The Thinking Atheist

2009, Religion  -   1,527 Comments
Ratings: 8.53/10 from 175 users.

From the author: Using satire, research and some common sense, we explore common-sense questions about God.

A former Christian of 30 years, I ultimately found that religion, faith and scripture lacked any true answers, especially in the (bright) light of scientific discovery and the truth of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Having an insiders perspective of Christianity, I use my skills as a producer to stir the pot of debate and, hopefully, make it uncomfortable for anyone to be a mere spectator in the arena of ideas.

Note: This is not a documentary film in a strict sense. These are professionally edited short clips gathered from a YouTube channel named The Thinking Atheist.

More great documentaries

1,527 Comments / User Reviews

  1. There is no proof that God exists. I choose to believe that God exists because believing so makes my life better in more ways that I can count. We all have the right to believe as we will and I choose God, but not the God of violence, intolerance and fear. I choose a God of love. Just because...

  2. The points of argument will always be mute because no one will ever PROVE there is a god. You can make all the claims you want to in the name of what you believe but you don't have proof and the burden of proof lies directly upon you.

  3. @awful_truth:disqus

    you stay on your one trick pony. you list some people who excelled in their field and use that to lend weight to beliefs they had outside of their field. look at the people you mention. why are they held up as giants within their field? it is because they held an idea (belief if you wish) then they proved those ideas to be correct. that is what made them great. their ability to back up what they claimed, everyone has ideas/beliefs and dreams the truly great are those who can back their ideas up.
    you can continue to be a living example of Russels Teapot if you wish. go ahead and make your arguments from authority. but if as you implied you are here to stir things up and post to wind others up, well that is trolling and please do not go there. you already admitted you cannot prove the existence for god then falsely take solace in the fact that others cannot disprove him/her/it as if that is the way a logical debate works. you are right i cannot disprove the possibility of a "god" but if your god is based on the OT/NT please admit it. so is he? lets open this debate up . i am willing to lay all my cards on tha table concerning god. are you? so again. do you believe in one of the religious gods? if so which one ?

    1. @over the edge: I do not believe in any of the religious gods that have been set forth by any traditional doctrine. As I have stated many time previously, I am a spiritual individual, not religious.
      Perhaps this is why I understand Albert Einstein's view, where hard line athiests do not. (Can't grasp god without religion - deist/pantheist - check their definitons) I believe in the idea of higher forms of life, just not in traditional religious explanations. (god is just a word like the word universe)
      Furthermore, I have laid my cards on the table several times in the past regarding what I think the universe is, (a brain) and gave a complete explanation regarding it's implications. (at length)
      Of course, this is my own personal belief, and as such, is beyond the realm of irrefutable proof, as is those who vehemently contest that no such thing could possibly exist. (that is why it is called belief, no proof either way) Since all religious explanation is only an analogy of what many think the universe is, I believe my explanation is a far better than anything religion has produced so far. My position (my faith) has been formed by scientific observation, and scrutiny of the universe as a whole. (do you believe that you are alive? do you think the universe is alive? Is the electromagnetic spectrum just a frequence/wavelength of the universal brain/god?)
      Since by your own admission, you lack belief, thus reject the god claims of others, I can respect your position, even if I don't agree with it. (my response to your blog to goldensilence 17 days ago confirms this)
      With that said, for all the damage that religion has caused, you will find equally as many people who have found guidance, and purpose towards living a good life from it's teachings. To attack all religious people calling them id*iots, m*rons, etc for the crimes religious leaders of the past have caused, is akin to blaming all americans for the damage their leaders have caused in the last 100 years. (that is not logical, or moral)
      Thus, the debate as to whether god exists cannot be won or lost, because it is unknowable. As I stated to robertallen1, to taunt people to provide proof is to imply disparity where none exists. (a meaningless argument) The bottom line is for people to exchange ideas with an open mind, in an attempt to better understand the environment in which we live. Since no such thing as perfect exists, not even science will ever be able to answer the really interesting questions, least of all with certainty.
      Last, but not least, I can't respond to OT/NT, because I don't know what your acronym means. (please stipulate plainly) As far as robertallen1 goes, he has made it abundantly clear that he has no desire to get along in a civilized manner. (check his latest blogs) So, as long as he continues to denegrade without moderator intervention, I will 'do unto him as he would do unto others'. Since I have a great life outside this virtual world, I have no reason to be upset by any of this, and will derive much enjoyment in tackling any, and all who support his rude, disrespectful attitude. Until that changes, he will always be littlebob to me.
      (respect is earned, not bestowed!)

    2. It's been demonstrated time and time again that you have as much comprehension of Einstein's theological views as you do of chess and Bobby Fischer. So spare us your self-aggrandizing and intellectually insulting claim that as a "spiritual person" you somehow understand Einstein's theology while by their very nature, atheists don't, a claim equal in pomposity to your alleged scrutiny of the universe as a whole--as if you could do what no one else has been able to.
      If you can't support your beliefs with something more than your "experiences," they're idiotic and placing them under the mantle of science is pretentious, not to mention dishonest.
      You're a fine one to talk about what is logical or moral. Time and time again, you have been exposed as not only pathetically wrong and ignorant, but as a liar, a cheat and a coward as well, not only by me but by other posters.
      If you have such a great life outside this virtual world, why don't you remain there where you might encounter larger numbers of the ill and under-informed who'll bow down to your ignorance and accord you the respect which you crave?

    3. @robertallen1: Blah, blah,...blah, blah, blah. Time to change your meds littlebob, they are not working. Oh, by the way, you aren't as smart as you think you are, and any potential you have, is self limited by your hatred, and anger. How is that working for you?

    4. Blah, blah, blah--a non-response if ever there was one. Of course, the reasons are clear.

    5. i have no problem with most of what you have stated. i disagree concerning Einstein but i do not wish to go there again. OT (old testament) NT (new testament) . and finally the guidance people have found and even the good that has been inspired by the big three religions is not even close to even with the damage done. i do not hold the rank and file responsible for the leaders, but i do hold them responsible for willingly supporting these cults after the actions of its leaders is known. i do hold them responsible for the hate they have for people based on a different belief, sexuality, or a choice concerning their own body and so on based on an ancient book or because some leader told them to. i am Native Canadian and there is a special place of pure hate for the catholic church in the pit of my gut for them and anyone who willingly supports them. what they did to members of my family is unforgivable and i hold their members in the same light as i would hold any voluntary member of a hate group.

    6. You're right. The doctrine of respondeat superior is as applicable to the Catholic church as it is to any other organization.
      You probably don't wish to talk about what that vile organization did to your family, but my curiosity is getting the better of me.

    7. @over the edge: Thanks for the clarification regarding OT/NT. Since you now know my thoughts, you realize they are not relevant to my belief system, and yes, I have read the old, and the new testament.
      More importantly, I was born, and raised in Northern Canada, and live where the vast majority of the population is native canadian. I am not native myself, but have family, and close relatives who are. For this reason, I completely understand your concerns regarding the catholic church's intervention. (residential schooling in particular)
      Now that you have given me this information, it makes it far more easier to understand why you have the feelings you do for the catholic church.
      We must remember that many of the church goers today do not support the actions of their predacessors, (nor should they) and if they do, would have the same contempt from me, that you have expressed. (especially considering it is in contradiction with message of the new testament)
      Sadly, evolution is a slow process, but it is still occuring. Just look back to the television of the 60's, and 70's (all in the family for example) and most would agree that what was considered funny then, is not so now.
      I too, agree with much of what you said, and find myself torn when considering the support that we the electorate, both here and in the U.S, continuously provide for the very people, and elitists that create destruction around the world for personal gain. (greed)
      In the end, I realized how brainwashed the majority of the public really is, because they are unaware that their church, or government, (take your pick) is not what they appear to be. This doesn't mean they are all bad, or that some are not trying to create change from the inside out, to which we should commend them. (in my opinion)
      This is precisely why my approach is one of disseminating as much information as I can, so hopefully some day, it will reach a point of critical mass, where the stupidity of the past is not repeated.
      In this, there is something to be learned from the new testament, assuming a person reads it for themselves, instead of listening to someone else's interpretation of it.
      So, the real question is, do we hate the institutions themselves, or the people that support it, not realizing it isn't what they think it is? It is my belief that anger, and hatred is self defeating, and only reinforces the status quo that we would love to see torn down.
      Thank you for your insight, and I hope I answered the questions you were asking, so that we may have a better undestanding. Take care, and best wishes!
      P.S: Your response was honest, and respectful, to which I will always respond in kind.

  4. Religion = fairytale.

  5. Arguments are too funny. Religious people get no where.

  6. here is an idea goldenscience. how about making clear what you believe? forget the arguments from authority as newton was also an alchemist and his scientific brilliance does not add weight to his claims/beliefs outside of that. there have been many great scientific minds that have had religious beliefs from most if not all faiths. but at the very least all but one of the major religions is wrong. here is your opportunity to provide positive proof for your supernatural claims. can you? or do you need to inject insults,logical fallacies and interpretation in place of actual evidence? i do not wish to get into a debate as i am taking a break from the religious debates as they go the way this one is too often. but i suggest you debate the others with your best positive evidence instead of the tactics so far used.

    1. Not a chance. How about you tell me what you believe? If somebody states that all believers are idiots then using Newton as an example to refute that is completely legitimate. You seem to paint me as the one using deflective techniques to skew the argument!

    2. What's the matter? Are your beliefs so idiotic that they can't stand up to scrutiny? Or is it that you can't own up to having no evidence worthy of the name?
      Once again, Newton's belief in a supreme being does not prove the existence of one--and neither does anyone else's, famous or not, genius or not. You're the one with the deflective techniques.

    3. I never said it did prove Gods existence I said it proves your statement to be complete rubbish - which it is.

    4. A belief with no hard evidence to support it is idiotic and stupid no matter who harbors the belief.

      You are laboring under the delusions that all you have to do is declare someone has lost and the person has lost, that all you have to do is declare something not Christian and it isn't-- won't wash and neither will your delusion that you speak for all sane people.
      P.S. Another grammatical error, last word of first line.

    5. @robertallen1: there is no irrefutable evidence to support belief/faith, (why it is called belief) and to continuously taunt others to provide proof for that which is unprovable, is to imply disparity where none exists. (it is better to remain silent and appear foolish, then to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt)
      You are definitely 'thinking athiest', but not an 'athiest who thinks'. Since you are devoid of imagination, and creativity, and look to others to think for you, (spouting their credentials as proof) may I suggest you watch many of the other fine documentaries on this website, instead of simply trolling one documentary, attacking others for their ability to be open minded enough to think for themselves!

    6. Maaaate, it may pay for you to click on Robertallens1 avatar before making a absurd statement like the one you have just made.
      The topic range I have seen roberts posts to be informative and at times entertaining may make you think again before you make comments about other members of this site.

    7. The mighty Robert's posts have been rather poor. In fact I have s*it better Atheists. My sole argument from the beginning was that his comment that all believers are unthinking m*rons is completely trashed by simply looking at the amount of great scientists who have believed. I NEVER SAID IT PROVES GOD.

    8. Hey mate my post was intended for awful truth, so one would assume that your paranoid delusions of granduer the every post may be directed at you in someway is wrong.
      I have not replied to any of your posts as from what I've read your belief in the "magic man" is enough for me to show you the contempt I think you religee freaks deserve.

      Upper case writing is like shouting in the real world and that being the case, your christian values are shining through brightly with all the compassion and understanding to your fellow man....

    9. It was upper case for the sole reason of that being the 4th time I have had to repeat myself because nobody can follow the comments. I never said I was a Christian either as I have already pointed out. Upper case is emphasis in this instance.

    10. As I pointed out I have not conversed with you up until my reply to your act of grandeur so it appears to me as shouting. So you believe in god ?

    11. You truly are a f*ck wit! See the Urban Dictionary definitions, take your pick of which you prefer. Where to start on what was wrong with that recent dumb-a$$ed post of yours? That fact you had to pat yourself on the back and double post it, as if that somehow makes your idiocy more palatable? Why? Awful. :(

      Robert wasn't 'looking to others to think for him', he was disputing the other person trying to use that tactic, you must have missed Robert say;
      "Once again, Newton's belief in a supreme being does not prove the existence of one--and neither does anyone else's, famous or not, genius or not."
      Awful. :(
      In response to your accusation that Robert is "simply trolling one documentary", I suggest you look at many of the other doco's here on TDF and look for some of the over 8,000 posts Robert has made here. This documentary has less then 1,500. Awful. :(

      People that think for themselves? Religious people are not being told what to believe but think for themselves. Rrrigggttt, whatever you say, Awful. :(

      Your 'truth' is once more, as usual, very Awful. You should reread your little proverb, and think harder before continuing to confirm your status by opening your mouth when you're incorrect. There's no doubt with you, that's for sure..again...

    12. I never said it did prove Gods existence what is your malfunction? Read the comments properly or be quiet

    13. @docoman: If you were critically thinking, you would understand that no one can prove or disprove the unprovable. No 'urban dictionary" will change this fact, thus your retort is as meaningless as Robertallen1.
      Raising comments to defend what I was not making reference to, shows absolutely poor comprehension skills, and for all your bluster, (swearing, rude remarks) it does not change the fact science will never answer everything. (how is that working for you?)
      Your false sense of superiority stems from your believing (faith) in what others have told you to be true, ergo, you are unable to think for yourself, accepting what they tell you, no better than those who follow a religious doctrine without questioning it's premise.
      If your position was so sound, you and several others would not have to keep trolling the same documentaries attacking newcomers, using the same lame meaningless argument to debate something that can't be debated.
      This only 'proves' that you have no desire for the exchange of ideas regarding the possibilities of existance, and you are left to live soley in the realm of physicality, "where your journey to the dark side will be complete." (entropy) Live dumb, and fester!

    14. 1. Just what won't science ever be able to answer and how do you know this?

      2. By "they," do you mean those knowledgable in their subjects who can produce hard evidence for what they claim, as opposed to those of your ilk?

      3. How many times do you need to be told that science is not faith and faith is not science?

      4. Which lame, meaningless arguments are you referring to? The ones you can't refute?

      5. Is there some realm other than physicality? Can you prove it scientifically, i.e., without invoking a god of the gaps. And if you can, what's the matter with it.
      6. Haven't you learned by now that when you provide a quote, you must also provide a source? One way or the other, entropy is not the dark side.

      In short, by taking refuge in what you cannot prove, you're the one with a false sense of superiority, in short, the dummy, not Docoman.

      Psst. The word is "existEnce."

    15. As usual, you don't address the issues raised. Because, as usual, you're wrong.

      You came in to give your 2 cents worth, which as shown is a load of cr@p, worthless dribble. Try to deflect all you like, you're a fool that's wrong.

    16. @docoman: Now, now, don't cry. Just ingest some more corporate pablum, and all will be well in the peanut gallery! LOL

    17. I see you're still dripping your half chewed bolus from your skull-encased reticulorumen onto your keyboard and thus onto us here and posting your wannabe BS.
      Hello too d1ckhead. :)

    18. @docoman: Quite the linguistic minutia you have displayed dodoman! Just think of the profound insights you could have expressed, had you not forgotten to take your medication! LOL

    19. Not the case mate, every time I read one of your posts it reminds me to take a pain killer. ;)

    20. And that's what makes it so intellectually despicable. I'll be open-minded when the evidence comes in, but so far there has been done.
      Another moronic post from you.

    21. @robertallen1: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you could never hurt me on your best day, with me at my worst!

    22. And this is your idea of a rebuttal. You really suffer from a false sense of superiority.

    23. @goldensilence: You are obviously capable of answering for yourself, but I couldn't help but put my 2 cents in for you in regards to robertallen1. Here was my response:

      There is no irrefutable evidence to support belief/faith, (why it is called belief) and to continuously taunt others to provide proof for that which is unprovable, is to imply disparity where none exists. (it is better to remain silent and appear foolish, then to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt)
      You are definitely 'thinking athiest', but not an 'athiest who thinks'. Since you are devoid of imagination, and creativity, and look to others to think for you, (spouting their credentials as proof) may I suggest you watch many of the other fine documentaries on this website, instead of simply trolling one documentary, attacking others for their ability to be open minded enough to think for themselves!

    24. oops wrong person my bad

    25. what i believe? i reject the god claims of others. where supernatural claims are concerned i lack belief. your turn.

    26. I believe there is a God and the wisdom of the universe excels any human mind.

    27. "Wisdom of the universe"--more gibberish?
      Another orthographic error: excels.

    28. Star Badge for you... Well done.

    29. Wisdom of the universe? Give me a break!

      "Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people"
      Carl Sagan.

      You believe in God? which God out of the 28,000,000 Gods in recorded history? and to top it off, which universe are you talking about in the 10^500 universes, M Theory/many worlds theory.

      A scientific theory has much more substance than your invisible man made deities that dwell only in the mind.

    30. I follow Science and have an interest in Quantum Mechanics. If everything amounts to vibrations of energy and waves and particles are not either until observed does this not challenge your "if it is not testable in the lab then forget it" outlook? I mean all physical laws break down at the quantum level so how are you going to test anything? Yes a Scientific theory will have more substance seeing as spiritual matters are intangible. If Carl Sagan who I admire but disagree with on that one issue believes Earth is insignificant then who am i to challenge him? But honestly if he called me an i*iot as soon as he found out I believed in God I would fight him back and say how can you call Earth insignificant? The universe creates the solar system which creates life and then not only that but creates a self aware and thinking being is anything but insignificant.

    31. One way or the other, without evidence it's a silly belief.

    32. One minute you’re twisting my words and ignoring my valid points but ultimately you agreed that you wouldn't censor a basic and brief education about the main religions in schools. The next minute I scroll down to find you postulating about wiping religious people out you crazed extremist. You really are dangerous. You are nothing but a little Nazi wannabe I have seen you for what you really are. You have issues putting all this time into bashing religions why don’t you get out more?

    33. "If all the religees were killed off THROUGH INTERNECINE WAREFARE" the world would
      start to become a better place. [emphasis added] is what I wrote.

      And calling your points valid does not make them so, just as calling something Christian does not make it so, just as calling a person sane does not make him so. On the other hand, calling you a despicable, low, disgusting liar certainly makes you so, for it is based on your posts, especially your last. . .

    34. @robertallen1: Your desire to see the death of many people who don't think like you, only reinforces the credibility that 'athiest thinking' is bereft of moral grounding, and ultimately, your lack of faith and imagination will be your downfall. (karma's a bi*ch!)

    35. If they fight among themselves, that's not my problem. Let them kill each other for all I care. Then, as I said, the world might start to become a better place. Care to join the fray?
      P.S. You're downfall began long before your first post on this thread.

    36. @goldensilence: Amen to that!

    37. @goldensilence: If you really want to get them wound up, just ask why Carl Sagan spent so much time doing up commucation plates, and records for pioneer, and voyager? According to them, the belief in alien life, is as idi*tic as believing in god, (no proof) yet he pursued it nonetheless. (go figure)

    38. And Newton pursued alchemy and the philosopher's stone and thought himself one of god's chosen--now, why don't you go figure.

      "I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence, from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

      "It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence—precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable." Carl Sagan, 1996 [emphasis added]
      Simple-minded dolt--and liar to boot.

    39. Last time for me..... Was Newton known as a genius? Yes he was. 100% fact. Did you state all believers are i*iootic m*rons? Yes you did 100% fact. Therefore by normal everday logic the majority of the worlds population including many great thinking minds are i*iots. You would love banning religion and killing its adherents you little tyrant. BTW where is Warefare because my mum needs some pottery?

    40. One thing I find with you religee's that is certain, when backed into a corner and run out of things to say always resort to ad hominem attacks, Eh? Your mum? how old are you? probably another kid?

      Yes the earth is insignificant to the cosmos, it is so small it disappears, and the sun is but a pixel, where does that leave us little tiny carbon units, we are nothing but a fleeting Planck memory. And certainly your infinitesimal brain wave activity invisioning all your deities amounts to absolutely nothing!

    41. @Achems_razor: By the same standard, what does that make you, and all your babbling minutia? LOL No wonder you people have such fatalistic attitudes. Makes one wonder why you even make the effort to understand science when you are so meaningless. With that line of thinking, your time would be better spent getting laid, or drunk!

    42. Now I see what the problem is. You can't get laid and you get drunk after just one beer. Sour grapes, creationist style. .

    43. @robertallen1: You rude comments, and name calling is 'proof' that you lost a debate that could not be won, or lost. How loser is that. LOL

    44. And just which debate is this? The one over the state of your intelligence?

    45. "You people"? At least I am rounded off! you ain't! You are drunk on your gods. He is watching you, you better pray and be a good boy now, or no heavens gate. lol

      Funny religee's.

    46. @Achems_Razor: I believe the word you are searching for is truncated, since you have no point. Considering by your own admission you are 'rounded off ', (LOL) well rounded people like myself have no need to pray for that which I already have. (spirit)

    47. "Well rounded people" like yourself have absolutely nothing.

    48. Better spending your time getting laid and drunk now, than wasting time praying for it in the next life ;)

    49. I gave up drinking 20 years ago. Getting laid gave up on me more years ago than that.

      But, it hasn't cost me any time or effort!

    50. @pwndecaf: Yes, the wisdom of experience has it's advantages. (saved a lot of money since than I bet )

    51. I can only assume so, but I do assume it was a small fortune. Quitting smoking 15 years ago gets to be more of a money-saver every day, too.

      What's left to live for? I like to nap.

    52. @pwndecaf: I quit for 5 years, and started up again, and spent a small fortune in taxes I can never claim. (does that make me a good little socialist?) Once again, I find myself working at tackling smoking again. For the record, there is lots to live for, and napping is a good one!

    53. perfect answer!
      and oh god does not exist its just that plain and simple it does not advance you to pray to something that is not there and on top of that to pray when bad things come past your life instead of being on your knees get up and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

    54. Getting laid and drunk everynight would eventually leave you feeling empty, alone, confused and in bad health.

    55. You must speak from experience.

    56. Why must I?


      I know this is a joke and normally I would laugh but coming from you it is the same boring diversion tactic it always was.

    57. Ah, the morning after the night before. To stave off all of the above, try a full English and the hair of his dog. Failing that drink water, sleep the day away and swear you'll never do it again .... again ;)

    58. a woman after my own heart lol.

    59. Haha, bang on. Take water to bed and (important) drink it during the night. Failing that the English works a treat.

    60. @dewflirt: We are in complete agreement!

    61. "Yes the earth is insignificant to the cosmos"

      You speak like you are an authority on the matter? Did the cosmos tell you this? Have you expanded your mind to overcome petty human considerations and lift yourself up to contemplating not just human existence but the entire cosmos....

    62. What? he is alive! after 12 days, at least your LORD deity beat you too it.

      What's the matter are you bored? You are questioning Carl Sagan, read the posts above.

      Funny religee's!

    63. Not really. I do lead a life away from the internet. Questioning Carl Sagan? I would read the posts had someone not deleted some of them.

    64. What? you don't know how to "scroll up" to 13 days ago? My post to you.

    65. Are you an authority on the matter? And you can only contemplate the cosmos backwards up to a certain point, namely the big bang. Beyond that... well, there was no beyond that. Time itself didn't exist for there to be a beyond in. So if you suppose a god that can somehow exist outside of time, you are still left with the problem of what sort of action such a being could possibly take to do anything, since time is required for any action. Even if you could somehow get past such a problem (i.e., the complete nonexistence of "past" at all), you'd still be left with nothing but faith in attempting to characterize the personal attributes of such a being, which seems patently ridiculous.

    66. No I am not and the point is nobody is an authority on the matter of personal belief.

    67. Personal beliefs are worthless unless there is something backing them up.

    68. You tell me my experiences that do back up my belief are worthless? Maybe to you but not to me.

    69. Which is to say they are worthless.

    70. So people should wander through life without belief until they can back it up? No. You have it backwards. People form beliefs then test them with experience and alter them accordingly. In fact it is silly to argue such things. Either way works.

    71. Nonsense. You start off with a hypothesis (not a belief) and work from there. And the answer to your question is yes.

    72. You are ridiculous. Go through life without belief. Enough you plonker....

    73. You're the one who's ridiculous with your beliefs which you can't back up.

    74. robertallen1: Prove you are intelligent, and admit there is no proof for / or against the existance of a higher form of life. (God) If you can't, then you are the weakest link. Goodbye!

    75. As usual you have it wrong--and deceitfully so. If you claim that there is a higher being (God), the burden of proof rests with you.
      P.S. The word is existence.

    76. @robertallen1: Burden of proof is irrelevent regarding issues of belief/faith. (unprovable either way, pure uncertainty) This is why you lost a debate that could neither be won, or lost, because this simple logic eludes you.
      Your bi-polar brain (A or Z, nothing in between) is incapable of recognizing that the vast majority of life is a colorful grey mixture of considerations, requiring conscious thought beyond your simple binary comprehension. (right/wrong)
      This is proof that you are devoid of creativity, and imagination, and rely soley on others to think for you; others who will most likely end up being proved wrong sometime in the near future as well.
      I can at least respect them (right or wrong) because they went out on a limb, and played a hand at life, unlike you who attack, and denegrade others from the safe confines of your limited mind. (probably from your mother's basement as well)
      People blog to exchange information, and ideas, not to convince you of anything. No
      'proof' (exercise in futility) in the universe, will save you from yourself. Live dumb, and fester!

    77. If you can't provide the proof, then don't assert--and this goes doubly for any supernatural claims such as those you often and so ignorantly make.
      You have a pathetic habit of stating that something is true based merely on your assertion. This makes you the loser and a pathetically despicable one at that.

    78. @robertallen1: People are only stating that they 'believe' in something. The only one making the assertion that their statements are factually true is you. You really are not that bright, are you? As Jim Carey so eloquently put it, Looooossssseeeerrr. LOL

    79. Nonsense. They're stating their beliefs as if they were truths, just like pathetic little you.

    80. I like this comment. Very much.

    81. The problem you and most religees have is that you can not prove the "magic man" is no more than a belief or hope, that you dream and/or prey for.

    82. In a funny way, "prey" seems to be the right word.

    83. @goldensilence: Yes, Newton was an absolute genius, as was Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein, all of which had strong spiritual tendencies. It must just eat away at these people, that some of the greatest minds in scientific history, didn't have this internal conflict regarding science, and faith. It is a strong likelyhood that this is why they were such successful thinkers, that is to leap beyond logic, imagining the possibilities of existance. (open minded)

    84. So what? Are these people known and revered for their science or their religion, with one exception, the latter being a product of their time? Secondly they knew no more about the "spirit," than my neighbor's Dachshund.
      Your claim about Einstein's spirituality was debunked long ago and soundly by several posters. So bringing it up again is just another example of your dishonesty and distortion.
      You're beneath pathetic and contemptible.

    85. The are known as genius's that’s it full stop. Proves your
      comment to be er.... idiotic really. How can you debunk somebody’s
      spirituality? You are pathetic. Funny you mention a dog because it instantly
      brought to mind that a dog probably has more soul than you. Emotions are just
      neurons and chemical reactions the whole universe is nothing but cold
      mechanical chance. Such a grim and hopeless outlook. I thought I was a pessimist! It goes against the majority of people’s beliefs and also against a great deal of the sum total of human belief throughout the known history and beyond.

    86. Wrong as usual. They are know as geniuses (note spelling) IN THEIR OWN FIELDS full stop. They know no more about god and the spirit than a dog, a cat or a platypus.

      "Emotions are just neurons and chemical reactions the whole universe is nothing but cold mechanical chance. Such a grim and hopeless outlook." So in other words, we need spirituality (religion), not because it's true, but to counteract, the cold, hard facts.

      One way or the other, If you can't prove there is such a thing as a spirit, don't claim that there is and don't try to use "the majority of people's beliefs" and "the sum total of human belief throughout the know history and beyond [as if you know anything about the beyond]" as anything approaching proof. Might does not make right, except perhaps for the mo*on, the id*ot and the despicable deceiver.

      P.S. There is no such thing as "mechanical chance."

    87. In their own fields? That is just you trying to justify your
      dumb belief that people who believe in a God are stupid. Twisting words again
      with "so in other words"

      followed by a false interpretation of my meaning. Beyond was not meant in
      some magical ethereal sense I simply meant the future because in all probability
      the belief in God will carry on for a long time (barring extremists like yourself).
      You should just admit defeat and retract that silly statement you made
      otherwise you look the idiotic one.

      So my grammar isn’t the best and I use a wireless keyboard
      which leaves out letters sometimes but at least I know that a genius is someone
      with very sharp intellectual ability and that the term is not restricted to one
      particular field or another.

      Your diversion, misrepresentation and general twisting of
      any argument plus the fact you will not man up and accept you are wrong on such
      an obvious point makes me laugh. You have to accept that intelligent people
      (more so than yourself) believe in God.

    88. Bobbie Fischer was a genius in chess--and nothing else. Mozart was a genius in music--and nothing else. Georg Cantor was a genius in mathematics--and nothing else. No one is an all-around genius. So yes, the term is restricted, whether you acknowledge it or not--but you don't know and that's your problem..

      Anton Checkov, George Bizet, Maurice Ravel, Jeremy Bentham, Alan Turin, Margaret Sanger, Niels Bohr, Richard Feynman (I can go on), geniuses in their own right, were all acknowledged atheists. This makes trash out of your pathetic and ignorant appeal to authority--but then again, you don't know and that's your problem.

      Belief in something for which you have no evidence represents the height of idiocy, no matter how long it may carry on, no matter who carries it on, no matter how many carry it on and your posts constitute no more than a clumsy attempt at defending the inherently inane, the intellectually indefensible.

      Indeed, you are the one who is wrong, pathetically, stupidly and abysmally wrong.

    89. Right! List of atheists in science and technology.

    90. Like theists, they are all over the place. I've often wondered how many there were back in the days when the church held sway? Perhaps there were a few popes, bishops, cardinals and nuns among them, all making robust livings out of organized superstition--maybe the mothers superior weren't so superior after all. Wouldn't it be the height of hilarity to discover that Christ himself was an atheist? Talk about eternal laughter.

    91. @littlebob: Since you will cease to exist after you are gone, (because that is what 'you believe), you won't be around to observe anything, least of all, the joy of laughter!

    92. And neither will you.

    93. Right, reminds me of the "Ho of Calcutta" lol

    94. @Achems_Razor: Birds of a feather flock together???? The fact that some scientists have been categorized on wikipedia, not for their science, but for their lack of spirituality, is hypocritical, especially if you believe that part of their nature is irrelevent to what they have contributed towards society. (in reference to littlebob's pet peave)

    95. Every one of the scientists cited as atheists on Wikipedia have separate articles about their scientific accomplishments. Once again, you've shown yourself to be a liar and a cheat.
      P.S. It's a pet peeve, ignoramus.

    96. @littlebob: Bobby Fischer was not a genius because of a single world victory, (one shot wonder) as opposed to the likes of Gary Kasporov, who could only be beaten eventually by a supercomputer, programmed by a team of grandmaster champions, who on their own, didn't stand a chance! The russians have continuously trounced the americans at chess over the last 40 years, which is why they were so happy when Fischer finally won. With that said, no chess player should be bestowed with the term 'genius' unless it is a 11 year old beating a 50 year old grandmaster. Talk about nonsense, and babble!

    97. The fact that Kasparov himself wouldn't agree with a single word you just wrote about Fischer is evidence enough of your authority to speak about Fischer's chess genius. And for your information, the 13 yr old Fischer soundly trounced Donald Byrne, a much older, strong national master at the time (1956), in a game that is still called 'the game of the century,' and is studied to this very day for the chess brilliance unmistakably evident throughout it. Grandmasters even now are known to be effusive in their praise of this effort by the boy. And Fischer's run up to the '72 title, in which he lost precisely ONE game out of 18 played against the likes of grandmasters Petrosian, Larsen, and Taimanov, in a display of chess genius one Garry Kasparov has called "an entirely unprecedented show of superiority in the whole history of the game," is just further proof that you're blowing smoke out of your a$$ on the subject in a feeble attempt to score a point over robertallen. Furthermore, the Soviets had a state-sponsored chess program that no other country had anything even remotely like in terms of resources (or underhanded tournament strategies and tactics), and Fischer went up against that colossal engine all by himself, with nothing like any of these resources, and walloped the piss out of all of them, considering which, if you were honest, would make what he achieved just that much more clear for you, that the man was indeed exactly what he has been called by those who should know.

    98. One way or the other, I'm sure you realize my post was not about Mr. Fischer. You have clearly shown Awful_Truth up for the liar and cheat that he is.

    99. No, I know. It was a general thing. I've just got kind of a soft spot for the tragic Fischer, and felt like this guy needed to be set straight a little bit... Which I still think, really. I don't believe he actually does know the first thing about chess. But I do believe him when he says his goal is to tick you off...

    100. And as you mentioned, his goal says a lot about him and his physical challenge to me about a year ago says even more.

    101. Anyone threatening to do such things should be kicked off...

    102. @Pysmythe: I appreciate your affection for Fischer, and it was not my intention to diminish his accomplishments. ( I just question the label genius) I tried to explain this to you in my last blog.
      I too enjoy playing chess, and if you wish, perhaps we can enjoy a friendly game on line.
      For the record, if robertallen1 was more respectful, and chose his words more carefully, all of this could have been avoided.
      He made the mistake of calling me a coward, (a threatening statement) which had nothing to do with the discussion we were having, so I called his bluff and stated any time, any place. One of the moderators reminded us of the rules, and I apologized, and he didn't. With that said, he hasn't said it since.
      Now he is crying you a river, because deep down inside, even he knows that his behaviour is adolescent at best.
      Obviously, he is well educated, but his delivery has no redeeming qualities what so ever. I will be more than happy to bury the hatchet with him, but as long as he continues to be-little everyone who don't agree with him, I will be there measure for measure to remind him how it feels, and enjoy doing it.
      Now, what I have just stated is completely honest, and direct. (no room for misinterpretation, or spin) Since he will read this, let us see what the nature of his response will be. (or yours for that matter)
      If I am to be slapped in the face with the very olive branch I am extending, than it is better for all of us, not to communicate at all, if it can't be in a civilized manner. Either way, now you know the rest of the story! Take care, and best wishes.

    103. If or when Robertallen1 called you a coward, it appears that his evaluation of you may be correct as I've seen you avoid or side step direct questions to you on a number of occasions.
      Don't be scared to prove me wrong and to help you on this challenge here are some of the questions you never seem to want to answer.
      1. do you believe in one of the religious gods?
      2. if so which one ?

      Over the edge has asked you these questions today yet your cowardness or rudeness has still not shown any respect to other members of this site.

    104. @jackmax:
      1) No!
      2) none of the above!
      Of course I have answered over the edge, because he is talking normal, and for all your bluster, your time would be best served 'jacking to the max', instead of trying to prop up an individual like littlebob, who obviously needs professional help. Man, you pencilnecks grow like weeds, coming out of the woodwork! Unbelievable!

    105. when I wrote this you had answered other post yet had made no attempt to answer the questions put to you by Over the Edge and then it took over 18 hours to actually answer him.

      I think with out both docoman and myself prompting you and agreeing with Robertallen's appraisal of you we would still be waiting for an answer.

      You hypocrite. You have made previous statements on name calling and insults that now are complete lies again as robert and doco have pointed out on numerous occasion now.

      I would have no fear in calling a coward to your face, however I doubt you would insult or be as rude to me or to anyone for that matter in person. Your insults to me and others lesson my opinion of you and respect is something that all must earned and then not kept without working hard at displaying those qualities that the respect was earned from.

      I also noticed that you replied to docoman yet you never answered his question he put to you, another cowardly act shining through. However that is your MO from what I've seen from near on all your discussions I have seen you in on most threads I've seen you post on.

      If you had ever tried to have a informative conversation or debate with the other members of TDF a more pleasant and possibly enlightened experience may be achieved.
      I have had debates and conversations with Robert and others since being a member of this site, may not agree with all however conversation are still very interesting and informative at times yet always stimulates my mind. May-be the hostilities towards you are instigated by your efforts to provoke rather than converse.

    106. @jackmax: 18 hours? Sometimes I am not online for a week. (obvious who has a life, and who doesn't) Furthermore, if you wish to go months back cherry picking certain blogs (while ignoring others) to prop up your position, that is fine with me as well. Perhaps your clik will give you a hero biscuit for your efforts, but in the real world, all of this amounts to zero. Since I am in charge of myself, I get to decide when I wish to respond, as do all of us. You will just have to learn to live with it!

    107. I can hardly wait until for JackMax' response after he looks up the word pencilneck as I did.
      "Since I have a great life outside this virtual world . . . " Well, then what are you doing here among the pencilnecks whom you so despise. Is it masochism or a cry for professional help?

    108. G'day Robert,

      Keyboard, Bruce Lee read want to be warriors, would not understand the restraint some people are displaying if their real life achievements were known.

      I lose respect for personally insulting instantly and with that as with another now "departed" member of TDF, I'm just showing him the contempt he deserves.

      I served my country very proudly and to the best of my ability, and still today I would die for my country. Would he..?

    109. I wish I could feel about my country the way you feel about yours, but considering the way things are, I can't. At least your country is not trying to dictate to the world.
      My dad was a WWII veteran who, after enlisting, served in Okinawa, but was never a gung ho patriot or right winger. By the late '60's, early '70's, especially with the Viet Nam war, he ended up hating what this government had come to stand for and assisted me in beating the draft--I don't mind admitting it. It's our government's fault that so many people feel the way they do, especially after the recent "skirmishes" and it has nothing to do with Republican v. Democrats. They're both schmucks.
      As a veteran, you might want to read up on the Veterans March on Washington of 1932.

    110. I would have to brush up on it but was that when two veterans where shot by two police officers?

    111. No. There's a full account of it on WIkipedia. Just look up "Veterans March on Washington."

    112. G'day Robert,

      I found that wikipedia site interesting, It did state Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two
      veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at
      other locations during the demonstrations. So for an Aussie off the top of my head not bad all the

      I'm only just starting the process of claiming my entitlements through our veterans affairs as I've recently injured my lower back again.

      I originally broke my back in a parachute accident around 20 years ago whilst still serving.

    113. The point being that these people served the U.S. in WWI and look at how they were treated.
      Take what you can get.

    114. I here what you're saying and I will fight for all that I'm entitled, but I wont be out to wrought the system as I've heard many doing.

      I'm luckier than most i think as my mental strength has helped me cope and understand my role as a soldier and the job requirements at the levels I achieved.

    115. Shameful the difference between the promises pre-enlistment, to what happens later on.

    116. I don't know if this will get deleted but I think that this may give people an insight to my own evidence on why I'm an atheist.

      During my service I've seen the worst of acts to man kind one could imagine and all the leaders were say they were doing it in the name of some "magic man" . Be it some jockey that rides a winged horse and cuts the moon in half or The christian version which we've all heard enough.
      When they use children to bear arms to soldiers and then blame the soldiers for defending themselves, I think that the so called adults with all the said know and power to change all this horror with so simple yet here's the problem, humble solutions.

    117. "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." Voltaire.

    118. I realize that I was the puppet on the string in my profession as a soldier, yet I had the confidence in the Australian political systems to use the defence force. Meaning that we look after our boarders which we are very capable of doing.

      The International affair that transpired during my time as a serving member, changed the environment for all allied nations and then I found myself learning about Commonwealth and sovereignty very quickly.

      the sooner our great nation I live in becomes a truly independent nation the sooner we as a nation we be seen less of a threat to other wise hostile countries.

      I have very strong opinions on religion and the reasons I despise it
      Being raised in the country as I did you soon get to see and through selective breeding programs be a small part in proving evolution in way books and documentaries have only confirmed.

    119. It's easier for you to look after your borders , as you are surrounded by oceans on all sides.
      Speaking of selective breeding, it has never ceased to amaze me that Darwin was so wrong about genetics, especially as he bred dogs for a hobby.
      P.S. What do you mean by a truly independent nation?

    120. At this present time we are still under British rule as our head of state is the queen of England/ the commonwealth.

      That is an interesting point about Darwin as I bred greyhounds for racing and looking through the blood lines of greyhounds you could see what strengths and weakness you wanted to enhance or eliminate in the bitches you intend on breeding with.

    121. Speaking of dogs, are there many types of wolves in your country?
      P.S. How does a creationist tell the difference between a dog "kind" and a wolf "kind?"

    122. As the creationist do in so many areas of there arguments. they will except macroevolution when it suits them ,but if it doesn't fit within their story or actually shows their stories for the myths that they really are. The thought of mircoevolution to the creationists, in my opinion would be well beyond their allowed capabilities. By allowed I meaning with an open and clearly objective mind without the influence of some pre concieved religious idea or thought'

    123. You might want to look up Encyclopedia of American Loons #329 - Georgia Purdom and then take a gander on You Tube at some of the videos featuring her.
      You still haven't told me if there are many varieties of wolf in your country.

    124. As my luntsman had beaten me in my reply i lazied up a

    125. You asked somewhere I think did jackmax know me. Yeah mate, I've known him for awhile now. I told him about this site and the interesting doco's and comments. I didn't announce we knew each other from the start, to allow him to establish his own reputation and place in the TDF community, as he's done now I believe.

      A couple of my older sisters have also watched some things on here here, only one has posted and she's not done so for awhile now, too busy with work.
      There's nothing I've read him post about himself that I know about that is untrue, or have any reason to doubt the things I can't know about he's said.
      I too envy some of the traveling he's done across and around the NW coast of Aus, I've not been there. That's some of the oldest land on the planet, he's walked and driven over much of it. If you or any of our friends from TDF get to come come over our way, between us we'll take you and show you some of the Aus that the tourists don't get to see. Not WA, :( but some here in Qld. For a bit of the tourist taste if you like, that Australia Zoo (ex- Steve Irwin Zoo) is only 1/2 hour up the road from here. The Barrier Reef starts a few hours drive north of here. Lots of bush not far away, camping and gold prospecting. Jack will get you a bush feed to taste what the original Aussies used to eat. (You can live on it, but it tastes like sh1t-- Crocodile Dundee) Always welcome mate.

    126. You are dreaming if you think Australia can go its own course in international affairs. You are tied to the US now with their pivot to Asia and coercion of China. Out of the frying pan....

    127. Whilst having pride in self is fine, vocalising it to try and legitimize an argument about belief is questionable at best and nauseating at worst.

    128. Belief without anything to back it up is pathetic.

    129. Broken record.....

    130. Like the pot calling the kettle half-baked.

    131. I will never bury the hatchet with a lair, a cheat and a coward such as you.

    132. @robertallen1: bury the hatchet with a lair??? I don't believe it; the perfect littlebob made a spelling mistake, while continuously correcting others for theirs? You must be losing it. LOL

    133. I understand. Robert does not suffer fools gladly, but there is something to be said for that, and I've even had a couple of (mild) run-ins with him myself over the last 2 years. The way I see it, though, is that if we didn't have him here, able and willing to directly confront all kinds of faulty thinking (some of it pretty blatant, some of it not), we'd be dealing with a whole lot more of it, even with the other strong commentators that we've got. So, over time, I've come to appreciate him for that. And oftentimes, too, he isn't the first to hurl an actual insult, though no one ever seems to take note of that. And while I can't presume to speak of psychological motivations for him, you have to remember that we both live in a country where the constant attempted intrusion of religious belief into nearly every aspect of public life, an area that it has no business being in, is something that a lot of us have justly grown entirely fed up with. And seeing that private belief (here, anyway) inevitably attempts to dictate over public policy, it seems wise enough to confront it at its source, and whatever country it comes from. Gatekeepers need to be big, burly, courageous...and sometimes harsh, because a great many religious people are not content to have their beliefs, but you must submit to them, too, in some way. Therein, I suspect, is where the passion stems from, and it's something that I can entirely understand.

      You don't happen to have the 'Social Chess' app for iPod4, do you? I play there occasionally, under my Pysmythe moniker, but I'm only a medium-strong amateur, and have gotten about as good at the game as I will ever be capable of, I'm afraid. I actually know a lot more about the history and players of the game than I have skill at the board. But if you're a strong player, and enjoy playing a lot, you should install 'BabasChess' on your computer, if you haven't already. Many of the guys over there are just murderously good, but most of them are blitz players, relying on flashy moves and intimidation. If you can talk one of them into a quiet 1 hour game, your chances will probably improve, depending...

    134. @Pysmythe: I understand as well.
      Regarding the game of chess, I, and a couple of friends play several times a week. I would define myself the same as you (medium-strong amateur) I will have to look into the social chess app you are refering to, and get back to you. If I can get it installed, I will be more than happy to have a few games with you. (win or lose, it is all fun) Is this 'Babaschess' you are refering to a computer chess game, or an online game. (sounds interesting)
      Regarding the religion. I am curious, are you american, and what area - the south? Is the religious bombardment you speak of really that bad?
      I am canadian, and although it exists here as well, it is actually quite minimal regarding it's impact on our society. As I have stated on previous blogs, we tend to concern ourselves more with that which is right in front of us. (don't freeze, don't drown)
      For this reason, I am likely far more accepting of other people's views regarding religion. I know that in eastern Canada, it is far more influential, not so much today, but especially up until the 1960's had strong overtones, and implications for the people who were there at that time.
      Believe it or not, I do understand why people such as robertallen1 have such strong convictions on the topic. However, as a canadian, I am less receptive to over the top militant attitudes. I tend to think that U.S foreign policy, and firearms rights on U.S soil are just as dangerous as religion, and out of control. (yes, we own firearms as well) The gorilla in the room has gotten so powerful, that countries as a whole are evaporating to corporate control, by the elite, and the only solution may lie in education itself. I can gaurantee you that even in Canada, those who are in charge don't want people too intelligent either.
      Last, but not least, check out Robertallen1's responses to my last blog to you, and you will see that he has no desire to get along, and appears to be thriving on hate, and anger. Ultimately, this behaviour is self defeating, (and destructive) and prevents his intelligence from rising to the top. I do agree that he has a lot to offer, but until he overcomes this self imposed limitation, our situation will be what it will be. Either way, I am fine with it, because it has no bearing on how I live my life. (there is some entertaiment value in it) Thanks for your thoughtful response Pysmythe, and take care!

    135. You're an insult to the other Canadians who post on this site.

    136. Maybe he should spend time correcting his own faulty thinking before crusading (pun intended) against others.

    137. @Psmythe: Let me guess, you are american? Touched a nerve, did I? LOL This is what I love about blogging, is how easily I can setoff the wannabees. For the record, there are no points, and I win every time I get littlebob to lose his mind, and spout his usual comments. (liar, cheat, m*ron, id*ot) ergo, small minds speak ill of others, average minds talk events, but great minds speak of ideas, that which is impossible for those devoid of spirit, creativity, and imagination.
      P.S: chess is a game of limited possibilities, and there is nothing genius about it!

    138. I really couldn't care less about the games you might be playing here, but I did think you might actually be in need of a little schooling on Fischer's achievements. But, hey, if you're basically admitting to outright lying in an attempt to set people off, I have to tell you that speaks volumes about your integrity to more than just myself or robertallen on these forums. I'm sure others will be glad to know that about you. What can I say? Knock yourself out.

    139. You might be interested to know that this is the guy who about a year ago threatened me with fisticuffs.

    140. @Psmythe: where did I lie about anything? how many world championships did Bobby Fischer win? One, that is it. This was not to denounce Fischer's accomplishment, only question the validity of calling him a 'genius'. Sorry, but he does not fall into the same category as Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Mozart, etc.
      Secondly, all I have done is give littlebob a taste of his own medicine, and you don't like it. (dish it out, but can't take it?) You should be thanking me, because if he ever figures it out, he will become a better person because of it. (I can hope, can't I)
      If and when you realize that 'value' comes in many forms, (athiest, theist, agnostic, pantheist, etc) than you will quit choosing sides based only upon your spiritual persuasion, (or lack thereof) and quit the childish namecalling games that littlebob plays 24/7, and instead learn to exchange ideas, without calling people down who happen to think differently than you.
      The choice is yours, and if you wish to continue on this path, I will enjoy doing unto others as they would do unto me, instead of getting upset, and sulking with words that speak lots, but say nothing.

    141. So now you feel you should be thanked. For what, lying, cheating, misrepresenting and threatening? You're a fine one to talk about making someone a better person.

    142. As there is no limit to the number of rounds in a chess game, there is no limit to the possibilities--another ignorant statement from someone spouting clichés in place of intelligence as blithely as he spouts lies in place of facts. Psmythe has your number.
      You lose everytime you post.

    143. Where did I mention a single world victory against Kasporov? What about the rest of the people I cited?
      Once again, you're a liar and a cheat.

    144. @littlebob: How do you know that Fischer, Mozart, and Cantor were not intelligent, or genius in other areas? Good thing you are not the standard by which anything important is judged! (correction - you could be regarding grade school childish name calling) Talk about locked in a feedback loop, repeatedly walking face first into a wall like Yul Brynner in West world! You got to love it.

    145. By having read about them in detail which is obviously more than you've ever done.
      You certainly set the standard by which ignorance, lying and deception can be judged.

    146. You mention "grade school childish name calling". What is your 'littlebob' term you've been using all about then? You hypocrite.

      By your own standards (not to mention other's) you're also small minded, as you admit you're here to play games to stir up people. As has already been pointed out, you don't answer simple questions, which also makes you a cowardly, foolish troll.

      As has also been stated, you've been correctly pegged by multiple posters on here now. A foolish, small minded hypocrite coward, by your own actions and admissions. Your 'truth' is still awful. Grow a set and answer over the edge's post at the top to you. I'm betting you're too scared to be honest with him as he was with you.

    147. @docoman: I had no problem answering what over the edge requested. (especially since he is respectful, and forthright) However, that privileage is reserved for those who know how to conduct themselves accordingly. Since littlebob is incapable of this simple approach, he is treated accordingly, as are you Dodoman. Live dumb, and fester!

    148. You're really full of yourself, aren't you? You haven't fooled anyone.
      P.S. The word is privilege, but I'll let it go as a typo.

    149. Some facts for you to consider and compare to some of your claims.

      So you're saying you didn't answer because I wasn't what you consider 'respectful and forthright' enough.
      Here is a quote from you in an earlier post to me, when I said you haven't replied to our first exchange;
      "The awful truth is you suffer from bi-polar thinking, (A or Z, nothing in between) This is precisely why I never responded to your 'critical thinking' assertion, because you have nothing original to offer.( devoid of spirit, imagination, and creativity) Just critical, no thinking!"

      Contradicting yourself. One or both must be untrue. Was it too rude for you, or not enough spirit for you?
      Lets examine our first exchange, and see what was said, and if your claims are accurate or not.

      I explained to you why some of your probability calculations on the possibility of alien life is flawed, which included the statement;
      "Then you have to consider one key variable is not understood, Abiogenesis."
      I ended that post with;
      "Are you sure you're not biased by your attachment to Star Trek?
      You could sign off 100% of the time with 'live long and prosper', you'd still not be Vulcan with green blood." That's as rude as I got.

      Your reply to that was;

      "If you don't agree with my assertion, that is fine. I don't agree with your assertion that you have the answer to how life began. (oh well) Also, If you are bothered by a sociable meaningful farewell like, live long and prosper, how about live and die in ignorance! (now do you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?) You all really are one angry lot of self deluded know it alls, aren't you? No need to answer. It is a rhetorical question."

      My response to that was uncharacteristically quite polite, even though you didn't deserve it by then IMO, and yours apparently. I commented that as someone else had already mentioned, you seem to have some reading comprehension problems (over your false claim on my supposed knowledge of Abiogenesis), and I said "your truth is Awful".

      It's pretty clear what has gone on is actually the reverse of what you've been claiming. You were rude, and wrong, then tried to ignore and then play the victim card when it's again pointed out.

      A couple more quotes from you here on TDF, relating to your claim that you're only rude to those that are to you first.

      This is part of a post to a woman who didn't even address you let alone be rude to you first;

      "If you can't understand the logic I have just expressed to you, then the alternative is to go back to your happy place, spouting rhetoric, withhout any critical thinking."

      Another of your posts contained;

      "Since I am capable of having this communication respectfully with
      everyone, (except apparently you and with certanty, littlebob)..."

      You recently had a go at robert for correcting spelling, yet you posted this to someone with a different opinion that hadn't talked to you;

      "Wow, there are still people that don't believe in the moon landing!?! Study a lot, especially how to spell. (believe, not beleave)"

      If you're going to bag people for their behaviour, judge yourself by the same standards, and be honest with yourself.

    150. What can you expect from someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on except his faith?

    151. I've been reading most of the posts he's done on here. Quite the opinion of himself he has, obviously. It seems he believes that the whole universe is 'alive' and connected (Spinoza's god he often calls it), and that this is the the same/similar conclusion that Einstein came to. Which he seems to believe is some grand personal epiphany, that's beyond most people's ability to comprehend, which allows a greater knowledge of all things. That's why he comes out with the 'A to Z and bipolar thinking' line he so often accuses most that don't agree with him of having.

      Another quote from a post of his 7 months ago;

      "It is clear that Einstein did not believe in traditional religions, (all knowing, judgmental, personal god – Spinoza’s god) but continuously alluded to a 'spirit' behind nature, that humanity was intellectually 'impotent' to understand, nor explain. For this reason, calling him an atheist is completely wrong. If people wish to debate whether he was agnostic (I don't know) or spiritual, (belief in higher forms of life) is for people to decide for themselves. (Einstein is not here to speak for himself )."

      Now it seems he's conveniently forgotten all about the agnostic or 'traditional religions' part of that when trying to appeal to Einsteins supposed authority on 'god'. And he doesn't know as much about the variance within some of those descriptions, i.e agnostic.

      I believe his arrogance blinds him to the fact that he's got the bipolar thinking on this topic. I've seen him laugh at others for believing in string theory, yet he incorporated it's math in his own, 11 dimensional version of the universe/beliefs.

    152. Of what earthly importance is Einstein's theology? His accomplishments are all that matter. However, those of Awful Truth's mentality believe that if they can demonstrate by hook or crook that a famous person, especially in the sciences, was a theist or at least had theistic leanings, somehow they've strengthened the argument for theism (that is, their own brand of theism).

      The lies and distortions barfed up from Awful Truth's keyboard (and you and others have exposed many of them) render him particularly despicable. In the case of Einstein, notice how blithely he omitted the letter of 1954, "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," which, as it was written two years before his death, trumps everything before it. Yet he claims himself to be an expert on this individual.
      And yet he clamors for respect. "Quite the opinion of himself he has" hits the nail squarely on the head.

    153. Thank you, I don't recall having read that before. I find the whole 'Einstein (or anyone for that matter) appeal to authority' on things that were not their speciality. An obviously stupid and flawed argument. I don't know why they keep trying with it, Awful has been going on about it for months. Who gives a hoot what Einstein believed about god either way (unless for historic interest), or fashion, or his preferred dessert. His achievements were in physics, not his physique, nor his faith.
      As I said, I spent quite a while going back reading almost all of Awful's posts. There are quite a few contradictions throughout. A number of times during the read I was almost ready to agree with him, then he'd make some claim or assertion that is wrong and he'd lose me. :(
      It sometimes looks like he is trying hard with google to look more knowledgeable on some topics then he actually is. I think he knows he's not as smart as he has tried to make out, (that or his ego is malignant), if not by his tone from the start to many people, (and not just 'responding' as he claims) but also absurd things like telling a moderator what they can and can't say to who, and when. He's a nutter IMO, kind of reminds me of that, hmm, was it aptw or some such fool (apologies if that name is not the correct one aptw, it entered my head for some reason)

      He's been shown to be incorrect a number of times about a number of things now, he's like jailbird Kelly was, not worth talking to after a few posts, it's just feeding a foolish troll on a one tracked, 'holier than thou', fallacy toting roam. I also see he started at disqus at other sites before coming here to TDF. He's being fed better here. He also warned Jack1952 about the mod's ect, and said he had 'experience'.
      Interesting comments from him though. :)

    154. @docoman: If you spent as much effort in exchanging ideas as you do trying to discredit others, think of what you could accomplish!

    155. I just wanted you to know that I wrote you a hell of a long reply (3 or 4 hundred words long) the other night, in answer to your last post to me, and Disqus just vanished it forever into some black hole as soon as I clicked post. And that happened again today, too, when I was responding to someone else a few hours ago. I had to rewrite the entire damned (equally long) thing... I'll tell you, this new system of theirs really stinks!

    156. FWIW- I posted one with a link last night. I wanted to leave the link out so that it wouldn't go to moderation, but I had some statistics in it and felt it was proper. I still have not seen it.

      It was my best post EVER! ;-)

    157. Mine didn't go into moderation, didn't even have any swear words or links in them at all, or I would've understood. They just plum up and vanished completely. All I saw were those three little black dots flashing across the screen for about 15 full minutes before I finally just gave up and hit reload.

    158. sorry about that. i looked for it in the hiding spots i know of but couldn't find it, on a related note my first response to your earlier post on this subject has gone missing

    159. Thanks, I appreciate your looking into it.

    160. @Pysmythe: I appreciate your efforts, and thanks for the heads up. I too have had this happen to me, and the only thing I can suggest is just prior to sending a blog, I now right click and copy just before I click post. This has saved me from the grief that you have just expressed.
      I still wish to try to setup the chess app you informed me about, but I have been quite distracted as of late looking after my father who is elderly, and requires a lot of attention. I will talk with you again soon. Take care,and best wishes!

    161. Thanks, that's a good idea, and I'll remember it the next time I write one of those long ones.

      The Social Chess app is only for iPods, iPhones, and iPads, it's not cross-platform, but if you've got any of those you shouldn't have any problems with it. I like it better than BabasChess, because the interface is a lot more intuitive and the play is, in fact, more social. Babas is more for hardliners, and the interface took me a couple of hours to get a good grip on. Not only that, but folks over there are pretty distant. Hardly ever will you get any kind of interaction with them at all, not even a "good game," or anything of the sort. However, you can spectate there, too, and sometimes it's fun to watch a couple of 1900 to 2200 Elo-rated players play a 5 minute blitz game, which can get pretty bloody.

      I had a more detailed response in the lost post about the religious thing, but I'm gonna have to shorten this one up some. Yes, I was born and raised in the South, but left it 19 years ago, living an hour west of NYC ever since. The problem here is nationwide, though, not just down South (where, granted, it's usually worse) because the Christian Right pretty much outright co-opted the Republican Party back around '80, with the advent of Saint Ronnie. For me, that marks the start of this country's decline in many respects, not only as regards the religious aspect. But ever since then, because of the grip they've continued to have on powerful conservatives, we've seen things like their push to roll back women's rights, promote creationism as legitimate science in the schools, denial of global warming, a much too ready, "patriotic" (as in, basically war-mongering) acceptance of this country's disastrous wars and foreign-policy decisions, and on and on. You've seen your share of it all up your way, I'm sure... Troglodytes like Palin, Bachmann, the whole FuxNews clown circus... although I've heard FuxNews isn't permitted in Canada, which is a very, very good thing. I've lived in the Northeast now for quite a while, and can attest to how widespread these kinds of attitudes are, how ready so many are to scarf down all the (hypocritical, self-serving, among other things) bullsh-t without a second thought. Then again, the Democratic Party lately is, in essence, simply Republican Light, and I'm pretty pissed about that, to put it very mildly. The genuine Progressive Left in this country needs to get more organized, more insistent, especially as our numbers are growing, and stop continuing to think that it has any real voice left in the Democratic Party... and with that I guess I'd probably better stop, although there is obviously a helluva lot more that could be said.


      edit- I should've pointed out that BabasChess is free software you can download for your PC.

    162. @Pysmythe: Just thought you should know that, sadly, the Canadian broadcasting system (CBC) is under attack from our own wingnut prime minister, Stephen Harper, and has signed on to have FOX news become one of the standard broadcasts for Canadians. Although he is mired is his own scandals right now, it won't make a difference, because he was caught bribing someone on audio for 100,000 dollars prior to becoming the prime minister, and hard line conservatives still voted him in.
      His progressive conservatives were found guilty for diverting funds from one constituency to another during the election, and he prorogued (shut down) the house of commons when his minority government was going to be brought down during a non confidence vote.
      In reality, we have the same problem you do, the illusion of democracy. In my opinion, you have a 1 party system with 2 factions, backed by the same corporate involvment. In Canada, we have a multiple party system, yet even though the elections canada act (section 550) states that no candidate can promise anything in writing prior to an election, so they can vote freely in the house of commons, the second they don't follow the party line, they are dismissed by the political party.
      In Canada, they avoid the appearance of collusion by changes the laws for corporate advantage, and get greased after they leave office. (Michael Wilson conservative energy minister become CEO of Amico, Bernard Lord liberal telecommunications minister became CEO of Tellus. - I am sure you get the point)
      Sadly, both our country's are part of a plutocracy, that will use the corporate controlled media, religion, race, or anything else they can think of to divide, and distract the general public from what is really going on. It is too bad, because I truly believe that we were born in the best countries, at the best time in history, and they are slowing destroying everything that the people before us fought for, so that their children would have better lives.
      Since we both seem to have a good handle on our respective political quagmires, I will be happy to hear any insight you have in the future regarding your political thoughts. Your sanity is a breath of fresh air. Take care Pysmythe!

    163. I have and do exchange ideas and information here on TDF, with numerous people on multiple topics. I've learned many new things since coming here. Tried to with you initially, as that post above shows. If you stopped talking sh1t and got off your imagined, 'Einstein induced' intellectual high-horse you might be able to practice what you preach, and we can all shut up with the BS and get back to learning something. How about we try that hey?

    164. You don't have to justify yourself to Awful Truth or anyone else.

    165. @docoman: I am in complete agreement. Let us wipe the slate clean docoman, and start fresh. I too have learned much from the discussions that take place on TDF. Yes, sometimes we are not going to agree, and it is okay to agree to disagree. In reality, we all learn from one another, and we all have our own personal biases, (right and wrong) that must reflected upon. In the final analysis, none of us can grow without the input from those around us. Take care, and best wishes!

    166. And if you spent your time trying to obtain a real education, think how much you could accomplish.

    167. @goldensilence: You know what makes me laugh? Is that people like littlebob don't understand that what makes any individual proficient in anything, is the sum total of the entire person as a whole, not just the parts that we wish to acknowledge.
      Here is a paraphrase from Bruce Lee. (let me know what you think)
      "Life is a void, that lies between this, and that. It is an all encompassing void, being neither for, nor against. Those who embrace the void, will have a love for all things!"
      ( even littlebob, because if you didn't feel the sting of his evil, you would never develope the tools to combat it!) Since he sees no value in philosophy, it is beyond his comprehension.
      Perhaps the athiest fears death more than the religious, because he detests life, and is scared he may actually have to come back, or face the consequences of the choices he has made in this one. (no need for judgment)

    168. You know what makes me laugh? Liars and cheats like you who try to support their deception and ignorance through appeals to authority

    169. Talk about "birds of a feather", you and 'goldensilence' rotflol!

    170. Reminds me of a scene in Waking Life by Richard Linklater (such a thought provoking film) here is an excerpt,

      **I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality. And this? This is like my little window to the world and every minute, it's a different show. Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it. But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and good-byes. The ride does not require an explanation. Just occupants. That's where you guys come in.**

      The same underlying message I think. Training the mind or meditation is the silencing of the self, the only thing that is “for or against”. Once this inferior mind is silenced profound truths can be realised giving mind, body and spirit empowerment. It is a theme that is inherent in all religions too if one looks closely.

      The sheer effort required to silence the mind and have the determination and discipline to carry out exercises day in day out is also an indication to me personally of a truth because as we all know one gets nothing without a great deal of hard work.

      It could possibly be that the hardcore atheist knows perfectly well how hard it would be to follow the teaching of religion or spirituality so takes the easy option of disbelieving simply because it cannot be proved.

      In fact I do believe this is why certain religions have strong themes of fear/guilt because a good deal of us including myself need that initial deep seated impulse to start action towards improvement.

      That brings to mind another quote from the same film I mentioned earlier….

      **the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.

      Why so few?

      Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes?

      No greater values have developed. Hell, the Greeks years ago were just as advanced as we are. So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential?

      The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic--fear or laziness?**

    171. Says absolutely nothing.

    172. What? care to elaborate?

    173. I can't comment on nothing.

    174. Really.... then I bet you are fun around the dinner table.

    175. @goldensilence: Good words goldensilence. I am a graduate of film school, and yet I don't think I have ever seen the film 'Waking Life'. (you got my curiosity up now, so I will have to check it out) I have at least 1000 movies, and documentaries in my collection, and although they cover the spectrum, I am by far a science fiction fan, owning basically every good sc-fi movie that was ever made.
      I also love philosphy, and although not everyone can appreciate it's value, I feel it is a staple that should be included even in high school education, with emphasis on logic, and critical thinking. (Socrates)
      To answer your question, I would have to say that laziness/sloth along with greed are the universal human characteristics, with 'fear' being the universal characterisitc of all life itself. (survival based) Of course, this is just my opinion, but it would seem to me that necessity truly is the mother of invention. Every time humanity steps forward (technology for example) we lose something in the process, forgetting what got us there to begin with. For this reason, I 'fear' for the youth, and the rising obesity/cancer rates that are inflicting them. We are meant to be moving, and this is biggest factor (in my opinion) regarding the health of all. This would explalin why I believe that sloth will be the affliction of the future.

      P.S: If you haven't seen it, check out the animated movie Wall-E. It is a hilarious satire on the future of humanity. Talk to you soon. Take care, and best wishes!

    176. "We are meant to be moving . . . " How do you know this?

    177. “We are made for action and activity is the sovereign remedy for all physical ills”

      Frederick the Great

      Fear is playing a huge role n today’s society enabling evil minded people to snatch away freedoms that have been fought for over hundreds of years. Unless people stop being lazy enough to be spoon-fed daily news via the brainwashing set in the corner of the room then I fear cancer and obesity will be taking backstage to something more terrible.


      Do check out the film I mentioned earlier, I am sure you will appreciate it even more due to your background and the peculiar way it was

    178. I agree fully. It must cause a bit of dissonance, of course they will not accept this.

    179. You respect them for their science not for their moronic religion beliefs.

    180. @goldensilence: No they won't, but that is okay. Since this reasoning is beyond their comprehension, sadly, all we can do is pity them, for the abilities they lack. This high road will always trump their judgmental attitudes.

    181. That's like the pot calling the kettle half-baked. You're so consistently pathetic.

    182. No, I did not state "all believers are i*iootic m*rons?" You have me mixed up with someone else kid. Do you know what you are doing?

    183. @Achems_Razor: Since Robertallen1 continuously calls all believers i*diotic m*rons, I am guessing his response was intended for him!

    184. Disqus like your reasoning is faulty or broken. I said somewhere in this mess that the comment was not intended for you.

    185. @Achems_Razor: M theory stands for magic/ or mystery, coined by the man who created it , Ed Witton. (check his own admission - the elegant universe) But, nice try though!

    186. When Edward Witten named M-theory, he did not specify what the M stood for—perhaps because the nascent theory was not fully defined. Some, including Sheldon Glashow, speculate that Witten chose the letter because it resembles an inverted W. According to Witten, "M CAN STAND VARIOUSLY FOR 'magic', 'mystery', or 'matrix', according to one's taste." "The Theory Formerly Known as String." Scientific American, February 1998 (emphasis added)

      Get your facts straight.

    187. @robertallen1: Yes, magic, mystery, and yes matrix, which is what I basically said to Achems_Razor. Since we are both quoting Ed Witten, and he is quoting Michio Kaku,(who didn't create the theory, or it's math), should not your fact correction be sent to Achems_Razor who believes the "M" stands for membrane theory? Can anyone say nimrod! LOL

    188. No, that is not what you basically stated.

    189. No, M stands for membrane theory, check the link I have just given you with Michio Kaku.

    190. Please see my last post. I get a different story.

    191. @over the edge: A very direct honest answer, no distraction, straight to the point. whether one agrees, or disagrees, there is absolutely no fault in this response that I can see!

  7. Moderators:
    What's the matter with this thing? The lines come out funny and after a while, you can't add any more text?

  8. If you take complete responsibility for yourself and your actions you see there is no
    need for gods. But to do this means embracing the fact that you are ultimately alone in the world and that terrifies most people.

    1. It takes courage to see the optimism in a godless world. Courage to wipe clean the slate of indoctrination (if one so did come into this world victimized from it) and courage to see how truly special we are to only get a small timeframe to view reality before we retire again into the earth. Crashing waves of life, cresting and falling, each one unique, each one precious, before and after it's demise.

  9. Most of the private 320 million (1 for every citizen) anti-aircraft cannons, 20 mm sniper rifles, 7.62 & 5.56 mm military assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine guns, gattling guns, shot guns, sub-machine guns, semi-automatic and revolver hand guns, along with many millions more of hunting bows and bowie knives are owned by:

    God Fearing, 'Holy Jesus' Christians, backed up by a $340 billion per annum American Arms Industry Congress lobby, which spends more on advertising than America spends on public health care. There's a joke in there some where...?

    Now that's what I call a Civilised, slaughter house, waiting to happen...

    Well Jesus 'H' Christ, all I can say to that is, "Praise the Lord and pass the God Damned, f--king ammunition. Where's my next vulnerable primary school..."

    1. @Edward Campbell: Since the first commandment is 'thou shall not murder', it is fair to say that Christianity is not to blame, but the evil of greed, and the brainwashing of patriotism that is the root cause of all that we see wrong around us. With that said, your blog was hilarious.
      Allow me to be presumptious, and state that I think the joke you were implying, is taking a man from 2000 years ago, who drove the money changers from the temple, (how dare you turn my fathers house into a shop) a man they crucified a week later, and now you have millions who have adopted them as their own like he was some gun toting capitalist! (yes, the hipocracy is quite funny, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it)

  10. It's very simple. Religion was government from way before Jesus' time. The aristocrats had the gold ("God's Money") so they made the rules. Control the money supply, you control it all.

    The same thing is happening today. People must open their eyes to this very dangerous control. Every single country is entitled to print their own currency without being in debt to anyone. America has tried to get rid of bank controlled money supply time and time again (Andrew Jackson succeeded, Lincoln succeeded, Garfield tried but was assassinated before he was able to). You must connect these very important dots.

    You must always follow the gold or money to find the real truths of these specific religions. Religion and spirituality have become so disconnected from one another in most major religions. The divine truth will present itself once you not only look at the facts surrounding you, but also you must look inward.

    Everything you need is in your soul - it was embedded from you since the beginning. Only the media, churches, schools, and even family have disconnected you from true self-awareness. Just simply, take the initiative to find answers for yourself. Once you've started that process it will become much easier to share and collaborate. This is love and that's the only way to "beat" these very powerful organizations that only want to instill fear.

    Once you are free from fear then you are free to contribute to the change that NEEDS to occur in OUR world.

    1. "Everything you need is in your soul - it was embedded from you since the beginning. Only the media, churches, schools, and even family have disconnected you from true self-awareness. Just simply, take the initiative to find answers for yourself. Once you've started that process it will become much easier to share and collaborate. This is love and that's the only way to 'beat' these very powerful organizations that only want to instill fear." You must first establish through hard evidence and hard evidence only that there is such a thing as the soul. If you can't do that, then what you have keyboarded is merely idiotic. .

  11. As a body of work this compalation is as valuble as it is no doubt uncomfortable for those of a religious bent. Indeed it is the very discomfort that is generated by showing the significant flaws and weaknesses inherent in religion that makes it valuble.

  12. My paragraph was not necessarly directed towards the incrdulous or those fanatically opposed to verious possibilities.But for those who may be teetering on the brink of indecision.Its not an easy road to traverse.

  13. Those who are waiting for science to drop a brick of God into their laps are in for the duration.And thats why those who are waiting this kind of fast food of proof will never have it.For real proof can only come from
    interest,pursuit,discipline,repeated effort and a sincere desire for success.Not for the lazy,lame,critical, angry, impatient pessimist.

    1. And your point is?

  14. Page8@I believe in God.But not a God that knows nothing,sees nothing and hears nothing.You stay fat,dumb and happy because your armies(like most religions) are out raping and robbing the world.Then you have the audacity to tell us that you follow the teachings of Christ.What a pant load,wake up.

    1. What you believe is of no consequence. It's what you can prove.

  15. I'm an atheist and i think most of this is quite stupid. In fact, I don't think a real atheist would contribute to that. That being said, has anyone ever heard of critical thinking (based on evidence) and a conscience (yeah that little voice in your head)? Well, surely some of you have. I am of the school that says that everything must be questionned, regardless of where it's coming from. If it doesn't agree with my basic values and beliefs, I will reject it. The God concept is one of them. I can observe nature and understand the laws of physics. That's good enough for me. The energy contained in the universe does not have this kind of religious notion attached to it, it just behave according to the natural laws such as electro-magnetic and quantum physics. There is no good or evil, just what is. If you need religions to tell you anything worthy of concern, you are pretty much a lost cause and doomed to live in guilt and shame. In fact, the only standards of moral that are valid are my own. Love is a frequency and so is fear. It's up to you to pick which one you want to live by.

    1. Agreed, with just one point of difference. Good and evil are relative terms, not just what is.

  16. Makes me think.. Interesting

  17. Fun and refreshing.

  18. Fun and refreshing.

  19. best thing i ever saw in my life!

  20. It's too bad you spent so much time trying to make other people look stupid.

  21. if you know the teachings of jesus yet you call the people who believe in them stupid do you know that you are the stupid one? and if you dont know his teachings yet you scoff at the people who believe them and call them stupid dont you know its you that are stupid? because there are no stupid teachings of christ.. they are all masterful. even and sometimes more so the lesser known secret gnostic teachings of christ are so rich in wisdom that these so called intellectuals cant understand them.. its because they are one sided. they only think with one hemisphere of their brain it seems.. is it that they lack the ability to think abstractly? they get so tripped up by the details that they miss the core message. i will say my opinion personally that i can easily see most christians have no idea what the historic contexts are and a lot of them are easily misled by the bad preachers.. but its because they decide to let someone else tell them what to believe instead of doing their own research. i wont go on any further but i will say that every atheist i know is bitter, pompous, and in fact stupid. to hell with you people.

    1. And to hell with a wilful ignoramus such as you.

    2. i know you are but what am i ...

  22. looks like mainly atheists posted comments here. You know a lot of atheists try to make the point that faith means your dumb and illogical and that somehow a believer in God hates science and logical thinking. Its unfortunate that atheists have such a distorted view of religion, in fact that distortion is what causes you to be atheist. Pretty much all atheists hang on to their attacks against people who believe by calling them stupid but if you take a look at your comments and speech, why would anyone take you seriously when your attitude is so full of hatred and disgust over something you don't understand. Religion is not a problem, bad people who claim to be religious is what the problem is. Trying to ask God to answer all of the worlds problems is naive as the solution is already there, if the world followed the teachings, peace, unity and love than the problems wouldn't exist, but since people continue to deny these simple teachings the world suffers and than those with little understanding question why this is all happening and where is God, really he has been waiting for the people to listen to Him but they never do and so they blame their problems on Him. This attitude is what caused Jesus to be crucified, and until the world ends this attitude will never change therefore your pain and suffering will never cease.

    1. @page8:

      Jesu$ jumping Chr1st! lol, are you for real?

      How old are you?? only children can be that naive!

    2. "only children can be that nieve!" (naive I think Robert would say ;)

      I don't know mate, have you been near a church lately?
      Find a Ray Comfort supporter, I think you'll find one. :)

    3. "..if the world followed the teachings, peace, unity and love than the problems wouldn't exist, but since people continue to deny these simple teachings the world suffers.."

      Hmm, but what about your god's plan then? IF everyone did as you suggest and followed 'the teachings, peace, unity and love' what would happen to the prophecies, the 2nd Coming?
      Oh O, logic problem. :
      If everything is going according to His will then your statement is impossible. IF your statement was possible, then everything isn't going according to His will and plan (as we could suddenly decide to change it), the prophecies ect are out the window, and your whole story (god ect) is impossible.

      The funny thing is after 2k years, all the editing and translations and study, with supposedly nothing being impossible for your deity, and you Christians STILL can't get your fairy tale to work.

    4. I think you misunderstood in the way I was talking. Yes, the teachings
      of Christ defeat all evil and eliminate all suffering but God's plan of
      salvation was carried out by Jesus death and resurrection because the
      world could never save itself. God knew that the world couldn't follow
      these teachings and it never will. So yes, everything is going
      accordingly because we know that the suffering of the world will not
      end, Jesus died to save us because we can't end our own suffering, i was
      only speaking figuratively in the sense that if we could follow them
      through the world than suffering would go, illustrating to you that the
      teachings of Christ are the only way. Those who belong to God are no
      longer part of the world, the world will burn in its own sin, but Jesus
      has lifted His children up so as not to be burned with it. His children
      are everyone, including you and all those who hate Him. It is not my
      job to convince you, only to tell you the truth. You belong to God too,
      the difference between you and me is that you haven't yet accepted His
      invitation. The bad must grow with the good for the good were once bad
      but were now made innocent in Jesus name. Nobody is forcing you to be
      part of the family you were created to be for, but know that every
      decision you make in this life has consequences, and an unrepentant
      heart is truly suffering.

    5. Please read the comment policy against preaching and proselytizing on this thread. You don't know any more about god and Jesus than anyone else, yet you claim you do. This makes you profoundly contemptible.

    6. Your fairytale about your magic man may have a place in your world. Your magic man is just a story, just like the easter bunny and santa claus. At some stage everybody must understand difference between fact and fiction. And your magic man is fiction

    7. Ugh! is all I can say!

      And, Oh yes, no preaching! and no veiled threats please!

    8. Thank you for your false threats and promises. Sorry, but I've heard that one before. It was only mildly amusing the first time, it's pretty insulting by about the 1000 th.

      As a believer it's your job to tell me the 'truth'. As a still rational thinking person, I guess it's my job to answer those assertions with, 'you are brainwashed by an obviously flawed bunch of lies. Wake up to yourself, you're speaking rubbish.'
      For example, you said;
      "Those who belong to God are no longer part of the world, the world will burn in its own sin, but Jesus
      has lifted His children up so as not to be burned with it."
      What a load, and that's being kind.
      Although you may be living in an induced delusion, like it or not you are still a part of this world.

      Your kind should be more wary about wishing/bringing 'fire and brimstone' on the world, because unlike your beliefs, your kind burns too.
      The good news is, finally people are starting to wake up, we're beginning to throw off the yoke that your beliefs are and have been to our species.
      Education is giving people the tools to not need your fairy tale, your incorrect story is being seen for the lies it is. (not to mention past and present acts of hypocrisy by it's command)

      The truth will set you free...from religion, with all it's false assertions, false promises, threats and demands.

    9. If what you write is true, you bring bad news to the Vatican, not to mention every house of worship in the world, but you bring good news to those who value intelligence and knowledge over superstition and wilful ignorance.

    10. I think one could argue we've come a long way in the last few hundred years regarding breaking religion's grip on us. I think a decent education is the key, but that standard seems to be going backwards just recently. I hope that's only temporary. Religion is struggling though, it's becoming harder for them to openly maintain their lies, as the Catholic Church is currently being shown around the world.

      Edit-I think it will probably take centuries for us to completely loose our current versions. Hopefully eventually it will increasingly become only the 'fringe' elements that believe, and the majority will be educated and sensible enough to value intelligence and knowledge over willful ignorance. Abraham's God will eventually go the same way as the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and all the other versions that are now mostly just memories, historical footnotes. I hope this time we replace religion with logic and reason.

    11. I only hope you're right. Have you watched any of the debates between Dr. Krauss and creationists?

    12. Yes, I have mate. I quite like him. I've watched a few of those type of debates and lectures since becoming a member of TDF. (on here and elsewhere).
      The more I see of Dawkins, the more I admire him. Especially his logical and cool demeanor towards his opponents, he's always a gentleman. I've grown to be a fan of his.
      I like Krauss, everything I've seen him in he knows what he's talking about. I've not seen a lot of him, but I instantly liked him.
      My favorite speaker on these debates is/was Chris Hitchens. I like listening to him speak. I watched one the other day I enjoyed between the Hitchens brothers.

    13. I also have seen the Hitchens brothers debate, and I would give the older bother the points on that occasion. I have no doubt that the younger is quite sincere in his beliefs however when confronted with the truth about the ''magic man'' or evolution, he appeared out of his deapth, as most ''magic man'' believers do in my opinion.

    14. It was weird watching them, one an American, one British. Both are intelligent men.
      I thought it was interesting how they split it into two sections, one on the war in Iraq, the other religion. I thought Chris had the more difficult side to argue 1st half, Peter the 2nd.

      I'd agree, Chris won the points, but Peter is no mental slouch either. I bet those two had some good fights. They both knew each others buttons to press. :)

    15. Your quite right Peter is no slouch, I thought that he lacked the passion his elder showed on both topic..

      Chris brought up some extremely valid points on the Iraq conflict, that seemed to give another view most people
      probably had not thought about in a collective manner.

    16. Chris is the better speaker. He brought up some points on Iraq I'd not considered before, and as you say probably many other people either. Peter was always going to be hard pressed to match Chris' passion on religion. Most people are, and those that do match his passion usually can't match his logic. :)

      Have you seen Prof. Krauss that robertallen1 mentioned earlier? He's a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. I've seen some of him debating, he knows his stuff and is to the point. He's a smart one, which as Jim Jefferies says, "are like cancer to religion" :)

    17. I have seen a little of Prof Krauss, however I will endevor to look for his work with alot more vigour in the future.
      Prof Dawkins has this ability to absorb all the rage and hostilities thrown at him, and still show more compassion, understanding and is more humble than all his religous counterpart combined.
      Jim Jefferies hits the nail on the head on most subjects he tackles with that great Aussie sense of humour thrown in

    18. Have you seen the video (it's actually a radio debate) entitled "Dr. Lawrence Krauss v. Creationist?" The creationist talk show host tries to argue physics with Dr. Krauss and gets completely and soundly trounced and even when Dr. Krauss eventually loses his reserve and tells this ignoramus off, not only is it delightful but well-deserved. I too am impressed by the scope of Dr. Krauss' knowledge in other fields of science such as biology.

    19. I listened to that after you mentioned Krauss earlier, it was in 3 parts on youtube. I had a chuckle, that radio host thought he was 'qualified' because he'd worked at microsoft, but got much of his 'ambush' material incorrect. Krauss does 'tell him good', I quite enjoyed that one as well.

    20. There is no threat here, every human being must choose his own path. What I tell you is the path of truth. When a father sees his child in trouble, surely he defends him, and when a mother finds her child in danger she shields her child with her life, she does not threaten her child when he/she is in danger. Now I tell you the message of truth for there are many people in danger that don't see it. God is the father that defends you, yes He defends those who hate Him, for the conversion of a sinner brings much joy. You must receive His grace to know Him, you can not know Him on your own, only you can know Him when you adhere to the call(usually as simple as a prayer or acknowledgement through opening your heart and not closing your mind). The world is going down a path of its own destruction. Its vein and material. My body may reside here but my soul in Christ doesn't belong to the world. What I say doesn't come from the world only from God who is truth, that is why you don't understand what I tell you. I don't claim to be superior to you, both believers and nonbelievers are sinners alike. I am also a sinner, and i must suffer each day. But there is peace in Jesus because your suffering doesn't go unchecked. There is no more fear. The evil in the world spreads like wildfire and many hearts have grown cold. The truth is not something to be afraid of, you never hear people say that they are afraid of the light, its the dark they are afraid of. So why does the world embrace the dark? Because it doesn't belong to God and it hates the light. This is why there will be no peace on earth until light is embraced, but that peace can't be reached, only spoken so that those who embrace the light find their peace which Jesus gave us. Im not trying to convince you of anything nor tell you how to live, but that every person was created as apart of something much greater than himself. Everyone has a family they love, how terrible for anyone that loses their family. You can respond as you wish as this is my last post, I don't have any need to speak further. If you find yourself in need you can remember these words, God does not condemn people, they condemn themselves, God loves the sincere repentant heart and turns no one away who asks for help.

    21. Oh yes, there is definitely threats in your preachings. At least have the honesty to own what you say.

      There was no 'need' for your preachings in the first place. There was your wish though.

      You say you're not trying to convince me of anything nor tell me how to live?
      Again, have the decency, and honesty, to own what you say. You and your kind most definitely do try to convince people you're correct, and how they should live. Don't do yourself the insult of trying to say you don't.

      Are you that blinded by faith, that used to accepting and parroting those lies, you can't even see the obvious wrongs just in your last post?

    22. You're almost admirable in your immunity to reason.

    23. Well put.

    24. I find it insulting that you or anyone else tells me that your magic man is my father. I sure that my dad had intercourse with my mother and just may-be the magic man's name may have been mentioned, my old man did all the hard work in creating me and my sisters.

    25. What is someone who believes not based on knowledge, evidence or intelligence and claims knowledge that he does not have? Answer: st*pid.

    26. Everything is stupid to you, intellect is invisible to those that have none. It has been previously said to you that the answers lie within yourself. The truth resides in everyone. Hence meditation and the ancient grecian saying "know thyself"

    27. So, it's intellectually valid to believe in something the existence of which you cannot prove and which you know nothing about and by nature can know nothing about.
      Says a lot about your mental capacity.

    28. Intellectually valid? You sound like a vulcan unable to understand human
      traits. You have and will continue to hold beliefs that you dont
      necesarily have proof of until the day you die. You dont even realise

    29. And just which beliefs are these?

      P.S. 2½ spelling errors on this post. The word is "don't." The word is "necessarily." "Realise" is correct if you are British or live in what was once a British colony such as India. However, I don't think you do. So I just gave you half off on that one.

    30. " Its unfortunate that atheists have such a distorted view of religion"

      Just curious as to why you think atheists have a 'distorted' view of religion, when many of us non-believers were raised in religiously-observant homes. Rather than a distorted view, it gives many of us the chance to closely observe religion in action. One can't get any closer than that, I don't think.

      Perhaps its our *intimate* view of religion that led us to non-belief.

      Something to think about.

      (And don't come back with "oh, you must not have been "real" christians." That's got to be the lamest defense ever. At least *try* to think up something better than that.)

    31. "many of us non-believers were raised in religiously-observant homes" Does not mean you saw the way religion works. You saw one instance particular to your own family under that one roof. The variables are immense.

    32. So is the bullsh-t.

    33. Again no meaningfull reply no contribution to the debate just a sly cheap dig. Pathetic.

    34. You think that the atheists here don't know enough about religion to debate it meaningfully, which was your response to a comment I posted two years ago, without knowing anything about me, or what led me to the position I have now. And furthermore, without any interest in that, other than to make a glib remark about what you think atheists use humor for. Well, boy, are you in for a big surprise! Stick around for a while, and we'll see if your best arguments don't constitute "the zenith of mongoloid reasoning," in the words of W. Allen. But don't expect me to participate all that much, as I've grown more than weary and fed up with your stripe.

    35. For some reason, your reply brought to mind another delightful short story of Dostoevsky (he didn't write many) entitled "How a Muzhik Fed Two Officials" and Boccacio's story of a priest who "put the devil in hell." You'll find it in the Decameron.
      P.S. Speaking of GoldenSilence's post, note how in Ivan's Tale in "Karamazov" how t he inquisitor is rendered supernummerary just like the religion he stands for.

    36. I'll look into those when I'm caught up, especially 'The Decameron,' one I've always known about and intended to read at least some of.

      You, Docoman, and the rest, have fun ripping this guy a new one. Clearly, he needs it.

    37. Don't exclude yourself from the bacchanalia.
      The Decameron is a hoot. May I also suggest Rabelais (the Jacques LeClerq translation)--I'm sure you'll get behind Friar John of the Funnels just as GoldenSilence will get in front of him.

    38. "You think that the atheists here don't know enough about religion to debate it meaningfully" I never said or implied that? Shall I repost the comment here or do you want to re-read? I say you wont debate because you can't. I dont normally partake in these discussions because they are futile but I object to being called unquestioning and idiotic by someone displaying those very same traits.

    39. But you are unquestioning and idiotic.

    40. More insults you are pathetic. You cant debate me. Neither could your sidekicks. Before you cut and paste me to death I stand by my original argument that Newton was more intelligent than you or I and believed in God so your
      statement that religious people or people who believe in God are s*upid m*rons
      has been proven to be rubbish. I love the way you try to explain that Newton
      might have been great in a couple of fields but doesn’t make him an all round
      genius. Does it not strike you as ironic that the field he excelled in was
      Science? That he abided by the scientific method?

    41. Oh, please... The word "here" is the one you're going to jump all over as operative? You're a liar if you claim your comment doesn't extend to atheists wherever you find them. Nor does it matter one whit to me what you think my knowledge of religion is, or what my skills at debating are. You have fun getting your specious arguments, and your a$$ with them, chewed to a bloody rag: That's all that matters to me!

    42. The word "here" what huh? You talking gibberish now boy. Off you trott ...good contribution (not)

    43. You're dishonest, a liar, which is exactly what I expected of you. You have no argument against what I've said, so you resort to idiotic dissimulation. It's going to be just terrific watching you be made a fool of, boy. You might want to make sure you've got plenty of lube on hand.
      Ta ta.

    44. HAHAHA how am I dishonest? What you said is twisted BS. Humour is the 1st place somebody (ANYBODY) would go to to avoid a meaningfull debate about something they know nothing of.

      More fool you.

      Further... You are a cheeky git implying that I use dissimulation when that is exaclty the kind of underhand trick you have done twisting my words to make it look like im attacking all Atheists.

    45. Before you can have a meaningful [please note spelling] debate, you must first have knowledge and this places you at a steep disadvantage.
      P.S. The only person you've successfully attacked is yourself.

    46. Listen I can point out your spelling mistakes too but its childish and detracts from the debate. What knowledge do you have? You now have the knowledge (thanks to myself) that many a genius have believed in God so your argument is trash.

    47. So what? Would you like a list of geniuses who did not believe in God, many of whom used humor to help get their point across? And, according to you, they were ipso facto clueless atheists.
      Therefore, your argument is trash.

    48. So what? So what? YOU said all that believe in religion are i*iots and m*rons. Your wrong so admit it!

    49. I did not call them i*iots and m*rons, I called them asinine camels. There's a subtle difference, in that i*iots and m*rons are brighter than asinine camels.

    50. Those comments were intended for robert. My mistake.

    51. So what? You said all that believe in religion are stupid and moronic. You are wrong so admit it?

    52. In that one respect, they are--i.e., they might be brilliant in other fields as was Newton.

    53. So arrogant.

      So, the majority of the world including great minds like Newton, Copernicus,
      Bacon, Faraday and Einstein are all mentally deficient compared to you and the

    54. That is not what I said.
      "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human
      weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends
      which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
      can (for me) change this." — Albert
      Einstein, letter to Eric Gutkind, January 3 1954
      In short, you are a liar and a cheat.

    55. That is exaclty what you are saying. So Einstein thought the bible primitive and pretty childish but honourable. Does that disprove God or my claim that not all believers are idiots?

    56. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of god (remember, you're alleging the existence of such an entity and the burden of proof rests on you and you have yet to meet it), but it does prove that Einstein was not a theist as you have alleged.

    57. The burden of proof does not rest on me. I am content and I normally do not troll comment sections trying to find, enforce or gain support for my views. I just dont like being called an i*iot by

    58. Didn't your mother ever teach you that when it comes to knowledge, might does not make right? Retournons á nos moutons, just because many a genius has (please note "many a" takes the third person singular not plural) believed in a god (which one I am sure is completely beyond both of us), does not prove that there is one or even several. This makes your argument trash.
      P.S. Please feel free to correct my spelling (and I don't mean typo's) at any time. So far, you've misspelled meaningful at least twice.

    59. Its ok dont get your knickers in a twist over my spelling because I frankly dont care.

    60. Your spelling is as sloppy as your thinking. Must be your religion at work.

    61. Your personal attacks are boring and transparent. My spelling is probably down to the fact your stupidity is draining. I go now because you have lost and resort to this child like behaviour.

    62. I.e., "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more."

    63. You are clearly trying now to be a smart arse picking on my spelling and giving me a grammar lesson. You have lost this argument but will not accept it.

    64. "You have lost this argument but will not accept it," as Dewey said to Truman.
      You obviously need further education in both areas, not to mention education in general.

    65. You called Newton an i*iot that makes you an i*iot. It is people like you who give atheists a bad name. You troll the comments looking for more converts to your set of beliefs shamelessly using nothing but cheap humour and sarcasm to make yourself feel better. You have more in common with the religious fanatical nutjob than you know. You and them are the same, full of ignorance and intolerance twisting the truth and avoiding the real issues.

    66. Your aggressive and highly emotional outburst is ridiculously child like. This is my post

      “humour is the refuge of the clueless atheist that does not know the first thing about religion to debate it meaningfully”

      Amongst the context of the reply, the person to whom it was directed (not you) and the fact it is hardly an all encompassing universal statement of truth I’d say your accusations of me being a liar are wild and unjustified knee jerk reactions to your obvious disappointment at not being able to snare me with your twisting of my words.

      PS I don’t search for Atheists and I don’t stereotype people, groups or beliefs under one ugly sprawling generalisation because it is ignorant of individuality, individual experiences and a whole manner of other variables that your ignorant arse cant comprehend.

      The way your little crew use school yard bullying tactics amongst other ignoble methods shows the level of maturity you are all at.

    67. ..

    68. Stick around no thanks ....

      "the zenith of mongoloid reasoning"

      Spoken like a true prick I'd say.

    69. But the common thread running through it is the belief in an entity which cannot be proven to exist and which by nature cannot be known about, but which certain people claim to know about--and the attempt at domination by these certain people.

    70. So by your reasoning, no human ever sees how religion works beyond their natal family, since we are all individuals, raised by our own families under our one roof. Fair enough, we all have our unique experiences.

      That doesn't therefore mean we never have the opportunity to observe religion in action outside our families, or to participate ourselves. Nor does it mean our homes were closed to religious, clergy and lay alike.

      Speaking from personal experience, it was my very dissatisfaction with my personal experience with religion that led me to investigate first other religions, then "spirituality," and then to come to my current conclusions about it.

      (sorry for late response, this new disqus format makes it hard to follow )conversations,now)

    71. No problem - Disqus is awful. I think I just wanted to speak
      out against using generalisations. People here have been quick to label me a
      "religee" (new word coined by Achems as far as I can see) but my
      experiences are more akin to yours except for the outcome. I don't follow
      organised religion because I am stubborn and like to follow my own counsel plus
      most religions are actually terrifying in their beliefs and actions. I was
      recently reading about speaking in tongues (pentecostal belief) and seeing
      people run about in circles before diving onto the floor. Shocking conduct for
      ones supposedly blessed with the holy spirit!

    72. " . . . where is God, really he has been waiting for the people to listen to Him but they never do and so they blame their problems on Him. This attitude is what caused Jesus to be crucified, and until the world ends this attitude will never change therefore your pain and suffering will never cease." Where is your proof that such a god (obviously your god) exists? How do you know that such an attitude (whatever that is) caused "Jesus" to be crucified? Talk about dumb, illogical and downright stupid. If this represents the depth of your thought, religion together with its half-wit sister, faith, is indeed a problem which nothing, including your subterfuge "you don't understand" can cure--except real education. . .

  23. Organized religions are the same as companies. They compete for customers. So they have different interpretations of the Bible in the same way companies develop unique products. When Martin Luther said that we are not saved by the works that the catholic church prescribed he was pointed out their error. He then started his own "company" where he began to market his own version of error. All interpretations of the Bible that hold it to be a description of physical events that occurred long ago are fouled with contradiction. This contradiction can only be eliminated through the consistent and exclusive application of figurative meanings for a handful of words, the first four of which are given in the Bible itself and they lead, by way of the "road map" of common denominators (that which scholars call "the synoptic problem") directly to the others. In this "interpretation" which has no contradiction, (and no exceptions to the function of its structure) the Bible is describing an evolutionary process of natural selection whereby the human race moves from a base-level convicting conscience to one of greater motivation.
    In the natural world there is a process of "judgement" in the functioning course of natural selection. The evolution of consciousness is no exception.

    1. You're right; they are companies replete with public offerings, private placements and futures, each with its own prospectus. To paraphrse what Bart Ehrman said about trying to reconcile the contradictions in the synoptic gospels, when you take one from column A, two from column B, none from column C and nine from column D, you create your own brand new narrative.

  24. btw robertallen1, got any more interesting articles? The tribal article was fascinating. Cheers :)

    1. Haven't heard from you in some time.

      On the other hand, there are a number of primitive tribes which believe in a higher being or a set of higher beings and they also manage to live their lives adequately. So contrary to some of the ignorant and idiotic assertions which have made their way to this thread, believing in a supreme being or a set of supreme beings is not essential to keeping us on the straight and narrow.

  25. I watched all the videos and I can say it's awesome.I feared that I am one of the few but now I am convinced that I am one of many Atheists worldwide.I have a small suggestion for The Thinking Atheist that please include other religions too like Muslims,Hindus,Buddhists etc and tell them about the reality of their religions.It can significantly help others like us from being an Idiot to being an Atheist.

    1. Welcome comrad. I'm not atheist but your friendly neighbor, the agnostic. Gotta watch those muslims though, say one negative thing and they'll go postal on ya ;)

  26. I enjoy The Thinking Atheist videos - on The Judgment Day video why say when the sun rises?

  27. The Judgment Day video - I follow all the The Thinking Atheist videos and enjoy them - but why say when the sun rises ?

  28. @Kateye70. Funny comment, very witty. Just what this blog needs, for everyone to lighten up, and take things a little less seriously.

  29. Anyways, to get back to my topic of interest before I was Trolled off of it, I can't champion Atheism and especially Anti-Theism (as Robertallen1 requested me to) because such positions are currently and only subjective opinions portrayed as objective fact and worse these subjective opinions portrayed as objective facts are being backed up by Rhetological Fallacies (I'm using the sample of Atheists and Anti-Theists I've encountered here on TDF for this observation). It's much smarter and more productive for me to champion the objective rules of rhetoric and philosophical logic.

    As I mentioned before I put my claim out there to see the feedback of others. So far I've received baseless ridicule, personal attacks, ignorance, dominance posturing, comment bullying, comment drowning/filibustering, comment censoring, misunderstanding, name calling, flaming, commenter hunting/targeting, bias, rhetological fallacies, philosophical ill-logic, atheism dogma, pigeon holing, trolling, valid ridicule, praise, implied agreement ("but" replies), and a lot of comment mirroring/paraphrasing.

    Not sure what to make of all that feedback as so much of it is not related to what I was claiming. Here's what I can make out. We all seem to agree that "science" is quite ignorant/mute/not-an-authority on the topic of a Creator/God. This has been expressed differently by others but nevertheless it's the same sentiment. We all seem to agree that "Science" (methodological naturalism) has observed an apparent lack of such a creature on the scale of a Creator/God in the nature that "Science" has studied thus far. This has also been expressed differently by others but is the same sentiment. No feedback was given to my observation that if such a Creator/God exists Methodological Naturalism is objectively showing such a creature is not part of nature (except one comment that such a position is which I agreed). And no feedback was given to my observation that the objective observations of Methodological Naturalism that can conclude that if a Creator/God exists such a creature is not a part of nature is quite similar to the subjective observations of Theists that have claimed such a position for millennia (namely that God is not a part of nature).

    Perhaps I missed some comments. There was a lot of comment drowning. Forgive me if I missed a comment of yours directly related to my claim that you felt added value to what I was saying (and that you feel I missed).

    1. My movement away from religion and toward apatheism had nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion.

      I'm still trying to figure out why science has to explain anything about religion, and why certain religious groups are so scared of science.

      Isn't the whole point of faith that you don't prove or disprove anything?

      Isn't the whole point of science that hypotheses are proposed, tested, falsified, proven or disproven, and repeatable?

      The two subjects are unrelated as far as I can see.

    2. Is your first statement altogether true? I mean was your movement away from religion concomittant with your study of science?

    3. Yes, my statement is true. I have never confused religion and spirituality with the study of the natural world. Supernatural explanations have never been part of my world view, either. No matter how enticing such explanations might be, they just never made common sense to me. I would have 'liked' some of them to be true--it would have been fun!--but could never seriously believe them.

      My movement away from religion started with that altar boy anecdote I gave elsewhere (realizing that girls were second-class citizens). It continued with a disappointment that god wouldn't talk to me, nor jesus, nor any of the other supposed demi-deities (saints) who were supposedly in heaven waiting for my conversations.

      I found religious services to be boring. I found a darkened confessional scary, and could never think of anything I did that was bad enough to be punished by god, although the adults (priests, etc.) seemed to think I should (what could a 7 or 8 year old do that would be all that horrible?). I resented being made to say prayers and acts of contrition (really? wtf?? is what I would have said if I'd known that expression back then.) I questioned most of what I was being taught...need I go on?

      Science is what it is...the study of what's around us. Completely unrelated to my search for any kind of spiritual connection to anything.

      No, I don't understand, and probably will never understand, the religious impulse. Especially since it's so damned intrusive into everyone else's business.

    4. I understand and consider myself fortunate that I never had to go through anything as intense as what you've described. But what baffles me is why your parents didn't step in or were they also embued with this pernicious nonsense?

      The good thing is that like Sarcastic_Drew, and several other posters, you were able to step away from it and if you can do this, so can others.

    5. The truly peculiar thing about indoctrination that I've found in my life is I'll have times where I stop and almost feel a wave of dirtiness sweep over me... a feeling that I am truly wrong and will feel some sort of wrath after I die.

      Though I am a conscious non-believer, I think there's a subconscious part of me that doesn't necessarily believe, but has a fear of consequence. It doesn't come out often but it does come out. I wonder if other believer-turned-nonbelievers have this too. Permanent scarring, I guess..

    6. It's certainly believable. I wonder if victims of child molestation go through something similar.

    7. I must have been lucky, or just too thick-headed to not internalize the 'guilt' thing.

      I was an adult before I realized that masturbation was supposed to be a 'sin' (probably because no one ever explained exactly what it was in relation to the 'sin' being talked about). I certainly never regarded it that way.

      I never really had a good grasp on what hell was supposed to be, anyway--no matter how I tried, I just couldn't visualize it, or believe in it. And heaven was the same seemed like a cartoon place, not a real place. Kind of like its inhabitants who wouldn't talk to me.

      I do think we all have a fear of consequence, though. Although I imagine it is probably fear of consequences in the here-and-now, displaced to a fear of the here-after.

    8. It could be my personal trait (flaw?) of always wanting to do the right thing seeping into this ultimate question "to believe or not to believe?" which gives me that intermittent "guilt" feeling.

      My father is a devout catholic, my mother is an agnostic. I was never baptized (thankfully, that was my mother's decision much to the dismay of my father). She wanted me to grow up and make my own choice. Her point-of-view on belief ultimately helped me "convert" from believer to non-believer after a long road of testing out different denominations of Christianity.

      My parents (despite my father's strong faith) were never pushy. I just had developed the faith at an early age, being introduced to such glittery subjects like "heaven" and such threatening beliefs such as "non-believers will go to hell."

      It's this trapping of the innocent (children) that is such a serious issue and goes without punishment in society. I was brought up with both belief and non-belief, being more influenced by my mother as most children are. Despite the higher level of influence, I flocked to belief because it caters itself to children! Religion is a salesman in disguise. Non-belief offers much less "candy" to an imaginative child. This salesmanship of religion is unethical and needs to be dissolved.

      Sorry Kate, I'm starting to digress. lol *ninja smoke*

    9. You're absolutely right, religion sells to children. It is designed to. It's also designed to prevent adults from becoming questioners (although it's an uphill battle, given our species' inquisitive nature).

      There's a darned good reason most advertising is targeted to children. Just think of the Joe Camel controversy (a cartoon character with definite sexual visual components that promoted tobacco use). They had a hard time defending that one.

      Most of television, both programming and advertising, is aimed at the under-30 crowd because that's when opinions are still forming. Once you become a functioning adult, your brand preferences are set. Yes, you can change them, but it is a conscious act of will to do so. Edit: In fact 30 may be too old, 20-25 is the cut-off age.

      The Jesuits' famous adage, "Give me the child and I'll give you the man" is true on so many levels it's scary.

    10. Funny you mention "Cool" Joe Camel. :) I had a Joe Camel calender in my room growing up. My father took it away from me. My argument to him was... "just cause he's on the calender doesn't mean I'm going to smoke?" What an ironic statement, considering I had done exactly what Camel wanted me to do. Familiarize yourself with the product, sympathize with the product, and you'll become more apt to use it in the future! lol

      Guess what brand I ended up smoking a couple years later? Cool Camel Lights! lol Did I start smoking specifically from the introduction to the calender? Nope. But could it have subconsciously played a part in me chosing to smoke? I wouldn't doubt it. (Thankfully, I quit cold turkey about 6 years ago. PHEW!)

    11. Oh I still enjoy cold turkey especially the leg.

      Note: Sorry. I know you mean you quit smoking cold turkey but I am hard-wired genetically to never miss a pun.

    12. mmmmm turkey. You've triggered my genetically hard-coded mechanism called hunger!

    13. I quit cold turkey over 20 years ago with no side effects.

    14. I quit five years ago using Chantix. It worked but there were some not altogether unpleasant side affects.

    15. I have been trying to get my gf to quit for months. I've heard mixed reviews about Chantix but if it works for some, it could work for others! I know this is off-topic but could you explain your experience with Chantix?

    16. Chantix can have side effects. Lucid dreaming was my main side effect. Lucid dreaming is a fine experience but not when you do it night after night for months. And it continued for almost a year after I had finished the Chantix.

      Another side effect only happened occasionally. I would be reading and suddenly nothing would make sense. I could read a sentence and understand and define each word in that sentence but I could not comprehend what the sentence was trying to say. The worst was one day I was driving behind a handicapped shuttle and it had a sign on the back that read "This is an Invalid Transport". Now we know the sign meant that this was a transport for invalids. But my mind read it as being a transport that was not valid. And my mind would not let it go. I kept asking myself "If this transport is not valid then why are they transporting with it?". It took me hours to figure it out.

      Now you can maybe understand why they will not allow airline pilots to take Chantix.

    17. Sh*t man, I get confused like that without any aide from a drug! haha fml!

      At the end of the day I guess the positives definitely outweighed the negatives. If I can only push my gf to get the 'script. Now that will be challenging :)

    18. I'm not so sure that it was the Chantix itself that caused me to quit. I just wasn't going to pick up another cigarette after going through the side effects. They were close to becoming a serious problem.

    19. robertallen Congratz! I didn't quite quit cold turkey. Every craving I'd get (usually when drinking) I'd pop a cigar in my mouth unlit and within a minute or two, I'd toss it. After a few months of doing this, I didn't need the cigar anymore. An odd approach, but it was effective. ^_^

    20. Your comment really got me to thinking. You set up a very interesting dilemma. On one hand you have religion with its "advertising" which promotes its cultural standards whilst (I love that word) the other hand is busy dealing its secular strictures. The question then becomes,in the matter of raising children, not which path is best but more importantly which path is the least corrosive to a child's, well, childhood.

    21. I wouldn't say scaring, your beliefs your faith will always be a part of you; it's just human nature. Faith will sustain you when everything else is gone. When there is no logical reason for to succeed or survive; Faith has given people the strength to do so. Faith is a survival trait that's why it's all but impossible to let go of. The ability to override reason is the strength and danger of Faith.

    22. Faith is the mark of the ignorant and the idiotic.

    23. Perhaps, however it is a part of human nature and everybody has faith in something. The Believer has faith in the doctrine of their religion. The Atheist has faith in logic,rationality,science. Faith, to me at least is a lot like Nuclear Power. The same force that drives civilization like nothing else. If used just a little bit differently can cause untold devastation.

    24. There is a big difference between faith and reliance.

    25. I would disagree. While it is true the theist requires "faith" to verify their belief, it is not a matter of "faith" in regards to understanding reason, logic, science, and rationality. It is just that: understanding. It would be more accurate to ask someone "Do you understand evolution" as opposed to "Do you believe in evolution". That argument stands true for all questions in this matter. Faith is required for questions on things that cannot (and will not) be known. Sadly, this disconnect on reality runs rampant in our world society. I do agree that throughout history, faith has enthralled the minds of our kind.

    26. Don't worry, eventually you will release all of that nonsense. I went through the same thing for a long time, until I had the opportunity to start talking to other non-believers.

      I watched a movie about the wife of Joseph Smith (founder of the mormons), because it was supposedly about her more than the religion. But sadly, it failed for me because:

      1. there were many many scenes that made no sense unless one already knew the details of how the mormon church got started (I don't except vaguely); and

      2. It was disconcerting to hear people talk utter nonsense as if it were sense. Seriously. It was like listening to children deliberately creating and reinforcing a fantasy game.

      A few years ago, I would have been able to suspend my own disbelief to go along for the ride, but

      I can play a fantasy game online, pretend I'm druid, that I can shapeshift into a raven and fly, and discuss doing this with other game-players 'as if' it were true--but none of us make the mistake of thinking there is anything real about it.

      Come to think about it, we talk about dying and have spells like 'rebirth' and 'revive' to bring back player's avatars that have died. But again, while one can fall off a cliff and die in the game knowing one will return to life with a small amount of armor damage, this does not apply to real life.

      I can watch movies that I know are fantasy, and I don't get the sense that either the actors or the director expect me to 'really' believe it. But religious people...smh.

      Like I said, it is disconcerting to talk to anyone who claims to believe religious dogma. It makes me uncomfortable because then I wonder if they're delusional, or lying about their belief to see if I'll go along with the game. One is crazy, the other is dishonest.

    27. I like number 2. It describes religion, and especially the Catholic church as well as a number of posters, to a T.

    28. Oh, I hope I didn't give the impression that this was a journey away from a painful upbringing. I was simply remembering my childhood in a catholic home. My parents went to church on Sundays and of course, we children went too. I went to catechism class on Saturdays. But there was no heavy-handed religiosity in our home.

      My parents were of an era where one went to church because...that's what people did. Both of my parents were kind, loving people who did their best to raise a large family of bright, inquisitive children--my mother told me when I was an adult that she felt intimidated sometimes by us when we questioned *everything.*

      What I related was my own response to the catholic church. I was excited to go to catechism class, although I don't know that the teachers always appreciated my questions. I hated the dark confessionals--and had a priest who was kind enough to sit outside with me to go through the ritual.

      But in the end, I was making up stories (lying, in other words) just to come up with 'sins' to confess. I found the rituals boring. I people-watched instead of following the mass. Perhaps I was just too inner-directed to be easily led, but I did learn fairly early that religion was not an answer for me. But there was no trauma involved.

    29. And also Sarcastic_Drew

      You've clarified and I'm glad you were not as unfortunate as I thought.

      It seems to me (and I've never raised any children) that if you take a child to the Grand Canyon which the child gazes at in awe and then explain to the child that it took millions of years to form this natural wonder and the child asks, "How do we know that" then you're both on the right track.

      Your thoughts.

    30. What Kateye70 is expressing is what I have observed among Atheists/Anti-Theists...namely that the decision to be Atheist/Anti-Theists is not based on science but commonly a personal choice "pendulum swing" as it were away from religion.

    31. You're completely wrong about what I said.

      I'm not an atheist. I'm not anti-theist. I could care less what anyone else believes. Go look up "apatheist" and you'll have a better understanding.

      There's no pendulum swing involved, either. It's been a steady journey in one direction that has lasted for many, many, many years. My outlook away from religion is only more confirmed the more I learn.

      The only thing you said right is that it was a personal choice, just like any one's choice to be theist, a-theist, anti-theist, apa-theist, or whatever. Spiritual belief, IMHO, is a personal, interior choice.

    32. Apatheism is also called Pragmatic Atheism or Practical Atheism (wikipedia-apatheism). I've covered you under my wordage "Atheist/Anti-Theist." I typically see no need for me to get uber precise and say it like, "Pragmatic Atheists, Logical Atheists, Theoretical Atheists, New Atheists, State Atheists, Religious Atheists." You're an Atheist (that's what a government agency gathering Statistics would mark you down as). And more specifically a Pragmatic/Practical Atheist. And you prefer to be called an Apatheist. We agree on my point: Atheism/Anti-theism (and for you Apatheism) are personal choices. The pendulum swing may not be a turn in the pendulum for you so much as a definite swing towards the Atheist side vs the Theists side (of the pendulum as it were). We are saying the same thing but saying it differently.

    33. Pendulums, by definition, move in two directions. The implication is that eventually my journey will swing back towards theism. It won't.

      Nor do I care to be lumped with "anti-theists" since I'm not against anyone else's beliefs. They are welcome to them.

      If you remove the phrases "pendulum swing" and "anti-theist" I might agree with the rest of your comment:

      "...the decision to be not based on science but commonly a personal choice...away from religion." Of course, this is assuming that the person was raised in a theist household. Not everyone is.

      p.s. I prefer the 'urban dictionary' definition of apatheist: "Someone who just doesn't care whether God exists or not and realizes that such a fact won't effect their life anyway, comes from the word 'apathy' meaning "absence of emotion" and 'theism' meaning "belief in God"."

      p.p.s. I'm not likely to answer questions from government agencies regarding my personal beliefs.

    34. Great comment. You wont be replied to because you have not displayed any weakness (a inclination to believe) to these ravenous wolves who want to rip me a new intellectual and leave me a bloody rag. I purposely went in a bit heavy and even left a few intentional spelling mistakes for
      MR Speak n Spell. I cant help it.

    35. An inclination to believe without evidence is, to put it mildly, a weakness, just as leaving a few intentional spelling mistakes.

  30. OQ,Vlatko,Over_the_Edge,Epicurus,Achems_Razor,Sarcastic_Drew and, of course, everyone else.

    If you search for "primitive atheism"," you will find an interesting rticle by Austin Cline on the subject of tribes with no religious beliefs to speak of. I wonder if there are any documentaries on the tribes mentioned and if so, whether they can be placed on TDF. So much for religion being a part of evolutionary development. So much for religion being needed to ensure or instill a sense of morality and ethics.

    1. Weird.. my reply to your tribal comment got flagged as "needs mod approval" lol...

      I saw a talk on ted dot com (maybe that's what flagged it?) about such a tribe that does not have a concept of god. It wasn't the main point of the talk, but the section regarding them being godless was fascinating. I can't remember the name of it unfortunately.. If I come across it, I'll let you know robert.

    2. It was probably because of the URL. I would appreciate your comments on the article.

    3. I just read this article. Definitely an interesting read. Funny how these so-called primitive tribes have such a simple yet elegant attitude toward the cosmos. --I'm not sure if there's a cosmos, so I won't waste my time thinking about it.-- It makes me think back to something I stated earlier in this forum regarding the lack of religious education. These tribal members did not receive brainwash training in adolescence, therefore they just plain don't give it a thought. These people seem a lot less primitive than the civilized world makes them out to be. :)

      Side note: It would be interesting to see what different religious groups think about tribes that have not been introduced to their sect. In the afterlife, would they get a pass since they just haven't received the good Word yet, therefore are as innocent as the unborn? Or would they be sent straight to hell, afterall (at least in Christianity terms) they are born with the original sin.

    4. Good question. But I don't want these religious groups, especially Catholics, to find out about these tribes because they just would not be able to leave them alone.

    5. Unfortunately, they're trying! :( My dad's church sends people to Africa to "help raise their standard of living." Fine print: to mind f*ck the inhabitants!


    6. Missionaries stand for everything I'm against. All of them are despicable and deserve the horrible things that happen to them.

    7. I watched an interesting talk on ted regarding an anthropologist who lived with a tribe to learn their way of life. He mentioned a story about a couple missionaries who wanted to bring faith to a local tribe. They first flew over-top of the tribe and dropped photos of themselves hoping to get the tribe to become familiar with their faces so when they did make first contact, the tribesmen would be more apt to be friendly. To their surprise, the tribesmen thought it was the work of witchcraft and evil spirits. When they finally did meet the tribe, they were met with spears and death. I would be lying if I said I didn't snicker under my breath.

      These i*iot missionaries think they are doing good when in fact they are bringing not only culture-breaking belief but potentially life-threatening disease. Learn from history and leave these tribes alone!

  31. Vlatko, you have just proved that bias is not exclusive to the religious ones.

    The study asked whether you believe in God(singular). Now look at all the biases you have falsely introduced.

    Nice to know you are human.

    1. @Emanouel,

      What I've stated are not biases but hard core facts. You can check them out if you want.

      The question in your questionable study may be indeed posed in singular, but that doesn't mean anything nor proves anything. It only means 88% of the people believe in their own different Gods, not universal God.

    2. Don't get me wrong Vlatko; I do sympathise with your views on religion. For instance, Islam does contain anti-Jewish/anti-Christian rhetoric(unsurprisingly) but to blame violence on religion is a cop-out in my opinion. Man cannot be allowed to lay blame on religion for evil acts committed in its name. By blaming religion for man's evil acts, we are in essence, providing justification for man's evil acts.
      Only man himself should be blamed for evil acts. Religion cannot be relied upon as a defence.

    3. I see your point here. It's the old "Guns don't kill humans, humans kill humans" argument.

      Religion though is not an object, or an entity outside oneself (like a gun, knife, sword etc). You forget that religion, whether REAL or FALSE, is inside the brain, inside the human, manipulating the person to act in accordance, and parallel to, the laws of their religion. Religion is not a gun. It is a man-made phenomena that can be dissolved if the person so wishes it.

      This manipulation, and the passionate actions based upon it, is what makes religion so dangerous to the brain, to the person in charge of the brain, and tragically, to others in the area that do not concur with this point-of-view. To believe and morph fantasy to reality, is to invite virus to oneself, able to control and break down their intuitive world.

    4. Yes, I guess it is the ol' "Guns don't kill humans, humans kill humans" argument.
      And yes, potentially, religion can disturb illogical minds even further.
      There are studies that even suggest that violent video games/movies can distort the reality of a small percentage of people.
      On the whole, most of the population can be expected to act within normal limits.
      Religion, whether real or false, should not be treated in a cathartic manner simply because of a minority element that might flip out. Personally, I see no harm in little ol' ladies going to church on Sunday mornings or the bereaved seeking comfort.

    5. Again, I see your point, but religion is much more involved than a simple cold gun argument. Children are forced at an early age to believe in fantasy, innocent children that cannot think for themselves yet.

      Moreover, religion plays a part in child mental development, always shrouding them from truth, always warping the way they see the world. It is a slow progressive virus that infects the mind. I have been a victim of this as I am sure many people here have, religious and non-believers alike.

      Religion is not an object, cold and tangible. It is a way of life, a way of thinking. People ARE responsible for their thoughts, my good sir. If you are not responsible for your own thoughts (and to follow, your actions), than what on earth is one responsible for?

    6. Absolutely, but at least it's curable if caught in time.

      Just one suggestion though, more of a stress on actions. After all, I can think of murdering someone, but if I never do, no harm, no foul.

    7. Unfortunately, if the person remains uneducated, I don't think there could ever be a cure. Religion has had thousands of years to perfect it's scheme whereas non-belief has had a mere couple hundred years of fear-free thinking and action.

      I do think we can win this war against fantasy. Unfortunately, I don't think any debate with adults will be the "A-bomb" that ends the war.

      To cure the cancer, we have to rid the tumor from it's source, the next generation. Dissolve Sunday schools, and put in place hmm.. Reality Schools? ...schools that teach children about the beauty of nature, the helpfulness of science to humanity, and the dangers of speaking fallacy.

    8. It is mostly uneducated people that put food on your table. Without them you'de have no time to educate yourself, you'de be gardening full time.

    9. What if I told you, one can be educated and a farmer at the same time...

      In fact, farmers have to be quite educated if they want to be successful. Stating that MOST farmers are uneducated is kind of insulting :p

    10. Most of the fruits and veggies on your table are grown by non-(highly)educated (in the formal sense) people although those same people are administered by educated people.
      Sorry but you are wrong, I have the upmost respect for all gardeners of the world including the peasants in rural areas.
      I do not evalutate people by their education but by their values.
      The five most important verbs to me are
      behave and do give love all ways always

    11. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    12. Do you think that farming is void of educated people?

      Check all the colleges, universities, about "farming" courses, a person has to have the smarts and be well educated to be a farmer!

    13. No i don't. I have many educated gardener friends around here. But most feed themself, i guess it takes smarts to know not to grow grass around your house but food instead.

    14. I go to the supermarket.

    15. i see you get my point!

    16. "Check all the colleges, universities, about "farming" courses, a person has to have the smarts and be well educated to be a farmer!"

      :) My uncle was a farmer, then went to Cornell Ag, stated in the ag field, and has since become a big wig at the biggest tractor producer in the world.

    17. So he works at John Deere, right?

    18. Yep, the mean green american machine :)

    19. From what I've read about it, the company deserves its fine reputation.

    20. A true gardener has to love to have his hands in earth and worms like a baker needs to have his hands in flour and yeast.

    21. So what? Is this your way of standing up for lack of education?

    22. No wonder why creationists and the like push so hard to have their garbage made a part of public school curricula. Their idea of education is to ram superstition, faith, blind acceptance and ignorance down students' throats.

    23. Interesting comments- how do we raise them(children)?

      Do we comfort them(falsely) with the notion of a God who will protect them from harm OR do we shower them with the reality of how evil and crappy this world really is?

      Maybe a child psychiatrist is better equipped to handle this query.

    24. @Emanouel

      The world is not ALL evil and crappy. The majority of this world and its peoples that live upon it are caring creatures of nature. We love each other. We help each other. Non-believers will try to resuscitate a heart-attack victim just as much as a believer. In fact, they might just resuscitate harder, knowing how precious life truly is! Out of the billions of possibilities you could have been, only YOU are the one that won the race. Preciousness. Something a believer (generally) can take for granted (considering there's this MUCH better afterlife ahead).

      If one's mindset is one that the world is all evil and crappy without the introduction of religion, I don't want that person to be influencing my children.

    25. What do you tell a 6 year old girl at her mother's funeral?

      Do you tell her that her mom is going to heaven to play with the angels OR that her dead mom is lunch for the unseen minions of worms and critters?

      It sounds like you live in a great world that you've described.....a different reality. Reality is not the same for all.

    26. Definitely something like the latter. Understanding death as a natural part of life is far superior to any piece of religious nonsense.

    27. @Emanouel That is a great question. A hard question too.

      In fact, we did run into a similar but less tragic event, one which brought to the limelight, the question of death, which occured suddenly to one of our pets. She was quite distraught about it. So, I sat her down and I explained to her that everything on this earth goes through this change. When we bury her, her body goes back to the earth, but she is always there. I told her to be happy, because you actually didn't lose her. She's in the earth, she's in the trees,she's helping other animals. She's in the warm air. I told her to not be sad that she's gone, because she never did leave. She just changed and she will always here. I am not a "#1 Dad" sort of character and do not know all the answers. But I will say that calmed her down. She did not feel the detachment as much and was able to cope with the death and move on with her life.

      Was I right to tell her the truth? That's open to interpretation. But I felt good about comforting her and in a fuzzy warm roundabout sort of way, told her the truth at the same time.

      You don't have to use phrases like "minions of worms and critters" to explain the beauty and cycles of nature.

    28. As I wrote, you have to temper your presentation to the age and intellectual and emotional maturity of the child you're dealing with and that you apparently did. You did the right thing; you don't have to justify it and it's not open to interpretation. However, there are two bright points: 1. Being a pet and not a relative made it much eaiser to explain to the child what death is. 2. The child will probably get another pet whom the child will love and care for just as much as the first one.

    29. Should have read this before writing my own response! ;)

    30. lol no worries. I like your explanation too. In fact, it kind of shows the (religious) world, that there is another way of handling death that can be JUST as comforting as a fantasy lie. In fact, the description of your mother, becoming a mother in death, keeping other beings safe and fed and happy is much more comforting than a teleportation to deep space where she eternally idles.

      Many religious people would consider it a morbid description, but if you reaaally look at it, it's such a beautiful process.

      My condolences to you and yours on your loss. Cheers!

    31. I found your words sweet- from the heart-who could ask for more?

    32. Have been to many funerals when young, did not ask so no one told me, would of not believed the religion garbage even if I was told, figured it out for myself.

      It should be illegal to brainwash children about religion.

    33. I find it no different than child molestation.

    34. "It should be illegal to brainwash children about religion."

      Walter White: "You're G*d d*mn right!"

    35. On the basis that religion is a lie?
      Then we must outlaw all lies.
      How would you define what a lie is?
      At least the legal profession would be happy

    36. Why? do you figure that lies are good? sure outlaw all lies and good luck.

      A lie is an untruth.
      The legal profession would not be happy. Then everyone would be innocent or guilty period, no search for the truth, no accumulating hourly lawyers fees. Would not even need lawyers. "AND NO RELIGION!"

    37. So Achems_Razor, according to you;

      Every personal belief that cannot be validated by scientific process is a lie and thus religion should be made illegal.
      Should we outlaw Santa Claus and Christmas, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
      You have stated that religion should be outlawed. Why do you believe that religion has not been made illegal though?

      According to you "sure outlaw all lies.... A lie is an untruth..... everyone would be innocent or guilty period, no search for the truth."

      Sounds utopian, dare I say heavenly.

    38. You are trying to twist my words, anyway this is boring, so will let it go.

    39. Emanouel
      you asked "What do you tell a 6 year old girl at her mother's funeral?" i think that depends on the child and how they were raised. i have nieces and nephews that sadly have had to deal with loss. my brothers and sisters did not raise their children in religious households and they did just fine comforting them without resorting to angels. but i will ask. what would you say to a six year old that was raised by a Wiccan, satanist or a member of the Westboro baptist church ? would you tell them what their religion says happens after death if that comforts them? or would you search for another was to comfort them?

    40. Hope your nieces and nephews are doing fine.
      Everything else is irrelevant.
      In some cases, "ignorance is bliss"

    41. My suggestion is when approaching a child with such difficult situation....keep the questions coming until he/she realizes that physical life is a system of composting. As for their soul bring them (by questionning) to see that soul and love is synonyme.
      With children it is often better to not anwer them with one's own view but to question until they understand and accept their own view.
      My way anyway!

    42. Emanouel, cruelty is not the only alternative to fairy stories. Why not just tell them the truth, it's hard to miss people and it's sad to say goodbye but it won't hurt forever. I took my kids to my mums funeral, they know she was buried and they understood that she is food not only for worms but also for the cherry tree we planted on her and the creatures that eat the fruit. It's not hard to understand and it's not difficult to explain. Start with a little white lie like heaven and pretty soon you're having to back it up with a god that magically takes dead people out into the depths of space where no telescope can see them, and has the power to make sure that the dead can watch over the living, because that idea is really comforting isn't it? Mud and worms are so much easier. Also makes insects less scary, one of them might be a bit of nanny! ;)

    43. You really have talent. Why not use that wistful style of yours to write children's books?

      I wrote to you yesterday about an abortion clinic opening up in Belfast. While it is not everything I would like, I feel it is a step in the right direction. I would appreciate your thoughts.

    44. I nominate Dewflirt as head professor at the world's first Pre-ality School; an alternative to sunday school. :)

    45. I think it's better that she write. She'll reach a larger audience. Think of it, she can use her logon as her pen name. I can see it now, "Dewflirt, that little girl from Ireland."

    46. I disagree. We don't love each other. Show me in the history of man when there was a "We love each other" epoch. We've been at each others throat from day one. Better to understand that than to believe in platitudes.

    47. Only in hippieland. While I agree with you in general, I cannot agree with you when it comes to individuals.

    48. Yes certainly there are individuals who differ. As a species we are aggressive and we are merciless.

    49. I have to agree with Sarcastic_Drew here. In my experience, more people are kind than unkind. It makes social sense, and we are a social species. While we have our aggressive and merciless moments, most people understand that, as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    50. But to deny as a species that we are aggressive and merciless by nature would be to deny the history of humanity, and in all probability, the prehistory of humanity.

    51. We're animals, and like any animal we'll have our aggressive and merciless moments. We're thinking animals, so we can actually plan our aggressions. They usually have to do with one group gaining an advantage over another for the good of the group (however that group may be defined).

      I'm not denying that there's plenty of negative, but there's plenty of positive, also. On a day-to-day, and one-to-one basis, I find the good outweighs the bad.

    52. You sound as if you are an apologist for the human race. And I of course appear to be cynical of humanity. But let's be realistic.

    53. Just an optimist =)

    54. Then we shall leave it at that.

    55. Here you go:

      "While the optimist and the pessimist were fighting over whether the glass was half-empty or half-full, the realist came along and drank it."


    56. I'll drink to that.

    57. Well put. If the majority of people were unkind, we'd all be living in small highly-fortified huts, preparing with paranoia for the next attack to happen.

    58. Just as in the Middle Ages and before. It doesn't seem to have anyhing to do with whether the majority of people is unkind.

    59. Well... in the context of my statement, I believe I am correct. As individuals we DO love each other. It doesn't matter what you do, your family will love you. No matter what your child does, you will love him/her. Of course there are always exceptions. Generally speaking though, as individuals, we are good.

      I guess this opens up the can-of-worm question, what does it mean to be good?

      You could argue that as a whole, we are a mischievous malevolent species. We commit genocide, we enact in slavery, we're constantly at war, etc.

      But are these mere isolated incidents that were (and continue to be) committed contrary to the sentiment of the whole?

      How do you measure the ethics of what we do "as a whole"?

      What is the break-even point of good and evil?

    60. Well if it is as you say we are constantly at war then by definition they cannot be isolated incidents.

    61. I said "constantly" meaning no matter what time in history, somewhere in the world, there is a war. That doesn't mean (like you are hinting) that we, as in us as a whole, are constantly warring, because we aren't.

    62. But it is a constant. But I'm not entirely talking of war when I say we are aggressive and merciless. War itself makes just a small part of that. We are aggressive and merciless in our relation to other species. We are the top of the food chain and we let every species know that. Bend to our will or you die. Or perhaps by dying you are bending to our will.

    63. I do agree with you in that sense. We have a habit of letting our ego rule over us. In terms of the food chain and other factors, I think "bend or die" is how the game of life has been played by all. It isn't necessarily just a flawed human trait. Other species have success using this same strategy and have been for eons, much much longer than us. In fact, we are probably hard-coded to use such a strategy since we have evolved from the ancient creatures that have put it into play.

      Are we the only species that is aggressive and merciless or do other animals get a pass because they aren't smart enough to recognize that they are being aggressive and merciless, despite using the same game tactic (ex. lions killing others for food, or say, male bears killing their offspring over territorial/domination disputes)?

    64. I don't think any species other than human practices the "bend or die" philosophy. They are simply incapable of conceiving and practicing such a thing. There may be a case here or there but that would be the rare exception and certainly not driven philosophically.

      There is simply no other species capable of doing what we are doing. We are now following that philosophy in relation to our planet. We are attacking the very infrastructure of our existence. And we know full well where and to what this will lead. We are in effect incapable of not being aggressive and merciless even if it portends our own demise.

    65. Emanouel, I am going to give you an example of how I have handled a child's upbringing. My girlfriend has a child, whom we have been raising without the pollution of religion. We don't talk sh*t about religion to her, we just don't bring it up! Instead we teach her like every other child on this planet. We teach her about history, animals, the wonders of the universe, fossils etc... We take her on little trips to teach her about the world (fossil digging, fish hatcheries, museums). You should have seen her face light up when I told her how stars are formed. She is a child in awe and wonder of the world around her. She doesn't NEED to hear about Jesus. She doesn't NEED Allah to show her happiness and the beauty of the world.

      Recently, my girlfriend's mother has been introducing her to Sunday school, MUCH to my dismay, but it's not my place to intervene. Since then, she has been much more distracted and diluted from reality. "God gave me this candybar, isn't he great!" "Jesus is making it rain right now because he wants our corn to grow!" "We have to pray or God will send us to hell! :( "

      It is an utter disgrace to infect an innocent child's mind with fantasy that's been put in place of reality. I see it firsthand. Unfortunately, the seed has been sown. Without intervention this seed will sprout into 100% pure delusion.

    66. I can believe you for I've seen this same thing happen with adults.

      How does your girlfriend feel about her mother's meddling in her child's education?

    67. "How does your girlfriend feel about her mother's meddling in her child's education?"

      She is a bit uncomfortable about the situation. But unfortunately (for her daughter) she is not as passionate about keeping children free from indoctrination. She's not a believer per say, but a believer in some sort of energy (hippie crap lol) so she lets her daughter be open to.. well.. whatever.

      I bite my tongue til it bleeds out of respect. Maybe I'm too nice of a bf. lol Regardless, if we do have a child together, I will hulk-rage if sunday school is ever mentioned as an option for his/her education.

    68. I understand and there does not seem to be any more that you can do, but look at it on the bright side, there's your own child if you have one.

    69. I certainly agree with you on this. My oldest daughter was never taught anything about religion, ever. At 31 she has no clue what Easter stands for religiously (as she was asked by a friend lately), to some that's ignorance to her it's pure gibberish.

    70. And she apparently lives her life just fine. Is that correct?

    71. Yes, giving, loving and compassionate but also independent, driven and university uneducated.
      Good day to all! off to work soon.

    72. Sometime ago, I read about a number of fairly primitive tribes with no religion (i.e., concept of a superior being) and they live their lives just fine. I wish I could remember where the article was. As a matter of fact, don't you think it would be a good idea to see if there's a documentary on such tribes and have Vlatko post it on TDF? I'd just love to read the posts about it from the religees.

    73. I would be interested in watching. My impression is that such tribe would not see a GOD as per say, but would see the godly within nature.

    74. Please see my latest post to a number of posters, you included.

    75. I hope your daughter will then teach her children with your wise insight. :)

      You also bring up a BEAUTIFUL trait of being absence of religious training. People absent of theism, just don't give it a thought! This thinking (or lack thereof) must make your daughter's mind ever-fresh, ever-clear. I can't and will never experience this wonderful feeling because I was a victim of indoctrination. It will always be in my head for as long as I live.

      You give me hope, oQ!

    76. I repeat, religious indoctrination of a child is child molestation and yours is a case in point.

    77. I opt for the latter. Let them learn to come face to face with the way things are.

    78. Perhaps you are correct.

    79. Just one thing. You might have to temper your presentation to the level of the child you are dealing with, but that's far superior to polluting his mind with religious garbage.

    80. @Emanouel On a side note, thank you for being respectful and rational with your retorts so far. It is nice to DISCUSS issues with people, and not be trolled, or deflect from arguments.

    81. "On the whole, most of the population can be expected to act within normal limits." Quite true because "normal limits" are defined in terms of most of the population.

      But you're right. Religigion should not be treated in a cathartic manner, but rather in a dismissive one.

    82. Well put.

      I repeat what wrote to Emanouel. If all the religees were killed off through internecine warfare (i.e., with objects outside themselves), the world would start to become a better place. Don't you agree?

    83. *googles: internecine* lol I am always having to google words from your comments, robertallen. Stop being so... so Webster! :)

      I would hate to see anyone killed off, but I agree that without religion, people could be truly content with their lives in a truly real world.

      I fear we've stumbled upon an appendix that has been long-overdue to shut down from it's inadequate purpose; an appendix, at one time serving as a sufficient sociological stabilizer, that has become a bulbous mass of ill-will, prejudice, and hate. Sadly this appendix has exploded, releasing it's toxins to all of humanity.

      Maybe after the next extinction comes to pass, our rivals will become better equipped to handle such tomfoolery.

    84. Religion as an appendix, what a nice anaology. Now the appendix has become inflamed.

      If the religees want to kill each other off, that's all right with me.

    85. If all the religees were killed off through internecine warfare, the world would start to become a better place.

    86. When using "big" words you should make sure you spell them right.
      Coming from you this phrase looses it's sense as you have been insulting many people for many reasons other than their religiosity, something that when done in person often starts little wars.

    87. Says the dangerous extremist. Your buloo pal.

    88. The only "buloo" I find is a Mandinka word for arm or hand. Perhaps this is just another deliberate typo or misspelling.

  32. Here, let us settle all the arguments in one shot. You want proof that there are higher forms of life, look in the mirror! How did you come to be? Well, your mommy, and daddy hooked up. So, how did the universe come to be? A couple of universe's hooked up, and created this one via sex! (or it was created a-sexually) Either way, the brain of the universe, (god) created us, just like I create the thoughts that occur in my 3 pound universe. (the human Brain) Those thoughts in turn create other thoughts, (like having children) which evolve, and pass on what they have learned (information) back up to the universe, so it can choose how to best survive more efficiently on it's realm of space, and time. (purpose to life)
    This explanation would seem to fit the facts, far better than any religious doctrine, or the coldness of scientific explanation in themselves. The greatest mistake anyone can make is to believe that those who came before us, were absolutely stupid, and unaware. (knowledge has been lost, you can bet on it)
    Physicist John wheeler said it best. (paraphrasing) take a room with tiles on the floor, and write an equation on one. Than write another equation on another tile that you think better describes the universe as we see it. When you have filled the floor, wave your magic wand, and tell the equations to fly, and they won't; but the universe does fly, (life) on a realm far beyond any description we can imagine.
    Ultimately, the answers are right in front of us, but only if we choose to look, without bias. Personally, I am happy that none of us agree regarding what the universe is, and why are we here. If we all already knew the answer, what would be the point of existance?
    I will end with a quote from Bruce Lee. "it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory! Live long, and prosper everyone.

    1. @awful_truth,

      And what that suppose to mean? Is that some kind of evidence?

      Your whole comment is an argument from ignorance. Take virtually any aspect of our natural world that we don't fully understand and you'll find someone claiming God is at the end of that dimly-lit tunnel.

    2. @Vlatko. All I did was draw a parallel as to how the universe came into existance. (the same way we did) This is an observation, which the last time I checked, is part of scientific enquiry. I never attempted to prove anything, only give an explanation that seems to better fit the evidence than any mythology, or science's only attempt at explaining the origins of life.(on the back of crystals, give me a break) If the word 'god' bothers you so much, you should ask yourself why that is. If it is from the contradictions of traditional religions, then I completely understand why, and respect it.
      So to be clear, you do not see the 'universe' as an entity that is alive? ( a straight forward question - no almighty, no hereafter, no heaven, no hell)
      Does philosophy have no value to you? If it does, just consider that 'facts seldon hold, good theories seldom so'. Even science has to begin with imagination, and intuition. There is no ignorance in that! Good night everyone!

    3. "Facts seldon hold, good theories seldom so" is this part of your philosophy. No wonder its value is questionable. One way or the other, if you can't offer solid proof forget it. Your argument is still god of the gaps.

    4. "Either way the brain of the universe (god) created us." How do you know this? All you've done is say, "I perceive the universe this way. Now I'll imagine a higher being to fit my perception." That's not proof; it's simply the god of the gaps argument contained in one long paragraph.

  33. Chew on this one: If you do not know how God could exist you are a fool to claim God can not.

  34. Strange as it is to you that I claimed ignorance on what is the Celestial Teapot, it's stranger still that not one of you has been able to describe it. Are not able?

  35. @PillowhandsMcGraw

    Apparently one of the moderators felt that we were off topic and deleted them. But one way or the other, I just wanted to give you fair warning. Maybe you'll get a lousy professor and a great teaching assistant. One way or the other, whatever you do, ask, ask and ask until you understand. Don't be daunted.

  36. @robertallen1

    I don't like hearing things like that lol right after my physics teacher tells me professors are nothing like teachers 'they just walk in and start talking.'

    P.S. your post disappeared it said an error occured while posting and when i refreshed your comment was gone is this common?

  37. Over_the_Edge, Epicurus, Vlatko, Achems_Razor and, of course, everyone else.

    Aaron Ra was kind enough to allow me to quote his response to the e-mail I sent him on the eve his debate with banana brain.

    RA: Just heard about your upcoming debate with Ray Comfort tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. PST which I now await with bated breath. I won't wish you good luck because you won't need it; however, if I may offer you a word of advice: whatever you do, please do not hold back.

    AR: I was quite frustrated when Ray said his spiel about accepting Jesus or you'll burn in Hell. I had a landslide retort to that, a ten-minute high speed rant that would [have] destroyed everything he stood for. But I couldn't get to that, because the moment I started the cart rolling, they told me there was only two minutes left of the show, and that they would give him the last word.

    Just thought someone might be interested.

  38. 1) On April 24, 1929, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of New York dialed Einstein to inquire, “Do you believe in God?” (Sommerfield, 1949,103), Einstein’s return message was “ I believe in Spinoza’s God who concerns himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings , I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith.
    2) Albert Einstein's book, (The World as I See It)
    "The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man".
    3) Einstein response (1936)
    "every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive". (Take note Robertalllen1)
    4)Einstein-Neils Bohr
    God doesn’t play dice with the universe,” Einstein once remarked on the new science of quantum mechanics in one of his lifelong debates with Neils Bohr. On another occasion he said of science and religion, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

    This is definitive proof that Einstien believed in god, just not a traditional deity(s). (christian, islam, pagan, etc) For Robertallen1, this does not compute, because he has lumped all religious views into a personal god, (simple minded thinking) which he has stated repeatedly, and all the diversions, distractions, and insults does not change the facts, which are so clearly stated. If anyone doubts the validity of what I have expressed, don't take my word for it, research it yourself. This requires effort, unlike those who only search for that which supports their own pre-conceived notion. Since I have a similiar view to that of Einstein, I understand his position, and find myself with the same dilemma he had. Trying to open people's minds to a road far less travelled, but infinitely more rewarding.

    1. Your second and third quotes support Einstein's being a theist only if one agrees with your distorted interpretation of the word spirit to mean god and the word religion to connote traditional theism.

      Several posters have apprised you of the background behind the Einstein-Bohr quote which in your efforts at distortion, you've chosen to ignore.

      The two quotes I cited were both from 1954, much later than any of yours and it's particularly dishonest of you not to have included them, just as it is also dishonest of you not to have included this one from a letter to M. Berkowitz in 1950 (again much later than anything you have offered), "My position concerning God is that of AN AGNOSTIC. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a lawgiver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. (emphasis added)."

      One way or the other, Einstein's theological beliefs are as valid as anyone else's and hence irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. So your quotes from authority prove nothing of any substance. I only wonder why you are so obsessed with demonstrating Einstein to be a theist.

    2. @robertallen1. Believe it or not, I agree completely with your stand regarding the need for a "lawgiver (god)who works on the basis of reward, and punishment", and your thoughts regarding moral principles. Perhaps the only thing we disagree on is your self proclaimation of being agnostic. You refute any concept of god, as much as Richard Dawkins, yet he calls himself an athiest, and you do not. To each their own, I guess.

    3. I simply agree with Einstein on this point.

      I don't profess to know and I also don't care, but I refute the claims of those who assert knowledge of something which by definition cannot be known.

    4. awful_truth
      while i disagree with you that Einstein believed in a god what difference would it make if i conceded that argument to you? Newton was an Alchemist and a great scientist does that make Alchemy true? what actual evidence do you have for this god? who/what is this god? i can show you great/intelligent people of all faiths or no faith at all. what does that prove? do you have any actual proof or is a debatable at best argument from authority all you have?

    5. @over the edge: The only reason I raised the issue is because the documentary states that Einstein was an athiest. (wrong) For Einstein to state that he believes in 'Spinoza'a god', and some of you still dismiss what he said, just blows me away. I didn't say Einstein believed in a personal god, which Robertallen is looped about. I didn't say that I believe in a personal god, (I don't) yet Achem, and Robertallen1 call me a religee. (talk about leaps of assumption) It is the makers of these documentaries that are attempting to justify their position with the name of a man, who didn't believe what they believe, and several of the bloggers here are supporting the same action.
      All any of this proves is that even intelligent people can be so blinded by their own bias, they dismiss everything that follows the initial thought. I tried to express that Einstein's own preconceived notion about his own belief in God, prevented even him from accepting quantum mechanics, the very thing that his own theories brought about. This not just my twist on things, it is obvious to anyone who has truly studied the man. The fact that I tried to share this information with others, has been met with insults, and indignation.
      So, I will leave you with this question. Is fighting good, or bad? As a mixed martial artist for over 30 years, I can tell you that it is neither. It is what motivates one to fight, that determines 'the value' of the action. Everything in life is like this. In fact, E=MC2 was a discription of the universe, not a prescription for a bomb. That is the duality of the nature of life, and the awful truth is, any belief system has value if it places people on a path that is in everyone's best interests. The second you dismiss the 'potential value' in anything, you remove the possibility of what it has to offer. (including spirituality) Something to think about! Live long, and prosper over the edge.

    6. awful_truth
      what Achem, and Robertallen1 or other bloggers state is not up to me to defend or comment on they are more than capable of defending themselves. not that you said it was my responsibility but that part of your post i will ignore and i just wanted you to know why. all i was getting at was that your posts appear to me as a argument from authority and that carries no weight with me. i do not "dismiss the 'potential value' in anything, you remove the possibility of what it has to offer. (including spirituality". what i do is give it consideration that is equal to the evidence i have been presented for it. as i do for all proposals. as of yet i have not been presented with any evidence that supernatural/spiritual claims are true except for personal testimony or you can't explain it any other way so my belief must be true. mow i do disagree on Einstein's spirituality but we have gone there before and i think we both can agree that rehashing that between us is a waste of both of our time as i can counter quote you and you can do the same.

    7. Yes as over the edge states I certainly can fight my own battles, why are you going to a third party to voice your opinions about me? Are you scared to converse with me?

      Me, blinded by bias? Don't even know what you mean by that?

      Why are you putting your mixed martial arts in the picture? 30 years? wow!

      You keep quoting from authority with your Einstein thing, getting old hat.
      If you are not a religee, you adhere to some sort of religion, are you a deist?

    8. Taking this to a ridiculous extreme, one could say that you are blinded by empiricism; however, I find it more accurate to term this as being blinded by enlightenment, if you'll pardon the irony.

    9. As I stated many times, I am spiritual by nature, not religious. I do not believe in traditional forms of religion, because I don't believe god is a all powerful, all knowing entity, but I do believe in higher forms of life. (the universe is alive, and intelligent) that is as direct an answer is to what Einstein said, (Spinoza's god) but if you can't see the forest for the trees, (biased) communication is problematic at best.

  39. @Roberttallen1
    Bald faced lie? Once again. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:
    Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
    However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
    But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
    This is direct evidence to what Einstein believed. The last sentence of Einstein's letter is how you perceive all who have 'faith'. The awful truth is you are rude, and obnoxious towards anyone who doesn't think like you, and the only reason you get away with it, is because the administrator, and one of the moderators allow you to continue this behaviour.
    You call a provable letter from Einstein a bald faced lie, because you can't handle the truth. Furthermore, I will keep calling you little bob until you learn to be civil with others who have as much right as you to express their opinion, as you do. If you can't be pleasant with others, don't expect it in return.

  40. TopDocRocks
    please see "Russels Teapot". there are too many claims made to prove their absence. the burden of proof does lay with the person making the positive claim. if we have to prove absence of evidence for every claim put forward we would never progress. i dismiss all gods due to no demonstrable evidence being shown to me of their existence. if i were to approach my dismissal on the premise you suggest i would have to look for this evidence of absence for all 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped and i would die before proving all claims false and therefore never make a decision. but i am curious what is your position of all 28 000 000 gods? is there one you profess to be true? i get the feeling from your posts that you do believe in one but know that you cannot prove it. so you shamelessly try to shift the burden you would rightfully own. of course that is just an opinion and i am open to be told i am wrong.

    1. And yes you are wrong. =D Any claim is a positive claim. Which is why the burden of proof is on someone who claims "there is no evidence." The statement, "There is no evidence" is a positive claim (one is claiming what "is" when one uses language like, "There IS no...). And just because it is a claim about absence does not mean it is not a positive claim. And just because it's harder to prove than "There is evidence" and more difficult because it has to avoid the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" does not mean one is free from the burden of proof if one claims "there is no evidence." One can be more intelligent in how they make claims about the absence of evidence in order to be able to meet the burden of proof. And this is quite possible with a little more time and effort put into the communication process.

      The question about the many gods is not an Atheist question. It's a Theist question. When I discuss Atheism I am a Deist [Over The Edge can you please tell everyone here what is the difference between a Deist and a Theist?]. As such I am speaking about the Creator Being. I also lean on Apophatic Theology when I approach the topic of the Creator Being as it's more gracious and honest to our limited understanding of the divine.

      But no, to comment on the many gods is to make mute Atheism (because if there are many gods or one god Atheism is wrong either way).

      As to proving there is a God such a notion is extremely rude and invasive. Not even the Creator Being goes about proving himself/herself/itself/themselves to people (that I've observed). And even if one were to aks the Creator Being to prove himself/herself/itself/themselves one may not be given such proof (such an act would have you actually know that the Creator Being as real...and who says the Creator Being even wants you to know him/her/it/them in the first place?). It is not for Humans to go about proving that the Creator Being exists. It is up to the Creator Being to prove such a thing (if he/she/it/they want to). That is my Deist response.

      My Theist response is similar. It's not for humans to go about proving God exists. God can prove God exists all by himself/herself/itself/themselves. And it appears that is how it's supposed to be. No "Hey I'm God! You HAVE to believe in me now!" self aggrandising bullying crap. I'm currently convinced that if you really want proof, you can by all means just go and ask God for it. But be careful...sometimes one gets what they ask for. That is my Theist response.

      My Atheist response is also similar. Asking a human to prove God exists is dumb. If God doesn't exist you won't get proof. And if God does exist, you're asking the wrong person.

      My Anti-Theist response is a bit different. Who cares about proving God exists. Even if God is proven to exist it doesn't mean I have to like God or interact with God.

      But Atheist/Theist conversations I'm more of a Deist.

      What are you Over The Edge? Deist? Theist? Atheist? Ant-Theist? Agnostic?

    2. @TopDocRocks,

      A deist... I wonder why I'm not surprised.

    3. Vlatko, I'm sure we can agree that an Ad Hominem attack does not make one more credible, or likable.

      Can you please rephrase/retract your comment "A deist...I wonder why I'm not surprised."

      In its current form it is came across to me as condescending.

      I may be reading it wrongly. What do you mean by it?

    4. Why should he have to. It's one of the more intelligent comments.

    5. "As to proving there is a God such a notion is extremely rude and invasive." What does proving the existence/non-existence of a God have to do with rudeness and what does it invade? And just what makes you think you know any more about a "Creator/Being" than anyone else, apophatic theory which is somehow more gracious (whatever this word is supposed to mean in this context) and honest to our supposedly limited understanding of the divine? As a matter of fact, can you even prove the existence of the divine--and don't even think of asserting that demanding proof is somehow inappropriate or any other such nonsense. And who do you think you are telling us that we are not to go about proving that a Creator/Being Exists?

      "Asking a human to prove God exists is dumb. If God doesn't exist you won't get proof. And if God does exist, you're asking the wrong person." Where is the logic in this? As a matter of fact who is the "wrong person?"

    6. Good feedback and questions Robertallen1.

      Perhaps we can chat over email?

      How do you not see the logic of "Asking a human to prove God exists is dumb. If God doesn't exist you won't get proof. And if God does exist, you're asking the wrong person." ?

      The wrong person is people. We've established humans can't objectively prove the existence of a being on the scale of a Creator/God (not now at least). And that subjective proof/evidence is all one can expect to get (in ones lifetime). So spending ones life asking others for the impossible (objective proof) is dumb. And asking others to show you the subjective evidence that convinced them is also dumb as the subjective evidence that convinced them may not be the subjective evidence that will convince you (the evidence you are looking for). Better to just straight up ask the right person...namely the Creator/God himself/herself/itself/themself...for the proof/evidence you require...and hope you get it (then to run around asking the wrong prople the wrong questions).

      This of course would only be a fair question to ask such a Creator/God if one actually wants the answer. Do you want to know that the Creator/God exists?

    7. No, your statement makes no sense and no, WE haven't established anything except the patent idiocy of everything you've posited such as subjective evidence, subjective proof (whatever they are), asking God directly if he exists, searching the cosmos for evidence or lack thereof.

    8. TopDocRocks
      i will answer your questions as soon as you answer mine. can you?

    9. I thought I had answered your question Over The Edge...apparently I didn't...I must have misunderstood it. Can you re-Iterate your question (and perhaps what you think is mine) please?

    10. TopDocRocks
      you never answered my questions you skated around them. but i will focus on only a few and omit the others. what is your position on all 28,000,000 gods that have been worshiped? do you believe in one of them? why so or why not? please do not walk around the answer as you must have an opinion on god. this isn't the first time we have had a discussion on this topic and don't seem to know who this creator is,where he is,why he created us,how he created us or can provide any way to test for his existence but you know he exists. i will try to be as clear as i can i DO NOT claim that there is no creator i am withholding judgement until evidence is presented to me that conclusively proves the claim one way or the other. in my opinion that is the only honest approach to this question. now if we are talking about the god of the many religions that have been worshiped. some i have an opinion on and others i have not studied enough to comment on. but i will say that as science discovers more and more on how the universe works there is less and less that this creator is needed. in closing you are wrong on where the burden of proof lies and if you fail to understand why i cannot help you

    11. Haven't heard from you for a while.

      Your conjecture that TopDocRocks believes in some supreme being which he can't prove seems on point. That's why I asked this poster for his position with respect to the existence of fairies--if he believes in them, provide the proof on which he bases his belief and if he doesn't, furnish a detailed log of his search and the results thereof. What's good for the goose is good for the goosed. For some reason, I'm having trouble eliciting a direct response.

      P.S. How are you getting on with the Ehrman volume?

  41. Kateye70: You and I agree. Atheism is not scientific and neither is Theism. Science is virtually mute on the matter of "god" (except to say it appears "god" is not a part of nature).

    1. Then why were you conflating science and theism/atheism?

    2. I'm not conflating science and theism/atheism. Logical Atheists are conflating science and atheism. A Logical Atheist claim like "There's no [scientific] evidence of a God" is a statement that conflates science and atheism. Science has no comment on the matter of "God" (except to comment that if there is a "God"/Creator such a being is probably not a part of nature as scientists can't seem to find such a being in the nature humans have explored so far...not a very scientific comment that but it's what science can at least say...and pretty much all it can say).

    3. What is it called if I say that I see no practical evidence of a deity?

    4. Kateye70...without you showing the evidence you've looked it it's actually called ignorance. But I think I know what you're trying to ask. And the answer to what I think you're asking is...Weak Atheism.

    5. Aren't certain theists also conflating science and theism by claiming supernatural causes for natural phenomena as science?

    6. Someone asserting disbelief in a supreme being because there has been no satisfactory scientific evidence uncovered so far to convince him of the existence of one is clearly implying that if compelling evidence is uncovered, he will reconsider his position; hence, he is not making a categorial denial. The only claim is lack of evidence, an unfalsifiable statement which, contrary to your "logic," does not need to be proved because it can't.

    7. Let's not be lazy. We can do better than go around saying "I know that my point can't be proven true but I'll claim it as true anyways and ask you to prove me otherwise because that is possible for you to do ('s impossible for me to prove my point..that I'm claiming is true...that I can't prove...). "

      I'm sure if we sat down and thought about it and did some digging we'd be able to actually say "Here the evidence I've found that has proven to me thus far that there is no evidence of God...and while I'm at it I'll demonstrate that I'm avoiding the fallacy of 'the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence'...and all other fallacies for that matter."

  42. Robbertallen:
    "So just where is your evidence for design and a designer or is it all in your typical creationist argument?" observational evidence
    "Just how?"
    "So you thought you didn't need evidence" what i said
    "Just how?" below

    "You understand that BELIEF and KNOWLEDGE are two very different things? you cant say you know something and that you believe it. you dont KNOW that god exists. you believe it. and I dont KNOW god doesnt exist. but the fact that you dont KNOW god exists should lead you to at least be honest with yourself and question WHY you insist on believing it is true....dont you think?" Epicrurus I detect god indirectly through the observational evidence.

    "was a dead giveaway you know nothing of what you speak, you are using an "argument from ignorance" means nothing." Achems_Razor You're opinion.

    A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.
    hehe I have proven my claims with a simple worldview which is based upon observational evidence! . Don't throw up you're arms up in defense go test the claims! That is why this belief is so strong. The observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God.

    The Bible describes an expanding universe model.

    Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. What, in nature can you think of that is simultaneously expanding and decelerating? An explosion. This was the first suggestion of what has come to be called the "Big Bang." Einstein did not like the implications of the Big Bang, which he thought implied the existence of a Creator.

    The data from cosmology shows that the universe had a beginning, when space, time, matter and energy exploded out from the cosmic event known as the Big Bang.
    At some point in the past, the universe was created from what has been called a singularity (or no volume). This event must require the existence of a creator, a supernatural God.
    The Big Bang implies a universe which is created, therefore the need for a creator

    Big Bang is evidence for intelligent design. So because we can observe God's creation u can detect God not directly but indirectly. A naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally that is why that belief does not make sense to me. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

    "I believe the evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe."

    Conclusion: 1: My belief is supported by observational evidence
    2: my belief does not contradict observational evidence

    1. So in response to the thoughtful and knowledgable posts of Achem, Epicurus and others, we are treated to a replay of your threadbare beliefs coupled with ejaculations of your universal ignorance, the whole of your post culminating in two inane, self-serving conclusions.

      You have deluded yourself into believing that piling assertion upon assertion somehow constitutes proof when in reality it doesn't even come close. I really wonder if you're an adult.

      I doubt that anyone on this thread is going to be swayed by someone as dense, obtuse and generally uneducated as you. So why you're wasting your time posting your iterative walls of drivel here defies explanation.

  43. I haven't watched this documentary yet (and I will when I have the time). But having read some posts going back and forth, my 2 cents is that Atheism is not scientific any more than Theism is scientific. And in fact "Science" supports what some Theists and certainly Western Christian Theists have been saying all along; namely that the "God"/Creator is not a part of nature.

    The term "science" as I'm using it and as "Scientific" Atheists use it is actually Methodological Naturalism (which is only one aspect of the Sciences). Methodological Naturalism from the onset chose to ignore anything non-natural to make it more easy to find natural causes for nature. And look...everywhere Methodological Naturalism is applied to in attempting to find natural causes for nature it seems to have found natural causes for (and we're leaps and bounds ahead of mysticism for it...woot).

    But "science" (Methodological Naturalism) cannot really comment on the "God"/Creator...except to say that it has not nor is it currently looking for a "God"/Creator (because such a thing is not a natural cause and Methodological Naturalism is excluding all non-natural causes in its search for natural causes for nature) and that if there is such a "God"/creator such a thing has not been observed via Methodological Naturalism in the natural realities that Methodological Naturalism has examined thus far.

    And that is all Methodological Naturalism (aka "Science") can say about the "God"/Creator..."We have been looking for natural causes of nature and in our looking we obviously have been ignoring anything "God"/Creator related in order to help us more easily find natural causes for nature...oh by the way we've found natural causes for just about everything we've looked at and with all we've looked it we haven't accidentally discovered a "God"/Creator being, or Unicorn, or Godzilla, or Aliens, or Spaghetti monsters...etc etc...yes it's a bit laughable to say that in all our NOT looking for such things we haven't found them...but here's what we can reasonably conclude thus far; if such things were part of nature we'd probably have discovered them by now with how much of nature we've examining so far...not to say they don't exist...they might...we haven't examined all of nature yet...but it's a safe conclusion that if such things exist they're not a part of nature (not a part of the nature we know of and have examined so far at least)."

    Any conclusion beyond that is not Scientific (Methodological Naturalism) and more the realm of Religious Naturalism and Philosophy and one's own Ideologies (which are what Theism and Atheism are...Ideologies...not Science).

    I'm not championing Christianity or Theism. Nor am I championing Weak Atheism ("I'm not convinced there's a God") nor Strong Atheism ("There is no God and you should believe me that there isn't") nor Anti-Theism ("Religious types need to go"). I'm just championing clarification about "Science" (Methodological Naturalism) and what it has authority to comment on and what it doesn't.

    My apologies if this was way off topic for this documentary. I will watch it...just haven't had the time yet.

    1. Why not champion what you term weak atheism? Aside from antitheism, it's the most viable of the alternatives you've enunciated

    2. Because if one wants to be a Logical Atheist/Anti-Theist it's important to base ones Atheism/Anti-Theism on real evidence above and beyond an "Appeal to Authority"...especially when the "Authority" appealed to does not even have the authority to fully comment (besides saying that what Theists have been claiming all along is evidentially accurate: "God appears to be separate and not a part of nature").

      Hence my championing of Clarification (on the Authority used by Logical Atheists).

    3. You're not making any sense. There is nothing the matter with stating that I don't believe in a supreme being because no adequate proof has been offered for the existence of one.

    4. There's no fallacy in claiming that you don't believe in a supreme being robertallen1.

      But there is a fallacy in claiming that, "no adequate proof has been offered for the existence of a supreme being."

      It is a fallacy because this claim..."No adequate proof has been offered for the existence of a supreme being"...has not been proven.

    5. That's just silly. I don't have to prove that no adequate scientific proof has been offered for the existence of a supreme being. The person asserting that a supreme being exists is responsible for providing the proof. So calling my statement a fallacy is riduculous.

    6. The Burden of proof applies to any claim you make robertallen1. Unless you want to Appeal To Ignorance. You've claimed no adequate proof has been offered. Your claim is a claim of absence. Demonstrate that you searched, that you did not find proof, and that your evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Otherwise be comfortable with having Appealed To Ignorance.

    7. @TopDocRocks. Your efforts are inspiring, but are futile regarding little bob. I have provided evidence to him, Achems razor, etc regarding the spirituality of Einstein, while providing references to his own hand written documents. They continuously request proof, and when you provide it, they ignore it, and quote wikipedia like it is the 'ten commandments'.
      The bottom line is there will never be proof regarding issues of faith,(that is why they call it belief) and science is incapable of answering the really interesting questions, that lie beyond the realm of the tactile. Since I believe in 'everything' I find it amusing to be able to debate with both the theists, and athiests, who have both restricted themselves to limited thinking!

    8. Tell the truth. What you have stated about Einstein is a bald-faced lie and several posters who are far more knowledgable than you have provided the proof.

      I wouldn't dignify what you do to the level of thinking.

      P.S. My name is Robert.

    9. Bald faced lie? Once again. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:
      Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.
      However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
      But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
      This is direct evidence to what Einstein believed. The last sentence of Einstein's letter is how you perceive all who have 'faith'. The awful truth is you are rude, and obnoxious towards anyone who doesn't think like you, and the only reason you get away with it, is because the administrator, and one of the moderators allow you to continue this behaviour.
      You call a provable letter from Einstein a bald faced lie, because you can't handle the truth. Furthermore, I will keep calling you little bob until you learn to be civil with others who have as much right as you to express their opinion, as you do. If you can't be pleasant with others, don't expect it in return.

    10. Your mischaracterization Einstein as a theist has been debunked over and over again and the last sentence that you quoted does not stand for what you say it does, i.e., a feeling of religiosity is not the same as a religion or even a belief in a higher being. Time and time again, Einstein stated that he had no personal god. Even assuming that Einstein were a theist, what does it show--nothing except another asinine argument on your part from authority

      P.S. Once again, my name is Robert, whether you like it or not, and as long as you continue to spew forth your religious garbage, your factual distortions and your ignorance of science, I will continue to slam you.

    11. "But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
      1) A "spirit vastly superior to that of man" is a belief in a higher being. (how can you deny this?)
      2) Having faith, or spirituality has nothing to do with a 'personal god'. (your conclusion) Why? look berlow.
      3) "science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." (this is in reference to people like you) who only perceive religion on the most simplistic level) Einstein's word "naive" is a bullseye.
      4) Your words - assuming that Einstein were a theist, what does it show-- is an admission that you are wrong regarding referenced evidence, which is where you typically change the subject, and resort to misdirection, and insults.
      5) A quote from Einstein is not me, or anyone spewing religious garbage, but is your denial of what I have been telling you all along.
      6) "factual distortions", is precisely what you just did above, and the "ignorance of science" is a continuation of this distortion, because no statement of science was mentioned to begin with, so here is the science.
      7) relativity - (multiple perceptions, all different, yet correct at the same time)
      8) Quantum mechanics - (if there are 1000 possibilites, all possibilites play themselves out)

      Conclusion: There is no right, or wrong, only choices, and for every decision we all make, there is an endless number of each of us that co-exists, living out the choices we didn't choose here. Since nothing is perfect, (broken symmetry) there only exists infinite potentiality.
      (truth in everything) Since you don't understand this, your thinking is 1 dimensional, and judgemental.
      The awful truth is, the only thing you are capable of slamming, is your head against the very wall of ignorance your built.
      (all bark, no bite)

    12. "It was, of course, a lie what you heard 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 science can reveal it." 1954

      "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable but still prmitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Letter to Eric Gutkind 1954.

      Both of these quotes are 18 years later than yours. I wonder why you didn't provide them. Another example of your deceit.

      You obviously have a problem reading. The phrase, "assuming that" is provisional or hypothetical, hence not an admission of anything or any sort. Another example of your deceit.

      I am not the only one who has highlighted your attempts at deceit and your general ignorance of science, especially your attempts to abase it to the level of religion and the procrusteanism you employ in those attempts. You have been corrected so many times by those more knowledgeable than you that it's pathetic.

    13. Hilarious how you repeat the same quote over and over, when I have provided so much more. I acknowledge the quotes you raise regarding Einstein, unlike you who call it 'bald faced lies' when statements are raised that don't agree with your ideaology. With that said, you continue to dodge the logic regarding what the science implies. (relativity, and quantum mechanics) Perhaps you should apply for a job at FOX news. As with you, they too repeat nonsense over and over, with the 'belief' that if you say it enough times, it somehow becomes fact, and everyone will believe it. (propaganda)
      Since you have taken the same page out of the Joseph Goebels mindset, nothing you say surprises me, and exposes your limited knowledge regarding Einstein to anyone who actually knows anything regarding the man. For your own sake, you should hope that anyone who reads what you write doesn't make the same mistake, and decide who you are, and what you stand for, based upon 1, or 2 statements.
      The American election (debates) relies on the same minutia, where people make judgements based upon singular statements.
      Ultimately, your position is one of sloth, where it is easier, than actually researching to find out what you don't know, and rely on others of similiar thinking for support.

    14. You have no idea what science implies--and from the comments of other posters, no one here is fooled by your lack of knowledge, especially regarding Einstein, and your amateur attempts at deception. As usual, you've written a wall of nothing, but it's your time.

    15. Limited thinking? ha, that is a good one. The only thing that is etched in stone and limited thinking is the religee's insistence that the cosmos and everything in it was made (by some invisible gods) for us little tiny carbon units that have only been here as long as a flicker, as Carl Sagan said "we all are like water vapour on a glass, one swipe and we are gone" or as Feynman said "we are just too small to fathom the vastness and sheer size of the cosmos." (The sheer arrogance)!!

      And right away the religee's run to use Einstein as an argument from authority. That has all been refuted numerous times.

    16. At Achems_Razor:
      Yes, refuted by you numeruous times. Out of curiosity, is your name Achems_Razor in reference to Occums_Razor, based on William of Ocham? (1285 to 1349) I just ask, wondering if you are aware of where this term originates. According to Wikipedia (your favorite source)
      ' His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which occurs in his THEOLOGICAL work on the 'Sentences of Peter Lombard'. furthermore;
      ' Indeed, Ockham's contribution seems to be to restrict the operation of this principle in matters pertaining to MIRACLES OF GOD'S POWER: so, in the Eucharist, a plurality of miracles is possible, simply because it pleases God.
      Considering the origins, and your revulsion to religion,(some of which I completely agree with) perhaps you may want to change your handle, to avoid any self contradiction. (just a suggestion, no insult intended)

    17. @TopDocRocks,

      It seems you don't make any difference between unfalsifiable and falsifiable claims.

      If I make an unfalsifiable claim how on Earth you expect someone to prove me wrong? It simply can't. Never. If I make a claim that can be tested and examined the situation is different.

      There is infinite number of unfalsifiable claims (God's existence is among them): unicorns, snow white, lizard aliens, spaghetti monster, etc. There is no way of testing them and proving them wrong. Does that mean we should believe all those claims? Of course not.

      Do you believe in all those claims? Do you believe in the existence of celestial teapot? Of course you don't, because of the lack of evidence and the very nature of the argument which is unfalsifiable.

      Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your God. In the meantime lot of people will not believe you.

    18. The possible existence of a Creator of our Universe is falsifiable. And based on what definitions are agreed upon on what is considered a "God", so could said concept of such a "God" (be falsifiable).

      But I am not claiming there is a God. I was asked why I don't claim there is No God. The exact question was, "Why not champion what you term weak atheism?" And I've answered that (because it's best we first champion the clarity that "science" should be avoided as an authority on "God" topics if we are to be seen as Logical Atheists).

      The response to that was, "There is nothing the matter with stating that I don't believe in a supreme being because no adequate proof has been offered for the existence of one." To which I am pointing out that yes such a claim is a "matter" because such a claim is shifting the burden of proof, appealing to ignorance, and claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

      I'm not claiming there is or is not a God/Creator.

      As I've said before, I'm not championing Christianity or Religion or Weak Atheism ("I'm currently convinced based on the evidence I've seen so far that there is no 'god'") or Strong Atheism ("There is no 'god' and you should believe me that there isn't") or Anti-Theism ("Religous types need to go"). I've been consistent in championing Clarity.

    19. @TopDocRocks,

      How the existence of a Creator of our Universe is falsifiable? That is the original root and error in your whole reasoning.

      If your God was falsifiable it wouldn't be God in the first place. The word God would lose its meaning since it will be quantified. And only then your argument can become semi valid, because anyone asking you to prove your God existence would be using some sort of shifting the burden argument, since it can look up the evidence for himself and find out that your God is true. However, on our path to make God falsifiable we actually lost God, therefore your argument fails.

      On another comment you presented an analogy with a dog's existence in a room (which is falsifiable), thus revealing the root of your error.

      If your reasoning is valid then you would have to agree that all possible imaginary beings are in fact possibly true (Unicorns on Titan, Spaghetti Monsters on Mars, etc). And if you state that any of those don't exist because they're unfalsifiable, then (according to you) I would have the right to say that you're shifting the burden of proof, appealing to ignorance, and claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is simply illogical and not true.

      P.S. You're not championing clarity. You're only presenting fallacious logic.

    20. All those creatures including God are falsifiable. You're just making the obvious point that falsifying the existence of such things is really really hard (by asking "how?"...searching all of space and time is how...obviously very difficult to not impossible...forever). Science doesn't say such things do not exist because Science knows that if it were to say such things do not exist it would have the burden of proof on itself to falsify the existence of such things (and again that is currently well nigh impossible for science to do right now given our understanding of how big and unknown time and space is to science right now).

      So Science only says what does exist based on what science has encountered (although even the concept of existence is not entirely a settled debate within science).

      The only thing science can comment on about such creatures...that science has not encountered so that, "Science has not found any such things thus far in all that science has observed so far and that if such things exist either they exist in an area of space/time that science has not discovered yet or they are not a part of space/time as we currently understand space/time."

      And that is my point about Science. That it can only claim that if there is such a thing as a "God"/Creator such a being is either in a region of space/time that we haven't observed yet or is not a part of space/time as we understand space/time.

      Neither of these prove God exists (or does not exist).

      And it's interesting to me that the comment of science that, "If a God/Creator exists and we don't discover such a being in our space/time then such a being is probably not a part of our space/time" is the same claim as Theists ("God is and never was a part of nature").

    21. @TopDocRocks,

      1. Show me how God and those creatures are falsifiable? Presuming you know what falsifiable means.

      2. We are living now, and we are discussing about the present moment. At this moment God and all the imaginary beings are unfalsifiable. In future they may be falsifiable but as I can recall we are not talking about the future. This was another attempt of yours to stretch the argument even further.

      3. Science won't comment on God and those creatures because at this moment they're not falsifiable, which means not testable and not able to be proven false, and are therefor outside of the scope of experimental science. Most atheist prefer not to believe in things which are outside of the scope of science. It is simple as that.

    22. Great artistry (i.e., painting, music, literature) is outside the scope of science and yet atheists and theists alike believe in it. In fact the whole realm of the subjective is by nature outside the realm of science. The problem comes when creationists and the like try to pass off the subjective as objective.

    23. "1. Show me how God and those creatures are falsifiable? Presuming you know what falsifiable means."

      Look for them in all space/time. Fail to find them. Demonstrate you've looked and could not find them. That's how they are Falsifiable. This is well nigh impossible during our lifetime due to how vast and mysterious space/time is to us right now [This also does not mean they do not exist...only that they do not exist in the space/time that we looked for them in].

      "2. We are living now, and we are discussing about the present moment. At this moment God and all the imaginary beings are unfalsifiable. In future they may be falsifiable but as I can recall we are not talking about the future. This was another attempt of yours to stretch the argument even further."

      No they are not. They are only unfalsifiable if one limits oneself to Methodological Naturalism. If one opens oneself up to Religious Naturalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Mathematics, Art, Evidentialism and Experientialism one can falsify God for oneself...subjective falsification. If one desires objective and Methodological Naturalism falsification of God...that you can go about convincing your neighbors most likely will not find such falsification in your lifetime.

      Because it appears, as evidenced by the objective observations of Methodological Naturalism and via the subjective claims of Deists/Theists, that God is not a part of nature.

      "3. Science won't comment on God and those creatures because at this moment they're not falsifiable, which means not testable and not able to be proven false, and are therefor outside of the scope of experimental science. Most atheist prefer not to believe in things which are outside of the scope of science. It is simple as that." will not comment on God. So let's not use science as our authority when we discuss theology (which is what the atheism/theism discussion is). Robertallen1 has a good point about Atheists believing in things which are outside of the scope of science (Thank...god?...else we'd all be like Spok...or Data **the song "You're as cold as ice" is floating through my brain**).

    24. @TopDocRocks,

      1. Falsifiable means falsifiable at this moment with the means we have now. By your reasoning all possibilities are falsifiable at one point of time. But we are talking about the now, with the means we have now. You're not being serious.

      2. Subjective falsification? You're not being serious again. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method.

      3. Most atheist prefer NOT TO believe in things which are outside of the scope of science. That means they don't believe in unfalsifiable imaginary beings, which are not testable and out of scientific method.

    25. I also made a distinction between the objective (scientific) and the subjective which you apparently missed.

      How can "religious naturalism," whatever that is, philosophy (which never proved anything), psychology, mathematics and art even begin to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being? Only science (methodical naturalism as you call it) can do this objectively--what else is there?

    26. These things can prove the existence of a supreme being, or disprove it, subjectively.

      Methodological Naturalism can "prove" it subjectively too but that's tricky and misleading and doesn't count as it's the job of Methodological Naturalism to prove things Objectively (which it can't do right now on the topic of God's existence/non-existence).

      So in light of Methodological Naturalism claiming ignorance on the subject...and we not being able to live long enough until it can claim otherwise...the only evidence/proof we can rely on with regards to the existence of the Creator/ subjective evidence/proof.

      And that's perfectly fine. Because the alternative is ignorance [which is what Methodological Naturalism offers you on the topic of the existence of the Creator/God if you lean only on it for evidentialism]).

    27. There is no such thing as a subjective proof, much less subjective evidence.

    28. Objective: robertallen1 made the claim "There is no such thing as subjective proof."

      Subjective: robertallen1 makes some pretty bold claims.

      Objective Proof: "Pandas exist. They're even in zoos to go look at."

      Subjective Proof: "Bigfoot exists. I was kidnapped by some."

      Objective Evidence: "Mam, your husband has been charged with murder. His fingerprints are on the murder weapon."

      Subjective Evidence: "There must be a mistake, he'd never do such a thing! I've know him. He's not a murder."

    29. Your example of subjective proof is merely a groundless assertion and not proof at all.

      Your example of subjective evidence is no more than a statement of disbelief and not evidence at all.

      And these are two of the ways you list to prove the existence of a supreme being?

    30. Yes...subjective proof is not objective proof...duh.

      Yes...subjective evidence is not objective evidence...duh.

      I'm glad you agree that there is such a thing as subjective evidence/proof [your claim that they do not exist was just plain wrong].

      And I'm glad we agree that subjective evidence and subjective proof is NOT objective evidence or objecctive proof.

      I'm also glad we agree that subjective evidence and subjective proof is pretty much all we can use in proving to ourselves the existence of a Creator/God (all we can use in our lifetime that is).

    31. We don't agree on any of this and your statements are a complete misrepresentation. You are either hopelessly dense or a congenital liar--and "duh" doesn't cut it.

      P.S. You tried the same trick with Vlatko.

    32. The concepts I'm presenting are probably new to the TDF staff and friends and most likely the reason for the "I don't get it" responses. My attempts to explain them should not be confused with trolling, lieing, trickery, etc. They are not blatantly obvious concepts: "Subjective Evidence/Proof"; "Any claim is subject to the burden of proof (even claims of absence)"; "Subjective Evidence/Proof to an individual can outweigh Objective evidence/proof"; "Methodological Naturalism, commonly shortened to the word 'science', is not an authority on the existence or non-existence of a Creator/Being"; "The claim 'there is no evidence of a Creator/Being' is the fallacy 'absence of evidence is the evidence of absence' because 1) no attempt at acquiring said evidence has taken place and 2) no attempt at avoiding the above fallacy has been demonstrated" [this claim does appeal to ignorance but is ok with that as this is an easy claim to disprove...simply show the scientific work/process done]; "Methodological Naturalism can possibly claim that if a Creator/God exists such a being probably exists outside nature...this has been the same subjective observation of Theists for millennia."

    33. What a conceited way to cover up the unintelligibility and vacuity of your ideation. You must really have an inflated opinion of yourself to believe that you are presenting anything that the "TDF staff" is not equipped to understand--and it's laughable how you bring what you consider novelty into the picture. I suggest you conduct a Google search on delusional.

    34. I'll repeat it again, insulting me doesn't do you any good. If you understand it then stop claiming you don't. And why not intelligently reflect upon my claim (and concepts) instead of troll.

    35. That's the thing. All of us have intelligently reflected upon your claims and the result is the laughter and derision which you so richly deserve. If you feel insulted, you realize you have an option.

    36. Copy/Paste your reflection about my claim robertallen1. I somehow missed it.

    37. No, you go back through the comments.

    38. Ok everyone let's examine what I'm about to say...


      Question: Who has the burden of proof for this statement? Me? Or Robertallen1?

    39. @TopDocRocks,

      Science doesn't care about your God... directly. However while doing the usual everyday business it regularly stumbles upon clues that suggest that no God is needed for what we observe.

      The burden of proof is always on you since you make the original claim that God exists.

    40. "No God is needed for what we observe" that's what I've been saying. And this observation points to the nature of a Creator/God if one exists...and that is; if a Creator/God exists it doesn't exist in nature. It points to other things if a Creator/God exists such a beings interaction with our space/time has not been on a fantasy/magic level and more on a...well natural level actually. There's a lot that can be inferred from such an observation. And jumping to "Well such a being just does not exist at all" is not the smartest of the inferences.

      Now for the love of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens please OBESERVE that I KEEP saying "if" when I talk about what science can infer about a possible Creator/God (there again the word Possible)...and that I HAVE NOT claimed that such a being exists...AND THEREFORE I DO NOT HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR A CLAIM I HAVE NOT MADE!!!!!!!! Man you are vexing Vlatko...I swear you are trolling me....

    41. Talk about vexing. That's like pot calling the kettle half-baked.

      And now you're trying a different tack, but it still involves lying. You never stated anything like no god is needed for what we observe.

    42. @TopDocRocks,

      If someone is trolling here, that is certainly you. Don't shift the burden again (pun intended).

      Science does not care about your God. Don't you get it. It will never investigate your God because it is not falsifiable.

      Edit: If you want your God investigated and proved, you'll have to do it yourself and present the evidence to others. In the meantime lot of people (in fact all people outside of your religion) will not believe in your God.

    43. Vlatko,


      As of 2005(most recent data)
      approx. 88% of world's population believes in God.

      This is down from 96% in 2000.

      In the U.S. 95% of the population believe in God.
      (Source: wiki)

      Read and weep Vlatko.

      Collective wisdom or mass delusion ?

    44. @Emanouel,

      Is that suppose to be a proof or something. Why should I weep? Don't be silly.

      I guess you're not aware that you're making an argument from Popularity. Ask your friend @TopDocRocks. He knows that very well.

    45. Vlatko,

      When I said "read and weep" (the data), I meant it in a humorous way, given I know that you are an atheist. Didn't mean to disrespect you.

      Why did you say that I am making an argument from Popularity?
      I was merely reproducing data. Does reproducing data mean I am trying to make some kind of argument? I was not trying to make any argument. I simply provided some statistics and posed a question to you (which you did not care to answer).

      So, I will kindly ask you again, given 88% of the global population believes in a God, in your opinion, is this collective wisdom or mass delusion?

    46. @Emanouel,

      Yes, you're making argument from popularity.

      It would have been some sort of collective wisdom if all those 88% believed in one religion.

      But since those 88% believe in thousands of different Gods and are persistently trying to exterminate each other, I would say they're dangerously deluded.

    47. What an interesting thought. Suppose all the religees ended up exterminating each other--that would certainly show who was right.

    48. Now who's being dishonest?

      The study pertained to the belief in God; the study asked nothing of religious orientation.

      88% of the world are not "persistently trying to exterminate each other"

      Who is the truly deluded one ?

    49. @Emanouel,

      Fact 1: Those 88% believe in many different Gods, and constantly quarreling who's right and who's wrong.

      Fact 2: Religious intolerance is one of the main reasons for war among nations and ethnic groups.

      Fact 3: Different religions are trying to exterminate each other for centuries.

      Conclusion: I doubt there is collective wisdom there.

    50. So if enough people believe in something, there's your proof that it's right. For your information, there is no such thing as collective wisdom, but there is certainly such a thing as mass delusion and religion is a fine example.

    51. I am really disappointed with those numbers I really thought we would have more then that. :(

    52. I highly doubt those facts are right... I literally dont know anyone in my school that believes in god. Saying it and believing it are different. I took my first communion and I was laughing inside the whole time. Collective wisdom? from who? 95% of people in the US believe something that a couple of Arab guys wrote in a different language 2000 years ago, before science or the scientific method. Its the same thing as the Native Americans believing the sun was their god except your parents didnt tell you that when you were 3. :)

    53. @TopDocRocks,

      Now how about answering the questions we've been asking you:

      1. Do you believe in a Celestial Teapot?
      2. In which God, out of 28,000 do you believe?

    54. "Subjective Proof: "Bigfoot exists. I was kidnapped by some.""

      not proof.

      "Subjective Evidence: "There must be a mistake, he'd never do such a thing! I've know him. He's not a murder.""

      not evidence.

      subjective opinions are not evidences or proofs.

    55. Objective: robertallen1 made the claim "There is no such thing as subjective proof."

      Subjective: robertallen1 makes some pretty bold claims.

      Objective Proof: "Pandas exist. They're even in zoos to go look at."

      Subjective Proof: "Bigfoot exists. I was kidnapped by some."

      Objective Evidence: "Mam, your husband has been charged with murder. His fingerprints are on the murder weapon."

      Subjective Evidence: "There must be a mistake, he'd never do such a thing! I've know him. He's not a murder."

      Everything about this is totally wrong. What planet are you on dude? Srsly.

    56. I also don't believe in fairies because no adequate proof has been offered. Do I have to prove that there is no adequate proof? As idiotic as evidence of absence . . .

    57. Yes you do. You need to show the evidence for your claim that there is an absence of evidence of fairies. So that the absence of evidence of fairies (you looked for evidence of fairies but couldn't find any) is actually evidence of absence (and so therefore there really are no fairies) and not merely absence of evidence (but you might have missed something in your searching and calculations).

      The context here is "Burden of Proof" (not scientific proof...I'd be really impressed of someone were to use the comments section of TDF to scientifically prove something).

      You aren't enlightening anyone if you simply expect others to take your word for it that there is no evidence of fairies. And I know you know this as I haven't seen you appeal to yourself as an authority on anything yet with a "trust me" style claim.

      A good reason it's important for you to show how and why you are convinced that there is no evidence of fairies is not just so your claim has more validity but also so that others can connect the dots for themselves (like you have).

      And that is the best you can do...simply show why you are convinced that there is no evidence. To try and claim you have a grasp of truth above and beyond what you're currently convinced of (that there is no evidence of fairies) is to cross over into actual scientific research on the subject and to go through the entire scientific process of searching for evidence of fairies (and I highly doubt anyone is using the comments section of TDF to do that).

      Just because it is difficult to prove (philosophically scientifically or otherwise) that there is an absence of evidence (because absence of evidence doesn't automatically mean evidence of absence) doesn't mean you are free from the burden of proof when you claim there is absence of evidence.

      And you know this. Which is why you back up your claim of "absence of evidence" instead of simply expecting us to take your word for it.

      Unfortunately appealing to ignorance with, "Well prove that fairies exist if I'm wrong" doesn't actually back up your claim that there is an absence of evidence for fairies.

      What would back up your claim (that there is evidence of an absence of evidence) is expressing what you've done to look for said evidence, that you didn't find any evidence (with your evidence of such a "finding" of no findings), and why your findings are not merely an absence of evidence (demonstrate that you've covered all the angles and haven't missed anything).

    58. In your first post, you said:

      "I haven't watched this documentary yet...[but] my 2 cents is that Atheism is not scientific any more than Theism is scientific."


      1. You haven't watched the documentary yet and therefore have no knowledge of its content.

      2. You are claiming that both belief and lack of belief in a deity are unscientific in nature.

      Is that the TL;DR?

    59. 1. comment is not about this documentary...and I've pre-apologized if the topic of my comment is mis-posted.

      2. No...I'm claiming that an appeal to "science" (Methodological Naturalism) as an athority on the existence or non-existence of a Creator/God is a fallacy. I've explained why...but in short it's this: Science doesn't make claims about what doesn't exist (currently...due to our lack of ability to effectively prove such claims at this time). And because "science" can't falsify the existence of a Creator/God being right now it has to stay ignorance/silent on such an issue (the issue of the existence of a Creator/God being) until it can. In the mean time it can say, based on it's observations of what it real and does exist, that if such a being exists such a being is probably not part of nature (as science currently understands nature). And it is most likey this observation that has led Atheists to jump to the conclusion that such a being must not exist at all. But such a conclusion both is a jump to make (because a Creator/God could exist in a part of time/space that we have not observed yet or could exist outside of time/space altogether...the latter being most probable due to the supernatural qualities a Creator/God would most likely need to have in order to qualify as the Creator) and is also not a scientific claim.

    60. Cut to the chase. Just how do you propose determining whether this entity exists--and a direct answer, please.

      P.S. You still haven't answered anyone's questions, such as whether you believe in fairies and if you do, prove their existence and if you don't, explain why and provide proof that they don't--is it that you can't practice what you preach? Is it that you can't write around this question or those posited by Over the Edge?

    61. I'm not sure about fairies. I haven't investigated the evidence.

      Whatever point you're trying to make about Fairies perhaps try and make it differently robertallen1.

      To determine for yourself if this entity exists...ask Him/Her/It/Them for "proof."

      If such an entity's a totally fair and reasonable request. We're talking about a very plausible cause agent for the origin of the Universe...not a made up "spaghetti monster." And a cause agent that would have the powers to comprehend your request for proof and give it. If it created the universe, it can't be that big a deal to grant your request that it prove its existence to you robertallen1.

      And quite realistically that's probably the most acute way of acquiring the subjective "proof" you are looking for (but again sorry no objective proof...not in your lifetime).

      If you actually want such subjective proof that is. Be aware that subjective proof is more exacting than objective truth. One can always ignore objective proof. Do you want subjective proof of the existence of the Creator/God robertallen1?

      No shame in saying no.

    62. @TopDocRocks:

      lol, For chr1st sakes! what is with all the double talk, as the still great Jack Nicholson said,..."people that talk in metaphors oughta' shampoo my crotch"!

    63. Achems_Razor has joined the conversation...what is it you're finding difficult to follow? Ask away....

    64. @TopDocRocks,

      Do you actually read what you write?

      "You need to show the evidence for your claim that there is an absence of evidence of fairies."

      The fact that there is no evidence is the very evidence for absence of evidence.

      You're actually looking for evidence for the absence of evidence? What about the absence of evidence for the absence of evidence? Or evidence for the absence of evidence for the very absence of evidence? We can go even further with this Reductio ad absurdum.

    65. No it's not a fact Vlatko. What you just said there, "the fact that there is no evidence is the very evidence for absence of evidence" is a fallacy. Here is the fact about absence of evidence...allow me to quote Wikipedia (a common source that we can all easily find); "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Evidence of this kind is not to be confused with mere ignorance, and the traditional axiom warns that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

      In order to progress out of the fallacy "The absence of evidence for Fairies is the evidence that Fairies are absent" it must be shown that and how one has looked for Fairies; that and how one has looked for evidence; that and how one has not found evidence, and that and how one has avoided as much as possible the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

      Robertallen1 has not yet communicated to us in this conversation that he has or how he has looked for evidence of Fairies. Therefore he still stands guilty of the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." He has also used as evidence for his claim the fallacy of "Appeal to Ignorance" in requesting me to prove him wrong if in fact he is wrong. That's two fallacies.

      If Fairies really do not exist one must show how they really do not exist. And not commit the double fallacy of "there's no evidence of fairies...prove there's fairies if I'm wrong."

      If there really is no evidence of Fairies one should be able to easily show that there is no evidence.


      The answer is no.

      It isn't easy to show that there is no evidence of Fairies. This is very difficult to do. But yet all too often we've become lazy and instead of doing our homework on how to communicate something that doesn't exist really doesn't exist, we instead switch the burden of proof with an appeal to ignorance and ask others to prove us wrong. Everyone knows that is an easier task...showing evidence of something vs showing evidence that something isn't there (and certainly it's easier for us who believe there is no evidence of Fairies). But homework or none...the burden of proof still lies with us to show that there is no evidence (if we go about making such a claim). This is why Scientists don't go about trying to prove things don't exist vs proving that things that do exist actually's just way to much energy and time to go about proving things don't exist.

      It can be done though. And my challenge to Robetallen1 and anyone who wants to take up this challenge is to show how there really is no evidence of Fairies. Let's establish to all readers how to communicate that we have avoided the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

    66. @TopDocRocks,

      You didn't show how God or Fairies are falsifiable at this moment. That is the starting point of you assumptions, which is fallacious. If something is not falsifiable, there is no way to gather evidence for its existence or non existence anyway, therefore your argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not usable.

      You're turning upside down the argument of shifting the burden of proof. Just double-shift it and hope to get away with it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It doesn't because I don't originally make the claim the Fairies don't exist. Don't forget that the original claim is that they do exist and I simply don't agree with that because at this moment they're not falsifiable, and therefore no evidence can be extrapolated for their existence.

      As I've said your main error is that you assume that Fairies are falsifiable, but they're not. You've tried to remedy that with one false analogy about a non existent dog in a room, and when that failed you've tried to escape by saying that Fairies might be falsifiable in future. Plus the Reductio ad absurdum fallacy if your opponent just decides to triple-shift the burden of proof.

      Sorry but those are massive errors. As if you struggle to reinvent the basic logic.

    67. Vlatko you do realize that we are saying the same thing right?

      That the Creator/God is not falsifiable (not now at least) and therefore it is stupid for "science" to make any claims about such a beings existence (currently)...that it either exists or does not exist...because the claim of of it's existence or the claim of non-existence are both scientifically unfalsifiable claims (right now)?

      Let's agree to agree.

    68. @TopDocRocks,

      No we are not saying the same thing. You struggle to reinvent basic logic. The argument is very simple:

      Deist: There is God.
      Atheist: Prove it.
      Deist: I can't, it is not falsifiable. It is subjective.
      Atheist: If that is the case I don't believe in your God. There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist.

    69. Vlatko: A God being is not falsifiable.
      TopDocRocks: A God being is not falsifiable now.

      How are we in disagreement?

      Deist: There is God.
      Atheist: Prove it.
      Deist: I can't, it is not falsifiable. It is subjective.
      Atheist: If that is the case I don't believe in your God. There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist.
      Deist: Good. I wouldn't want you to take my word for it. Find your own subjective evidence.

      How are we in disagreement?

    70. @TopDocRocks,

      We are talking about what is falsifiable now, not what it will be. We are arguing now at this moment. We are not in a time warp.

      You want me to find my own "subjective evidence" for YOUR God that YOU claim to be true.

      Subjective evidence is not verifiable by a third party, therefore it is only an opinion (knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states).

      The conversation is again simple. You don't need the last line (that you've added just for the sake of arguing).

      Deist: There is God.
      Atheist: Prove it.
      Deist: I can't, it is not falsifiable. It is subjective.
      Atheist: If that is the case I don't believe in your God. There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist.

    71. Yes I've agreed with everyone else on here and now you too Vlatko...subjective evidence is not objective evidence.

      Anyone disagree with that? Everyone (Sarcastic_Drew, Epicurus, Over The Edge, robertallen1, Achems_Razor, Vlatko) seems to think that needs to be made clear. Anyone not clear on that? Subjective evidence is NOT objective evidence.

    72. @TopDocRocks,

      Nope you're twisting the words. Here is what I've said:

      Subjective evidence is not evidence of any kind at all. It is only an opinion (knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states).

    73. Evidence that is subjective is evidence to the person who holds such evidence. The person kidnapped by bigfoot has lots of evidence that bigfoot exists (evidence for them that is). It's not objective evidence. But it is evidence. No, you are wrong. Evidence that is subjective (subjective evidence) is evidence. The subjective evidence of the kidnapped convinces them without any doubt that bigfoot exists. It is evidence. It is just not objective evidence. We agree: evidence that is subjective is not objective evidence [if you insist we disagree than you are wrong...evidence that is subjective is evidence of a kind...using your own words...I've simply clarified what kind it is not...that is not Objective evidence].

    74. @TopDocRocks,

      No we don't agree. I don't know why are you repeating that all the time. It won't help you to win the argument.

      You say subjective evidence is only evidence to the person who holds such evidence. But that is argument from personal experience. And indeed your "subjective evidence" is personal experience, an anecdote, an opinion.

      Ahhh... I don't know why I even bother. This conversation is futile.

    75. So don't bother. You're rude.

    76. Your rude? you say to Vlatko, I presume you are male, if so why don't you grow a pair? If you are female...or? then you are forgiven by default.

    77. Speaking of rude, a good thing there isn't many females reading your last blog. Hey, don't sweat it though, here is some really rude comments, just in the last hour from one guy.

      1) That's the thing. All of us have intelligently reflected upon your claims and the result is the laughter and derision which you so richly deserve. If you feel insulted, you realize you have an option. - Robertallen1
      2) Not only are you delusional, but you support the concept of being delusional.
      3) That you're a deluded fool for one thing.
      4) We don't agree on any of this and your statements are a complete misrepresentation. You are either hopelessly dense or a congenital liar--and "duh" doesn't cut it.

      Is this the "primary importance of moral principles" you were describing to me? (In one word - hipocracy)

    78. What do females have to do with it? And the correct spelling is hypocrisy.

    79. @awful_truth,

      True, that is from the last hour or so, which means after your "friend" @TopDocRocks heated the atmosphere. In other words your friend was heavily trolling - trying to provoke an emotional response from the crowd, and he succeeded.

    80. Vlatko you said you were not trying to troll me....

    81. @Vlatko -Come on Vlatko, really? Take a look over the last month, and you will find this to be Robertallen1's norm. Furthermore, I don't know TopDocRocks from any of you. You could all be friend, or foe, regardless of religious ideology. (or lack there of) Am I to believe that the only 'friends' you have are those who don't have a potential for spirituality?

    82. What does your last question have to do with anything?

    83. @TopDocRocks,

      Maybe, but what else is left when you refuse to consider basic logic. You're going on in circles, inventing definitions that don't exist, plastering strawman all the time. It is just annoying.

    84. Yes we agree: "And indeed your 'subjective evidence' is personal experience, an anecdote, an opinion." That is no different than: "subjective evidence" is not objective evidence.

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

      This is why subjective evidence is evidence for the individual that has it. The person kidnapped by Bigfoot can make the assertion "It was a dream" or "It was a delusion" or "It was a prank" or "it really happened" and/or "Bigfoot are real." Each of these assertions will be weighed against the evidence the kidnap victim was exposed to. All the evidence in the experience is objective to the kidnap victim. But it becomes subjective to the hearers that the kidnap victim tells the experience to. The most plausible assertion can be determined (both by the victim and with the help of others). But it will be up to the victim to decide for themselves which assertion they will believe is most accurate. And without objective evidence this decision is subjective.

      This "subjective" experience (which results in subjective evidence to us who didn't experience the same event) doesn't mean that the victim did not experience it, or that the victim can't have proof for themselves, or that it didn't happen, or that the victim can't claim they have evidence that convinces them (subjective evidence), or that the evidence the victim experienced is not evidence of any kind. It is most definitely evidence of a kind...of a kind that will most likely make a believer in Bigfoot out of the victim...but sadly that can not make a believer out of us who lack that experience.

      Subjective Evidence/Experiential's similar...and valid, real, and true for the person experiencing it

    85. @TopDocRocks,

      So you agree that 'subjective evidence' is personal experience, an anecdote, an opinion. Good, we've established that.

      Now to continue with the circle. If we follow the line of your reasoning then you have to admit that your God exists only in YOUR subjective realm and you can't prove it outside of it.

      If that is the case it is not falsifiable, except if you invent another term here (subjective falsifiability), which will of course mean nothing.

      Therefore, an atheist, and pretty much everyone else outside of your religion, will not believe in your God for the reasons outlined above.

      Now, please answer this question: Do you believe in Celestial Teapot?

    86. What are you trying to prove to me Vlatko?

      Just tell me what you hope to convince me of. Then try to convince me of it.

      I'm not doing the "you're Jesus and I'm your disciple...ask me lots of questions until I get it" thing.

      Otherwise I'm afraid I have to admit I'm not on the same page as you. I was trying to discuss the "What science observes about God...or can infer by what it has not observed" page.

      But I might switch to your page if you clarify what that page is (seeing as no one wants to be nice and talk about the page I want to discuss...arg...perhaps I'll be the nice guy and talk about the page they want to discuss).

      What are you trying to convince me of Vlatko?

    87. @TopDocRocks,

      Of course I'll not convince you of anything. How do you expect me to convince you on a comment board. You're already convinced, there is nothing much I can do about it.

      We are still on the same page. Can you answer the question: Do you believe in Celestial Teapot?

    88. If you don't have the confidence or skill to claim what it is you intend to convince me of then stop pretending like you have something worth saying. Man up with your intentions now. Or go back to the drawingboard and get back to me when you can.

    89. @TopDocRocks,

      Now you're rude. Confidence, skill... Jesus.

      I want to hear your answer about the Celestial Teapot and compare it to what we were arguing so far about your God.

    90. TopDocRocks
      i will try again. since we both referred to "Russel's Teapot" in previous posts i will assume we agree on it's premise (correct me if i am wrong). quote from Bertrand Russell "if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." do we agree? but unless science changes its core tenants of finding natural causes/explanations for natural phenomena and if it shifted its concern to the supernatural why bother calling it science? do you agree? does this designer/creator have any testable demonstrable manifestations within the areas we are at the present able to test? if so what are they if not how do i go about gathering demonstrable proof? i agree that someone who has experienced god/bigfoot/aliens and so on honestly believes it and they may be right. but that is not anything i can base a conclusion on. people have honestly experienced a multitude of gods (by definition of many gods there is only one) most of these claims seem to be made by otherwise intelligent sane people. so how am i to decide based on the subjective? how am i to test every claim made by billions of people throughout history? the approach i have taken is to not believe any of them til they provide something i can actually test for myself. i will even go as far to say that i feel that many of the posters here agree with me in stating." i do not claim that a creator/designer does not exist only that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that one does". also the explanations that i have been given for many questions of the origins of the universe/life/everything does not require a creator. if someone gives me a religious creator then (if it is a religion i am familiar enough with) i will make claims. i do not make the argument of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" only that "absence of evidence is absence of evidence".

    91. But you're being sensible. Now, watch old TopDoc either skirt your questions, avoid them altogether, try to jibber-jabber them away or lay on you some new onus which just happens to pop into his "mind."

    92. Why do you even believe in a god? and as over the edge stated which of the 28 000 000 gods do you believe in?

    93. What are you getting at PillowhandsMcgraw? State your intent.

    94. I have no intent, but would like to know which god you chose to worship and why that particular one over the others as there is many choices, i feel overwhelmed thinking off all the gods that are out there.

    95. If you have no intent...move along.

    96. @TopDocRocks,

      Why should he move along? He asked you a simple question and he explained why he is asking that.

      Being rude again?

    97. Thank you vlatko. nice to see civility on a side note thanks much for the great docus, and even more for your comments. I came to this site for docus specifically but i spend more time reading the comments. lol.

    98. The civility is fleeting. But don't take my word for it. Experience things for yourself. And make your own conclusions. I received no such welcome. You are lucky.

      I've been trying to discuss my recent 2+2 that "Science" (real name is Methodological Naturalism) can infer that the Creator/God is not a part of nature (which gives us insight into the nature of a being the likes of a Creator/God...namely that such a being is not part of nature...and probably couldn't be?).

      I currently feel jaded due to some of the unkind and unwelcoming behavior/comments from the TDF staff and some of their friends. Your question is ill timed. Perhaps if you will open up and share what God you believe in/prefer I'd open up too.

      Welcome to TDF. Despite the drama the docs are good.

    99. Why is it so important to you to know "what God he believes in?" You don't even know him and you're already asking him something highly personal. If he wants you to know he'll tell you. Now, that's rude.

    100. What a nice double standard robertallen1...PillowhandsMcgraw can ask me "What God" I believe in...that's not rude...but when I ask PillowhandsMcgraw the same question (that PillowhandsMcgraw asked me first) MY question is rude?

      Come on robertallen1...hide your hate on for me a little better.

    101. Let's get this straight. Pillowhands asked you about statements you had made. On the other hand, you asked him what god he believed in which, considering he had made no statements about a deity, seemed awfully nosey AND RUDE!

    102. Yes let's get this straight:

      PillowhandsMcgraw - "and as over the edge stated which of the 28 000 000 gods do you believe in?"

      robertallen1 - "Why is it so important to you to know "what God he believes in?" You don't even know him and you're already asking him something highly personal. If he wants you to know he'll tell you. Now, that's rude."

      There you have it PillowhandsMcgraw, robertallen1 says you were rude to me by asking "what god he believes in." But I don't care. i didn't think your question was rude PillowhandsMcgraw. It was just ill timed. You can see the kind of Trolling I've been dealing with. My walls were up. You're cool PillowhandsMcgraw.

    103. Crying the blues to a new poster. Running to him with your pululations, trying to get him on your side.

      Pillowhands, let me apologize to you for TopDocRocks, he simply hasn't grown up.

    104. robertallen1...say that to my face =D

    105. I already have.

    106. Noob.

    107. I do not believe in any god but I was still willing to hear what you had to say or your experience that brought you to that conclusion.

      By the way my two cents IF god existed wouldn't you expect to see him in all of nature. I mean he is omnipresent.

    108. Good question PillowhandsMcgraw...and this would be expected of something that is of nature. But something that is not of nature...and responsible for having created nature...could nature even contain such a thing? Is it logical to expect a being that created time/ exist within time/space? Is it logical for a computer live in the motherboard and programing. To the computer the computer designer could be omnipresent...but the computer would never "see" the designer (uber bad analogy...don't flame me for it).

      And perhaps the omnipresence of the Creator/God IS space? is the expressed?

      Good question PillowhandsMcgraw.

    109. yaaa.. pretty bad analogy lol.

      And perhaps the omnipresence of the Creator/God IS space?

      I can't really argue that point I mean if there were a god it should be expected but it is all really just subjective opinions and that's what it all comes down to.

      P.S. i find the idea of an omnipresent god pretty creepy..

    110. And what would a sensitive to your notion that an omnipresent God is creepy do?

      Probably not show you he/she/it/they/them are everywhere? No?

      Is that not what "Science" is observing? No god everywhere?

      Seems that would be one way to avoid everyone thinking it's creepy....

    111. "And what would a sensitive to your notion that an omnipresent God is creepy do?" That not only sounds creepy, it's unintelligible.

    112. There seems a lot you don't grasp robertallen1. No shame in that. But weird to portray such a grasp on truth and yet often find simple things so unintelligible.

    113. And judging from that unintelligible sentence, a lot you don't either.

    114. And omnipotence and omniscience don't have much going for them either. Do you think God can trisect an angle using just compass and straightedge? Do you think God has the proof of the Goldbach conjecture in his mind?

    115. They have nothing going for them.. and hey you never know with the right straight edge.. lol the things you could come up with. Does he know how many sides to a circle?

      And what about omnibenevolence and the atrocities he people to commit. This site has opened my eyes to the bible and the twisted logic needed to believe such claims as fact.

    116. I bet a Moebus band would simply floor him.

      You're off to a good start. Please keep posting regularly.

    117. I surely will as i am on here close to everyday. I will now bid you adieu as it is getting late hope to see you all another day.

    118. Have a good night. Don't believe Fallacies. Cheers.

    119. Depending on the strength of the Mobius Strip (not sure what is a Moebus band) and if it is sufficiently snagged on to a floor surface it is quite possible to be floored by one if stepped into wrongly.

    120. Well good on you for believing propaganda.

    121. @Pillowhands,

      Yeah, a omnipresent god would be a horny voyeuristic Mother f*****, imagine, psycho gods in all the bedrooms of the world, sees how all the other sentient beings in this and other universes, dimensions, realities, multiverses, do it?

    122. Being omniscient, god really doesn't need to--so maybe he is horny and voyeuristic after all.

    123. He might like Uranus

    124. Vlatko are you trying to troll me into responding to you or others in such a way so as to justify banning me or someting similar?

    125. @TopDocRocks,

      You're being rude again. No I have no such intentions.

      @PillowhandsMcgraw explained why he is asking the question and so did I (but I still didn't get the answer). There is no reason to command him to move along.

    126. Wow. ok. Tried being polite i was really just curious as to why you chose your god, that didn't work.. never going to do that again.

    127. When I get an answer to why there is no evidence of God from robertallen1, or what is Vlatko's intention, or even some actual comments to my claim about what science can infer about the Creator/God (and not trolling)...perhaps I'll be more interested in answering your question. But for me to just up and answer it...well that's just not fair at this point.

    128. I had absolutely no contact with them previous how do you know I feel the same way perhaps we could have had a valid discussion but you've thrown that out the window.

    129. Don't feel daunted. Full speed ahead. Give him a broadside.

    130. How many times do you have to be told not order others about?

    131. Perhaps it's a committee.

    132. Subjective Evidence/Experiential's similar...and valid, real, and true for the person experiencing it

      So very, very wrong. Experimental evidence can be observed by others and tested again by others. Subjective evidence doesn't even exist let alone placing it on the same level as experimental evidence.

    133. RIght you are.

      P.S. Where did you get your monniker?

    134. From a show called American Dad.. funny show he's a hobo who wrestles for food with pillows for hands. lol. By the way how long have you been posting on the site i see alot of robertallen?

      P.S. I'm a new poster but I've been watching docus and reading posts for awhile now finally decided it was time to start engaging as i share the same views as a lot of the regular posters of the site.

    135. It's like a bad habit or even worse, a drug.

      Anyway, let me be the first to welcome you. Would you mind informing us of your areas of interest or specialties, education, etc.

    136. Thank you for the welcoming,I'm 21 I'd say for the past 2 years or so my only interest is science really anything to do with it but i thoroughly enjoy QM above all. I'm actually going back to school taking physics i just finished precal so i can hopefully go to university. I just had no idea what I wanted to do in high school and when I finished I took a year off to search I guess would be the term and ya fell in love with physics.

    137. Fine. Now you know what you want to do and I wish you the best in your study of physics. By precal, I assume you mean precalculus. Are you planning to go further in your mathematical studies?

    138. @PillowhandsMcgraw:

      Good for you, a scientist and QM proponent, don't take heed to @topdocrocks asking you what gods you believe in, you do "not" need to believe in any gods, and none of his business anyway.

      Welcome to TDF.

    139. There is no objective evidence for the existence of "God."

      Even the most religious will admit this. You should too.
      But there is nothing wrong with faith. Faith is part of the human experience; a part of the human condition. Do we not have faith that we will live long, healthy lives? We cannot prove we will live long, healthy lives but we have faith that we will and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    140. "There is no objective evidence for the existence of 'god'" is a claim of absence. It is subject to the burden of proof. "Even the most religious will admit this" does not meet the burden of proof as this is the appeal to popular opinion fallacy. The burden of proof remains on you to support your claim of absence (of evidence). Where was the search for this evidence done? How was it done? When was it done? Who did the search? Why was the search done? How do we know we didn't miss anything? How was the evidence of no evidence demonstrated so as to avoid the fallacy "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? Where were the scientific findings of such a search published? Where can I get a copy of such published findings so I can examine it for myself?

      Is your claim even a scientific claim?

    141. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that, during past millenia, man has searched for objective evidence for the existence of "God."
      Further, if any objective evidence had been uncovered, I'm sure we would all have been made aware of it.

    142.'s your assumption. Wanted to clear that up. Thought you were trying to state a Scientific claim/fact .

      If you were lucky to have followed what I've been saying (before Achems_Razor censored a good portion of my comments out) you'd have seen that I have been pointing out something similar. I can not claim it is scientific to state "there is no objective evidence for God" (I've pointed out why with my last post to you). But I can claim it's reasonable for "science" to point out that if a Creator/God exists it most likely does not exist in nature (something Theists have been subjectively observing for millenia).

      This is quite interesting as if this claim is accurate (that "science" can say this) it is objective evidence of the nature of God (not of the existence of God...only about what KIND of being a Creator/God would be...a non-natural being). Very interesting. Interesting that "Science" can comment on the nature of a Creator/God without being able to comment on the existence of such a being. But this is not new for "science." This happens all the time in Crypto Zoology (evidence of the nature of an animal before science can claim it exists). Very interesting to me.

    143. @TopDocRocks,

      Cryptozoology is not a recognized discipline of science. It is an example of pseudoscience because it relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings. - Wiki

      Cryptozoology pretty much resembles your arguments.

    144. So you rely on a pseudoscience for your "information." Why is it I'm not surprised.

    145. I find it interesting like you, but it is speculation nonetheless?

    146. Well of course it's speculation.

    147. @TopDocRocks,

      You make the claim that God exists, not the other side. Remember the conversation. Stick to it. Don't pretend that people deny your God out of blue. You make the claim, others follow:

      Deist: There is God.
      Atheist: I don't believe that. Prove it.
      Deist: I can't, it is not falsifiable. It is subjective. I have no objective evidence. I only have personal experience and opinion. You might want to search for your own personal experience and opinion and find God for yourself.
      Atheist: Nah, I need objective empirical evidence. That is what I trust the most. Therefore I will not believe in your God. There is no evidence therefore it doesn't exist.

    148. @Vlatko: There is another side to that coin.
      Athiest: there is no god.
      Deist. I don't believe that, prove it.
      Athiest: I can't, because it is an issue of faith, and beyond the realm of scientific proof.
      Deist: Then don't speak of certainty regarding issues that extend beyond your self limiting explanations.

      Any questions???

    149. @awful_truth,

      There is no other side. Atheists do not make the original claim, therefore your argument is fallacious.

      If you didn't say there is God in the first place, I couldn't say that there is none. Simple, isn't it.

    150. "No Atheists claim there is no God."

      Let me put your back up against a wall and see if your claim still holds Vlatko (see how I stated my intent right then and there?): Vlatko is there a God?

    151. @TopDocRocks,

      Yes, you've stated the intent that you're about to troll again. Anyhow the answer to your question is: I don't know. (see how I answered your question immediately without whining... unlike you).

      Now, do you believe in Celestial Teapot?

    152. I don't know what is a Celestial Teapot. Who I am to say if it exists or not even if I knew what it was? I have to claim ignorance...just like Vlatko.

      Unlike you Vlatko I HAVE stated my intent. You have not stated yours (except to answer that you are not trolling me). Why are you asking me these questions and all that Vlatko?

      State again if you already have (I probably missed it).

      What is your intent with your questioning me?

    153. @TopDocRocks,

      I've stated my intent (You should keep up with the comments. It is apparent that you miss lot of the stuff).

      Here it is again: I want to hear your answer about the Celestial Teapot and compare it to what we were arguing so far about your God.

      However, since you've answered the question, I must continue my investigation with further questions: Why do you claim ignorance about the Celestial Teapot?

    154. yes...too many comments happen before I can finish what I've written.

      I'm lost...what were we arguing about the supposed God you claim I have?

    155. The great philosopher and theologian does not know what a celestial teapot is. The great philosopher and theological can't look it up. The great philosopher and theologian indicates that even if he know what it was he has no idea if it exists. The great philosopher and theologian is obviously unsure if anything exists whether he's heard of it or not. Did it ever occur to the great philosopher and theologician that such a thought-provoking statement might be Vlatko's intent in questioning the great philosopher and theologian?

    156. Vlatko can state his definition of a celestial teapot for me well enough. Stop trolling and stop being rude robertallen1.

    157. Once again, stop ordering people around. You claim to be such a philosopher and you don't know about Russell's Celestial Teapot. Says a lot about you.