The Atheist Experience: Ray Comfort Interview

2011 ,    »  -   676 Comments
Ratings: 7.95/10 from 39 users.

The Atheist Experience: Ray Comfort InterviewThis is not a documentary per se. Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser have a conversation across the divide with professional apologist Ray Comfort.

Two arguments Ray loves to bring up, are Something from Nothing and A Painting Requires a Painter. That things in nature, including the universe itself, appear to be designed, is intuitive to us, because we are pattern-seeking creatures.

But where Christians like Ray go phenomenally wrong is in confusing and conflating order and design. Design, at least as Christians use the term, implies intelligent agency and purpose. Order is entailed by the nature of existence itself.

As George Smith points out, to exist at all is to exist as something. But order alone is not evidence of intelligent design. The great irony of Paley's Watchmaker argument is that it demonstrates this.

To deduce that the watch in the desert must be a designed artifact, the observer is reaching that conclusion by comparing the watch to its surroundings. The watch stands out because it is wholly unlike the desert. The Watchmaker argument proves, if nothing else, that deserts are not designed.

Ray lives in a curious alternate-reality in which he claims everything is the product of divine design, which prompts the question of how he knows (other than the Bible told him so), what frame of reference he is using to distinguish design from non-design.

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.

The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.

More great documentaries

676 Comments / User Reviews

  1. MatarD

    Here sirs n' mams - here you have your internet "paranoia of the other" pill.

    Let me know in 59min if you feel better. Best of Luck!

  2. Christian Tintin Johansson

    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you O_o

    I am my own God, thank you very much. Religion is for weak individuals who can't live with the notion that they are responsible for their own thoughts and actions. By believing in one or more gods they give away the responsibility of their own actions.

    Faith is the same thing as denial when it comes to religion, you believe in something no matter how much evidence someone present to you that it could not have happened. That, and the fact that you believe in fairy tales.

  3. PaulGloor

    This whole bloody Athiest/Christian "war" seems to be based on creation/vs evolution... Accept the evidence for reducible complexity, move on, be happy !
    Have 'FAITH' in your fellow humans... that will be far less blind then your FAITH in your god and creation ! ... which don't have to be mutually exclusive by the way.

  4. Mason Tron

    What is your purpose in opening your mouths? You both are condescending and half educated in Science. Are you trying to prove that there is no God when you can not? Your arguments are futile from their very root. Hasn't the history of science proven that can you not possibly know every truth? In all your knowing, understand that what you know as truth could be wrong. Understand that you are ignorant in some subjects (of course your ego would never admit that) and one just happens to be the ways of God. With all your intelligence, you two are some of the most faithless people I've ever come across. Sad really. I pray for wisdom for you two.

  5. Vanja Kondratenko

    Hi Mason,
    Can you prove existence of God?
    History of science indeed prove that it does not have all answers (but have answered a lot of them)....however, the very same history prove that religion has not answered (correctly) even one single question. Furthermore, Atheists (most scientists are atheists) do not set people ablaze if they just disagree with them, as religion was doing in the past (Giordano Bruno).
    It is out of mind to call those two guys ignorant, simply because the Church (as an Institution) is the most ignorant institution since begging of time.
    2000 yrs have elapsed, and during that time your holly Priest constantly speak about spirituality, simultaneously accumulating enormous material wealth.....and they wont share it with poor people....

  6. JezusVanNazareth

    Who the hell are you talking too? Your too bleeding stupendous and impulsive to even create a properly written reply.

    Now you choose to say 'Hasn't the history of science proven that can you not possibly know every truth?'. The answer is simple, NO! The history of science proves that we are not YET to know everything! There is NOTHING in science that you can point to to substantiate your outrageous claim.

    You are clearly one of the Minions of Evil! A merchant for faith. Shame on you, for lacking the mental capacity to deal with reality without your pathetic faith.

    Sincerely, your Lord and Savior (Because I SAY so, so it HAS to be true!)

  7. JezusVanNazareth

    JesusOfNazareth agrees with you! Well done! LOL
    Indeed faith is the absence of strong human character.

  8. PaulGloor

    Fueling the fire ?
    Firstly, are you directing your comment at the hosts of the show or the first two posters ?

    You are assuming right and wrong in the difference of accepting gods view with naught but the written word as evidence versus believing your fellow man because he can point at the evidence and say look for yourself.
    There have been issues in the past from hucksters and fame seekers, but the same goes for religion and those who claim god speaks through them.

    A scientist does his/her thing, writes a paper and submits it for review. Basically saying, here's what I think, here's the evidence, take a look for yourself, is it right or wrong ? Plausible, lets explore these results/No, be quiet and go back to work, revise or abandon your theory.
    What I witness religion doing almost all the time is, here's the [insert holy book], I/it will guide you to god, he/she is right, no questions ye of little faith, if you attempt to think about it and gather your own evidence, you are not true and you are damned.

  9. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Human character is a product of evolution which only purpose is to help the species survive like a tiny organism at the bottom of a cesspool. Faith is hope, nothing more and nothing less.

  10. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Always amusing to me to see how the undeniable knowlege by atheist that they can by the definition of logic, no more use logic to disprove the existence of an illogical God than a believer can prove the existence of God. It seems to be a dark hidden torture that cant ever be exorcised from the brain. I have watched Bill Maher and others for years try to escape this fact with humor and insults which only blow-back on themselves with the futility of their attempts.

  11. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Why cant you call a truce with CTJ, drink a cold one and relax? Maybe you need to figure out why you cant let it go. Maybe the need to be "right" blocks out the pain of your lack of reason for your existence. Just keep drinking cold ones till the pain goes away.

  12. KooKookaChoo

    I feel great! Reality is an excellent way to start any day. I could do without the bickering though, why do we always try to make everyone agree with us - seems rather insecure to me.

  13. Christian Tintin Johansson

    What our purpose is? It is to comment on your load of bullcrap. This is the comment section, isn't it?

    I don't have to prove a negative, it's not my place to give you proof of the non-existence of God. But you on the other hand believe he/she IS real so why don't you give us ONE piece of evidence of that. That shouldn't be very hard, should it?

    All you have is words written eons ago, in a completely different time where science was about getting the wheel to turn on the axle of a carriage in a smooth way.

    Words that never have been presented with evidence of any kind. Just like fairy tales about trolls, dragons and unicorns.

    To change your life and set up rules ONLY because of a text written thousands of years ago with no evidence at all is anything but intelligent. In fact it's an insult to us as a species.

    Science is NOT definate proof of anything, it's just math.
    You start with an idea, and end up with more and more things that make your idea more feasible than before. That's science. The mathematical probability that you are correct in your assumption.

    Religious people believe in things without any proof, but we believe in what can be proven. That's the difference between "faith" and science.

  14. Christian Tintin Johansson

    I don't attempt anything, I express my right to have an opinion.
    I am a fan of Bill and I know what he think about religion. We share lots of views.

    Nothing blows back on me unless I want it to. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we all have the right to express it.

  15. Achems_Razor

    @Mason Tron:

    "I pray for wisdom for you two"??

    First of, show us your credentials from your pseudo or otherwise authority that you have a pipeline to your invisible gods and that you are their spokesman.

    If your gods do not like the way people live, let the invisible gods tell them, not you.

    You can also put me into your faithless mold for your man-made religions. But I admonish you not to pray for me, unless you like wasting your time.

  16. nebra

    If god created man in his image, then god must be a monkey ;) I think god doesnt exist, at least not in the way church is teaching. Science is about knowing the world, universe, about how things work, religion is about knowing yourself spiritually - for we are spiritual beings. Beliving in god means denying your own self.

  17. Tipsy

    I'm not going to get into the debate in the comments, it's just silly. I'm going to talk about the actual doc, since that's what other people might be interested in. =P

    It's a great debate. Orderly, and respectful - if it gets out of hand with people talking over each other, someone backs off to let the main points come out.

    Admittedly, there were a few points where I had to stifle laughter over the opinions put forth, but that's par for the course in any debate of this sort. One side always sees the other as a little preposterous.

  18. Vanja Kondratenko

    A wise man have said: People who believe in myths are immune to the painfully correct

  19. Teddy Mcd

    Good Morning Top Documentarians - from the elders to the neophytes and trolls too.

    We have a delightful doc this morning - one to stir the imagination, nourish the intellect and give rise to a vigorous debate. Good - very good.

    Let us then proceed with the timeless enquiry.

    There will be no quiz for ultimately there is no correct answers. There is only the enquiry.

    Be kind as we all have arrows in our knees.

  20. Teddy Mcd

    Correct. As I said somewhere, 'When you have a choice between red pill - blue pill - choose the other one.'

  21. Teddy Mcd

    Reality - I love it - sure do. Because, well to be honest, no reality then no beer.

  22. PaulGloor

    Science doesn't aim to disprove God, Science aims to prove the means by which things evolved, or how this apparent order arose without resorting to intelligent design. The religious arguments on the other hand aim to prove God and disprove all else by denying the mounting evidence in contradiction to their position.
    The reason an athiest gets so mad or, rarely, just cant speak coherently in reply to a thoroughly entrenched theist is because they cant fathom how a person who claims to think for themselves can mount so many contradictions and idiocies in defense !
    I have to admit, it is thoroughly jaw dropping sometimes.

  23. Earthwinger

    Bleurgh....had to quit this one after about six minutes, as I was rapidly losing the will to live.

    Already posted the link elsewhere on here, so no need to give the mods more work to do......just do a Youtube search for "David Eagleman on Possibilianism" and save yourselves the pointless arguments. Assuming of course that the 'merican gubbermint hasn't shut Youtube down yet. :D

  24. e_pluribus_unum_USA_Motto

    Ray Comfort - probably one of the biggest poluters of children's mind - i.e. mind raping children. watch some of his video;s targeted at children - and yes - I have watched them.

    This Matt is good - logical steady reasoned approach.
    species to species - he named em - this guy knows his facts. Well done....
    Language analogy is great - the Evolution of languages is a perfect example of how language and species changed.

    We humans do know (based on tested, cross checked and validated evidence) how the life evolved on this planet. We do know how the earth formed and where all the elements came from. Again evidence shows that all the elements that we are made of and everything else is made of come from Stars starting with the element Hydrogen.

    We do know the element Hydrogen came from the Big Bang. So that takes us back the beginning of all KNOWN existence.

    Now - can something come from nothing. Yes - Read Stephen Hawkins "The Grand Design" Quantum Physics evidence is building that something can and does all the time come from nothing... Don't poo poo it until you have read the book and then make an informed opinion.

    Its Weird how Comfort claims scientific knowledge and then falls to the bible for "evidence" - clearly man made - read it please - yes I have.

    Wow he is deluded - Christianity has caused more death - suffering - hate - guilt etc than any other cause or religion in history followed closely by Islam and since both are based on the Jewish god , etc...

    Not a word of the Christian (new) testament was written by someone that knew - saw or heard Jesus. Not a word. Check it out.

    There are more translation errors in the Christian Testament than there are words in the Christian Testament.

    Comfort - "I don't believe everything in the Bible"
    So why pick and choose - its all made up....

    Wow Comfort is a gigantic Hypocrite.

    DO NOT be tolerant of others belief's - they want to force their delusions on everyone else - its time to grow up - they have had 2000 years and have screwed the world up.

  25. jamesMaseoBrown

    The myth of reducible complexity has been debunked. Like Ray Comfort, you decided to ignore the evidence and adopt creationist made pseudo-scientific talking points, move on, thank you very much, be happy !!!

  26. Eniki520

    the top ingredients of the universe are the same as the ingredients maybe god is religions way of saying universe without having to understand/know about the complex theories that explain how everything came to as it is now and why (such as quantum physics and how dark matter work, ect).

  27. ZarathustraSpeaks

    Your response makes the same false assumption of the Atheist I am referring to. Science and Faith are by definition not mutually exclusive. I acknowledge the truth of science but also search for truth through my faith which is not based on empirical evidence but hope. Science does not address faith, hope or even religion. It uses empirical evidence to find truth about our world but has no input on anything beyond what can be verified. If it is science it is NOT faith. If it is faith, it is not science. Its that simple. The question then becomes what is the point of believing in that which can not be proven? Do people of faith just refuse to accept the "truth" of the complete meaningless existence of man where even the genius of Bach's music can be reduced to a vain attempt at self gratification of the brain in a dying world? I hope for more.

  28. PaulGloor

    Then it comes down to the difference in faith and belief...
    For example;
    Do you have faith in a creator, or do you believe in a creator ?
    One suggests you are open to what science has to offer as a means to an end used by a God of any particular religion, the other infers that science is completely wrong and flips the bird to those who dedicate their lives to further understanding for the rest of us.

  29. Epicurus

    lol you claim we are ignorant then in the same breath claim the existence of a god.

    oh the irony.

  30. Epicurus

    i think you are talking about IRrefutable complexity, he said it is refutably complex i think.

    or HE meant irreducible complexity. if thats the case, then you are correct.

  31. ZarathustraSpeaks

    You seem to be intent on reducing the discussion to a narrow understanding based on the beliefs of a specific religion or group. I am "open to what science has to offer" in the sense I accept the scientific method as the definitive method for obtaining truth about what we can know from the "scientific method" When dealing with public policy, laws and government science should always reign supreme in making decisions. Freedom from religion is always at least as important as freedom of religion, or faith or belief or hope or whatever we call it. I do not accept that we can only learn everything of value through science. If this were so the "love of your family"(for example) would always only be a product of the evolutionary process for survival and have no other meaning whatsoever. This may be the truth i choose to have faith in something greater. I am open to all possibilities and explanations of the world including one without God. Until someone explains to me how any being other than a deity could disprove faith I will trust in my faith.

  32. nebra

    im sorry, i dont fully understand what you are my english not good or yours? ;) Are you saying that "God" is just a way of saying : "Universe is as it is, we dont need to understand it." Then yes! People do live in ignorance. Universe was here long before we were and gravity and all the stuff, evrything is allready there we just have to understand it. Everything in the universe can be mathematically proven or at least partially, its like a mathematcal grid/web. I didnt see no equation to prove there is a god.

  33. PaulGloor

    The fact remains that some people take it to such extremes it is absurd. The most obvious example being the creation vs evolution argument, but also boils down to infringements on basic rights.
    I'm fine with people taking moral guidance and deriving personal growth from religion, but one cannot take the word of god as fact against tangible, contradictory evidence and still call themselves reasonable, just and open minded.

    To make myself clear, I am not calling you a close minded believer, we actually seem to be arguing the same point from different angles.
    Also note, that I have faith, just not so much religious faith.

  34. PaulGloor

    Reducible complexity is evolution. Irreducible complexity is ID. Like Ray Comfort, you made an assumption based on incomplete information.
    "Accept the evidence for reducible complexity, move on, be happy !"
    note: 'reducible' :P

    Now we can move on and be happy :)

  35. Deejay Es

    this bald guy knows how to speak to people

  36. Rolands

    Positive debate. Though i prefer to accept scientific method as i started to study in university and understand the basics of our earth and environment.

  37. morgmorg

    Religion is like a penus. It's ok to have one and it's ok to be proud of it. But don't whip it out in public and don't try to shove it down my throat.

  38. SFXkilla

    That was hard to watch. People like Mr. Ray Comfort will never give up the absolute certintey that their religion gives them. They always seem surprized when they cant get their point across to reasonable rational people by the same means as their religious instructor. Telling someone the same thing over and over with no evidence only works with children. That is the only reason why we still have these throwback superstitions.
    also @Deejay Es I agree with your assesment of "The Bald GUY" lol I couldnt done half as well as him

  39. Sieben Stern

    ray comfort needs to read 'the magic of reality' and start to get scientifically literate.

  40. Dave Jones

    Matt is, if memory serves me, an ex-priest/pastor/archbishop - some flavour of religious instructor anyway, so he knows his scripture well and is extremely well placed to refute most attacks. The Atheist Experience website used to have archive of his tv shows and are well worth a watch if only to listen to the redneck bozo's who ring in to condemn him to hell.

  41. Frasier

    your talking about the god of the gaps

  42. pulunco

    I often watch the Atheist Experience on You Tube and Matt always does a great job at picking apart people's arguments.

    Ray seems like a nice guy but has obvious problems grasping simple logic. Arguing religion with people like Ray is analogous to playing monopoly in the dark with r*tarded donkeys.

  43. norlavine

    A Nobel prize winning atheist walking alone on the beach was boasting aloud to God that as a scientist,he could now create life in a laboratory, using nothing but a handful of sand, without any help whatsoever from a 'divine creator'. He knelt down and picked up a handful of sand from the ground and waved it towards the sky, screaming 'this now proves you don't exist' A strong wind came from nowhere and blew the sand out of his hand and a booming voice was heard to say 'Go get your own sand then!'

  44. norlavine

    Does anyone notice that atheists never target eastern religions? That's because it would be considered 'uncool' to do so. No one targets Islam either because that would be downright dangerous. Leave peaceful Christians alone, target the whacko so called Christian fundamentalists if you must lampoon. Life is too short and way too hard - whatever gives hope and sense to some, needn't be a cause of angst in others. The mystery of beyond space and time has nothing to do with man made religions of any denomination,nor atheism, it is a matter of a mind with the rare lightbulb switching on.

  45. Samuel Morrissey

    The argument that there must be a designer was nicely refuted by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Substitute 'Babel fish' with any thing you think must have been designed by god.

    The argument goes like this:
    `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
    `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

  46. KooKookaChoo

    I'm just watching some of this now, it's pretty good - Matt is very composed and asks some hard questions of the people who call in to tell him he is going to hell -- thanks for sharing!

  47. Vlatko


    "Does anyone notice that atheists never target eastern religions? That's because it would be considered 'uncool' to do so."

    Atheists target all religions. It might be true that they target the eastern religions less. But however that is because they (the eastern religions) are not hard-coded in the western democratic societies, where Christianity thrives, and where in the same time the cornerstone of the scientific establishment resides. And secondly because they are not monotheistic belief systems, but rather a religious philosophies.

    "No one targets Islam either because that would be downright dangerous."

    They target Islam wherever and whenever they can. Try this Google search query, if you would: atheists vs islam debates.

    "Leave peaceful Christians alone, target the whacko so called Christian fundamentalists if you must lampoon."

    But that is exactly what these guys are doing. Ray Comfort is a professional apologist. Don't tell me you don't know his two infamous arguments: the Banana and the Crocoduck.

  48. Achems_Razor


    You are making it sound that most atheists prime reason for existence are to target the religious, and basically picking on the Christian Fundys, not so, I and most of us do not care one iota about the religee's until they spout their god stuff nonsense into most docs.

    And the Fundy's do not stand alone, all religions the Eastern ones, and Islam as well are ones that no quarter is given in retaliation, check most docs.

  49. Bryan MacAskill

    I think the Atheist in this doc use the English language to evade and dodge the fact they really dont know anything. Clever speakers tho, his logic shouldnt allow him to make a wild assumption like: planets all started as (ac)cretion discs. seeing as planets are the dust remains of previous stars gone
    supernova. Literal anything/athiesm is badmmkay
    .ps. is athiesm a religion that believes, religion is false?

  50. Guest

    You enjoy your superior position while you can, norlavine. I strongly suspect that after you're dead, there will be no more electricity to power that light-bulb than there was before you were born.

  51. get1949

    I'm a Christian!

    Ray, you are continually quoting the Bible giving scripture verse after verse and yet Matt and Russell are not going to take the Bible verses as seriously. If I may put words in their mouth; they both do not believe in God so why use the Bible verses to prove the Bible verses about the truth of it (or that God exists). Mat and Russell: How did we get DNA? Where did the code come from? Please see the DVD “The Privileged Planet”. Honestly read the book “What’s so great about Christianity” (and be sure to get chapter 4 to 6 read if you cannot handle the first 3). The Bible mentions that we are to “test everything and hold onto to what is true and good” (1st Thessalonians 5-18); we are to “come and reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), the wisdom books talk about seeking knowledge and wisdom in your youth; That we are to “call on me and I will tell you great and unsearchable things” (Jeremiah 33:3). One last comment: entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) can be easily seen in Romans 8:20-24…”the creation is caught in the bondage of decay”. God speaks to us in two ways by the mathematical arrangement of His design revealed in Nature—Nature is not chaos, life cannot produce its order by utter chaos. The second way God scratches our conscious is by curiosity. We humans are insatiable curious, we must know the why of things. We are travelers in a strange world caught in time with an eternal spirit (energy) stuffed in an Earthsuit. You ‘both’ will graduate life through death, unzip, and go Home. “From dust you came and from dust you will return and the spirit will return to him who gave it” (it’s in Gen 3). You are not a meat robot—you are a conscious observer and moral agent who desires perfection, fairness, and trust (changelessness). How do you KNOW these three desires are real when no one has accomplished them? It is because they do exist where you spirit came from and IT remembers and is tested and struggles all throughout this experience of being In time and In space. Each of us will change NOW in time here to know God or we will NOT get the opportunity to change later when we ‘see’ God because then we will not be restricted by time. Being in life in this earthsuit allows for us to know God through Christ and change (here) into what we are supposed to be eternally with God. You have to make your choice here because all indecisions, abstentions, and ‘I-cannot-knows’ equal your dismissal of God’s Rescue plan for your spirit’s salvation: That’s Gods’ grace to you in Christ. You’re not going to be a happy camper if your spirit fails to go home! And Ray…you argued too much, You should’ve done better!!

  52. Guest

    The 'merican poople got the 'merican gubbermint to shelve that stewpid sh-t, Earthwinger, at lust for the thyme bein'...

    How're those cameras on every street cawna workin' out for you bloody arrogant, fingerpointin' limeys?

    You know, Eric Blair would feel vindicated by much of what's happening in America AND Britain, I feel quite sure. So... you know... a little less self-righteousness, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

  53. Guest

    But...but only a man-made god is capable of disappearing in a puff of logic!
    (The Associative/Fallacious Omnipotent Power Argument.)

  54. Mantid

    The people in this video will not reply.

  55. Epicurus

    i wish i could sit through this...but i just cant handle Ray Comfort. its like listening to a child talk about something they have no idea about.

  56. Mantid

    If I were to use your logic everything would be a religion.

  57. Mantid

    What is beyond space and time?

  58. robertallen1

    Once again, we are treated to your catholic ignorance. Notice how just about everything you write is so nicely refuted by those in the know.

    Why don't you learn first and then post. Not the other way around?

  59. robertallen1

    I don't see why this needed editing by a moderator.

  60. robertallen1

    I've heard the story before. So what does it prove, except that you can quote?

  61. Guest

    Man, I just couldn't do it, either, for precisely the same reason. I think I made it about 12 minutes.

  62. Achems_Razor

    Actually neither did I, but that is what "Disqus" wants.

  63. Teddy Mcd

    So very right re: Comfort and the Banana and the Crocoduck. I have seen both and I cringed in embarrassment for him and his sidekick Cameron (okay I laughed too). I mean if he is a so called professional apologist can he not present a cogent argument or at least avoid fatuous ones. I do respect intelligent attempts in presenting one's views tho' I may fervently disagree - but and alas Comfort is bananas and Cameron is Daffyduck.

  64. Bryan MacAskill

    why are we still debating
    my logic says; religon has nothing to do with it... religion by definition. are a set of Institutionalized belief systems. look it up. So if anything its our value systems that are "out of sync/ my humble opinion.

    this message was censored...please refrain from free speech!

    if i would want to argue for religion to trump atheism using science, just point to quantum mechanics! which allows for: spooky action at a distance | thought to affect matter| and something; to be nothing, something everything or some combo thereof, all at once! Literally interpret that txetbook...describing the scale on which, energy in your brain operates.

  65. Achems_Razor

    @Bryan MacAskill:

    Right, spooky actions at a distance, and also "Einstein's theory of special relativity," which requires that all of spacetime, that is, all of space and all of time be present at once, therefore time and space are illusion.

    Plus Feynman's "sum over histories" where was demonstrated that subatomic particles traverse infinite paths through spacetime, implicating infinite histories for any one particle.

  66. Teddy Mcd

    I am watching right now but my patience is crumbling. I shake my head in disbelief. But I will give him credit for not being a pompous ass as so many apologist are. He is salt of the earth sincere.

  67. norlavine

    Thanks for your response. I meant the comments specifically posted for various videos on this site regarding Christians, not the internet in general.Lampooning Christians is like shooting ducks in a barrel, too easy. I will get round to 'the banana and the crocoduck' soon.xx

  68. norlavine

    Pick on the religious fundys all you like. I never say I am one of them. I like your response tho.xx

  69. robertallen1

    Why do the atheists seem so intelligent, educated and well-informed and the theists just the opposite? Must be the devil at work.

  70. norlavine

    Because i enjoy imagining the venom dribbling down the sides of your mouth and your blood pressure escalating xx

  71. norlavine

    The question could be: What is beyond what's beyond space and time?
    Some CAUSE I imagine, but what exactly? - is out of my level of comprehension at this point in my thought experiments xx

  72. norlavine

    But...but... I related the story differently, using a little bit of 'poetic license'.
    It proves nothing, it wasn't an experiment or argument, it was a bit of banter/entertainment. Didn't you see that???

  73. sean knight

    top online what! i like this site because of the docs.kind of curve ball.. i about **** when i fast forwarded 20 mins and the same dudes talking.. wtf?

  74. norlavine

    Exactly! i rest in peace, I mean rest my case xx

  75. robertallen1

    It's a shame that you don't enjoy educating yourself as much.

  76. robertallen1

    By your own admission, it was purposeless.

  77. Guest

    Rest your case regarding what, exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Your posts seem to imply you believe in the possibility of life after death, but now this one suggests you don't, lol... IS that what you were saying (that you believe in the possibility), or is it impertinent to even ask?

  78. Brandon Costa

    Its IMPOSSIBLE to have a rational debate involving science and God. I believe in God but I almost wish Christians would stay out of debates with Athiests because what I believe God is supposed to be for us just cannot be measured by "scientific method" . As much as rational scientists would hate to admit it, the real proof is personal. The closest science, and Im not sure you could really call it science yet, that may possibly point to God is quantum theories. And other ideas like law of attraction. At any rate science is more about preserving the flesh, and God is beyond the flesh which science cant measure.

  79. Earthwinger

    "bloody ARROGANT, fingerpointin' limeys?"

    Wow....why take these things so personally? As I pointed out in another thread just a few days ago, just because I take pot shots at governments, which on the whole tend to be a collection of self serving twonks (my own included), it doesn't mean that I'm attacking you personally.

    Sadly, I feel that it's a battle that far from being won, has only just got started, and the possible fallout from it, as has already been amply illustrated, will most likely affect us all equally.

    Lets just hope that in twelve months time we're all still here, and who knows, maybe we'll even have grown to understand each other a little better, so as to avoid unnecessary unpleasantness.

    Peace out :)

  80. Guest

    If by "rational" you meant "calm," then, generally speaking, you'd be right...
    Come to think of it, you'd be right even if you didn't!

  81. pulunco

    Wow just wow. You fault Ray for quoting bible scripture in his arguments and then you yourself turn around and make some farcical argument supporting Christianity based on quoting bible scripture.

    It is circular reasoning to try to prove the existence of god by quoting the bible, that part I think you understand but 3 or 4 sentences after you state this you go and quote the bible to support your own little theory on god. Take your own advice and stop using scripture to support your argument.

    By the way I thought Ray actually did a pretty good job trying to defend the ridiculousness that is christianity.

  82. Brandon Costa

    Rational is just another word. Too many words, but not really any truth.

  83. Vanja Kondratenko

    .ps. is athiesm a religion that believes, religion is false?

    Yes, if not playing basket ball is a sport....or not stealing is a crime.

  84. Guest

    Don't take it too personally, either. I just needed to vent a little... It gets hard on this site sometimes, being an American these days. Ridiculous as it is, I DO often feel like I'm personally being accused, even though I strongly disagree with nearly every single thing this country is doing now, especially on issues of foreign policy. I also take the view that it's the ordinary citizen against (very predominantly) monied power, whatever country they happen to be in.

    *Sheepishly* Sorry! :)

  85. Earthwinger

    Cool. :)

    I totally get where you're coming from, and I think maybe we all feel a bit under siege these days, which is hardly surprising given the way things seem to be going, the world over.

    For what it's worth, I'm a fan of much that is American, and I have some very close friends over there. Even my username is a tribute to a New York skate company, which just so happens to make the coolest boards in the world. :)

    Sorry guys, back to the religious stuff! ;)

  86. Epicurus

    how do you explain other religious peoples experiences of their god or gods?

  87. wald0

    I noticed several commentors attempting to catagorize religious belief, some saying it is an attempt to shed responsibility for our own actions (I am not sure I understand this theory as most religions heap guilt on thier followers by the truck load, but there you have it.)- Others saying it is used as an easy answer when we just don't know (the god of the gaps theory), etc. I don't think religious experience can be so easily dismissed nor catagorized, even though I am an atheist myself. After studying ethics and philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etc. one comes to understand religious experience is much more subtle and complicated than these simple explanations, far to universal and entrenched through out the world to be the product of mere ignor@nce as well. Does this lend validation to the claims of any particular religion, no. My point is that we shouldn't condemn believers as st*pid or ignor@nt, we shouldn't simply shrug off thier beliefs as if they are just being silly or purposely difficult. While I agree that intellectually the notion of a creator is not necessary science has proven time and time again it is a natural tendency for man to believe in some sort of god. If we ever hope to communicate to one another our ideas and, possibly influence our brother we must first accept he is our brother, approach one another on common ground and with a sincere desire of good will, and not over simplify one anothers convictions or beliefs.

    I thought Matt and Russel, the atheist in the above documentary, did a great job of this. Ray on the other hand, the creationist, became insulting and childish when he was challenged in anyway. Remarks like, "...anyone that doesn't believe in creation is insane or dishonest" are equivalent to athieist telling believers they believe because they are st*pid. Both arguements lack any real academic credibility and stoop to the childish level of name calling in my opinion. The whole point behind the academic field of study called philosophy is that well meaning, informed people sometimes disagree about fundamental aspects of reality. Therefore we have created an entire field of study dedicated to nothing but giving people an outlet to assert, explain, and then argue for there point of view. In this serious world of ideas these kinds of arguments are dismissed out of hand as inefficient and pointless, self serving and juvenile. Say what you will about the validity of religion, it has been the prevailing force on this planet for hundreds of years and requires much more explanation than simply, he/she/they are st*pid.

  88. Guest

    Science is about "facts," however, not truth. It is always subject to change and revision, which is its enormous strength. It doesn't pretend to be able to answer metaphysical questions, which is the subject of philosophy or religion. However bizarre, suggestive, or unlikely the conundrums of quantum mechanics may seem, to extrapolate any kind of supernatural explanation or origin for them is going beyond their jurisdiction. However tempting it may be to see such explanations, as soon as you have done so you are, ipso facto, straight back into the territory of faith, anyway, and have bent the leg of reason to accommodate an anthropomorphic stance that can't be justified, and which will fall over from its own momentum, given time, due to its methods and the course it runs. Back in the early '80's, I went through a brief kick of equating, more or less, many of the stranger ideas, as they stood then, of QM to some of the mythology of Hinduism, as best as I could understand them, seeing "truths" where there were none, but only "facts" that were later modified, or expanded, or dropped altogether as incorrect, and hence would seem ridiculous now. If I were you, I would just be a little careful about the temptation to assign a mysticism to phenomenon that are, after all, probably not natural to the understanding of our minds as they are evolved, and so by that alone appear as strange as they sometimes do.

  89. jbriggs_87

    how come the question is always 'where did it all come from, who created it?"
    i dont understand why reality had to have a beginning? isn't it possible for something to have always existed?

  90. bbga

    Friend, I have enjoyed your comments. Once upon a time I made comments on these types of documentaries, but unfortunately, the comments descend into a "you're stupid for believing the way you do" thing. Don't expect respectful, lively debate. I enjoy many documentaries that he links to on his site, but he tends to be lopsided in his postings on issues such as this.

  91. bbga

    well said

  92. Guest

    Morning Boy, is this one worth a watch ? Not sure if I can be bothered to watch the same old god/science chaff again, not unless its funny or different in some way. I think I might skip it and watch the ant one again, cute and funny little beasties :)

  93. bbga

    I enjoy the docs you post on here, but I need to point out something...
    "Atheists target all religions"... you know that is not necessarily the case. By and large, the religious text that atheists quote more often than not is the Bible. Islam is monotheistic and Buddhism is a philosophy and religion (and they are 'eastern' religions). The reason why so many atheists do not target those religions is because of an ignorance of them (generally, I am not lumping you in that category necessarily).

    There is a preponderance of postings like "the atheist experience", so it is self-evident that your posts are not merely modest inquiry. Fine, but don't attack your guests for having their own belief system.

  94. Guest

    I couldn't put up with more than a few minutes of it. The guy, Ray, is just inane, at best. Knowing that he teaches his fallacies to children makes me want to hunt him down and just...I don't know, pound at him with a banana cannon, or something.

    I'd skip it.

  95. Scott Williams

    In this episode of Atheist Experience, Ray Comfort has not proposed a single idea that a high school student couldn't debunk in a few minutes. To think that he is actually successful at what he does is really a sad reflection on our society and no wonder we are one of the dumbest industrialized nations on earth.

    Also, I thought Mat and Russel did a poor job on the speciation topic talking about flies and bacteria when there are so many good examples of one species evolving into another.

    Of course it would not have mattered if they did provide better examples because every time Ray's argument is defeated, he just jumps back to the one question we don't have a definite answer for at this time -- Well then where did it all come from? Did it all just come from nothing? As if that would somehow imply that therefore an invisible celestial dictator did it.

  96. Guest

    Ants it is then, have seen Ray spouting his nonsense before but thought the other guy might be worth a watch. Wonder if Ray has heard of spider-goat, it could kick croca-ducks ass !

  97. Scott Williams

    Give a man a mind, and he will know he exists.
    Once he knows he exists, he knows that he will die.
    Once he knows he will die, he will be confused and afraid.
    Once he is afraid, he will make things up to calm his fear.
    Once he made the crazy things up, he will convince others with it who are also afraid so they can all comfort each other.
    Once they all believe in the same crazy things, they will give it a name.
    Once they all know the name, they know they created power to manipulate with.
    Once they know the power the name creates, they will recruit in the name of the name to increase the power.
    Once their power becomes great, they will not want to lose it and will keep recruiting in the name of the name to never lose the power.

    That's how you go from the innocence and frailness of a self-aware mind to the corruption of all minds on the planet.

  98. Guest

    You know, now that you mention it...I certainly can't say I gave the other guy enough time! Maybe I'll finish it at some point.

  99. Yavanna

    It's worth watching to serve as an introduction to TheAtheistExperience channel on youtube which is well worth subscribing to. I watched this as a subscriber some time last year. It's an OK interview but I prefer the channel for it's down to earth approach in dealing with callers and reasonable discussions. Ray Comfort is an attention Ho who didn't deserve the air time.

  100. Guest

    Yavanna just mentioned its a good intro to the youtube stuff - The Athiest Exp, got myself excited about insects now though. Maybe later :)

  101. Samuel Morrissey

    You are wrong, just watch Dawkins on 'faith schools a menace' he quite clearly attacks Islam and Judaism as well, It's just on these boards the large majority of attacks on atheism and science come from Christians. Now if I argue with you and you are christian, that does not mean I am 'targeting' christianity, it in fact means you have either used a logical fallacy or have been insulting in a general sense towards atheism or science. So unless these 'guests' can refrain from attacking people over their atheism then they should expect to be reproached.

  102. Guest

    Thanks Yav, might watch later then or head over to the youtube stuff :)

  103. Guest

    This is one I surely wish I could've thought up.
    H-ll of a post!

  104. Vlatko


    No, not at all, I'll not attack my guests, but it's OK to have my say from time to time, won't you agree.

  105. Bryan MacAskill

    I hear you on this and i like your statement ,but its an absolute, instead i propose, that if you look at the commonalities between All religions science( a branch of philosophy) i dont see how they are in conflict in. enlighten me because its a good conversation to have.

    instead of picking out our differences, try noting our similarities, you will be pleasantly suprised

  106. Samuel Morrissey

    Could you explain why you believe science is a 'branch of philosophy' ?

  107. Bryan MacAskill

    @Samuel Morrissey (agreed)
    I think its interesting that they have to argue or defend any belief. It almost indicates in someone, that they are searching for validity, assurance, or consensus, which seems to imply that they unsure themselves.
    Heres some english schooling (dictionary style)
    a·the·ist : noun, A person who --denies-- or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    de·nies: verb, Refuse to admit the truth or existence of (something)

    dis·be·lief: noun, refusal or reluctance to believe

  108. Bryan MacAskill

    no but here is my view :), what came first chicken or egg?
    science or philosophy, decide for yourself
    Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek ????????? (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6]

    Plato knew the earth was round, we orbited sun and he could do some amazing mathematics. knew some awesome science too, even tho scientific method, like todays didnt exsist

  109. magarac

    Why should
    what someone is believing in
    be important to anybody but the person himself?

  110. Epicurus

    lopsided towards the side he agrees with? whoda thunk it?!

  111. Epicurus

    when was anyone attacked?

  112. Epicurus

    dis·be·lief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

    de·ny: to declare untrue

    a·the·ist:a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

    the reason they argue and defend their position is because they feel persecuted and attacked for that position.

    christians organizing together in groups once a week to sit in a dimly lit building and all sing and chant together would also have to be a sign that they are unsure of themselves.

    actually Freud said: The true believer is in a high degree protected against the danger of certain neurotic afflictions; by accepting the universal neurosis he is spared the task of forming a personal neurosis.

  113. Epicurus

    because they vote based on that belief and teach their children that belief.

    beliefs have an effect on other people.

  114. Vlatko


    In these cases:

    1. Promotion of genitalia mutilation,
    2. Efforts to put ID in public schools,
    3. Publicly imposing their Gods as the only and right ones,
    4. Recruiting followers under age of 18,
    5. Claiming higher moral grounds,
    6. Suggesting scientific verification of their scriptures,
    7. Evading taxes,
    8. Abusing children,
    9. Subtly putting women in inferior position,
    10. Openly stigmatizing anyone who is not heterosexual,
    11. Interfering with politics and the society in general,
    12. Etc.

  115. LostHearts

    Ah...Ray Comfort, forever known as Banana Man.

    Epicurus is right. For those who think that certain religious beliefs and those who propagate them are harmless, one has just to look over the bloody history of these religions to realize how devastating they can be. People like Comfort are polluters of minds. I shudder when I think that children are being taught this nonsense.

    People actually voted for someone who thinks the world was created in 6 days for benefit of mankind (Palin). Or now, we have a candidate who thinks an angel named Moroni showed golden plates to the scam artist Joseph Smith. George Bush carried a bible with him everywhere and constantly referred to god and faith while in office while he himself lied to the world about non-existent WMD.

    Yes, someone's religious beliefs can have a profound effect. And bbfa, atheists know full well the beliefs and dangers of Islam. It's just that, esp. in the US, Christians are constantly shoving their beliefs in everyone's faces. When Islam starts doing that here (like in the UK, Holland etc.), we will also speak out more against that religion.

    Meanwhile, EVERYBODY attacks us for no valid reason whatsoever. Guess we are the true scapegoats.

  116. Samuel Morrissey

    Yes I can understand your viewpoint on philosophy and science from this thank you.

    Again though which came first is unimportant to me. the idea that one may have plausibly inherited components from the other is neither here nor there, today they are different spheres of thought.

    What I would take from that would be that philosophy is what religion should be, because of its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument, and of course its analysis of existence. My favorite philosophies are often realised in (possibly mis-labled) religious teachings - harmlessness and non-violence from Mr Buddha, self searching, serenity and peace of mind in Daosim, dare I add love and compassion from our own adopted Mr Christ?

    The difference between me and a believer is that I find no evidence in any these books to suggest the existence of a divine power or creator entity, and no one has been able to adequately explain to me where I might find such evidence in the world at large, or indeed within my internal personal experience, though religious people are very quick to tell me they have found this evidence for themselves.

    I think (as this is my own personal experience) all empathic reactions are a natural side affect of a simple conceptual jump that occurs for most people when they are infant, the idea of imagining you are someone else. Firstly to achieve this you must have accepted the knowledge that the other is an entity with thoughts and feelings like yourself. Secondly it enables you to 'feel' how your actions might affect them were the roles reversed, though ultimately this is a projection of how 'you' would feel were your actions directed at you, it is the best gauge we have. This is the principle behind do unto others etc. As the mind develops and gains knowledge, this idea becomes applicable to more and more things - animals, etc. until in its complete abstracted form it can be applied to all existing things and at this point one becomes absolutely conscientious and can willingly do no wrong. (I don't claim to be at this level btw!) I don't know why or how this came to be but I would humbly suggest that this trait possibly evolved in parallel to the manifestation of the larger social group.

    Sorry for the text explosion anyways,


  117. Bryan MacAskill

    the -fact- that we -cant- know for sure at this moment. Combined with the shear, awe inspiring, grandeur and mystery that is the universe. Curiosity, is what drives us as human(s) being('s').

    Wait, if organized religion is bad then doesn't that preclude that institutionalized government / education / medicine / law are also false, Hmmm??! - maybe thats what we should focus on instead of who believes what :P ! tyty for your reply.

  118. Samuel Morrissey

    Hmmm, I take your jest on governments very topical - yes we definitely should!

    however, it is again based on logical fallacy, arguing that because organised religion is bad, does not mean that things that are organised are bad. Organised religion is not bad as a result of it being organised. This is a straw man argument.

    Organised religion is bad because it promotes demonstrably bad ideas like creationism (comprehensively refuted by evolution) and homophobia. (refuted by common morality) - find me the fallacy within that argument.

    The deep mysteries of the universe are certainly profound and many quite possibly unknowable, but this neither requires nor suggests divinity simply because the answer to the rather irrelevant 'god' question is at this time similarly unknowable.


  119. KsDevil

    I suggest studying quantum mechanics, then come back and tell us.

  120. KsDevil

    Hmm. Athiests in Texas. I thought they were outlawed.
    An enjoyable discussion in itself, but the subjects discussed lacked a lot of information that was new.
    Cyclic reasoning based on only 1 information source does tend to get old fast but the hosts managed to hold it together to allow the caller a fair opportunity to talk.
    Actually, I kind of wished the show was longer to keep the rationalizations going. It was entertaining in a Jerry Springer kind of way.

  121. Yavanna

    I`d suggest you just subscribe and watch the more recent stuff as it comes up - its often topical and more interesting because of that - albeit scientific or politic. Then unsubscribe if it isn't your bag. there are literally 1000s of hours of "old" content to discover in which case your friend is google youtube searches for "good" stuff. There are some real Dillahunty pearls to discover!

  122. Brandon Costa

    I can't refute anything you say. Im a left brained individual. I understand science. Facts about evolution are as blatently obvious to me as they are to any athiest. But whats also obvious to me is what we know (what has been proved, theorized, peer reviewed, and accepted by leading minds) probably represents less than 1% of reality. As you know we are limited by perception of senses.

    Now having said that, you are right, I cant just assign myth or mysticism to the remaining 99%. But what I do believe is that "faith" or belief is a big part in that remaining 99%. Can I tell you what exactly you are supposed to believe, no. But I can say, for me, that believing and trusting has presented in my life things that do appear miraculous. And as soon as I let go of this and try to go on my own, things are not as smooth as they were.

    In a nut shell here is what I believe. In history there have been individuals that were in alignment with God. But for the sake of Christian haters, lets just call God, the Universal Conscious. 2 of these people were Jesus Christ and The Buddha, and perhaps Mohammad. Im not too familiar with Hinduism, but Im sure there were those in alignement there. Now as far as the Bible, and taking it literally, I cant do that. But Jesus spoke in parables so his disciples could understand him, so much of the Old Testament might be metorphically correct. Anyway, Gods purpose here with Jesus? Its simple, just believe in the death and the life. From there you dont need anything else. Its genius. Nothing else matters. Let go of your struggles and worries and believe. It doesnt mean you sit on your ass and do nothing, but the torment of your guilt is cut loose.

    So these debates between Athiests and Christians are pointless. They make me cringe. Why Ray Comfort would be as careless as he was to do the banana non-sense and the crock a duck is beyond me. Evolution talk shouldnt even be on the table. Life isnt about wondering of this. Its about here and now!!!!

    You want to impress me, have a debate about living right now. Athiest and Christian, get together and have a debate about living a full happy life.

  123. get1949

    Aaah, OUCH!
    Not sure where to begin with your reply (Pulunco…) but I’ll try as long as you intend to discuss and not condemn. That is, no ad hominem attacks. Discuss the subject logically and rationally with adult content and NOT me personally (please look up “ad hominem” for a definition). If you fail in this, you’ll just be yelling in the wind for I will dismiss any further comments, block your responses, and end communications. I’m not here to play in (or on) a third-grade playground with children and bullies. I intend to respect your comments; you in-turn must do the same (you do not have to agree with me but there is to be only discussion of the subject and no put-downs or personal attacks). Time is all we are really given (here in life) and I will invest it only with adults who honestly desire to find truth, want to at least try to figure out the weirdness of our cosmic experience, and who will follow this ‘evidence’ (materially or spiritually) no matter where it leads and no matter how uncomfortable the destination may be. That said, I’ll choose to be hopeful that we can move forward:
    Pulunco; in my post where did I, “try to prove the existence of god by quoting the bible”? I believe in God. I said that in my very first words but I did not say that Matt or Russell must too nor that they do, or that they must just because Ray does. That, frankly, is everyone’s choice and responsibility (or irresponsibility) for the time we are given. I gave those quotes because those verses clearly promote USE of the brain (not blind faith in a metaphysical emotional bent). We are not just to believe because Ray quotes verses and him saying he knows God because he has been changed…that he had a time where God made Himself known to him (Ray quoted a date and time for his second birth). Frankly, I was kind to Ray for I thought he was bordering on a put-down (ad hominem attack) and a mannerism of belittlement—Christians are not to belittle; Christians are to implore non-Christians to USE their brains. I too have this experience (a born-again time) but I also know that my experience is not Matt’s or Russell’s (if they will at all ever have one…) nor too yourself. It is not my job (responsibility) nor is it any Christian’s job to change minds or hearts. You are to change your own mind by feeding it properly discerned material (wisdom and knowledge – guess what, it actually says this in the Bible - see Romans 12:2…or don’t it is YOUR choice) then if effective your heart will be changed by God’s Spirit (you will become spiritual concerned rather than currently spiritually dis-concerned). I will assume you are an atheist!? As one then, you should know that God does not exist and further you should know that I cannot know…and you should be able to rationally support your position with logic and in a calm assured manner!! However, those verses I used (in original message) clearly indicate that belief in God is not a process of intellectual suicide (why? Because the very Book with those verses you do not agree with insists that you test and investigate…to figure it all out…The “circular reference” you insisted I used is back in your own court. The Bible states “Think, Seek”…use your brain…figure it out!). That is, therefore, wherever you got your brain (your mind) you are not to get a frontal lobotomy in order to be a Christian (to know that God is behind the Design)…on the contrary wherever you got your brain you are not to forego its use (see quote by Galileo, and remember too, his not too unkind persecution by the inquisition: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge…”). Now I contend that we got our brains by design and purpose and the mind behind the brain is ones responsibility to properly feed…it wisdom…both intelligence and spirituality. You and Matt and Russell (and countless others) should be receptive to the use of this (your) “intelligence” but will not accept that you also have a spiritual component). I understand, I was like this too prior to 1985 (sort-ta).
    Your belief in your ‘existence’ experience (in time) is your choice to seek or ride out on the stage-of-life either by apathy and indifference to your design or to see that design and go where it points (amazing and awesome creation/design). WHY? Because the Bible itself states this (see the verses I quoted). Where does the information in science point? ANS. Information points beyond itself to an ultimate final Intelligence (be it human in science or By Creation with God … just look out your window at the night sky or to a…let’s say a Monarch butterfly and conclude if you can it is all chance and mistake). Any book you should pick up and read (or not read) has an author. That author is not the ink, the paper, or the binding that makes up the material of that book (if you deny this then you must then believe that books come from a magicians’ hat and so your worldview is steeped in magic and mystery…not science; not logic; not reason; not from your brain). That information apparent in the reading of the books ‘words’ are not the real item behind the information—the word “car” is not the real car but it will ‘paint’ a picture in the mind of the reader. The arrangement of the ink is science…there is a science in the manner in which ink will bind to paper and paper (be made) and fit into a binding… but the arrangement of the letters conveys a unique specificity that goes beyond the science of ink bonding to paper—it was deliberately and purposely arrange to convey information and points beyond itself to the author who ‘penned’ the letters “c.a.r.” as part of the overall plot…to the story. Any information then weaves through the ink and paper in a specific arrangement called grammar (the rules of information communication similar to the rules of cosmic workings: physics, math, quantum mechanics, relativity, even speed of light…a cosmic speed limit/rule). Whatever that author penned, that author is removed from and is not limited by that which he has written—the author is transcendent from his book (as God is transcendent from His creation). That author can for example write about the life of a character (let’s call him Bob) who in the plot lives for 6 days on a cruise ship and then dies…but the author in not restricted to those same 6 days. It may have taken the author 6 weeks, 6 months, or 13.7 billion years to write about the 6 day life of this person called Bob…. The author then is outside of Bob’s time existence (further the author is not limited by any amount of time he created for his character named Bob or for any other part of the story in the book). This analogy CAN (if you’ll open your mind) be entertained as what is occurring to us. Cosmologists’ state that in the beginning (the Big Bang – if you will) time, space, matter, and energy began. That (I believe) is partially correct. I’d like to entertain this (seeing as how any Author of our existence is also outside of His ‘Book’) that time, space, energy; information, relationship, and forces began. (Why? Well, for one ‘matter’ was not completely begun in the beginning…hydrogen was still synthetized out of the cosmic singularity expansion and light released about 380,000 years later with the CMBR…all other “matter” was cooked in stars by a stellar nuclear synthesis process using the Proton-Proton chain and the CNO Cycle…we are literally stardust or – if you want-- entropically designed nuclear waste).
    Some say we are in a giant hologram/holograph; if so it is still designed and so some ‘Thing’ or One is very much smarter than we are and yet we have this weird ability to conger up this idea (as if in ‘communication’ with) and understand its fit with our experience. With spirituality (Christian specifically – why? For a later discussion) Occam’s Razor works better to solve our searching. It is simpler; even so though we are NOT to just sit back in to a “God-of-the-Gaps” mentality but rather to seek this ultimate Intelligence and to know our Home. One then sees that our existence smacks of conspiracy rather than coincidence. We are to use our brains and go where the evidence leads even if the result is uncomfortable. If not done, then one must accept that nothing is a place and a condition of our non-life (death)…but does the donut hole really disappear when the donut is eaten? Frankly, there is no such thing as no-thing…for we are eternal energy bottled up in this Earthsuit (body) purposed to travel IN time and later to go Home transcendent of time to a condition of eternity—spiritual existence not impeded by time. The sciences are now beginning to point that way regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you! Materialism/Naturalism does not conclude our seeking…it really just creates more questions (and yet at the atomic level that which is material is known to be mostly space filled with information in the atomic shells and photons and too forces in the operation of the information. Frankly, if all ‘things’ are mostly space/nonmaterial, where then does the definition of materialism go?). Frankly, why would anyone WANT this life with all its inability to allow fairness, perfection, or changelessness to be…all there is or was or ever will be (hinting to Carl Sagan) and if it is all there is then why can I (and others) conjure up thoughts of fairness, perfection, and changelessness—when these desires have never existed for me to even know?? I leave you with a quote (you find out who it is from): “If there exists in me a desire that nothing IN this world can satisfy then I was most likely made for/from other world”.

  124. get1949

    “i dont understand why reality had to have a beginning? isn't it possible for something to have always existed?”
    Google up “Big Bang” and “Steady State” Comology. Fred Hoyle tried to support a non-beginning universe but as of 2005 the science of entropy, redshift, general and special relativity and the construction by stars of the elements of the periodic table, and two satellites (COBE and WMAP which mapped out the CBR heat signature) have firmly and conclusively ended the debate. The universe began (about 13.7 billion years ago)…it is NOT eternal…it has not always been…it is NOT steady-state.


  125. get1949

    Why tell me this? Am I suppose to beg, or something? It's your life, your time your responsibility. I did not PUT you here in life!

  126. get1949

    I was shaking my head all through it. He tries to lead but it's ones curiosity that needs to be's the mind that needs to ask. If the mind won't do that then it is just too callused , clogged up, to function well. The ways of the materail naturalistic world can numb ones mind and cause it to just give-in and give-up. That's really a problem and a real shame

  127. pulunco

    You may want to look up argumentum ad nauseam. I stand by my earlier comment.

  128. get1949

    I have no doubt. And to you. Good luck

  129. pulunco

    Thanks, right back at ya.

  130. Achems_Razor

    @get 1949:

    God damn! to much to read, you could of said all that in three or four paragraphs! If you got to the point.

  131. Rusu

    Absolute science does not exist! There is no certainty about anything.. There is no supreme truth as testimony for what is real. Following this logic, God is not the ultimate truth. Nothing is, but if we admit even for a moment that we found a single humble proof about anything what so ever, the possibility that God is real is a matter of science premise. Science objectifies things, belief is submitting everything to ones self. GoD stands for as many things as we can imagine, but to be politically correct lets just say that God is just a "Grand Open Discussion" between the 2 cerebral hemispheres (opposites attract). :)

  132. Bryan MacAskill

    epic . ^ life is fiery.

  133. Bryan MacAskill

    all the institutions today destroy....or divide, as i like to call it.
    evolution and creationism agree.If you understand time and time scales. How we keep time today and how ancient cultures kept and measured time maybe it could be put into context that is more widely understood in the general public.

  134. jbriggs_87

    yeah, but i didnt say the universe, i said reality. theres people who think the universe exists in a multiverse, and the universe isn't necessarily the first or only one. reality itself might have no beginning, the human mind just cant imagine something with no beginning

  135. francisco sa

    the comfort of not changing...and changing scares a lot of people...

  136. robertallen1

    What makes you think you know anything about the so-called metaphysics of existence (i.e., what life's about, whatever that means) or for that matter about "god's purpose with Jesus" or who was "in alignment with god?"

    Also, who are you to dictate what should be on the table or what aspects of life we should wonder about? On such matters, you are as ignorant as the rest of us, if not more so.

    And please, spare us your half-baked biblical interpretations and simple-minded views of history. No one cares what you think, only what you can prove.

    Your post only goes to show how pathetic and ignorant faith is. It's more honest to plead ignorance and be done with it.

  137. Brandon Costa

    I believe in what science has measured, and I have faith in what cant be measured.

    I am more open minded about things than you believe. If you want to cast your anger at me, go ahead, but Im not the cause of your torment.

  138. robertallen1

    Not tormented, disgusted.

    " . . . but believing and trusting has presented in my life things that do appear miraculous." Is this piece of gibbiersh somehow tied in with your "faith in what can't be measured?" Is this the sum total of your intelligence?

  139. Adam

    Do creationists ever even come close to winning these debates?
    Seriously, as a former creationist, I'd like to know that someone has an arguement that can't be totally ripped apart by simple logic.

  140. Samuel Morrissey

    I disagree. Medicine and education do not destroy. Law is essential as unlike our supposedly all knowing all loving creator we do actually need to keep people in check, law is moderately effective at this, while fear of an unknowable purgatory is not. Have you never needed the services of the police, or a hospital? I take it you learned to read and write at school?

    Evolutionary theory does not agree with the creationist hypotheses. It is a theory that has increasingly large amounts of evidence to support it, that suggests ultimately that all current life on earth developed from one individual primitive and simple bacteria like organism. Genetic testing has strongly supported the truth of this. All current life contains exact copies of sections of DNA within the nucleus of its cells. Evolution theory has not got to the bottom of this question yet but it is digging deeper daily. The origin of life itself? this may yet prove to be a scientifically verifiable theory.

    Creationism of every kind is on the other hand, a hypothesis. One that has had no tests to examine the truth of it, and therefore no evidence whatsoever to support it, thus it is unable to attain theoretical status. It is an idea and that is all. If you want it to be more than that then you need to think of a way of testing it, and record the results. Then, whatever the results show you is the closest thing to reality, wether you agree with it or not. (if the test shows that it is false you must conclude that it is false) When you have done all that you must publish the results and the method of your experiment so that others can repeat it and gather more results. When enough research is done and the evidence is in it can become a theory. Scientists do not make the assertion that the universe was created by a divine entity (or in fact that it wasn't), so it is unfair to suggest that it is up to them to prove you wrong. It is your assertion therefore it is up to you to prove yourself wrong.

    Ideas are important however, without them there would be no theories, no science. No mobile phones or intrawebs etc. Ideas ought to be discussed and investigated but should not be elevated to intellectual positions that the evidence does not allow for.

    @get1949 - holy text explosion batman!

    Argumentum verbosum - I can't accept what you say as I suspect you are using a bombardment of words to confuse the issue, and make it difficult for people to reply. Make it more concise, use paragraphs and punctuation. Present your argument, so it can be discussed.

  141. Brandon Costa

    Well, in terms of listening to conservative Christians talk Im disgusted too. I dont see things or interpret things the way they do. I try listening to Christian radio but most programs are politically motivated or dealing with issues that are irrelavent to whats really important, which is emulating the nature of Jesus. I can stand listening about abortion, homosexuality, etc. I dont think that should be the focus of life. Nore do I care to listen about evolution/creation debates. We can go on forever debating this (for fun) what good does it do each of us.

    As far as things happening miracously, I do believe in this. This is where I think faith and believing come into play. Of course i cant prove it to you, its just something (I) believe. Im not trying to give you absolute facts about anything, just what I believe.

  142. Bryan MacAskill

    They feed jello to sick people at hospitals. and mj was reportedly healthy according to the Medical association...corporations are people too... and schools give mandatory birdswine shots and hpv to boys, perhaps youd like university insurance for your child so they can get one of those nice 14 dollars, an hour jobs. Look around :) ! and you dont even know what law means i assure you... you MUST look it up sometime :)

    warm regards ty for reply

  143. robertallen1

    Why is it so important to emulate "the nature of Jesus," especially when you and no one else knows anything about it--and speaking of your distaste for political motivation, don't cite the Bible as anything approaching proof or reliability.

    Equating the unexplained with the miraculous (i.e., supernatural) connotes a despiccable abrogation of intelligence and thought tantamount to accepting something without proof. In this respect, faith is merely a substitute for self-imposed ignorance and superstition. Again, it is far more honest to admit you don't know when you don't and can't.

  144. robertallen1

    What are you writing about? In no way does this respond to Mr. Morrisey's reply to you.

    How about first organizing your thoughts and then couching them in smooth standard English?

  145. Samuel Morrissey

    Well, you are welcome sir. If you or anyone else feels like actually countering any of my arguments, I would welcome the debate. Your comment says so very little - so they feed jello to patients at hospitals. This implies what exactly? (other than lack of sufficient funding> fault with government not medicine) schools give vaccinations to children err... yes and you think this is bad? why? (mandate> fault with government not education) I certainly want education for my children, for their own growth and development, not because of their possible future enslavement prospects. I don't know what law means? Ok, you seem to be sure in this and you may be correct, but what is your basis for that statement? have you truly never required or used the services of law/education/medicine? maybe once you've answered that I could direct you back to the logical fallacies in your previous comments, and ask you kindly for an explanation?

    I have explained exactly my position, in depth, and as you have failed (or refuse to I'm not sure), to afford me the same courtesy, the questions keep stacking up. I tire of it sir, frankly it is becoming a bore. I do not require your answers, but if you do want to reply then I respectfully request we take a few steps back and deal only with the original line of discussion, and avoid branching into ever more areas.

    I sincerely mean no offense and I have enjoyed this dialogue, so thank you for an entertaining discussion but I do believe it has run its course.

    Peace be upon you.


  146. Achems_Razor

    From all her numerous posts, forget how long one or two years.

  147. get1949

    Obvious waste of time…won’t do that again…but it’s OK to try and find out if there are a few special spirits out there. Banter and bicker yourselves to oblivion. Good by and good luck. you'll need it

  148. Epicurus

    why do you believe it was a miracle and there was no other explanation?

    perhaps you should share your story with us? and remember for something to be a miracle it must go against nature. it must be impossible by any natural means.

  149. get1949

    multi-universe? We hardly know the universe we’re in, inventing more of them has no scientific ‘proof’ it is a “science-of-the-gaps” mentality. Scientists also just want to attempt to give chance more chance so they move the goal posts further away by inventing more universes. If they can invent more universes where all things are allowed then why not a ‘place’ (a universe) called Heaven and another called Hell? There was a time when we could hardly believe going to the moon…but we used our mind to accomplish that…we could hardly figure out the atomic structure but we are figuring that out too. We are not limited in our imagination but we are hindered by our ability to discern truth (reality). I’ve turned my reply to message notification off. This will be my last post. Sorry, enjoyed the talk with you, but there are too many foolish people here with low-self-esteem and like to act like children. I do not waste my wisdom on a board with fools. May you find wisdom in your travels.

  150. Mantid

    What relevance does your reply hold to my comment?

  151. Mantid

    I digested your crumbs?

  152. Astraa Starr

    i really enjoy how they are pretty friendly and kind to eat other. the guest, even though believing differently sounds even convinced on some of the topics... they actually agree on quite alot. i think that this conversation is great and they sound like they'd make good friends. i like these kind of conversations... not negative and hateful. it was indeed fun.

  153. Achems_Razor

    Ah, another one bites the dust, resorting to ad hominem attacks, well at least creationists and ID will never win if all they have left are attacks, never fails to amuse. Where are you going? crying to mommy maybe?

  154. robertallen1

    No, I think he's pulling a Richard Nixon.

  155. jbriggs_87

    loosen up old man

  156. norlavine

    Don't know if there is life after death, perhaps photographic imprints on slices of time, perhaps an eternal sleep, perhaps nothing.
    Personally, life after death sounds like too hard work. My non existence before or after life seems a logical scenario xx
    PS: Still doesn't mean there is not an intelligent power beyond reality as we know it.....

  157. Scott Williams

    Ray Comfort should be in a straightjacket and religious fundamentalism should be officially viewed as a mental illness.

  158. Brandon Costa

    Well perhaps miraculous is too strong a word to use. But more of what Im talking about is a flow in life. A way in which God (or the universe) unfolds reality in front of us based on what we think and believe. I know people that constantly have problems, and its largely based on their pessimism. I see events that seem to happen over and over to them as if its an incredible string of bad luck. They get robbed, frequent accidents, nasty confrontations by strangers..they always seem to get hit head on with this. Just coincidence?

    I used to think so. Much of what I think happens to us is already starting to be recognized as shown in movies like The Secret or What The Bleep Do we Know.

    This doesnt mean I dont believe in heavier miracles like a disease being cured or even the ability to walk on water but this takes a HUGE amount of faith and belief.

    I just dont get why intellectuals are too afraid to delve deeper into this. Why is everything so 3 dimensional with them? Arent we being too "Newtonian" when we think this way?

  159. Brandon Costa

    Interesting..most discussed documentaries

    Why I Am No Longer a Christian...1600+ comments
    Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?...1500+
    Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator? ..1400+
    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed...1100
    Zeitgeist Refuted..900

    next 4 also christian/creation based

  160. Epicurus

    negativity people are more likely in negative situations more often than not thus leading to more chance for negative things to happen to them.

    but in no way would i look at the world and say there is any cosmic justice. jerks get away with being jerks and nice being get screwed over all the time. so it isnt consistent enough to imply some intelligence or force behind it.

    oh and i think the secret and what the bleep are two of the worst documentaries i have seen. the secret is a great way for the maker of the movie/book/fad to make lots of money basically doing nothing. and what the bleep is a scientology funded piece of garbage full of mostly false information.

    now i dont think intellectuals are too afraid to delve into anything. intellectuals test and explore everything. i think its the faithful that are the ones who are afraid to put their beliefs to the same scrutiny they apply in every other aspect of their life.

  161. DonDon1

    ahh another classy, thoughtfull and sensitive post. Well done AR.

  162. robertallen1

    How do you know that people's problems are largely based on their pessimism? Have you perhaps read up on this or conducted some research?

    And please don't insult the intelligence by trying to justify credence given to miraculous cures or walking on water via HUGE amounts of faith and belief.

    "I just dont [sic] get why intellectuals are too afraid todelve deeper into this." Into what, a morass of nothing? Once again, you have demonstrated the intellectual vacuity and sheer idiocy of faith--and yes, it's the "Newtonian" intellect that counts.

  163. His Forever

    I'm convinced, you're a woman, Az. But, Caster Samenay had all those "orafices" too and "she" was a "he" and found out in the most unethical and inhumane way possible ---- she was gender tested without her knowledge or conscent. Life get complicated sometimes that way.

  164. Guest

    In a way you are right, when i meditate i am neither male or female.

  165. Jack1952

    The scientific method did exist. It was how he arrived at the conclusions he did. He didn't realize that was what he was doing as that process of thought had not been described or quantified as of yet.

    Philosophy and religion was an attempt by early man to understand the world around him. It was easy for early man to imagine forces behind the machinations of the world that implied the work of an intelligent mind with a purpose in mind. However, as humans came to understand the world better those early explanations didn't make the kind of sense that it once did. The dogmatic religious fundamentalists refused to give up those ideas and still want the world to have a purpose...a purpose that will give some kind of meaning to their life. Having the life they have is just not enough for them. There must be a great deal of comfort in the belief that an all powerful creator still has the time for the individual.

  166. Jack1952

    When they don't attack us they smugly tell us how God will burn us forever in hellfire. Very loving and caring. Love the neighbor, indeed!

  167. Samuel Morrissey

    Miss : "I'm Christian and I don't like what you just said."

    - Then forgive us -

  168. His Forever

    I feel strongly appoint the topic, and appearently others do too. Without God, life is utterly meaningless and the future of our planet truly bleak. With God -- the hope of a good life now and eteral life to come--without God, the hope of . . . the hope of . . . . the hope of . . . eteranl personal extinction (and eventually our species) in the form of dirt? Hum. That sounds like something to look forward to for sure!

    It seems the God lovers and the God haters have an equal passion for expressing their opinions. Since mine is the right one, I feel the incredible urge sometimes just to express it. Yes, yes. You're so very welcome! ;-) No problem at all.

  169. His Forever

    That was a very Az-ian response, Azilda. (Rolling my eyes) I myself would have just said, "I've had kids! Dah! Working parts inside and out --- just call me all WOMAN"!

  170. robertallen1

    I can see you're back pretending to a universal knowledge which you and the rest of the world don't have, the difference being that honest people admit it.

  171. robertallen1

    Thank you.

  172. Achems_Razor

    Howdy Charles, yes most of us know how you feel about your gods since you are our in-house religee, to me life would be utterly meaningless if a person has to spend a good portion of the waking day worshipping some jealous invisible deity that is only in the mind or suffer the eternal hell and damnation.

    Again I say, present company excluded of course, that the "RAPTURE" is long overdue, to rid the planet of the religee's so the human race can go on with the progress of science.

  173. Hoffer Prefect

    Who created the creator? Wouldn't it be more extraordinary for a God to be sitting around waiting to create the universe than the idea a quantum event could have triggered its creation?

  174. Teddy Mcd

    No, um no I don't think so. I'll pass on that but thanks for the thought.

  175. Dan_sir

    oh my science! The intro song. Would have never believed there was anything worse than Christian rock until I herd Atheist rock.

  176. Brandon Costa

    Well I disagree with you on cosmic justice, but its cool, as long as we all get

  177. Brandon Costa

    lighten up bro. Athiests and college professors are extemely depressed individuals, ever notice this?

    OH NO I touched a nerve, everyone rattle me with your insults of anger! Yes call me ignorant please!!!
    j/k, that was just a tick of mine

  178. Brandon Costa

    Yes I love arogance on the side of God believers. Just like me! Rock on

  179. robertallen1

    And have you ever noticed how creationists and theists are extremely dense.

    P.S. I am not your bro.

  180. Brandon Costa

    youre not my bro? But from an evolutionary stand point you are, arent you?

  181. Scott Williams

    I have an invisible pet dragon who is the one and only true creator of the Multiverse. Right now it sounds crazy, but if I had 2000 years to shove it down people's throat, and kill, torture, stone and burn those who don't believe it, I guarantee it wouldn't be so crazy anymore.

  182. robertallen1

    From an evolutionary standpoint, yes. But that's as far as it goes. I resent both the familiarity and the association.

  183. Pete

    This Comfort guy sounds insane, why is he let loose on the public.

  184. Chris Sargeant

    So people who suffer are 'bad people'? Say no, please.

  185. Jo McKay

    I have caught this show on line a few times; some interesting discussion, and it should be noted that the shows hosts work very hard to be 'polite'. As a fav philosopher of mine Alain de Botton said in his recent Ted Talk (titled Atheism 2.0) we would all benefit by being more polite w each other... Mr Comfort (did he 'buy' that name :) ?) tried to 'seem' open minded, yet refuses to entertain any way of thinking that might challenge his (in his words transforming spiritual experience - TSA). I couldn't help but wonder how would a discussion go if we were more curious about peoples TSA. For ex. what Gods do you believe in? Folks who call themselves Christian have several different Gods and Goddesses, like God the Father and God the Son, God the Holy Ghost/Spirit - separate entities to some, all the same God to others (or one or more not believed in); the Mother of 'God' has basically her own religious following, and some even worship lesser Gods they call saints and angels (angel hierarchies are another whole pantheon) - this so called mono-theistic religion has so many gods (small g) they could almost compete with Hinduism. I find being curious (and mostly polite) opens up the conversation and the fun. As in this interview the Guest did come around to admitting that his 'god' has shown him a 'way' much different then many people in his community who call themselves Christian, and Eureka, there is the problem with all sects and doctrines - their all loving gods who teach them how to love one another, are themselves hopelessly divided. Why then, I ask would 'we, the people' go to 'them' for moral or any other guidance?

  186. His Forever

    Worship has never been a burden for me. I'm a natural "worshiper" and always have been--I write songs fairly often (if I dont write them down right away, I forget them). My 5 year old was singing a lovely song last week and I thought, "Wow! Where did you hear that?" He said, "you, dad!" He was right, it was one I wrote on New Year's Eve (but forgot)--glad I have it on video. I've probably lost dozens for lack of pen at the moment!

  187. His Forever

    Yeah, gotta be consistent!

  188. markbloemberg

    Is this the banana man?

  189. Epicurus


  190. Epicurus

    do you really see justice being doled out by the cosmos? if so can you provide an example?

    I know some very bad people living some very good lives. many murderers and drug dealers and rapists have lived happy lives. im sure many priests lived and died without ever being found out as pedophiles...i dont see justice in the universe. i see an indifferent environment.

    the getting along thing would be nice. imagine if the world just took a break from being jerks to one another for just a year. a whole year of no wars no violence or fighting. just getting can wish.

    "you may say im a dreamer, but im not the only one" - John Lennon.

  191. Epicurus

    it is

  192. Epicurus

    "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

    "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

    "Where's the dragon?" you ask.

    "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

    "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

    Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

    "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

    You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

    "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

    Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

    Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

    Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

    Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

    Carl Sagan

  193. Brandon Costa

    I dont believe in bad people, nor do I believe in evil. I believe in living with God or away from God. Or for the sensitive people, living in alignment with the universe or not in alignment.

    Yes, anyone not living with God suffer, maybe not outwardly but inwardly.

  194. Brandon Costa

    You actually knew these people? really? Thats saying alot u know. You know for a fact they were not tormented inwardly?

  195. robertallen1

    Do you even know what you mean?

  196. Brandon Costa

    Yes I do. And Im at the greatest peace now than I ever have been. I dont worry about or dwell on debates or interviews like this one with banana man because it doesnt matter. I guess the reason I make the comments here is that I wish people would just let go a little about what makes them so angry or disgusted as you put it.

    People have good reason to be mad about religion and in particular Christianity because of some of the bad things it has done on the globe. But I dont think this is a correct representation of what Jesus Christ wants in this world. Gandhi once said if Chrisitians acted anything like Jesus Christ everyone would be a Christian. But the church has been hijacked over and over by those with agendas or desires for power and greed.

  197. Epicurus

    the people i knew were not "tormented internally" anymore than any one of us are.

    they were normal people doing bad things and living well because of it.

  198. Brandon Costa

    "I know some very bad people living some very good lives. many murderers and drug dealers and rapists have lived happy lives."

    u personally know murderers, drug dealers and rapists? and have access to their souls? wow

  199. raylennox80

    Try reading Epicurus' post again. Your questions say a lot about your reading and comprehension.

  200. Epicurus

    i specifically didnt list what the people did that was bad but for one example, yes i know drug dealers who are happy.

    also i dont think there is a soul so that question is meaningless.

    also YOU are the one implying that they must all be unhappy, do YOU know their "souls"?

  201. raylennox80

    This was an excellent interview. Interviewing someone like Ray Comfort, who figuratively closes his eyes, blocks his ears and then screeches like a parrot, must be a massive test of patience.

  202. Brandon Costa

    He says murders, rapists and drug dealers are internally peacefull happy

  203. Brandon Costa

    soul is just a label. how bout consciousness?

  204. Jack_Burton

    Religion is for primitives.... What the difference with people worshipping the Sun or the Moon vs any modern God? NONE. Its all so silly. For the weak willed...And cowardly...

  205. Epicurus

    well how can we know they are not happy?

    how can we say that Howard Marks or Pablo Escobar were not happy?

    Genghis Khan? even Pol Pot? you cant know.

  206. Teddy Mcd

    @Epicurus - As to, 'Why?'
    @Hoffer Perfect

    The thread was - Hoffer Perfect asked, 'Who created the creator? Wouldn't it be more extraordinary for a God to be sitting around waiting to create the universe than the idea a quantum event could have triggered its creation?'

    I replied - 'No, um no I don't think so. I'll pass on that but thanks for the thought.'

    And Epicurus asked, 'Why?'

    Well, to my way of thinking the question as it sits is somewhat ambiguous but I'll try this as a response. Foremost - is that when I posit the concept of God I have zero choice but to assume a God who by virtue of being God is not only omniscient but also omnipotent.

    With that being said my reply to Hoffer's question would be. 'Sure it would (be extraordinary)- but it would have had to been a God of extraordinary cruelty and extraordinary disregard for his creation - especially all sentient creatures. So I'll stick with my little buddy the big bang.

    Nobody's fault here. I avoided answering because 'extraordinary' in the context posed was too abstract for me. And as I laugh a little at myself I sense I didn't do much to move the thought along - but it was fun trying. (cheers)

  207. Teddy Mcd


    Yuppers - it is the banana man and the crocoduck dude.

  208. Achems_Razor

    They should of also had "Chuck Missler" the peanut butter man! to round it off.

  209. 1davideo_kidd1

    My partner and I really enjoyed this film, although I always feel a little embarrassed when people of faith are shown to have such weak arguments. I may be an atheist, but I care about everyone - especially those deluded by religious nonsense. Let's hope Mr Comfort can develop his worldview to take reality into account more in future.

    The telling point for us was around reproduction. Christians hate the idea of women having control over their own bodies, and Mr Comfort clearly had some personal issues with adultery.

  210. Keith Wilson

    Worst. Apologist. Ever.

  211. norlavine

    Albert Einstein believed in a creator (or God) and I would dare anyone to state that he was an ignorant fool. There is no science that currently proves the existence - or - non existence of a spiritual reality - and I don't mean ghosts. Target the American hokey 'Christian' zealots who are obviously mentally and spiritually bereft.
    Incidentally,for the record,ask any woman who has had a pregnancy terminated (for any reason) - atheist or not - how the experience has left them and the answer may surprise you.
    America has become a killer without conscience, you don't look after your sick and you are overflowing with gluttony and stupidity. These talk shows are garbage, they don't change or solve anything.Your evangelists only talk about prosperity and getting 'more'. Your talk show hosts merely expose the collective consciousness of your community.
    It looks like a civil war is being brewed between 'believers' and 'non believers',
    and you are all getting caught up in the excitement.
    If mind is the builder, Lego-land is already falling to pieces xx

  212. Teddy Mcd

    @ Norvaline - What are you drunk ?- Searching?

    Here is my hand.

    Zero evidence of Einstein believing in God except for Spinoza's god that is to say nature. Like Darwin.

    Hurts - yes for sure - but that is the way it is - toughen up.

    And do not only decry against America (here I assume you mean USA) - I am Canadian... and we as does the UK and Aus and much of western Europe, South America, Africa and most of the east want -quite simply put - peace. So - true as it is that the USA is the bully (they have the wealth and weapons) - what my dear do you see as an option to your selfish peace.

    There is without doubt a storm of - what? ideologies that looms large. I believe much to my sadness that it is going to play out historically.

    Anyway I believe we are on the same side. Nite -nite TMcD

  213. Samuel Morrissey

    Quotes from Einstein himself on the existence of God(s):

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

    So you should take back your coments, Norlavine, because you are wrong according to the man himself. Also, this show is a great example of patience and compassion when dealing with children who repeatedly try to assert lies and bad reasoning that they have been indoctrinated with. They are doing very important work in a very backward (religiously speaking of course) place.

    Regards, Sam.

  214. Vlatko


    "Albert Einstein believed in a creator (or God)..." - No he didn't. Read what @Samuel Morrissey wrote. However I think he was not an atheist either. Here is what he said on one occasion: "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

    "There is no science that currently proves the existence - or - non existence of a spiritual reality..." - That is true, but only because science is not dealing with the supernatural at all. You can't prove/disprove supernatural with the scientific method. You're saying it as if science is futile in that direction.

  215. robertallen1

    Once again, you've been debunked, this time by a new poster, Teddy McD. It's one thing to be ignorant, but another to try to pass your ignorance off as knowledge. The idea is to learn first and write later, not the other way around.

  216. robertallen1

    You're right. The pervasiveness of this out-and-out lie, promulgated by religionists and ignoramuses such as Norlavine, is both disgusting and disquieting.

    By the way, would you mind providing the source of the quote?

  217. robertallen1

    I see that you've been debunked by yet two more posters.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  218. Achems_Razor


    Yes, not trying to give you the gears, but it is true what the posters say, you have to learn first and back up what you say with sources etc:

    After all, do not forget you are dealing with us "big boys" lol

  219. Brandon Costa

    This is a good summary. Sums up a lot for some of what I think. Einstein didnt believe in a personal God, but does use the term loosely to admit there are big and many mysteries in the complexity of existence.

  220. norlavine

    @Samuel Morrissey
    It goes like this...Einstein said to neils Bohr regarding the (at the time) very new scientific revelations regarding behaviour of particles at the quantum level ' God doesn't play with dice..etc etc'...Niels Bohr replied 'Don't tell god what to do Albert'...etc etc.
    At least Neils Bohr responded to the subject in hand.
    Why are you even mentioning the bible, when I didn't, in response to my post? Why are you assuming I am a bible basher?

    Most religions, like the good old USA start out with an idealistic dream ,but soon enough begin killing in the name of....
    Before you start revving your engines next time, make sure you are driving a car xxx

  221. robertallen1

    Sounds like banter--and once again, you fail to list your source. In short, you're trying to prove something you can't and therefore resorting to dishonesty.

    Also, you need to hone your reading skills. Einstein's comment on the bible was part of the quote--and your statement that Mr. Morrissey assumes you to be a bible basher is as baseless and false as most of your assertions.

    Once again, as others have also admonished, you need to get your facts straight before revving your engine.

  222. norlavine

    @Teddy Mcd
    It goes like this...Einstein said to neils Bohr regarding the (at the time) very new scientific revelations regarding behaviour of particles at the quantum level ' God doesn't play with dice..etc etc'...Niels Bohr replied 'Don't tell god what to do Albert'...etc etc.
    At least Neils Bohr responded to the subject in hand.
    (NB:That section I copied and pasted from my response to Teddy Mcd).
    I agree that we are currently living in peace, albeit a 'selfish' peace.
    War and invasion are horror stories, same old, same old world fight club where innocent lives become collateral damage.Players( mostly always) shake hands - eventually - and move on to become bedfellows.
    Mix USA aggression with religious zealots and you have a time bomb so I am enjoying my 'selfish peace' while it lasts.
    The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, therefore it is up to women to educate their children.Start in your own backyard and don't psychologically batter and confuse men ( in particular). Make the peace and well being of others as important as your own. No options here xx

  223. Samuel Morrissey


    Sorry, to clarify : those were Einsteins words about the bible - in the year before his death. To illustrate the falsehood of your claim that Einstein believed in a creator (or god) We can all cherry pick comments he made and present them out of context to support such falsehoods as these but I am confident if you research him fully, you will understand that from a believers point of view, he was an atheist and is quoted as saying so in a letter to Guy.H.Raner.Jr July 1945. Of course he also said he was not an atheist, but the point you should take is ; he was not concerned with anything beyond that which exists and can be observed.
    I make no assertions about your faith or lack of it, but I take issue with your slur towards the documentary, and your misinterpretation of a certain scientist who can no longer defend himself, and was frequently irritated by people using his name in support of unfounded religious ideas such as belief in a creator (or god)

    No offense intended, of course.
    Regards, Sam.

    @ RobertAllen1 : I provided references to the previous quotes but as I posted along with links it is awating moderator approval. I will avoid posting links in future, sorry to the Mods for unnecessary work on my part.

  224. robertallen1

    Just place spaces in between and they won't come out as links.

    Fabrications such as the one posited by Norlaveen are part and parcel of creationists and such other intellectual vermin--and the problem is that those who expostulate them know full well that those for whom they are intended have neither the time nor the inclination to research them--in other words, it's belief "on sight" just like faith. This is just plainly dishonest and if you gave offense, it was certainly well deserved.

  225. Teddy Mcd


    A brief note. I am not looking for converts. I'll leave that foolishness to the deluded. But my sense is that you are existentially undecided; god - no god. I as many have walked that mile. It's your life but I say the air is clearer here in secular land so why don't ya jump - you will be welcomed with open minds.

  226. norlavine

    Albert Einstein, I believe, was a non 'religious' man with an amazingly lateral thinking mind. I also believe he had an advanced understanding of reality that forever stayed 'on the tip of his tongue'. He never advocated a biblical deity - however, I believe he sensed an indescribable source of 'untouchable' knowledge/power that occasionally brushed past him, as if to tease. Science rules, and there are some folk who have experienced genuine events that there are no current scientific rules to mete it by. As far as my "There is no science that currently proves the existence - or - non existence of a spiritual reality"...= Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Thanks again for these documentaries - many of my friends and colleagues here in Australia are now watching and enjoying as well xx

  227. Brandon Costa

    Einstein worked within the box. He was brilliant and helped expand the box, but he still worked within the box. I think he tried to stay neutral in terms of God or spirituality, but he wasnt foolish enough to say there is no God. Remember, he's a man, has limited perception and was working 'within' the box.

    Please dont claim to know whats beyond the box, especially if you arent looking.

  228. Vlatko


    Not a problem. I'm glad your friends enjoy the docs.


    "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence."

    This is commonly misused. Here is what you like to say: There is no evidence that Snowwhite existed/exists but that itself is not the evidence that Snowwhite doesn't exist/existed either.

    Or, I don't have a prof that my spaghetti monster exists, but that doesn't mean I don't have it in my basement.

    Now apply that to every myth and every supernatural being and you'll come up with a lot of weird stuff.

    My point was: you can't apply the scientific method for proving or disproving supernatural beings and myths. Science will never strictly say that my Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist because there is no way to test that.

  229. robertallen1

    Now you change your tune from statement to conjecture. If you would have couched this as a conjecture (however erroneous) in the first place, you would have come out better (although not much because your position is untenable), but at least you would had honesty in your favor.

    That some folk think they've experienced something outside science does not make it so. If their assertions are not accompanied by proof, they are as worthless as yours.

    The cliché anent absence of evidence is as false as old wives' tales about lightning and frogs; yet, you continually cite it as the sole justification for your unfounded beliefs when it's no more than a tiresome cop out.

    P.S. How quaint of you to use "mete" in its archaic sense.

  230. Achems_Razor

    @Samuel Morrissey:

    Your links were done two hours ago, within the hour, sometimes none of us can moderate instantly. Read the "comment policy" above.

  231. robertallen1

    Please heed your own words, keeping in mind that if it's "beyond the box," you can't look for it.

  232. Samuel Morrissey

    Yes, to be clear I was not implying that you should moderate faster, merely apologizing for carelessly adding to your workload.


  233. Brandon Costa

    But I think it is possible to look outside the box, I just dont think Einstein or most Western scientists choose to do so. They use mathmatical equations and concepts to take them to the next level. Which is fine, but i do think there are loopholes into what can be immediately realized.

    Some people might say a drug like LSD is such a way but a very very risky way. A cheating shortcut which has its consequences. Meditation is another way. Now if I was a guru enlightened, i could not tell you whats real using math, I could only give you pointers on how you might realize it and only hope you believe me and are willing to try yourself. Is that guru delusional?


    I hear this spaghetti monster analogy a lot.... If there is one, it hasnt caught on yet. But billions of people do believe in God. Evolutionary blunder or somthing worth looking into too on a personal level?

  234. WTC7

    In my understanding, Einstein's statement that "God doesn't play dice with the Universe" doesn't make him religious. But it does indicate that he didn't believe that the Universe came to existence by chance, randomly. I think he saw some order, intrinsic to the working of the Universe, there.

    I doubt that a scientific genius like him subscribed to a religious interpretation of god. From what I understand, he was trying to figure out the unpredictability of the quantum mechanics & harness it into the workings of the macro cosmos that we see. But nobody has succeeded to bring these two together with scientific certainty to this day, although theories are there. In my view, the more we know about quantum mechanics the less we can be certain of the world we see with our eyes and our convictions about the "known" become relative. But in all that apparent chaos of the quantum world, which rules the basics of the existence of the Universe and ourselves, there however appears to exist some yet unexplained order.

    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I guess he simply meant we just have to remain open to what we don't understand, open ourselves to what is still obscure to us, unknown.

  235. robertallen1

    How would you know you were even thinking beyond the box?

  236. Achems_Razor

    @Brandon Costa:

    @robertallen had a good question, what box are you referring to that people should think out of. And how would you know that you where thinking out of any particular box, there are as many boxes as there are as many unlimited multiverses/universes, realities. You may be every Planck second by your nows' flipping the universe that you think you know so well, (according to top scientists, Hawking, Greene, Julian Barbour, the late Feynman, Wheeler) and many more, that is what you are doing (collapsing the waveform) giving you the illusion of flowing time, heavy stuff I know, but nothing heavier as an invisible deity, FSM, and such, that made everything just for us almost invisible carbon units.

  237. Brandon Costa

    Anytime someone theorizes something, thats thinking beyond the box. Life after death, reincarnation, pergatory, or nothingness, thats thinking beyond the box. Hell, even the movie The Matrix is thinking outside the box.

    I think quantum physics is definitely on the edge of the box.

  238. Samuel Morrissey

    It is a misconception that Einsteins 'God doesn't play dice with the universe' has anything at all to do with god in a religious sense or supernatural forces or indeed the beginning of the universe. They were discussing the problem in quantum mechanics relating to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle which (I am no scientist btw so feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong) basically limits the amount of available information on any or all subatomic particles. Simply put, you can know (observe) a certain subset of information about say, a photon, like it's momentum and direction, but as soon as you do so you consign the other subset (its actual position and polarisation) into the realm of probability I.e it can not have any fixed value. Bohrs had realised that this applied to all baryonic matter which means that it is impossible to predict exactly where and when you will definitely find any individual particle/wave function you are trying to observe.

    Einsteins comment indicates purely his dissatisfaction at the quantum universe being only completely describable in probabilities which negates the possibility of an all encompassing description that ties in with the deterministic theories of gravity, relativity, special relativity etc. It should also be pointed out that although he didn't like it, he accepted the evidence that it was true, though he maintained that it must be as yet incomplete and hoped until his death that one day someone would find a way to unify the theories. People are still looking but ironically the answer to his hope has grown not closer but much more distant, as the theories have expanded.

    The implication of this for theologians however is quite profound. If there was a creator who set up the initial conditions and put everything in motion at the big bang then he/she/it can not have had any control over or knowledge about how it would progress.

    Regards, Sam.

  239. WTC7

    Yes, I agree with most you say as it more or less the same I wrote. With the exception of the implications of this for theology, I wouldn't know what these would be and I regret to say that I am not that much concerned about it.

    My kind regards

  240. Brandon Costa

    The box Im referring to is just everything that we know for certain that can be measured, and or has been replicated in scientific studies etc. I dont think mulitverses could 'yet' be in the box just because its still theorectal. But I see that example has the initial penciling in of an expanding box.

    Anyway, Im just talking about what is universally accepted by mankind. Obviously God isnt.

  241. Samuel Morrissey

    @Brandon Costa

    Spellcheck Nazis are unable to comment due to the extreme mirth encountered when they read 'theorectal' :D


    yes, we should remember that there is (and always will be, Heisenberg has shown us) ever so much we don't know, and be open to new knowledge as it becomes available. What we should not do is assign a truth value to anything that is unknown, because that would prevent us from finding a real truth value behind it.

    Regards, Sam.

  242. robertallen1

    How about the Goldbach conjecture?

  243. robertallen1

    And please note how it was cited ignorantly out of context, a favorite trick of creationists and the like

  244. norlavine

    I agree with you, especially about Albert Einstein not being caught up in a religious interpretation of god.x

  245. Guest

    Evening Mr A, wondering what you do for a living ? Don't answer if you'd rather not, I will go on being curious :)

  246. norlavine

    I am constantly amazed by your unsolicited,inane, seemingly purposeless yet venomous responses, not just to me, but to others and now you are up on your little wooden pulpit declaring I 'should be ashamed' .
    I welcome 'debunking' = the more I learn about the various thought experiences of others, and, often gain a new perspective that highlights my own thought deficits. There, I've already told you too much,happier now?

  247. Guest

    Science deals with what we see. Of course other senses are also studied but science determine a result based on the expression of what we see. As long as one trust that what one sees is really there, then science might be right. But if one suspects that what we see is actually not there and that we are just energy riding on an accepted reality passed on for eons. Then science may be studying an (us or god) energy creating the expansion of this reality. Every time we arrived to a near conclusion, our vision searches and finds a further reality.
    It is a difficult thought to put in words as i do not have a scientific brain and the language that goes with it but no one can say for sure that i am wrong although most would not agree, at least i can't.

  248. Guest

    The way i see thinking beyond the box is such: If you stand in front of a table and everything one knows, have heard, was told, read somewhere put on that table, then it's in the box...anything new one brings to the table was off the box.

  249. over the edge

    Ray Comfort has been proven wrong on so many occasions that there is no credibility in anything he states. when confronted with the evidence to show his views wrong he either changes the subject or misrepresents said evidence. if anybody actually believes what he is stating then that is only proof that they have no interest in the facts and are only looking for confirmation of what they already believe from anywhere they can get it.sad really

  250. robertallen1

    I'll spell out my purpose. Get your facts right and then post, not the other way around. Don't let others who are more knowledgable correct you and get a good laugh out of it.

    For not practicing the foregoing, you should be ashamed!

  251. Brandon Costa

    I agree. I dont follow apologetics but please tell me he and Kirk C are the worst. I do remember a brilliant creationist that Oregon State had as a guest speaker, wish I knew his name, so I know there are good ones out there. But I feel like Richard Dawkins and other athiest elites go after guys like Comfort because they are such pathetic targets sure to make themselves look good.

  252. robertallen1

    Indeed it is and pathetic. It doesn't say much about a lot of people.

  253. robertallen1

    Now it's gone from a box to a table, but all right. Suppose someone such as Andrew Wiles or Georg Cantor refines or improves something already on the table and in doing opens up new vistas, does this conform to your view of thinking "beyond the box?"

  254. Guest

    let's say this would be like holding on the edge of the table while still on it...reaching out for something new in the pool of immense possibilies that exist in the void.

  255. Guest

    Why is TDF so slow and i keep getting system error? Are we writing too fast?
    I see Robert posted the same thing twice...are you also having that problem?

  256. Achems_Razor


    Yes if and when we determine what makes this universe/reality tick, (a conclusion) it will be instantly transposed to another even weirder universe/reality. Lots to go 10^500 universes.

  257. Achems_Razor


    Seems like disqus is broken, I have the same problem.

  258. Samuel Morrissey

    It is true that people use comments like these out of context to support their own wishful thinking. Perhaps I was not clear enough with my explanation.

    Albert Einsteins comment about god & dice carries no relevance to god (of any kind - Spinoza's, pan etc.), creation, and is no indication of his personal views on those matters. It was a figure of speech during a discussion about quantum uncertainty. Bear in mind he was raised by Jewish parents, so the word 'god' was part of his common language.

    Emphasis on the 'no'

    I hope that is clear now.
    Regards, Sam.

  259. Guest

    Unless we determine or conclude without a doubt that we are not going out or expanding, we are coming in and out of ourself at the same time.
    As you once wrote, although i can't quite remember the exact statement or (i think it was a) quote, there could come a instant when upon a unparalleled realization this whole reality may disappear in the flash.

  260. Achems_Razor

    Az, Yes, you and I are on the same page, it was a quote, and I cannot find it.

  261. robertallen1

    The clarification was unnecessary, but the additional information was appreciated.

    And, by the way, wishful thinking is probably a euphemism.

  262. Guest

    I have raised two daughters, if i gave them this argument while raising them they would not be the opiniated, curious, shameless beautiful mind they are.

  263. robertallen1

    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but from what you wrote, it seems that you taught your daughters to posit before researching. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  264. Guest

    A sniveling little ferret with a '70's style porn-star mustache, who considers himself so slicked over with some sort of holy lube that no one can get a good grip on him, whereas, in actuality, the mental equivalent of a house cat could trash his quaint little fruit-stand and slap dead his ferocious crocoduck between two slabs of stone, to be cracked open in a hundred years with the words "Was anyone ever really this stoopid?" fossilized out of its bones. He curls up his tubular little 4ss every chance he gets and smears the field of reason with the pellets of his intelligence, always leaving to his superiors the largely thankless necessity of thumping them off into the weeds. He is a PET in the civilized world, kept around out of habit or amusement, headed for the bag and the backyard...


  265. Guest

    Yes you are right, i do believe that we should talk our mind in discussions and hear what others have to say, especially if those others are considerate. Of course researching other's ideas is always good too but they remain other's first, someone had to say it first for others to agree or disagree.

  266. Guest

    Now Pysmythe, it almost sound like you are playing music with words. Like a rock'n rolling speech, like a night at the impro!
    Love it!

  267. robertallen1

    I'm still finding it difficult to understand what you are getting at.

    However, it's not so much the opinion itself; it's the expertise behind the opinion. Therefore, except for abstractions such as whether there is a god, one opinion is not as good as another and when a person makes statements concerning something about which he knows nothing rather asking questions or doing the research, he deserves the opprobrium with which he is met.

  268. robertallen1

    I'm still finding it difficult to understand what you are getting at.

    However, it's not so much the opinion itself; it's the expertise behind it. Except for teleological abstractions such as whether there is a god, one opinion is not as good as another and when a person makes ignorangt statements concerning something about which he knows nothing rather asking questions or doing the research, he deserves the opprobrium and derision with which he should be met.

  269. over the edge

    lol perfect

  270. wcb123

    rip hitch. would have loved to hear him put this poor man out of his misery.

  271. Guest

    Norvaline made a comment that starts with "Albert Einstein, i believe...."
    Valtko responded in the negative and considerate way, right after, you responded in a condescending manner. All she was saying is HER opinion on what Einstein thought of God.
    Neither you or her or i know exactly what Einstein thought God was or if it was anything for him. He used the word in many quotes either in response to others or in his own reflection on life.
    If he never pronounced the word God, we still could not be sure that he never thought about what God is or isn't.
    If he was here to testify for himself, he would give his present thought on GOD and this opinion could change over night or even earlier.
    What i am saying is that : it is no so much what people say that is detrimental, it is how you least for my daughters and i.

  272. robertallen1

    Norvaline's e-mail from 17 hours ago begins, "Albert Einstein believed in a creator (or God) and I would dare anyone to state that he was an ignorant fool." This is clearly a statement--and a falsehood at that. Ten hours later, after being corrected by several posters, she modified this to an opinion.

    About 8 hours after her initial post, she followed up her snippet of ignorance with part of a quote , completely out of context, from a conversation between Einstein and Bohr to support her position on Einstein's belief in a creator (or god). In this too she was corrected.

    By thus placing herself on the level of creationists, religionists and the like, she deserves the condescension and contempt with which she is met.

    As far as Einstein's teological beliefs, the facts speak for themselves and that's that!

    Once again, if you don't know or you are uncertain, ask or do the research, don't state! If you have an opinion, couch it as an opinion, e.g., "I believe that A.E. believed in a creator."

  273. over the edge

    "If you have an opinion, couch it as an opinion,"
    couldn't agree more.

  274. Guest

    My bad, i missed the uncorrected version...

  275. norlavine

    Sorry, but I'm now bored to tears with you and your endless string of invectives. Say something interesting for once or shut up!

  276. Samuel Morrissey

    @Azilda & Norlavine

    I have some questions for you if you would indulge me. First though as Einsteins beliefs became the focus of the discussion somewhat needlessly, I feel compelled once again to defend his position.

    He was queried frequently about his beliefs on theological matters and gave many clearly expressed statements about them. While I agree that we can not know exactly how he felt anymore than we can read another persons mind, his responses when reviewed as a whole clearly show that whatever he believed in, he believed it was real, demonstrably existent, and scientifically describable. This excludes all forms of religion/spirituality or belief in 'god' that are either supernatural or untestable (or both more often than not)

    Simply feeling or desiring that there must be something more to existence than reality itself is wishful thinking, I assert this and elaborate with these questions, if you would :-

    Why must there be something more?

    Is life that empty that we need something else to fill it?

    Is reality not beautiful, awe inspiring and mysterious enough?

    Is nature somehow not completely deserving of our full respect and gratitude?

    Kind regards,

  277. norlavine

    I've now had it with you and your endless string of invectives. Dialogue gets washed away as you turn discussions into excuses to define,insult and diminish (selective)others. Stop making my valuable time wasted and shut up once and for all . amen

  278. robertallen1

    On point as usual and in this light, let me paraphrase what Richard Dawkins said a while back: Why do people need to make up fairy tales when the truth is so much more fascinating.

  279. robertallen1

    As you find yourself unable to refute me or for that matter to back up what you put out, you resort to umbrage. How pathetic!

    However, I'm willing to make a deal. I'll cease my invective when you post something informed and well-reasoned--and as a display of magnanimity, I don't even care if I agree with it.

  280. Achems_Razor


    robertallen1, and...

    Going to the chapel and were gonna get married.
    Gee, I really love you and were gonna get married.
    Going to the chapel of love.

  281. Guest

    First let me clear something, you are not defending Einstein's position, you are defending your own.
    Why must there be something more?
    There is no need for something more for you if you are satisfied with your present reality.
    Is life that empty that we need something else to fill it?
    I don't think life is empty, i think life is much fuller than what the eyes see.
    Is reality not beautiful, awe inspiring and mysterious enough?
    Life is beautiful, inspiring and mysterious in millions of ways we know of and millions more we haven't discover yet.
    Is nature somehow not completely deserving of our full respect and gratitude?
    Nature deserves all of the above every day in my life, i live surrounded by one of the most beautiful expression of it in the mountains, by a lake. It is what i surround that is even more deserving, the within, the mysterious, the inspiring, the truly beautiful.
    I am not trying to convince you of anything about my reality, it is impossible, you would have to believe it and why would you...yours seem satisfying enough.

  282. Guest

    Kindling for a bigger fire?
    You are funny Mr Achems....and a little obsess with marriage these days? Are you yourself looking into the eyes of love?

  283. Achems_Razor

    Az, found the quote..."There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory this has already happened."

  284. Achems_Razor

    Are you kidding? why buy when you can rent, cheaper in the long run. lol

  285. Guest

    Mr. Adams again.

  286. Guest

    Been looking through Primacy of Conciousness for the last 10 minutes, to see if it was there...saw many of your very old posts.
    And then i come back ...and here it is.

  287. Guest

    That's for the short run...a long run is always more profitable if you own it. But then who cares about money, when money is just an illusion.

  288. Guest

    What doc was it under?

  289. Guest

    As the still great "Jack Nicholson" said in the movie..This is as good as it gets... "People who talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch!"
    found your quote in Primacy, made me laugh!

  290. Samuel Morrissey

    Thank you for your reply. Conceded I guess about my position, though I assure you my statement is based on his own words when directly questioned about theological matters.

    My position is; he lived in a time when it was evidently dangerous and/or socially unacceptable to subscribe to atheism and any words of his that allow for speculation about his own theological ideas should be understood simply as being sensitive to the social/political climate of the time. And he was wrong to be so, in as far as it has lead many into misconceived ideas that are somehow attributed weight, by his name alone, that they do not deserve, or indeed are posited as his own. It very well may have kept him alive and funded however, I can understand why. But he was still wrong. I am convinced he was agnostic in the strictest sense. As am I, although atheist works for me when defined as 'not a theist'

    I do not understand the phrase 'personal reality' when I use the word reality it applies only to what is, my personal thoughts and feelings have no effect upon it. When I cease to be, reality will still be here. I also question your use of 'satisfaction' - reality is not how or what I desire it to be. My (dis)satisfaction with it is irrelevant. Reality is what is, as far as we all can know it, nothing less, nothing more. When evidence expands what we can know, reality is uncovered proportionately. Your reality is my reality, in as much as we exist in the same universe.

    You say, 'what the eyes see' this is interesting. What can be observed would be better. In scientific terms things are observed in many ways, quite often directly by visible light or an analogue, but also indirectly - we observe distant planets orbiting their suns not by viewing the planet itself but by measuring a change in the intensity of light from that star. My point is, when a thing exists it by definition affects the universe around it, in a measurable way. If the thing you are positing has no measurable effect, I question its existence and how you claim to know it. If you admit it can not be known, then how can you attribute any real value to it, and why would you? this would be wishful thinking.

    Sorry for the wall of text, I just love discussions on these subjects. I also do not intend to convince you of anything, other than my own fascination with the subject and goodwill.

    P.S. Touché - for sidestepping the loaded question. Why must there be...? to answer would require acceptance of the premise there must be... My bad I shall try to be more careful in future.

    Regards, Sam.

  291. Guest

    I have been staying away from theological( i rather use the term energetic spirituality) conversation on TDF, they normally end in repetitive arguments from believers and non believers, arguments i have heard more than enough....and then a few people jump in and start throwing insults around. I must say your approach is (so far) more open, so here is my try at engaging.

    Was Einstein atheist, agnostic or pantheist? May be none of those terms was appropriate to describe the intricacy of what he thought of the Universe. If he was alive now, perhaps he would find himself among a society that allows more freedom of expression concerning spiritual beliefs(still too early in my view)....and he would at last be able to lay down his thoughts. I agree he spoke as a non theist. As you say many people have and will express themself with wisdom and discretion knowing too well what could tarnish a carreer funded on their ideas and research.

    I happen to "not doubt" that this reality is not entirely what we make of it. I have made my own experiments and i know this is going to be a life long search, i am in no hurry, in that reality time does not exist. This may not make any sense to you...this is why i say personal reality, it is a vision i share with no one.
    I say what the eyes doesn't matter which way you use to observe a planet or how you measure a change in intensity...the results are there because of the vision of the observer. I thought i succeeded in explaining in simple terms what i mean in one of the comments below. Here it is pasted: As long as one trust that what one sees is really there, then science might be right. But if one suspects that what we see is actually not there and that we are just energy riding on an accepted reality passed on for eons. Then science may be studying an (us or god) energy creating the expansion of this reality. Every time we arrived to a near conclusion, our vision searches and finds a further reality.

    It is my guess that if anyone (or many) have reached a conclusion of this non-substantial reality, it is so mind buggling that it would be too excentric to pronounce themself at this moment in time. Perhaps we are growing towards it by accepting the multiverse theories and many other "weird" thoughts/theories/hypothesis/concepts (whatever you like to call them) coming out of the science field.

    Not sure how much i am going to have to edit this comment but knowing myself i will at least once or ten times.

  292. Guest

    I just wrote for 1/2 hour a comment in response to is not there...gone gone gone...sorry but if it disappeared i will not retry.
    It was good though!

  293. Achems_Razor

    Az, I have found it for you, your welcome.

  294. Guest

    Did i ever tell you, you're the best!

  295. Samuel Morrissey

    Thank you kindly once again, for taking your time to reply, I appreciate it. Please do not feel you are required to engage with me. I reply to you as you were kind enough to reply to me, but I welcome anyone who would care to respond. I have an excess of time presently, as I care for my elderly father full time. (you may have noticed :)

    I try very hard to be polite on discussion boards, and am mostly successful in this. If folks want to sling mud at each other that's fine by me, i try not to get caught up in it. Sometimes i fail but I am only human and I believe people should speak their minds. I think we can forget what Einstein may (or not) have thought. If he were here today I'm sure his views would surprise us all.

    I think what you and Achems_Razor are talking about is related to the Planck constant. Lets see if this fits.

    My loose interpretation of your ideas would be; when a layer of reality is peeled away down into the quantum world or up into the macro-cosmic, another layer is encountered. On the quantum level, there appears to be a limit to the layers that can removed to look beyond due to granularity (see Planck constant), but there is currently nothing to indicate that there is a limit to these layers in either direction. There are no absolute answers, only exponentially more questions.

    For me, there is always doubt. I doubt the authority, of scientists, holy (wo)men, and governments alike. I have doubts about the constant speed of light, the actual age of the universe etc. I am content to accept what can be shown to be true, but doubt as to the completeness of it is eternal. When a thing can not be shown, my doubt is absolute, until such a time that the reality of it is uncovered. Even then my doubt persists, only the absolution is removed. My doubt of gravity for instance is limited to the quantum scale, and as the reality of it is currently in the process of being uncovered, I have hope that this will change, which is a nice feeling. I sincerely hope you have doubt about every thing I say.

    May I recommend to you and everyone who reads this post a short book:

    Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner.

    He himself is something of an insufferable character but his take on doubt and questioning is very insightful. Don't take my word for it though! And if you folks like Douglas Adams as do I, here is another short novel you all should read:

    Dimensions of Miracles by Robert Sheckley

    It is where Adams got his inspiration for the Hitchhikers Guide. There are not words capable of describing the hilarity within.

    Warm regards,

  296. Guest

    I am very tempted to answer your kind comment but my grand son is on his way (1yr old) for me to babysit him...i am baby proofing the house and filling myself with caffein.
    Will try to get back later in the day.

  297. cclovins

    Christianity is based on FAITH. You say, “There is no GOD”. What you are really saying is, “there is no GOD for me”, and there will not be a God for you. My God has given you free will to choose your destiny, and each and everyone will choose where they will spend eternity.
    I really feel very sorry for those who don’t have the Peace and certainty of a much better place. If I thought this was all there was, I would be very sad and depressed. But I’m not, Our Creator made us to know him. He has given the very essences of life and substance to believe.
    Nature and Science show of his great handy work. Man himself was his greatest creation, given the image of the maker. This is why some people will choose to believe in themselves instead.

  298. robertallen1

    How do you know so much about a so-called creator? As a matter of fact, what makes you think you can even know so much about a so-called creator? As a further matter of fact, can you even prove the existence of a so-called creator without resorting to dogma and conjecture?

    All in all, your post is nothing more than typical empty religionist twaddle and a complete waste of time.

  299. cclovins

    Evidently you did not read my post! Just the pure nature of Christianity is ‘conjecture - a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven.’

    I know God thru nature and science! It would take a real stretch of the imagination to think everything told about creation just happened by just the right circumstances. Just looking at the animal kingdom and each detail of every species, this had to be done by a master designer. By looking at the complexities of each part of the human body you see the great wonder of God Almighty.

    WOW. What is so empty about nature and Science - That's proof enought for me.

    As for the dogmatic comment, it is mine and your God given right to doubt and dispute the beliefs of another. This why GOD gave use the brain in our heads, to test each and every doctrine and belief to see if it is true. I’m not here to prove anything to you or anyone else, the proof will be yours and yours alone to decide.( As or founding father perceived this nation to be).

    So the choice, as I sated before is everyones to make, you can choose good or you can default to evil.

    My friend, this is how I know God.

  300. robertallen1

    "A proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven." "Thought to be true" does not equate to it is true. Frogs are thought by many to cause warts. An ostensibly equal number believe lightning never strikes twice in the same place." But these assertions are completely false. It has also not been disproved that the universe was created by pixies with cranberry stains on their faces or by nothing at all.

    It takes no stretch of the imagination to opine that everything about creation happened due to the right circumstances. The facts speak much louder and clearer than your conjectures.

    "Just looking at the animal kingdom and each detail of every species, this had to be done by a master designer." Again, why couldn't ithave been done by pixies with cranberry stains on their faces or by nothing at all?

    "By looking at the complexities of each part of the human body, you see the great wonder of God Almighty." Why not just appreciate the complexities and leave it at that--or maybe it's back to the cranberry pixies which I find just as wondrous or again, by nothing at all.

    The "pure nature of Christianity" (whatever that is or isn't) doesn't provide you with a vista into the inner workings of a supposed supreme being anymore than the "pure nature" of anything else.

    You rest your spurioius knowledge of a god (or the god) on the usual vacuous creationist a priori conclusions, but when you and people like you go up against scientists, you always lose, for you lack the knowledge and ability to prove your assertions and without proof (and your standard is obviously beneath low) these have no value.

    P.S. I am not your friend.

  301. Achems_Razor


    You do not know anything that you call a god through science and nature.

    There are no gods in science, science is only trial and error experiments to establish empirical evidence as facts.

    No gods in nature also. Nature is life trying to know itself, also through trial and error, Re: evolution. Survival of the fittest and all that.

    The right circumstances as you call them, did not just happen, they came about again by evolution, you can call it the evolution of the cosmos, and not to suit us humans, us humans adapted to the earth as it is, through evolution, not the earth adapted to us humans, via your invisible gods.

  302. cclovins


    Does the pixies with cranberry stains on their faces promise you anything? Have they claimed to create anything? Why can’t you see your theory is just that, a theory? So why bash me for my beliefs, I would never do that to you. You have the freedom of choice to believe anyway you want. But I see you would like to take mine and everyone else’s freedom of choice away if it doesn’t agree with yours.

    I do appreciate the complexities of the human body, so much I want to praise the maker. You want to just leave at that and take it and use it for your own self gratification. You see that is all GOD wants, is to acknowledge him and give him the credit for such a wonderful body.

    Again, I will say it’s up to you to choose to believe and have eternal life. Your choice, to not believe in GOD the creator will get you just where you think you will go after death - DEAD, with no future existence.

    If GOD does not exist, why do suppose so many people on earth believe in him. If God doesn’t exist this would be the biggest hoax ever presented to mankind and all of history would have to be in on the conspiracy. (What another far stretch of the imagination).

    OK, not my friend, thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

  303. robertallen1

    First of all you confound theory with conjecture--and there is a considerable difference, except, of course, to creationists who have a lot to prove and cannot even begin to do it. Asserting that pixies told me that they created everything and promised me that all I had to do was believe them and the world (both this one and the other more nebulous one) would be mine is worth about as much as your theological caterwaul for I can't prove my statements any more than you can prove yours.

    I can see how one can study the complexities of the human body, but how one can use them for self-gratification baffles me as much as your description of my beliefs although I've not elucidated them.

    Intellectually (read scientifically) might does not make right. Pandemic belief in various forms of supreme beings is not the hallmark of correctness or accuracy. For many thousands of years, the prevailing belief was that the body was controlled by humors--and, in short, basically the whole world was in on the conspiracy (to use your word) and also in short, humors don't exist, at least in the anatomical sense. This is not a stretch of the imagination, but fact.

    "My god has given you free will to choose your destiny . . . " This is not an expression of belief, but a statement. (By the way, you must have a high opinion of yourself to call this entity YOUR god.)

    "Our creator made us know him . . . " Another statement, not an expression of belief. (Now this entity has become our creator and not just yours.)

    "Man was his creation . . . " Another statement, again not an expression of belief.

    In short, you have not shared your so-called thoughts--you've merely Paul-parroted creationists and religionists.

  304. norlavine

    @Samuel Morrissey
    Once we respect something we are giving it an existence, even in thought alone. Unfortunately men have written about a god of their own choosing and humanized identity for too long. xx

  305. norlavine

    You made me laugh!! The union would be tantamount to Ada Byron marrying the equivalent - back in the 19th century - to Mr Bean (no offense to Rowan Atkinson intended). xxx

  306. norlavine

    @robertallen1 aka 'Mr Bean'
    Now you are engaging in ultimatums! I'll continue to post ad libitum.
    I don't need you to police how or why I express my opinions about the subject matter. Go find a science forum populated with real physicists and see how long before you are booted out...possibly less than 5 minutes.

  307. robertallen1

    Your characterization of my last responsive e-mail as an ultimatum shows how badly you need a course in reading comprehension. Express all the opinions you want and if I feel like commenting on them I will in whatever tone I deem appropriate.

    P.S. If I could find a forum populated with real rphysicists, I would know enough to ask questions and not assert until I knew enough to do so.

  308. robertallen1

    "Perhaps I do get words and meanings wrong, but - I don't give a sh*t." Yes, I've analyzed that and it says everything about you.

  309. norlavine

    Of course I meant 'occasionally I do get words and meanings wrong'. You didn't get it, did you? A fail to respond appropriately yet again.
    Just another classic failure to read between the lines when dealing with the human condition, just another opportunity to sprout your superfluous command of the English language. Why not try thinking in stereo as opposed to mono - left brain thinking alone is extremely limiting.
    Does that say everything about you?

  310. robertallen1

    Again, simple English eludes you. My last post clearly focused not on what you now term your occasional misapprehension, but rather on your indifference to it when it occurs. Indeed, this says everything about you and your standards and also makes you out to be so self-important as to expect people to intuit what you mean, even when your linguistic insouciance prevents you from expressly yourself clearly. You are neither important nor intelligent enough for anyone to want to read between your lines.

    P.S. What is a "superfluous command of the English language?" Not only do you need a course in reading comprehension, but also in simple expository writing--friends or no friends.

  311. Guest

    @robertallen1 and @Norlavine,
    You do not remind me of lovers in the way Achems jokingly teases you. You remind me of a brother and a sister who hate each other and who do not realize how annoying it is for the rest of the family....although i must admit sometimes it's quite funny.
    I would suggest Robertallen1 that you let Norlavine write whatever she wants and that you ignore those posts as you seem to suggest to everyone else.
    I would suggest to Norlavine to not bite on the numerous replies by Robertallen1 and instead ignore those posts.
    To be hated is harsh but to ignore is the best revenge.

    Young people should be helped, sheltered, ignored, and clubbed of necessary.
    Al Capp (almost sounds like i'll clap)


  312. Achems_Razor

    Az, no, they do not hate each other, but if they do, hate is the same as love. It seems impossible for them to ignore each other, don't you think? Norlavine said she would , but that did not last long. lol

    There is love blooming between themselves, it is a given, hope all of us here at TDF will be invited to their wedding. lol

  313. Guest

    If it's in Australia, you want to fly on the same plane as i. It would be a nice place to meet where you couln't get away for many hours. lolol

  314. Achems_Razor

    Right, will take you on my private jet.

  315. Guest

    Now you're talking...i once had a lover who took me on his Lancair plane over the desert and beaches of California....truly beautiful.
    i had to edit this one, my comment was stupid

  316. Tyler Partridge

    God is very real.

    You see, god is duct tape; patching problems until we figure them out.

    Personally, I do not believe this asserts his nonexistence. Perhaps, simply, god IS duct tape..

  317. Samuel Morrissey

    Hi NorlaVine,

    Thoughts are transient, even memory at best is only a painting. My meaning regarding the respecting nature question, was that when people place respect in something unobservable, untestable and unknowable (even if it exists as an analogous abstraction in the mind) they diminish their respect for what actually is. Believing in an afterlife for instance, admonishes one from the responsibility to treat this life as if it is all one has.

    The scriptures are simply fiction to me, though fiction may contain valuable lessons, or be pseudo biographical, it is still fiction. The books themselves are not at fault, when viewed as story telling, they are equivalent to any contemporary offerings. It is shameful and dangerous to elevate their meaning and value to beyond life itself however, and I think the people who encouraged this concept some millenia past had their own inferior reasons for doing so, as do some who continue this behavior today.

    Thank you kindly for you reply :)

    Regards, Sam.

  318. Brandon Costa

    Once again the God documentaries are causing an uproar. I believe it is this uproar that perhaps should be explored.

  319. Achems_Razor

    What uproar? I couldn't care less about religious docs or docs concerning religion...until...the religious that can't leave well enough alone come on the docs, you maybe? Are you trying to keep the uproar alive Hmm? Explore?? like I said, couldn't care less. So no thanks.

  320. robertallen1

    One of the problems with the religious is that they are constantly blathering about matters of which they have at best superficial knowledge, e.g., the sciences, and poking their noses into what is none of their business, e.g., biology classes and abortion. In short, they attempt to sway, not with knowledge, intelligence and education, but with ignorance, superstition and fabrication.

  321. Achems_Razor

    I agree, and a person would be hard pressed to find even one doc on TDF that the religee's have not spouted their 1d1otic belief's on, even if a doc on how to build outhouses was presented on TDF the religee's would be there full force. lol. After all, their Jesus was a carpenter, yes?

  322. robertallen1

    I don't believe so, but Joseph was.

    P.S. Are you familiar with the protogospels. About a month ago, I wrote a squib about them? Did you read it?

  323. Brandon Costa

    see I rest my case. whats all the anger about? At least these two athiests in the doc were somewhat calm. Everyone on here loses their

  324. Achems_Razor

    @Brandon Costa:

    Well, now you are trying to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response, it will not work, so please desist!

  325. Achems_Razor

    Are you referring to the lost gospels, there is a doc on them under religion.

  326. robertallen1

    Yes, I believe I posted it there. You might find my blog interesting (and I write this with all humility).

    I have the highest regard for Bart Ehrman, one of the participants, and have been considerably enlightened by the five or so books I have read of his.

    I would appreciate your comments.

  327. norlavine

    @robertallen1 aka
    I mean this: You use 'big' words that generally communicate 'little' information in everyday conversation. Now go put that 'expository' where it will do the most good.

  328. robertallen1

    "I mean this:" Does that imply that you didn't mean what you wrote in your past postings?

  329. Brandon Costa

    This site is full of people using big words they convey little information. lol

  330. robertallen1

    This site is also full of people writing about matters of which they know nothing.

  331. norlavine

    I have to go and work. Haven't got all day to indulge your whims. Surprise me and say something worthwhile. You've got nine hours before I come back to knock yourself out on here with your venomous wit.

  332. Purnell

    Unbelievable that people cling so hard, to what their mum and dad taught them to be true. While people should be free to believe in unsubstantiated claims, these claims should not also be somehow immune from criticism or given free license to control society (as inevitably happens with dominant religions).

    If religious people could indeed keep their religion to themselves there would be no controversy. If religious people did indeed use rationality to question their parents beliefs there would be little religion in the developed world.

  333. Truthseeker

    We cling to what is proven in history,archeology,and the evidence all around us. The only explanation for all this is God, don't depend on pure speculation and theory.Be open seek for the truth and don't be bias and don't be angry.

  334. robertallen1

    When you bring a deity into the picture, you are no truth seeker. By depending on pure speculation, you show yourself up for the hypocrite you are.

  335. Guest

    Men never do evil
    so completely and cheerfully
    as when they do it
    from religious conviction.

    Blaise Pascal
    1623 - 1662

  336. docoman


    I'm not arguing for or against creation or evolution. This post is to ask a couple questions of you, and to state an observation I've made whilst reading some posts.

    These are just a few quotes, from you, from below.

    "Sounds like banter--and once again, you fail to list your source. In short, you're trying to prove something you can't and therefore resorting to dishonesty."

    "It's one thing to be ignorant, but another to try to pass your ignorance off as knowledge."

    "Don't let others who are more knowledgable correct you and get a good laugh out of it."

    "...when a person makes statements concerning something about which he knows nothing rather asking questions or doing the research, he deserves the opprobrium with which he is met."

    "Once again, if you don't know or you are uncertain, ask or do the research, don't state! If you have an opinion, couch it as an opinion, e.g., "I believe that A.E. believed in a creator."

    " lack the knowledge and ability to prove your assertions and without proof (and your standard is obviously beneath low) these have no value."

    "Thought to be true" does not equate to it is true."

    (all the above quotes are cut and paste from robertallen1 posts below)

    So a question I have is, in your statement to Truthseeker,
    "When you bring a deity into the picture, you are no truth seeker. By depending on pure speculation, you show yourself up for the hypocrite you are",
    where is your proof that when someone tables a deity in a discussion about how we got here they're not seeking the truth? (I'm not saying his post was correct, btw)
    Where are your sources, your proof to your statement? You did not 'couch it as an opinion', it was a statement. (You should understand that after the song and dance you put on about this very point below)

    From wikipedia,
    Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

    I got the impression that Truthseeker probably believed what he posted, was telling the truth about his religious beliefs. So, from a man as educated and knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be, with such a grasp of the English language, how does that make him a hypocrite?
    Any proof for that? Or, by your own words, were you trying to prove something you can't and therefore resorting to dishonesty? Or maybe voicing an opinion that, without proofs, is of no value? Or were you maybe trying to pass your ignorance off as knowledge? (all questions you've asked of others).

    And my observation, (not just from this thread but from most I've seen you post on), is that you are often rude and condescending to others, but don't always hold yourself to the same standards that you demand. You like to show off your vocabulary unnecessarily (as others have noted below), in an effort to sound as if you are some highly intelligent person who is never wrong. I've read you be rude about incorrect English, but noted you being guilty of the same yourself (there is at least one I saw in your quotes above). I think the quote about being laughed at if there is a need to be corrected gives a good insight into your personality and the reasons you talk down to others. Egotistic is one of the words that comes to mind when I read many of your posts. Big fish, little pond, pot, kettle ect. Why else would you belittle others on a site like here, rather then, as suggested, you may find conversation more befitting someone of your supposed intellect elsewhere?
    (of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm pretty sure my results could be replicated by others, although I'm more then happy to be proven wrong. If you are as intelligent and educated as you make yourself out to be there is no need to be rude to those less fortunate then yourself)

    Hmm, the state of pretending to have virtues ect. that one does not have....
    I propose that you are the hypocrite, robertallen1, not Truthseeker, and offer your own posts as proof.

  337. robertallen1

    As my posts speak for themselves, I don't feel I have to justify myself. However, a few points.

    I take a dim view of people, especially religees, who write on what they know nothing about and can know nothing about and who try, like Truthseeker, to pass off bald assertion as concrete proof--and any child of two knows or should know the difference. This is hypocrisy at its worst.

    And no, I don't know everything, but when I'm ignorant I admit it and don't stoop to the level of trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge with fairy tales. Therefore, I have no truck with people who do--and I don't have to.

    Please point out to me an example of incorrect English in one of the quotes you have cited. If you are right, I will correct it. That's because I realize that I can be wrong, but when I am, I do something constructive about it which is more than I can say for many of the posters.

  338. robertallen1

    @Epicurus and Achems_Razor.

    Have you seen "Debate: Does the universe have a purpose?

    If so, do you have any thoughts about it?

  339. Epicurus

    havent seen it yet. but looks good. might give it a watch tonight however i have an exam in the morning and should be studying.

  340. dewflirt

    Good luck :)

  341. robertallen1

    I await your comments with bated breath. I have one of my own, but I would like to hold off until I hear from you.

  342. Epicurus

    thanks a lot (on a study break as we speak)

  343. Achems_Razor

    Yes, you will pass with flying colours, I have always said you are a smart guy.

  344. docoman

    I must admit I enjoyed reading your response, thank you robertallen1.

    I had a good chuckle at your 2nd paragraph, I at first thought it was an attempt by you at a humorous oxymoron. But, judging by the usual tone of the posts of yours I've seen, and the remainder of that one, I doubt it.
    So, if it's not humor, it must be another statement from you. (Albeit a statement with the intention of belittling rather than informing) Any child of two knows or should know the difference between a bald assertion and concrete proof.
    A child of two? I assume you mean aged two, not child of two. If you meant child of two, not aged two, then you were just being a smart ass, as we are all children of two. (unless you think you're Jesus or something.)
    I've never known a child aged two to be that advanced, but, not being an expert on childhood development, I did do a little research. Five minutes reading on the subject of development of children between 2 and 3 years of age will show the fallacy of your statement.
    That led me onto my next little chuckle in your 3rd paragraph, the bit where you say you don't stoop to filling in with fairy tales. Part of your 2nd paragraph had a very 'fairy-tale' feel about it, and, as already demonstrated if you bother to check for yourself, seems to just be dribble without knowledge, the very thing you were just saying you take a dim view on, and is also your excuse for your narcissistic, egocentric way you talk to some people. Clearly you don't feel the need to justify yourself, but you do often demand others do so. And you are correct, many of your posts do speak for themselves, they shout arrogance.
    Simple English errors, big deal. I only brought it up because you had earlier, and to further the point I was making. If you can't see it yourself, it's the 4th quote down, you're missing 'than' from your sentence. As I said, big deal, that's not why I mentioned it.

    On a site/forum such as this, (thank you very much for your hard work Vlatko, it's very much appreciated), many people are learning for the first time about some things, or are trying to investigate and learn more on subjects they know little about. This is not a university or place of higher learning, some lectures that are all current and correct as far as we know. Many of the documentaries are ill-informed, old debunked theories, or clearly have an agenda.
    If an atmosphere is fostered where people fear ridicule and are to be laughed at if they ask/pose a less then well thought out idea or theory, where if they aren't the most informed their thoughts have no value, then that only stops people joining in and learning from and enjoying this site. Some people actually learn from reading a ridiculous post, as it sometimes voices a belief they had, and thus prompts them to reevaluate their own.
    I think clearly you are intelligent and well educated, most of your logic that I've read I agree with. I just think that your often malevolent, arrogant attitude is misplaced in this arena. Being right doesn't excuse being unnecessarily rude. Let people enjoy their bliss if they wish to stay ignorant.

    (In your defense, it is pretty hard with some religiees at times lol )

  345. robertallen1

    Do you really think I believe that a child of two would have this ability or are you just being dense? Also, not only do you you know good and well the meaning of the locuction "child of two, three four," you also know that it is perfectly acceptable English, either formally or informally. However, please feel free insert an appropriate substitute if it will give you peace.

    Indeed, the word "than" is missing from the fourth quote. I would fix it if it could, but it's too late. However, I am galled by your mischaracterization of it as incorrect English and ask you to provide me one example of my having called anyone on the carpet for a mere typo of which this is an obvious example.

    But so much for the appetizer, now for the main course.

    Please find me one example of my having excoriated anyone who asked an intelligent, sincere question (and spare me the tediousness of any expostulation about how I know the difference between an intelligent or unintelligent and sincere or an insincere question). No. Every one of these people states when he should ask. Every one of these people places his ignorance over the knowledge of experts and further aggravates the situation by refusing to be corrected by obviously knowledgeable posters (among them, Epicurus, Achems_Razor and, of course, our leader, Vlatko). For this reason, they deserve no respect, only contempt. If this is arrogance, sobeit.

    P.S. So far, I have seen no evidence of the re-evaluation that you mentioned.

  346. docoman

    Yes, there are some very knowledgeable, well worth reading posters like the 3 people you mentioned. The difference between them and you, they aren't rude about it like you are.
    Again, all I was saying, is there is no need to be unnecessarily rude to people regardless of whatever bs they may come up with. You could learn a lot by paying more attention to the way the other 3 you mention answer people in a civil way. Knowledge is not the only quality in a person worth respecting.
    Take what you will, answer or not how you wish, good bye and good luck to you robert.

    P.S Have a read of the TDF commenting policy... maybe you'll get what I'm saying from that.

  347. norlavine

    Hi, you may have been informed that you have been consumed as the main course (usually meaning in regards to dinner),but,the most important meal of the day is breakfast. May I suggest you continue to post your own free thoughts. xx

  348. docoman

    G'day norlavine, how's it going mate? :)
    Ok, as I realise I didn't adequately respond to roberts last post to me, here are my thoughts on it.


    1st paragraph. Clearly we both have a good grasp on the English language. Touché.

    2nd paragraph. IF you actually practiced what you've preached to many, and made sure of your facts before opening your mouth, (yes some research can be a tedious byatch), Google the top ten definitions of typo, then the top ten of incorrect. You'll actually find, unlike you suggest, leaving out completely a 4 letter word is more closely defined as incorrect English, rather then it being a mere obvious example of a typo. Or so the 'experts' who actually define the English language say. I don't have to provide an example of you berating someone for a typo, this is an example of you calling the kettle black.

    Hmm, the 'appetizer' didn't taste as good as the 'chef' planned.

    Now, the main course.... wow! Niiice tone of fundamentalism! All you needed at the end was a 'DEATH TO THE INFIDELS, ALLAH AKBAR!' and it would've been a top notch rant. (no offense meant to our Muslim friends, it's sarcasm) Are you sure you're not a religee robert?
    My response, is go read the TDF commenting policy, and you'll see that what you are saying, is actually not the way things are supposed to be done in here, and therefore, you're wrong, as I said, in this arena.

    Sorry, but the main course was definitely on the nose...

    Lucky for me I've already eaten hey norlavine ;)

    Have a nice day all :) yes, even you robert.

  349. robertallen1

    Fine, I'll change that to tantamount to a typo.

    That's it!

  350. Guest

    I think your many typos (just about on every comment) happen because you are in such hurry to slam anyone who thinks differently than you that you don't take the time to revise your own writing.
    It's like a cop who punishes unarmed offenders by beating them on the street in front of a camera.

  351. Kateye70

    Anyone want a banana? Ray Comfort made me laugh out loud at the end! Thanks for another good one, Vlatko!

    I actually enjoyed this video more than I expected to. Obviously, the two sides will never come to an agreement, but the debate was more civil and interesting than I expected.

    I don't define myself as anything. My belief is that religion is a social and political institution for the control of large populaces; spirituality is an interior experience that can't adequately be shared with another.

    The marvelous thing about religion is that it uses the elation brought about by shared ritual to create bonds between people who might otherwise not get along. My personal experiences at rock concerts in the '70's showed me that. Fortunately, all anyone wanted was for me to buy a ticket to the experience, no ongoing obligations thereafter.

    * * * *
    I just wish there was a way for people who start picking at each other to take their conversations to 'whispers' only they can see, like we have in World of Warcraft. I agree with Azilda; it's like listening to bickering siblings sometimes (my brother and I come to mind! but fortunately not on this site).

  352. robertallen1

    Why doesn't someone inform Ray Comfort that monkeys also eat bananas and have been eating them before humans ever came about; also, that it's rather difficult to handle a whole watermelon or banana squash--I guess those weren't made for man or monkey and perhaps it's a sin to be eating them.

    Unless you mean marvelous in a non-normative sense, I find these bonds you mention to one of the main sources of the destruction caused by religion and as for those low-life rock concerts of the 70's, you've said it all.

  353. Epicurus

    i wonder if he was aware of the amazing design of the banana and male rectum...clearly it was designed to stimulate the prostate.

  354. Epicurus

    well finished the exam (mid-term) got an embarrassing 74%

    oh well. there were so many osteology questions and i am incredibly bad at that aspect of biological anthropology. I blame the TA. we only learned the osteology parts in the tutorials where the TAs are in charge. and this one was terrible. rushed through everything with little explanation or any way to make the knowledge relatable.

    or im just making excuses for my own stupidity lol.

  355. robertallen1

    The problem with rectums in general is that some people don't understand that they are designed basically for egress.

  356. robertallen1

    I don't really know you, but it seems that you are not only enthusiastic about your discipline but diligent as well. So in all probability, it is the TA, for what you have described is not an education but a quick cram session.

  357. dewflirt

    74% is not embarrassing at all and nothing that a few hours with your head in a book can't put right, easy now that you know exactly what it is that you don't know. Glad you did good :)

  358. Kateye70

    I meant 'marvelous' in the sense of something to be marveled or wondered at. I wasn't trying to imply judgement.

    Bonds are not a bad thing when they allow large numbers of unrelated primates to coexist in a small habitat with a minimum of undue violence. But when they become a source of power and manipulation, they are not so good.

    My motto is, "moderation in all," and that includes, well, everything. Religion has done a great deal of evil, but also a great deal of good. I'm not a subscriber, and I resent when others try to coerce me into being one, but I'm not going throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

    Err, Robert, were you insulting me by referring to the rock concerts I enjoyed so much as "low-life?" Or just being insensitive?

    The elation I experienced at concerts was as intense for me as the conversion experience Ray Comfort mentioned in his interview, and therefore I understood him. It was a key experience that focused his life, and perhaps everything that's followed has been his way of reaching toward that experience again, or re-validating it. I don't fault him for that, although I most emphatically disagree with him.

    For me, when I left the concerts, I was aware the experience was over with, and I also knew how to have it again. I can still have it any time I want. However, I am content to let others find their own methods of elation.

    I can't comment about prostates and bananas, I'll leave that to the guys.

  359. Simon Dahlström

    Who created god? you can not say, I dont know, or that "he" always existed.

  360. Simon Dahlström

    If we shouldn't change our stand in something when our knowledge in it gets better, christians would still follow the bible to the letter, and ohh oh oh, there's a lot of crazy stuff in it! Check out gods views on women! Look up adam and lilith

  361. Guest

    Lulu has the solution to make you feel better.

    Anthro 404: Funny Not Found
    By Zach Throckmorton
    Ebook (PDF): $4.99

    Download immediately
    A collection of 101 physical anthropology jokes, including osteology, paleoanthropology, primatology, and genetics jokes.

    Hope this makes you feel better, and if you were nearby, i'd give you some hand made chocolat-not that would certainly lighten up the next hour.
    If half the world was as stupid-not as you...we'd almost have it made!

  362. Epicurus

    lol thanks az

  363. robertallen1


    THIS SHOW IS PHONEY. As people are invited to call in and contribute, I decided to do so. Because it was impossible to get through last week, I left a message for someone to get back. Don Rhoades (I guess the show's producer) returned my call and indicated that I should try before the beginning of the show. Today, I tried for half an hour and the phone either kept ringing or was busy. However, through sheer luck and persistence, I got through and when I indicated that I had something to contribute, I was told that unless I was a theist, I would not be allowed to do so. As a result I will never watch another episode, but I thought I would post this to inform others who might be interested.


  364. norlavine

    The show is cr**p anyway,who cares? I am shocked that you would even be into this in real time.The only reason I would call up is if they were going to pay me for my time. Best you call in those shows where you actually can WIN something - do you still have 'The Price is Right' over there??

  365. robertallen1

    Thanks for the concern, but money has nothing to do with it. As you might have guessed, I'm an idealist who thought he had something positive to contribute and got a slap in the face instead.

    Please regard this response as an expression of appreciation for your post and not a castigation.

    Thanks again.

    P.S. I hate game shows and games.

  366. norlavine

    Sorry, that was nasty, I'm having a bad day - it's been 15 years since my last confession and I'm sinning on line today.

  367. robertallen1

    You have nothing to apologize for. I think too much of myself to take offense at the truth and, quite frankly, I appreciate your having taken the time to write what you did.

    So please, stay out of the confessional. It's like a men's toilet.

  368. Epicurus

    i dont get it.

    they just want to speak with theists because it makes for better tv and radio to listen to people actually debate rather than listen to people just agree with one another. so what was phoney about it?

  369. Epicurus

    what do you think is cr*p about the show?

  370. robertallen1

    See the show's website. There is simply an invitation to call in. There is nothing to indicate theists only. Also, please read the verbiage pertaining to the supposed intention of the show.

    Also, on several episodes, members of the panel have complained of people calling in to preach, not discuss. Well, what can they expect, considering their policy?--but again, are these complains as phoney as the show?

    This whole program is as dishonest and deceptive as any creationist and not only am I galled to have found this out the hard way, but these people are asking for money to promote what--a forum for theists?

  371. Epicurus

    well i wont be giving them any money but their existence of debating with theists in a public forum i feel is necessary.

    it is pretty shitty that they wouldnt take your call but i wouldnt be discouraged. it may have just been for that day. the website does say that atheists and theists are welcome to call but it also says:

    Can I call in to the show?
    Part of what makes The Atheist Experience popular is our interaction with our audience. We feel that the best interaction is with people who are watching the show. We encourage callers to either watch the show live in Austin or via the ustream video stream. We will likely reserve some of our lines for local callers to encourage more theists to call.

  372. robertallen1

    When I look back over the episodes I've watched, I can now see this as the prevalent policy. The show wants only easy targets who will add to the self-aggrandizement of the panelists and provide some amusement on the side. Serious and considered statements are out, I guess because they don't sell a show--but again, what's there to sell--it's a two-bit show which will probably go no further--and that's a shame.

    If the show's theist-only policy were clearly enunciated, I would have no problem. However, during my conversation with Don Rhoades, Mr. Rhoades never indicated any such policy--and he must have known, at least somewhat, where I stood.

    In short, what happened today showed up the quote which ends your post and the statement that atheists and theists are welcome to call for the bald-faced lies that they are and relegates the show to a level of dishonesty and deception typical of creationists and other such types that it is supposed to be standing up against.

    I appreciate your response and your taking the time to research the issue, but ask you to bear in mind that the name of the show is the Atheist Experience, not the Theist Experience.

    P.S. I am not an atheist nor am I a theist.

  373. Epicurus

    you should call in as a theist and present them with these questions. i would love to watch that.

  374. robertallen1

    Interesting thought, but I think too much of myself to pull something that deceptive. Although they deserve it, it's just not my style.

  375. norlavine

    My 1st and last reaction was - this is c**p - nothing to do with the subject matter at all, mainly the hackneyed,formulated focus on 'controversy for controversy's sake' element, and eager victims. Robertallen1 has found them out to be phoneys, and I suspect he hasn't finished with them yet, and good on him!
    If I were them, I would be, right now, taking his call.

  376. robertallen1

    Hey, kid, thanks.

    Perhaps I'm being presumptuous by thinking you might be interested in what I wanted to say to the panel, especially Matt, but here goes:

    In reference to the historial Jesus, a topic which had surfaced on at least one show, I wanted to point out that in addition to the highly suspect passage in Josephus which was cited, there are three passages in Lucian (born 125AD) which, although they do not mention JC by name, can refer to no one else--and scholars are unanimous as to the authenticity of these excerpts. (Search Wikipedia-Lucian-Jesus). I now understand that this piece of information would have been misplaced on a show such as this.

    Secondly, I wanted to state that greater understanding of the history of the bible and the nature of the societies which spawned it and for which it was written might stem the flow of ignorance and that goes with it. In addition, I wanted to place the blame for this on religious leaders who although knowing better are so fearful of holding on to their positions that they spend their Sundays preaching what their congregations want to hear as opposed to enlightening them in the true sense of the word. Now, I realize that such a statement would have flown in the face of the show and rendered it a greater nothing than it already is.

    Finally, I wanted to inform them that they were not really preaching atheism, but something which leaves it in the dust, rationality--but from what I have experienced today, I've obviously mischaracterized the show and am glad that I did not get to express this.

    Considering the pleasantly surprising support you have given, I felt that you of all people who post on this site had a right to know this.

  377. Achems_Razor


    Again I say I hate to be right all the time, well I guess I should gas up the plane and we will head down yonder to the land down under with the TDF crew. lol

  378. Guest

    I get the impression that Norlavine has quite a bit of opinions about the US and since she has not been on this continent it would be more beneficial if the wedding was performed in Los Angeles.
    I must add there is nothing like flying over the beach from LA to San Diego to the Anza Borego desert where there is a little air field right next to a hotspring. A very lovely place in the spring. lol and haaaaaa!

  379. Guest

    Are you saying you are convinced JC existed?
    I am not sure i understand your second paragraph. Are you saying that if the world had a greater understanding of the history of the bible we would realize it was written by ignorant people and that the religious leader are aware of that?
    And since you seem to know the history of the bible quite well what is the true sense of the Word?

    I may have understood you completely wrong, if so, please simply clarify and if you use big words it's ok, i'll look them up in the dictionary. hum!

    I think you got guts to approach these guys, would have been interesting to have you on their panel.
    Thank you

  380. norlavine

    @Achems_Razor & Azilda
    Oh Oh, aren't you two the romantics! You don't need me and robertallen1 as an excuse to get into that cozy little aircraft together. May I suggest Iceland as a destination instead? There are many hot springs and the freezing landscape will help you to 'cool down'.

  381. Epicurus

    production value and goals aside, i think the host is brilliant and the way he articulates his arguments and counter arguments cant be better.

  382. docoman

    Thank you Robert, quite interesting.
    I hadn't seen the Lucian quotes before.
    Personally I think the congregation must share some of the blame as well. As you've seen on here, some people don't want to actually think for themselves, and are quite comfortably blissful in their ignorance. I think that this contributes to the pressure on the leaders to give them what they want. Ask and thou shalt receive.

    @Az, Robert said in reference to the historical Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the man, not necessarily the Christ.

    Thought about 'you know who' eloping to Vegas... the whole Chapel of Love, Elvis minister ect... ? The USA experience :)

  383. robertallen1

    If you're referring to Matt, you're right. That's why I wanted to get on the show.

  384. robertallen1

    Lucian is my favorite writer of the Roman Silver Age--yet he wrote in Attic Greek, the language of the intellectual aristocracy. In his time, he was highly esteemed for his wit, learning and articulation. He seems to have had the manner of Kenneth Williams of Carry On fame. All in all, he is a more reliable source than Josephus. Typical of his intellectual perversity and charm is the preface to "A True Story" in which he writes that nothing in the story is true.

    You're right, the congregation must share some of the blame as well. However, the pastor (shepherd) is supposed to lead his congregation (grex) not only benevolently but sedulously--and this most have failed to do. All too often, those with the background to promulgate knowledge instead of dogma have prostituted their education and calling on the altar of job security, thereby abrogating their role as teachers to become hucksters, politicos and PR men--but what else is new?

    I once asked for a Lamborghini with a curvaceous blond and received a VW with Sara Palin in it. I guess the recession hit heaven as well, but at least I got some of my wish.

  385. Epicurus

    yup matt dillahunty.

  386. Guest

    I admit it, i like flirting with Achems, it makes me chuckle, i know we are no match other than our avatars. I promise i'll stop if Lady Gaga gets jealous.

  387. Guest

    Excerpt From Robert: "there are three passages in Lucian (born 125AD) which, although they do not mention JC by name, can refer to no one else--and scholars are unanimous as to the authenticity of these excerpts."

    He does say JC.

    If i ever join someone in union, i would prefer it to be on the top of a high red dune in Namibia.

  388. docoman

    haha, a VW with Palin in it... it would be a good bet between which one would 'break-down' first, her or the VW.

    Lucian sounds like an entertaining read, I'll have to investigate. It sounds like he shows that literary acumen, humor and intelligent thought are not only to be found in recent works.

    I agree that mostly the 'teachers' are in the wrong if they know they are contributing to continued falsehoods being taught. But, we all have a brain of our own to use, (well, most people).
    I was born into a Christian environment, with the usual trappings of a religious upbringing. I became disillusioned when unsatisfactory or clearly false answers were given to what I thought were legitimate questions, on what I considered to be glaringly obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in what I was being taught. I decided it was time to start to think for myself. The more I learned about the history of what I was told to believe, the more I came to think that 'organized' religion is not divine Word, but a population control technique. (just my opinion, others are free to believe what they wish, as long as they don't try to make me ingest their beliefs too). I guess the point here is, is it the liar, or the fool who unquestioningly accepts the lies that is the one to blame?
    I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic basically.

    Thank you for sharing your experience with this show. It's a pity you didn't get on, you seem to know your Biblical history very well and would no doubt contribute a lot to a decent conversation on the topic. Sounds like that's not what they are looking for.

  389. docoman

    Ahh, you're right, he did say JC. My bad. Robert will have to explain what he meant, I took it he was talking about the man, not the Christ.

    Yes, the top of a red dune in Namibia does sound much more romantic to me then Elvis tying the noose/ knot lol.

  390. robertallen1

    Of course, I was referring to the man who probably was not called Christ, much less Jesus, in his lifetime.

  391. robertallen1

    I have received a response from Don Rhoades of "The Atheist Experience" to my e-mail. Should I bother to post it and my answer?

  392. docoman

    Yeah, post it up, I'm interested in what he had to say.

  393. robertallen1

    Thank you for your response.

    Sure, we all have a brain and the size of our brain relative to the size of our bodies distinguishes us from other species. However, in general, the brain is only as good as the information fed into it.

    With respect to the show, please understand that I'm not angry because I didn't get on--not everyone can--but rather because the policy was not clearly enunciated and due to the way I was treated--I was not even asked what I wanted to contribute or whether I was theist or atheist.

    Your final paragraph sums up what the show is really about--and somehow I find this depressing.

  394. robertallen1

    It's somewhat long, but here goes:


    Hello again, Robert,
    Clearly from the message below and the voice mails you left yesterday you are angry about not being able to participate in an on-the-air conveersation on the Atheist Experience. I am sure what you had to say was very important to you.
    Fans of AE are mostly atheists, many of whom are eager to call in and talk live on the show about a personal experience or a problem they are having. The problem is that AE has never been a show about atheists talking to other atheists, and many of our regular viewers have expressed frustration that previous on-air time is frittered away tlaking to yet another atheist seeking advice on how to argue or what he should tell his family. Instead, the central premise of the show has always atheists talking live to believers. This is what our fans enjoy, and has been communicated on our website and numerous times by the hosts of the show.
    Making this happen is more of a trick than it might seem, as most of the callers are atheists, and the people we want the hosts talking to are believers. I suspect that when you got through the call screener yesterday, there was already one or more atheists parked on the phone lines, and the screener did the right thing and turned you away.
    I can completed understand your disappointment. If you have something to say to the folks who do the show, the correct venue is through the [address omitted] email. All emails are read, but there is simply not enough time to resopnd to them all.



    Dear Don:
    Thank you for your response.
    First of all, your website does not state with crystal clarity that “The Atheist Experience” is basically a show for atheists to talk to theists and vice versa. As a matter of fact, it encourages people to call in. This is clearly deceptive. Had your site contained such verbiage, I would never have wasted my time either watching your show or trying to contribute to it.
    Secondly, you and the screener assume that I’m an atheist and you yourself that what I had to say was “very important to me,” [read “and me alone”]; yet you and the screener whom you defend and who abruptly hung up on me in the middle of a sentence never even bothered to find out what I wanted to discuss, much less where I stand in the battle between atheists and theists. It is particularly galling to me that when I spoke to you last week, you failed to mention these considerations and the time I wasted yesterday merely adds salt to the wound.
    Please understand that I do not feel miffed by failing to get on your show—you couldn’t allow everyone even if you wanted to-- but rather by your failure to have a clearly enunciated policy and the manner in which I was treated.
    In addition, I am far from satisfied with the answer I received from Matt and the failure of both of you to even attempt to determine what I wanted to say and whether I was indeed an atheist. In this respect, last week, you advised me to e-mail Matt care of the show which I did and received no answer.
    Your production is not what it’s cracked up to be and is basically inimical to a decent, serious, informed discussion with those who take the topic seriously. As I informed you before, not only have you lost a viewer, but I plan to communicate my experience to others and provide them with copies of your e-mail and my response—again not because I didn’t get on.
    cc: Matt Dillahaunty

  395. robertallen1

    Scholars are virtually unanimous in believing that the person now known as JC existed. In this respect, you might want to refer to a website known as the Jesus Police.

    Docoman responded to your second issue more eloquently than I can.

    As for the true sense of the so-called Word, who knows?

    I appreciate the compliment, but you overrate me. I thought these guys and I were pretty much one and I merely wanted to contribute, not confront.

  396. Guest

    You wrote that you would show us his response, i see only your response to his about showing us the whole thread.
    I find it interesting.

  397. Guest

    YOu write: "....Sundays preaching what their congregations want to hear as opposed to enlightening them in the true sense of the word".

    You are possibly the most informed person about the bible i have ever read, mind you i haven't paid much attention to the bible and the people who have studied it. If you can't tell me what the true sense of the so-called word "may be", why do you think they would attempt to profess anything other than just following what they were taught?

  398. robertallen1

    I posted it, but apparently it was deleted. I could also post the last piece of correspondence between Matthew Dillahaunty and me which is even more enligtening about the nature of the show and the people who run it, but I'm afraid it would be deleted too. I have written to Vlatko about this. Perhaps there was some technical glitch.

  399. Achems_Razor

    I found your post for you, was not deleted, was a technical glitch. It is on now.

  400. Vlatko


    Probably was a technical glitch. Your comment is there.

  401. robertallen1

    Apparently there was a technical glitch. Please see the full post which begins with Mr. Rhoades' response.

  402. robertallen1

    Thank you. As long as some interest has been expressed, I am going to post the correspondence between Matt Dillahaunty and me which should reveal something about the show and the people running it.

  403. Vlatko


    If at the bottom of his emails (or anywhere else) there isn't any kind of clause that prohibits or asks from you not to share the exchanged info, I don't see why you shouldn't post it.

  404. robertallen1

    That's what Achem told me, but thank you for checking.

  405. robertallen1

    Nothing that I can see, but thank you for pointing this out.

  406. robertallen1

    Sorry, I misunderstood you. Here’s my initial correspondence to Don Rhoades.

    I have been watching the Atheist Experience for some time, including the archived episodes, and based upon what I read on your website, eventually decided to try to contribute a positive thought or two.
    When I tried last week, I could not get through and as a result E-mailed and telephoned the show. Eventually Don Rhoades called me and advised me to start calling in about a half-hour before the beginning.

    Today, I tried to get through the phone lines and met with either no answer or a busy signal. When I finally got through and informed the person who answered that I believed I had something to contribute, he told me that unless I were a theist, I would not be allowed to do so. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SHOW’S WEBSITE ENUNCIATING THIS POLICY!

    In addition, during our conversation, Mr. Rhoades advised me to send an e-mail to Matt directly which I did and to which I have not received the courtesy of a reply.

    I regard it as an insult that someone as ignorant and vacuous as Ray Comfort and quite a number of others can be given so much time while those who have anything positive to contribute cannot.

    Perhaps in my idealism, I placed too much reliance on what I thought was the sincerity of your show and was even seriously considering making a contribution.

    Needless to say, I will never watch another episode. In addition, I intend to relate my experience today to others.


  407. docoman

    Lucian of Samosata sounds like a very interesting character. I can see with the little I've read about him he clearly had a great imagination, and little tolerance for those he considered frauds. I've read the preface and a little of A True Story book 1, (English Translation by A.M. Harmon, 1913) I can see why you like him. Interestingly, I've seen it called a Romance, Science Fiction and satire, or as he said in the preface, a more or less comical parody. His writing style in A True Story is quite entertaining i.m.o.
    Do you recall which of his writings the earlier quotes you mentioned came from?
    Was it The Passing of Peregrinus?

  408. robertallen1

    It was.

    Yes, he was a character and a wonderful one at that--as I said, he reminds me of Kenneth Williams of Carry On Fame.

    As for what category "A True Story" falls into, what difference does it make. Suffice it to say that it is one of the precursors to the modern novel.

    Considering the interest you have expressed, I have posted my original letter to Don Rhoades of The Atheist Experience and am about to post the latest correspondence between Matt Dillahunty and me. Please judge for yourself and let me know your comments.

  409. docoman

    "The problem is that AE has never been a show about atheists talking to other atheists, and many of our regular viewers have expressed frustration that previous on-air time is frittered away tlaking to yet another atheist seeking advice on how to argue or what he should tell his family. Instead, the central premise of the show has always atheists talking live to believers."
    That's not what it says above, it says, "The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship,...." and is titled 'The Atheist Experience'.
    Hmm, from what he says to you, a more apt title would be something like 'Jerry Springer goes religious'.

  410. docoman

    From what he said to you, it would seem to me that the show is all about sensationalism, not actually what I read they said they were really about. Entertainment, not education. Sad.

  411. robertallen1

    For those interested, here is the latest piece of correspondence between Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience and me. If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide the earlier correspondence.
    HE: This is the last response you’re going to get from me . . . please read it carefully. Comments below.
    ME: Please show me where on the website your policy is clearly enunciated.
    HE: It’s not listed on the website. I don’t see any reason to state, on the website that we show preference to theistic callers. We’re free to take or reject calls however we like, for whatever reason we like.
    ME: Also please indicate to me where it states that the call-in number which flashes on the screen during broadcast is for atheists.
    HE: We don’t list the number on the website, because it’s not our studio, it’s a public access studio and we’re not the only ones who use this number. There’s not a specific number for atheists, there’s one number that goes to the studio and we only display it while we’re on live (to prevent people from calling in when we’re not live, and possibly interrupting some other show).
    ME: And while we’re at it, please indicate to me what makes you think I’m an atheist at all and also why nobody bothered to ask me what I was or what I had to say? Everybody, you included, just assumed.
    HE: When you wrote this: “When I finally got through and informed the person who answered that I believed I had something to contribute, he told me that unless I were a theist, I would not be allowed to do so.” I assumed that you were an atheist, because it would be silly for a theist to complain that they were allowed on the show for this reason [I think he means not allowed].
    ME: I really would like to put an end to this acrimonious exchange. If there’s been some miscommunication or misunderstanding, I’d rather it be buried.
    HE: I’m putting an end to it. You won’t be receiving any future responses from me.
    ME: I would rather we started off on a new footing, for I respect your knowledge and intelligence on several subjects which are near and dear to me, such as biblical scholarship in general and would like to ask you simply a few questions and perhaps make a few hopefully well-thought-out statements. Is that asking too much?
    HE: It’s not too much…it’s too late. You behaved like an ass, and I have no more time for you.

  412. robertallen1

    I have just posted the latest correspondence between Matt Dillahauntey and me. I would appreciate your comments.

  413. robertallen1

    Cute and pathetic.

  414. docoman

    Hmm, unless you've got an opposing view, that they can then try to shoot down and pick apart, they don't want to know.
    Clearly they're not after any informed discussion.
    He said, "I assumed that you were an atheist, because it would be silly for a theist to complain that they were allowed on the show for this reason [I think he means not allowed]."
    Ok, so under his reasoning, why did the US have a civil war? A.Lincoln was not black, not a slave, so why would anyone that wasn't a dark-skinned slave have any reason to complain? According to Matt's logic, that would be silly. Or should we all just assume that Abe was really a slave?
    Ignorance and closed-mindedness is sad, regardless of what side of the fence you sit.
    I would say that he's not worth your time, he's not interested in learning or helping others to learn, only ratings/$$$.
    Furthermore, this being the show's intent, its not worth anyone other then a non-thinking, atheists time (every bit as silly i.m.o as a non-thinking believer).

  415. Guest

    I recommend you send him one last note, inviting him on the panel here, TDF has a great reputation. Would be interesting to see what he has to say to you and to others.

  416. Achems_Razor

    I second that recommendation!

  417. robertallen1

    Interesting idea, but I don't think it would do any good to communicate with him any further.

    However, if they can have their two-bit show, I wonder why we can't have our three-bit show. With the people we have, we could do a lot better than they ever thought of doing--oh, well, I'm dreaming.

    Have you read through everything and if so, what are your thoughts?

  418. robertallen1

    Perhaps we should all write to him. I'll be happy to provide you with his e-mail address, but perhaps we should first clear it with Vlad.

    Please see my response to Azilda.

    Also, have you read through everything and if so, I would appreciate your comments.

  419. Achems_Razor

    Well no, I will not email him personally, for one thing I have no cable and never watch their programs, so will be ill prepared, but since his doc is here on TDF if he wants to comment fine, if not, that is his prerogative.

    My comments on his response to you is he was trying to brush you off and did not really know what to say and how to handle your queries, after all they are concerned only with having good ratings and making money, absolutely nothing else!

  420. robertallen1

    These cheesy little cable show is concerned with ratings and money? Do you mean they are seeking donations?

  421. Achems_Razor

    Have no idea what it is they are seeking, but air time costs money, does it not? Unless they pay for it themselves out of pocket.

  422. robertallen1

    I'm just as puzzled as you.

  423. Guest

    I googled the Atheist Experience show, near the top main page it says: The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience.
    Did you make them change their presentation or did you misread?

  424. lakhotason

    It's a public access station. Pretty much free to use the studio and broadcast. AE is a non-profit. So it isn't about money.

  425. Guest

    I have read the exchange, a few points....

    No sure what was said exactly during your phone interview but the comment you wrote right after clearly shows that you were frustrated with them, as you say " you felt you got a slap in the face".

    Then on a next comment you mention: "This whole program is as dishonest and deceptive as any creationist and not only am I galled to have found this out the hard way, but these people are asking for money to promote what--a forum for theists?
    To that i would ask: why do you say creationists are dishonest? I think they are honest to their belief, they may not be right in your view or in the view of science but saying that they are dishonest....i don't know.
    Also...i think for them to choose to interview predominantly theists is not to give theists a forum, it is to give the "opposite" view of theism a forum meaning the interviewer. The guy politely and clearly states: "The problem is that AE has never been a show about atheists talking to other atheists, and many of our regular viewers have expressed frustration that previous on-air time is frittered away talking to yet another atheist seeking advice on how to argue or what he should tell his family. Instead, the central premise of the show has always atheists talking live to believers."

    This reminds me of the way Valtko would politely answer someone who wants to impose his view on Valtko's site, TDF...and he has.

    Then you write: Sure, we all have a brain and the size of our brain relative to the size of our bodies distinguishes us from other species. However, in general, the brain is only as good as the information fed into it.
    I reread to see if this was in response to something the guy said, unless i missed it, it seem to be offered freely and i think it could be perceived as rude.

    I myself would never watch this show because i get enough argument about religion right here on TDF. I have noticed that when two atheists write to each other if no theist jump in the pack, the conversation stops real soon. It is only when a theist comes with his view and his arguments that the conversation gets heated and long.....which is quite possibly what the Atheist Experience show is after too.

    I would have enjoyed listening to you talk about the bible and what you have learned from years of searching. That is the reason earlier on this thread, i asked you: And since you seem to know the history of the bible quite well what is in your opinion, the true sense of the Word?

  426. robertallen1

    Really. Let's get our own show on a public access station.

  427. robertallen1

    Creationists are generally not so much mistaken as patently dishonest when it comes to science. For proof, go to any creationist website and start spotting the errors or better yet, ask Achems_Razor, Over_the_Edge, Epicurus, Vlatko.

    The panel on "The Atheist Experience" constantly complains of theists coming on the show to preach and also of the preponderance of 24-hour theist stations as opposed to the one hour on Sunday for atheists; yet despite what you think, its policy simply gives theists another platform. In addition, how welcome would an atheist be on a theist station?

    Had someone from the show taken the trouble to ascertain where I stand (neither atheist nor theist) and what I wanted to say rather than jump to conclusions, all this would have been averted. In such case, even if I had been told that I would not be able to get on, I would not have felt the way I do now and might probably have continued watching the program despite its junkiness. Instead they acted like the ignorant fools they are and I can't say missed out on a good thing (for even I'm not that conceited) but at least a considered constructive and hopefully piquant effort; but, as Docoman so sagely notes, this they don't want.

    The comment on the size of the brain was in response to Docoman's statement about the ability to analyze and speaking of Docoman, I suggest you read his comment from six hours ago beginning with "Hmm, unless you've got an opposing view . . . "

    Once again, if we had access to a public station, we could put on a better show than this, but I'm dreaming.

  428. Guest

    I disagree with that, i think their purpose is really to spread the atheist view. They even go for diner after the show with who ever (well not quite, atheists and atheist friendly as stated) wants to meet them. Sounds like a local (Austin) affair. They have a way that works for them and they wish to continue this way....nothing wrong with that. My guess is that most of the time they will air pretty boring people, they were possibly lucky to get (our clown) Ray Comfort for promotion.

  429. Guest

    Right about the brain thing, i oversaw that this comment was in an exchange with Docoman. My mistake.

  430. lakhotason

    You probably have one in your town. Call the cable company(s). They are who sponsor this. I think they are required to offer this but I'm not really sure.

  431. docoman

    My apologies for any babble I let dribble through my fingers last night. I must remember to forget my login details when I've been up all night and had a couple drinks. Naughty me, sorry.

  432. robertallen1

    You keep overrating me. I am nowhere near a biblical scholar, merely an enthusiast. However, let me clarify my point. More good would be accomplished if a greater number of Sunday sermons were devoted to teaching the history of the bible and depicting the nature of the societies that spawned it rather than dwelling on doctrine.

  433. Guest

    I just sent a request to The Atheist Experience inviting them to join us on the forum, let's see if anyone shows up.

  434. Guest

    I am not overrating you. I am telling you i have never met someone who has studied the bible before other than priests when i was young and even them...not sure if they study the bible in depth or not. You have.
    You wrote: "In addition, I wanted to place the blame for this on religious leaders who although knowing better are so fearful of holding on to their positions that they spend their Sundays preaching what their congregations want to hear as opposed to enlightening them in the true sense of the word."
    I asked you to tell me what, in your opinion, is the true sense of the word and i yet have had an answer on that, unless...
    First you answered Who knows? and then you answered: "see what you wrote in the comment i am responding to".
    So the true sense of the word was that the bible was meant to be a historical book?

  435. robertallen1

    I have a Canadian quarter which says they won't.

  436. Guest

    Is that a bet?
    i have a US one

  437. robertallen1

    I thought I had explained myself in another post, but all right.

    I certainly don't mean the word in a metaphysical sense, for I couldn't care less, but rather in teaching their flock about the history of the bible and the cultures which spawned it and perhaps about earlier works.

  438. robertallen1

    You're on and quite frankly, I hope I lose.

    Could you please provide us all with a copy of your e-mail to the show?

  439. Guest

    @Robertallen1, letter to The Atheist Experience

    Hi, my name is Azilda, I am one of the commenters on TDF, topdocumentaryfilms (dot) com, your doc which features Ray Comfort is shown on this site. You can search for it at the top right corner where it says SEARCH THIS SITE.

    One of our popular commenter, Robert Allen, has described his latest contact with your tv show. His experience appears to have been very negative. I invite you to come and defend your show. I have lived in Austin before, love your city.

    Come on on board and have a chat with the members of TDf...a fine gang!


  440. robertallen1

    Good try, but I doubt if they will respond. However, I have Matt Dillahaunty's personal e-mail and wonder if I should give it out.

  441. Guest

    not sure either, put it here for 5 minutes, i'll copy it and resend my letter and you can edit it off....if you wish

  442. robertallen1

    The guy is such a jerk that I'm tempted to, but much as I would like to be a jerk as well, something makes me hesitate, as e-mails are personal. Therefore, I seek the guidance of the gang and especially Vlatko.

  443. Guest

    I won't be up much later...will see what happened in the morning.

  444. thirt13n

    Why doesn't a non follower just step away from religion and not hold a label, simply become more human, and walk amongst them all? Aim any bible text fact, religious statement towards me and it sounds like staticy noise. God's want followers, if you leave your religion and attempt to lead others onto a different truth, you could be killed. The following herds out number. You believe religiously only because of written instructions thousands of years old that tell you to,and goes unquestioned. There is no expert at any of this. I'm no expert but if you took religion and god away, your hell will certainly follow. Until then good vs evil will be replaced with good vs good. Is it humanity that can create a grain of sand? Is it a small part of a sea shell? Anyway Can a human grow a blade of grass from a grass seed? Is mankind suppose too? Who thinks advanced methods will arise out of religion? Technology? Religion and all it's methods restrict man from evolving, so no methods of advancing will ever be born, from followers. We all need to become leaders of man with no outside entities.

  445. robertallen1

    This morning, I sent the following e-mail to Matt Dillahunty:

    "Several people I know would like to e-mail you directly. However, I never give out anyone's e-mail address unless I have permission to do so. Do I have yours?

    "If I do not hear from you within 24 hours, I will assume that your answer is no."

    I think this is the best way to handle it. Do you agree?

  446. Guest

    I got a reply from Jen, it is clear that they do not have time for additional correspondance on this issue. The letter is not in your favor as you would expect. If you want me to post it, i will.
    I consider myself no longer interested in this issue, although it is unfortunate the team won't come and see the 447 comments concerning the doc itself.

  447. robertallen1

    Who's Jen and yes, I would like you to post it.

    Actually, I had put the issue to bed about two days ago until you brought it up again.

    I have heard from Matt who indicates that it is probably O.K. to give out his e-mail address as he has several and does not attempt to hide them. However, I am pressing him for a more definite answer and will let everyone know if I receive it.

    Once again, we could do a better job than them--and if you want to know what I mean by a better job, please see my latest post to docoman.

  448. robertallen1

    On second thought, here's the complete text of Matt's response:

    "Well I've got several e-mail addresses and haven't bothered to hide any of them. Depending on what this is pertaining to, I probably don't have any objections.

    "I can't possibly promise to answer their e-mails, but they're welcome to send them. I'm almost always hundreds of e-mails's just happenstance that I sat down when yours popped up, or you probably wouldn't have heard from me in the 24 hours window."

    So, I gather that it is all right. However, as I do not want to violate any TDF policy, I think I should obtain clearance from either Vlatko or one of the moderators to post this address.

  449. Guest

    Letter from a representative of The Atheist Experience

    Hi Az,
    I’m sure you’re a fine group, and yes, we know Robert. He made quite an ass of himself on our email list. He seems to have interpreted our invitation to call the show as a guarantee that we’d put him on. We make no such guarantees, and even after Don Rhoades attempted to explain some of our resource limitations (public access studio, only 4 incoming phone lines, etc.), Robert still acted like we’d somehow defrauded him.

    Here’s the reality, and you can convey this to Robert or anyone else in your group. The ACA is a small group of volunteers. None of us gets paid for anything we do to produce our media projects, and we have 3 of them. In addition to the significant amount of our spare time we spend running the organization and producing our shows, we also contribute to a blog, a Facebook page, and a very active email list. I currently have 415 unread emails in my inbox, and I have no idea when, or even if, I’ll ever get to them. I’m sure every one of the people who sent us those emails thinks his/her email was just as important as Robert’s. Unlike Robert, they’re not having a tantrum because someone hasn’t responded to them yet.

    Speaking of tantrums – I’m familiar with what they look like and with how to deal with them. I don’t indulge them, so no, I won’t be coming over to TDF to talk to Robert. As I said, I’m sure you’re a fine bunch, but I don’t have the time or the energy to spend on yet another project. I’m sorry Robert had a negative experience with us, but the responsibility for that rests with him. If he’d taken a more mature approach instead of assuming that he was entitled to our time and attention, he’d probably be a lot happier right now.

    Thanks for the email.


  450. Guest

    This is the response from The Atheist Experience
    (this is the second time i post it, the first is not showing and nothing about it being sent to moderators, sorry if it shows twice)

    Hi Az
    I’m sure you’re a fine group, and yes, we know Robert. He made quite an ass of himself on our email list. He seems to have interpreted our invitation to call the show as a guarantee that we’d put him on. We make no such guarantees, and even after Don Rhoades attempted to explain some of our resource limitations (public access studio, only 4 incoming phone lines, etc.), Robert still acted like we’d somehow defrauded him.

    Here’s the reality, and you can convey this to Robert or anyone else in your group. The ACA is a small group of volunteers. None of us gets paid for anything we do to produce our media projects, and we have 3 of them. In addition to the significant amount of our spare time we spend running the organization and producing our shows, we also contribute to a blog, a Facebook page, and a very active email list. I currently have 415 unread emails in my inbox, and I have no idea when, or even if, I’ll ever get to them. I’m sure every one of the people who sent us those emails thinks his/her email was just as important as Robert’s. Unlike Robert, they’re not having a tantrum because someone hasn’t responded to them yet.

    Speaking of tantrums – I’m familiar with what they look like and with how to deal with them. I don’t indulge them, so no, I won’t be coming over to TDF to talk to Robert. As I said, I’m sure you’re a fine bunch, but I don’t have the time or the energy to spend on yet another project. I’m sorry Robert had a negative experience with us, but the responsibility for that rests with him. If he’d taken a more mature approach instead of assuming that he was entitled to our time and attention, he’d probably be a lot happier right now.

    Thanks for the email.


  451. Guest

    I have a lot more interest in what is going on in 10 10 10

  452. Achems_Razor


    Don't know how Epic: feels, but I for one feel that should be Vlatko's

  453. robertallen1

    Thank you for posting this.

    All I can say is if Don Rhoades had communicated all this to me when we spoke the week before, none of this would have happened. Second, I resent being hung up on in the middle of a sentence before I could even explain what I wanted to discuss. If this makes me an ass, sobeit.

    Therefore, no, the responsibility rests with a staff that thinks all too much of itself and a show which has no intention of promoting any intelligence or understanding.

  454. robertallen1

    What is 10 10 10?

  455. robertallen1

    That's my point. So, Vlatko, please respond.

  456. Guest

    The doc where most are at the moment...
    Project 10:10:10, pill or perception?

  457. robertallen1

    On further reflection, I started to feel sorry for Jen and so sent her the following:

    "As you informed Azilda that you have more e-mails to answer than you can handle (415 to be exact), I volunteer to assist you in handling them."

    Wasn't that nice of me.

    Now, let's see how those phonies react.

  458. docoman

    Just a quick, half-awake observation before I'm off to dreamland, in the email from Jen, if she had 415 unread emails in her inbox, how would she know that they're not throwing a tantrum? They're 'unread'.

    An idea to help Jen;
    Maybe if they asked everyone that emailed to put in the subject line whether they are atheist or theist, they could reduce their workload, as it seems as if they're only after theists to verbally bash on the show.

  459. robertallen1

    That's an idea. I can see that you and I feel the same about helping out the less fortunate.

  460. norlavine

    'I’m sure you’re a fine group' - that dismissive and patronizing response from their spokesperson 'Jen' indicates to me that you are dealing with a bunch of essentially underdeveloped and ill equipped 'band wagon' opportunists who have failed the integrity test on all counts.
    They certainly don't help your cause.

  461. robertallen1

    Once again, thanks for the sincere support.

    If Jen's so sure that we're a "fine group," one would think she would jump at the opportunity to contact us. My fingers respond involuntarily with the word insincerity--But you phrase it well when you mention the integrity test because I think you realize that I am not angry because I did not get on, but rather because no one bothered to ask me what I wanted to talk about and the screener hung up on me in mid-sentence, this after I had spoken to Don Rhoades the previous week and followed his instructions to the letter.

    Please see my latest e-mail to Azilda in which I volunteered to help Jen with her 415 unanswered e-mails. Do you think she will welcome my assistance or even communicate my offer to the rest of the staff?

  462. norlavine

    She's either too busy scouting for creationists to keep their circular discussions alive or she's doing her nails.
    Off to work now,goodnight(it's 7:30am here) x

  463. robertallen1

    Or maybe she's doing something else.

  464. Zac Chase

    This is great, justifies every atheistic thought i have ever had.

  465. David Ford

    We need an id**t collar that shocks people when they say some of the things this Ray fellow says. You can not prove anything for certain, but can only be reasonably sure about things. You can know when something is wrong though! Anytime someone is not open minded or they do not care to look at every angle in order to know the reality of something... They are wrong!
    ...And By the way... At least you can lead an atheist to evidence! We practically rub Christian's noses in it and they wont even look at it! Just like a stubborn little kid. We have fossilized cells that eventually went off of the main path into two separate paths. The paths taken shaped the cells differently and they became two completely different species! That alone is some damn good evidence of evolution if you are at least willing to look at it.
    Another great example is seen when u compare head lice with pubic hair lice (crabs) and then compare the two to lice found on chimpanzees. Interesting stuff.
    Sorry this is so long. I just think st*pid should be banned.
    Critical thinking or none at all.
    -Random thinker who should probably study English a bit more.
    P.S. Ray thinks of life as a plane destined to crash (Or, like some people I have met that say "This life is Hell and when we die we go to heaven.") ...I think if there is a god or creator, that is the biggest slap in the face to he/she/it. ...Or to even imagine a place better than the universe we live in today... Pure disrespect! Too bad you silly theists can't see the universe as beautiful as I do. It's a real shame.

  466. Trevor LeFiles

    "I trust you" "That will be your undoing" WTF ?! Seriously. Then they both laugh cause their afraid of eachother.

  467. Trevor LeFiles

    Matt Dilhunty could easily take a hindu or buddhist stance. But of course this "atheist" definition as it is is strictly and emphatically not a "religion", even though hindu sects even before socratese and the sophists both recognize that "atheism" is also in hindu and its evolved forms. Said atheistic religion does exist, and its sad that the naturalist philosopher recognizes his own philosophy as not a religion when it does exist.

  468. AUWR

    Atheism is not a religion. Yes, an atheist can also be considered as a hindu; but Hinduism is not strictly a religion per sé or better said, Hinduism is not just a religion, but a lifestyle. A hindu is someone who accepts a "code of morality" based on various philosophical notions. It has nothing to do with believing in a deity. Therefore, an atheist who lives according to these basic codes of morality is considered a hindu. I'll never understand why people keep misunderstanding this basic concept: Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Simple.

  469. gregoreo

    "You can not prove anything for certain, but can only be reasonably sure about things. You can know when something is wrong though!"

    Based on what? How can there be a wrong when there is no right? I'm honestly confused by this statement.

    By the way, the vast majority of Christians would agree that the universe is not only amazing and beautiful, but that considering we don't even know how big it is, it is the single biggest sign that points to a creator.

    Our universe is so majestic and incredible that to argue for a random origin of the universe would be magical thinking of the highest degree. I know that for many, simply adding billions of years to the equation allows for all kinds of other possibilities that are unprovable, but at least give the atheist the option of a belief system that can not be disproved. But that's another discussion entirely.

  470. robertallen1

    First of all, what you believe the vast majority of Christians would agree on is of no consequence in a scientific discussion.

    Second, by averring the existence of a creator, you're the one who's engaged in magical thinking OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE!

    Now, here's a question for you, does the atheist in general merely assert the non-existence of a creator or is he stating that there is not evidence for him to believe such an entity exists? After all, the only evidence you've presented is an alleged majority of Christian opinion and a conjecture.

  471. over the edge

    your statement "we don't even know how big it is, it is the single biggest sign that points to a creator." is very revealing in many ways. why does "we don't know yet" equal "god did it" ? hiding god in the areas that have yet to be explained seems like a last ditch effort to me. as the unexplained is explained you god has less and less placed to hide. i find it infuriating that every time an atheist or scientist (they are two separate things) says we don't know you religious types claim that as a weakness. in closing what is this atheist belief system you speak of ? i have been claiming to be an atheist for many years and i am unaware of this belief system. i always thought an atheist was a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods nothing more. please enlighten me?

  472. docoman

    "You can lead a horticulture..... but you can't make her think." - David Letterman.

  473. Winston Smith

    It is not that 'god' might not exist but that there is no reason to believe in it. If Jesus had arose from the dead, done so for Lazarus, been literally walking on water dont you think there would have been a contemporary record of his exploits?? Many in fact?? But there are none.

    Have you seen read a more overtly allegorical and symbolic book than the bible? It'd be tough. Yet people take it literally, its insane. To be alive has always been the mystery. This is what they are writing about. (that and fantastzing about n afterlife, trying to give the world everything it lacks in justice, etc/ )

    Ths is how teaching was/is done. with symbol and imagery which operate at many levels, -iif youknow them) Look at what's in the Nag Hammadi texts and other religious documents from the period (Mithra and the whole cacophony of ancient derivatives that came down to that time. The very prototype for Mary and Jesus is Isis and Osiris and if you dont belive this look at the pictorial iconography. (Mother earth out of which comes (without corrupting her flesh showing it is spiritual or mental, matter) the redeemer of humanity). If you belive the bible pls study its history and other lit from the period. Read how it was designed to replace the pagan cults.. -thats what the saints are all about. Its just religion evolving, thats all it can ever do. And its manmade.

    All that side. Spirituality is a real thing and you can work within almost any lineage and gain profound insight. Humans can access all manner of inner spaces. Some mystics (like David Chaim Smith for example -his drawings are amazing) wont even acknowledge god because to do so is to pretend to know a mystery. The deepest questions end in paradox. So All we have our experience.

    Mr comfort is a businessman, who makes millions of dollars a year selling fantasy religion to the ignorant masses. His type has been around a long time. He is not a man of god because he doesnt know what that even means. He has no idea what happens when you die and sadly will probably will never ave any real concept of where he could have gone while alive. Christians could read Bernadette Roberts The Experience of No Self dealing with contemplative Christianity for an aspect of what Im talking about. Mysticism, not religion. The pursuit of gnosis is an intellectual process that binds the heart and mind in a single direction: to explore the nature of mind.

    To realize, through directly engaging at this level, that contrary to experience at an absolute level everything lives and breathes the soul of it's creator and is fundmantally the same thing, -given many names in varous traditions.

    How can man know, or pretend to know anything about how this process came about when our minds are but one small aspect of its results?
    Everything is ultimately made up of space and energy interacting. The astonishngly complex universe is in a constant state of creation. Why imagine a more complex being behind something already so complex? It answers nothing. begs it's own genesis...and is misleading fantasy religion for the ignorant masses. 'God' should be taken to the mean, the mystery of our own being. (mystery being the operative word).

    Spirituality is one thing: exploring yourself. All is 'display of consciousness.' The inner recesses of your mind and beyond and if you can. Use symbols and impress them on the mind,-there are a number of types of meditations. (Aryeh Kaplan's Meditation & The Bible & Inner Space are the best intros to kabbalah. (though you do have to ignore some religion, but as you will. If you want to imagine a great father in the sky watching you, go for it. But dont think your 'religion' (aka imaginary friend) is the true one or any such nonsense like that)

    Back to mysticism, With progress comes the realization that individual subjective reality (subject object are not two but one, -but none) is an illusion. Gnosis is a type of revealed knowledge in which the mind seems to be able to enage the entire field of perception. A purely intellectual approach (is of course vital to learn some but the minor part) and will only go so far bc it is engaging the undifferentiated aspect of mind that so dramatically begins to change how we engage and look at everything else. What we carry away from practice. The mind if so fluid (and capable of self-delusion too) that you can really do almost anything with it if you train it so. -pardon this long post

  474. Achems_Razor

    @Winston Smith:

    I have read it all, very good post!

  475. Simon Dahlström

    Atheism is not a religion. You do not believe in a god without proof, end of story. There are not even anything that justify believing in one. Atheism state a negative, and therefore is not an entity of it's own. All Atheist doesn't group, but are individuals with the same way of thinking, simple due to that negative statement it is all based on.

    Religion is ---> ALWAYS <--- based on a positive statement, that something does exist, therefore the people can be grouped and belong to a religion.

    Either you are one of these.

    Atheist || Agnostic || Theist

    You can't be more than one, and you do belong to one, even if you don't think you do.

    You can either be an Atheist without knowing it, or be an Atheist and knows it, and then wave a sign saying you are an atheist, like Matt and these fellows do. Of course you can be an atheist and know it, and not wave a sign telling people you are one.

    It's about a mindset, in the matter, where you don't believe in things without proof.

    I do not care how you try to make it into a bloody religion, it is not. Atheism says, don't believe, know!

  476. Vic Seay

    I think that Ray Comfort is a well meaning and yet decidedly "ignorant" man. He seems to exemplify the Christian who just denies evidence despite being shown and shown again and again. Very interesting debate!

  477. hayesane

    It's really and really easy for you to be an Atheist or an Evolutionist when you're successfull, healthy, famous, strong, alive etc...but it is very impossible for you to be Atheist or an Evolutionist when you're lying on your death bed!

  478. robertallen1

    This is asinine. Where are your facts?

  479. Teddy Mcd

    To be an atheist/agnostic is easy - certainly for me. It is easy because I believe it to be true. I believe it to be true because there is no evidence that there is a god - zero. I do not consider faith evidence. I will not live my life a lie.
    Now to your statement - ' is very impossible for you to be Atheist or an Evolutionist when you're lying on your death bed," which is akin to, "There are no atheists in foxholes.". Do keep on mind that the great atheist Christopher Hitchens who died Dec 15, 2011 and who spoke until his lungs wouldn't allow speech - never once did he recant his belief in secularism and he continued as the abyss drew nearer and nearer to emphatically decry against religion as the yoke that oppresses and tyrannizes humankind.

  480. hayesane

    Since you don't want to believe in God; the fact is that when you die you will know that God is real, but it'll be too late!

  481. robertallen1

    How do you know this?

  482. Teddy Mcd

    Hey come on I was being nice. We are all like that - nice that is - all us monster atheists/agnostic - we are nice thoughtful people. We care about the world and all people in it.

    Hopefully one day you'll understand. Until then -you are not even wrong - for to be wrong (or right for that matter) takes forethought and analysis based of course on evidence.

    Have a pleasant spring Sunday.

  483. Achems_Razor

    Who told you that, Ray Comfort?

  484. hayesane

    Hey friend I wasn't try to hurt you, but you don't understand what I was saying that's why you got it all wrong. of course I was being nice, i also care for our world and people that live in it because God created the world and the people to be loved and cared.

  485. hayesane

    To know this:
    You go and sit next to a person who is about to die and hear what that person says before dying.

  486. hayesane

    I told you!

  487. Achems_Razor

    Oh! so you have a pipeline to your gods do you, little tiny carbon unit?

  488. robertallen1

    Not only is this silly, it's untrue. As mentioned, Christopher Hitchens died a confirmed atheist. You don't know what you're talking about.

  489. docoman

    Sit next to a Christian as they're dying.... sit next to a Muslim as they're dying... sit next to an Atheist as they're dying... they'll all still cling to the beliefs they had mostly, and will miss what they care about and regret the things they did wrong, and the things they didn't do.
    Someone's wish's and regrets at death prove nothing one way or the other with regards to the 'God' question. Proves they are emotional is all it proves.

  490. Ross Norfolk

    NEARLY all of Ray's arguments are undeniably logically circular and intrinsic. His arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and I pity him if he cannot realise that.

  491. robertallen1

    You're right, but I don't pity him; I despise him, for he and those like him are the ones who get all the attention on programs such as these (which are phoney to begin with) and in addition, he and others like him, such as his little schmendrick, former television icon, Kirk Cameron, are the ones to whom the ignorant American public gives far more credence than to the real thing.

  492. Ross Norfolk

    Sorry what do you mean the real thing? The more reasonable christian? Sorry didn't understand

  493. robertallen1

    The people with the knowledge, e.g., Richard Dawkins, Kenneth R. Miller

  494. Ross Norfolk

    Oh I see, yeah I agree completely.

  495. hayesane

    Sorry, you still don't understand what I was saying....

  496. hayesane

    Sure, I have a pipeline to my GOD (not gods) who is the only true GOD who created the earth and all that are in it. He loves you and sent his son Jesus to die for your sins and to save you....God Loves you regardless of you being an Atheist!

  497. hayesane

    You don't understand what I was saying...

  498. hayesane

    Oh still in darkness....facts are all around us...yet we don't understand! come out from the darkness of our stubborness to the light and see.....for where light is there is no darkness!

  499. Samuel Morrissey

    The candle casts a shadow.

  500. robertallen1

    Then the fault is yours.

  501. robertallen1

    Don't expect us to take your word for it. Prove that you do.

  502. robertallen1

    When I ask for facts, you reply that they are all around us. This represents the sum total of your intelligence.

  503. robertallen1

    As does ignorance.

  504. hayesane

    Still looking for facts to prove God? radiculous!
    Look at a blooming flower and ask yourself this question: "Does it has a Designer or was it just Evovled? It wiil surely tell you that it has Deigner=GOD!

  505. hayesane

    No,It's your choice, you have the 'Will Power' to say Yes or No. you choose what is best for you. I choose GOD is what I want and he will be my GOD till the last breath of my life....
    Whatever our decisions are, GOD is great...he was, he is and he shall be forever!

  506. hayesane

    Only if you know GOD, you'll understand.

  507. hayesane

    Light always prevail!

  508. Samuel Morrissey

    Eyes wide shut still eh? Only while the candle burns, my friend.
    The shadows are there before, during and after.
    The light just gives them an illusory form.

    You claim to know god, then tell me how you know.
    If you can show me, I will change my mind.
    If you can not show me, then you are a liar, to yourself above all.

    You say the flower is designed, again, tell me how you know.
    Is it different from something that wasn't designed?
    If not, how could you know the difference?

    You say 'GOD is great...he was, he is and he shall be forever!'
    I say it is void, it wasn't, it is not, and it shall never be.
    One of us can not be wrong.

    Are you willing to admit the pure truth that is; you could be wrong?

  509. robertallen1

    Whether you like it or not, the blooming flower just evolved and your attribution of this process to a designer (=GOD) is merely an assertion with no proof--but again you find proof (facts) ridiculous. You merely expect others to accept what you baselessly and ignorantly posit.

  510. robertallen1

    Again, how do you know this. Is it through ignorance?

  511. robertallen1

    It's obvious that the last thing you use to think with is your brain. So spare us your pathetic, meaningless, dogmatic twaddle.

  512. docoman

    I understand what you were saying. You were saying that because of your belief, what someone else believes doesn't matter, they will find that you will be proven correct when they die.

    Could this be perhaps because while they are alive, you cannot show any better proof or evidence other then looking at a flower and deciding there 'must' be some intelligent creator, or quoting a book that other people wrote, and saying 'see, God said so'. Therefore you have to go for the cop-out 'after you die you'll see'.

    This epiphany many believers talk of, is not God talking to you, it's the last bit of your logic snapping and your mind breaking from reality and entering a mass psychosis.

    The same nonsensical, brainwashed dribble from one soft, shifted mind to the next.
    Are there any theists out there that have any sort of reasonable, at least half logical argument for why there has to be a god? It would be a nice change to the 'seen the light', 'the book says so' BS that is constantly regurgitated. (Ray Comfort need not reply)

    You need to start taking your med's again mate, by the sound of it.

  513. Charlie19331

    Who cares what any of you have to say! In this diatribe I cannot find one theist or one atheist that has made a single compromise about anything. You all sound like a bunch of children that do not concern themselves with what is right only who is right. Childish minds should not attempt adult debates.

  514. Achems_Razor


    Well, we are waiting!

  515. robertallen1

    Excuse me, but I don't compromise with ignorance, superstition, dogma, deceit or lying.

  516. Travis Wood

    The reason there has been no compromise is this: They are two completely different theories. Theism: An invisible "God" created the world. Atheism: The world came from nothing turning into something. Not making light of either theory. The only thing that can be compromised is the evolution of animals, with the exception of Man.

  517. robertallen1

    "The only thing that can be compromised is the evolution of animals, with the exception of Man." Why are you talking about, or do you know?

  518. Michael Stagg

    just because i cant see you does not mean you don't exist in someones head.

  519. robertallen1

    Sounds like a formula for delusion.

  520. Dave In Dayton

    Doing a fine job beating down the Christians, but mathematics will conquer and the future will belong to the breeders. I do think that Christians will whittle away until there is just a remnant and I do believe that eventually the children of the Koran will convince the world to obey. As for our freethinking Atheist friends ... well their christian bashing, multi-culturalism loving, gotta stop world overpopulationizing ways will just speed things along.

    Good luck guys. We are screwed.

  521. robertallen1

    You're so right. The children of the Koran involved in 9-11 certainly convinced the world to obey.

  522. Michael

    You're wrong. Theism would argue that god is not invisible, but is everywhere and visible through everything (nature, other people, etc.) Atheism would argue against the "something from nothing" (or Ex Nihilo) philosophy because that assumes there is a divine creator. You, sir, should no longer comment.

  523. Blair Colwell

    "The Atheist community of Austin is organized as a non-profit educational corporation." How are they educating anyone? Sure they make educated guesses based on the best available data for their debate, but so do Christians. Sure, current, observable data knocks two-thousand year old mythology out of the water, but at the end of the day it comes down to belief for both sides. Atheists need to give their heads a shake and realize they don't have ALL the facts.

  524. robertallen1

    No, but they have a lot more going for them than theists.

  525. Warren

    Whenever a christian says "a painting needs a painter." Follow this with "a painting can also have MULTIPLE painters." See what answer you get next.

  526. Warren

    37:40 - Ray states that he "HATES" modern evangelicals. Go back to 36:59....God is SO HOLY, that he see's lust as adultery and......wait for it......"hatred is murder." In less than 1 min, Ray completely proves that even his sense of christianity is corrupt. How can he say, Matt didn't know sin, when he doesn't know sin, or at least, the sin the bible talks about.

  527. supercalev

    What a wast of brain power!This guy will never get,his brain has not evolved out of magical thinking.He it stuck in his circular reasoning.So sad, seems like a cool guy.

  528. supercalev

    Poor guy, I can see smoke coming out of his brain.Religion can have a powerful grip on reasoning.I was raised jewish and took me 50 years.

  529. Foza

    The problem I have with blindly commited religious people is that you cannot rationalize with them. and they do not shutup with arguments, they go on and on and on feeling all right and superior to others

  530. robertallen1

    May I add that the less they know, they more they think they know.

  531. Foza

    I found this very interesting and only reinforced my atheist views

  532. Monica Hendricks

    Ray Comfort NEVER said he knew everything. He said God does,and because he believes in a creator he sincerely cares about where they,or you, will spend eternity.

    And by bare definition, Science is testable, repeatable, and observable. By that definition the "Theory" of Evolution can not even fall into the realm of science or even stand as a theory because it doesn't fall under the scientific method or of what Science is. I dare you to watch on YouTube
    "Louie Giglio -- Indescribable tour How Great is our God." Its NOT a sermon straight out of the Bible. Its not even really a sermon. He talks about Science from the biggest things in this universe to the tiniest molecules that hold our body together. Seriously, I DARE you to watch it all the way through instead of just spouting off "Nonsensical dribble" on a topic of which you know barely to nothing about. To spell it out for you: Do. Your. Homework! If you want to tear the creationist down you need to do an in depth study of what they're about. Actually study "the book." ...Or is it maybe You who needs to start taking his meds again?

  533. robertallen1

    I dare you to find something in evolution which is not testable, repeatable and observable. Louie Giglio is a pastor (and an ignorant southern one at that), not a scientist, and hence his opinion is as worthless as yours and that huckster and phony, Ray Comfort.

    Seriously, you are simply another sickening religee who posts about something of which she knows nothing.

  534. docoman

    Lol. Actually, I am taking my meds Monica. Thankfully, science has provided me with operations and medications which is the only reason I'm still here, despite the efforts of the 'church' over the centuries. For your info, I have studied 'the book'. Quite a few years of it. Seventh Day Adventists, Lutheran, and a couple more versions less intensively..... different flavours of the same BS. (SDA's make me laugh. A cult, started by a girl that got hit in the head with a rock and started having 'visions' from god. Maybe that's my problem, I need a brain injury to 'see the light')
    I find it very interesting, and enlightening, how so many 'interpretations' come from the same words. Many times I've seen that non-believers actually know more about your 'book' then many believers... no doubt why, like myself, they come to the same conclusion about your 'book' that I have.
    You can dare me all you like, I'm not interested in a 'science' tour from a pastor. You might like it, but I prefer to go to a baker for bread, not the butcher. If I want science, I'll listen to scientists, not conmen.

    Breed any shorter life span animal, for me it's aquatic invertebrates and some fish types. You can actually influence their evolution yourself, I'm currently doing it. Have a look at any of the modern dog breeds in your neighbourhood, quite different to the Grey Wolf, where the genetics say they came from. Roughly 100k years of selective breeding by us has given us the chiwawa for example. And you say that evolution doesn't happen... it's happening all around you. How would you explain the chiwawa or dacshund? God made them? Give me about 3 years, and I can breed you a stable, completely new species of fish unknown anywhere else. Test if yourself, evolution is real and happening now. Whether it's by natural selection or selective breeding ect, whether believers like it or not, evolution is real. The words in your book are just that, words in a book.
    I suggest you study something other then just 'your book'. It might help you see many of the complete contradictions and falsehoods in your book, and possibly make you less susceptible to conmen claiming to know 'god' and science. Or don't, whatever, it's your choice.

  535. docoman

    The problem I have with religions, is exactly what you said in your first paragraph. How would Ray, or anyone else know what 'god' does or doesn't know? They can't even show there is a 'god'.
    Because Ray 'BELIEVES', he feels it's not only ok, but his duty, to try to make me believe it too. They fail to see it's only a belief, not a fact. His, and anyone else's beliefs, do not negate or supercede my right to make up my own mind, and live without their beliefs infiltrating and tainting education and government.
    So, Ray, and anyone else who wants to intrude on my rights because of their beliefs, can go fornicate with themselves is my reply to them. And if they find that offensive, I don't care, they don't care that I find their attempted intrusions on my rights offensive.
    Hmm, now where did I put my meds.... lol. ;)

  536. robertallen1

    That's one of the problems with religees: They "know" one "book" and they don't know it well.

    Nice to hear from you. Have you read, "The New Testament," by Bart Ehrman. It's a long read, but worth every minute of your time.

  537. docoman

    G'day Robert. No, I haven't read any of Ehrman's books, they do sound interesting though. Sadly, my local library isn't very big. I've looked for a few books now that they don't have. I should be looking online... I hate reading longer stuff off the screen though, I prefer it printed. I've been told there is a better library up the road a bit, I've been meaning to get there, haven't yet. I will, I'll check if they have it.
    I was actually amazed at Cardinal Pell's lack of knowledge of the Bible in his 'debate' with Dawkins. Pell failed dismally. Even though I don't agree with his position, I'm sure I could have argued it better then the top Catholic in Aus. did. To me, it highlighted that becoming a Cardinal was not about knowledge of the bible, but obviously something else more like politics.

  538. docoman

    It's also interesting/sad I find, that 'religee's' such as Monica say that evolution has no proof and is therefore not real. But they fail to apply the same standard to their own beliefs. God is real, the only proof needed is.. words in a book.

  539. robertallen1

    Copies of the book can be bought on the internet for minimal cost. Just make sure you get the third edition.

    You're right Cardinal Pell did not make a good showing, but at least he stated categorically that you are not damned by being something other than a Catholic, such as a Protestant or an atheist. However, his dodging around the question of the communion wafer didn't do him any good--and he misquoted from Darwin which unfortunately the moderator did not allow Dawkins to respond to. As a matter of fact, I didn't like the format and important issues went by too quickly. Speaking of format, I've never liked the format of any of these debates--too polite for my taste--allows creationists and the like to get away with murder. I have my own ideas as to how these debates should be handled for maximum effectiveness.

  540. docoman

    Your version would have to be aired after 9 pm here I'd bet. :) A few harsh words is pretty light compared to hundreds of years of murder, theft and persecution I'd think. Did you see Pell even got the Moses/commandments story wrong? I wasn't impressed with the format myself, that's why I said 'debate'. Dawkins was obviously jet-lagged, but more then held his own. The Neanderthal statement by Pell I found very amusing, highlighting his lack of knowledge.
    I'll have a look online, thanks for the info. Got another hospital stay coming up probably, I'll need something to read. The most likeable priest I've ever met was in that hospital. He came over for a chat, didn't push his agenda, asked if I wanted anything of a religious nature, then without an argument took no as an answer. I liked him, have no problem with someone like that.

  541. robertallen1

    Please don't take offense, but I will not pray for you while you're in the hospital; however, I wish you the best.

    The debate between Dawkins and Pell is on You Tube. Which Neanderthal statement by Pell are you referring to, the one about Moses/commandments? At least Pell beats out the Westboro Baptist Church--which isn't saying month.

  542. docoman

    Please, don't pray for me! Money works though ;) lol. Thanks mate, I've got a brilliant surgeon so it'll be cool. Easy for me, all I do is sleep :)
    I recall Pell saying something along the lines of we descended from Neanderthals, Dawkins seemed to be dumbfounded for a minute, obviously expecting a more educated opponent, had to explain some of the basic's to Pell. Pell also said that god didn't write the first tablets containing the commandments. I recall that it was written by the hand of god, the 2nd version Moses wrote (smashed the originals over the golden calf incident) I felt Pell was very wishy-washy on the issue of whether Catholic's can believe in evolution or not. Seemed to me the church's stance is not as defined as it once was, the weight of evidence seems to be taking it's toll.
    I would very much like to hear from an educated, intelligent believer explaining why evolution can't be correct. I would also love to see a unicorn, and be able to fly like a bird without help. I'm not holding my breath for any of these things to happen though.

  543. dewflirt

    Hey doc, best of luck with your hospitaling ;)

  544. robertallen1

    I would also like to see you miraculously cured within the next few minutes (I'd settle for hours). I wish I could find an intelligent believer who discredits evolution, but it seems intrinsically impossible. Pell obviously does not fit the bill.

  545. docoman

    The post of mine that Monica replied to was pretty 'agro'. I was frustrated after reading and hearing the same nonsensical arguments time and time again. If Ray Comfort is the best they've got... they've got nothing but wishful thinking, outdated dogma combined with stupidity and ignorance. Daring me to join that company is... not going to happen. No direct offence meant to you Monica, I don't know you. Claiming evolution has no evidence but then going on to say that there is a creator, providing the Bible and personal feelings as proof is pretty silly I think. That's just my thoughts, each to their own. They just need to remember to keep it to their own, leave others to do the same, stay out of the classrooms and law making.

  546. over the edge

    i have to disagree on one point when you state "Because Ray 'BELIEVES" i don't think he does. maybe at one point he did but he has had his lies,misinterpretations and fallacies explained to him many times by many educated and patient people and he continues to repeat the same lies. i think that he likes the attention,money and limited adoration he gets from repeating himself and lets face it he has done well for himself. on a side note hope everything goes well in the hospital.

  547. docoman

    You're quite possibly correct. I don't know what he believes other then what he says he does. Maybe that's a part of his belief.. that no matter the evidence to the contrary he won't change his mind? Hence it being a belief, not a knowledge? (enter Faith) I don't know, I would agree that he's no doubt enjoying the attention and money he gains from his appearances. He is no doubt a 'Comfort' to some ;)

    Edit- I'd be interested to know how much of Ray's appearance money he keeps v's donate to his belief (the church). A true christian shouldn't need to keep money... god will provide for them. ;)

  548. docoman

    This is off topic, so feel free to delete it admins. Just wanted to say thank you for the kind thoughts and words to my virtual friends here. The hospital charges a fortune for 4 channels of cr*p, this time I'll be taking a laptop and will be enjoying TDF, and morphine willing some books. Thank you Vlatko (and admins), your work on this site is very much appreciated, more then you know mate. I'll be around to annoy you all for awhile yet ;)

  549. Vlatko

    Thank you @docoman. Good luck and I wish you all the best.

  550. robertallen1

    All you can go by is what he says. We don't know what he does.

  551. robertallen1

    You'd better be.

  552. Achems_Razor


    I also wish you the best, and get well soon!

  553. docoman

    Ahh, you'd need an axe and a death wish to knock me off mate ;) In the words of schwarzenegger, 'I'll be baaack' :) Been there, done that, nothin' to be worried about. Facing your own mortality does give you a level of clarity to your thoughts/beliefs. I wish there was a 'god' to do the job, but I, like most theists when pushed, will put my faith in a good surgeon and medical science to help me out.
    Already had 1/2 my colon removed.. my mate told me, "so, I guess you're a semi-colon now" :) ; made me lol.
    I'm glad that there's people like Epicurus that study medicine to help people like myself... they're the true miracle workers IMO.

  554. Teddy Mcd

    You take care - my fine sir.

  555. Teddy Mcd

    Love as I do - science - lack of personal education perhaps.., I yell to the world - theists in particular - "You don't buy science... the clarity of evolution, the beauty and precision of physics - then why oh why, (as I capture the essence of docoman's post) - do you plead and cry to your MDs. You see - your doctor is from the hallowed halls of science and not the catacombs of religion."

  556. Entraya

    God of the Gaps

  557. robertallen1

    Watched it and thank you. RC claims he's been lecturing 20 years on evolution (Like Kirk Cameron, his little faun, this weasel claims that he was an evolutionist.) and yet doesn't know the meaning of arboreal and on several occasions asks AR to make his explanations as simple as possible to conform to his level of understanding. So why bring up the phylogenetic tree? Of course, this ignorance could be feigned.

    Except for the beginning with the puerile pugilistic terminology, the moderator made himself as unobtrusive as possible which is most welcome. At least there were no long, drawn-out speeches. It's a shame that by the time the broadcast really got going, time ran out.

    And no, I have neither pity or sympathy for RC who I understand works out of his spacious home which he claims he rides a bike to as his contribution to a clean environment.

    Your thoughts.

  558. Teddy Mcd

    Thanks, I am listening now.

  559. Epicurus

    THANK YOU! i missed it live.

  560. over the edge

    i started to feel sorry for him based on 10min of listening last night. after listening to it all he gets no sympathy from me. the mod was great i agree and lets hope they schedule a round two. anyone who claims that ray even scored a single point was obviously not listening or doesn't understand. i actually thought he was going to start screaming at one point. to everyone who thanked me you are welcome

  561. Achems_Razor

    Thanks, good stuff, Comfort was owned by Aron, liked the part when RC actually started preaching to AR. Went in one ear and out the other.

    Most the time I was LMAO, with RC's idi1otic answers.

  562. robertallen1

    Yes, that was towards the end. That's why I wish the broadcast had gone on longer. It would have been neat if he completely lost it. Once again, I'm glad it was an audio broadcast and not a video. I know you'll apprise us if there'll be a part two.

  563. Monica Hendricks

    "It has always seemed to me extreme presumptuousness on the part of those who want to make human ability the measure of what nature can and knows how to do, since, when one comes down to it, there is not one effect in nature, no matter how small, that even the most speculative minds can fully understand." Galileo Galilei

  564. robertallen1

    And just what is this supposed to prove?

  565. Monica Hendricks

    Ray did a good job. He wasn't insulting, and he was pretty nice. Considering that he was dealing with another RELIGION that's basically in the simplest terms "A fairy tale for adults." If Evolution is correct you would still see it happening today. I mean isn't it all about perfecting itself...strong survive, weak die out. You can't even call Evolution a "science" because all it does is try to explain what happened in the beginning. And even atheists know science is what you observe. Not improbable guessing. :P

  566. over the edge

    Monica Hendricks
    1.before i go too deep into an explanation could you please define evolution as you see it?
    2. could you explain how "He wasn't insulting, and he was pretty nice." has anything to do with if he is right or not? state "Evolution is correct you would still see it happening today" again please define evolution for me as i can show you evolution happening today but i feel that until you understand what evolution is you cannot say what it isn't.
    4. could you expand on "all it does is try to explain what happened in the beginning" ?
    5. atheism and science are two different things.
    6. do you have any positive proof for creationism?
    7. please look up the definition of religion and explain how evolution fits that definition.

  567. Monica Hendricks

    1.before i go too deep into an explanation could you please define evolution as you see it?
    First off, thanks for being so organized in you response. Makes it easier to answer everything.
    Lol, Evolution as I see it? Lets see, “according to the standard big bang theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago”. As far as Evolution, “life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.” That's what you believe, right? But I don't believe that for reasons I would rather not share. :)
    2. could you explain how "He wasn't insulting, and he was pretty nice." has anything to do with if he is right or not? Oh it has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's right or not. I just threw that in there because I was sick of you guys trashing him. As if trash talking him is going to change his mind. :P state "Evolution is correct you would still see it happening today" again please define evolution for me as i can show you evolution happening today but i feel that until you understand what evolution is you cannot say what it isn't. As I have already stated what Evolution is, I'm not going to repeat myself. And seriously, stop being patronizing. You don't see dogs evolving into cats, or monkeys into humans to name a couple...and speaking of which. If that was the case [monkeys or apes becoming human] why didn't they all evolve into human beings. Was it there toff luck? I mean that would really suck. Evolution as a whole sucks because it means that this life is it. Nothing afterwords, and all Richard Dawkins can basically say is “suck it up, find something that makes your life meaningful. For me that's walking my dogs.” That's pathetic. Let me see, do I choose life/suicide(Death anyway). Hmmm, suicide it is. :P And yes, I know we weren't talking about about anything related to “eternity”,
    I just had to throw that in. :P
    4. could you expand on "all it does is try to explain what happened in the beginning" ?
    Evolutionists try to explain what happened before the world came into existence, and
    then try explain how life began and then continued to evolve.
    5. atheism and science are two different things.
    That's not a question, hon. :)
    6. do you have any positive proof for creationism?
    Funny, do you have any positive proof of Evolution? And before you say “yes”, no you don't
    unless you can go back to start of everything. If you can, call me and let me know how it all went.
    So as you can't go back and see for a fact how everything started, neither can we.
    Weird, huh? Both take a lot of faith. One more than the other from my point of view. :)
    7. please look up the definition of religion and explain how evolution fits that definition.
    Not a question either, hon. But I can tell you that Evolution can fit the category of religion
    because according to the dictionary religion means a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. They probably also add something about a supernatural being. But that was the basic definition.

    Here's a freebie though, even Darwin himself did not believe his own theory he just said it was an educated guess and that’s it.

  568. Monica Hendricks

    Maybe something, or maybe nothing. Think of it as a debate.
    Because I know you obviously would never agree that a Intelligent Designer made the cosmos down to the tiniest molecule. And there are many really smart scientists out there, Richard Dawkins included. But even he can't tell you for a fact how life originated.

  569. robertallen1

    1. How about providing the source of your quote? And why won't you explain why you don't believe it or are you too embarassed to do so because you have no valid reasons?

    2. In other words, right or wrong mean nothing to you. This certainly ties in with, "Evolution as a whole sucks because it means that this life is it." Obviously, you lack the ability to study anything.

    3. What's pathetic is that you don't have even the faintest understanding what evolution is about and from the nature of your post and the level of education reflected therein, you probably don't comprehend a word of what you quoted in your opening paragraph and this might be the real source for your refusal to provide your reasons for not believing it.

    4. Once again, it's obvious that you don't know the first thing about evolution--it does not deal with the original of life, that's abiogenesis. A little reading on the subject might prove enlightening, but again "Evolution as a whole sucks because . . . "

    5. Atheism and science are two different things. Any junior high school student could enlighten you as to the difference.

    6. As stated previously, there are oceans of evidence supporting evolution and none supporting creationism. Again, a little reading from authors who know their topic might accomplish wonders where your religion fails, but again "Evolution as a whole sucks because . . . "

    7. One of the first things a student learns is that religion is based on faith, science on hard evidence. Apparently you've gone through life with blinders on.

    How about providing us with the source for your statement about Darwin--but again, you shy away from providing sources--and in your case, there's obviously a good reason.

  570. robertallen1

    And neither can you, but Dr. Dawkins and those like him have a much better chance than you do.

    P.S. Once again, evolution has nothing to do with how life originated; that's abiogenesis. Is there something too abstruse about this concept for you?

  571. Monica Hendricks

    Maybe something or maybe nothing. Think of it all as a big debate.
    I know you would never believe in Intelligent Design. And I can agree that there are many really intellectual scientist out there, including Richard Dawkins. But even he can't tell you for a fact how life originated.

  572. over the edge

    Monica Hendricks
    thank you now we can get somewhere
    1. evolution has nothing to do with the big hang or how life started (abiogenesis). if you ask me how the universe started or how life started my answer will be "i don't know" until more evidence is gathered that is the only honest answer in my opinion. anybody who injects a god into an area that is not sufficiently explained without providing positive proof is not thinking critically. now that i have your definition of evolution i would suggest you look up the "long term e-eoli experiment" it fits the definition you gave and shows a fully observed and repeated example of evolution.
    2 i am trash talking ray because he is dishonest (in his debate with Aronra he points out his dishonesty) and he is either dense or willfully ignorant. he claims that he has studied evolution for over twenty years but he still gets the basics totally wrong and after having it explained to him multiple times he still gets it wrong.
    3. if dogs evolve into cats or modern monkeys (we are still monkeys) evolved into humans that would do more to prove evolution wrong than right. you state " Evolution as a whole sucks because it means that this life is it." why? there are many religions that accept evolution and god. also even if it sucks that in no way makes it wrong. if you ignore something because you don't like the answer then you are also willfully blind.
    4. "Evolutionists try to explain what happened before the world came into existence, and
    then try explain how life began and then continued to evolve. " no it doesn't (see above)
    5. yes i know. i was pointing out that a person doesn't have to have knowledge of one in order to have to hold a position on the other.
    6. again the start of everything has nothing to do with evolution.
    7. evolution is not a religion but if this is the biggest difference we have than okay. if you are going to cclaim that " Darwin himself did not believe his own theory" i would like you to back that up.

  573. lakhotason

    No, it is not a big debate. Intelligent design requires a belief and having a belief implicitly states that you could be wrong. Otherwise it would not be a belief but a fact.

  574. robertallen1

    How do you prevent them from taking over if you don't stand up to them?

  575. lakhotason

    In the end they will collapse under their own weight of fiction.

  576. Teddy Mcd

    @Monica Hendricks and responses to.

    The replies as always were precise, incisive and more importantly correct. I fail (and I try) to understand why people who appear to have at least average intelligence - either just don't get it or just won't fess up to the obvious.

    A minor point but it irked me - MH said,

    " Evolution as a whole sucks because it means that this life is it. Nothing afterwords, and all Richard Dawkins can basically say is “suck it up, find something that makes your life meaningful."

    The way this is worded insinuates that Dawkins said, "there is nothing afterwards - after life". I can't recollect Dawkins professing any such thing. He wouldn't - he's a man of science. What he has said as I recall is that there is no way for him or anybody to know what lies yonder. It is totally out of our purview

    That's it - I feel better now. Bonne nuit à tous.

  577. Monica Hendricks

    Suck it up dude. Your just pissed off because I think Evolution is the stupidest thing scientist have ever believed to be fact. If this was a debate your whole premise would be how dumb I supposedly am because I supposedly don't understand what Evolution is. You get nil points for persuasion there, bro...maybe you feel insecure about whether Evolution can stand on its own--which it can't. Cause it apparently needs you to hold it up. Believe me I love seeing both sides of this big issue. Who can walk around with blinders? I see both sides with two separate facts. I have material that support Evolution, and material that would support creationism. So don't diss me because I have an obvious bias...then again two could play that game. Here's an article that actual scientific facts. I realize I am using articles [with a source!! Look at that. :)], and you are probably only using that three pound brain of yours that apparently doesn't know what happened when "bang" everything came into existence, but still believes it should be pushed across as fact. I might have mentioned this before. But you guys do base a lot off of the Big Bang. Anyway, those were only a few of the main thoughts I had when you posted that heart warming reply. <3 :P Read it carefully. ;) Do you like the title?

    Does New Galaxy Study Confirm Big Bang?
    by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

    Who would try to determine the number and size of a creature's teeth if all that was known about that creature was its footprint? This flavor of reasoning typifies anti-creation cosmology. After sprinkling a dash of data taken from telescopes into a giant cauldron of evolutionary assumptions, secular cosmologists serve bowlfuls of what to them tastes like the real history of the universe, but in reality, they're serving up a conjured chronicle. The recent headline of an "explosion of galaxy formation" that supposedly illuminated the "early universe" illustrates this cosmological feast of folly.1

    The University of California's Berkeley news center said, "Extremely bright, active galaxies formed and fully illuminated the universe by the time it was 750 million years old, or about 13 billion years ago, according to Oliver Zahn."1 Berkeley's Zahn was lead author of a report published in The Astrophysical Journal.2 Zahn and his team fitted data from the South Pole Telescope into a Big Bang history, but none of them were present to witness the supposed series of events that they so confidently described.

    Researchers took for granted that "the universe was born in the Big Bang."1 Ignoring the difficulties of how it could have occurred, the origin of the material and space that exploded, or how mostly matter instead of equal parts of matter and antimatter resulted, the epoch that supposedly followed the initial blast was one in which matter was so hot that protons could not hold on to electrons. This was called "ionization." Afterward, ignoring fatal difficulties of outward gas pressure and outward magnetic pressure, atoms supposedly cooled and coalesced to form galaxies and stars.3 Next, hot temperatures in galaxies and quasars reionized the gas. The UC Berkeley research focused on determining when this assumed "epoch of reionization" started and stopped.2

    The study authors presumed the very history around which they were attempting to set time constraints. For example, they wrote, "In this section, we show that we can use the CMB [cosmic microwave background] data to constrain the history of reionization, , by combining the constraints on the integrated optical depth and duration of the epoch."2 This shows that they merely fitted the data into a preconception of a Big Bang, including its supposed follow-on epochs, rather than presenting any observation-based conclusions directly from the stellar data.

    Their result—that the epoch of reionization endured for only 500 million years—contradicts the widely held understanding that "reionization lasted 750 million years or longer."1 A Big Bang, an Epoch of Reionization, and natural formation of galaxies and stars are all unproven and unscientific. Thus, research that presumes such notions, e.g., questioning how long the supposed reionization epoch lasted, is as misplaced as quibbling over the size and number of a creature's teeth when all that is known is its footprint.

    The Big Bang version of history, ultimately a failed attempt to explain the ultimate origin of all things without a legitimate originator, is soundly refuted by both Scripture4 and science.5 Unfortunately, statements like those included in this Berkeley news release provide opportunities for news outlets to reiterate Big Bang doctrines to new generations of readers.

    How do Zahn or his colleagues know that the universe began in a Big Bang? Were any of them present in the beginning? Since the Lord Jesus is eternal and therefore outside the time and space that He created, He was actually there and was gracious enough to record what really happened.6

    Hey according to a friend of yours that posted here, we are all still monkeys just evolved or something like that...Soooo I'm debating with a evolved monkey? Interesting...... Actually, that's not true ,as far Evolution has more evidence than creationism,...the opposite is more true. Hope fully you got a slight hint of that from the article. ;)

  578. Monica Hendricks

    Lol, Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with the "Big Hang"[or Bang as we like to call it. ;)] Its your premise for everything afterwards. ;) But if you don't think its important.... And the rest about injecting a god into an area...bro, I think that's what your doing with evolution...Or is it not just a "Theory" anymore?

  579. Monica Hendricks

    Oh good, somebody who actually thinks Evolution is going to collapse. Lol, :P

  580. Monica Hendricks

    I'm sure you could, but can you win?

  581. Monica Hendricks

    Then why are people still arguing over it? As I said, debate. And agreed, but we also use facts not just faith/or belief. Same as you guys.

  582. over the edge

    Monica Hendricks
    where in any of my posts did i use the big bang as my "premise for everything afterwards." ? you can't refute what i actually said so you resort to putting words in my mouth. evolution is "just a theory" yes . just like the theory of gravity or germ theory. do you know what a scientific theory is? do you understand that there is no higher level for an explanation within science? are you just going to spout the creationist misinformation or do you have anything of substance? nice try you refuted a grand total of nothing i said and resort to name calling (i am not your bro) and misrepresentation. congratulations you qualify as a creationist. did you look into the long term e-coli experiment? and as this particular thread concerns creationism and atheism how about some positive proof for your god (best one or two pieces of evidence). why not state who you think the creator is ? why not present your case? or do you already know that you can't back up your supernatural claims with anything demonstrable?

  583. robertallen1

    "Suck it up dude." "Don't diss me." It's interesting how your English has changed since your last post from standard to ghetto.

    Not only have you no idea of basic biology (evolution), but of physics as well and look who you've found to back you up in your ignorance, Brian Thomas, B.S., the "science writer" for the Institute of Creation of Research, a man who uses scripture to "refute" the Big Bang--some catch. I'll bet you can't understand half of the quote you've so diligently copied, so there's no point in trying to enlighten you as to what nonsense it is just as there's no point in trying to enlighten you period.

    If you're looking for respect, you're going to have to do much better, like can the Christ crap and start learning something.

  584. robertallen1

    As usual, you don't know what you're talking about--and over_the_edge does.

  585. robertallen1

    Do you remember what we were discussing yesterday--perfect example-- and notice how, when she is backed up against a wall, she resorts to ghetto English?

    P.S. I'm glad you've begun "The New Testament." I look forward to your comments.

  586. robertallen1

    You can't even back up what you allege Dr. Dawkins said. How pathetic!

  587. robertallen1

    Science sure won out in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

  588. Achems_Razor

    Good grief, ad hominem? tsk tsk.
    Brian Thomas MS is a creationist! Oliver Zahn has some suppositions , not even peer reviewed. By the way since you do not have a clue as to what science actually is why bother to include it?

    Now this is really funny, even if there was a little tiny almost invisible speck of a carbon unit named your invisible friend Christ, he certainly was not immortal as you claim. He was here and gone faster than two shakes of a lambs tail.

    Yes true, we all came swinging down from the trees just a short while ago from a common ancestor in common with other apes, you are a female ape my dear, live with it! We all eat, sleep, fornicate, and poop as other apes.

  589. Epicurus

    you are everything that is wrong with our world right now.

    what you just said here shows you have never been taught by an educated person what evolution is.

    are you under the impression that all animals just popped into existence when god felt like it?

  590. robertallen1

    And so is Ray Comfort et al.

  591. Kateye70

    I'm curious as to why you are so opposed to the concept of evolution. It's just an explanation of a process, after all.

    If you want to believe in a god (although why not a godDESS I fail to understand! I'd prefer a female deity to the misogynistic one of the judeo-christian-muslim variety), go ahead. It doesn't require that a process's explanation be vilified, does it?

    Makes me wonder what theists are all up in arms about. More specifically, fundamentalist christians of the anti-science ilk, a very small minority of christians.

    You're deliberately using phrases like "just a theory" when, if you've followed *any* threads on this site, you've already seen explanations ad nauseum of the scientific meaning vs. common usage--and still use it in the lay meaning.

    Are you afraid the non-theists are correct?

  592. Kateye70

    I noticed this interesting little tidbit in your long post:

    "Since the Lord Jesus is eternal and therefore outside the time and space that He created, He was actually there and was gracious enough to record what really happened"

    How do you know this? I've never seen even a hint of this in any theology I've ever come across. Again, just curious where you got this idea from.

  593. dewflirt

    Not completely as other apes, the last chimp I saw had been groomed til he was bald and was pooping into his own hand and eating it! ;)

  594. Achems_Razor

    Ah well, then you better check the web on that, under copophilia. Ugh.

  595. Monica Hendricks

    Then I don't know what theology you read. Lol, or if you read the Bible. And do you really want the whole 101 discussion on why we believe that? I didn't write it anyway. Its from the article I shared. If you want more info, you could check out It was set up, obviously i guess, by the Creation Museum. So heads up, if aren't really interested. Otherwise I could just give you the basic (hopefully) reason why we believe that. :)

  596. Monica Hendricks

    Apparently according to everyone here, everyone's an ape. And you obviously all have answers whether logical or just really stupid. But I'd rather be a "fool" than join your club of apes. But then again, maybe your all right. I could have easily forgotten that monkeys are what makes this world tick. :P But I know that man has a higher intelligence than apes. Or has intelligence dropped back into the time of the Neanderthals? I just don't know why you would lower your value, or self esteem, by calling yourself an ape.
    I believe, without going into all the minuscule details of it, that science is about what you observe, it can be repeated, and it can be tested.That's science at its base core, right? And until Evolution can fall into all three categories its not a science. Its a faith, same as Creationism. Scientist use science to advance technology, improve medicine,to name a couple. You are taught this in school. To heck with Evolution, or how everything fell into place. I want to learn a Science I can use. Question though, how are Creationists or theists, as you call them, everything bad in this world? How are they the evil? I know they are all not even close to being perfect, but neither are non-theists.

  597. lakhotason

    And therein lies the problem. You are trying to mix fact and beliefs together. You would have better luck mixing oil and water.

  598. lakhotason

    I read the Bible (KJV) quite often. It is one of the crowning masterpieces of the English language.

    Do you read Darwin?

  599. Achems_Razor

    You do not have clue do you? Sorry, you are (dumbed down). And that is not an ad hominem, just a fact.

  600. Monica Hendricks

    Ummm, thank you. And I've, maybe, read some. He's interesting. But I like watching the shows that talk about his work. Non-theist and theist alike. Another show I've enjoyed watching has been Nova. :) They bring out some interesting stuff.

  601. robertallen1

    You're right and evolution fits all three categories. Why don't you read up on it--and I don't mean on some creationist website--before you go making such idiotically uninformed assertions.

    You want to learn a science you can use--how about starting with taxonomy where you will learn what an ape is and what places makes homo sapiens in this family.

    As to your concluding question, you've answered it in spades.

  602. Monica Hendricks

    What if I took belief out of it? You'd still have to take Evolution and Creationism as a faith. Because a lot of it is based on what you think and not what you know for a fact. :)

  603. lakhotason

    To be clear I do not read the Bible for religious purposes. I read it solely for its literary excellence.

  604. robertallen1

    Your comment focuses on the translation rather than the collection itself. So which translation are you referring to?

  605. robertallen1

    Don't try to fool achem or anybody else. From your comments, it's obvious that everything you've read has come from creationist websites and the like.

  606. robertallen1

    Which aspects of evolution are you referring to?

  607. lakhotason

    King James Version. The Authorized version. I am aware of the mis-translations but as I say I read it as literature. Perhaps only Shakespeare's work can match it in the use of the English language.

  608. lakhotason

    As you say you take a BELIEF from it. And you are wrong about evolution. It is a FACT.

  609. Monica Hendricks

    Yeah, I kinda figured that out. ;)

  610. Monica Hendricks

    Translation of science? Is that what you meant in your first sent?

  611. dewflirt

    Umm, no thanks. Was sad to see though, can't believe that level of grooming is normal no matter what his keeper said. Looked like boredom to me, like horses weaving. Have to admit that his naked body was fascinating, reminded me of the drawings in Grey's Anatomy. Very human, like a leathery old man all lithe and sinewy.

  612. lakhotason

    But don't get me wrong. Genesis 1, the creation, is strikingly beautiful. Especially if read as poetry.

  613. robertallen1

    There's nothing wrong with reading the bible as literature; however, when mentioning the King James Version, please give most of the credit to William Tyndale.

    I have to admit that I have gotten so used to the Victorian language of the King James version that the more modern translations seem flat. Dr. Dawkins agrees.

  614. robertallen1

    And as long as it's read as poetry (literature), everything's fine.

  615. lakhotason

    It would be in the Elizabethan English just as Shakespeare. And you are right. Reading any other version would be like drinking non-alcoholic beer - pointless.

  616. lakhotason

    True. But it is seductive. It is no wonder that many take it as fact.

  617. Monica Hendricks

    You think so?

  618. robertallen1

    It seems to seduce Americans more than Europeans. It all boils down to what's taught.

  619. Monica Hendricks

    Nope, last I checked its a THEORY. ;) You'd like it to be a fact though.
    Even schools may push it across as a fact but they'll nearly always start by calling it "The theory of Evolution". Or just call it a theory.
    And I said even if I took away belief from the whole equation, but you really can't. For both sides you really can not take away belief.

  620. robertallen1

    I wouldn't write it if I didn't.

    I suggest that you be careful about any assertions you post on this thread. For there are a number of posters who know a lot more about the subject than you do and their responses could prove embarassing to you as has already been the case.

  621. robertallen1

    The last I checked, you still haven't the faintest concept of what a scientific theory is and I suggest that before you post further, you save yourself the embarrassment by finding out.

  622. Monica Hendricks

    Of course if people are going talk about how science evolved from the 19th century until today. I might agree with them. I could easily agree with that type of evolution....

  623. lakhotason

    You are misunderstanding what "theory" means in the language of science. It is very different than what "theory" means in the vernacular.

  624. robertallen1

    What is "that type of evolution?"

  625. lakhotason

    I agree it seduces Americans more than Europeans at this point. But this wasn't always true. You have to remember European culture is much older than American culture. It's only a matter of time until American culture grows out of its religious underpinnings but it will take time. Hell, maybe some day we'll even quit using inches, pounds, gallons, miles and the like.

  626. Monica Hendricks

    Oh yeah, Lol. I read about that. For the Scientific community it has a different meaning than that of the original. :D
    This is what you believe a theory to mean: "A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena."
    And this is what theory is in the vernacular: "A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation."

    But for those still in school the second definition is more or less what they are being taught. I think Scientist just came up with the first definition to take away conjecture. :)

  627. robertallen1

    However, biblical fundamentalism as we know it began in the US, in particular, in the deep south. You might find it enlightening to read what Thomas Aquinias wrote about taking the bible literally and his statement was merely an echo of his time.

  628. Monica Hendricks

    Nah, part of the large percent of religions in the European culture are either Catholic, or Muslim. Depending where you are at. Then you have other religions in different countries, of course. But I think those two are probably at the top. You can't honestly say religion just "seduces" Americans only. As far as the last sent., you start it maybe the rest will follow. :) I'd love to see what would replace those types of measurement. Lol

  629. robertallen1

    You copy well, but understand nothing of what you copy.

    Historically, the scientific definition came first--and this trashes your entire post.

    P.S. How do you know what is being taught in school?

  630. robertallen1

    By "it," Iakhotason was referring to biblical fundamentalism, not religion in general.

  631. lakhotason

    Well it depends on what you mean by fundamentalism. You can't deny that the practice of burning heretics is pretty fundamental. Perhaps a better word would be evangelicalism. I'll go with that.

    Now as a Southerner I will agree that we are the buckle of the Bible Belt but it isn't always what it appears to be. There is and always has been an undercurrent of disbelief. As a child my little butt got dragged to church every Sunday yet I knew my parents no more believed than I did. More of a social requirement than a religious one.

  632. Monica Hendricks

    Oh I do, And not at all. As far as the last sent. Maybe I'm not as sheltered as you would think.

  633. Monica Hendricks

    Thanks for the heads up. And since when is biblical fundamentalism not in Catholism? Do you even know what your talking about?

  634. Monica Hendricks

    I'd say that's not real evangelicalism. I strongly dislike those people who use torture as a means to convert. But don't pin all that on Christians. And I think it would be really dull to go to the kind of church that's fluff and nil. in substance. But then again who wants Hell and brimstone preached down on them? I would rather go to a place that told me the truth,and even the seriousness of Hell, but actually cared about me as a individual without being judgmental. And Heck, if I had to go because it was a social requirement, I would never go.

  635. Kateye70

    Since the big bang is a scientific theory it's kind of silly to have a theological discussion about it. It isn't in theology, or at least none I've heard of.

    A religious explanation of how things got started has zero to do with any scientific explanation. Don't know why the creationists keep trying to conflate the two. Let 'em coexist peacefully, understand that one is the realm of natural science and the other is the realm of spiritual belief. The two just can't be reconciled and there's no point in either trying or arguing about which one is better.

    I see these arguments and it is so like two little boys having an epeen contest. (Look it up in urbandictionary if you don't know what it is.)

  636. Kateye70

    Of course I've read the bible. Not your version, probably. Not only that, but other religion's books as well. Why else would I say I never heard that in any theology. (See my other post, explains what I'm trying to say.)

  637. lakhotason

    Trust me. Sitting in church all day as a ten-year-old was excruciating torture!

  638. Kateye70

    "But for those still in school the second definition is more or less what they are being taught."

    Then they're not being taught science.

  639. Kateye70

    "I would rather go to a place...[that]actually cared about me as a individual...if I had to go because it was a social requirement"

    Caring about people *is* social. =)

  640. lakhotason

    But really it is a pretty common misconception and Monica did go look it up after it was mentioned. Good for her. She gets an A.

  641. robertallen1

    By fundamentalism, I mean a literal interpretation of the bible.

  642. robertallen1

    Sheltered is not the word.

  643. robertallen1

    And just where did I bring up Catholicism?

  644. robertallen1

    So you want a place that tells you the truth. How about starting off the scientific websites and avoiding the creationist ones?

  645. over the edge

    Monica Hendricks
    lets go through your recent posts and see what you got right and what you got wrong
    - "I'd rather be a "fool" than join your club of apes." you seem to be one of those who achieved both congratulations
    - "science is about what you observe, it can be repeated, and it can be tested.That's science at its base core, right? And until Evolution can fall into all three categories its not a science." the first part is right but the second part is wrong. have you looked into the long term e-coli experiment yet it fits all three demands. please look it up in a scientific journal and read the actual results not some creationist b.s. and avoid the word "kind" and if you do please define it and how it applies to the theory of evolution
    -"Scientist use science to advance technology, improve medicine" no science is used to explain the natural world around us the benefits are just a convenient by product of the knowledge science gives us
    - " last I checked its a THEORY. ;) You'd like it to be a fact though. " no it is both. lets use it along side with gravity to try to get you to understand. both evolution and gravity are facts they occur. the theory in both cases is the explanation of how they work.

    i have been patient answering your questions (sometimes repeating the same answer). now i feel it is your turn . how old do you think the earth is? if it was created who is this creator and provide evidence for his/her existence? were we created as we appear today? do you believe in a worldwide flood? do you not think that it is fair to have both sides of the debate?

  646. robertallen1

    What makes you think she looked it up. I don't see any source mentioned, only the statement that the second definition is what is taught in school. She gets an F.

  647. lakhotason

    Man, I'm glad I didn't have you as a teacher.

    Wait a minute. I think I did.

  648. lakhotason

    Yet I do understand its religious side. I believe that it is important to remember that while reading. Otherwise it loses some of its glow.

    I think Kateye gave you some very good advice. Science and the spiritual are two conflicting entities and shouldn't be mixed. It is hard but one can hold to conflicting ideas.

  649. Epicurus

    LOL @ answersingenesis.....


  650. Epicurus

    its actually a fact that we are classified as apes. we share all the same taxonomical features that require for us to be an ape. very simple.

    evolution is tested and observed. we have plenty of examples of evolution happening in the lab. just look at E. Coli, or Ensantina Salamanders.

    Evolution is used to make your medicine. without our deep understanding of evolution we wouldnt be able to make vaccines and other medications.

    creationists are everything that is bad in this world because they think that evolution is useless and think they can progress in the modern world without accepting it. they are just like the christians who in the past refused to believe that the earth went around the sun. you are EXACTLY like them.

  651. Epicurus

    no, evolution is backed up by evidence and experimentation. as well as predictability and application of the theory.

    do you understand what i mean by those two things?

  652. Monica Hendricks

    If Evolution is a fact and a theory. And everything I've said has been debunked at least a hundred years ago. Shouldn't Creationism be off the radar then? Apparently I'm inadequate, everything wrong in this world, and my comments are name a few. Wow, you guys are harsh. but what if you knew that you were arguing vehemently with someone more than half your age. That probably disqualifies me right there. But how does that make you look? I simply look at people and see people. You look at people and see apes. As if that makes you any smarter. To reiterate what I've said many times I do read from BOTH non-theistic and theistic. If I could have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Evolution was completely valid. I'd be were you are. Question though to the biochemists out there, how can you look at the order in the smallest of molecules and say it just happened? There's structure in an atom, and it happened by chance. But what are the chances? Thanks, by the way, to Epicurus. I'll read more from that site. Science is fascinating. Its sad that its being used as a sword. I'm done posting. If you want to battle with an actual pro. try the scientist from the Creation Museum. :) In the end who's going to care who won this argument?

  653. robertallen1

    You're right. Creationism should be off the radar and that it is still with us doesn't say much for mankind in general and for you in particular. Your age has nothing to do with it, but the level of your education and general intelligence does. For example, no biochemist or physicist says things happened by chance--as a matter of fact, probability has nothing to do with it. Such assertions are simply a strawman of creationists such as yourself.

    As long as you're done posting, maybe you'll start reading some real science which judging from your comments, you haven't done.

    P.S. There is no such a thing as a scientist from the Creation Museum.

  654. robertallen1

    With so much good information out there at virtually no cost, Monica Hendricks and those like her are such fools not to avail themselves of it.

  655. Epicurus

    "If Evolution is a fact and a theory. And everything I've said has been debunked at least a hundred years ago. Shouldn't Creationism be off the radar then? "

    you would think so but religious people are NUTS.

    "Apparently I'm inadequate, everything wrong in this world, and my comments are name a few."

    if you insist on not accepting something yet you also display that you dont understand it, and you ALSO display that you dont wish to understand it, then you are a poster child of what is wrong with people these days. yes. i know it is harsh. why wouldnt you be more concerned with what the evidence says? why would you just accept the stories of your preachers? why do you think they would know better than scientists? what purpose would scientists have to lie?

    "you guys are harsh. but what if you knew that you were arguing vehemently with someone more than half your age."

    I would be even more disappointed. most young people i know are more open to learning new things. it would be very much a shame if you are already indoctrinated by your religion.

    "I simply look at people and see people. You look at people and see apes"

    no i see people. i dont see the term "ape" the way you. i see it the way someone who studies biology sees it. you belong to the same family as other great apes the chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans....humans fit right in there. that doesnt mean i see humans and believe they ought to act like chimps. just like when i see a dog i dont think it will act like a wolf....but they are the same evolutionary family.

    "how can you look at the order in the smallest of molecules and say it just happened? There's structure in an atom, and it happened by chance. But what are the chances?"

    its not random or by chance. you will have to understand chemistry and physics to understand that its not random. some things fit and some dont. the things that fit and are better for survival get selected for.

    "I'm done posting."

    I personally hope not. if you can be as civil as you were in this post, im sure i can be more civil.

    "If you want to battle with an actual pro. try the scientist from the Creation Museum."

    they are not pros at science. every time they debate or show up in court they lose embarrassingly. because creationism is not science. it is unfalsifiable and doesnt have a single experiment.

    "In the end who's going to care who won this argument?"

    i have no intention of winning an argument. i hope you will learn what we actually know about evolution and gain a deeper understanding of who you are based on your humble origins.

  656. Teddy Mcd

    You are not even wrong. To be wrong takes thought! C'est vrais.

  657. Teddy Mcd

    I like the way you use humour - to make a point.

    (or humor as yanks say)

  658. Kateye70

    What makes you think all the posters on this site are youngsters? Some of us are absolutely ancient.

    It's not that hard to understand what science is. Or what religion is. Or that the two address completely different realms.

    That you keep repeating non-science from non-scientists to argue scientific subjects means you're falling into the creationist trap of trying to conflate religion with science. They just aren't the same thing.

    According to you, you should certainly be old enough to know that by now.

  659. Rodrigo Girado

    Amazing episode I want to see more interviews with Ray Comfort!

  660. Epicurus

    why? do you like listening to a half re*ard get embarrassed?

  661. jon jenkins

    u kno im not a cristian but these athiests piss me off

  662. jon jenkins

    b4 darwinism and the industrial revolution a scientists could believe both creationism and evolution and not get questioned now religion is a mafia and science is a logical secularism unto its self.....why cant we all just get along? ive watched so many shows like this and both sides are full of crap. In my opinion both sides should be working together to fin a real truth, a real undersranding about life the universe and everything(and by the way 47 would be a more satisfying answer than anyone of these guys have handed out to me):)

  663. jon jenkins

    all perfectly smart ppl arguing over nothing

  664. robertallen1

    Nonsense. Religion has nothing to offer. Also, what is 47?

  665. avny82

    kinda agree. If you don't have a grasp on genetics and physics, then you should probably believe in god still....... I could be wrong about these two but I doubt it.

  666. TomazZzz

    Totally sad that in the year... Well - somewhat two thousand years after something that probably never happened - people still belive in that stuttering snake, stoned singing bush, hotel inside of a fish and a boat full of inbreeding animals... Waw - it just amases me that there are so many closeminded people around.
    And by the way - the best case against religion that I've heared lately was from Richard Dawkins - Who The Hell Made That Designer of Theirs??? Grand design up my darkhole!

  667. petr adamec

    Ray Comf. sounds like he found what he was looking for and is happy with that.

  668. over the edge

    petr adamec

    couldn't agree more with you. Ray found exactly what he was looking for. that is people who are unaware that he is lying and willing to give him money in exchange for his lies.

  669. Rampage

    I love this show :)

  670. Rampage

    They call that view you expressed the logical positivist view. Which I agree with, and disagree with equally, without debates life would be boring.

  671. Rampage

    Terrible post.. First off who cares whether I want to be classified as an ape or not, this has nothing to do with whether or not its true. Sounds like you among many other have a "wishful thinking" state of mind.

  672. Gaia O'Dea

    This atheism vs theist thing (usually using Xianity) is total nonsense on both sides. First the atheists who knows if there was or is still some 'Creator' aka force, intelligence, higher being, etc. is impossible to know one way or the other if such exists or ever existed. Then the xians somehow 'know' that 'god' is exclusively Jesus and his two partners of Father and Holy Spirit.

    This is nuts, as comforting to some that such a religion is, i have no idea WHY anyone would pick that hateful religion with anything remotely comforting when you consider that the top dogs throughout the history of the west who call themselves xians and are worst warmongers and torturers in the history of mankind.

    Could be a creator or more than one but WHY then does it follow that this God wishes to be worshipped and have a bunch of laws that if not followed will send someone to the eternal BBQ and the so called 'good' people are going to live forever with alll their pals in some perfect afterlife. WHY is it that if there is some creator who gives a **** about any individual. This notion is all man created. I do not mind going along with some force ...whatever...or not such a thing...doesnt matter to me as the idea that whatever it is if it IS equals any afterlife either good or bad or as a way of salving dear of dead meaning DEAD forever. No one likes this but seems likely that even if there is reincarnation that the 'personality' of each and every person is also man made and so at best when a personality dies it is dead and if per chance there is some immortal soul the point is mute for after death with our personality DEAD the 'I' or YOU' is long gone for you could be reincarnated millions of time, as for me i dont remember any past lives so for me this is IT. Am i being clear that this is a bull**** topic and time is all i got and this topic is a total waste of time. Just relax and enjoy the show and dont use your precious time arguing with what cannot be proven one way or the other.

  673. kicknbak60

    i agree that it's pretty useless to argue with creationist apologetics after all evolution is a "theory" right, like gravity is a theory.. i don't see people just floating around or many people jumping off of tall buildings without expecting a great big splat when gravity takes them to the ground. Evolution is a fact ! change of specios can be clearly demonstrated in short lived organisms.. selection is clearly evident in most all domesticated animals, dogs being just one clear example. Creationists like to always want to see "change of kind" which takes millions of years but is also clearly evident through the fossil record, but if your belief is that the earth is only somewhere between six and ten thousand years old then you are blind to reality and such is useless to argue with. Your religion is true because you have an undefineable, unproveable relationship with JC so be it. I prefer a personal relationship with reality. It's your right to believe whatever you choose.. but leave your myth defined morals out of my country's constitution and laws. womens rights, gay rights, minority rights are all equally guarenteed in the constitution, just as your religious right to believe in invisible deities. Please keep your damn myths within your tax free churches and stay the hell out of my schools and government !

  674. Gordon Phillips

    Evolution doesn't have apparitions in the sky which you CAN'T see or hear, just fossils on the Earth which you CAN see and feel. ..And you can live a good and decent life as an evolutionist. How do I know? Because I am living proof at 93.

  675. Zeus

    I am God and I say that I do not exist.

  676. enlightment 4 u

    i wondered about ur title to see if there was such a thing, seems my first thought was correct... About the watch in the desert--how does the idea about it "being different" make any sense?? and the conclusion /deduction is faulty... Because xxx xxx therefore xx xxxx x... ???/!!! ------IT seems obvious that the watch was "man-made" and the desert was natural ----strange thought patterns as i understand...---Logic would dictate that since no one was here at the creation or causeless "bang" that anything we want to call that is speculation---calling that "scientific fact" is mythical to say the least----Then they recently found soft tissue in dinosaur bones---that are supposedly millions of yrs old ?? ---but they argue that Iron in the bones preserved that soft tissue, magically you could say. After all they tested it and were able to "tweek" the environment to semi preserve similar material for up to 2 years therefore 2 Million Years --no problem ---seems to be S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G the truth a wee bit --you think ?? Which reminds me --did u lose Christianity from not understanding the Trinity---if so--see Connell and Donnell explain it--if u dont like the topic--dont worry it's so funny u will not notice ---we are happy people ya should know :-) --if u see to the end i esp like the comment about the Google translate (for the captions--many are in error)--being hallucinegens or something like that ---cheers !!

Leave a comment / review: