their racist agenda- so what. Shall we talk of the sickos that have used religion for the same purpose, becuase there are far more examples throughout history of this occurring than evolution being perverted into eugenics. Ask many evangelicals I know why blacks and whites shouldn't mix blood and they will site bible verses to justify their belief- something about each fruit bearing seed after its own kind. Your the christian, you tell us.
    I, on the other hand, being an atheist and chemist- believe the fact of evolution, to not is really just silly in my opinion, yet I was married to a black woman for nine years, until she died of cancer. I grew up here in a religious and racist environment and what opened my eyes to the absurdity of both those ideologies, religion and racism, was education and science- and purposely avoiding the religees that surround me.
    I certainly don't care to get into this petty fight but you are asserting things that don't just apply to those posting back and forth wth you, you are insulting millions when you suggest people who believe in evolution are doomed to be racist, its not only not true it is small minded and arrogant. It ios also a huge stretch to blame racism on evolution, the people that used Darwins theory to create eugenics were already racist evolution was simply something they perverted for their own agenda. You know- just like thousands have perverted religion and used it to justify murdering millions throughout history- by your logic we should blame religion for that.

  725. Jack1952

    Its also just a story told by nomadic shepherds living in a brutal and violent time who hoped that all brutality could be wiped away by the hand of an omnipotent being who would have the wisdom to know what should be destroyed. Abraham's part in the story is the realization that humans may not have that type of wisdom. A big idea for primitive nomads.

    Its hard to believe we are still talking about a story that may be over three thousand years old. A pity some still use it to justify their brutality.

  726. Chrispy777

    The greatest proof I, personally, can offer, is myself (which won't mean anything to you). The bible opened my eyes, by convicting my heart, and severely changed my opinions on many subjects, altering my world-view. It is very powerful, and God makes no apologies for it.

    "The bible stands like a rock, undaunted, by the raging storms of time." It has often been likened to an anvil; People, in every generation, have beat upon it with the hammers of atheism, criticism, denials, debates, accusations of being contradictory, etc, but it's still here, and always will be. If it were a phony-baloney, man-made hoax, perpetrated by knaves on a gullible public, it would not have endured for one generation, let alone for at least four millenia.

    The fact that the bible coalesced from 40 different authors, over such a span of time, speaks strongly for Divine inspiration. The only real proof, is in the pudding. Faith is required, because we weren't there to actually watch these chunks of history unfold, but it's eminently reasonable to conclude that if there is a God, then He would not leave His creations in the dark........and He didn't.

  727. Lorna Kennedy

    Ok begining to feel But hold on how could i possible read anything if i,m on this the whole time. I will check out the first two lads and get back to you. Anyway i got to sign off. Good to chat to everyone.

  728. robertallen1

    Textual criticism is the intellect's term for UNDERSTANDING the scriptures. You've obviously been dallying too long in the garden of Eden.

    In light of your kindergarten perception of textual criticism, I really shouldn't be asking you this, but it's the Old Adam in me and the desire to furnish amusement to others vis a vis your answer, should you provide one. What constitutes a "definitive English version" of the Bible as opposed to an undefinitive version and who or what determines its definitiveness? Is it somehow God, that great linguist and philologist in the sky? What makes the King James or Authorized Version of 1611 (which is more the work of William Tyndale nearly a century before than the King James staff) any more "definitive" than say the New International or the Revised Standard versions? Was it that God, your god, whispered this in your ear at the same time he voiced his uncategorical approval of the Textus Receptus of Erasmus which came out in 1516, a milliennia-and-a-half after the fact, and blared out his pious and righteous indignation at that godforsaken Douay version?

    Is there anything of which you are not ignorant other than how to play with a keyboard? After all, everyone on this string seems to know more than you about everything.

    Iterum. What are you doing posting here if you haven't watched the documentary?

  729. Giacomo della Svezia

    There is an author who stated that the old testament is in part a collection of what you might call essays on ethical problems. I don't know if he invented this interpretation himself, but I found it intriguing. The ethical question in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah would be how many innocent victims are acceptable when the wicked are punished (which rings a bell to me).

    It shows how difficult or even impossible it is to know for certain what the intention or intentions of the authors of these stories was, which could be an argument against using such a book to build a religion on.
    On the other hand, there may be ethical lessons to be drawn from the bible that are still applicable even after a few thousand years.

  730. robertallen1

    If you can't spare me, at least spare Lorna your purple biography. She's been through enough.

    So you think there were 40 authors of the Bible? Who were they--but why should I ask someone who relegates biblical scholarship (textual analysis) to the level of a mortal sin? There is no reason to doubt that your ignorance extends to the compilation of both testaments which didn't just coalesce from the font of divine inspiration like a kettleful of bouillabaise.

    "It's eminently reasonable to conclude that if there is a God, then he would not leave his creations in the dark . . . " You keep using that phrase "eminently reasonable" or words to that effect as a substitute for proof when as a matter of fact, this type of locution highlights the complete lack of logic and train of thought which blows like a siroco through just about all of your posts.

    When faith is required, intelligence and rational thought go out the door. When rational thought and intelligence are required, faith goes out the door. Your blogs alone have steeled me in my choice.

    Again, what are you doing posting here if you havent' watched the documentary?

  731. robertallen1

    No, he equated textual criticism with a snake in the grass.

  732. Chrispy777

    You make some good points, Wald0, but your response was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I don't want my posts to get too lengthy, trying to cover all the angles, but misunderstandings and misinterpretations are inevitable.

    Justification for evil, using the bible, IS well-established, which is the thrust of my point with evolution, but what's sadly lacking in evolution (besides hard evidence and true science) is a lack of a plan or purpose. We're all just a huge, cosmic accident, floating about.....with no direction, no plans, no goals, no purpose, and no basis for morality.

    In fact, the Darwinian gospel of "survival of the fittest," many times, involves the killing of another animal, in order to survive. It's not wrong to kill, as long as it allows one to survive for another day. This does translate from the natural world to Homo sap, as one (evolutionist) would expect, but you won't see them preaching this "doctrine." Why not? People who kill, for an advantage (however slight), are simply doing what nature teaches them.

    How the process (or mechanism) of evolution knows what is advantageous, or beneficial, to a species' development and propagation, without intelligent intervention, is a mystery that will never be bridged by those who, like you, think that I'm "just being silly." I would posit that you believe in the god of Mother Nature. You constantly point to nature (or "natural" processes), as though this exempts you from believing in a supernatural being, but then you still employ such phrases as, "the miracle of nature," or "natural selection," which have all the earmarks of design, with a purpose, and intelligent decision-making, without any inherent intelligence. At least I can point to an "Intelligent Creator," whereas your "god" is a "know-nothing, be-nothing, and do-nothing, impersonal force." It's not even a fair comparison to ask the question, "Which God, based on the observable universe, makes more sense, to believe in?"

  733. robertallen1

    There are also many ethical lessons to learn from the Code of Hammurabi, Gilgamesh and the Book of the Dead.

  734. Kateye70

    "Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts...

    ...The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original." (From wikipedia)

    Not sure how you turned that into 'denying the scriptures.'

    Furthermore, I never denied any scriptures, I merely asked which bible you are asking us to read.

    I'm perfectly aware that if your particular christian tradition is based on the Reformation, you have followed a different path from the Roman catholic tradition I was raised in.

    In fact, as Vlatko pointed out, many of the atheists, agnostics and (new word, love it!) apatheists who post on this board have read not just the bible, in one or many of its forms, but also religious scriptures of many faiths.

    The bible(s) contain many good precepts, but they are not peculiar only to the christian bible. Basic concepts of what is moral and good are common across pretty much every society; only the details differ.

    Live according to Buddha's precepts, or Confucius's, or Mohammed's, or whichever philosophy you choose--all human societies need pretty much the same type of good behavior from its citizens (don't kill other humans, don't steal other people's goods, be nice to old people, be caring of youngsters, be good to your neighbors, be charitable to those less fortunate, etc.), or chaos ensues.

    There are quite a few books that are much better suited for the purpose of learning how to read and write (Dick and Jane taught me, ha ha!); and many that are as, if not more, enlightening than the christian bible for life-class.

    I hope you enjoy your book, I'm not limiting myself to just one.

  735. Kateye70

    Bah! my comment got flagged for moderation for some reason, didn't think there was anything untoward in it...

    Fixed now

  736. Kateye70

    You've just regressed this entire thread back to the very beginning with this post, there are so many errors in your assumptions about evolution, Darwin, and morality.

  737. robertallen1

    "Survival of the fit" is closer to what Darwin expressed in the fifth edition of "On the Origin of the Species." As a matter of fact the phrase was not even his, but rather that of Herbert Spencer. Besides, who are you to comment on evolution when you haven't read any of Darwin's works or any real works about him just as you haven't watched the documentary?

    But the real corker of this, your recent and possibly most benighted post, is your ejaculation, "How the process (or mechanism) of evolution knows what is advantageous, or beneficial, to a species' development and propagation, without intelligent intervention, is a mystery . . . " Evolution is an inexorable process, not a knowledgable being, and your Teddy Bear deity makes an awfully poor guide, for evolution produces far more failures than successes.

    And speaking of your Teddy Bear deity, you can point to an "intelligent creator" all you want, but whether you like it or not, it isn't science; it's merely the intrusion of your cheap cosmology into an intellectual discipline

    Again, is there anything that you know except how to use the send button?

  738. robertallen1

    You might want to ask Achems_Razor about this. He's one of the moderators.

  739. Chrispy777

    Very interesting point, Vlatty....I'm glad you brought it up. It offers me the perfect opportunity to utilize a real-life example, to make my counter-point: Let's pretend that you're a biographer, and my father is your next subject. You search birth records, unearth personal files, interview friends and family, and learn all that there is to know about my father. Then, you publish the book about him, I purchase it at "Barnes and Noble," and begin reading it through. There is no doubt that I will learn things about my father that I never knew, heretofore, and it will expand my understanding of him, don't know my father like I know my father, and you NEVER will. Additionally, there is no connection, by blood, and my father's heart will not feel toward you as it does toward me, because I'm family, and you're an outsider. There's a vast difference between knowing "about" my God, in the bible, and actually knowing Him, personally. Your hatred and disdain for Him is evident, and therefore, your search for the truth about Him is already skewed and dishonest. The truth will never be revealed to you, having that mindset. If your heart and mind are open to the truth, and you sincerely desire to know the truth, above all, God will honor those that have such an attitude. He will not disappoint.

  740. robertallen1

    So, now it's YOUR god and the way of "knowing" him is through the bible, a 2,000+year-old ragtag about which you have revealed an appalling ignorance. It follows then that you don't know any more about god's "heart" than a giant three-toed sloth. So spare us your specious analogy based on your equally specious assumption that the only way to know a person is through a blood relationship.

    P.S. His name is Vlatko.

  741. Chrispy777

    Robert, you don't believe anything I say, so if I tell you that I've already watched the doc in question, you'll just come back with, "Did not!", on the basis that it's incumbent of me to agree with your absurd logic, which I don't.

    The King James bible is translated directly from the Textus Receptus (over 5000 manuscripts which agree over 95%), with no other mediating texts. Tyndale (and other source material) was merely referenced. Every other English translation is derived from the "Wescott and Hort" Greek text, which was based on only TWO manuscripts, the "Vaticanus" (found in the pope's library) and "Sinaiticus" (found in the garbage can of a monastery, at the bottom of Mount Sinai). The Sinaiticus was in the garbage can because that's where it belonged. It had evidence of being heavily corrected, and also I reject anything whose origin is from the RCC. That church is NOT Christian.

    To tell you anything more than that is throwing pearls before swine. You'll just trample them, and turn around and rip me to shreds. See that? That pearl of wisdom comes straight from the bible. Thank God for it!

  742. over the edge

    so we can add evolution to the list of things you know nothing about

  743. Vlatko


    I don't know why are you calling me @Vlatty. I would ask you not to do that. Speaking to people in diminutive is just showing how insecure you are, nothing more. Plus it is insulting.

    Your analogy is flawed on several levels.

    1. It tells that 6 billion people on this Earth are wrong. They do not know God enough, only you and "your people" do. But the sad truth is that you and "your people" are not superior in any way. You're not privileged and you're definitely not God's children. Your story brings war, terror and segregation.

    2. It tells that your God is mean (edit: evil). He is all-knowing, all-powerful, but somehow he plants the ability to disbelieve and reason in some of his children just to be able to torture them in hell latter. Instead of showing his love to all beings he created, he favors some (you) and he punishes the rest (us). He is the opposite of a good parent.

    3. It tells that you think you're connected "by blood" with your God, which means you're proud with your backdoor fundamentalism. The next logical question is: If God commands you to crash a plane in a building, would you do it?

    Check the stats please. Atheists know your religion way better than you do. There is no shame in that.

  744. Lorna Kennedy

    Sorry to butt back in but seriously, have you not even watched the documentary? How long is it an hour and a half? An you expect us to give your book a go. Of course you can only be one sided. I have read alot more than an hour and a halfs worth to try and see things from your perspective. Dont worry it wont brain wash you. Its not telling any lies. Give it a go at least.

  745. Chrispy777

    Kate, your comment wasn't flagged, because I'm responding to it. ("Bah!".....I loved that) I didn't say there were no other books worthy of study and investigation, just that the bible towers above them. It is often criticized for the issue of "circular reasoning," when a bible-believer will tell you that the bible can and should only be proved BY the bible, itself....but being God's Word, that's the only thing that will work.

    I'm an independent bible Christian. I was raised RC, as were you, but when I became a Christian, I rejected it as anything BUT Christian. There was always an underground remnant of believers who stuck to the bible, solely. The "visible church" was torturing and burning those that did not submit to their authority, and confiscated copies of the scriptures (or even portions of it) found among the public. "Dark Ages," they were. You could aptly label me a "Catacomb Christian." :) I'll leave you with this little ditty:

    A divinity student named "Twiddle"
    Refused to accept his degree.
    It's bad enough being named 'Twiddle'
    Without being "Twiddle, D.D."'

  746. robertallen1

    "If [the KJV] ikept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever sources, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed, most especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale." Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the 1940's.

    "A complete analysis of the authorised version, known down the generations as 'the AV' or 'the King James" was made in 1998. It shows that Tyndale's work accounts for 84% of the New Testament and 75.8% of the Old Testament books he translated. Brian Moynahan, "William Tyndale. If God Spare My Life." Abacus, London, pp. 1-2.

    "[Tyndale] is the mainly unrecognised translator of the most influential book in the world. Although the authorised King James Version is ostensibly the product of a learned committee of churchmen, it is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking of their translation." John Bridgman, "Tyndales New Testament. Contemporary Review, 2000; 277 (1610 342-346.

    Now, for your information, just about all the thousands of manuscripts which we have of both testaments not only show evidence of heavy emendation, but many times are contradict each other in much more than venial matters. What you reject is of as much intellectual substance as your ill-informed assessment of Sinaiticus. You are not a biblical scholar and you will never be.

    I take it as a personal affront when people like you claim an erudition they in no way possess and who profess to judge what is or is not Christian. You deserve to be ripped to shreds.

  747. robertallen1

    One of the great things about evolution is that if there is some supernatural power pulling the strings, he's as fallible as the rest of us.

  748. robertallen1

    It might even make an honest man of him, perish the thought.

    But remember, you don't need to apologize for butting back in. Your comments are not only appreciated by solicited.

  749. Chrispy777

    "Vlatty" likes being called Vlatty.....he told me so. It's a lot nicer than than some of the things you've been calling me, Roberto (I'll bet that little "o" bothers you, being the petty individual that you are).

    Referring to the vast quantity of your hate-filled vitriol.........yeah, yeah, yeah.

  750. Kateye70

    I find it odd that someone who is professing to live their life according to the bible, and presumably Jesus, can be deliberately rude to their host, even though other guests have asked that you show a modicum of respect. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." (see, I can quote-mine too), and Vlatko is our Caesar. Give him his due, even if it is just the courtesy of his name.

  751. robertallen1

    You still haven't proved that the bible is god's word or for that matter, that in contrast to the various forms of Christianity, you're the real McCoy. Your reasoning is indeed circular and as puerile as your closing piece of doggerel. I'd trust a hammerhead shark before I'd trust you. At least the hammerhead is respectable.

  752. Chrispy777

    I hope you think you're getting somewhere, with your "Google Scholarship." I'd hate to think that YOU might think that your life is irrelevant. I reiterate.....yeah, yeah, yeah.

  753. robertallen1

    Another lie. See Vlatko's last e-mail to you.

    By the way, you have no one to blame except yourself, not even your wuss of a god, for making yourself so hated.

  754. robertallen1

    I'm getting a lot farther with my scholarship than you're getting with your ignorance.

  755. Chrispy777

    Whoa! Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the 7 to 1 ratio comments against me, and with a much ruder tone than mine. Jesus said, "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." I haven't called anyone the devil's children..........yet.

  756. robertallen1

    Now you're playing the pity card victimizing that nice, intelligent, well-read Kateye70. Would you like a violin in the background or is a harp more your style?

  757. Chrispy777

    I'll deign to answer the last question: God commanded Abraham to slay his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah.....his ONLY son, through whom God had promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation. If you know the bible, then you should how that story ended, and why God had commanded it, in the first place.

    Job, in the midst of his sufferings, cried out, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him..."

    Now, what do you think my answer will be, regarding your loaded question? Think hard, now......

  758. Chrispy777

    Lorna, I watched it, and was severely unimpressed. I laughed out loud, at several points. The guy is really slick, but he don't fool me none. The choir that's against me, wholesale, is who he's trying to impress, and it obviously worked.

  759. Kateye70

    This documentary has nothing to do with your personal faith (and I think a bit of proselytizing is starting to creep into your comments), and everything to do with applying critical thinking skills to the claims which religious advocates try to use to refute scientific methodology.

    You have used every single error of logic that QualiaSoup addressed in the documentary, as if no one would notice or call you on it, and then resorted to piously telling us we would never have the truth 'revealed' to us...unless we accept your faith and your book.

    Its fine that you have them, but neither one belongs in a science classroom, and critical thinking skills are necessary to have an informed, engaged and capable populace. Otherwise, we head right down the Taliban path of ignorance and oppression.

    BTW, I too rejected the RC church, but not because any other religion or spiritual teaching answered my questions any better. Quite frankly, I left because of the hierarchy's attitude toward women.

    Once I figured out that women are and always have been second class religious citizens, I didn't let the door hit me on the way out, I went so fast. I don't see any other monotheistic religion or subset thereof as being any better.

  760. Kateye70

    Well, you *did* come onto this board voluntarily...and there are moderators to attend to any other rudeness. I'm just pointing out that Vlatko is our host.

  761. Chrispy777

    How dense can you be? You selectively read, just like you selectively think. I saw it. Not impressed, but I did laugh, often, and was incredulous at his ridiculous arguments.

  762. over the edge

    please don't play the sympathy card. your and my discussion started out with me politely asking if you meant to reply to me or was it a mistake. your response while not acknowledging the mistake called a "clod" "vain" and i did not know "what the flock i was talking about" . now i personally don't care how you respond to me only if there are facts contained within that response. but please don't play the poor me card with me as you started any insults between us

  763. Chrispy777

    I'll give you the short answer, Jack. I sought the truth, and the truth found me.

  764. Lorna Kennedy

    I,m only concerning myself with the contents, so how good or bad a film maker he is irrevalent I like its symplicity.Its not an over the top or sensational, it doesnt bombard you with trumped up theatricals. Sorry i did think you had not watched it. My bad.

  765. Kateye70

    I'm with you, Lorna, I actually listened to it more than watched, since I was working at the time (it entailed a fair amount of backing up and re-listening, haha!).

    I can understand why the visual style could be off-putting, and he does talk rather rapidly. So maybe he loses some artistic points, but I don't think he lost any for content.

    I took the time to watch not only this documentary but the others he has up on his Youtube page. His take on morality was very interesting.

  766. robertallen1

    A bit of preselytizing? More like a several hogsheds, all of them ignorant and all of them unwelcome.

    It's obviously not fine that he has his faith and his book. Look at the result.

  767. robertallen1

    Maybe if you tried thinking rather than laughing, you would learn something.

    Now quickly, which one of his arguments made you laugh the most?

  768. robertallen1

    Have you had your brain checked lately for myopia?

  769. robertallen1

    Lorna, think again. Don't believe a word he says.

  770. robertallen1

    Ladies, please bear in mind that content and presentation go together.

  771. Lorna Kennedy

    Over the hedge and RikGo1 i have only just seen your posts from yesterday. Thanks alot.

  772. Kateye70

    Point taken. I didn't find his presentation so bad that I couldn't follow the content. Not the best, but by far not the worst I've seen. And once someone pointed the one-eyed aspect of his style, I found it hard not to notice it after that, lol.

  773. Achems_Razor


    No, Vlatko does not like to be called "Vlatty," by you calling someone such derogatory, disrespectful, insulting and demeaning names tells me that you have no class whatsoever, just another dyed in the wool religee that the Earth given time will shake off like fleas!

    My suggestion to you is to stop dissing and try to have some respect for the posters and for your host.

  774. Lorna Kennedy

    But just because you might be a bad public speaker doesnt mean you dont have something important to say.

  775. Jack1952

    The Vedic Texts of the Hindus date back starting about thirty five hundred years ago. I would say that they have stood the test of time. The Hindus believe that these texts were spiritually revealed. A similar claim is made by Christians concerning the Bible. The fact that the Vedic Texts coalesced from many authors, over such a span of time, speaks strongly for Divine inspiration. Faith is also required for the Hindu's beliefs because they weren't there to watch these chunks of history unfold as is written in the Vedic Texts. It is eminently clear that the Hindi Gods would not leave their creations in the dark...and They didn't.

    Of course the Hindus are wrong and you are correct. That is obvious.(?)

  776. Jack1952

    Not that I am answering for Wald0 (he has proven that he is quite capable of speaking for himself), but I fail to see why there has to be purpose in the mechanics of the universe. It is guided by certain physical laws. It is what we can observe. The how or why is unknown, thus far.

    Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It describes how the species on earth came to be through random selection and survival. If someone uses the principles of evolution to further their own agenda that does not render evolution as a theory invalid. It renders that person as immoral.

  777. Jack1952

    These were tests of faith. Abraham would have killed Isaac if God had not intervened.

    The answer must be "Yes, I would fly those planes into the towers if God commanded it". Unless you believe that you are of a higher moral character than Abraham...or God.

  778. robertallen1

    I noticed that in some of his other documentaries, he spoke slower, but still his delivery his monotonous. He should stick to scripting and get someone else to present the material.

  779. robertallen1

    As I've stated before, I have no problem with the content, but the ideas could brought home far more with a better delivery.

    You still haven't told me if you've heard of Robert Briscoe.

  780. robertallen1

    Jack: I'm surprised at you, such a glaring non sequitur. "The fact that the Vedic texts coalescent from many authors, over such a span of time, speaks strongly for Divine inspiration." Or perhaps you were parodying you know who.

  781. Jack1952

    I know. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened to you. Another pretty way to say "I'm right".

    Why is your revelation any more profound than that of a Muslim? You still haven't answered that question. Quoting scripture and typing out cliches is not an answer.

    Why is it so hard to say that you don't know the truth...that you find your belief system gives you hope and comfort? That it is unique to you and it may not resonate in the same way with others? What is it that allows you the arrogance to say that you know the truth and no one else does? Pride cometh before the fall. You must know that one, too.

  782. Jack1952

    Parodying or parroting...except I used my own "Divine inspiration".

  783. Guest

    I suggested a doc to Vlatko this week but it hasn't been posted yet.

  784. over the edge

    that doc is here already look under society.

  785. slpsa

    Fair enough. At the end of it all, I stick to my guns and say, the burden of proof in science, is on the scientist to prove what he is saying. I do not see any reason why the same rules do not apply to the " creator " and religion. Regardless of my hatred of child abusers, the questions asked, are never factually answered. It is the same, every single time. Bunnies say prove me wrong, I say it is not my problem to prove the sky fairy exists. It has always been, and always will be, on those who partake in such silliness to back up their claims. The major stumbling block is they cannot prove a damn thing. Ever. Then resort to insults and deflections when they are made to look as ridiculous as their claims sound. As Vlatko said, 6 billion other people have a say in this nonsense. You are outnumbered, big time. That being said, i want to keep this non personal, I try to respect peoples opinions, but not so much when they believe in fairy tales that get others killed over their belief system. I have a moral compass that does not allow me to let religious people get away with stating fiction as fact. I am not alone, as you see, it is a big club. Deal with it.

  786. mårten lundin

    Very boring doc unfortunately. There is something about his voice and how he delivers his message that makes me want to fall asleep.

    + isn't all the things he's saying already common knowledge? We're living in 2012 for crying outloud.

    ++ after reading the comments, religious people scares the crap out of me.

  787. Samuel Morrissey

    I quite like his style, like the animations it is short and to the point.

    But that is my personal opinion.

    Unfortunately the things he's saying are not exactly 'common' knowledge. It is knowledge that has been around for a very long time, but as you can see from some of the comments, not many people have actually acquired it. Critical thinking is not taught in schools here in UK for over 100 years so sadly it is up to people to research this stuff for themselves, and again, rather few folks do. Thankfully, we have the internet, and the information is available to anyone you wants to find it now.

    Bring back classical education, logic, reason and rhetoric. All I got in primary school was a very simplistic dumbed down version called 'comprehension'


  788. Jack1952

    I couldn't agree more with the idea that the burden of proof lies with those who claim the existence of a creator. What I stated is that the behaviour of some of the religious individuals does not make the creationist's stance the wrong one. Their problem is the evidence that they consistently fail to provide.

    People are motivated by greed, anger, lust, patriotism, political agendas, religious fanaticism, all of which can get people killed. It is part of the human condition. That there are individuals in religious institutions who demonstrate human weaknesses is just as likely to be true as any other segment of society. People will behave as people do.

    We both think along the same lines where creationists are concerned except you demonstrate a greater impatience when in discussion with one. It can lead to the creationist believing you to be a little hot headed and emotional. It is difficult to listen to someone relating ideas that have no foundation in fact and who has no concept of what the term burden of proof means. I do understand your frustration.

  789. Giacomo della Svezia

    I am convinced that the truth cannot be known, only by direct, personal experience. This means the truth of one person cannot be the truth of another, because truth as experienced by one person is always subjective.
    Accepting the stories from the authors of the bible as truth without personal experience and without critical judgement is a way of dogmatic thinking, which leaves the dogmatic in complete darkness about what is true and what isn't.
    Critical thinking (seeking) can lead to stronger contvictions, supported by arguments, than those accepted with blind faith.

  790. Jack1952

    Constantin von Tischendorf claims he found the Sinaiticus in a waste basket but those at the monastery deny this allegation vehemently. Both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were written in the fourth century when the church was a singular entity becoming what is now the RCC. The great East West Schism did not occur until the eleventh century. What I am trying to say is that both Codex's have their roots in the Roman Catholic Church.

  791. Jack1952

    Critical thinking also allows one to reshape his views if or when new information is uncovered. Blind faith or dogmatic thinking locks one into a chain of thought and no new information will matter. If I was to believe in a creator, I would at least want to believe in a way that would allow my faith to grow and change as my knowledge of the world grows. Stagnation is not an option for me.

  792. Giacomo della Svezia

    I agree completely: one should always be open to new information and incorporate it in one's convictions. Real faith is only kept alive by thinking about it, otherwise thinking dies and people along with it.

  793. Giacomo della Svezia

    Yes, there are.
    It's also possible that we don't necessarily need all these venerable works to be able create a system of ethics that would be just as good for humanity.

  794. robertallen1

    Right you are. But what really pisses me off is when he downright lies, probably for the self-aggrandizing purpose of displaying an erudition he does not possess, such as with Tyndale's contribution to the King James version.

  795. robertallen1

    Like the bible, these works were merely codifications of the morality and ethics of their time and anyone who tries to conduct a behavior system from them is putting the cart before the horse.

  796. slpsa

    I figured you would Jack. It is not on purpose I get frustrated, ignorance of facts usually wears thin after twenty posts or

  797. Giacomo della Svezia

    Yes, they were. I was talking theoretically: suppose we wanted to redesign our ethical system, we would have a choice of using what has already been invented and of starting with nothing but our ability to reason - not forgetting that other choices might be found and taken.

  798. robertallen1

    There is no such thing as OUR ethical system, for, as I'm sure you are aware, ethical systems vary throughout the world.

  799. Giacomo della Svezia

    You're right again, I shouldn't have used the word 'our'.

  800. Giacomo della Svezia

    I entirely agree that there's no reason to become rude to anyone, but apart from that, it's good that there are people like Chrispy777 visiting sites like this one to keep you sharp. He could be wrong, but you have to come up with the right arguments to prove it. If you can prove him to be wrong, your own ideas will come out of it so much stronger.
    I'd say be grateful that people like him are around, as long as they don't harm anyone, but keep discussing subjects dear to them.

  801. robertallen1

    I agree with you about keeping your wits sharp. However, those like David Foster and Crispy777 are not content to confine their ignorance to their own little group, but rather endeavor to spread it as far and wide as they can and by any means whatsoever, including lying, cheating and distortion. They not only insult valid academic study, but by passing their ignorance off as knowledge, do harm to those around them, especially gullible pupils. Politeness and tact are taken by them not only as a sign of weakness,but as license to continue in their nefarious ways. They are the ones who should be squirming, not you. Let them cry foul and then try to justify their jeremiads, thus digging themselves into a deeper hole. Thus, there is no point in standing on ceremony with these people.

  802. Giacomo della Svezia

    Maybe they are never content, but that's not essential: critical thinkers know when they're wrong, but they also know what is a good argument. Never mind the lying and distorting, if you're a sharp observer and thinker, you'll see right through every fallacy.
    As for politeness, I would advise everyone not to follow a bad example, but keep their own dignity.
    Indeed, let them do their worst, for no one will take them seriously, not until they come up with arguments worthy of consideration, which is what this documentary is all about.

  803. Guest

    How do you answer your own question:
    What if someone was to tell you that you are immortal being who have forgotten its true nature and you have to aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in your past in order to free yourself of your limiting effects. What do you say?

  804. robertallen1

    And that's just why we're having the problems in Texas and Kansas today. The uneducated do take them seriously. I suggest you read about Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Ken Hamm.

  805. Epicurus

    based on those reasons those people would clearly not understand biology or evolution.

    i am not going to answer for people who are too stupid to understand evolution.

  806. Achems_Razor

    Az...Whom is that person to tell me such, and from what authority doth such a person speaketh? What do I say? that is hippie new age stuff that a long time ago I was familiar with, until science took over.

    You probably would not make a good scientologist then, or maybe you would? isn't that their tenant to eliminate all the past baggage?

  807. Giacomo della Svezia

    Thanks for the suggestion.
    Well, even looking up these names hurriedly on Wikipedia gives me the shivers! These people are no better than the their worst enemies, like extreme islamic fundamentalists.
    Lack of education is a very grave danger, not only to individual people, but to whole societies. There you have it again: critical thinking is also of critical importance for a humane society. To learn to use this faculty should be part of every child's education.

  808. robertallen1

    Kudos to you for taking the time to look these people up. Now, I think, you're beginning to see my point. Here's another name for you: David Barton. While you're at it, you might want to research Patrick Henry College. I would be interesting in your thoughts.

  809. robertallen1

    Taking her posts collectively, she would make a fine scientologist.

  810. Kateye70

    He could be wrong, and so far he has come up with no proof that he is right. He stepped into an ongoing discussion and quickly started using the very points QualiaSoup was disproving in his documentary, and was somehow surprised that sidestepping, obfuscating and scripture-quoting didn't convince us in the least.

    I see robertallen1 has already pointed you to the political attempts to create a non-critical citizenry; this is exactly why some of us become passionate--dare I say, downright belligerent--in refuting the nonsense being passed off as 'science' by creationists.

    It is insidious and we all need to say it out loud.

  811. robertallen1

    When you have finished the three books of Bart Ehrman and reported on them, you might want to try the latest edition (2005) of "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers.

  812. Jack1952

    One of the reasons that I may not exhibit the strong reaction that you do against the religious is that we do not have this type of fundamentalism in Canada although I personally suspect that PM Harper is in sympathy with their ilk. He would never publicly say so because it would be political suicide. He does belong to a very strict church in Alberta but he is very low key about his involvement. Even Christian Canadians do not care for the backward thinking religious types of the Bible belt.

  813. Giacomo della Svezia

    You won't be surprised.
    The statement that the US was founded as a christian nation is a very grave lie, in its unscrupulousness comparable to the lie some people try to spread about the Holocaust. After writing the previous sentence I read, not to my surprise, that there is a connection between mr Barton and these deniers. like Pete Peters.
    What I learned and read at different places and times about the founding of the US is quite another, much more inspiring story, and living in another country gives me just one of many reasons to think my teacher wasn't feeding me garbage.
    What I read about PHC is also very troubling. I agree with New Scientist that it is a threat to the US public school system.
    I have been worried for years about the developments in the US since World War 2, and maybe they even started before that. Worried not only for the American people's sake, but for the sake of, well, come to think of it, the entire world. There are many - what you might call - evil, antidemocratic forces at work in your country, although the people involved would deny they are undermining democracy.
    Some documentaries on this website picture the US as a more or less fake democracy, but that's another story.

  814. robertallen1

    Speaking of Holocaust deniers, have you heard of David Irving.

    And yes, the founding of this country is truly inspiring and the Constitution an incredible document (except for the Electoral College).

    Considering the level of your education and sophistication, I can't help but inquire as to which country you're from. The most obvious choice is Italy, but I once knew a Dr. Schmidt from Poland.

  815. Kateye70

    "The Creationists" looks very interesting, but it is not available as an e-book (yet). However, I did locate a different book by Frank S. Ravitch, "Marketing Intelligent Design" which seems to address the most insidious aspects of that pseudo-science. It's amazing how manipulated we can be and not even realize it; this topic is too important not to be educated about. I think I have too many books on my reading list now, lol.

  816. robertallen1

    Have you had an opportunity to check out the National Center for Science Education? Yesterday, you informed me that you had book-marked a page. I and I'm certain a few others would appreciate your comments.

    In case you didn't know it, Dr. Ravitch teaches law at Michigan State. I have not read "Marketing Intelligent Design," but will do so. Thanks for the suggestion.

  817. robertallen1

    Why are most of the intelligent and well-informed posters on this site Canadian? You're making my country look foolish.

    But remember, religious fundamentalism started off in my country.

  818. Giacomo della Svezia

    His name didn't ring a bell instantly, but yes, I have heard of him.

    Having had a course of Italian - a language I like - and thinking about a pseudonym for my comment, I hastily decided to use it for composing a name. I'n neither from Italy nor from Sweden, but the Netherlands. As for my education: after high school I was a student at an arts academy a couple of years but didn't finish this study. My knowledge is broad (but rather superficial) as I am curious about many things.
    I would agree with your objection to the Electoral College. I'd prefer direct elections. Living in a democratic monarchy I've always wondered about this strange construction of a chosen parliament and a leader that has not been chosen by the people.

  819. robertallen1

    I bet you speak several languages and have a much better education than most Americans. Your English is quite good, as a matter of fact, far better than that of many of those who post here, but just one thing, the false conditional sounds affected (I agree vs. I would agree.)

    Keep up the curiosity; it's what genius is made of.

    Ever heard of Arthur Seyss-Inquart?

  820. Giacomo della Svezia

    I used "would agree", because I'm not an American citizen, so I cannot object to Electoral College, or only as a bystander.
    The name Seyss-Inquart is still tought at Dutch schools these days, if I'm not mistaken.

  821. robertallen1

    Even then, it's a false conditional. "I agree" does nicely, even for non-Americans commenting on the American Constitution.

    Seyss-Inquart scored highest on the IQ tests administered to the defendants in the first Nuremberg Trial. Shows the value of the test.

  822. Lorna Kennedy

    Thanks az i,ll watch that tonight.Was getting bright before i slept, posting last night but TDF has kept me up till the early hours since i found it six months ago. Tonight I sleep.

  823. Giacomo della Svezia

    I won't argue the false conditional, for I'm not a native English-speaking person.
    If Seyss-Inquart was a very intelligent man, then I wonder what reasoning brought him to such abject convictions. I'm sure it must have been flawed. On the other hand, considering what I know of his ideology, I'm inclined as you are to doubt the value of the IQ test he underwent.

  824. Jack1952

    Not nit picking but I think he scored the second highest. I don't remember who scored the highest. My parents immigrated to Canada after the war. I was actually conceived in the Netherlands but was born in Canada. I attended a private Christian Reformed primary school and all my classmates were children of Dutch immigrants. A very fundamentalist upbringing. We also learned a great deal about the war in the Netherlands and the history of the church.

  825. Jack1952

    I'm afraid your country doesn't need our help to look foolish.

  826. robertallen1

    I have no rational answer for that one.

  827. Jack1952

    That test may have been accurate about his intelligence level but could not have shown us to what degree he used that capability.

  828. robertallen1

    I've read roughly five books about the 1st Nuremberg Trial and I can't remember which one indicated that he was highest. However, you're right, it is de minimis. Can you still speak Dutch?

  829. robertallen1

    He was a puppet all his life and nothing. By the way, I know of no biographies on him.

  830. Giacomo della Svezia

    I'm still wondering what Chrispy777 could have been laughing about...

  831. Jack1952

    I spoke Dutch until I went to school. Both my parents insisted on speaking English around the house. I understand what is said but I have difficulty initiating a conversation. However, after a few days with visiting relatives, it starts to come back to me.

    My mother comes from Friesland, a province in the north of Holland, which has its own language. It has a very old and quite an interesting history.

  832. robertallen1

    Indeed it does. English comes from Frisian.

  833. Jeremy Hughes

    I'd take hate filled vitriol over maniacal ideology ANY DAY OF THE WEEK! At least ONE of the two can SOLVE their differences, YOU on the other hand, are completely impossible, and also so dumb that it hurts.

  834. Guest

    The question did not come from me, it came from Vlatko to me in order to prove to himself that i would be a good scientologist. ?????
    I thought i'd return the favor.
    Scientologist my ass!s
    Believe me there is not one second of my life i would take away, i've had way too much fun!


  835. jeffroko

    Here's a good scripture quote for this discussion.. it really sheds light on how people have been treating each others input. "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning." Ask yourself where the insults have been hurled from, and who does the instigating. If you question whether you're taking the right side in the discussion, I think you should do some soul searching instead of searching for ways to discredit wisdom.

  836. slpsa

    My Grandad was one of the brave men of the 22nd Regiment, Val-Cartier, Quebec, The " Van Doos ", who marched across Holland and sorted some Germans out in your homeland. Respect. Glad to have you here Jack. Your family too. Good people, the Dutch are. Never met a bad one.

  837. slpsa

    I do not know, but thanks Robert. I am sure we Canucks appreciate that sentiment. Cheers man. If you ask me, it is our education system, that works pretty well. Our curriculum for younger students is among the toughest in the world. Been that way for a long time. I have teacher friends, as you know, I have also been a teacher, and touched on this subject briefly. School here seems to prepare those who want to excel in a more compressed manner as well. Other than that, I could not say past that, what the deal is. It could be genetic. Or wait, we could be Gods chosen brainiacs? Would that fly? i mean there are Gods chosen people so they claim, why not Gods favorite smart people? Anything is possible in the sky fairy world.

  838. over the edge

    i would disagree slightly. i have not experienced other educational systems other than ours so i cannot comment on that aspect. but i also think it has a lot to do with culture. we as Canadians are known as the passive and cautious country we tend to stay middle of the road and examine things more in order to gain the confidence to actually speak out. in a lot of ways i admire Americans their self assurance and can do anything attitude has led to many great technologies and discoveries that would be a lot harder in a less aggressive/confident society. those same principles sadly also make the ignorant and deluded more confident as well. it is a country of extremes. but in fairness we have our own ill informed venomfangx of why do people laugh at creationists fame comes ti mind. if you don't remember him he is the one who claimed the grand canyon was formed in five minutes and that all the h2o in the universe is on earth. he went through our education system and as far as i know attends or attended (as of 2010) university of Toronto. we have our crazies but i suspect we don't give them the attention as much as our friends to the south.

  839. dewflirt

    Going way off topic here, no apologies.
    I see Az has vanished and I have an idea as to why that might be. Some here ought to apply a little self-critical thinking and maybe they would see too.
    Such a shame, she was a fine foil to the fact led thinking that prevails here. It would serve some well to remember that a preacher without a congregation is just a man talking to himself in an empty room.
    Intellectual w*nking.
    A shame to waste good seed.

  840. over the edge

    lets hope it is just temporary. or maybe like yourself she wished for a name change. lets not jump to conclusion there might be a perfectly logical reason.

  841. dewflirt

    Morning Edge :)
    You might be right, I hope so. If I am wrong, well, rather wrong in defence of a good person than silently concerned for my own pride :)
    As for jumping to conclusions, maybe it's more a leap of faith. Logic has no place in that ;))

  842. Vlatko


    I confronted her (and some other people too) and apparently she didn't like that. What can I say, we all have egos. I hope she's well.

  843. dewflirt

    Good morning Vlatko :)
    Nothing against a fair fight, but this seemed to be more bodyline than Queensbury rules. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds ;)

  844. docoman

    What you did to az wasn't really fair.
    I could ask you, do you agree that a "system that supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent....that favoured private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class differences" would be a decent system?
    If you agreed, I could then point out that this is taken from wikipedia's Nazi ideology.
    To then say you would have made a good Nazi if you agreed would be an insult to you, even though no 'bad language' was used, would it not?
    That joke at az's expense wasn't really in the spirit of the comments policy it would seem to me. It looked like it was designed to quiet and/or distract her opinion, not rebut.

  845. Bryan Cooper

    great stuff.

  846. Vlatko


    Even if all that was true, which is not, it is not a justification for the "runaway."

    Now, you can hypothesize all day long of what could I have answered to your question, but eventually that doesn't matter.

    What I was trying to say is that her "ideology" is not original and can partially fit in any modern new age cult. That was not a joke and the question I posed was just a random choice.

    Further more she could have defended her position by saying what you've just said.

    If you like someone, that doesn't mean you have to agree 100% of the time with them.

    Edit: P.S. We are going way off topic.

  847. Kateye70

    There may have been insults hurled but there was also a fair amount of baiting done. Ask *yourself* who.

    Maybe some of us are being serious and touchy about the intrusion of religion into science, and get trolled a little too easily.

    But if you were sitting where I was a few years ago, listening to a school board *seriously* proposing that theology be taught in the same room as science, you would be touchy and serious too.

    I am puzzled as to why those of religious faith feel that a clear understanding of the observable world around us is a threat, but they do, and they are trying very hard to sneak around the U.S.'s constitutional separation.

    If they can convince enough gullible people that discussions about theology belong in the same conversation as those about science, they might actually do just that.

    What this documentary does is give those of us who understand the dangers and see the fallacious arguments, but perhaps don't have the debate skills to overcome them, some ammunition to fight back.

    I hope az does come back, I think she is a wonderful person with a unique point of view, and I often follow her thoughts and poetry with great delight.

  848. Achems_Razor

    See, this is what religion does, always a touchy subject, even though no accusations were hurled at all to Az. it was taken as a premise.

    Women! argh! now I probably have to go to Nelson and tell az to get her azz back here!

  849. Kateye70

    The US has our fair share of excellent teachers, but it seems that certain elements want to make it harder and harder for them to be excellent. We hear about the exceptions because they *are* exceptions.

    And don't kid yourself. The creationists have repackaged themselves as "ID" and are busy marketing themselves around the world. There are gullible and uninformed populations everywhere that can fall prey to dishonest arguments.

    Eventually it will come to your side of the border as well. All I can do is be a voice rather than a silence.

  850. robertallen1

    What wisdom? Certainly nothing that you've written.

  851. robertallen1

    Neither have I.

  852. robertallen1

    Public schools here have become exercises in babysitting.

  853. docoman

    It's your world here, do as you wish.

  854. robertallen1

    @Sipsa and Over-the-Edge

    Do you hear very much about violence in Canadian public schools? If not, it says a lot about the cultures of our two countries and hence about the educational emphasis.

  855. robertallen1

    If she can't take confrontation, she shouldn't be posting. However, this might not be the case. She posted once late last night.

  856. robertallen1

    I don't see that Vlatko did anything wrong. Like a religee, she makes assertions about things she knows nothing about and must suffer the consequences.

  857. robertallen1

    You don't owe her an apology, as your reply was certainly in line--and I'm not stating this because you're the administrator. She posted once last night and if she doesn't want to post again, that's her business.

  858. AntiTheist666

    Critical thinking?

    Perhaps I missed something? I followed quite a bit of this very lively thread but didn’t see anything insulting towards Azilda. I think she’s quite adept at defending her own position and not the runaway type but what would I know being male. I don’t why she has disappeared but hope she’s back here soon.

  859. robertallen1

    You seem too intelligent to be cowed by the cry-baby tactics of an ignorant religee. When someone makes ignorant statements (and I don't mean venial errors), tries to pass fiction off as fact and deliberately deceives and distorts (see discussion of Tyndale), it is not an insult to call him to task for it in no uncertain terms.

    P.S. I have ordered the Ravitch volume. Thanks for the recommendation.

  860. robertallen1

    By how many of our excellent teachers have to spend their time babysitting?

    Keep shouting.

  861. dewflirt

    Hey sixes :) i didn't say insulting, and as Edge pointed out I might have jumped to a wrong conclusion. Perfectly possible. And I said self-critical! ;)

  862. AntiTheist666

    "Have you finished Jest, Satire yet?"

    Yes thanks Robert, it was so good I read it twice, I'll get back to you on it it soon.

  863. Julian Firth

    Teaching about God is entirely conceptual and serves to create a language that may describe internal feelings and emotional phenomena by which we acknowledge that our separateness is only skin deep. Without that language of the abstract mystery outside and within us, and the dialogue it provides us between our corporeal and spiritual selves, we become entirely selfish and our skin becomes a hard wall; with this language our skin becomes a wafer that simply defines us in our present form.

  864. bud oracle

    I almost feel apologetic when i share the link and give a warning: "It's a bit hard to follow for believers.."

  865. over the edge

    Julian Firth
    i am glad that religion has a positive effect on you but stating without it "we become entirely selfish and our skin becomes a hard wall" is not only insulting to those of us who do not believe but what evidence would you have to back up such a statement

  866. bud oracle

    "My own personal belief is that 'god' is that spiritual spark"

    "How can the logical and creative mind exist within such a timid and fearful mental plot. It's pretty sick to worship a martyr! /wiki/Martyr"

    You speak with a closed mind, although you claim enlightenment...

  867. Kateye70

    huh? What are you trying to say here? Where are those quotes from? edit: oh nvm, got it lol

  868. Kateye70

    although....still not sure who the 'you' speaking with a closed mind is...

  869. bud oracle

    It's sad how our curiosity and natural wonder has been co-opted due to other more cultural considerations defined by our biological predispositions. the fact that anyone would claim that this wondrous mix which continues to evolve from moment to moment in a dynamic dance of life must remain stagnant, flies in the face of the concept of god..

    This interwoven existence in our universe must not, can not, conform to a unsupportable point of view in the "mind" of some members of a single fleeting moment of the lifespan of this microbe's evolutionary existence.

    To claim such a thing is to limit any such a concept to the realm of the impossible by definition: How could this microbe even know the realm of such a concept if it were possible?

    Only god would know everything (except where Adam was and a couple of other things) Therefor we would not be able to "know" it/him by definition. To claim one can know such a thing is an absurdity that is not possible.

    Yet I am forced to play the game of "sort of" believing in god many times to remain socially acceptable in any given situation. It is so much less contentious to do so and I am a Canadian!

    My answer to believers (I know them by their leading questions and the pamphlets they hold like shields) is this:

    "I BELIEVE (this is important code for "I'm a good guy") that defining god for others is not my business. I believe god is capable of revealing himself to those who seek him. I believe that my job is simple and involves listening to a voice inside of me which tells me if something is right or wrong to do. I have to weigh things carefully but the answer is always within me if I LISTEN TO GOD'S VOICE." This says basically "I am a good guy and operate on a conscious level and evaluate things carefully. My business with god is my business, and god deals with anyone else individually, too. Also, it is not so important what one believes, rather what one does."

    I draw valid conclusions for myself based on criteria I have developed in life including a sense of basic morality concerning my interactions with others. The most important thing, imo, is I don't try to control others through my definitions and hopefully impart in them a willingness to allow me the same freedom.

    Great video, but I don't believe it!

    Actually, I have at one time tried to speak in tongues and believed I was. This goes quite well with my bipolar nature and is just another of the many diverse things I have experienced in life. I now usually use that experience from my memories of strange goings on in masses of adults apparently in the throws of mass psychosis, as a comparison to the calm, happy, thrilling mind expansion and enlightenment as well as my behavior which I have experience on LSD.

    By comparison to this strange ritual and the mindset of those who participate in it, LSD and all of the psychedelic drugs are much much safer than full gospel religion, imo.

    Of course I could be the Devil talkin' eh?

  870. robertallen1

    O.K. Finally received my copy.

  871. robertallen1

    First of all, what are you talking about?

    Secondly, which parts of the video don't you believe?

  872. Giacomo della Svezia

    I come from Holland and I want to say I am not happy with the popularity Mr Geert Wilders is enjoying recently. He may be not comparable to those evangelists wreaking cultural havoc in the US, but he is spreading hatred, like any radical, orthodox, narrowminded person would.

    Edit: He is probably not the worst person around here: there is an orthodox christian political party in Holland that worries me maybe even more.

  873. Achems_Razor

    @bud oracle:

    goddamn! good try on your "Gish Gallop"

  874. robertallen1

    I had never heard this phrase before. Thanks for the enlightenment. Seems to be another term for goobledygook or double-talk which accounts for his screen name.

  875. Achems_Razor

    Yes gish gallop is basically used at times by the delusional douchenozzles.

  876. Jack1952

    I had to read this post twice to get past the cosmic meanderings to get the gist of what it is trying to say. I think it says that I am a selfish person because of a lack of a spiritual base. To arbitrarily decide that I am entirely selfish would suggest that your skin may not have achieved that wafer like quality either.

    Positive interaction between people and human selflessness is the result of our existence as social creatures. It is in our own best interest to behave in a selfless manner within our own social group. It is not contingent upon a belief in God or an ability to form abstract thought.

  877. Lynley Ruth Butt

    OK- If the mere act of being an ( expectantly additional ,entity that brings something to the table that makes a difference) Observer has a noticeable effect upon the outcome of an experiment, THEN we must ask what BELIEFS are we bringing to all we do... and indeed must examine beliefs carefully with as rational and unbiased a mind as possible. But then what if we have a pre-ordained ( written into the composition of our particular unique genetic code) temperament that regardless of environmental shaping factors pre-disposes us to a certain midset and therefore choices and therefore destiny- successful/unsuccessful..... Again what if EMOTION has such an energetic quality... that it enhances perception/susceptibility/empathy for what is loved hated denied pursued... and brings certain things into existence... or into observable manifestation, with certain minor or major consequences?
    Then can you really say religion plays no role in what we call science? Let's put it this way... science ( observable truth of an observable matter, deducted truth about invisible matter) plus conscience... rigorous conscientious re=examination, explorative investigative " going over the ground", creative wide-open inclusive from many aspects/viewpoints/experiences/records and research... consultation on rights and wrongs of a matter/issue/practice/supposition/theory.... should lead to some strong guiding light info that leads one towards the formulation of.... some outcome and belief predictive suppostions.
    Take- a judgmental " hostile believing the worst, dour, suspicious with-holding nature... and it's opposite ray of sunshine, positive outgoing, trusting, confidingly open personality... and question/test/observe ( discreetly , I guess, since what we bring COULD TEETER things!).... which is more successful through life... since " religion" per se sees itself as offering guide-lines... re our relations with others/ natural world/environment... and prospects for the " hereafter" ( future).
    We are looking into the nature of energy and matter... and child development, health, noursihment, education... as well as keeping our own adult security of life, honourable character and credibility in mind... and trying to adjust our economic affairs onto an even realistic fair and balanced path. Even if we have no direct experiential manifestation of power coming into our lives from outside sources... if we believe that special people with " spirit" - extraordinary ability and experiences in our past history have interesting and vital things to pass on- worth our consideration- and also pay attention to what we see and hear- we can form our individual " code of life" and warning voice... acquire a measure of wisdom that may guide, console inspire as to effort...developing capabilities of mind and body and hopefully " doing some good" to others we encounter along our way... even longterm... if we set certain principle. ethics- beliefs about collective systemic societal function strongly to the forefront of our thinking behaviour- actions, deeds.
    Anyway debate dialogue exchanges must occur- for wither agreements to occur or parting of the ways... until hopefully issues of contention are resolved... some time beyond our present levels of comprehension. Make no mistake- those who pursue learning are keen to KNOW " face to face" and not just through a glass darkly!

  878. Lynley Ruth Butt

    What one brings- in the way of a mere presence compounded of converted "Higgs-bosun- made" matter/radiant coursing energy-flows physical, mental, emotional, intellectual and our attitudinal " baggage"- as eager anticipative predictors/ incredulous negative-minded dis creditors etc of expected outcomes- what one BRINGS as an "observer" to an experiment... to life, to relationships with others, to work.... has a marked and remarkably... and observable well-noted ( scientifically observable) EFFECT on outcomes.
    And yet... we can maintain that "True Faith"... must be an outcome belief of Yeah or Nay and gradient light grey- dark shades of a questionable nature, in which areas we should strike a happy- or cautious " median".... middle way without leaping to extremes.... in what primarily man's science and conscience offer and, by choice or by force decide to conclude/obey. Otherwise we merely have a certain yearning, instinctively imbibed/ learned "Hope" in things as yet unseen,hitherto undetermined. Certainly 'Judge not that ye be not judged'... is good advice- re maintaining an open mind and willingness to reserve any commitment to that which may have the potential eventually, to be shown and known to be wrong- flawed, false, fatally misleading- damned and doomed.

  879. Julian Firth

    I don't understand, what do you mean when you say 'God'? How do you know what your own best interests are without a bit of benign objectivity? What dictates the chemical reactivity of the heart? Language forms to name things and describe activities and pre-occupations and abstract experience, our relative emotional response to the world without. Abstract thought isn't formed, it occurs spontaneously as a result of chemical activity; having a language determines the capacity to interpret and utilise such miasma into effective process.

  880. robertallen1

    If this rambling piece of garbage is an attempt to justify the infusion of religion into science, forget it. You don't know what you're talking about.

  881. robertallen1

    What are you talking about or do you know? Reads like drivel.

  882. Achems_Razor

    What is your point, in ten words or less??

    Reading your drivel is getting me pissed off!

  883. Kateye70

    The point I got out of it was: Something something 'the observer effect' something.

    There! 6 words!

  884. robertallen1

    That's better than I did.

  885. Lorna Kennedy

    I,m a self educated woman. Too many comments seem clouded in big words and self professed intelegence. Keep it symple because us uneducated souls are still learning. This is a debate right? Not a competition of intelect or education. The point gets lost in the intricacy of wording.

  886. robertallen1

    You seem to have no trouble understanding most of the posts. If you're referring to those from Julian Firth, Lynley Ruth Butt and Bud Oracle, they are mere gibberish and you needn't feel inadequate.

  887. Dave Marks

    I agree with everything you say. Unfortunately, the people who you are trying to convince will not, no matter what. That's the real problem. These other people see everything from the other side, and dismiss your logical statements. Your statements are fundamentally scientific-- and that is what the masses seem to be rebelling against.

  888. Achems_Razor

    @Dave Marks:

    To whom are you replying?

  889. over the edge

    Dave Marks
    who were you replying to?

  890. Jack1952

    My use of the word "God" is derived from my understanding of your previous comment and it could be completely wrong because that comment is not easy to follow.

    My take was that abstract thought gives us the ability to know God. God then gives us the language or the communication skills to interact with one another. If we do not know God, we cannot respond to one another on a spiritual or physical level and therefore we remain locked up within ourselves...selfish.

    If that is what you meant, I disagree. If I'm wrong in my interpretation you will have to dummy down the comment so I can understand it.

    Language is the agent that gathers our thoughts into coherence. By "chemical reactivity of the heart" I think that you are talking about emotional responses. An emotional response is influenced both by genetics and environment. As for knowing what is in my own best interest, all I can say is that quite often people don't know what's best for them. They just react in an intuitive and instinctive manner. Even when they think about it they still end up with the instinctive reaction.

  891. Jack1952

    You're good! I noticed the phrase "observer effect" but I couldn't get something out of it...or is it anything? I'm confused again. Should never have tried to reread that post(s).

  892. robertallen1

    "Dummy down" is inappropriate because you're assuming his intelligence level is higher than yours--and, quite frankly, I think he's trying to camouflage the vapidity of his thought with anfractuous prose. Writing clearly is more to the point.

  893. Kateye70

    I was a copy writer for a few years...nothing like taking a client's incoherent ideas about their business and returning them concise selling phrases to teach one how to pick out the gold from amongst the dross.

  894. webbyter

    Gish gallop, indeed! Argumentum ad tl;dr. Drivel.

  895. Jack1952

    "Dummy down" would be appropriate, however, if one was being facetious. My posts had a secondary message suggesting that his comments were too vague and perhaps a little pompous.

  896. Jack1952

    Good luck gleaning any gold from that dross.

  897. robertallen1

    And perhaps a little too lacking in intelligence.

  898. slpsa

    You know, I like big words and hard to spell scientific names and label's, mathematical equations and complex graphs and charts, introspective English use and hard to recall spellings, but sometimes, you just have to gutter speak to get your point across. God does not exist. Douchnozzles who believe in God/Religion need a rubber room, not friends nor understanding nor debate. We need to get rid of them and it. Once we do, we can move on to real life, important things, like what I am going to have for supper. So tired of mindless drivel from the bunnies. Same ole BS, but with bigger words. Julian probably smoked about 15 doobs in a row to troll out all those complicated sentences and words. Give us a break, big words do not make you sane, nor right.

  899. robertallen1

    "It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting in the inflation-generating risk premiums." Alan Greenspan.

    "Network - Anything reticulated or decussated at equal distance, with interstices between the intersections." - Samuel Johnson

    "Reticulated - . . . formed with interstitial vacuities." - Samuel Johnson

    So, to put it succinctly, a nimiety of culinary specialists vitiate the liquid in which a variety of nutritional substances have been gently boiled.

    Now, what's the difference between a pahi and a paha?

  900. Jonathan Baron

    You laughed at several points? he dont 'fool' you? cant you listen to theories or ideas without feeling threatened and belittling someone?

  901. Kateye70

    I don't know, what *is* the difference between a whoowhati and a whoowhata? (found everything from foreign words, place names and products when I tried to google it...Darn you robert, you got me!)

    I lol'd at quote #4--an original, perhaps?

  902. robertallen1

    Gee, I thought everybody knew. A paha is a type of Malaysian outrigger canoe and a pahi is a type of sand dune found in Iowa--or maybe it's the other way around--and no, I can't claim an originality for quote 4.

  903. Epicurus

    Too much LSD.....and want to party?

  904. Chrispy777

    It was a comedy of errors, and the type of laughter elicited when something is so pathetically contrived, that if it didn't make me laugh, it would make me angry.......and this tripe is unworthy of me, to waste emotional energy on.

  905. robertallen1

    If you can't waste any emotional energy on it, try expending some intellectual energy.

    You still haven't answered the question as to which parts of the documentary made you laugh--and, quite frankly, I think you're lying.

    In truth, it's not that the documentary is unworthy of you, but that you're unworthy of it.

  906. Fluss

    Please explain to me, your proof - "burden of proof" - that it's just a bunch of "errors" in this. Can you?
    You are a comedic stereotype of what the man is explaining to you in a straightforward way that i doubt you don't understand.

  907. Chrispy777

    There's the police, snapping into action. Don't you go away angry, Bobert......just go away.

  908. Lorna Kennedy

    Does god not teach you modesty, oh worthy one. Why emotional?. I dont take it personally that you are religious, dont take it personally that some of us are not. I would not see reading the bible as wasting emotional energy but as learning and fulfilling a curiosty.

  909. Fluss

    laughing away an answer again? Do you speak so unclear and within "your own world" in reality too?
    When someone asks you something reply to it, Don't behave like a corrupted politician and answer a question with a offensive claim of whatever kind.

  910. Chrispy777

    You have all proven (with very few exceptions) that a serious, sincere, and thoughtful answer is treated with as much regard as my snappy, snide, and sniveling guess what you're gonna get, from now on?

  911. robertallen1

    Hope you weren't affected by the riots. Now, you see Catholicism in action.

  912. robertallen1

    You have shown that you can't answer the question, probably because you never saw the documentary in the first place. This makes you a liar.

  913. Fluss

    Holy crap you are impossible to speak with, who on earth taught you to converse like that? A lobbyist from an oil company?

  914. Lorna Kennedy

    Its always too close for comfort. Thanks, i live in a very peacefull place. My Father was protestant my mother catholic and i was not baptised either. Its always givin me a feeling of neutrality concerning the north as i think its also a load of BS (excuse that). Religion is obviously only one factor in a very complicated situation but in my oppinion anything that adds to the divide up there is hindering. Its a good example as to why religion should be kept out of politics.

  915. Chrispy777

    Calling me a liar, coming from you, is an absolute compliment. I can't prove to you that I've watched the documentary, anymore than I could prove to you that someone created the documentary, in the first place. Quantum mechanics, no doubt. That seems to cover your butts for everything.

  916. Chrispy777

    LOL! That's the first genuine laugh you guys got out of me. I'm Flusstered!

  917. robertallen1

    If you won't answer the question as to which parts of the documentary made you laugh, then you're a liar and that's that.

  918. robertallen1

    Right, but you needn't apologize for calling a spade a _______.

  919. over the edge

    again look at your first posts before anyone had the chance to respond to you you called a poster arrogant and when i politely asked if your post was directed to me or another poster you responded with more insults. now you can respond to me with whatever insults you wish but please mix in some proof for your position within those insults.

  920. Chrispy777

    Well then that's that. Convinces me. You drop the ball on logic when you deny "First Cause," because you claim it's not scientific. I'm going to leave you hanging, because your ability to see reason and logic are severely impaired. See how it works? What I just gave you was your first lesson in real logic. Don't answer a fool. People might not know the difference.

  921. Achems_Razor

    What? your gods can't even make perfect humans and then you expect your gods to know anything about quantum mechanics? so funny!

  922. Chrispy777

    I'm sorry about my initial post to you, "Over The Edge." My response was directed at Robertallen, with whom I've debated, before. I then became defensive toward you, not willing to give up any ground. When I mentioned a 7 to 1 ratio against me, I wasn't asking for a pity-party or for sympathy....those were the accurate stats, and I have all the emails to prove it. With those odds, I tend to (as many would) lump everyone together, and begin responding to a single personage, and that wasn't fair to you.

  923. robertallen1

    You still won't answer the question and as for logic, you're a fine one to talk with your idiotic "First Cause." Once again, you're a liar.

  924. robertallen1

    Are you crabbing because you have no answers for your intellectual superiors? Also, you've never even come close to debating me--you're not intelligent or educated enough to do so.

  925. Lorna Kennedy

    a...shovel? Joking. Its a very irish thing to apologize all the time but its just being polite rather than actually meaning one is sorry. Its like when we ask 'how are ya' we dont really want to know how you are, we are just saying hello. As for chrispy, it wouldnt be as interesting watching a bunch of atheists nitpick the slight varieties of the same oppinion. Bring it on... chrispy.

  926. Chrispy777

    What's funnier is you claiming to know quantum mechanics, which puts the light on you as being greater than my God. LOL! Go play with some dark matter.

  927. over the edge

    thank you for the acknowledgement and i will concede that responding to 7 posters would be difficult so i will stand on the sideline and lessen that list by one. all i ask is please provide proof of your claims and i will be silently listening

  928. Chrispy777

    Hey, Bob, you win..........for now.

  929. robertallen1

    How typically Irish. And you still haven't answered my question: Have you heard of Robert Briscoe?

  930. robertallen1

    Your god? Go play with yourself.

  931. robertallen1

    It wouldn't be so difficult to respond to seven posters if he knew something or had anything to offer. The problem is he doesn't. So I don't see why you need to sit the play out when you can join in the fray.

  932. robertallen1

    Forever--and my name is Robert.

  933. Achems_Razor

    Yes, the very little that I do know is much more that all your invisible gods know.

    Well, I tell you what, bring your gods to the table and us commentors will have a discussion with them. And let them prove otherwise. Or are they going to talk through you? in case they got stuck in your mind. Tongues maybe??

  934. over the edge

    if my stepping aside and allowing others who from my experience have a batter understanding of the first cause argument allows the discussion to continue i am willing to. who knows maybe i will learn something

  935. Lorna Kennedy

    I did answer you, i said 'no'. Actually i think i said ' now i feel stupid, no'. I thought you missed it alright. Well you cant be on the ball all the time robert. Wink wink. Anyway is it staying on topic. He is a philosopher right?

  936. robertallen1

    No, he was a Jewish mayor of Dublin--and I understand he was quite popular.

  937. WTC7

    If you knew what you were talking about you would acknowledge that Achems Razor IS what you call god, just as you or anybody else is. Playing with dark matter would be playing with oneself - kinky, aren't we?

  938. Chrispy777

    What is it with you and Achie? You're both replying to yourselves. Try's much more self-fulfilling than talking to yourselves.

  939. over the edge


  940. Lorna Kennedy

    My mother would then being a Dub. He was gone a while before i came along. Thats probably something i would be interested in knowing more about though. I will check him out.

  941. Achems_Razor

    Sorry, try someone else if you are into that, I'm straight and my heart belongs to Neytiri.

  942. robertallen1

    Try learning how to spell.

  943. robertallen1

    For starters, there's an article on wikipedia--and yes, your mother probably would.

  944. robertallen1

    By the way, have your read Mark Twain's essay on masturbation. It's a riot and it's on the internet. Search Mark Twain-Masturbation.

  945. slpsa

    Ok.....I am scared now, religion and masturbation, some homosexual nuances, some Jewish mayors in Ireland, and sky fairy's, all in the same thread. What have i walked into here?

  946. IIE_Nath

    Well said, the best thing to counter any argument against that is... "do you believe in Thor? Why not?"

  947. Travis Montgomery

    Can't help but laugh at every religious discussion that has ever happened. One side "believes" in forgiveness and eternal life as a reward for good deeds but condemns others to an eternity of suffering for different opinions than their own. The other side believes life in finite but wastes their precious time arguing with people who also have different opinions than themselves, instead of going out and living life to the fullest. Get a clue, both sides are wrong if you're sitting on a computer arguing over semantics. I can't believe other atheists waste their time (and I am right now too.. sigh) battling over the minds of stupid, childish, beliefs instead of making the most of the 40-60 years you have left.

  948. slpsa

    I be lucky to have 20 left laddie, I hear ya. There does come a point in these type of threads people just step back and let the psychos sort themselves out on the train to heaven. I have been off work on holidays, and they are about to end, I had some spare time to debate ships full of religious wing nuts during this week, it was entertaining to say the least. The end is always the same. The religees have posted 700 posts of nothing and further proved they are completely off their rockers in the fantasy world they claim exists, they need to be eradicated as time goes on to make this a better place to live. I do not think there is anymore to say, they have made themselves, once again, look as crazy as they sound.

  949. Lorna Kennedy

    Verry entertaining. Very impressed with how much some of ye know about religion. Seems ye know alot more than the religees.

  950. Giacomo della Svezia

    If it wasn't clear yet: you started your post that Chrispy is referring to with "robertallen1", which caused him to assume that Robert was answering to his own comment. (I suppose 'robertallen1' wouldn't mind if you address him as Robert?)
    I'm very curious to see some evidence from Chrispy777 to support his claims too.

  951. TheRealMax

    Gosh, christens are so touchy. Relax man.

  952. docoman

    As you said, it's getting off topic (which I read as a delete threat), but as it's relevant to the earlier conversation that has been allowed to I allowed to respond?
    You're right, Az is a big girl and can fight her own battles as she see's fit. I'm speaking my mind, not hers. I have an observation and then a question for you, some of which is on topic.

    In my own opinion, from my own observations, contrary to what I wanted to believe, there seems to be a bit of a pack mentality here sometimes (7 to 1 a recent poster experienced apparently), and because it aligns with the opinion of the moderators, the 'grey area' in the application of the rules seems to be skewed towards that opinion. An insult using more intelligent wording instead of swear words is still an insult, which seems contrary to the spirit of the commenting policy, which 'the crew' often points to when it suits, ignores when it suits. It does seem many comments are overlooked if it is in line with the popular opinion. Badgering someone till they retaliate does not prove the argument, which is what it seems some of the so called 'busts' have been. I've yet to see one of the 'busts' prove there is no god, just usually two conflicting, unsubstantiated claims at the end of an argument. The only thing proven is that religious people make claims they can't prove, as do positive-atheists. (positive atheists don't like to hear that, the same as Catholics/pedophiles. That doesn't make it incorrect because its inconvenient, just hypocritical to not apply the same rules to both sides of the argument, of which at this time there is no definitive proof either way.) Most of the self confessed 'crew' I think are morally decent people, they just need to remember to avoid the gang ego feeding frenzy sometimes, especially the moderators, if the aim is to encourage a tolerant, diverse environment, and examine honestly are they positive or negative atheists. It does make a difference to the viability of their argument, regardless of the usual displayed preferred denial of a need for positive atheists to prove what is an assertion as well.
    I'm not speaking from any moral high ground, I've been guilty of joining the pack myself, and replying to insult with insult. I agree with many of 'the crew's' opinions and superior education in some areas. Is this what you intend the site become, a one opinion only place? If people of differing opinions are regularly 'pack attacked' till they leave, that's what TDF will eventually turn into. That would remind me of sitting in church where only one kind of thinking is tolerated, not to mention a drop in your traffic and thus advertising earnings potential and divergence from the stated policy aims.
    I found it interesting that a moderator blamed religion for Az leaving, with some people indicating they liked this spin on it. I didn't see her complaining about the feeling of being attacked by religion, but by 'the pack' because of her different opinions. The atheists, who claim they have no 'religion' is who she was complaining about. It probably was an over-reaction to that last point you made, but as you should know from your recent conversations with her it was more then that, the last posts were just the straw...camel's back. It only took you one sentence to explain your point clearly to me, no possible interpretation of sarcasm. Whether you intended it as an insult/joke or not, her reply to Achems indicates that's how she took your wordplay, as did part of 'the crew' judging by some contributions made. Which was what she had been talking about earlier, and it seems felt not listened to, but rather made fun of instead. And by your lack of correcting that interpretation for her, it wouldn't be surprising if that's what she still thinks. There's also the other posters that have complained of the same pack mentality, I've seen a few in my time here now, badgered till they leave. All you have to do is read pretty much any of the religious threads on here and you'll see examples. Some might call it running away, some call it being 'busted', others could see it as choosing to leave a hostile social interaction.

    And my question for you that I'd love to know, especially since you have been named as the leader of the self-titled 'religee busters' here that seem to have a standing ethic, that being that everyone else's assertions need to be backed up with evidence, otherwise as stated by 'the crew', the moderators' silence confirming, they 'must suffer the consequences' ect.
    How could you possibly prove your implication/assertion that because I like Az, I agree with her 100% of the time? You can't, because that's not correct. How could you know my thoughts and opinions, when I've not even replied to half of the opinions I've read Az express? I believe that in a post fairly recently deleted (couple of weeks ago now) it contained my reply to a suggestion from Az, where I investigate, thank but disagree with some of what I thought her stance was. Exactly how are you able to read my mind, or are you making this assertion/exaggeration based on the few replies you may have seen to Az of mine, and as an ad hominem response to a post you didn't like? I agree with what you said, everyone has an ego. You wouldn't suggest that you or I are exempt from that do you? I asked myself why I responded. It is true I liked Az, mostly for her tolerance and different opinions, and I no doubt wouldn't have said anything for someone I didn't like. That doesn't mean what I'm saying is incorrect though. Have you examined your own reasons for your responses? Or am I outside the rules in daring to question you? It's also the realization that if expressing my opinion gets me banned or deleted, so what, that would only serve to prove my point. I can find what I want elsewhere if you decide to play dictator. As I said earlier, it's your world here, do as you wish.
    "Such is life." - Ned Kelly.

    A suggestion for the moderators, which is obviously a difficult job. Maybe 2 personas on here would be useful, one for expressing personal opinions, one for the 'moderating' work, to help keep the 2 more easily separated.

  953. robertallen1

    As I've stated many times before, those who try to pass off fiction or conjecture for fact (read religees) or,as in Azilda's case, give opinions about things they either know nothing about or want to know nothing about (e.g. Azilda's comments and science and biblical scholarship), deserve the opprobrium with which they are confronted nd if they are offended by it, that's their problem--they should read up before posting. They are an insult to everything that education and intelligence stand for.

    The pack mentality you speak of seems to be non-existent, for all the posters are independent and in most cases, don't even know each others' names, much less anything particularly substantial about each other. For example, all I know about you is that you live in Australia, have considerable experience in the bushland, that your younger brother abused you and that you, like several posters, have an excellent grasp of science--also, somehow, I believe your first name is Steve.

    My only complaint about Vlatko is that he's too much of a gentleman, but I've noticed that even he can become justifiably testy when confronted with a lot of the ignorance and downright falsehood, deception and distortion which see their way onto the various strings.

    The one thing in common with what you term, however erroneously, "the pack" is that all its loosely-knit members cannot brook ignorance and superstition passing for fact and having the uneducated (read religees) dictating to the educated--and I don't blame them.

  954. docoman

    I understand your position, and on many levels agree, just not all. And what you advocate seems to be against the comment policy, which is the moderators job to enforce, not selectively apply according to opinion. Which is why I suggested they have a 'personal' hat, and a 'moderator' hat, to help stop any confusion on that.
    Knowing each other well is not a prerequisite for a pack, or mob to form. You do know each others thoughts on the subject, and names on here, which is more then sufficient.
    I defer to your greater knowledge on many subjects, but decent human relations isn't one of those.
    I agree, Vlatko is from what I've seen usually a gentleman. That's why I tried hard to not sound sarcastic in my post to him, at least no more then I felt was given to me. That's why I didn't require him to answer the first example with Nazi ideology, out of respect. Am I not allowed to speak my mind and reply, because Vlatko owns the site and may not agree?
    I'm not trying to be a smart arss when I say it's his site, do as he wish's. It's a statement of fact, and I can live with whatever he chooses to do on here.

  955. robertallen1

    So-called decent human relations do not include passing off conjecture and fiction as fact, commenting on subjects which one knows nothing about and wants to know nothing about, lying, cheating, deceiving and distorting, all of which we've seen too much of on this string and others. In short, Azilda and others have gotten what they deserved, whether they are strong enough to face it or not.

    I think you should consider that the religees who have posted on these strings have also formed a representative pack, only it's a pack of wilful ignoramuses who desire to spread their ignorance, superstition and Bronze Age mentality at whatever the cost--and they must be stood up to in no certain terms--and there are many fine examples of this on this site

    I don't recall reading any statement made by any poster, with the exception of aptnw (I think I have the correct initials), to the effect that you shouldn't speak your mind nor do I find your comments out of place although I do not agree with the tenor of your latest ones

  956. slpsa

    This seems to be a personal problem more than a moderation problem and your personal opinion of people and their motives or actions. Seems this may have started somewhere else and you want to make it your personal arena now to tear Vlatko a new one. If it makes you feel better, I am not part of any pack, I can speak my own mind and my strong opinions without having to feel or be part of a group that opposes crazy people and their different color sky fairy's. I even have the opinion that there is nothing to prove, only weak, spineless jelly fish cannot admit religion is a pile of BS. If they want to live in fear of their own mortality and cannot deal with the fact they die and the ride is over, then that is their problem. I do not blame Vlatko at all for saying what he does, and allowing those nut jobs to be raked over the coals properly when they resort to insults when they cannot prove their claims. They damn well deserve it. Those people are the bane of our f******* existence on this planet, and the last time I checked, they are responsible for a lot of the racism, intolerance, war and murders than any other group combined. Your personal take on who has to prove what is ridiculous. You see, there are really no sky fairy's, no Santa, no Easter bunny. There is nothing to prove to you or anyone else. The people who believe in sky fairy's are sick humans, the rest of us are intelligent educated people who care more for this planet and its people than anyone claiming to be a person of God. They have no shame, they harbor murderers, pedophiles and all sorts of sick perverse humans, they like to indoctrinate young children into this sick world, we have all watched Jesus Camp I am sure, there is no defense to type out that would stand. They all belong in a rubber room, and to me, anyone who has the gall to insinuate the non believers have to prove something to be right, belongs right there beside em. Nothing personal here, but when they try to pass off fiction as fact, as Robert said, they will be strongly opposed by those who have the balls to do so.

  957. slpsa

    We all get that way when being BS'ed to the limit. Nothing for any of us to be sorry for. It is normal behavior. Frustration sets in quickly in these type of threads.

  958. docoman

    Some of that is what I agree with you on. I've seen many groups of religee's, unfortunately. And I completely agree that any religious beliefs should be understood to be just that, beliefs and nothing more, they've done too much damage to our species already.
    But if we stifle and suppress opinions through intimidation and brow beating tactics, we'll end up becoming the same as what the church has been, just the newest version of it. Silly people sometimes help other less silly be able to see it. Clearly some are not willing to challenge their views, but you may well teach others with a civil debunking that you'd otherwise loose by a less pleasant approach. To some seeming to give weight to the ridiculous argument about morals requiring a deity.
    I know you've said that's not your opinion, I can respect that. I do see your point and mostly agree, mostly.

  959. robertallen1

    There is one thing I think both of us should keep in mind: Docoman means well--and I don't mean this in any condescending way. He is extremely informed on matters scientific and in general quite well educated. I've learned quite a bit about the fauna in the Australian backwoods from him. He has also torn into the claims of religees, perhaps with less of a vengeance than some of us, but the sincerity is by all means there, even if, like Vlatko, he is sometimes too much of a gentlemen. I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea.

    Any interesting math lately?

  960. robertallen1

    I don't see how any one is stifling or suppressing religees although if they had their way, they would stifle and suppress all contrary thought--e.g., their officious meddling in education, government and individual choice such as abortion, contraception. They are just as free to express themselves as anyone else, but they must take the consequences of their actions, however rude, however resentful and if they feel intimidated, they are merely getting a dose of the medicine they've been dishing out for the last few millennia.

  961. docoman

    Firstly, I wasn't trying to rip Vlatko a new one. I have the ability and intelligence to be much more sarcastic and cutting, I was trying to not be. I was being honest. And your instinct at the start was partly correct, you don't seem to know what I'm talking about.
    If you go and learn some more on the definition of Atheism, the complete definition, you'll maybe understand what I was talking about there. If you do want to learn something, do a google search on cambridge atheism, and read their link explaining the definition. I think you may find it interesting.

    Your aggressive style is what I was talking about. Without understanding my position, you decide I must be 'dealt' with, preached to, even though I said nothing to you, only expressed an opinion to others, without using foul language as you resorted to. Having balls doesn't automatically mean be aggressive. And even though it seems you included yourself in the 'religee busters' group, I didn't have you in mind, I've not seen your name mentioned when that's been talked about by them. Sorry if that deflates your ego a tad, it is the truth.

  962. docoman

    I agree, if they're rude first, reply in kind. The rude ones have already exposed their hand, they're very readable, not interested in learning anything. On all sides of it. slpsa's post to me is an example of what I'm talking about. Clearly, if he knew me better, he'd probably realize he just made a bit of a fool of himself with that rant.

    Edit-- I gotta go, got things to do.

  963. Achems_Razor


    For your info. Azilda has been back for some time, I welcomed her back some time ago on "Keen Talks" (the wonder and beauty of teaching physics) she has a new profile...@oQ: If anyone as you say belongs to "our" gang/pack, (religee busters et al.) then it is she, who is well liked by us all.

  964. Kateye70

    As someone who was very engaged in this thread I feel I should reply to your comments as well, since I may well have been considered part of the 'pack.'

    Your entire point was brought up previously, in this thread, and was addressed by several people, in this thread. It's obvious that Azilda is well-liked and well-respected in this forum, and hopefully understands that.

    She, like you, came late to a very engaged, ongoing debate where not just one, but several posters engaged in a fair amount of trolling on the religious side, totally ignoring the point of the documentary being discussed--which is to point out the weaknesses in the ID arguments and help those so inclined to answer back on equal footing with the doublethink, sleight-of-hand, deflectionist tactics used by the ID marketers.

    Unless you went back several pages(!) you really wouldn't understand the scope of doublethink, sleight-of-hand, or deflection we were being subjected to.

    There was no real attempt on the ID side to actually engage in a debate, it was just sound-bites and side-steps. Azilda was well-intentioned in her remarks, but perhaps in the wrong thread.

    I do agree tempers got a bit hasty, but really, how much do we have to put up with? I don't hang around on ID websites baiting them; they seek out websites like this.

    I *will* take a stand when they are tearing down our education system. I don't have children of my own, but there are many in my extended family and I fear for their futures.

  965. robertallen1

    Please leave me out.

  966. robertallen1

    I hadn't thought about one of your points, but you're right. I, for one, do not hang around ID sites baiting these individual who, on the other hand, seek sites such as this one as repositories for their slough of ignorance and superstition.

    However, one point I wish to make clear, I neither like nor respect Azilda and the reason behind this becomes manifest from a comparison of the intelligence and erudition behind your posts and those of Lorna Kennedy in comparison with hers and Norvaline's.

    Keep up your stand, Barbara Fritchie, and keep it firm.

  967. RikG01

    "Just on a societal level, our species is filled with prejudices, whether real or imagined. Evolution feeds into those prejudices quite nicely. "

    This whole post, not just the quoted part, was absolute drivel. You seem to be implying that evolution is a philosophy which damages society, you also claim there is no real evidence of evolution. This is of course even more ludicrous as the rest of the nonsene you've posted. Firstly, religion has by far a greater record on causing harm to society. Thousands of years of record in fact.
    You use Hitler as an example but his crusade was based on his religious and political views, not Evolution. Eugenics was based on the same principals as breeding animals, dogs and pigeons for example.To claim it as Evolution, is sheer ignorance.
    Now religion; The vaticans lies about HIV and condoms, they have caused millions of people to suffer and die from this terrible disease, for the sake of their ideas on what the bible says. The bible's promotion of slavery, the treamtment of peoples of different races as inferior, the murder, nay mass-murder, of anyone who doesn't follow the same beliefs. Gender inequality, homophobia, murder, genocide, abuse of power, the class system, these are all on the head of religion, supported by religion and actively advocated by religious groups.
    What's more, it is historical fact that whenever a group wish to do something entirely immoral, they find their excuses in religion, and use relgion to make it acceptable to others. They do not look to Evolution. We have thousands of years of evidence supporting this fact.

    Secondly there are millions of forms of evidence for Evolution, not only in the form of fossils but also categorization of species, DNA matching, even other branches of science come together to support evolution and each other. Geology, climate studies, biology, oceanology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy and good old fashaioned maths, all work together to further prove that Evolution is the best, most accurate understanding of how life formed on Earth. There is nothing "faith-based" about Evolution and to claim otherwise is the act of a desperately ignorant person, who clearly has no information or understanding of the subject.

    What really annoys me about your post (other than afformentioned ignorace and ludicrously, factually wrong statements), it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that video is about critical thinking.

  968. robertallen1

    Quite the contary, his posts have everything to do with crticial thinking, as they form a stunning antithesis.

  969. RikG01

    Hah! I stand corrected :D

  970. slpsa

    Fair enough, call it a long bad week, call it fed up with fairy people. I did mention it was nothing personal. That still rings true. My apologies for letting my tongue get ahead of proper manners. We agree more than disagree on most points. As for me being part of the busters, I tend to leave myself out of this debate more often than not. It is verbal masturbation without a proper finish, there is never any satisfaction in debating bunnies. Perhaps in the future, I will stick to what I know, engineering and math/science related topics.

  971. Epicurus

    i would like someone to list the people in this "crew"

    i feel (as a moderator, and an atheist) that im being grouped into this but i am pretty sure that i have done very very very little attacking or insulting to people on here IF they are showing the same respect.

    i also should point out that a website that encourages learning and talking about it will probably have a more vocal atheist community and just by that nature there will be a number of atheists debating or arguing with fewer theists. it might seem like ganging up but it if your position is right it doesnt matter how many people there are for or against you.

    im pretty sure the comment that Vlatko made about liking someone and not agreeing with them 100% was probably referring to HIM and AZ, i dont think he meant you and az.

    there are also a number of times that i have stuck up for the theists being able to be just as hostile as Robert, and im pretty sure i have seen vlatko tell Robert to ease off on his language a little.

    Im more worried that constantly telling people how to speak to one another will drive more people away from discussion than a very small few people being slightly rude.

    i would also suggest posters to get thicker skins while posting on the internet. if someone doesnt agree with you and you cant intellectually defend your position then go on with your life. dont cry about it.

  972. Epicurus

    "I defer to your greater knowledge on many subjects, but decent human relations isn't one of those."

    LOL im sorry this made me laugh.

    I promise you when im going through the list of comments that i have to accept or edit i am wearing a moderator hat. if i was being subjective i wouldnt let 30% of the crap i see just ou tof sheer embarrassment for the human species.

  973. robertallen1

    I have no issues with any of the moderators.

  974. docoman

    Thanks Razor, that's good to hear. Something Dew said stuck home to me, I'd rather be wrong in defense of a friend then safe in my silence.

  975. docoman

    You make a few good points, thank you.
    I have probably become used to one side making no sense and the other being rational. Expecting it, and accepting it should be separate, I need to consider this.
    If I'm just making a point that's been covered feel free to ignore my ignorance. I should've gone back to the start and read the whole thread. And I should have considered more the fact that many religees are not looking for an honest debate, just a pulpit for their preaching. I totally agree with your stance on the education system.

  976. docoman

    It's all good mate, I was quick on the sarcasm too.

  977. docoman

    I wasn't trying to stir sh1t or point fingers at individuals, I was deliberately avoiding names and lists.
    "us religee busters, the TDF 4," is one of the kinds of comments that I was referring to, not said by you. I left out names on purpose, I leave it up to each to decide for themselves, I concede I was probably hasty in who I assumed the author was referring to, and no doubt there are more aspects to the issue then I understand.

    I did take what Vlatko said as an insult aimed at myself, and you might be correct, that may well have been hasty and incorrect of me. I probably should htfu a bit too, my apologies if that is the case.

    Either way mate, I'm just one small opinion amongst many, what I think matters little in the grand scheme of things.

    I apologize if you felt personally insulted in any way, that was not my intention. You guys have a very difficult job, of which I have no experience in.

  978. Epicurus

    no no no, im not insulted. i just dont want to be seen as a "religee buster" or something. i have purposefully never used that word as i find it sophomoric personally. i always say theist. i dont want to be seen as a group that picks on or bullies people. i would rather be seen as a calm sane voice of reason. kind of like Kateye, whose posts are continually great. .

    i hope you dont stfu. your opinion DOES matter. lol

    basically i just wanted to make sure i wasnt being grouped in with the group.....

  979. Achems_Razor

    No, Vlatko did not insult you or anyone, was between him and az, even then no insults implied.

    TDF 4 that was from a poster way back, sort of stuck with me, forget who said "religee buster" but again stuck with me, all my fault. A bit of humor, Yes.

  980. docoman

    I was having a rough day yesterday and no doubt was hasty in judgement in more then one of my conclusions. I would've been well advised to think more before talking. I make plenty of mistakes the same as everyone does. I wasn't attempting to single out or insult you either Razor. I can see the humor in it ;)
    To be honest, I'm still not sure if Vlatko intended it as an insult or not, I guess only he really knows his intentions. But I can see that he usually doesn't do that, so I could well have been way wrong.
    I own my mistakes, they're mine, part of who I am, the good and the bad of me. Sorry to anyone if I've wronged you, its usually not intentional.
    I'm sure there's a lesson or 2 in it for me to consider. Maybe a moral in there somewhere for us all. Time for some Critical Thinking. :)

  981. docoman

    I too have enjoyed many of Kateye's posts. I said htfu, h = harden, but 's' would fit just as well :)
    The sun is coming up here, I have to go, life duties are demanding my attention. Have a good day or night everyone, whichever it may be for you.

  982. robertallen1

    How about the full force of your opinion on William Dempski--and don't mince words.

  983. slpsa

    Mince words? LOL! I think my stance on this type of material was well documented in the last 900 comments. He has a special way of saying a lot of nothing, and convincing nobody but the aforementioned rubber roomers. His peers do not take him seriously, nor do I. Simple trash, theory and conjecture in my view. You are a funny guy, aside from being particularly smart.

  984. slpsa

    I think I can put it in one sentence, aside from what I posted already. He is not a scientist of any accreditation. Enough said.

  985. robertallen1

    Sorry, it's the devil in me. I'd been reading some reviews on his books in Reports put out by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE--have you heard of it?) and I thought I would get your take on CSI and and Dempski's Laws of Conservation. I admit that I have a hard time understanding what these are all about and from the reviews I read, I apparently don't need to. However, the whole thing seems to be bad mathematics based on faulty assumptions and nebulous classifications and especially misuse and distortion of probability.

  986. robertallen1

    And neither is his bedfellow, Michael Behe. I love the way he was demolished both by Dr. Miller and one of plaintiff's attorneys in Kitzmiller. Jonathan Wells is another one who in some ways is even more pathetic than Dempski and Behe.

  987. slpsa

    Fairy people are pathetic, as an entire group. That's that. A friend of mine pretty much said it. Numbers and probabilities can be manipulated to say and represent, whatever anyone wants them too. A waste of time.

  988. robertallen1

    Would you say this is true of a closed system?

  989. Jack1952

    If Dempski had arrived at his conclusions through objective research then I would allow him at least a good listen. Starting from a conclusion with the sole purpose of proving a conclusion and forcing the data to fit that conclusion and not allowing any evidence to deter from that conclusion is not science. It is an intellectual attempt to prove faith and faith is a concept that is not in any way rooted in fact. The Bible says so. (sarcasm intended)

  990. robertallen1

    You've hit the nail on the head--and the same holds true for every creationist would-be scientist. Have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers?

  991. robertallen1

    P.S. That's one of the things that made Darwin a great scientist. When he started out, he wasn't looking for or trying to prove anything. It was curiosity.

  992. Vlatko


    No insult intended at all. What I meant was although I like Az that doesn't mean I have to agree with her 100%.

  993. Jack1952

    No. I'm not familiar with that work. I am currently reading Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" and "Captain Blood" by Sabbatini. (love the classics). I tend to flip back and forth and between work, family and social obligations, and watching documentaries, it takes a while to get through them. I'll put it on my list.

    Anyone who starts with a conclusion, religious, scientific, political. whatever, does not follow the rules of critical thinking. He/she is obsessed with and is driven by a sense of intellectual superiority and has a greater interest in being proven correct than an interest in the truth.

    I also think there is a distinction between a true person of faith and a creationist. A person of faith should be able to accept the findings of science as true but still not allow it to detract from their own personal beliefs. A creationist doesn't seem to trust in his own faith. He needs to bolster it by discrediting others and surrounding himself with like minded individuals. I can respect the one but not the other.

  994. robertallen1

    I would be interested in hearing your comments on "Misquoting Jesus." Personally, I enjoyed the book and learned a quite bit from it.

    And yes, I've read "Captain Blood." I find Sabbatini a hack, but that's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie with Errol Flynn--to think that Olivia de Havilland is still with us.

    I guess a "true person of faith" is someone like Dr. Kenneth R. Miller and we've certainly encountered a lot of creationists who fit your description.

  995. Kateye70

    I have 'Misquoting Jesus' on my ipad, but I'm working my way through Ravitch's 'Marketing Intelligent Design: Law and the Creationist Agenda.'

    It's slow going--I'm no lawyer!--but I'm hoping it will eventually shed light on *why* certain people think that evolution is so dangerous to their religious beliefs.

    It seems to me that the whole 'young earth' philosophy (which I *think* is one of the creationist objections to evolution?) is such a recent invention (within the last couple of hundred years), that one has to wonder at the mindset that needs to hold to such a belief against all the real world evidence to the contrary.

    What does such a belief say about a person, and more to the point, why must they foist that belief on unwilling ears? Even more, why would they create an entire marketing campaign around it (referring to the wedge strategy, of course)?

    I have no problem with creationists believing in creationism, but I am always curious about other people's points of view, and what leads them to it. And apparently, there are creationists who have no problem separating religion from science (and evolution). So...

    I'll probably never understand them, but knowledge is power, as the saying goes.

  996. Jack1952

    The movie "Captain Blood" is what prompted me to start to read the book when I inadvertently happened upon it at a yard sale and bought it for 50 cents. Entertaining but maybe it appeals towards the adolescent in me. Olivia de Havilland's sister Joan Fontaine is still alive also. It may be their bitter rivalry that's keeping them going. As siblings they both want to get in the last word.

    I have only read a quarter of "Misquoting Jesus". So far I have found it to be well researched and objective in its approach. It seems to come from a position of common sense and isn't obsessed with right or wrong.

    I have never been one to dismiss the Bible as a fairy tale but more as legend, history, tradition, religion, politics and more all wrapped up in one book. Some of it is obviously not true but other stories probably have their roots in actual events. I see no reason why a person named Jesus could not have existed. Doesn't make him a god or prove that the Bible is the word of God if he did exist. It just demonstrates the mindset of his followers at that time.

  997. robertallen1

    Please let me know when you finish "Misquoting Jesus." I would be interested in your comments. As I informed you, I ordered "Marketing Intelligent Design" and am awaiting its arrival. Once again, thanks for the suggestion.

    Please always keep in mind, biblical fundamentalism started here in this country--and in the deep south.

  998. robertallen1

    Can you name two films in which Olivia de Haviland played a heavy and two more in which her sister did the same?

    I'm glad you're reading "Misquoting Jesus" but as you mention the corporeal existence of "Jesus," you might also be interested in Dr. Ehrman's latest volume, "Did Jesus Exist?"

    I find it a mistake to view the bible (both testaments) as one book when it is really a series of them picked and chosen from many. I wonder how much your view would tilt if you were to regard the collection in this way.

  999. Kateye70

    I assume you're referring to biblical fundamentalism as we know it today =)

    I'm re-reading a book (slowly) that I read years ago, called "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" (David Hackett Fischer), which traces the early immigrations to America from the various regions in England; where each group of settlers originally landed, the impact they had on the growing populations and their movements over time; and the cultural impact that they handed down in the regions they settled.

    According to the book (from memory!) the southern states were settled originally by Cavaliers from the southwest of England--an area where slavery had only been abolished a century or two before the immigrations--who tended to create plantations; followed by the westward and southward movement of 'Borders' peoples (from the area where the borders of England and Scotland meet, and including the culturally similar Irish), who tended to be poorer, not landowners and to be clan-loyalists rather than patriotic to a country. The Borders immigrants, while originally located along the Eastern seaboard, were considered persona non grata by the Puritans and Quakers who were firmly middle-class, and were 'moved along' west by them.

    I realize that with all the immigrations north and south over the last hundred and fifty years (and especially with northeastern immigration to the south during the 1970's and 80's), a fair amount of the regional differences are muddled into a new configuration, but nonetheless, I find it interesting.

  1000. robertallen1

    I'm talking about the period from the late 19th century on. You seem to be writing about an earlier period. If you ever get to it, "The Creationists" goes into this.

  1001. Kateye70

    True, I am talking about the earliest immigrations; but the author's point was how those early cultural influences were still active even into the 19th and 20th centuries. He was supposed to continue this with a second and maybe even third book, but I don't believe he did.

    I moved to Georgia in my early 20's (after spending most of my childhood overseas), and it was as cultural different to me as any foreign county...I had to adopt a Georgia-southern accent in self-defense! I literally could not understand some people when I first moved there. I witnessed the 'sunbelt' immigration firsthand, and you just would not believe those (damn) Yankees! lol!

  1002. robertallen1

    Foghorn Leghorn--Senator Claghorn, eh? I never could stand listening to Lester Maddox or Jimmy Carter--but again, I never could stand to listen to anyone from Liverpool either. My parents' auto mechanic during my chldhood was from Georgia and sometimes I could not figure out what he was saying; however, had I been around him longer, this problem would have been eliminated. I assume you've long since dropped your accent.

    By the way, one of the interesting things about this country, is that just about anywhere you go, you can be understood, unlike other smaller countries such as England, France and Italy, but I think this is changing.

  1003. Kateye70

    Well, I *am* from Texas! So I still have southern in my speech. The plural of you is y'all.

    But indeed it does get stronger depending on who I'm speaking to!

    One thing I loved about southern speech were the idioms: "I'm fixin' to carry Sue over to the grocery, y'all wanna come?" You have to imagine the cadence of that sentence...

  1004. robertallen1

    In "Something for the Boys," Cole Porter wrote a song entitled, "See That You're Born in Texas."

    As for "fixin' to," I wonder if there is anything comparable to it in Elizabethan English. The reason I ask is because a large number of Catskill idioms date back to Shakespeare's time.

    What a shame that y'all or you all is considered substandard English for it seems such a handy abbreviated form for all of you, the same thing with ain't--which you don't have to bother conjugating.

  1005. over the edge

    seeing that you are from Texas i am curious if you read the 2012 Texas republican platform on education actually states concerning critical thinking ? if not here is a quote
    "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." it is actually scary that the republicans in Texas do not think it is bad politics to come right out and say this

  1006. Jack1952

    Off the top of my head I can only remember "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte". It creeped me out pretty good when I was young. "Bad to the Bone" is one that I remember Joan Fontaine being a nasty manipulative woman. She could be innocent and charming but cruel and selfish in that flic.

    I meant the Bible as a book in the physical sense. I understand that it is a collection of writings that are picked to fill a religious text. Books like Genesis and Kings are collections of stories and tribal histories, told for centuries, that were finally wrote down. How far they deviate from the truth is anyone's guess. That is the nature of oral histories and traditions. There must be thousands of stories and writings that were discarded because they didn't fit into the ideas of those who collated the Bible which have disappeared over time. Those would be interesting reading. I'm sure they would be filled with all kinds of stories with religious overtones which would not be seen as Christian. History and superstition were wrapped into one for the people of those times. I would imagine timelines would become confused also, the further the story existed from its original state. This is why is can't be used as an historical reference manual. It would be like calling "The Iliad" a history book.

    "Did Jesus Exist" would be interesting. I might have to read it next. Might take a while. I am a bedtime reader and choose my reading by what mood I'm in.

  1007. Kateye70

    @over the edge: Yes, I did >.< In fact, if I've been vocal on this thread, reading that contributed in part to my alarm.(Rant to ensue!)

    What kind of backwards thinking *is* that? Who has "fixed beliefs" as a child? Parental authority starts waning at about puberty and is pretty much gone by the end of high school regardless of anything being taught in school (really, don't any of these people remember being teens?)

    And what kind of adults are being foisted on the rest of us? The parents have them for the first 18 or 20 years-; society has them for the next 50 or 60 years.

    I read an apologist statement saying 'Oh, these are just talking points, what some people would *like* to see, its not what our platform is *really* going to be."

    Yea, right? Wonder who 'some people' are? Who benefits from this bad dream? Gotta ask who's funding the Texas Republicans.

    I shudder to think what the rest of society will be dealing with in 30 or 40 years if a platform like this actually came to pass...thank goodness there are other Texans actually fighting them.

    I read the rest of the platform, as well, and was cringing in total horror. It's truly demonic. Makes me want to believe in an avenging god coming to strike them down, it does. (Rant over!)

  1008. robertallen1

    Right on one de Haviland. The other is "Lady in a Cage." As for Joan Fontaine, you have the title wrong, it's "Born to be Bad." The other is "Ivy."

    Now, why don't these religees who claim to know so much about the Bible have as good a grasp as you on it as you and just about all the "atheists" who post here and elsewhere? By the way, have you read any of the Aprocrypha?

  1009. robertallen1

    I read this some time ago and found it disgusting. By the way, are you familiar with the National Center for Science Education?

  1010. robertallen1

    The only good thing about these rednecks is that they're not squeamish about carrying out the death penalty.

  1011. Jack1952

    Bad to the Bone! lol. I'm confusing rock and roll and cinema. Speaking off the top of one's head can make one look a little foolish at times.

    I read the Aprocrypha around forty years ago. I learned of their existence studying Church history in public school and was quite curious about what was written in them. Our church thought of these books as Catholic and therefore not to be seen as having any kind of religious authority. I can't remember if I read all or only parts of them.

    I have to add that it is amazing that the stories of the Old Testament has lasted to this day. It is a literary treasure. Its too bad that there are people who read it as absolute truth and that because of these people others refuse to read the Bible and dismiss it out of hand and never understand how rich a legacy it actually is. Both sides can't see past their religious conceptions. They refuse to see it as literature and the stories of people and how they saw the world.

  1012. robertallen1

    If it were viewed just as literature in the manner of the Iliad and the Odyssey, we would have fewer problems--but again more people would be alive and considering the population explosion--

  1013. over the edge

    i am familiar with the NCSE. i subscribe to their you tube channel and have read many articles from them.

  1014. robertallen1

    I'm not a science teacher; I'm not even in the sciences; I'm not a joiner, but I am a member. I've just finished reading a series of articles in Reports about the crank mathematics practiced by creationists, many of whom know better, but put their religion above science. It seems that every piece of "evidence" they come up with for an intelligent agent can be explained through evolution.

  1015. Jack1952

    Sometimes I can't help but feel that people would have found something else to scrabble over. They did a lot of fighting in the far east and they didn't have the Bible as a reason.

  1016. robertallen1

    True. They had the Koran or other such nonsense.

  1017. slpsa

    I am going to see George Thorogood next weekend. Bad to the Bone!!! Off topic, but yeah!

  1018. KsDevil

    The only ones who would watch this documentary are either the open minded needing a refresher of concepts they already suspect, or to draw in those who are uncertain.
    The people who I suspect would need this information the most would refuse to even watch.
    And so nothing really changes. Adam and Eve remain ignorant of good and evil and god retains his desire to keep knowledge from his followers.
    I guess that makes the rest of us satans minions....destined to try to tempt others to try knowledge in order to demonstrate god's lies.
    Well, no wonder the religious hate outsiders!

  1019. Jack1952

    Off topic but I seen him perform at the El Mocambo in Toronto numerous times in the seventies. You'll love it.

  1020. Jack1952

    The Adam and Eve story is no different than what I here now. How wonderful and perfect the past was and how everything has gone to hell today. So many of us leave the Garden of Eden of our childhood into the reality of what our lives have become.

  1021. Kateye70

    One thing this documentary, others like it, and the Dover school board case being so close to home, have done is to prompt me to become more conversant with the ID marketing than I ever really wanted to.

    The thing is, MOST religious people understand that the bible is not 'literal.' They generally have no issue with understanding that the science of evolution and the theology of the bible are two completely different things addressing two completely different issues.

    Science addresses the WAY in which things work.
    Science does NOT address WHY.

    Theology addresses the possible WHY
    Theology assigns MEANING.

    Apples and oranges do not interbreed to become appanges or orpples.

    The thing is, even amongst creationists, there are subsets. The ID movement belongs to a SUBSET of MINORITY religious thinkers.

    I still don't understand how this small group of religious nuts has managed to hijack the public conversation, or what their real motivation is for doing so.

    I just don't buy the 'everyone is going to stop being religious because of evolution' theory.

    Call me cynical, but I'm thinking there's something going on the creationists don't want us to know about their motivations.

    Distraction...seems like a magic trick, doesn't it? Wonder who's behind the curtain?

  1022. robertallen1

    You're right.

    Theology ASSIGNS meaning--and that's what it invalidates it.

    "Theology addresses the POSSIBLE why." Any child can do this, sometimes even better than the most sophisticated theologians.

    As for creationist motivations, I suggest you read up on the wedge strategy. As for what's really going on, you know just as well as I do.

  1023. Kateye70 you prefer appanges or orpples?

  1024. robertallen1

    Just about any hybrid will do--as a matter of fact, that's all you find in the supermarkets.

  1025. dewflirt

    Maybe they're going to pull jesus out of the hat ;)

  1026. Kateye70

    lol. I doubt Jesus is in the magic hat. If he's anywhere, he's at the back of the audience, shaking his head, and going "WTF?"

  1027. Kateye70

    Well, I did find the wedge document and read through it, but although it *sounded* like a plausible plan--if they had actually done any real science as put forth in the document--there were no motivations given, only a desired result.

    But I'm asking about who is REALLY benefiting from this, that they are putting so much effort into it. There is a benefit to someone, somewhere, beyond the altruistic 'to better our society' and THAT is what I haven't really located to my satisfaction. Yet.

  1028. robertallen1

    What's easier to manage, an intimidated flock of sheep feeling threatened or a flock of intrepid independent thinkers who don't and can't be? It all boils down to the type of tyranny exercised by the Catholic Church for over a thousand years and which it no longer can, however hard it tries. Compare this to the Taliban--as a matter of fact, compare this to just about any organization whose primary purpose is a religious one.

  1029. Philio


    I'm having trouble viewing talks on your other site. Any suggestions>

    Excuse any typos. I'm working with one eye. Cataract surgery on one and the one I'm using needs the same procedure.

  1030. Achems_Razor


    Firefox seems to work well on all sites, or you could try google chrome.

  1031. Scoobsnheather

    Any child can come up with a theory as well. And hey, within the scientific community theories are ASSIGNED as law, even though they're not proven and therefore, they're theories. So...

  1032. robertallen1

    Why didn't you read up on the scientific definition of a theory BEFORE you posted these three lines of abysmal ignorance?

  1033. over the edge

    just the person i was looking for. if i can impose i am in conversation with a creationist on "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" regarding a book " "Darwin on Trial," authored by Phillip Johnson," i was wondering if you have read it and if so do you mind explaining it to either myself or more directly the original poster as he/she doesn't seem to want to engage in a conversation either than to spread falsehoods and point to a book i have no interest reading as evidence

  1034. robertallen1

    Like you, I have no interest in reading this work, as Mr. Johnson is not a scientist but a professor of law with a religious bent which infuses everything he writes. There is a lengthy article on Mr. Johnson on Wikipedia which goes into this work and the hypercritical reception it received from the mainstream scientific community. Also Eugenia Scott discusses it in "Evolution and Creation." In a perverse way, I'm sort of happy that I can't be of more help.

    P.S. Who is this poster?

  1035. over the edge

    this poster is new (MickFromNapa) and like the poster you are attempting to engage here i feel that i should just create a universal response to creationists. here goes
    " scientific theories are not guesses.we did not evolve from monkeys. red herrings,arguments from authority, quote mining,selective reading and interpretations are not proof of anything. even if (insert relevant theory here) is proven wrong you are no closer to proving a god. if it looks designed to you doesn't mean it is. where in (insert theory here) does it claim that.please define "kind" and finally the fact you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong" i wonder how many times i can post that and be right?

  1036. robertallen1

    You have a point. Boilerplate in, boilerplate out. On the bright side, have you read any of Brian Rose's latest posts?

  1037. over the edge

    yes his knowledge is welcome and appreciated

  1038. Kateye70

    I'm a little confused.

    Are you accepting definition 1., that scientific theories are accepted as facts?

    Or, defending the ID redefinition of scientific theories as something that may or may not be proven? (which is clearly *not* how scientists define them).

    Or did you not realize that the comment you responded to was a comment on something I posted?

  1039. robertallen1

    Now that you have learned how to copy, how about trying to figure out why your three lines of text are the product of abysmal ignorance.

  1040. robertallen1

    No, if you backtrack, you will discovery that Scoobsnheather was responding to one of my comments. I'm hoping that now that this person has learned how to copy text, this person will learn how to read a book on science and perceive the ignorance of this person's three-line post--but, like you, I dream.

    P.S. This morning, I finished the third chapter of the book: The Law and Intelligent Design. Intelligent design fails on three levels: scientifically, philosophically and legally. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that there is nothing intelligent about it.

  1041. Marie

    I wish my mother-in-law would understand this...

  1042. Kateye70

    Well, I backtracked all the way to where you responded to a comment I made, and Scoobs jumped in at that point, best I could tell =)

    P.S. I agree with you, although I don't really care about the philosophical end of it. Just leave it out of the school science curriculum, I say.

  1043. robertallen1

    Not that it matters, but Scoobs' latest post indicates that it's in response to one of mine. Anyway, from the brilliant copy job, it's obvious that the ape has learned to ape. Now if the ape could just engage in something resembling a level of intelligence.

    P.S. Just leave ID out of everything, I say.

  1044. robertallen1

    P.S. Have you read Over_the_Edge's boilerplate reply to creationists? Talk about a time-saving device. Just fill in the blanks and hit the post button. It sure beats coming up with new invective.

  1045. Tkurnas

    Intelligent Design is an oxymoron. What could have happened did.

  1046. Kateye70

    Hehe, indeed I did. I organized it a little for myself:

    "Over-the-Edge's Boilerplate Response to Boilerplate ID Questions:
    1. Scientific theories are not guesses.
    2. We did not evolve from monkeys.
    3. Red herrings,arguments from authority, quote mining, or selective readings and interpretations are not proof of anything.
    4. Even if (insert relevant theory here) is proven wrong you are no closer to proving a god.
    5. Even if it looks designed to you that doesn't mean it is.
    6. Where in (insert theory here) does it claim that.
    7. Please define "kind."
    and finally
    8. The fact that you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong."

    Absolutely right, those are all the common questions and responses. And much shorter than the Index to Creationist Claims on TalkOrigins

  1047. robertallen1

    Good girl. Now, see how many apply to Ragfish, Awful_Truth, Olefaithful and Michael_Davenport.

  1048. Scoobsnheather

    I'm sorry I didn't realize that I posted on your comment, it was meant for Robert! :/

    I'm more of a #2 kinda gal. That's my answer to what's been said in Robert's question, "Why didn't you read up on the scientific definition of a theory BEFORE you posted these three lines of abysmal ignorance?"

  1049. Scoobsnheather

    I'd respond to that once you figure out the meaning of ignorance.

  1050. robertallen1

    When it comes to science, your beliefs and preconceptions don't count. You still have three lines of abysmal ignorance to your "credit."

  1051. robertallen1

    In other words, you can't respond to that because you simply don't know enough--and apparently don't want to.

  1052. Scoobsnheather

    When it comes to science you have a lot to discover about how artful it is and how finite it is not.

  1053. Scoobsnheather

    In other words, I'm not willing to stoop down to your level and argue about who's smarter than whom. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know it all.

  1054. robertallen1

    That's a fine statement coming from someone who doesn't even know the basics, like what a scientific theory is. Again, three lines of appalling ignorance!

    P.S. And just what do you mean by "artful," or do you know?

  1055. robertallen1

    And st*upid enough not to do anything about it.

  1056. Kateye70

    You're more than welcome to post on any comment you like =) This is a public forum, after all.

  1057. robertallen1

    You don't get your choice of definitions. Science is science. Again, I suggest that you read up BEFORE posting.

  1058. Lorna Kennedy

    robertallen 1 you scare them off with style. You have so many facts and they just drown in them.

  1059. robertallen1

    Nice to hear from you. It's been a while. That's two contributors from the Emerald Isle, you and Dewflirt. Guess I should brush up on my Gaelic.

  1060. Lorna Kennedy

    Has anyone heard of 'revolution in Judea' it was a book i read when i was fifteen and brought it to religion class to try and show a different way of looking at things. Didnt go down too well. I couldnt recall who wrote it. At fifteen i was very much against religion as i am now but back then in a benedictine run abbey my way of thinking was not the norm. Over the years i have also realised that some people just dont have the brain power to think outside the box other than what was drivin into them by parents school and society. Imagine if all the religions in the world suddenly put all that wasted time energy and money into real life, how much better off the world would be. Because you really are playing a big part in f#%king up our world. No praying in the world is going to put food on a plate. Positive thinking i,m all for but not going to be a fairy about that either.

  1061. Lorna Kennedy

    I would have to brush up on my Gaelic myself in that case. I dont live in an Irish speaking area.
    I have been watching from afar just enjoying listening to opinions esp those like yours and over the hedge and kateye and others. I like listening.

  1062. robertallen1

    I'll teach it to you sometime--which dialect do you prefer?

    "Over the hedge"--that's rich!

  1063. Kateye70

    I had not heard of 'Revolution in Judea' before. I googled it and found this: "Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (abridged from Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance) by Hyam Maccoby " on positiveatheism dot org/hist/maccoby dot html.

    In glancing through it, I see that it is a perspective of life from the Jewish viewpoint at Jesus' historical time period; I've not read this through, yet, but I think a lot of biblical scholars try to put events into historical context to understand the timeline as to when gospels were written and what motivated the various changes that occurred.

    The author points out that the viewpoint always seems to be from the later, Roman viewpoint and not from the cultural view Jesus would have had, as a Jew living in an occupied land. He is giving a different viewpoint in a Jewish cultural context.

    I can see why the nuns might have been a know, distressed, ha ha! I'm going to have to read this more thoroughly; thanks for mentioning it =)

  1064. robertallen1

    You look into everything. I sure wish that Ragfish and those like him did the same.

    Finished Chapter 5 and was extremely chagrined by the author's treatment of Guillermo Gonzales as a martyr to religious persecution and vitriol on the part of his colleagues. In truth, despite the distortions from the Discovery Institute, Mr. Gonzalez was denied tenure for the best of reasons: since 1999, he had been spending too much time on ID and not enough on real science, as a result of which his publications dropped down to next to nothing. In other words, he merited the opprobrium of his colleagues and got what he deserved, denial of tenure. If I were a chemistry professor and a colleague of mine were spending most of his academic time on alchemy, I would do everything in my power to make sure he was denied tenure.

  1065. Lorna Kennedy

    Great. I,d love to stumble apon it again to see the difference in my perception now, to back then. I think i grasped on to peoples opinions at that age, as long as it was not the norm, where as now i make my own conclusions. Really thank you for that. I had long forgotten most the context apart from Jesus been a revolutionary. I remember thinking it along the lines of our very own Michaell Collins but that time lapses and stories get exaggerated and hey presto he can walk on water.

  1066. Lorna Kennedy

    Tis an awful shame i dont speak it. I can understant alot but it was beaten out of us by the English a long time ago. Ha ha. Thats every Irish mans excuse as to why they dont know Irish.Not a good excuse its just lazy. Anyway my dads mothers side were all english so in that case i would have to say i beat it out of myself.

  1067. Dave Cooney

    Great book read it!

  1068. Dave Cooney

    NEO-CON WINGNUTS are only the puppets, the Koch Brothers and others of their ilk, pull the strings

  1069. Dave Cooney

    What's wrong with Kansas? Their getting loopy. Fur some good reading in Texas try Molly Ivins-she hated the Bushies and Schrub (#2) or Jim Hightower

  1070. Dave Cooney

    Texas buys 1 of6 text books in Amerkia. We have simple computer tools were publishers could print a Texas Fundie edition and leave the rest pf us alone.

  1071. Dave Cooney

    READ The Adventure of the English Language by Melvyn Bragg and Mother Tounge by Bill Bryson.

  1072. Mom

    You are right! Makers of the supernatural do have a burden of proof that they are not able to meet, and so they form cults. Atheists on the other hand have science to prove their premise. However, I wonder if they can explaing how the Big Bang originated? and it did, and I believe that happened, but how did it? Since the basic hydrogen atom has a limited half life, and it was part of the Big Bang-right? Also, how do we know there are not other Big Bangs happening in different dimensions other that the three we know? and if they are? Are they detectable by scientific methods that we know? or are they available to the five senses? If not, how do we know they do not exist? Can anything exist outside scientific reach? If not, how do you know that?

  1073. robertallen1

    That's not what science is about. Science deals only with the naturalistic. Anything outside of that is not science.

  1074. Achems_Razor

    What are you talking about? be more precise. You are meandering all over the place.

  1075. leon raieck

    we are divided minds. due to to much mental focus, room given for every mental creation, every mental extrermity is given rights room also given to degraded minds, egoists ie atheists hedonists same sex perversions. our varied society , with varied people poles apart, only catholics and god fearing people seem to be stopping the atheists and perverts into total moral degradation.

  1076. over the edge

    leon raieck
    do you mind explaining yourself in a bit more detail? and how exactly are "catholics and god fearing people seem to be stopping the atheists and perverts into total moral degradation. " ?

  1077. robertallen1

    "Only catholics and god fearing people seem to be stopping the atheists and perverts into total moral degradation."

    Speaking of moral degredation, have the recent scandals involving Catholic priests and children come to your notice? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

  1078. leon raieck

    there is 406411 catholic priests worldwide

    In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations.

  1079. leon raieck

    there is 406411 catholic priests worldwide

    In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations.

    The no 1 country where money compensation claims were sought for sexual abuse claims at catholic priests is the USA. There has been also quite a few fraudulent claims by liers seeing an easy grab for easy money. This can never be fully ascertained as the ability to lie varies in people and in some lying is done so skillfully that it fools the person being lied to. The USA has more civil law suits than anywhere else.

    Sex abuse in the US secular school system is of much higher figures than those supposedly involving US catholic priests

  1080. Kateye70

    Find me a place or time in history when society *wasn't* declining into total moral degradation.

  1081. robertallen1

    So only the "catholics and god-fearing people seem to be stopping the atheists and perverts into moral degradation." How, by the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the stance against abortion and contraception? From your statement, Catholics are obviously not god-fearing.

    The only thing worse than a Christian apologist is a Catholic one and your marginalization and rationalization of the recent scandals involving Catholic priests and children is a perfect example.

  1082. Kateye70

    Catholics are hardly a persecuted minority; they've done their fair share of persecuting.

    I'm guessing you're catholic; if you aren't aware that the catholic church is, and for 1600 years has been, a secular political power, you really need an education in european and world history.

    The Vatican *is* and always has been a political entity, not just a religious one. The current Vatican City State is just a much smaller version of the Papal States which encompassed much of central Italy.

    You might be interested in the documentary "Monarchy" on this site, as well as others such "Martin Luther: Reluctant Revolutionary." They put the role of the catholic church into historical perspective. There's also a nice wiki article (search Vatican City).

  1083. leon raieck

    " How, by the Crusades, you wrote
    So are you a muslim or ex muslim robert?, as why would attempting to defend christianities homeland by european christians from its savage enemies at the time, the muslims be so offensive to you.

    Do we condemn the US because it was once a slave trader, no of course it long ago reformed itself so did the Catholic church

    Do we condemn the UK because it was once a dictatorial class ruled nation and savage place run by murderous kings and armies, with murder by the ruling class common, no through its reformers the uk has made itself much better though it is still not a proper democracy even today.

    You are using the long dead past to support an argument in the present which exposes you as a fool

    your hypocrisy also is laughable

    you then write "the stance against abortion and contraception?"

    So your also in favour of mass murder of defenceles babies in wombs, which can only be justified if the woman has been raped or the foetus has major deformities. The proper way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to reduce sexual activities, be monogamous and using birth control methods.

    On one hand you try and take the highground on against killing done in the past by members of religion ,while ignoring the millions killed in atheistic societies like communist russia and china and then being a hypocrite and fool by supporting the mass slaugter of defenceles young human beings. What if your own mother had aborted you hmm?.

  1084. robertallen1

    No, your goddam church has never reformed--and it can't for it thrives only on controlling people, especially easy targets such as the poor and the ignorant--backward countries with magnificent cathedrals and well-nourished administrators in contrast to the poverty around them. Yours is an organization which sucks the blood out of everything it comes into contact with. Its adherents such as you cling to an antedeluvian vatican with its hoary pope and his minions, endeavoring to cover up its scandals as it did in the Middle Ages when it wielded the type of abusive power which it will always try to wield.

    Control is the watchword--and it's control of everything, including the sexual activities of its adherents and the reproductive rights of women. Its stance against birth control and abortion has nothing to do with morality and a lot to do with bringing more Catholics in the world to generate more income to support a degenerate church. I wonder how many of the Catholic hierarchy, including your popes, have fostered illegitimate children or obtained abortions for their little concubines? I wonder if we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg as to the sexual activities of the sacerdotal caste. I hope the money obtained in damages as a result of these sexual imbroglios which your church has so long covered up (and don't quote me a lot of specious statistics as you did in your last post) bankrupts your institution out of existence.

    And don't you dare insult my intelligence with your distortion of Russian and Chinese history. No killing has ever taken place in the name of atheism, but a lot has sure occurred in the name of your damnable religion. How many innocent deaths did your church cause through its despicable Crusades, witch burnings and inquisitions? How many deaths was it responsible for in World War II because it was too busy playing politics to stand up to Hitler and his minions? And like the vile Catholic you are, you marginalize all of this as mere bygones.

    No, you and others like you are the hypocrites, the pharisees and the zealots. Give a Catholic like you a chance and we'd be back in the Middle Ages in no time.

  1085. Kateye70

    So how many babies have you carried to term?

  1086. robertallen1

    Don't ask a Catholic that. It may cause embarassment.

  1087. leon raieck

    your ignorance is amazing as is your ability to lie.

    the worst people in history have been atheists

    the worst killers in history also atheists.

  1088. over the edge

    leon raieck
    have there been atheists who were terrible people? yes
    have there been religious that have been terrible people? yes
    have all of these terrible atheists used atheism to justify their acts? no
    have all of these terrible religious used religion to justify their acts?yes
    how many of these evil people stood in front of those who carries out these acts and used atheism to rally their troops? your thought process is flawed. atheism wasn't the driving force behind their actions. how many of these "evil" leaders had dark hair or mustaches? can we attribute their acts to that fact? and by no way have you proven your god. if we are going to adopt a religion based on absolutely no proof but only how many they killed i say we go with Buddhism.

    ""With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion" Steven Weinberg

  1089. Kateye70


    You said this:
    "No killing has ever taken place in the name of atheism."

    And then you said this:
    "the worst killers in history also atheists."

    I see a contradiction here. What in the world are you trying to say? Your thinking is all over the place.

    You have a belief in god(etc)? Enjoy. No one cares whether you believe in god(etc) or not.

    But for crying out loud, learn to organize your thoughts. It's what this documentary is all about.

  1090. robertallen1

    How dare you tie atheism to mass murder, as if there's somehow a cause and effect. No mass murder has ever been committed in the name of atheism--but how many have been committed in the name of religion, especially the Catholic religion? Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, etc. did not need atheism or theism co tommit the atrocities they did--and Hitler was a Roman Catholic just as you--and by the way, spare us your sourceless statistics. They're meaningless in light of your deceit. By the way, what significant action did your church take during World War II to stem the slaughter?

    As for the "charity" at the "heart" of Catholicism, why do we see so many magnificent churches rising up out of the squalor of their surroundings and continuing to point skyward while the people around them barely eke out a living and die in filth, starvation and disease, overpopulating as they go along and bringing more Catholics into the world? Don't try to pull the wool, it's the trickling charity rooted in extortion. It's the chains attached to your church's limited and deceitful form of "giving." Yes, I favor the bankruptcy of this theocratic mafia of yours and the scattering of vile shreds of carbon such as yourself.

    You depict atheists as wanton, vile people with no moral compass. As a whole, they are better than you in intelligence, education and especially ethics, something foreign to you and the sodality you represent. What it boils down to is that to exist, you religees just have to feel needed whether you are or are not. You religees just have to insinuate yourselves into people's private lives, whether it's right to do so or not. You religees can't abide by separation of church and state. You religees just have to be in control or you perish--and for my money, the sooner the better.

    Let's put the shoe on the right foot. It's lying, cheating, deceitful Catholics like you who degrade society, not atheists.

  1091. robertallen1

    I believe he was trying to quote me. See my earlier response to him.

    However, you're giving him some potentially self-destructive advice. If he organized his thoughts, he would be in the same predicament as the emperor in the famous Hans Christian Anderson story.

  1092. robertallen1

    Just substitute religion (especially the Catholic religion) for atheism in your first line and you have a truism.

    And just how do you know that "God rules over and created this universe . . . " and that he " . . . created a heaven a material universe and a hell."

    Are you more of an expert on the celestial palace or is your expertise confined primarily to the nether regions or is your ignorance of one tantamount to your ignorance of the other, both tantamount to your ignorance of the existence of god?

  1093. AnalogousGumdropDecoder

    You're using one of arguments clearly refuted in this video. You're emotionally threatening atheists with eternal punishment, without doing anything whatsoever to prove your ideas have any validity. This is not only unconvincing, it's also manipulative and hateful.

  1094. AnalogousGumdropDecoder

    Like the crusaders and inquisitors?

  1095. robertallen1

    What can you expect from a Catholic?

  1096. scott zagoria

    marriage exists to legally disseminate property to offspring.

  1097. Puge Henis

    breaking down shadow town uhh yeah baby

  1098. zureal

    Maybe if you're a robot.

    "Robot Unit 24638, can you explain the primary function of catholic marriage to us in one sentence please?"

    "AFFIRMATIVE. Marriage-exists-to-legally-disseminate-property-to-offspring beep boop beep".

  1099. SirPlease

    Funny, cuz I recall it also says in the bibel that the ones you think shall be in heaven, shallt not be there and vice versa.
    So there`ll be alot of theists there to :)
    For all you can make of that is that Hitler can be in heaven with you.

    AND yes evil is done both by both Atheists and Theists but Theists hides behind their faith to justify their acts as it were an act of god.

  1100. Anthony Adkins

    wow leon !!you just made yourself sound like a fool ....and then backed it up with a link to a catholic web site ..

  1101. Anthony Adkins

    the people you gave as examples were not athiest ....they just believed in a deffent god than you do ...but i gues to you that would mean the sam ething since you are a jeszo....get a life cuase there is no after life

  1102. Anthony Adkins

    hydrogen has no halflife ..unless changed to somthing else by a star or other event it will be hydrogen until the end of the universe

  1103. Heloise O'Byrne

    i like that "i dont know" an honourable answer. god plce if he has any is as goodness in the heart not as something in your head turning it to mush.

  1104. Clemens van Stekelenburg

    "Parenthood doesn't authorize one to disfigure an other person's body for religious reasons," is an attack on circumcision. But if you would actually make it illegal for parents to circumcise their sons, it would go down in history as intolerant bigotry against Jews and Muslims, who might feel forced to leave the country to protect their identity.

  1105. WiseGapist

    Do you feel the same way about female circumcision?

  1106. jojack19

    This guy is really slanted in his perspective. I am religious, but believe people have the right to believe and worship how where and what they may. I find this guy to be overgeneralizing people who have a faith in the "supernatural" as he calls it. Not all of us feel people have to adhere to what we believe. I am curious how many people publicly decried the prayers during those "official meetings". At any rate, this person has the right to voice his opinion and disagree with religion, just as much as i have the right to believe in God and disagree with him. The problem lies in that if he disagrees with me it's okay, but if i dare disagree with him I am an unintelligent and ignorant religious fanatic who is blind to the secularist "truth".

  1107. over the edge

    the issue in these meetings it that they cannot promote one religion over another. the separation of church and state guarantees that within a government organization religion plays absolutely no role and has absolutely no place.

  1108. jojack19

    That was merely a side note in my ramble there, and really not the point of what I said. Let's not nitpick like that. I understand that subject fully. I just typed it in because being from a statistics background i can almost guarantee that any number they would have given would be very skewed from a real and true representation of who had a problem with a prayer in the meetings.

  1109. jojack19

    But again, that was not clearly not the main idea of what I said in my original post. Let's focus on that for conversation's sake.

  1110. robertallen1

    If you believe in something the existence of which you cannot prove and which you know nothing about and can know nothing about, then you are blind to the secularist "truth" and thus mentally second-rate.

  1111. over the edge

    okay. what exactly is your main idea

  1112. over the edge

    and not coming from a statistics background i can tell you that infringing on just one persons rights is one too many. and i can guarantee (no almost needed) that you have no way of proving such a ridiculous claim. you have no way to know that "any number they would have given would be very skewed"

  1113. Karaine

    The Catholic church or rather, the Vatican, can't very well be an antediluvian institution. Christianity didn't exist until some 2,000 years ago.

    While some of what you're saying about what's become of Catholiscism, (and of course what went on in the middle ages) is true, you're exagerrating and dramatizing with hyperbole to such a degree that it obvious you're as fanatical as some obsessed religious persons are!
    I always say, arguing aganst an institution,a law or religious belief is fine--we need to do that, or nothing would change-or even be considered!
    But in my opinion and experience, it's more important to strike a blow for independence--more important to know what I'm *for* not what I'm against...and then live that way to the best of my ability.

  1114. Karaine

    It might go down in history that way Clemens van Steklenburg, but it also might not. Sometimes things change over time and the old practice or belief is viewed as ignorance or simply without having merit anymore.

  1115. Karaine

    jojack, I'm with you.He's presented it in black and white terms.As you say--he can express his thoughts and opinions..but if we accept his theory, then anyone that disagrees is an ignorant twit out of the dark ages.
    I think learning how to think and read criticaly is indeed very important myself.
    However, it's actually rather simplistic to say that any belief in God or gods, an afterlife or of *anything* as yet unproved by the scientific method, is ignorant or delusional.
    It has been proven by science that love itself is a feeling brought about by certain hormones and chemicals in the brain.
    We also know, too, that females of all mammals of all kinds human beings included, are biologically "wired" to be drawn to certain physical attributes--those attributes that is, that are or are very similar to, those of infants and babies.

    However,in contrast to that scientifuc fact- if you've ever deeply loved a child, or perhaps your mother or father, or have truly loved another adult in a serious romantic and sexual union...(not a romantic fantasy, or infatuation, but something much deeper), you know that those feelings transcend the merely chemical and hormonal!
    It's all biology and chemistry--or is it?
    And if it *is* indeed only brain chemistry--then,it would seem brain chemistry is responsible for giving life meaning and purpose...but again: how can any of those feelings or states of mind, be proved?
    If someone without love, or who has never loved, argues that my love for my husband, my grandson or even my best friend is only a combination of needs and brain chemistry-they'd be technically correct--but would still be missing so very much more of the experience--an experience, a feeling *that cannot be proven*.

  1116. Karaine

    I'm not in particular replying to WiseGapist or Clemens van Stekelenburg here, but,I want to say, just for information, male circumcision isn't equal to what is incorrectly called "female circumscision".
    Circumcision of a boy or man is removing an piece of skin, the foreskin on his penis...and while I would prefer that parents *not* adhere to that practice,and we can argue whether it's sexier one way or the other, or whether some sensitivity is lost after the circumcision---nonetheless-circumcised male humans are equally capable of intense sexual pleasure and,are equally capable of reproducing.

    Women who undergo "circumcision" have their clitoris removed--*cut off*, many times in an outrageous non-sterile jagged cut, which heals poorly and leaves scarring.
    It's likely most people here know all that already, but it bears repeating anyway and on the off chance that someone doesn't have all the facts.

  1117. Karaine

    Not necessarily Anthony Ad.
    I strongly suspect that there *is* an afterlife..or a continuation of the soul and of one's personality beyond th body's death.
    No, I can't fully prove it to you--but you can't prove to me that there *isn't* any after life either.

  1118. robertallen1

    And your point is?

  1119. robertallen1

    If there's no hard, scientific evidence for it, it is ignorant and delusional.

  1120. robertallen1

    If you assert that there is an afterlife, the burden of proof rests with you, i.e., I don't have to prove that there isn't one.

  1121. Karaine

    I disagree. I don't say that I insist I'm right, that what I believe regardless of whether it can be proven or proven yet, is *fact*.
    I'm aware that the more I learn, and the more I live, things change and I I may modify or even change completely what I belief now.
    But what I believe has only deepened and strengthened over the long years. It's not ignorant or delusional to sense things strongly feel them or envision certain concepts, even if they're not yet considered fact.

  1122. Karaine

    No, not really, robert. I don't have to prove it. Even if I did, you could accuse me of trickery or clever guess work.
    It's enough that I believe it.You don't have to.When we die, one of us will get a surprise.

  1123. Karaine

    I think it's self-explanatory, but, I observed that you're against this and that, and you're putting down all sorts of people and groups--but not necessarily speaking factually, or with stats to prove any of it.
    And some of what you said is so exagerrated and lacking fact based information...after you stated unequivocally that you only believe in scientific fact.
    Matter of fact, I think you know that!..maybe you're just spurring people on to argue and debate here?
    But since you point is: why not talk about what you know and what you believe in..not how many institutions religions and individuals seem all wrong to you.For instance what is right?What do you enjoy and/or find exciting and lively/life affirming?

  1124. over the edge

    are you familiar with "Russel's Teapot"? that is the argument you are making here. i have absolutely no problem if you believe in a god/afterlife. if it makes you a happier and better person then by all means indulge. the issue i have (and i suspect many others as well) is when these beliefs are presented as fact, forced onto others, injected where they do not belong (science,my home,my wallet/taxes,my government and so on) or inflicted upon children who have not developed the critical thinking skills/independence to judge for themselves. i am not accusing you of doing these things but please understand that many religious/spiritual do.

  1125. robertallen1

    Then your belief is silly.

  1126. robertallen1

    An opinion is one thing, but if you make an assertion, the burden of proof rests with you.

    "When we die, one of us will get a surprise." How do you know this or is it on a par with your beliefs?

  1127. robertallen1

    Now just what are you referring to? Glittering generalities say nothing.

  1128. Sean Stuhr

    Actually both of you will be surprised…by death itself.

  1129. robertallen1

    How do you know this? Sounds like just another conjecture.

  1130. WiseGapist

    I appreciate your wanting to have all readers fully informed on the technical differences between the two procedures (and yes I know that female circumcision can be further specified into differing procedures itself), though I am fully aware of them.

    The core issue that cannot be overlooked is the lack of informed consent from the child receiving the procedure, male or female. I view both as barbaric antiquated religious acts that children should not be subjected to unless they so choose. The degree of mutilation may be greater in female circumcision (we should either use genital mutilation or circumcision for both practices rather than introducing euphemism for males as the most mild female form is quite accurately a circumcision) but it is a moot point as both are medically unnecessary. Males may still be able to experience orgasm and sexual pleasure but this is noted as diminished from that of un-cut men.

    Also, regarding your differing descriptions, many boys have died in Africa undergoing 'non-sterile jagged cut' circumcisions, not to mention the constant possibility of removing too much skin and 'botching the job' as happens occasionally even in developed countries. The only thing that elevates male circumcision to westerners is that we have sterilized and calculated our preferred style of male mutilation and since point fingers at the primitive techniques practiced in foreign female forms that didn't happen to have a historical basis in the Jewish religion. Double standards which ever way you 'slice it'.

    Here's an extra question... IF circumcising babies were to be made illegal and that when boys reached the age of 16 they could choose whether to follow their faith (if Jewish or Muslim) and become circumcised or to not, how do you think that would affect the numbers of circumcised men after two generations?^^

  1131. Karaine

    Actually, I do undestand that.I hate religion/beliefs used in those ways too. But this documentary, and some comments here are just as one sided --but in the opposite opinion.

  1132. Karaine

    Why not?Your statement is coming from your own assertion too.
    But I don't ask you to prove it at all!
    I'm only saying I feel strongly that there is another , spiritual dimension to life and if you do not, that's up to you.

  1133. robertallen1

    Again, you write in glittering generalities. Now just which comments in the documentary are you referring to?

  1134. Karaine

    More like deductive reasoning. One of us is, when we both pass on, we'll see--or see nothing as the case may be.

  1135. Karaine

    Probably that too, Sean. But what can I say?I think we prepare more as we age, but, I'm not quite elderly yet..though I'm getting there.

  1136. robertallen1

    The only thing I asserted was that if you assert something, such as the existence of an afterlife, the burden of proof rests with you. I do not have to prove that there isn't one. If you can't meet this burden, then your assertion is worthless.

    Without proof, what you feel strongly about is worthless.

  1137. Karaine

    I assume that there would be far fewer men who'd be circumcised. Although, oddly, I know a man who became circumcised of his own accord at age 22. (I knew him when he was 15, and he was not circumcised then).
    I agree that circumcision isn't necessary.I didn't want my grandson to be, but I was the only one.
    Speaking of men and the sexual pleasure factor...some say there is a loss of feeling, but they probably do not know having not experienced it the other way. Ive known lots of men, and they're not appreciably different.
    But even I'm not a man, I'm not going to say I know for sure.
    However, I still don't see how cutting off the clitoris on a girl, is comparable to say..a Jewish circumcision on a baby boy.His foreskin is removed and the girl's entire seat of pleasure is removed.Not the same thing.Like I said, I'm not for either myself, but I see them as different nonetheless

  1138. robertallen1

    Deduction does not apply when you know nothing about what you're deducing from and must make up choices, in your case two. So your statement is clearly on a par with your beliefs.

  1139. Karaine

    I do have to add that I know...there have been botched circumcisions on male humans..and that's horrible.I agree that even one of them is too many!

  1140. Karaine

    I don't see what is silly about my own sense of's sad you haven't any such senses.But's silly if you want to believe that.

  1141. Achems_Razor

    Explain what you mean? have you personally been cognizant in your death experience in the first person and have come back to tell all, if you are relating this in the third person only, (STOP) you are offering no proof and wasting every ones time!

  1142. robertallen1

    And it's twice as sad that you can't back up your "sense of things" with anything approaching fact.

  1143. Karaine

    oh for pete's sake! You said my belief was I don't agree..I am willing to admit that maybe I'm wrong.Therefore, one of us is correct..there is or there isn't an afterlife.
    I'm not presenting a paper to the AMA or any scientific organization..I said how I feel.I don't care if you can't or can prove there's no afterlife, or that there isn't any God.
    I am *sure, as sure as you know you posted here in response to me..that what I've learned and sensed is real.
    .But I'm not concerned if you think it's hogwash or not. And I still say--one of us will get a surprise some day.

  1144. Karaine

    As I said, I'm not here to prove anything.I'm not even calling your own beliefs stupid.
    But, it is funny that you're so sure my beliefs are silly, when you can't back up your own.And, then in response to the scientific method, I already told you that I see it as there are feelings and situations in which that method doesn't, *can't* apply.

  1145. Karaine

    I said I'm not interested in arguing, and it's too difficult to prove anything to you--besides I suspect you're not really interested..and I'm not interested in saying the same thing over and over just to see my own words in type, which is how you're coming across to me, imagining yourself to be logical and scientific.I know scientists who are interesting and fun to talk with. Some scientists themselves believe in a Higher Power and an afterlife--some do not.--both are fine with me.

  1146. robertallen1

    As usual you speak in glittering generalities. Now, which of my beliefs can't I back up? When it comes to something scientific, such as the existence or non-existence of an afterlife, only the scientific method is applicable.

    P.S. If you're not here to prove anything, why do you even post in the first place.

  1147. Karaine

    Achems, you've got me all wrong.
    I'm not wanting to argue, I have nothing to prove. I was initially debating with Robert Allan, because everything he was saying was expressed in black and white terms,and was not just poiting out what was illogical to him, but calling my and other's opinion "silly" and it was crazy-making to me.
    He was asking for proof of all kinds of things, like my saying "one of us will get a surprise when we die."

    *That's* self-explanatory, and not insulting anyone.But I'm not here to argue or put anyone's belief's down. I don't think I have to prove every comment or far as anyone here knows, I'm not who I say I am..but I'm not being asked proof. Some things need to be taken on face value unless there's a need to investigate further.
    I'm not religious, and am not here to argue for it *or* against it.

  1148. Karaine

    Sean, btw, what do you mean, exactly?Why will we be surprised by death?

  1149. robertallen1

    Or perhaps there's an afterlife for some and not for others which means that either none of us is correct or both of us are correct. You simply don't know enough about it to deduce anything which makes your statement about one of us being surprised idiotic.

  1150. robertallen1

    Yes, show me how, scientifically. "I know" doesn't cut it.

  1151. robertallen1

    "It was crazy-making to me." What type of English is that?

    That's your whole problem. You expect your statements to be taken at face value and resent being asked for proof. One way or the other, you can rest assured that any further unsubstantiated assertions such as the one to the effect that one of us will be surprised by the existence or non-existence of an afterlife will be met with a demand for proof, whether you like it or not.

  1152. Karaine

    I have to have something to prove, or I'm not to post? Ifthat's a fact, then I won't.

  1153. Karaine

    I'm trying to think of what would seem like fact to you. I've experienced it..but then again you'll likely say that's delusional.

  1154. Karaine

    I do know what I'm deducing was a simple sentence --let's not split hairs!

  1155. Karaine

    You didn't insist anything about an afterlife, but you were already here stating that any belief in God is delusional..and lots more remarks like that one.How do you know for a fact there's not a God/Goddess/Higher Power/Gitche Manitou?
    How do you know for certain that there's no spiritual dimension to things?You said it, I didn't.

  1156. Karaine

    over the edge..why is it you thought that I was religious or one who might be likely to insist that my own beliefs are right, or the "true" ones?
    That's not me at all.
    I'm not religious..
    I have had spiritual experiences, and I have beliefs(or theories) but that's all there is to it.
    I don't read the Bible, or the Q'ran or the Tora..
    Actually,however, one point I do disagree wth you about is that spiritually inclined people tend to force their beliefs on others as some religious people can do.
    Most of us who say we're spiritual not religious, aren't at all interested in forcing anything on anyone..because often we ourselves have been forced to submit to other's religious beliefs or doctrines.

  1157. over the edge

    you asked ".why is it you thought that I was religious or one who might be likely to insist that my own beliefs are right" how can you ask that when i ended my post with " i am not accusing you of doing these things but please understand that many religious/spiritual do."

    the word "theories" bothers me. it is highly misused and i suspect you do not have any theories in the scientific sense.

    you go on to state "Most of us who say we're spiritual not religious, aren't at all interested in forcing anything on anyone." i can only speak for myself but that hasn't been the majority of my experience when interacting with a spiritual person. again i am not accusing you of this behavior. many try to hijack scientific theories or facts to lend credibility to their completely non scientific beliefs or insist that their viewpoints get equal time in schools. that behavior leads to the wasting of time and resources from scientists and schools who are stretched thin already.

  1158. Karaine

    Perhaps you're right that there's an afterlife for some and not for others..I suppose that could be true.I don't think so...but I suppose you could be right.I do know more about it than *you* are aware...and my comment about one of us being surprised was a cavalier or flippant's a joking way of saying "who knows?"* It's not idiotic, it's a comment.Why do *you* need to call me or anyone else who disagrees idiotic or stupid or delusional?
    * btw--one of us or perhaps even both of us will be surprised for real if there's an afterlife for *some* and not for others.

  1159. Karaine

    Robert I wasn't talking to you first of all.
    But, 'crazy-making' is an expression- similar to saying someone had a "bee in their bonnet", or was "pissed off".
    If you don't know or understand that, then I'm even more of the impression that you have a thought disorder.
    As I said in my other post, my comment about one of us being surprised is a flippant way of saying--I'm open minded.. what I believe or think is true may not be true. It's OK.

    Again..I think you know that too, but you're trying to be difficult.You can keep asking me for proof if you want to, but I don't *have* to prove anything.
    Keep thinking I'm silly, idiotic or delusional if it makes you happy, and comfortable.
    I doubt I'll be here anyway, although I have as much right as you do to read and post. Right now, it's boring and very irritating, so I doubt I'll keep posting.

  1160. Karaine

    No, I understand that you're not accusing me of that behavior...and thank you for that. It's not been my experience that spiritually inclined people are pushy..but I'm really not trying to argue or bate anyone!
    I do know what you're talking about..unfortunately there are some fundamentalists, often Christians who try to change other's beliefs..and it's infuriating to me. And, those are the same it seems who want "creation" taught in schools instead of evolution.None of that has anything to do with me
    .I'm surprised and disappointed however, that there seems to be a beliefof another kind--a belief of sorts among some posters here that if one isn't an atheist, one is a religious fanatic...tht's as narrow and as statistically untrue as the insanity that fundamentalists try to shove down people's throats.Like I said, I'm not religious , so it's odd for me to be defending them at all--because many annoy me, too.But I respect people who quietly follow their faith for their own sakes, and are good people..that's not something I would have said years ago..:-) but I no longer have an ax to grind.
    I don't know why you assume I'm using the word "theory"incorrectly? Theories aren't always scientific in nature ..I was a social worker and much of what most social work schools base their pyschological methods on are based in theory.
    Actually, some (imo) seem to think hypotheses are equal to theories.
    Anyway--I'm posting too much and too long..thank you for replying to me.

  1161. robertallen1

    Start of with verifiable.

  1162. robertallen1

    You've stated that there are only two choices. You can't prove that. So you don't know what you're deducing from.

  1163. robertallen1

    Just where did I state that any belief in God is delusional or that there is no spiritual dimension to things? Once again, if you claim that there is a god or a spirit, the burden of proof rests with you to prove it. I don't have to disprove it.

  1164. robertallen1

    That's up to you.

  1165. robertallen1

    You know as much about an afterlife as anyone else--nothing. So your statements about it are mere conjectures and passing them off as anything approaching fact or intelligence is as idiotic as asking anyone to believe that you have undergone "spiritual" experiences.

  1166. Karaine

    Look here R.Allan1..I'm fed up with your annoying and rude comments. Whomever you're so angry with, whatever war you're fighting, it is not about me.
    I have no need to prove *anything*.If you were really *interested( or even curious, I might want to..or I might not.
    But this is just irritating.
    I followed a link here because I read that there were documentaries here that were unbiased, some of which had information many documentaries and sites avoid acknowledging.I'm older,likely older than you are too, and so have outgrown needing to prove my points,shock people with my radical opinions, or attack people who *might* believe differently than I do.
    I didn't come here to argue..I thought, if anything, that there'd be intelligent honest people here--not fanatics and pains in the ass.

  1167. robertallen1

    First of all, please note the spelling of my name. You've erred twice in this regard.

    Whether, you think so or not, if you assert, the onus of proof rests on your shoulders--and age does not exonerate you from this obligation. However, you tell me your age and promise me to be honest about it and I'll tell you mine with the same promise.

    One way or the other, belief is worthless without anything behind it other than "I believe."

    Whether you can here to argue or not is simply a camouflage for what you really want, some type of acceptance, and so far you get none from me.

  1168. Karaine

    You're quite wrong..I don't know about my knowing more or less than most people, but I know what I've experienced. Only later on, I started checking out my experiences and memories with more knowledgeable people in the field.
    And,now you're being illogical and foolish yourself because you have *no* idea what I know or don't are also using the word wrong, "idiotic" because the fact that you disagree or do not believe me doesn't make me a person with a low IQ.
    So, in other words -stop talking from your own ignorance!

  1169. robertallen1

    "I know what I experienced" doesn't cut it. Claims of extraordinary experiences require considerable proof and unless you can prove that you have undergone "spiritual experiences," your anecdotal assertions are only so much trash and your insistence on being taken at face value, an insult to the intelligence--and IQ has nothing to do with it.

  1170. Kateye70


    I see you fell into the 'robertallen1 trap'. As much as I enjoy sparring with him at times, and even though we think alike on certain subjects, there are times when I simply don't respond to his posts. Sometimes I find he has fixated on a certain point that to me seems trivial or irrelevant; other times we just have our own opinions and keep going in circles.

    Please don't let that stop you from posting here, there are plenty of others to chat with. Welcome to TDF!

  1171. Karaine

    Robert Allen1 Sorry, you're right, I did spell your name wrong.
    I don't know if I was looking for acceptance..but,it'd be nice,..nothing wrong with *that*.
    Accepting others as they are is something that works..the reverse doe snot work well for me, and usually not for anyone..
    But who cares?You don't have to be friends with me.
    I don't get what you're gaining by harassing me and bothering me about every comment of mine that you disagree with or just don't's a waste, imo.
    I'm was 59, this past Autumn

  1172. Karaine

    Thanks Kateye. You're right...I know..I fell in to the trap allright.:-)
    Anyway, yes..I did find other sections here with documentaries I found interesting and people that seemed more laidback..thanks for the tip and for taking a moment to talk to me.
    I'll figure it out one way or the other.;-)

  1173. robertallen1

    If you're looking for acceptance, try posting something intelligent as you have with your comments on circumcision.

    P.S. I'm 65.

  1174. Kateye70

    "Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only realize the truth... THERE IS NO SPOON. Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is yourself."

  1175. over the edge

    first "hitch hiker" now the "matrix" thank you lol. in return and an attempt to stay somewhat on topic. when it comes to "try" i leave you with “Do or do not, there is no try”

  1176. Kateye70

    Ah, but we know that
    “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

    In other words:
    "Don't go into the light, Carole Anne!"

  1177. Karaine

    You're 65 and still seeing things in black and white terms..?

    Sorry that you think I don't post much that's intelligent.By the way, I notice that you didn't bother me about the circumcision never harassed me about where I got my facts or how I know..maybe I just dreamed it all for all you know. ha.
    Anyway, for an experiment -how about taking what you like and leaving the rest?
    I'm not coming back..soif you like to have the last about "bye"? :-)

  1178. robertallen1

    There is nothing "spiritual" about circumcision, so at least you were dealing with something factual and down to earth.

  1179. oQ

    Robertallen1 has that effect on many newcomers to TDF, unfortunately.
    We lose many different opinions because of his attitude.
    Robert would like all people to think exactly like him on TDF, the rest are unintelligent, despicable, dishonest and whatever word he wishes to use.
    Keep posting...there are very few women on TDF! Don't let a bull bull you out.

  1180. robertallen1

    So now it's a silly appeal to feminism. Stick to your knitting.

  1181. oQ

    I don't knit. It's not an appeal to feminism, it' s an appeal to having more women's opinion on this website.

  1182. robertallen1

    Not the way you phrased it and I'm not altogether sure Karaine is a woman.

  1183. oQ

    The way i phrased it is as such, the way you read things...that's an other thing.

    She wrote to WiseGapist " But even I'm not a man, I'm not going to say I know for sure."
    Unless she is something in between, i assume she is a woman.

  1184. robertallen1

    I didn't notice this phrase on any of her comments on this thread. So fine, she's a woman. One or the other, what you wrote is no more than a cheap appeal to feminism. Why bring her sex into it at all?

  1185. oQ

    Everything about circumcision started and continued because of some crazy religious belief. Don't try to tell me it's medical.

  1186. robertallen1

    Before you made such an ignorant statement, you should have checked up on the history of circumcision. Why not start with the detailed article on it in Wikipedia?

  1187. oQ

    "it' s an appeal to having more women's opinion on this website".
    I didn't think i would have to repeat myself but obviously you don't get it.

  1188. robertallen1

    So you answered her post by an appeal to have more women's opinions on this website. Don't make me laugh.

  1189. over the edge

    but even this link makes claims that it never backs up.he states "After studying these phenomena as a scientist for about 30 years, I've concluded that some psychic abilities are genuine," but if he was acting as a scientists he would have provided the evidence that lead him to this conclusion.but he never does, also he claims "evidence that convinced me is the accumulated laboratory performance by people who do not claim to possess special abilities, collected under controlled conditions and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. " again he never cites these papers. he provides nothing that i can review for myself. he makes it impossible for me to see what experts in the relevant scientific fields have to say. i cannot review the conclusions of the people who actually performed these studies and so on. he claims to be acting scientifically then lays out his claims in the most unscientific way imaginable. no matter if i agree with an idea or not i would never accept claims presented in this manner from anybody.

  1190. oQ

    That was an interview not a lecture to an assembly of scientists or to a class of students. Perhaps you can write to him on his site and he could provide the information you wish to have to balance the right or wrong of what he claims.
    But aside from that...what do you personnaly think of what he says? I won't ask references.

  1191. oQ

    I responded to her last phrase: "I'm not coming if you like to have the last about "bye"? :-)"

  1192. robertallen1

    One way or the other, you used her post to make an irrelevant feministic comment.

  1193. over the edge

    i am not sure how to answer your question because i am not familiar enough with him or his claims to reach an informed conclusion but i will try. his tactics worry me and while i have heard similar claims from others. any time i have looked at similar claims properly researched (a good source is James Randi) they fall apart. i personally do not believe his claims as when i ask for evidence in similar cases i have not been presented with anything that stand up.

  1194. robertallen1

    I agree Randi is a great source, especially as he has been in on a lot of the debunking.

  1195. robertallen1

    I repeat. You used her post as a springboard for an irrelevant feministic comment.

  1196. oQ

    You take James Randi, stage magician, seriously over Dean Radin? Have you looked at Radin's bio i attached to my response to you. At least consider his achievements...what has Randi done, studied?

  1197. oQ

    I suppose you wouldn't sleep without your nightly arguments.
    If you find my comment feministic, be it...i couldn't care less.

  1198. robertallen1

    For your information, Mr. Randi has done more to expose frauds such as Uri Geller and debunk what were supposed to be double-blind trials than just about anyone. Those are only part of his achievements which place him head and shoulders over Radin. You should have read more about him before making ignorant statement number two for the day.

  1199. oQ

    Note the mistake you make on your last phrase...while telling an other not to make mistakes.
    "Whether you can here...."

  1200. oQ

    I have read about him...not impressed!

  1201. docoman

    I noticed a lecture by Dean Radin on the right during the 3rd part, called "Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin, it's about 95 minutes long. He may give more in the lecture.

    Edit- did anyone else notice the clock in the background, it wasn't working?

  1202. robertallen1

    That's because you have not read much.

    And by the way, there's never been any proof of the existence of the supernatural or paranormal in any clinical testing and everytime it has been claimed, it has been debunked by James Randi and those like him.

  1203. over the edge

    i take his approach seriously. he uses double blind tests and provides the results for his tests as well as the procedures followed in his tests. he is also willing to put his money where his mouth is (1 million dollars). he in many cases relies on his expertise to recognize the tactics used to fake such abilities. and more importantly he shows enough detail for me to reach my own conclusions

    i have not attacked your source on a personal level (as you have mine) as it is not relevant. i attacked his lack of openness and evidence. so i hold both to the same standards. you ask me " At least consider his achievements." no i will not. success/intelligence or even genius in one field in no way adds weight to a different field. all arguments/claims have to stand on their own. Newton was a genius and a man whose scientific brilliance i am awestruck by. but he was also an alchemist and no matter how much he achieved in science none of that makes alchemy any more plausible

  1204. robertallen1

    I've read all of his books. Have you?

  1205. over the edge

    i have not read any of his books sadly

  1206. Kateye70

    Robert, I'll have to jump in here and back oQ up. You do tend to be harsh on newcomers of either sex.

    Whatever your personal opinion of someone is, no one likes to be the object of invective. All it does is make them hurt and/or angry, and not very willing to engage with you in any constructive way.

    When you interject verbal abuse into your posts, you also discourage diversity of thought.

    By injecting emotion into an argument, you've distracted people from working through errors of reasoning.

    Your own valid points are lost in the noise you create by making it personal rather than staying on topic.

    For many women (men, too!) verbal abuse is the precursor to physical abuse. Some of us can ignore the language, but not everyone can.

    It helps to remember there are real people on the other side of every keyboard.

  1207. robertallen1

    When people make claims they can't back up or make ignorant statements and try to pass them off as knowledge, they deserve everything they get.

  1208. Kateye70

    I'll reiterate: No need to be rude about it. Your point gets lost in the noise.

  1209. robertallen1

    And I'll reiterate: People who make claims (and I don't mean venial claims such as what one had for breakfast) they can't back up or ignorant statements (and once again I don't mean venial ones) which they try to fob off as knowledge, such as OQ and Karaine, deserve no respect.

  1210. Kateye70

    I like oQ, I think she has some interesting ideas. I'd like to hear her voice more often. But she speaks and is immediately stomped on by you and a few others.

    Karaine didn't seem to say anything much beyond she had some experiences and was therefore using them in her own life. You are the one who started name-calling; she kept trying to explain those were her personal views based on her own life experiences. No science needed.

    Now you seem to have driven away someone a few of us might have liked to get to know.

    Correcting people when they are inaccurate or deliberately misleading is one thing.

    Stomping on them just to stomp is something else.

  1211. robertallen1

    I don't like OQ either in this or in any of her former incarnations. She makes statements about subjects she knows nothing about and does not want to know about. In addition, she's proud of her ignorance and lack of education.

    Karaine's comment about an afterlife, her unverifiable "personal" experiences which she expects to be taken at face value and with her statement that she's too old to have to prove what she says deserve no respect.

    People are free to express their thoughts, but they must also realize that those who respond are equally free to stomp on them.

  1212. oQ

    You know how you always tell people they spell your name wrong...well! You spelled my name wrong, it's small o big Q as in oQ...HA HA HA

  1213. oQ

    I like you too...let him doesn't stop me from posting.
    Some people take medicine or drink a tea to relax and go to bed, Robert has a fight....a long daily fight.

  1214. Pysmythe

    Well done. :)
    ( I lol'd)

  1215. Charlotte Vercraeye

    I understand you don't agree with Karaine's or oQ's opinion, and that's completely okay. But saying someone doens't deserve respect just becaue they don't share the same beliefs as you (because, let's be honest, it's not like they're hurting or endangering someone or something with it) is harsh. And i think harsh is even an understatement. If you want to make a difference to people and nudge the world a little further towards wisdom and understanding, you need to do so with full respect for the other point of view. I'd like to see that degree of respect from both sides of a discussion, so people don't have to wade through any pointless cynicism and condescension.

  1216. robertallen1

    It's deeper than mere disagreement. It's lack of intelligence and ignorance, none of which deserves any respect.

  1217. pwndecaf

    I think you are a crusty old coot and proud of it.

  1218. systems1000

    Just a heads up everyone.I Heard that our favorit codger has been closed on account of rabies.I ask for a second of silence.

  1219. Laura Ceia

    GREAT! Thanks!

  1220. awful_truth

    @jojack19:Amen to that!

  1221. Holly Como

    Atheism is the greatest enemy of fanatical religions like Islam. Look at how eagerly the Taliban blew up those Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. The future clashes will be not between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but Islam and Science and atheistic philosophies. Sooner or later, people will need to take sides and then the mess begins.

  1222. robertallen1

    And your point is?

  1223. Earthwalker

    Put that in your creationist pipe and smoke it.

  1224. Earthwalker

    Bang on Matt

  1225. nitramgnal1

    I disagree. NO real scientist would tell you that atheism - based on the principles of science and reason - is faith.

  1226. nitramgnal1

    I agree. In the Old Testament, the god of the Hebrews is one god among many, which is why in the first commandment, he says the hebrews should have no other god over him.

  1227. robertallen1

    You've just enunciated the difference between monotheism and henotheism, i.e., preference of one god but acknowledging the existence of many.

  1228. nitramgnal1

    Do you have some access to knowledge that we others do not have? It is simple arrogant ignorance - and is the last bastion of the religious unintelligent.

  1229. nitramgnal1

    I know. So why not believe in Thor?

  1230. nitramgnal1

    I believe there is an invisible elf on my head. Does the burden of proof lie with those who who don't believe me?

  1231. nitramgnal1

    Your comments are very generic.

  1232. robertallen1

    rorix2 is simply stating that avering that a supreme being does not exist is the same as avering that one does and as there is no scientific proof one way or the other, both are faith-based statements. This differs considerably from stating that you do not believe in the existence of a supreme being because no convincing evidence has been presented, for it leaves the field open and excludes faith.

  1233. robertallen1


  1234. robertallen1

    No, it lies with you to prove it.

  1235. nitramgnal1

    There are many things that we cannot prove do not exist - see my comment about the elf on my head. Likewise, seances, ghosts, belief in a beetle that pushes the sun across the sky or that spirits dwell in trees. (It's a long list.) Science and reason show that a god or any other supernatural item cannot exist. It is so utterly unreasonable and unscientific. The existence of atoms was still in doubt for many until Einstein. However, this doubt is really not the same as saying gods don't exist.

  1236. nitramgnal1

    Actually, if we replace the word 'god' with 'gods' (and why not?), the idea immediately becomes ridiculous. If you postulate god, then not only do you need to prove it does not exist, but you also need to prove that gods do not exist.
    It becomes rather silly.

  1237. robertallen1

    That's what I said. This doubt leaves the field open and excludes faith.

  1238. robertallen1

    No, if you postulate gods, then you need to prove that they exist. If you postulate the non-existence of gods, then you need to prove that they don't exist. If you indicate disbelief based on lack of convincing evidence, then you don't have to prove anything.

  1239. nitramgnal1

    I postulate the non-existence of an invisible, immaterial elf on my head.
    There is a such a total lack of evidence for the existence of a god or gods (or fairies) that saying there is no god is the only sensible position. Just as I say there are no leprechauns. Furthermore, there is no possible way that a god could exist. I think the proof has been amply made.

  1240. Achems_Razor

    No, the burden of proof lies with you to prove your claim by your beliefs that there is an invisible elf on your head, invisible or no.

    By that token how can you prove something that is invisible?

    Same goes with all the 28,000,000 invisible gods since recorded history. "Pascals wager" would not work in that regard.

  1241. nitramgnal1

    I don't agree. You leave the field open for a god. This is a delusion. I'm not happy leaving the field open to delusions.

  1242. nitramgnal1

    I am trying to say that scientific atheism is not faith.

  1243. nitramgnal1

    I learn something. 'Pascal's wager'. Thank you. However, I think it is nonsense.

  1244. nitramgnal1

    Put what?

  1245. robertallen1

    Then you have to prove that there is no invisible, immaterial elf on your head. That's quite a bit different from stating that there is no convincing evidence demonstrating that there is no invisible, immaterial elf on your head and that therefore you refuse to believe that there is one.

  1246. robertallen1

    Pascal's wager never works, but his triangle sure does.

  1247. robertallen1

    And just how do you know it's a delusion?

  1248. robertallen1

    As long as it's based on lack of convincing evidence so far, you're right.

  1249. nitramgnal1

    I've just googled this. It is well beyond me. But thanks for trying to inform me.

  1250. nitramgnal1

    Because, as I said above, belief in something that cannot exist is a delusion.
    There is a limit to how far anyone should be asked to go to disprove something that cannot exist. - something that goes against scientific reason.

  1251. robertallen1

    Then you must prove that a supreme being cannot exist.

    "There is a limit to how far anyone should be asked to go to disprove something that cannot exist . . . " This is a proclamation, not a logical statement, which lowers you to the level of a religee.

  1252. nitramgnal1

    No. You are rather setting yourself up as judge, aren't you?
    My statement is a statement, not a 'proclamation' (with its religious connotation). Thanks for patronising.
    It is total nonsense and babble that I must prove that a supreme being cannot exist. The proofs for the non-existence of a god are legion. Science has shown that everything we have studied contains no trace of the supernatural. You are making the same mistake I would be making in stating that you cannot prove there is not an immaterial, giant pink monster at the foot of my bed. If you choose to hold yourself aloof in this bubble of relativism, then you are missing the point, and are holding a philosophical position that is meaningless. To say that 'so far' there has been no 'conclusive proof' for the existence of god means we have to wait a bit longer is disingenious and unconvincing. And rather pointless too. It is completely illogical.

  1253. Achems_Razor

    What proofs are there for a nonexistent god? You have made another claim.

  1254. robertallen1

    If you don't wish to be judged, don't post.

    And as long as you're posting, stick to the facts. Science has yet to uncover anything to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, the supernatural, etc. Claiming that there are scientific proofs for the non-existence of a god without at all referring to them displays a level of dishonesty tantamount to that encountered from an ignorant religee

    To recap, if you claim something in the nature of fact rather than opinion (even if your claim is couched in the negative), the burden of proof rests with you and "There is a limit to how far anyone should be asked to go to disprove something that cannot exist . . . " lies far from meeting the criteria.

    And whether you like it or not, we do have to wait longer, if not for an eternity, before we will find out one way or the other if a supreme being exists. And whether you like it or not, when you claim something is illogical, you must explain why it is logical and simply pronouncing it such is on a par with "There is a limit to how far anyone should be asked to go to disprove something that cannot exist . . . "
    Your entire post is no more than the obverse of the theistic coin and just as invalid.

    P.S. I believe the word you were trying to keyboard is disingenuous.

    . .

  1255. octavio

    If you need a god to know what is good, bad and everything in between. If you need a good to teach you what to think, what to believe, how and who to love, then, thats not living.. i would feel sad for those people

  1256. a a

    Higgs particle was recently created. Never did it exist before until it was observed in recent years. "Logic is what it is. No lines needed. No syllogism either."

  1257. a a

    atheism requires faith, even accurate senses and sanity are not guaranteed; agnosticism on the other hand can work without faith.

  1258. robertallen1

    Where is the faith in saying that you refuse to believe in a supreme being because there has been no convincing evidence.

  1259. over the edge

    a a
    you state"atheism requires faith" faith in what exactly? and you can be both atheist and agnostic as one concerns belief (or lack of ) and the other concerns knowledge (or lack of)

  1260. over the edge

    a a
    i wonder if you can back up your claim that"Higgs particle was recently created. Never did it exist before"? can you or are you making claims based on absolutely nothing?

  1261. k5

    The faith is in refusing to believe in the possibility.

    A scientifically-inclined atheist, presented with clear and convincing evidence of some sort of god, who was then able to replicate the experience of interaction with this god over many tests, would say, "I was wrong" and become a theist of sorts.

    A "religious" atheist, presented with the same evidence, would say, "You're crazy!" and walk away, not allowing his/her faith in the non-existence of some sort of god to be shaken.

    That's the difference. It's perfectly logical to not believe, on the basis of scientific evidence, in any of the gods that have been put forward by the world's religions. It is not logical to say that because none of those gods exist, no gods exist. It is logical to say that because none of those gods exist, it is unlikely that any god exists.

    Also. both types of atheists have the right to call themselves atheists.

  1262. Syed Didar Ali Shah

    I have you answer. But before you just train me to speak English fluently. Actually i am agreed with you because we don't have any logical proof about the existence of God. But there are some ideas in my mind which force me to think for the existence of superior in the Universe.

  1263. Lynley Ruth Butt

    How do you prove something that is invisible... By giving it a visible purpose from place-time dark nothingness zero plus a nano second? Accrediting the evidence of our senses which experiences the outer world environment and our habitat to it.Like the immaterial non visible primordial mind before anything was , or we were, forceful caller- upper BE visualisation of everything in vibrating strung sound waves and shaper -builder in intelligent mathematical- scientific constructive stages , which is otherwise inexplicable and nothing else but such a power source would hypothetically seem to fit the bill. Since we ourselves had not the wit in our early evolution to so much as create a fly ourselves. Even polytheism and pagonism gives this role to one of its visualised Gods... Unless the pantheistic... Original God- Source is in everything... Awareness manifested....including in our own ruling governing function and mastering higher consciousness" Rabb" Is preferred. Gradually eliminate the concept of any rival additions approach or survival in the face of this Supreme Alpha power of Arousal and Activeness and add a Closure role and the speculative choice ability for repeat acts of creation for this force... That we would like to participate in then as we do now.

  1264. Lynley Ruth Butt

    You might have faith as an outcome of passed on precepts which arose and were handed on down by re- warding guardians of ideas and right behaviour and evidential signs from Adam....along with an experiential scientific and a conscious conscientious weighing up of choices and outcomes. .. Heritage cultures and practical wisdom re good and bad foods . Or you could have faith by being directed by inspiration " from above" towards scientific awareness and investigation , insights about rational argument, logical action - reaction outcomes, negatives positives, behaviour alignments and divergences... Magnetism ,poles , stars positions , seasons... Family and tribal values from elders .... Speaking down the ages from the grave... Memorisation and story telling, writing and reading... Comprehension and calculation.... Proving by taking an argument from conclusion back through the developmental assumptions.

  1265. Lynley Ruth Butt

    Yes and half the proving arguments for any final idea of what God should must be must consist of dismissing attributes that are inconsistent with man s own experience.... There is no god that fits the scenario we think is real and true ( or . would. wish to see fulfilled )with these kind of lesser petty partial malfunctioning attributes... And then there is the other side of things where man is inspired to say that can't be it... God can't be constructed out of our likes and dislikes.... Prejudices and failures of the imagination.

  1266. robertallen1

    Just what is all this gibberish suppose to mean?

  1267. robertallen1

    What? More gibberish?

  1268. robertallen1

    And yet more gtibberish.

  1269. Achems_Razor

    Haven't a clue as to what you are talking about! lol

  1270. Steven Young

    It was only this last year that I realized that I was an atheist-Christian. Since that discovery, I decided to become an atheist-Muslim.

  1271. Omeca Kelly

    No there aren't. Just the things you can't explain you scribe to a god. Just stop at 'i dont know'. then work from there.

  1272. Aaron LaPointe

    Your position is self-refuting, and obviously so. Can you scientifically prove that it is only possible for something to exist if it can be touched, tasted, smelled, quantified, photographed, tabulated, tested, or broken down? If you plan on being as cocksure of there being no god as you believe science entitles you to be, then you would have to be able to do just that.

    Don't believe me? Take a less controversial example: can you touch, taste, smell, or quantify another person's mind? How do you know that other human beings are even conscious and not just fully functioning zombies? As David Chalmers pointed out, it is at least conceivable for the human mind to perform all of the things it does without being self-aware.

    So, do you believe that other people are conscious like you are? If so, is this based on your ability to touch their consciousness, to feel their consciousness, to photograph, tabulate, and quantify their consciousness? You can do none of these things because consciousness is a purely subjective phenomenon. And yet, you nevertheless assume that this consciousness is there in the people around you. Obviously, then, just because something cannot be affirmed according to your strict evidentialism, doesn't mean it cannot, or does not, exist.

    This is Philosophy 101, people. Get with the program.

  1273. robertallen1

    You have the shoe on the wrong foot. If you assert the existence of some deity or other supernatural woo, the burden of proof rests with you. If you can't meet this burden, then your claim is fraudulent, i.e., strict evidentialism. I suggest that you read up on consciousness and neurology before posting any more ignorance.

  1274. Travis Sichel

    lol.. I just come here to read the comment section. Its so funny. XD

  1275. Syed Didar Ali Shah

    You cann't refuse to the existance of God. You know this Universe shows us the perfection of God creation. Law of attraction also strongly recommend the existence of God.
    As you know well that without knowing the alphabets of any literature you cant understand. You should have to follow a master who train you how to read and write that literature's alphabets, how to join them. Similarly God has also created the Universe as his Literature. By looking into the universe with you spirit power you can find the generosity and power of God. If the physical body mix with the soil after death then where our soul goes? It directly meets with God as in water cycle the droplets come back into the ocean after performing several steps.

    I can give you hundreds of example but the problem is that I have shortage of time and my english is not that much perfect that i can explain you everything in detail.

  1276. robertallen1

    Where is your proof of this god of yours and how do you know that this entity has created the universe as HIS literature? Sounds like the post of yet another ignorant religee.

  1277. John Edwards

    Gnostic Atheism asserts that there are no gods, but most atheists are not gnostic.

  1278. John Edwards

    Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is a stance on the nature of knowledge, not divinity.

  1279. William Crain

    if there was a god he'd be an Atheist

  1280. Syed Didar Ali Shah

    Simple word is that anything can't exist by its self. There is any supreme power who has put this beautiful universe in to existence and running track. If development in science was not there than how such sophisticated projects and equipment were discovered? It is only possible because science first existed after such inventions and innovation have been made.

  1281. robertallen1

    Once again, where's your proof of the existence of this supreme power of yours--and when you answer, can you attempt to do so in intelligible English?

  1282. oQ

    Brilliant!...i agree with a smile.

  1283. Punit Vashishtha

    As you said that anything cant exist by itself. By saying this u only r logically deniying thle possibilty of gods exisistence, as u said nothing can exist by itself, now think again then how does god itself exists

  1284. nuff said

    Why argue about the god of the Israelites?

  1285. Emergency Stop

    Who's arguing about the god of the Israelites?

  1286. kjdhsak dsakhjd

    'advise others who don’t to be more open-minded'

    sorry, what does this mean?

  1287. Emergency Stop

    Who are you replying to? FYI you can reply to a comment by clicking on the reply button at the bottom of the comment you want to address.

  1288. nuff said

    That's from their Bible isn't it. That's where god came from . Leave them to their god and get on with your life.

  1289. John Doe

    This documentary is all Bulls*it! Its not about religion its about spirituality, the facts are out there in scientific world its called Quantum Mechanics. The physical realities of life have long slipped away from our fingertips my friends, we are entering a new realm a new dimension, a new era of Truth, Righteousness, Love..etc....brace yourselves!

  1290. John Doe

    Don't worry Mr. Shah....the beautiful thing is whether they like it or not the truth will one day be unveiled before their very eyes....its called 'Death'...or as I like to see it....a divine transcendent metamorphosis...but there not wrong just deeply misguided by the 'Ego.'

  1291. Religious people are scary.

    Fine. But religious people should then not be allowed to use anything created by science, since that would be hypocritical.
    Either you believe in it, or you do not. Anyways, I'd be happy to rid the world of religious people as I am certain the world would be a much happier place without it and them.

  1292. Brian Opalewski

    An excellent documentary. Thank you!!! I have showed this to many of my friends and they are sharing it as well.

  1293. Ronald Robert Besel

    I fully agree with jojack19! Secular humanists are the ones who are intollerant.

  1294. over the edge

    and what is it exactly that makes secular humanists intolerant?

  1295. robertallen1

    As a secular humanist, I admit to being intolerant (note spelling) of ignorance passing itself off as knowledge.

  1296. robertallen1

    I've heard the accusation before and have wondered about it myself, especially when contrasted with religees.
    By the way, do you have any idea why I couldn't post comments for a while. Vlatco fixed the problem, but it's as much a mystery to me as the above accusation.

  1297. Ronald Robert Besel

    Lack of respect for people who don't agree with them. It usually goes with an inflated ego and an unwarrented belief that they are superior to the unenlighted.

  1298. robertallen1

    Secular humanists are superior to the unenlighted, especially those who can't spell unwarranted.

  1299. Epicurus

    lol you sound like you are describing every religious person.

    Religious people not only dont respect people who dont believe like they do, but they believe they will suffer for eternity. they try to enact laws and rules based on their religious morality.

    but you seem to think secular humanists lack respect and have inflated egos. well let me let you in on a secret: its easy to have an inflated ego when the people opposite you believe in a mythical book written by desert people 2000 years ago.

  1300. oQ

    what about those who can't spell unenlightened?

  1301. Achems_Razor

    Glad to see you back! whatever the problem was, glad to see it is fixed!

  1302. robertallen1

    Thank you.
    I assume there are still just three moderators, you, Over the Edge and Epicurus.

  1303. over the edge

    oh you must mean things like denying equal status attempting to devalue someone because they have a different sexual persuasion? or could it be telling somebody what to do with their own body? maybe it is denying proper sex education because it goes against your beliefs? even if it does not go against theirs and can prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. yeah if a group did that it would be arrogant and disrespectful. wouldn't it?

  1304. over the edge

    i do not know what the issue was. but welcome back.

  1305. robertallen1

    Thank you. I assume there are still just three moderators, you, Achems_Razor and Epicurus.
    By the way, I'm almost done with the Hodges' biography of Alan Turing. I would gladly give it you if it were possible to do so.

  1306. Achems_Razor

    You are correct, three mods, this is the second reply, disqus ate the first one.

  1307. over the edge

    yes just the three of us. i appreciate the offer but without violating the comment policy that isn't possible. please let me know what you think and next time i am in town i will look for it if it is worth it.

  1308. robertallen1

    Sometimes too detailed, e.g., going into execrutiating detail on decoding in general, the enigma machine and the other devices used at Bletchley Park, all of which detract from the ostensible main topic.
    P.S. Pysmythe reports problems with discus as well. See two of his recent posts.

  1309. over the edge

    there is a bbc biography/drama based on the book i tried to watch it but just couldn't. too bad. as for the issues. Psy and i were discussing that last night. his posts were disappearing and so were my replies to him.

  1310. Roan7995

    There are people who believe what is demonstrable, and then there are people who will believe things before they are demonstrable. One of these is wrong.

  1311. Tom Crowe

    Scratching your nose periodically with your fingertips does NOT eliminate the delusional smell while passing a specific person. It only validates the fact that you have the ability to lift your finger and pass unsolicited judgement on someone.

  1312. Jenna Miller

    What do you mean "religious people should not be allowed to use anything created by science" ?? A lot of scientific inventions were made by religious people. lol being atheist is OK, being a bigoted atheist on the other hand...

  1313. I See Stupid People

    So, you just blatantly admitted that you are accepting whatever pseudoscientfic bulls*it Dean Radin claims and flat out refuse to listen to James Randi on the basis that he is a magician.

    How can you not see the flaw in your reasoning? Why can you not see how s*upid what you are saying is? Why? WHY OH MY GOD WHY I WOULD PAY $10000000 TO KNOW HOW AND WHY PEOPLE ARE THIS S*UPID

  1314. Jamie

    "not be allowed to use anything created by science"

    Calling BS on that.

  1315. Jamie

    You are generalizing.

  1316. robertallen1

    But they are superior to the unenlightened [NOTE SPELLING] and thus the belief is not unwarranted [AGAIN, NOTE SPELLING].

  1317. chip griffin

    what a loser. plenty of rock stars and movie stars have sold thier souls and say it! proving two powers are playing for each soul. GOD gets all those who's names are in the book of life, waste of time to prove what is already known to these type. not smart enough to shut up. he is paid for, the lake of fire awaits him...

  1318. jackmax

    As an anti-theist the only soles that concern me are the bottom of my feet....
    For your statement to have merit, first the evidence of "GOD" must be proven which we both know has not and never will be..!

  1319. robertallen1

    How do you know all this? How about cleaning up your English?

  1320. TheRabbitHole

    Chip, it's wise to know what our talking about (and be able to back it up with evidence) before making such an incredible claim, that way you don't sound s*upid. There is no proof of souls or God. A movie star saying they sold their soul does not prove souls or God. It is merely a statement on a bad decision.

  1321. TheRabbitHole

    In my opinion, the belief in ANYTHING without evidence IS unintelligent and ignorant. A lack of belief is just a person waiting to be convinced with evidence or flawless logic. They are not asserting or denying anything so it would be a bit strange to be accused of being unintelligent or ignorant after stating or doing nothing. There are certain parts of each religion that can be flat out proven wrong with evidence and/or logical deductive reasoning.

  1322. TheRabbitHole

    This is what it boils down to, just because we take offense because someone is ignoring, distorting, or inventing facts or information and pointing it out to that person does not mean we are being intolerant. We are just trying to correct misinformation before it spreads.

  1323. TheRabbitHole

    You are showing the same "lack of respect for people who don't agree with them" by your statement. Don't be a hypocrite please.

  1324. TheRabbitHole

    You are making a huge leap of faith here.... this is the problem. Just because you "feel" something that may seem more than love doesn't mean it's real. There are many studies that show how your brain can deceive you into these rationals. As much as you feel there is more, I feel that there isn't. Who's right? This is where evidence comes in.

  1325. TheRabbitHole

    As long as you don't force it on others or try to teach it in schools, not a problem. But some of the people that believe these things are doing just that, this is the problem.

  1326. TheRabbitHole

    There are many scientific experiments that show how your brain deceives you, this is why evidence and verification are so crucial.

  1327. TheRabbitHole

    Karaine, the " teapot argument" is a fallacy based on the idea of "you can't prove it's wrong, so that makes it right." This is the only evidence I have seen you state that backup your claim.

  1328. TheRabbitHole

    What you feel strongly about is not worthless, it's just nothing near fact or theoretical science.

  1329. TheRabbitHole

    This is why your point get's lost. You are equating the person to the arguments they are making. The arguments deserve no respect if not based in evidence but the person should still be treated with respect.

  1330. TheRabbitHole

    It's "too difficult to prove anything to you" show's the weakness of your arguments. Its OK, i still like you more than Robert at this point

  1331. TheRabbitHole

    Karaine, there is not a 50/50 chance that there is an afterlife. If you assert an afterlife, I can assert one of hundreds of other possibilities or hypotheses that make the percentage of afterlife very small. Probability comes into play not chance.

  1332. TheRabbitHole

    Probably because the job consists of being around children all day? Of course the number will be higher (I am guessing, but I would think that a very high percentage of grade/primary school teachers are religious, don't take my word for it) ... This is human mistake not because there secularist. Also, the use of "secular" as a derogatory or disrespectful term as you insinuated above is completely hypocritical as the catholic church is a secular entity. Secularism is much broader than aetheism/religion/morality.

  1333. TheRabbitHole

    How did the big bang originate? How do we know there are not other big bangs? The answer to all your questions is: "I don't know, there is not enough evidence YET to make a conclusion and we MIGHT not find any" Any answer other than that requires a leap of faith or flawed logic.

  1334. TheRabbitHole

    Quantum Mechanics does not prove anything spritual, supernatural, or divine.

  1335. DoThinking

    Do you allow for my God of understanding? Are you aware of how many people died in the name of God? Is God on your side or You on the God's side? In my personal and humble opinion God had died many times being unable to perform a miracle in Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald and about other 20,000 times in all Nazi extermination camps for Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Russians, Gypsies and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior. You probably think that they had "deserved" it.

  1336. haga

    peace is under threat by religious extremists..

  1337. chip griffin

    i do know what i speak of, the devil came to me and offered the whole world. i turned it down. the mark of the beast is coming next, refuse it at all cost. it will be in the form of a shot, vacine. the beast will be inside it. endure until the last day...

  1338. robertallen1

    Any proof?
    P.S. The word is vaccine.

  1339. robertallen1

    Your opinion is worthless; it's what can you prove. So is there any proof for your god? The number of people who die for anything is no indication of its truth.
    P.S. Don't try to tell others what they probably think.

  1340. chip griffin

    just my word, i was 17 at the time of temptation. i'm now 48. i get visit from angels since 2006, they tell me what is coming. obama is bad to his core!!! prison state next stop, many will die. the key is to not get the forces mark of the beast. wont be easy, but doable for those with a plan...

  1341. chip griffin

    and then this guy. what do you do? fear is the begining of wisdom, not state ran fear, do what is right, what's the problem?

  1342. robertallen1

    So you expect someone with half a mind to believe without proof, without evidence, that since 2006 you have been receiving visits from angels? Guess again. Your word is simply not good enough.

  1343. robertallen1

    What are you talking about?

  1344. chip griffin

    no problem friend, you will seee with your own two eyes soon enough. the world as you know it is fixing to be ever changed. our goverment and china's combined armies will be knocking at your door soon enough. the takke down. look up fema camps, gun comtrol. they are way ahead of your learning curve. 2 billion bullets for who???

  1345. robertallen1

    You don't know this.
    P.S. I am not your friend or anything close.

  1346. chip griffin

    your right the state owns you, can tell by you friendliness. don't reply, wait for the knock at your door, 4 am

  1347. robertallen1

    I still haven't seen any proof or evidence, probably because you have neither.

  1348. chip griffin

    i cant do all the work for you, i cant make you believe. google or seach it right here. 9-11 inside job, 2 billion bullits, fema camps, etc. the proof is all there. then ask yourself why would something want to knock down the world trade centers. would they stop there? the plan as it was written down 6 thousand yrs ago is in place and nearing it's end. you are the prize, they are after your soul. forever is on the line, like it or not...

  1349. Terry Lynn Job Nieminen

    to each Per- Son, to each their own journey. All is One breathing Earth event!

  1350. jackmax

    floppy01 I have read your rebuttal to my post that after 19 hours ago so I'm glad I don't have to view the BS you're trying to pass off as evidence...P


    as a persom who isn't superstitious, find i=the topic interesting

  1352. amused

    Why is it that when religious people discuss/debate it seems like kids fighting whose imaginary friend is better...

  1353. Mom

    Believe me folk. More we white people lost our religion, more we lost God in the world, which means, more real land we lost!
    Do you really haven't understood? In islam, there, where are there's church, there are there's land. But islam is infected by Devil, thats why this beautiful religion has turned in killing machine system, which do not care for own´s and others!
    Islam is most weak religion to Devil´s tricks in the Earth, we Christians need to protect them, who wanna stay alive after infected by Devil´s affected islam, or right to say: by islamistic´s sects experience and same time our land, because we need a place, where help them, who need a help!!
    Have you ever been in islamic countries? They living in Stone Age! They already so much punished, as one God can do, but they still don't get it! Because they'rs real religion is weak and its weak, because it's infected!
    Have you ever have been thinking, who is the man, who left his family, kill 1000-ds innocent people and his own life for 200 virgins? He is a prostitute, who sell his and others life for pleasure to the Devil! And sad fact is - here the islam (islams radicals) these days are.. with their "heroes" are.. it´s sad, even for atheist...
    Be careful christians and atheists and do not end in the same place! Being fooled such way is shameful even for Devil himself!
    Atheism is not bad, it is a religion about, you believe, you do not believe anything. Vups, got you :) you still need to believe in something and again... very religios atheist... :) take it easy, you are just human! And God love it, when human are seriously religious :)

    God bless you!

  1354. Mom

    amused, i came out from closed club, what you think you do with truth? What you have to say, when Christian start serious talk and not just smiling to make everyone around happy? You get, what you wanted, what's next?

  1355. Samuel Morrissey

    Hi, you seem well meaning, I have never heard a christian suggest muslims be protected. English is obviously not your first language. You are doing well but sometimes it is hard to make sense of it. I advise getting someone to help you when you comment on an english board, so we can understand you more clearly! :) I hope you can understand the comments made in reply, like this one.

    Positive thoughts are always welcome, thank you.

    but atheism is not a religion. Think : If I have a hobby as 'a stamp collector' - then I have a hobby. If I do not collect stamps, then how can I have a hobby of 'not a stamp collector'?