Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence

Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence

Ratings: 6.45/10 from 129 users.

Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's ExistenceA ten-part series examining Christian apologist and radio talk show host Bob Dutko's Top 10 Proofs for the Existence of God. There are many failed arguments for God's existence but there is one which is fundamental to them all. This is the 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. In his reasoning, Bob uses some of the following arguments:

  1. Shifting the Burden of Proof - I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!
  2. Argument from Popularity - The vast majority of the world believes in God. This supports the universal truth that God is real, otherwise it makes no sense that so many people would believe.
  3. The Transcendental Argument - God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).
  4. Argument from Coercion - You must believe in God/Jesus. It's your only hope for salvation. We are all doomed if we don't accept Jesus as our personal savior. It says so in the Bible. If you want to live forever and avoid suffering, you must accept God.
  5. First Cause Argument - Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God. Also known as Cosmological Argument.
  6. Argument from Authority - God is real because the Bible (or whatever sacred text you believe in) says so. Why would so many people write so much about God if it wasn't true?
  7. Argument from Personal Experience - I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being.
  8. Argument from Improbability - The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.
  9. Pascal's Wager - It is a "safe bet" to believe in God just in case he is real. What's the harm? If you believe and he doesn't exist, you don't lose anything, but if you don't believe and he does exist, you lose big time.
  10. Argument from Design - If you found a watch on the ground, you never met the watchmaker, but you know from its design, the beauty of it; the way each piece was intricately designed to work together, that this watch had a creator. Theists point to the human body; the precise way each of our organs work with each other and claim it's the most amazing "creation" of all, and surely there was some sort of creator behind it.

More great documentaries

812 Comments / User Reviews

  1. You can be a very nice person help the poor and needy try to do your best to help the unfortunate people that is good and you don't have to believe any thing what I am saying you can do good to society just like the believer I just don't like the religious people fighting wars for over 2000 years in the name of god it's dose it matter if Jews or Christina or Muslim. They all wrong I rather have no god but pease
    We all tired of fighting because of the religions.
    The problem with this planet is To many religion.

  2. You the one saying there Is God the God and my job is to challenge you by saying prove it with solid evident not just a book any one can write what they want 2000 years ago you claim your god supports this with physical not just a story from man mad bible.
    There is many many god around the glob.
    Show me your god. It's a myth so is the catholic.

  3. A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.

    A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.

    The theory of evolution, for example, is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence in the form of cosmological, geophysical and archaeological research data, to name just a few relevant fields. Scientists have not only traced the evolution of species through skeletal records, but the earth itself, our solar system, the stars and galaxies can be “dated” through various scientific methods. This evidence appears to track the universe back about 13.7 billion years to a “Big Bang” event.

  4. Whether you believe or don't believe, who cares? The fact that your whole life is engulfed with tearing down something as personal as another human beings belief system depicts a very sad and lonely life filled with hate. Live and let live.

    1. Belief systems are unintelligent and deserve to be torn down.

    2. I see you believe that.

    3. why? you are making yourself somewhat of a "god" by dictating what is and isn't "intelligent" and what deserves demolition.

    4. Belief without anything substantial to support it is the acme non-intelligence.

    5. He's making himself into a supernatural-supervising being that created existence by stating an opinion ?

    6. Your posts are the most cogent answer.

    7. Are you insane. Religion has been a terrible influence on the earth for 2,000 years. The dark ages, you m*ron. So you think someone else's belief system that calls for the persecution of homosexuals, the oppression of women, the perversion of the science classroom with creationist bunkem - you think we should just live and let live, and accept all that? Religion is very evidently a massive fraud, that propogates mainly by telling little children that they must believe in a terrifying god who will punish them for eternity if they don't do this or that. You massive fu*king i*iot Bill. It is time mankind emancipates itself from the cult of death that is the abrahamic religions, and all religions for that matter.

    8. The term Dark Ages strangely has nothing to do with darkness religious or other wise. It is derived from a lack of empirical evidence to support a better understanding of the time. Live and let live. No absoultely not burn em all I say! I wonder if we should begin with you? Mmmm nice!

    9. We have plenty of empircal evidence from the Dark Ages, all of it arguing against you and everything you stand for.
      "Live and let live." What a dungload of hypocrisy coming from an ignorant proselytizer like you.

    10. Just wondering do you think you would use such terms to my face? I think not. Then I could show you my really nice side.

    11. I wouldn't hesitate. But keyboarded like the ex-con you are..

    12. Yes there is nothing like being an ex-con for making one feel ashamed of oneself. On the other hand there is nothing like conversing with a fool to make one feel greatful for knowing it. The only difference between us is reality. If you did speak to me face to face as you do on here you would be the first man in thirty years to have done so. Go figure.

    13. I have and the word troglodyte comes to mind.

    14. Do you mean Pythagoras or Plato! Couln't make my mind up which one you thought I may be like!

    15. More like santa's creepy cousin.

    16. He's now toast. Have you read the dialogue from about three hours ago between Achem and him?

    17. Yay! I just saw it mate, it brought a smile to my face. :)

    18. G'day Robert,
      Intelligent debate and or discussion may now again be possible, now that MR Kelly has gone to the TDF afterlife,

    19. With or without "jailbird" Kelly, intelligent discussion is possible.

    20. I agree however without him a more pleasant environment for discussion may entice others to participate in the forum without the annoyance of his distractions.

    21. Speaking of other potential posters, on the bright side, I am trying to persuade two people whom I "met" on another site to post here: one is a cell biologist who conducts post-doctoral research at Marine Biological Lab in Wood's Hole, Massachusetts and goes by the monniker Dr.Phil, the other a specialist in bioinformatics who goes by Darwinsbulldog. From their posts, it's obvious that they're the real things--and they just hate creationists. I suppose I should have informed the moderators of my attempts, but as they read and pass on all posts, this should serve as adequate notice.

    22. Creationists are easy to hate I agree. However the fact that any new member we the members bring in should stimulate more active discussions. I would not have been here without docomans recommendation and although I may overstep the mark at times, I do enjoy both the documentaries and the forums that follow.

    23. So you know docoman personally.
      I live in Los Angeles. Whether it's rural or urban depends on your point of view.

    24. Docoman has just told me he's had the privilege of him knowing me for about six and a half years.

      I refer to rural as in acreage and urban as in suburban living. I was born and bred on the on a farm (approx 1500 hect. or 3750 acres) so living on the land gave me an excellent opportunity to explore nature first hand from a very early age. So when creationist start rambling on about how it all began.

    25. I haven't had anything like your experience exploring nature first hand--I'm simply not an outdoors person, but I respect those like you and Docoman who have, scientifically that is. So I appreciate the information both of you have provided, especially on the outback.

      "Met" another potential poster, this one a retired staff scientist with a Ph.D. with 20+ years in cancer research, monniker Genes. Hopefully one of three to whom I have recommended TDF will come through.

    26. As I have mentioned in earlier post I could talk about Australia and its flora and fauna for hours.
      As my eldest boy has just undergone major surgery to remove a tumor from his brain I think I would enjoy conversing with your friend on a topic that has became some what more personnel

    27. The only comfort I can give you is to state that the same thing happened to my nephew.

      Like you, I'm hoping that Genes decides to post here.

      But some good news, Dr.Phil, the cell biologist at Marine Biological Lab has informed me that he has registered on this site. So I'm looking forward to his first post.

    28. That's grand looking forward to conversing with him.

      I think with any illness or injury the more positive you can be the chances of a better outcome are improved.

    29. Well done mate! They sound like very interesting people and I'm sure I'll enjoy reading and learning from them.

    30. As I informed your luntzman,Dr. Phil, the post-doctoral research biologist who works for Marine Biological Lab has indicated that he has just registered on this site. I'm sure we both look forward to his comments.

    31. Wow...i bet it's f*ckand beautiful!

    32. G'day oQ,

      Yes it is extremely beautiful as with the rest of Australia. I recommend everyone to visit and see the uniqueness and beauty for them selves.

    33. I never set foot in Australia, i was keeping it for my older days (coming fast,lol) as it is an easier country (continent) to visit than a few i have been in.
      Brazil is high on my list too, but who knows? the last few years i have become sedentary, and for the first time in many many years my passport is expired.
      I just put an older V70 Volvo (good shape) on the road, thinking it would be a super car to go down to South America, with a bed in the back and a tent for pop-up.

    34. Depending on what parts of Australia you plan on visiting the younger or younger at heart at least would be advisable as we are one of the harshes continents there is.

      I'm sure that the experience you will have down under will be something to treasure for the rest of your life. (as you may realize I'm an extremely proud Australian)

      I would like the chance to visit both north and south America for a vacation rather than my previous working trips as I've never had the chance to explore or experience the wonderful sites that are on offer. I have always had the desire to travel route 66 on a Fatboy (Harley Davidson bike), however I will have to wait a while now as I have a young son who started school this year.

    35. That sounds like a fun trip!! I'd love to see the Amazon. You're always welcome over this way too mate. ;)

    36. I...would SO love to see all the bikinis in Rio, my man. Sexiest city in the world, from what I hear.
      "CarnaVAL!!" *drums* La-bugada-bugada-bugada
      Shake them things, baby! :D

    37. I hear ya mate!! It's pretty high on my bucket list too. ;)

    38. The land is.. not him ;)

    39. Robert may I be so rude in asking where do you live and is it rural or urban?

    40. Intelligent debate can be had in the presence of anyone. It is left to the one who thinks him/her self intelligent to fill his part if the opposant appear dumb.
      Insults often starts in the court of the self considered intelligent, who ever this one may (really) be.

    41. Although that may appear to be the case there is always exception so I have found.

      The person I was referring to had shown little or no respect to everyone during he time on this site.

    42. He seem to be a toast with a face, actually looking at his picture reminds me of an egg on a toast.
      Normally when people are thrown off, the photo gets replaced by the grey man that looks like the dot on an i.

    43. Ah, I see you are back trying to spread the virus of your religion, Hmm?

      Viruses of the mind...'Richard Dawkins'

    44. No religion here. Just plain straight forward insults.

    45. You're nothing without your religion--but again, you're nothing with it either.

    46. I see you are the first to start with the insults and threats, please stop! warning #number one!

    47. Dont make me laugh moderator. There are posts on this site which explicitly make reference to weapons and armaments. One post even cites a military round. 7.62 calibre round. Pathetic. Throw me off youll be doing me a favour.

    48. Your wish is my command, you are off!

    49. Soooo- you think it's wrong to persecute homosexuals and oppress women, right? You see it as morally wrong, correct? I would love to hear your explanation as to where your morals came from. Most animals don't give a crap about any sort of moral injustice. Where does this moral fiber in you come from?

    50. our morals are a product of our environment (family, society,experiences, and yes in some cases religion, and so on). we are also a product of evolution and we are a social species so caring for one another and punishing behavior that is harmful to our survival is selected for our species. i answered you so i request you do the same.

    51. Would love to hear where your moral fibers come from? Somehow I think I already know, but tell us anyway.

    52. Take the Golden Rule, for example. That covers a whole lot of moral ground, doesn't it? And it's also a precept throughout much of history in religions throughout the world, and is adhered to among most of the irreligious now, just like it has always been. Therefore, what makes you so sure that the god you worship must be the originator of it, as opposed to someone else's?

    53. Bill,

      I appreciate the simplicity and the graciousness of your live-and-let-live stance, but it's very flawed. Believing in magical thinking would be acceptable, I suppose, if it didn't also tend to cause negative consequences as a result of those beliefs. Of course, those negatives vary in degree. For example, genuflecting might not cause any discernible damage and it's well within one's liberty to do just that, but it's probably a waste of time and energy. However, witch-burnings, homo-hating, and the work of faith healers have done and do very real damage as does the less obvious damage done by believing that some invisible character is in charge of one's life.

      I won't call you names like the fellow below me did, but I do hope you see my point. In general, behavior and outcomes are improved when superstition and ignorance are replaced by reason and understanding.

      If you care to look into it, learn about an experiment B.F. Skinner did with pigeons. They began adopting ritualistic behavior because they began to believe that these behaviors were linked to them getting fed, but they weren't. The rituals did cause them to burn more calories and require that they be fed more often, though. There's a clear link between that ritualistic behavior in pigeons and the ritualistic/religious behavior that has developed in humans.

  5. It would be quite simple to flip this around and make a doc about the tired arguments used against God. The "emperor's new clothes" argument would likely be at the top. Science is fashionable. Or are you too dumb to understand it? Another is shown in this doc and many of the comments. I call it the "I know you are but what am I" argument. It is when you accuse the enemy of doing exactly what you do. Like the graphic on fb an athiest friend reposted with two choices, science and made up s*it with a checkmark beside science. The implication is that science is based on logic, facts and not faith. Ironically the more we study the more UNscientific we find science to be.

    1. There is no need for arguments against god. You can't prove a negative, the lack of evidence that something exists is proof that it does not. Saying you can't prove god doesn't exist is the most nonsensical argument ever, you can never prove something doesn't exist.

    2. Indeed, Glennjo, they create false parameters and then claim that it must be Science to prove their false imperatives Double Negation is their game, it is the last dangling string they all cling to in hopes that some Scientist or Skeptic will take their fake bait...and they make claims of the moral and ethical superiority while showing us complete intellectual dishonesty.

    3. Your argument that this documentary could easily be flipped around rings
      hollow. Let me digress for a moment. My teenaged son once argued to me
      that learning to play video games was just as much of an achievement as
      learning to play a musical instrument ... because more people play video
      games. I couldn't figure out where to begin dismantling his twisted

      Your logic is twisted too. Let me respond to your "science
      is fashionable" comment with some examples of helpful developments that
      sprang from the minds of science.

      1) Glass
      2) Plastic
      3) Steel
      4) Electricity
      5) Calculus/Trigonometry (helps figure stuff out!)
      6) Refrigeration
      7) Vaccinations
      8) Antibiotics
      9) Radar
      10) Lenses (eyeglasses/telescopes/microscopes)
      11) Chemistry (vs. alchemy)
      12) Transistors (unless you're Amish)
      13) Birth Control (unless you're Catholic)
      14) Chemotherapy (not 100% effective, but better than praying)
      15) Vulcanized Rubber (for vulcanized dicks, I guess)
      16) Farming technology (combines, disease-resistant plants)
      17) Digital technology (you're smartphone, PC, home alarm, you're CD player, home alarm, you're IPad,
      18) The Internet (greatest info-sharing device ... ever)
      19) Microwave technology (broadcasting, cooking, etc.)
      20) Pasteurization

      free to post a list of religious contributions that have occurred
      BECAUSE OF religion. Don't list things like "helping the needy," because
      plenty of non-believers do that too. I've taken the liberty of starting
      your list for you.

      1) Rain dances
      2) Sacrificial offerings
      3) Witch burnings & witch drownings
      4) Revealed truths (flat earth)
      5) Robes
      6) Sacraments
      7) Poorly conceived music with spooky lyrics
      8) Symbols
      9) Icons
      10) Ceremonial rituals (cross thyself after scoring)
      11) Special underwear (for Mormons)
      12) Bogus detectors (Scientology)
      13) Harassment of scientific inquiry (Galileo)
      14) False cosmologies (Geocentrism)
      15) Spirits
      16) Souls
      17) Devils
      18) Hells
      19) Heavens
      20) Miracles

    4. Just one suggested emendation, #5 on the science list. My first thought is to change calculus/trigonometry to mathematics, but then,mathematics is not science, for a logical proof differs from an empiric one. Perhaps #5 should be deleted, despite the vital role mathematics plays in the sciences.

    5. I agree. I winged it when I constructed that list. As such, my focus was on contrasting the tremendously positive contribution we have derived from scientific inquiry against the relative drag of assertions that are not to be tested (religion).

      I could have applied more rigor in constructing that list.


    6. Nonetheless, you did a good job at presenting your point. Notice this...not one answer from the other side (Religion/Faith) that would pass as even a nominal level of proper argument.

    7. Oh your'e a genius!
      I scarse know where to begin!
      Your brain is the size of a walnut!
      And your Pri*k is the size of a pin!


    8. More autobiography. I'll bet you use tweezers to masturbate.

    9. Your response is to construct an ad hominem attack? You've undoubtedly lost credibility with other readers.

    10. So, you have no credible reply so you just go straight to immature sarcasms? Let me get this right...your ANSWER to Glenn's challenge is the BIGGEST FAIL I have seen yet in this discussion/debate. I know teenagers that recognize proper argumentation and to their credit and to your discredit you show that you are not able to reply in accordance to proper argumentation. Please, do something. Start educating yourself and take some classes in Science and also watch debate teams and see that they would be booted for your form of reply. You, Sir, have shown your ignorance and we understand all too well that you seem to bask in it.

    11. WHAT? > "The implication is that science is based on logic, facts and not faith. Ironically the more we study the more UNscientific we find science to be." < WHAT? That MEANS that YOUR study isn't scientific! Meanwhile, Scientists continue to make more and more discovery about the Universe. You are inferring that "unknowns" must equal "God did it!". What a fail in logic! See, if you understood Science you would not even make such an uneducated statement.

  6. Over_the_Edge - and, of course, everyone
    There is a new video on You Tube entitled "Ken Comfort." You might wish to consider posting a link to it as I'm certain that it will be of general interest.

  7. A ten-part series examining Christian apologist and radio talk show host Bob Dutko’s Top 10 Proofs for the Existence of God.

    There are many failed arguments for God’s existence but there is one which is fundamental to them all. This is the 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. In his reasoning.

    agnoia (??????) ignorance

    Given that this ten point plan of [failed] arguments has at its root a claim that ignorance forms the basis for arguments put forward by [many] christians I thought it might be interesting to just ask a question.

    What is ignorance?

    1. Your views on science in general and evolution in particular.

    2. Thanks Robert you always manage to keep the thing moving along!

    3. On a video on this site about Richard Feynman, in the last 4-5 minutes he talks about god, in an off-hand way. If he was questioned specifically on it, it wasn't included. 44:50 of Richard Feynman: The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

      He said (perhaps earlier) one can't prove something correct, only that you can prove something incorrect. At some point in the future, things may come into play that makes you now understand what you thought was correct is most assuredly wrong. He said there is no sense arguing religion. Start out thinking everything you know is possibly wrong and work from there. He liked mysteries but not mystic answers.

      As far as thinking about the possibilities of an afterlife or a god who came to this earth in all of the universe, he didn't even care to think about it. He was comfortable not knowing some things rather than believing something that was wrong. I suspect he had an inkling on the idea of god on earth, however.

  8. Atheists believe that everything came from nothing...that complexity came from chaos.....let's stop there. No more is needed. That is such an anti-scientific view of the world that it goes far beyond absurd.

    1. Just which atheists believe that everything came from nothing?

    2. Well it is better than your talking snake, burning bush stuff.

    3. I find it to be on a par.

    4. Perhaps, but...

    5. Religionists believe that God came from nothing. Less absurd?

    6. Christians don't believe that God came from nothing. They believe that time and space came from God!

    7. Ok but where did god come from

    8. As you and I have no other ability to comprehend reality other than by reason of what we can discern, touch and reason with (in time a space) we inevitably measure things according to material reality through time. If God Himself is the One from whom time and space themselves have their beginnings it would seem rather obvious that God cannot be comprehended by those means unless He also proves himself by those means in order to be comprehended. It isnt possible to ask God "where are you from" or "what is your beginning". It may be reasonable in view of the the physical limitation in which we live. But it cannot be true of God, else God is not God after all. Such is the meaning of eternity. It is without end, having no beginning and no end. It is also why it is said that those who know God must be born of His Spirit first.

    9. That's a big if, big enough to constitute a cop out.

    10. Plus your argument is riddled with pseudo-facts seemingly pulled from thin air. Who says it is obvious God wouldn't be comprehended by those means? If God is so incomprehensible isn't it as obvious that he just may not be there to comprehend.

    11. There are no facts let alone false facts. As it is stated, it isn't even a claim to a fact at all. I won't play the game of facts with you men any further. Your perception is limited to a somewhat singular physical and vulgar definition as to what a fact is. Hence the way I worded my comment to Glennjo. Its really simple repent!

    12. There are no facts? Now suppose you just prove that statement.

    13. You may struggle to comprehend English, but i don't. My answer is to your comment. Read your own comment and then read my answer and stop being stupid!

    14. Calling me unable to comprehend and stupid. How christian of you!

      Now you repent.

    15. It is of no consequence. Christ does not live He is dead. God does not exist He is a figment of men's imaginations. Stop being a fool. Live by what you believe and die by it also. That is the measure which is measured like for like.

    16. See, right away with the ad hominem, don't call people stupid! You have lost before you even started with your arguments. Talk about repenting, "your" god of misery in the old testament is the physco who should be repenting!

    17. If there was any consistency in your posts I would take you seriously. As it is the term stupid and foolish are mere frivoloties compared to some of the words which have been used in these posts against Christians. Moreover I have lost nothing. You have no authority to take it away and I have no means to give it. Shake your fist at God, O man and save yourself the trouble of shaking it at me. I care not.

    18. So, are you the spokesman for the so called Christians, and your gods? by what vague authority do you aspire to such a lofty post, is it by your infinitesimal brain wave activity envisioning all the deities in your mind that is supposed to sway us posters that can see right through the fairy tale fallacies. Well let me tell you it means nothing!

    19. No I speak for myself and in that regard I have spoken to you. Get over it. For once you have found a believer who isn't afraid to speak plainly. If that sucks then suck it up. What do I care.

    20. No, we've found a believer whose belief is all he has going for him.
      P.S. If you don't care, why have you returned?

    21. Right, if Kelly was sure of his hallucinations and did not care, he would of been content to wallow in them, instead of trying to force his beliefs on to others.

    22. DId you ever stop and think that Kelly's simply a masochist looking for attention anywhere he can find it?

      Anyway, speaking of Kelly, are you familiar with Penny Nance? If not, I suggest that you check her out on You Tube. She makes Palin, Bachman and Colter seem savvy and like them, she's got a great body.

    23. Look at it this way, by aspiring to such a lofty post, Kelly is merely emulating the Catholics and we all know where that leads to.

    24. As soon as you can prove that there is a god (ostensibly yours), I'll be happy to shake my fist at this entity.
      P.S. Frivolities.

    25. When your hour comes and you find that in the presence of other men you can shake your fist at God as others have done, be certain that you will have an eternity to consider the foolishness of it. Perhaps you ought to take your eyes of men and give some serious thought to God. Then again men who in the hour of their death still shake their fist at God have more than likely given sufficient thought to God and have decided to choose death instead. Either way Robert you have no comprehension of what you are talking about as usual.

    26. And perhaps you ought to give some serious thought to desist from making unsubstantiated claims. And speaking of unsubstantiated claims, how's your son? I hope by now he's had the good sense to give you the gate.

    27. No I'm afraid I haven't given that any thought nor will I be doing so. I have watched for a few weeks and whenever I am minded to posts I will do. If this is to be stopped it can only be stoppen by throwing me off the site. You don't have the strength Robert to break out from the bathroom when the phone rings. You will be too busy looking at your penis! I feel sure you get the point.

    28. Why would a "godly" man have to refer to penises all the time? I think you have some form of object compulsion. Poor fella, you are quite messed up. Please, go get some help and also a real education.

    29. LOL! Hahhahahhahahahahhaha! Now that is about as coercive as a statement can get. Ohhhhh! I am sHaKInG iN a PudDle oF mY oWn PisS! ROFLMAO!

      Your "When your hour comes" reply doesn't scare any of us that know for damn sure that the Judeo-Christian God does NOT exist.

    30. And just what is the matter with the singular physical and vulgar definition of what a fact is? It sure beats anything you've ever offered.

    31. Which God? Your God? You've been indoctrinated. Think about the fact that religion is largely regional. I'll bet your parent were of the same religion you are. If you had been indoctrinated elsewhere in the world, you'd be singing a tune promoting the religion of that area. Do you reject Greek mythology or Santaria? Why? Do you have any idea how many Gods have been worshiped?

      The notion of God has always been a human construct that is usually used to explain things people do not understand.

      Do you not find it curious that you most likely have accepted the God that was fed to you as a child? Whereas folks on my side of the aisle are free to be guided by reason, you are in the unfortunate position of defending something that has most likely been fed to you ... something you very much want to be true.

      I am so glad I'm not religious because it forces me to recognize how much control I have over my life and how precious time while alive actually is. How sad it is to me that so many people look to the sky for direction in life.

  9. I just can't believe how people actually don't believe in God. It's funny that so many people Google to see if there is one God. TRUST ME THERE IS ONE GOD AND IT WILL TAKE BILLIONS OF YEARS TO TELL U ALL THE PROOFS.

    1. Why should anyone trust you? And considering the intellectual level of your last post, it would probably take you billions of years (or the length of creation) to relate the few proofs (all flawed) of the existence of the "one god." I guess when they were passing out brains, you thought the sign said beans and went to the end of the line.

    2. two things
      1 i never trust someone who says "trust me"
      2 i stop listening when someone starts yelling (all caps)

    3. "i never trust someone who says "trust me"

      Unless your hanging on a cliff edge!

      "i stop listening when someone starts yelling"

      Unless you hear someone hanging onto a cliff edge!

      Your compassion is endless and your comprehension that you are writing these things to an Islamic woman is abscent!

    4. Why should anyone trust you? Considering the intellectual level of your last post, it would probably take you billions of years (or the length of creation) to relate the few proofs (all flawed) of the existence of the "one god." I guess when they were passing out brains, you thought the sign said beans and went to
      the end of the line. Why should anyone trust you? And considering the intellectual level of your last post, it would probably take you billions of years (or the length of creation) to relate the few proofs (all flawed) of the existence of the "one god." I guess when they were passing out brains, you thought the sign said beans and went to the end of the line.

    5. as-salaamu ‘alaikum

      Mah Shlom'chem?

      From a Messianic Jew to Islam greetings.

      May the One True God turn your face unto His countenance and bring radiance into your heart and mind. Shalom.

      Woman you are a brave one for making such a plain statement concerning the One True and Living God.

      All you will find here is blasphemy.

      I do not bear witness of Islam, but of Christ. Your courage is worthy of standing with you. Shalom and Kol Tuv. ??????

    6. Ha,Ha, oh well, at least it is funny. lol

    7. Its going to get a lot funnier!

    8. Actually it won't take any time to "tell you all the proofs" because there is none. In fact the lack of evidence for god is in itself proof that there is no god.

  10. Pascal's Wager shouldn't be on this list. It's not any attempt to prove anything. It's just a reason why someone would choose to believe. And I gotta say out of all these other reasons it's a pretty logical reason.

    1. So it's logical to believe in god (whichever one you choose) and religion (whichever one you choose) because they just might exist. You might just as well believe in the sugar plumb fairy.

    2. Why, robert, it's *very* logical to believe in a god because he/she/it might actually exist. It's why I eat pasta. I worship the FSM. ;-)

    3. And that's why I use condoms because I worship NRC (National Rubber Corporation).

    4. Maybe we both should convert (from reddit):

      "vecordae: Imagine this: a god appears and declares unequivocally that all one has to do to be saved from the inevitable end of the world is to rotate one hundred and eighty degrees to their left.

      "Within a year you'd see its followers split into the Immediate Leftists, Gradual Leftists, Aggregated Leftists (who think that you can turn as much as you want provided the end result is 180 degrees to the left), and the Natural Leftists who feel that turning left is a something everyone will inevitably do so it need not be worried about much.

      "They'd be killing each other within a decade.

      "BrowsOfSteel: Personally, I think you need to roll left, not yaw. That is, do a barrel roll (ending in a head?stand), not an about?face.

      "Cornovii: But you haven't actually turned to the left. You've just found another way to face the opposite direction. Deceiver! Heretic! Deny the devil and return to the path of righteousness!

      "Primal80s: I think you mean an aileron roll. Heathen.

      "rocksmithxmas: It's quite clear that you must first turn 100 degrees then 80 degrees. People who turn the full 180 in one go, using whatever speed or motion, have clearly fallen for the devil's lies and will burn in hell.

      "Maloth_Warblade: Do you mean barrel roll or aileron roll?

      "Cornovii: Actually, god told me that he changed his mind, and asked me to pass along the good word. He actually wants us to turn 145 degrees to the right. Anyone who turns to the left is going straight to hell.

    5. A few years back, South Park came out with a classic episode based around this idea. In it, Cartman (that fat, psychopathic little nazi) gets transported into the future, where the entire world is now atheist, and at total war with every other faction over what should be the name of the world-wide atheist "church".

    6. In light of your quote and George Santayana's famous line about history, I think we should both start stockpiling weapons, the more powerful the better. That'll show everyone just whose side God is on.

    7. You say it like its impeding my intelligence somehow. It's a huge misconception that believing in God makes you "Stupid" or out of touch with society. I consider myself to be an extremely intelligent person. I am a computer programmer and I've written code that would take you years to understand and yet you sit there and tell me I'm stupid and should believe in a "sugar plumb fairy". Here's why you're wrong. Since believing does not impede on my intelligence (like it does for some people) I do. While believing I also am open minded enough to study everything in science (which is a huge argument in the scientific community. "If you believe in god then your not a good scientist" not true because like I said I keep the realities separate in my mind when I am studying the world around me.) I am completely open-minded to the idea of evolution and the big bang(both highly controversial) because I keep the realities(universe with god and without) seperate when studying then there is no problem and I can advance my studies. And at the end of the day I still believe. Because if God is real then there has to be an explanation for things like evolution. If there was no explanation he wouldn't be real.

    8. If you were a scientist you would know that neither evolution nor the big bang is highly controversial and as a matter of fact both are part of mainstream biology and physics.

      What you consider yourself is only so much garbage. It's how you come across that matters and the more your write, the more idiotic and ignorant you seem as evidenced by gems such as the following, "Because if God is real then there has to be an explanation for things like evolution. If there was no explanation he wouldn't be real." Obviously believing does impede your intelligence.

    9. Robert did you ever give thought to the possibility that this statement may have a perfectly rational meaning. If you always make your starting point your elbow don't be surprised if you poke yourself in the eye!

    10. Did you ever give thought to the reality that this statement is as idiotic and ignorant as all of your posts?

    11. Your post makes no sense at all, haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about, what realities are you referring to? with your god and without your god you can advance your studies? what does that mean? you write code? all your code can be busted by "anonymous hackers" in a flash! big deal!

      I think you are a "wanna-be" plain and simple, any body that considers himself "extremely intelligent" is probably not. None of the regular posters on TDF blow their own horns.

    12. Anyone who considers himself extremely intelligent may just be vain. After all if you were extremely intelligent you might actually have a reason to be vain!

    13. Vain? What about someone who feels himself privileged to converse with someone who's been dead for over two millennia?

    14. That presupposed that Jesus of Nazareth existed doesn't it Robert? Also that He died.

      Just one step to go and you'll be preaching the whole gospel yourself.

      14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

      15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

      16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

      17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

      1 Corinthians 15:14-17

    15. He lived and died all right. Both secular and non-secular sources attest to this--but as a man only. The rest is sheer religious trash.

    16. @Mods & Rockers

      I feel the above post by @armkelly and countless others here in the last few days are nothing more than preaching and proselytising.

      Edit. @Rat Rappers as well

    17. All this preachin ya doin must make ya thirsty?

      Have a nice cold can of EvaThrillin, GodKillin, MythBustin, Dogmadumpin, ReligionHumpin GODSUX Atheist Cola – The Taste of Enlightenment. 100% No Bullsheet. May contain logic, rationality and the scientific method.

      Suck it up little boy.

    18. ha ha ha ha!
      That was awesome!
      Brotha likes to JAM on that sheet.

    19. I must say the person who writes on this doc sounds like a different person then the one who writes on the Zen doc.

      A question... how do you feel afterwards, different too?

      You may think this is an is not...i am just curious of the aftermath.

      az easy

    20. az easy as py.
      (i couldn't resist.)

    21. Py no matter what you write to me, you always make me smile.

    22. The simpler 'az py' would've been a bit more clever.
      We made 'pizza' a long time ago, remember? :)

    23. I do work in an Italian restaurant....although pizza is not my department....i can smell it all around.

    24. Yeah, but don't you remember @knowledgeizpower, who everybody called iz, for short, and one time you said that the three of us (py, iz, az) make pizza? That was so funny, and even heartwarming, in a way. "EVERYBODY loves pizza!"

    25. Yes, the girl is greatly missed...we sure had lots of laughters with her.
      Guess what the name of the restaurant is????
      Itza...that's when i knew the job was for me!

    26. I'd say the conversation topic and participants would hold your questions answers.

      Have you been reading amrkelly's preachings over the last few days? The Zen topic attempts to find answers, amrkelly says he has them with his version of religion, based on his exceptional knowledge gained from his life's hardships and personal interactions with 'God'.

      It's hard to stay reasonable with someone that's not. And I bet there are different feelings afterwards. One topic leaves you feeling happier and calmer, the other angry and frustrated, or just bemused, by pushy religious people. :)

    27. Have read some of it....but i'll admit i've gotten tired a while ago of reading the "religee's" bashing, it does something to my inside...i don't need. One day it's one guy, one day it's an other, they pretty well all say the same thing and then the answer they are given is pretty always the same too.
      I never go to church or hang around religious people because i don't want to hear about it, so same here. I figure when one comes around with their personal alleluhia, if no one pays attention they leave. As soon as you feed them a crumb of disagreement, they stick around for days...which is the case here.
      Don't take me wrong i have participated in the past in my own way, but gained nothing from it and apparently took nothing away from anyone either.
      I know i go on babbling myself and have been attacked many times about my views...and you know what, not much has changed it yet.
      AnYwAy....what i was saying is that Anti here and Anti there sounds like 2 completley different person to me.

    28. I agree that mostly it's just people reconfirming their own beliefs. Not many change what they think after one conversation.
      I think the difference is caused by the topic and people in the conversation. You'd talk different to your grandchild than an annoying drunk, even though you're the same person.

    29. You are right...i did just that last week-end when a party ended up on my patio because i am the only one with a BBQ and a patio in the building....a guy was drunk, his girlfriend was in the appart cutting some bread to make garlic bread and he kept yelling Kate Kat KAAAAAate...i went outside and said to him very abruptly..."now you stop that or i'm gonna close the door, go yelling somewhere else, she's busy"...he left the party and went to bed. So yes that was a diffferent me.

      edit...i may have said it with words a little more direct...can't remember exactly as it came out without much plan and with feeling of extreme annoyment .


    30. He deserved it if he fired you up :) I'm different on here sometimes, if I feel good I'll look for someone I know and like and have a chat. If I'm sore and in not such a nice mood I'll look for someone I disagree with and swap sarcasms. Religious believers usually, and you're right, the conversation gets very repetitive and boring. BUT... well, they've gotten away with so much for so long, a few harsh words now and then isn't much of a price to pay. I don't take it to heart anything said by what amounts to random people that don't know me, I hope everyone else cares as little about what I say too. I learn things on here, and also enjoy the entertainment.

    31. I, for one, care a lot about what you say.

    32. I swore off of it, too, for quite a while... for the most part. But I'm not too sure about these fervently religious folk being dissuaded by simply being ignored. They've got that mandate to spread the word, and they take that business with the utmost seriousness. And obviously, too, we get a lot of docs here that will invite this sort of debate... And on those, who can be surprised when they speak their minds?

    33. I see what Oq is saying though, I do sometimes catch myself feeling I've been too harsh and I have to remind myself that although their way is not mine, they are still people with feelings. Mostly I like to prod a little, see what lies beneath. Seems that every pile of leaves hold a hedgehog though ;) I don't much mind if people want to believe in any god, it just irks me that they can't seem to do it without first swallowing a bible, hook line and sinker. Or that they let churches full of frustrated old men dictate to them what is and isn't the right way to be. If each god was a persons own, as individual as a fingerprint, what would they have to preach about? Then there could be good discussions about the possibility of a god, just for the fun of it, with no walls of holy books separating us all. I do sometimes think that people have a feeling that there must be more to life than this, then shoehorn themselves into a religion or vice versa. Would a god really allow itself to be trapped between the covers of a book, and would anyone really want one that's meek enough to do so? ;)

    34. You are so often on the dot...and always with a little dewmour

    35. An dew with your pizzazz

    36. This is pretty much exactly the way I feel. I'm firmly atheist about Christianity, but would call myself simply agnostic (although a pretty 'strong' one) about a lot of broader questions. I'll give you an example. Just the night before last, my wife and I were watching a program about that well-known exorcism in '49 (this was her idea, and there really wasn't anything else on, anyway), the one that inspired Blatty's book. I kept quiet for the most part and let her enjoy her program, only a couple of times rolling my eyes or chuckling a little bit. I wasn't really paying much attention to it, actually. But towards the end she rolled over and asked, "So you really don't believe in spirits? Anything like that?"

      "No," I said, with just the slightest hesitation. My wife is from a fairly hellish part of New Jersey, and I know how little it can take (sometimes!) to send such an entity off into an incomprehensible rage.

      "You've never held a seance?" she asked.

      I was pretty certain right away about the answer to this, but I looked around at various objects for a few seconds to make it look good. Rolling over the long history of my life, as it were.

      "No, I can't say I've ever done that," I replied, again just a little tentatively.

      "You know, if you did, I bet you would hear something from your mother. She would contact you."

      This was too much. She really had my full attention now.

      "What are you talking about?" I said, looking at her over one shoulder.

      "But you have to really believe in them," she went on. "Believe that it will happen, and it will. They only come to those who believe in them."

      "And how do you know that?" I wasn't smiling, either, because I could see that she was really serious about this, and that she had a story to tell. It's true I had a few of what I thought were reasonable objections I could've raised right at this point, but I wanted to hear the tale before it skidded off the rails into a mere argument.

      "Because two years after my grandmother died, me and some friends held a seance, and she came to us."

      "Uh, huh," I replied, this time a little less tentatively.

      "It was on the floor in our apartment. We all sat in a circle, with a candle in the middle. We held hands, and asked her to come to us. Then suddenly the candle flame started drifting to one side (here she made a nearly perpendicular motion with her arm), and then we all felt a cold chill go through us, I mean actually through us. And then I was covered with the smell of gingerbread cookies. My grandmother was always making gingerbread cookies for me. None of the others were, but they could all smell gingerbread cookies on my clothes."

      Alright. This was a little exciting, I'll admit. But I thought of an objection I just couldn't let pass.

      "Ok, this was in, what, 1982, right? And you were 14? Didn't that movie 'Poltergeist' come out in '82? That part about a 'chill' going through all of you sounds a lot like one of the scenes in that movie."

      "No, no," she said, "this was before that movie came out."

      That she could really be certain of that at this date, I had my doubts, but I let it go and didn't press her on it. And to her credit, I did get her to admit later on that phenomena like that might have roots in psychological expectations (which she even seemed to suggest herself somewhat, in her remark about 'having to believe in them' in order for them to even bother showing up). But I have to admit that it seems to me this doesn't answer as well for her friends also being able to smell gingerbread cookies on her. Group delusion seems just a little too pat an explanation in this circumstance, although I'm certainly not dismissing that. In any case, it does seem odd from whatever point of view you come to it, and that's really the point, of course. I know my wife isn't a liar, and that she really believes this happened just the way she says it did. What I think is something like "our consciousness can sure take the strangest turns, sometimes," and just leave it at that. I couldn't help asking her one last thing, though, and that's why on earth it had taken her so long to tell me this story.

      "Well," she said, "that's just the way it is with every marriage. Sometimes you've just got to wait for the right moment to say something."

      Seemed good enough to me.

    37. We held a few séances when I was a kid, the apprehension and expectation had my hair standing on end but nothing ever came of it obviously, same with the ouija board, running round graves anticlockwise and spitting on them and saying the lords prayer backwards. People do have odd experiences, some they create, others are just things that catch them off guard. I think the state of mind is more to do with it than anything outside of them. I once lived in a very lonely cottage (with a man) a good walk to a neighbour let alone civilization. The creaking wood, swinging doors and clacking floor tiles all seemed characterful when I moved in. As the relationship worsened, so did my discomfort increase. By the time I packed up and moved on I was hardly able to sit with my back to the door, creepiest place I ever lived. Nights alone there were horrid. Even though I knew it was just the same old sweet little house, it might not have taken much to make me believe otherwise ;)

    38. I firmly believe that there may be very debilitating psychological states that a person could be previously unaware of in every regard that could suddenly show up through the most unexpected means, or actually be brought about by those means. So that, in that sense, the show about exorcism didn't seem completely ridiculous to me. I mean, it's suggestibility, isn't it? And some sure do have more of a knack for it than others. The part of my story that I left out is when my wife confronted me at one point about the fact that I've never allowed our children to have ouija boards.

      "So, let me see," she says, sarcastically. "You DON'T believe in spirits. But you're afraid of a piece of WOOD? With NUMBERS and LETTERS on it. And the words YES and NO."

      And then I told her my own little story about a good friend of mine who had once been witness to some things that were a little disturbing, and about how all this constituted my good evidence.

      People... are an odd business. And it seems that in the long list of sub-names that could be attached to any one of us, that buried fairly deep down there somewhere in the cluttered pile of adjectives delineating the shifting mental framework comprising the consciousness of the pompous entity known as Pysmythe, whether he likes it or not, is, very probably, the detestable 'suggestible'. And if there is any saving grace about that, I figure it would have to be because 'critical' would be the very next one in line, with 'playful' and 'verbose' nearby. At least on this fine Spring afternoon.

    39. In my view if they are ignored, the words spread less.

    40. Well observed and a good question. I’m glad that I appear a different person on different docs as I don’t agree with the usual understanding of what a *person* is. How many personas (theatrical masks) can a person have? I would venture a least a shedfull. I am not a human being but a human becoming and subject to change on a daily basis. How do I feel after adopting my little stroppy brat persona? Like a child usually, this is sometimes a bad feeling and sometimes a gleeful one. All in all I’m
      quite happy not being any of these masks and quite content being no one. See Thomas Metzinger’s doc at Keen talks or read his little book about it for more

      Dealing with the aftermath of what might appear as inconsistency on my part is just another opportunity of making my point and I have the courage of my convictions to accept the responsibility of my actions and words. Is Aftermath a cracking album by The Stones or what a christian with a lisp does on a Sunday afternoon?

    41. Your answer makes perfect sense to me. You are so right!

      "I am not a human being but a human becoming"...and so is every one else.

      I am not only a human being who is becoming but a human who grew out of my surroundings like a flower would. If i have a warp vision of what the world is according to an other, can sense be beaten into me...especially if my surrounding hasn't and will not likely change.

      How did people who actually changed their view come to alter it especially in such deep aspect as religion? Most of the ones i have encountered came to change because they felt beaten by their own clan, the ones who believe like them, rarely by the opposite view. It was a self redirecting.

      What i am saying is insulting or ridiculing a "fanatic" religious person achieves nothing (not that you have done that but in the whole this whole thread does).
      I think it is fun for most, it is not so much an exchange between the ONE participant as it is an exchange of laughters and agreement between all the opposants. all go on...i had my bits...and as most would say..."if you don't like it, stay away!

    42. My Dear Ever Blossoming Flower, I’m so glad that you understood me but I’m a little mystified about your last paragraph? In mitigation i plead that i’m just a man,
      whatever won of them is? How could I know why you would take such a deaf eatist attitude? I simply don’t, I’m not you, but I am trying to understand. I’m not even sure what you’re saying but I’m gonna guess that you think some of us are bit too LOUD in our protestatations of these promulgators of putrid pre-pubescent pisswater?

      I’m also gonna guess that that you think our efforts are worthless? Not so I say!!!! It is my firmly held belief, lol, that every single word spoken, written or thought about against this monstrous and degenerate disease is good one and even if you are Sisyphus it is a worthy task that needs doing if we want to survive as a flourishing species. It is precisely because people HAVEN’T SPOKEN UP LOUDLY enough that this foolishness persists, a foolishness that cuts bits off defenceless children REMEMBER!

      If you Kant take the heat as you say...

    43. Your becoming one of my favorite poster....among

      Just walked in from work, made a pitcher of Marguerita, sat down at my computer, had a sip, read this phrase and laughed my aaaz off.
      "promulgators of putrid pubescent pisswater?"

    44. I know, right? He's really good, isn't he? I keep rereading it, saying it out loud, even, until I have to stop for breath and knead my stomach a little bit.

    45. G'day 6's
      How's it going ol' mate taking care of yourself I hope...;)
      It's good to see that you are back enjoying the sport of religee bashing.

    46. G’day jackmax.

      Lol. I just realised a naughty interpretation of your username. Yeah it’s all behind me for now thanks; everything seems to be working ok thank god.

    47. G'day 6's
      I don't think god had anything to do with your well being. I've thought long and hard about my username and for the life of me I don't know what you mean.

    48. G’day jackmax

      Lol. Yeah man the god bit was just a limp joke. I’m glad you thought long and hard about it and came to your conclusion.Nietzsche talked about being hard a lot and I’ve tried to follow him as much as I can but it can have serious consequences...such as me having to write this
      from my Braille keyboard.

      The Crucified Onanist

    49. Haha, you still make me laugh man. Behold my laughter. :)

      limp..long and hard..came...hard..a lot...braille...

      You clever d1ck you. :)

      The Crucified Organ...

      PS You know he'll really want to beat (no innuendo) you at pool now.. more then he did. :) lol Good to hear your health is ok mate.

    50. Only you could pull off a post like that.

    51. "Pull off," "long and hard," "jackmax"...
      Lock the doors, I'm gettin' a little bit herny, lol.

    52. 6's started it! :) Hmm, Mrs. Py is away too isn't she? Oh oo. :)

    53. No, she's here, alright. But... guess what time it is! (And here you chaps are putting ideas in my head, lol.)

    54. Heyya mate. I think I know what 6's means. :) Think... masturbation a lot.

    55. I think @jackmax already had a firm grip on this subject?

    56. Could be trying to get his head around it still?

    57. I see men don’t usually do that. Perhaps he’s worshiping that giant penis god that @robertallen1 described? Or maybe he’s waiting for the next evolutionary step that Bill Hicks joked about? What do you make of religions dim view of sex and pork?

    58. Anything fun they ban! I guess god didn't want us to have fun. :(

    59. all i know is that if you take sex and pork away from me. then told me i could get them back it i follow a bunch of rules i might just listen. lets be honest if sex was taken away and i was promised 72 (strange number but okay) women if i blew myself up. well......... i do not think it is a dim view. i think that they realized that if they control the dispensing of such valuable products they can make people do anything.

    60. I think you might be onto something... no wonder they're angry and want to start wars. Give everyone a naughty weekend and a decent feed of bacon and we might get closer to world peace. :)

      "Put me in a cage with anything, and after a week I'll f*k it!" - Jim Jefferies.

    61. might just work lol. if not at least we had a great weekend

    62. Evolution is in no way controversial. It is widely excepted by a vast majority of scientists.

    63. I was thinking the same thing.

  11. Brian

    "I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense." Just what do you know about science which you ignorantly abase to the level of idiotic faith? However, let's see you put your money where you mouth is and provide a scientific proof for the existence (or non-existence) of a creator and while you're at it, furnish a list of those scientists who claim that the creation of the universe was random. And by the way, there is no controversy about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) just as there is no controversy about evolution which in your ignorance of science you confound with abiogenesis--and to hell with what your bible says; it is not a science book.

    "Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either." What about Genesis 1. The entire creation story (with the possible exception of the sabbath) is scientifically wrong. The story of the flood is scientifically impossible. These are just for starters.

    "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize." Well there's not been a single theist who has shown any evidence proving the existence of a divine creator--and theists do worse than theorize; they try to convert; they start religious wars; they engage in persecution of those who don't believe as they do.

    "No one can travel back in time to when 'everything started' and find out the truth." Do you believe mastodons existed? As you can't travel back in time, how do you know?

    In short, you are no more than a typical religious ignoramus who claims to employ science as the basis for his misbegotten and ignorant beliefs when he does not know the first thing about it.

    "May EDUCATION bless the world!" It certainly hasn't blessed you.

  12. @Brian
    i would like to address some of your misunderstandings/claims

    1 "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator" science deals with the natural world and natural phenomena a "creator" is supernatural and therefore not a concern of science. also the burden belongs to the person making the claim not the other way around.

    2 "science can just as easily show that there was a creator" could you show me this science?

    3 "The main argument for atheists against the bible is from genesis." i disagree. the main argument is it contradicts itself/history and logic throughout and is not only written by unknown authors but has been edited/translated many times

    4 "or us to exist & have cognitive thought on this planet, for me to believe that it was just random" where in science does it claim it is random?

  13. No human can possibly know what God is or can even comprehend what would God want if anything. That would be like expecting bacteria to understand anything we know about. Science is the process of unbiased observation and then understanding the natural world which by definition is God's creation, and that includes evolution. Spirituality on the other hand is a person's PERSONAL relationship with God and is different with each individual.

    Religion is a tool to keep people uninformed and unenlightened for the benefit of the few, and it has nothing to do with God.

    How can anyone prove what we don't understand yet?
    The whole "who can prove what" is silly since science is in its infancy and the idea of God may only be a human concept for all we know.
    It should be suffice that we have some vague sense that there may be some omniscient being and that's it nothing more.
    never trust ANYONE who says they know what God is or what God wants.

  14. To prove my point, I goggled "Why everything has a cause is a bad argument for the existence of God" and clicked the first thing relevant to see the atheist argument again't it. From which I found this: "Today's argument: But All of This Had to Come From Somewhere! Otherwise known as the "First Cause" argument. "Things don't just come out of nowhere," the argument goes. "Everything that exists has a cause. Therefore, the entirety of physical existence itself had to have had a cause. Therefore, God exists."

    Yeah. See, there are some big problems with that argument.

    For starters: If everything has to have a cause...then what caused God?

    And if God can somehow have always existed or come into being out of nothing...then why can't that be true of the universe?"

    He says: "then why can't this be true of the universe Stating that a the universe caused itself, which is impossible a cause can't cause itself. This argument was also in a book I read.

    So, for some reason atheists believe that I use god in the religious sense, when in fact, I'm am using it in the first cause since that the first cause must be something that has always existed. And thus, needs no cause. If you believe that the universe has always existed I can explain but I think that's kinda self explanatory since the Big Bang is widely accepted and proven. So, that which is the first cause is outside of time and moreover, as always existed. I choose to believe that the first cause is something omnipotent, while i admit it is possible that some dust outside of time that has always existed exploded and caused everything. But how did this 'dust' or whatever explode it needed a cause? The only thing that could cause something that is outside of time and has always existed is something/someone that can move/cause which I would argue dust does not.

    1. AJ

      again you attribute this special exemption to "god" without proof or justification. i will restate "i do not know" is the only honest answer t this point.

      you state "So, for some reason atheists believe that I use god in the religious sense, when in fact, I'm am using it in the first cause since that the first cause must be something that has always existed" first off what is this "god" to you then? if you can't define it how can you prove it? next please explain the meaning of "something that has always existed" when time did not exist? without time how can there be an always? what scientist claims something "exploded and caused everything."? that just shows your misrepresentation or lack of knowledge of the BB theory.

    2. "He says: 'then why can't this be true of the universe Stating that a the universe caused itself, which is impossible a cause can't cause itself. This argument was also in a book I read." Who is he? What is this book and so just because it avers the impossibility of a cause being the cause of itself, does that make it true? In short, another in a stream of unsubstantiated statements.

      "I choose to believe that the first cause is something omnipotent, while i admit it is possible that some dust outside of time that has always existed exploded and caused everything. But how did this 'dust' or whatever explode it needed a cause? The only thing that could cause something that is outside of time and has always existed is something/someone that can move/cause which I would argue dust does not." What you choose to believe is only so much garbage. As exemplified by this quote, your posts consists of no more than attempts to claim knowledge which you simply don't have. You don't know any more about a "first cause" than anyone else, much less if such a thing exists. You cannot "logic" a supreme being (or first cause) into existence.

    3. You seem to have no grasp at all of science, why are you talking of dust that outside of time always existed and exploded? Without time there would be nothing at all, static. Same as if the speed of light could be achieved there would be nothing, time would stand still, static. Or if in an infinite singularity.

      How do you know there is such a thing as first cause, or any cause at all? Maybe time as observed to the beholder is the first and only cause there is. Maybe this is as good as it gets. "So far"

      The BB is the only paradigm that makes sense at this time. Except if you want to delve into quantum theory, M theory, string theory, many worlds theory, parallel/multiverse theory, etc: but that is a whole new ballgame.

      I am also of the adage, I do not know.

    4. Mate, you could argue your belief in ''a magic man'', until the cow jumped over the There no room for religion in science.
      Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better,
      the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with
      observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It
      is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation
      that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. Religion or beliefs in ''a magic man'' on the other hand is talking about the supernatural and therefore has no place in science
      Ref : What is Science.

  15. Who uses these arguments? I'm not saying that God exists, i'm just saying that to say that atheists use logic and reason and Christians use faith is wrong. I know plenty of atheists who use the argument that the earth caused itself which is a flawed argument. This being said, I agree that a lot of Christians are ignorant as well; however, it wrong to say all atheists are logical and Christians are not.

    To that end, there are plenty of logical explanations for an Omnipotent being.

    Simply stated: 1. everything needs a cause (other than itself.) 2. Thus, the universemust be caused by something other than itself. 3. The causes cannot go on infinitely. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause. This first cause must be able to create without being created or else it would need a cause as well, so there must be some type of being outside of time that created the world. It is impossible for the very first cause to not exist; thus it is necessary. The universe came into existence, it cannot be necessary since it was one point not existent. Thus, since the universe could have not existed, it is not necessary. Since the first cause is necessary this rules out the universe as a first cause.

    Prove me wrong, cause something without a cause.

    As of now, everything/everyone is contingent, expect for what is infinite. The only thing that is infinite is the first creator, and is necessary, rather than contingent. Everything that can be thought of is either real in reality or real in theory. Contingent things that exist in a thought have two options; they can either exist in reality, or not in reality. If something that is thought is necessary, however, its only option is to exist. An infinite being possess the qualities of perfection. If there were two infinite beings, however, one would have something that the other didn't, which is contradictory to the term perfection itself. Therefore, there must only be one necessary being.

    Now, this does not neccasiarly mean there is a being that 100 percent exists for who is to say that the logic on the earth is true? For all we know, 2+2 could not equal four and we could all be using dream logic, thus, maybe things can be caused without a cause, for example, in a vacuum in which the big bang exploded randomly. I am not denying it is a possibility.

    Moreover, regarding "given the history of religions" I think it's actually a strong argument for a first creator that throughout history all cultures have had the thought of a higher being. It is part of our human nature to think towards a higher being. While it may seem like there is a million religions because people have broken away from religions and made new ones, however, since 0 AD for about 1400 years, the three main religions, Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam are are loosely based on the same person Abraham. All three religions are basically a different interpretation or added text to what God allegedly said to Abraham.

    Given the arguments I made and the fact that the three main religions are based upon the same principles, I don't think it is fair to just classify all Christians as ignorant. Nor would it be right for one to label all atheists as ignorant for his belief that the earth is the cause of itself.

    P.S. I never said I believe in an omnipotent being, just simply stated that there is logical evidence towards both sides.

    1. AJ

      you state"I know plenty of atheists who use the argument that the earth caused itself which is a flawed argument" really ? i have met nobody (atheist or not) that makes that claim. atheism is the lack of belief in the god claims of others . it has nothing to do with how the earth formed.

      your next argument is self refuting unless you invoke a special exception that you provide no proof for. and even if this first cause exists there is no proof of who/what it is/was.

    2. In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"

      When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back. Ad Infintum.

    3. AJ

      the only honest answer to your infinite regression is "i/we do not know " but you input a creator into the equation and ask others to"Prove me wrong". that is not how a debate works. you make a claim (creator/god) you have to prove it right.

    4. Intuitively does not count. Just how do you know that nothing happens in isolation? In short, just how do you know that everything can be reduced to cause and effect? This is just as unfounded as your statement that everything needs a cause other than itself.

    5. "Everything needs a cause other than itself." How do you know this? Where is your proof--and if you have none, the rest of your propositions go down the toilet.

      "As of now, everything/everyone is contingent, expect for what is infinite. The only thing that is infinite is the first creator, and is necessary, rather than contingent. Everything that can be thought of is either real in reality or real in theory. Contingent things that exist in a thought have two options; they can either exist in reality, or not in reality. If something that is thought is necessary, however, its only option is to exist. An infinite being possess the qualities of perfection. If there were two infinite beings, however, one would have something that the other didn't, which is contradictory to the term perfection itself. Therefore, there must only be one necessary being." And just what is this wall of gibberish supposed to mean?

      And while we're on the topic of gibberish, which atheists have proposed that the earth is the cause of itself? Or is just another strawman?

      "Moreover, regarding 'given the history of religions' I think it's actually a strong argument for a first creator that throughout history all cultures have had the thought of a higher being." So because all cultures have had the thought of a higher being (which, by the way, there are a few that haven't), therefore a higher being exists. No, when it comes to knowledge, might does not make right.

      "It is part of our human nature to think towards a higher being." How do you know this? Where is your proof?

      "All three religions are basically a different interpretation or added text to what God allegedly said to Abraham." On what do you base this? What about those religions which preceded "Abraham?" You've obviously put the cart before the horse.

      "Given the arguments I made and the fact that the three main religions are based upon the same principles, I don't think it is fair to just classify all Christians as ignorant." As no proof is offered and acceptance is demanded, it's perfectly all right to classify those who believe this nonsense as ignorant.

      Your post is based merely on two apothegms, that everything needs a cause other than itself (which you cannot prove) and that if enough people believe something, it must be true, all this cemented with large amounts of jibber-jabber. In short, there is as much logic (much less evidence) for anything religion claims as for your post, which is to say none at all.

    6. Reciprocally, if you claim "there are things that do not have a cause" your propositions go down the toilet as well since you can not prove this either. There are two options that cannot be proven. When it is all said and done it is impossbile to deilbreatly prove either side of the altercation.
      You guys keep saying: how do you know everything has a cause and then say i am using the "prove me wrong method" But you in fact are doing the same thing by challening me to prove that everyhgting has a cuase. There is no way to prove everything has a cause other than iteslf, however, when given the quesiton I choose to think everything has a cause to do simple reasoning.

      There is also no way to prove that you exist in reality. You could be in the matrix, on a table in an aliens shapeship in a false world. you can't prove either way, but I choose to believe the former because it makes more sense logically.

      The more i try to convice people that cause and effect is real, and that we are acutally in a real reality, the more people can say, oh your stupid were in a video game you don't have any proof.

      Basically, I choose to believe that everything has a cuase other than itself and reality exist over things can happen reandoly without a cuase. I Don't say that they have to belive with me I just say let me have my logical opinion without being critized.

      Moreover, every religion after Judism, Catholisim, and Islam don't have creditablity becasue they were just made up by humans, at least in Abrhams case, him and the prophets prophized thing in the Old Testament/Torah which came true in the new testament.

    7. "There is no way to prove everything has a cause other than iteslf, however, when given the quesiton I choose to think everything has a cause to do simple reasoning." Then if there is no way to prove this, it's dishonest of you to state it as fact and just as dishonest to try to shift the burden of proof for your assertions from you onto the reader with the statement "prove me wrong." It's no different from saying "the world is ruled by fairies, now prove me wrong."

      "Basically, I choose to believe that everything has a cuase other than itself and reality exist over things can happen reandoly without a cuase. I Don't say that they have to belive with me I just say let me have my logical opinion without being critized." If you can't take the criticism and richly-deserved denigration for positing as fact something which you admit you cannot prove, but only "choose to believe," (a concept patently idiotic), then you shouldn't be posting, especially on topics of which you know nothing as exemplified in the following, "Moreover, every religion after Judism, Catholisim, and Islam don't have creditablity becasue they were just made up by humans, at least in Abrhams case, him and the prophets prophized thing in the Old Testament/Torah which came true in the new testament." Did it ever occur to you that the Old and New Testaments were written at different times?.

      P.S. While you're at it, why not clean up your English?

    8. As of now, cause and effect seems to exist, and everythimg on earth has a cause other than itself. There is no evidence that points otherwise. You Can sit there and say, you have No proof that gravity exists, you have No proof that everything has a cause other than itself, but there is No evidence otherwise. Why is it idiotic to believe that everyone has a cause, I would argue that it's even more idiotic to suggest something's doesn't have a cause without any proof. OF course they were written at different times how else would they be prophecies. If yo sugessting the new testment was fabricated to concord with the prophicies that is possible, but there is mo ecidenxe since the book is historically accurate. There is no proof suggusting othewise. i mean, thrre are some things that havent been forund that were mentoined, but all historic texts are like that. Moreover itwaswritten at the beggining of the old testment that some of the stories were fabricated to explain complicated ideas to ignorant, other than that, most of it is historically accurate So there's No evident reason to doubt.

  16. The ninth point is something to consider. It isn't a proof, but it's common sense. Why play dice with eternal punishment?
    I don't know if we can really PROVE God's existence, but we can share our experiences and suggest his love to others. And if people choose to be rude and return the favor with unnecessary titles for Christians, we can smile back at them and know that their rudeness is a result of desperation.

    1. Did it ever occur to you that their rudeness is the result of knowledge and intelligence in the face of ignorance and dogma. First of all, you cannot prove that god and eternal punishment exist.

    2. It's common sense to worship an invisible being who, according to his followers, has harmful intentions towards us?

      hmmmm let me think on that one...

  17. I called myself agnostic, however I must be an athiest as I don't believe anything from anyone without something to back up there story...Everybody who knows me outside in the REAL world I live in would all agree I'm a sceptic about everything. So being a sceptic means by basic diffinition I'm an athiest.. and might I say F**king proud of it ..:)

  18. I find it interesting that you never really answer what the question you claim your answering. And that is just from watching the first attempt in 'disproving' this mans beliefs or 'proof'. Especially the reference to the 5yr old child, im not sure how you missed it so badly? If what your hope with debating this issue is finding physical proof to the contrary or proving (badly by the way) that he is wrong, you prove nothing of the existance of God. Its more than just faith or as even you point out when you say a theist says explain how detailed the human body is and how your God did that cause it isnt in the Bible. I tell people all the time, if your looking for something hard enough you will find it. I dont believe however that you would ever believe in God simply because you either went through something as a child or were beaten about the head when you were younger. Oh and yes there is your making fun of you part. You make it easy when as smart as you seem you miss the fact that you exist only because the God you dont believe in allows you to exist.

    1. "You make it easy when as smart as you seem you miss the fact that you exist only because the God." How do you know this?

  19. Could someone sum up, (or better still, point me to non-video resources) to answer point 7. From the list I think point 7 is probably the strongest item.

    Give me raw text over video any day.

    1. su????d ????
      i do not have a link but i am sure if you search for "Argument from Personal Experience" a resource will present itself.

      my personal opinion with "Argument from Personal Experience" is that i have no way of telling if your experience is genuine or not. of the multitude of gods that are worshiped most if not all have similar personal claims and all things being equal how am i to separate the one true claim from the lies/ misunderstandings? how an i to know if the claimant is being truthful? how am i to judge if all other explanations for the event have been thoroughly investigated ? there are historical claims of dragons. people have claims of UFO's, ghosts,Elvis.Loch Ness,Leprechauns and so on. what about the mythological gods that are no longer believed in ? do their personal testimonies appear any less valid at face value?

    2. HI there upside down matt parkins.

      Here you go > Richard Dawkins >The god Delusion > Chapter 3 > The Arguments For god’s Existence > The Argument from Personal “Experience” pp 87 – 92.

      I hope that helps.

      The Crucified One

    3. I wonder why people ask other people to do their web searches for them? A simple google of "argument from religious experience" would bring up multiple websites discussing this topic, including a well-footnoted wiki page.

      If what UpsideDownMatt really wants is to *discuss* the subject, maybe he could frame an actual question for debate.

    4. Hi Kateye70

      Yeah I know what you mean but I often find asking real people reveals more than a google search etc. The argument from personal experience can be tricky and is in my experience one not to be treated lightly if you want to be convincing or live a long and productive life. Or maybe he’s a lazy git like me, in which case he gets my blessings.

      The Crucified One

  20. where there's a will, there's a belief. no matter how rational this video -- and others like it by QualiaSoup, TheraminTrees, and Evid3nc3, for example -- the unfortunate majority of humanity chooses to believe in a higher, wholly anthropomorphic power that resembles them completely and utterly. the arrogance of their piety is beyond logical argument.

  21. It isn't surprising nor upsetting that there are people like the Christian talk show host who are so ignorant of science, logic, and frankly their own Bible. What's upsetting is that these are the people who vote and are voted, and end up in charge of the country.

    1. You have all this right on, spot on, and they will never change being the barrel of idiots that they are...a ridiculous band of liars and gullible fools. I am so glad I have the mind and intelligence to be a Free Thinker.
      May EDUCATION bless America!

  22. 1. Give me some proof god does exist other than your book. No? That's because you know he's not real. 2. Majority of population... MUST mean he exists. Just like how a few hundred years ago a majority thought the earth was flat and the stars were glimpses of haven. 3. I don't even NEED to explain how dumb this one is. 4. OMG, THE BOOK SAYS I HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIM OR SUFFER. What about other books from other religions. 5. You know I heard a term for this. The Big Bang Theory or something 6.Seriously, a book written hundreds of years ago. how the hell can you trust it wasn't some random guy writing a novel. 7. You should get that checked out. Doesn't sound healthy if you can hear voices, and feel s*it inside your body. 8. How the hell is that a proof of god, he doesn't seem to be an organized person. This world is a mess. 9. You lose a day of your life every week listening to the same old story over and over again. 10. Alright if everything has a creator what created god. Thanks for your time people, you should take my list and name it as 10 proofs god doesn't exist

  23. gsjikwblao
    wow. i have seen all of those words before just not in that particular order. where exactly in the bible does it say this?

  24. The Bible speaks of an evolutionary movement from a base-level convicting conscience to one of greater motivation. It refers to this change in FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE as the second coming of Christ. There is, according to the Bible, a motivating force for consciousness which binds consciousness to a single point of perspective. It calls this motivating force "God". The Bible tells us that this force travels between all consciences of the human race and gives life to these "detection points". It tells us that this motivating force called "God" is withdrawing from all who don't want to be inconveinenced by the single point of perspective this force generates and is compressing into others who have been suffering this perspective while encountering others who are avoiding it. If this is revealed to be true in the near future, we can understand that "God" created evolution.

    1. The bible is not a science book. Don't try to turn it into one. You still can't prove that this "force" exists and so your statements about it are worthless.

    2. If I pas a small house out on the country side, i cannot produce fact that it is built by an intelligent being. But out of the complexity of the building, I assume it is. At least it should be reasonable to take my chances on it.
      You on the other hand, say that as long as I don`t present you to the carpenter and show you documentation on the building is in lack of proof.
      Well. It is up to you. If you seriously believe that houses, to not say the complexity of the universe and the form of life we know, came out of nothingness without any intelligence who made it happen I can just say: I admire your strong faith.

    3. Of course, inanimate objects have a creator, but because they do does not mean that biological ones have as well--and faith has nothing to do with it.

  25. Look, Robert Allen.
    You have told me that you feel sorry for my children with me as a father, that I have no education, I cant write English properly (its not my first language) etc etc.
    This is an example of what you wrote:

    "My anger comes from people like you who post their religious rot on sites like this and elsewhere and try to bring others down to their level of ignorance and stupidity.
    If you had anything amounting to an education, you might not post such tripe, especially about the bible (and it's not a matter of IF it's a fairy tale, it IS a fairy tale) and "Jesus" which you know nothing about."

    Read it for you're self.
    Do you really think that people want to have a discussion on this level?
    Do you seriously believe that this is a good way to communicate and that people take you seriously?
    I have no intentions of reading all that crap of this type and haven`t read a single poster from you after I stopped answer you.
    Do you expect me to start defending my self over my education etc?
    For a hateful guy on the Internet whom I never met and don't know me at all?
    You need to take a serious reality check on this communication, and ask yourself if it is healthy to keep up this "debating"

    Concerning your question you should ask a_no_n. He is the one who say that ID is suppression of truth. Then he probably knows the truth. And in that case; en-light us all!
    To say ID is false, he know that the universe wasn't designed. So, where did it came from in that case.

    And, robertallen1, I didn't. ask for you're opinion, cause honestly, I really don't care.

    1. I certainly know how wilfully ignorant you are from all your posts and this one is no exception. a_no_n did not say that id was false, merely that its proponents hide the scientific truth which is only one of the things that calls id into question. Because we do not yet know where the universe "came from," to use your simplistic locution, does not mean that it was designed. As a matter of fact, with the exception of synthetic objects such as a watch or a computer, I doubt if you or anyone else, including your children whom I feel sorrier for than you, can tell design from non-design.

    2. "Because we do not yet know where the universe "came from,"
      Good. You've came a long way already.
      You don`t know. I don`t either. But I believe something. And you don`t believe the same answer as me. From you're statement, it seems that you hope that we will find out later. ( not yet know...) And thats okey. I can respect that. But since you don`t know (and no one else either) I have come to the conclusion that ill take my chances on the savior Jesus Christ.

      a_no_n can talk for himself.

      And since "you know how wilfully ignorant" I am, why are you so passionate to discuss with me? Answering all my posts. Even thou I don`t answer you're replyes? Telling me how stupid I am. Where does all that junk come from?

      When I studied one semester of counselling, (yes, I have studied) one of the books talked of bitterness and signs of bitterness. The author mentioned people who where deep into debate forums and watch debates on TV. This was a sign of bitterness.

      Sorry. Bed time now. We just don`t have much to say eachother. It is totally going nowhere.

      God bless you and good bye.

    3. It's better to say "I don't know" than to conclude with some fairy tale ending with, instead of they lived happily ever after, "I'll take my chances on the savior Jesus Christ."

      You obviously need to be reminded that this is a public site and that you are not the only one who reads these posts. So perhaps you can figure out all by yourself why I even bother to respond to you and why I will continue to do so.

      And just what is this book on counseling and what type of counseling was it? And just why did you omit this information?

      P.S. As you refuse to read anything knowledgeable on the subjects on which you make pronouncements, such as science, you are the one who's going nowhere.

    4. t's better to say "I don't know" than to conclude with some fairy tale ending with, instead of they lived happily ever after, "I'll take my chances on the savior Jesus Christ."

      - Is it? And why is that better? And can you get serious conserning science youre self. "fairytale" Jesus is of course not a fairy tale. He is indeed a historic person. The texts around Jesus is dated within 300 years after He`s death. And they are overwhelmingly in number. Compared with f.eks Aristotles, Platon etc.

      The book is called "When life hurts most" (Its a diffrent language) But instead of screaming for sources; ask yourself. Do you think it is the case that Bitter people go deep into debating, using lots of hateful expressions? You ask for sources all the time. Why is that? Just to be difficult? Would it matter if I sent you the book?
      This information i gived you because you probably need it. And it reminds myself on not debating with people like you. It is a waste of time.

      P.S. As you refuse to read anything knowledgeable on the subjects on which you make pronouncements, such as science, you are the one who's going nowhere.

      - I have my own library and read more books then most people. I really don`t care what you mean about that.

      Have a nice day now and take care.

    5. Because then you don't make a claim to knowledge which you don't have or engage in fruitless speculation. By the way, "Jesus" was indeed a historical person--but that's as far as it goes.

      When you allude to a work, you must state its name. When you make a statistical assertion, you must provide the source. Not doing this is the hallmark of both a serious lack of education and an intent to deceive.

      Claiming you have your own library and have read more books than most people means nothing in light of the ignorance contained in so many of your posts.

      P.S. The past participle of the verb "to give" is gave.

    6. Reading threw your post I cant find much sources either. This is because it is quite boring to look in my books and search for the source. But yes, I could probably do that more, but you're not doing much of that either. Besides coming with insults there is pretty thin soup you are serving this forum as well.

      When the debate become personal, and throwing "you don't claim the source because there is any etc, critics of English skills, and calling my faith a fairy tale" I am out. Its very boring.

      I taught I could give it a chance, but this is just wasting time.

      Please consider what I said about bitterness. It hurts lot more for those infected by it then the victims from it.

      Best regards

    7. I don't make statistical assertions without furnishing the source and if it's too boring for you to search for your sources and provide them, you are expecting the reader to take what you say at face value which any educated person would refuse to do.

      Your English skills or lack thereof are there for all to see. In other words, your posts are the source. And by its abrogation of critical thinking, faith is ludicrous and yours in particular no more than a belief in fairy tales--again your posts are the source.

      One way or the other, if you make any statistical assertions with no source provided, rest assured I will call you on it.

  26. Do you know ANYTHING about the documentation of the Bible and history of Jesus? Since you can conclude stronger then any archeologist's, i guess you know something very special.

    Lots of attacks. How do you solve the mystery of life? Leave it to more intelligent people then youreself and hope they solve it? Where did the universe come from? Whats outside the universe? Vacuum? And how long have the universe existed and for how long will it be? How did life came to be? And where? In the snow? in the dirt? In the sea? form the space? From the mountain? This are questions you dont have the slightest clue. And there are no science that has proven any of this cases what so ever. Many are guessing and nobody knows. I suggest you learn some humbleness. Roger Penrose have studied this for a lifetime and is one the top ten mathmatichians alive today. Learn from him.

    Yes. I have education. good luck to you.

    1. @Pederas,

      The difference between you and rational people is that rational people will answer "I don't know" to the questions you posed, and your answer is "God did it". That is the basic difference.

      Rational people are more humble than you, because they openly admit they don't know some answers. On the other hand you display arrogance by claiming that you know the unknowable and that you're in some kind of special relationship with a supernatural force.

      And rest assure, some people here probably know much more than you regarding the documentation of the Bible, History and Archaeology.

    2. "The difference between you and rational people.." This is just to low level to comment.

      I dont claim i know. I say I believe. Based on lots of criterias I believe this and that.. Thats why we call it faith. Or do you mean it shouldnt be legal to have a faith because that would be arrogant? I just cant see the problem to have a faith in a creator.

      You claim that you are rational and can therefor declare that I am wrong... is that it? In that case you know something other people don't know, yes? Can you say that whats outside time and space doesn't ecsist? I would say thats a strong statement.

      If we discover a small, very simple building, on march. What would be our reaction?
      Who did it? The Chinese? Americans? Russians? Aliens?

      Just to consider this being a coincidence would be called irrational.
      Now then, The planet earth is very, very much more complicated then the simplest building structure.
      I therefor believe it is designed/ created. Based on that thinking I also believe that it is there for a purpose. I think that there is a reason that the universe is here. Because the fine tuning is sooo accurate, one small mistake and it all would collapse. I believe we, as humans are here because we are wanted here. Since everything around us are so accurate probably there is a reason to it. And then
      The moral, love, evil, our free will etc. is, based on this "purpose thinking", suddenly making sense.

      If you don't believe this. Fine. Feel free. If you believe its all just a a coincidence. Values are just subjective etc. Fine. Feel free. But in many ways it doesn't sound very logic that either.

      "And rest assure, some people here probably know much more than you regarding the documentation of the Bible, History and Archaeology"


    3. Without proof, your beliefs are worthless and without the knowledge to back them up, your thoughts are vacuous. "I just cant [sic] see the problem to have a [sic] in a creator" is as clear an indication of the level of your intelligence and education as your beliefs that we are here "because we are wanted here" and that the so-called fine-tuning of the universe somehow means this planet was designed (by some vague creator) especially for humans. Did it ever occur to you that hominids are a late development and that there were many forms of life all occupying the same atmosphere which preceded them? Did it ever occur to you that morals, love, evil, etc. are based on the evolution of society and not on what you so ignorantly term purpose? Perhaps if you didn't hold your religion over science, you would understand these concepts which are based on hard evidence, the only type of evidence that matters.

    4. @Pederas,

      It is fine to have an unfounded belief... as long as you keep it for you. It is not fine when you try to impose it and present it as "the truth" by various means, including the ones below (reposted):

      1. Avoiding taxes,
      2. Vilification of homosexuality,
      3. Polluting the media (door-to-door and TV religion salespeople, preaching on the Internet, etc.)
      4. Campaigns against safe sex (AIDS in Africa),
      5. Condemnation of abortion and stem cells research,
      6. Disowning family members for leaving their religion,
      7. Genitalia mutilation,
      7. Invading schools with anti-science dogmas (Intelligent Design),
      8. Traumatization by vivid religious stories (hell, sin, sex abstinence, punishment etc.)
      9. Suicide bombers,
      10. Discrimination against atheists (may not hold public office),
      11. Massive violence caused by by differences in belief or doctrine (Bosnia, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc),
      12. Harboring and protecting pedophilia, etc.

      For the rest of your comment, I've clearly stated that I'm happy to say "I don't know", so I don't know what's outside time and space, but I don't believe it is God (especially your God).

      Lately I find that everything religious people say, especially creationists (but I presume all religious people are creationists to some extent) can be reduced to one big "God of the Gaps" argument.

      It is true that we don't know many things, and probably some things we will never get to know, but what we know now (physics, archaeology, biology, genetics, history, psychology, neuroscience, etc.) reduces the possibility of God's existence.

    5. Fine, but just two questions.

      1. Do you consider circumcision genital mutilation and if so, do you believe it should be banned?

      2. Would you consider Kenneth R. Miller a creationist?

    6. @robertallen1,

      1. I consider circumcision genital mutilation. Especially when people do it because it says so in a book written centuries ago. And they do it in a religious ritual. It might have some hygienic or medical advantages (which is questionable) but nothing important.

      2. Kenneth R. Miller states that he is religious but he believes in evolution in the same time. He doesn't believe in ID. There are many people like him. But by doing that they deny the book. God clearly states that he created everything in six days. They don't want to throw out the religion because of the position they hold, the stigmatization that follows, or other personal reasons. In short I think he is not a true believer.

    7. 1. If circumcision is performed just to keep mohels in business, I'm against it. What I am most concerned about is the hygienic advantage, if any, to the process, i.e., does nature need a bit of correcting? On the other hand, I see no benefits to be derived from female circumcision and thus I am strongly against it.

      2. That's why I brought Dr. Miller up because I don't think he's a true believer either--one way or the other, he admits that he has the greatest job in the world which is probably why he leaves his religion at the doorstep to his lab and maybe he goes to church because he likes the bingo games.

    8. A child that is allowed to touch his genital as much as he feels the need while naked will most likely not have a problem with his foreskin.
      Religion has (indirectly) told parents not to let that happen.
      There are exceptions but not in the crazy scale the operation is performed still in the States or elsewhere.

    9. Circumcision is genital mutilation on an infant.

    10. I agree in most of your points. Except that ID should be banned, more or less. Why is that? Why cant ID be presented as well? What are you afraid of? There are nobel prize winners accepting ID. Its not enemies of science at all, it stimulates to investigate more and do more science. And it gives science more angles. Which is necessary for gaining new ground. But to not allow it sounds a bit communistic to me..
      But it is enemies of Atheism. Is that what you fear?
      Besides that, you don't need to bee religious to condemn abortion..
      The freedom must go both ways.

      I believe i have spent enough time here.

      Have a nice evening sir.
      And God bless you! (I mean it)

    11. @Pederas.

      No one is afraid of anything, including ID. It is very simple. ID is not science (which was proven in court). It is religious belief masked to infiltrate schools. Very cheap.

    12. First of all, as ID is not science, it cannot give science "more angles." Moreover, as it is not science, it has no business in the science class room--and this has nothing to do with Communism

      Secondly, which Nobel prize winners accept ID and what are their fields of specialty?

      Third, what does abortion have to do with all this?

    13. It's not about being afraid...The problem is that proponents of ID are not ethical people, and they can and will do anything to hide the truth in favour of their fairy tales.
      ID isn't about choice or freedom, it's about suppression of the truth!

    14. In that case: What is the truth?

    15. About what?

    16. certainly not "a wizard did it"

    17. I did not ask what you think is not the truth. I asked what the truth is. From your silence you probably don`t know.
      As long as you are in the dark it is a bit arrogant claiming everyone else suggestions are unethical oppressing of the truth, isn`t it?
      If someone suggest (without knowing of course) that the universe came out of nothing and will turn back to nothing in a couple billion of years, is that also oppressing the truth?

      I simply believe that a highly intelligent systems have an intelligence source. If you know otherwise, please tell us..

      If you don`t, whats your point?

    18. As usual, you miss the point. Speculations and beliefs, including yours, are a dime a dozen. What counts is what you can prove.

    19. Hand over the proofs then.

    20. You just can't get it straight. The person asserting is the one responsible for providing the proof, not the other way around.

      And you call yourself an educated person.

    21. I don`t have exact proof. Neither do you.
      End of discussion then. Happy?

    22. Then don't make assertions you cannot back up. End of discussion.

    23. The truth is evolution. The truth is what we can prove it to be.
      There is absolutely nothing arrogant in supporting the side that can show clear and concise evidence to support it's thinking.
      To me, the thought that something intelligent made everything, instantly renders everything cheap and pointless.

    24. Evolution? Is that the truth? How sure can you be on this one? Willing to bet 10 000 dollars? Or your life?
      So where did life start? I guess you know that since you know "the truth" based on clear and concise evidence.

      And we haven't even started on the question of Cosmos.

      If you see some sort of intelligent conctruction, very simple, but still a construction on march. What would you think of that? Would you blame humans, aliens or what?

      To say the complex universe is not made by an intelligent source is very illogic, based on the way we think and base our thinking and science. Coincidents, is that it?

      To you it sounds cheap and pointless. To me that gives meaning and hope. A cold universe, without purpose, meaning or hope. Well.. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Thats for sure.

      Now then. Have a nice day sir.

    25. I will bet my life, because we can see it still happening all around us today!
      If you're failing to see that, it's because you're choosing to ignore it. The evidence is overwhealming to the point where there just isn't an argument against it anymore.
      Life can evolve from nothing when the conditions are right.
      To say the world is made by an intelligent source is little more than childish make believe to try and stop making yourself so scared of the big wide nothing out there...I suppose Santa clause still brings you xmas pressies every year too right?

      If an all powerful being made all of this, if all of this didn't spring from nothing, then life is little more than a cruel joke resided over by the worst kind of monster!
      It takes a lot of ignorance to be faithful, that's for sure...and i for one don't envy you for it!

    26. "The evidence is overwhelming to the point where there just isn't an argument against it anymore.
      Life can evolve from nothing when the conditions are right..."

      Is it? I have never heard any. So please tell me.

      "If the conditions are right"

      Well... so far you cant even prove that with intelligent scientists in laboratory trying to create life. They cant even create the simplest plant. They have never made life evolve out of dead material. The chances of this are so small that they are equal to nothing. (check out mathematician R. Penrose on this one ) And you believe life as we know it, happened coincidently?
      As I said, it takes strong faith to be an atheist. My faith is not strong enough, so ill take my chances on something more intelligent then my self. Even more intelligent then you.

      Besides, you still need carbon and all the other materials to make this illusion of evolving life happen. And so far you haven't even mentioned that subject. So even tho I give you right in both macro and micro evolution, you still haven solved the main question. How did the universe come to existence.

      As a christian, evolution is not a threat to my faith. As an atheist, all sorts of design, intelligence, creator is a threat to your atheistic world view.

      I am looking forward to hear from you.

      God bless.

    27. well, since science isn't arrogant enough to presume it already knows everything, i can tell you honestly that i don't know, because it's hard figuring out precisely what those conditions were, because it happened billions of years ago. but it's a safe bet, Study will eventually show us when the technology is capable of it, and there won't be a magic wizard in the sky making it happen, that i can guarantee!

      Quoting a mathmatician on matters of biology is a pretty good example of just how desperately you'll grasp for straws in order to try and find some kind of proof for your superstition.

      You don't seem to be engaging in any kind of debate, you just seem to be throwing extracts of answers in genesis at me...There are plenty of docs on this site that will tell you exactly why such things you mention are bogus arguments...they've been debunked and answered a thousand times by a thousand different people, yet still you cling to them like a security blanket! Educate yourself, it isn't a crime to be educated here in the 21st century where the church doesn't run things!
      May you find freedom from your superstitions and live a more meaningful and fuller life for it.

    28. No answers from you. Just insults, insults and more insults.
      So you still believe that dead material can become life without any intelligence? How do you make that happen. Simple question.

    29. Now once again, just because we don't know something, does not by default mean that your god or some form of intelligence of which you know nothing did it.

      You deserve the insults of which you comlain, not because you are ignorant but because you are wilfully so.

    30. Oh and you haven't been insulting me?
      I'm ribbing you as much as you're ribbing me...So don't throw your teddies out the pram.

      I just told you i don't know how we make life from nothing...Tell me, how does God do it? If it's impossible why is God able to do it?

    31. I don`t know how He do things. Thats why He is God. He know stuff we can only dream of. Kids don`t know what parents do and how. But they don`t deny their parents existence or the fact that they can bring them on vacations, bring food on the table etc.

      Since we don`t have a clue about how life came to existence I assume that intelligence that made it knows more. It is a "God in the gap" argument in some ways, but still.

      I just find it very illogical that non-intelligence dead material produce intelligence and free will. Its like a river going higher then its source. Impossible. Prove God? well.. difficult. He is outside time and space. Hard to prove that with science that are just working within time and space. But we can see signs of it. But hard evidence. Difficult.

    32. Because you don't know, you assume--and this is the mark of an educated person. "It is a 'God in the gap' argument in some ways,l but still." But still what--and this is the educated person you try to pass your off as being. You admit that you cannot prove that god exists, yet you endow him with all manner of attributes. Is this what an educated person would do? "But we can see signs of it [god?]." What are these signs? Would an educated person make a claim such as this and not enumerate the signs.

    33. What do you base your life upon Robertallen1?
      Do you know for sure that you don`t need to answer for your sins one day? How certain are you? Because you did not have enough proof of a God? Well.
      The penalty law says that "not being aware of the law will not reduce penalty"
      Choosing not to believe in any God is your choice. But I will not go easy on these questions. They might be real.
      Good luck.

    34. Just which law are you referring to? All your "arguments" are predicated on your statements being taken at face value. Hence, they are no more than groundless, ignorant assertions.

    35. an argument from ignorance, seriously? What kind of hare brained argument is that?
      How on earth is that meant to be a counter to decades of serious scientific study?
      Personally i think the most astonishing thing is that you seem to think that's the intelligent conclusion. it's like being told 5x5 = elephant. It's ridiculous special pleading.

    36. Perhaps if you would take the time to learn a little more about the sciences in general and especially biology and mathematics, you wouldn't make the embarassingly ignorant statements you do. Just because scientists have not yet created life in a lab does not mean that they won't in the future, especially as they've come awfully close. One way or the other, this does not mean by default that your god whose existence you can't even prove did it.

      How many times do you have to be told, that billions (or even millions) of years ago, the earth was a very different place and thus elements which cannot ow get together at one time were able to? Again, if you would take the time to learn a little bit more about science in general, you wouldn't make such embarassingly ignorant statements.

      You have not provided any concrete evidence of all this design and intelligence you keep talking about, only your pathetic faith.

    37. So; bottom line is:
      Things that are so much more complicated then a simple house. a human being, the universe etc. came to existence by chance and necessity. Do you believe this?
      Just answer Yes or no. Very simple. (plus that I am stupid, not educated etc. of course)

    38. That is not what I wrote. You need not only to re-read, but to comprehend.

    39. So:
      Do you believe the universe came out of an intelligence or by chance?
      Or do you not know (which make you more agnostic then atheist)

      Its just a simple question.

    40. Where did I state that I was an atheist? You really must do something about your reading comprehension.

    41. Robertallen1:
      It was a question. Please answer. Read the question again. I did not claim that you are an atheist, thats why I am asking. But now you have the chance so clarify what you believe in. Its all yours:

      Do you believe the universe came out of an intelligence or by chance?
      Or do you not know (which make you more agnostic then atheist)

      Its just a simple question."

    42. You still don't get it. It's not what I believe; it's what I can prove.

    43. Pederas
      a couple of quick questions
      1. of the 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped, what one(s) do you propose are true? as i feel this information is necessary to have an in depth discussion.

      2. as for the origins of the universe and abiogenesis. i answer "i do not know". do you have demonstrable proof to back up any other assertion? and please show that proof pertains to a specific god.

      3. did anyone here claim "a human being, the universe etc. came to existence by chance and necessity." if not that is a strawman. if so i will back you up on correcting them.

      4. just so you know raising questions concerning the big bang (or other cosmological theories), abiogenesis,evolution and other scientific theories is a good thing. even if all scientific theories were to be proven false . that in no way adds weight to your god claims.

    44. Thank you over the edge.

      1: Well. It is a big question we are discussing. So i prefer separating the theology from the design/not design. As long as someone are claiming it is not designed, the question of a spesific God is often pointless.
      I have answered this question many posts ago. But the short version is Jesus. It makes sense concerning the question of sin and guilt that Jesus paid our prize. The prophecies of Israel and the fact of Israel are very interesting if you study them.
      The prophets who explained Jesus is also very interesting. why would anyone live a life like Jesus? How did he Change the world in 3 small years. A poor carpenter without any real power? If He wasn't Gods son, who was he? If you read the Gospell of John, I mean READ it. You get a sense of who Jesus was. He claims to be Gods son. I believe Him. He also talks of faith as the way. And threw the faith, Jesus living within me, I grow in confidence. But first I need to take an decision. I am a sinner. I need forgiveness. And then God will bring you the faith. And learn you on the way. The word of God is leading and answer questions, comforting and bring me hope.
      You mention very many Gods. But the real God would probably survive the entire age of man. Most of these Gods haven't. Thats one of the reasons I find Him trust able.
      The question of justice also strengthen my faith. If it is so that all evil is not to be judged. Why do we try to defend "justice" and why do we try to be moral? The why the Bible handle these questions are absolutely phenomenal and you wont fin anything even close to it in any other religion.

      2: The complexity of the universe reflects the intelligence of the one who made it. A man made God for instance, could not do that.
      God, who we meet in the bible, told us we where made in His image. The relation of parents/children reflects God. It is not just taken out of the air. It is in His image. We are Hes children. He have given us a free will. He did not make us robots. But free beings. Just like we give birth to our children with their free will. And we want them to be free. And we hope they use their freedom to do good. But we cant just look them up. just like God don`t make us robots.
      This is one of hundreds of revelations come from studying the Word and listen to Him.

      3:You are right. If not it is a strawman.
      I simply ask the question; Did it happen by chance and necessity or by intelligence. Or do you have a third option?

      4: You are right again. These theories are fascinating and they are good, cause they force us to think and re-think all of us. I have never claimed that God is proven. But I believe, the alternatives in mind, that it is more likely that an intelligence did it then that it came out of nothing, without purpose and will soon (the eternity in mind) disapair to nothing. At least no life.

    45. Again, making statements you cannot back up, like everything you've written about "Jesus" and the bible, a set of books you know nothing about. You keep quoting from John which is quite different from the other three Gospels, both in perspective and teachings. Now, which of the four synoptic gospels is correct and why?

      "The question of justice also strengthen my faith. If it is so that all evil is not to be judged. Why do we try to defend "justice" and why do we try to be moral? The why the Bible handle these questions are absolutely phenomenal and you wont fin anything even close to it in any other religion." First of all, it's obvious from your posts that you haven't studied any other religion or for that matter any other forms of Christianity. Second, the bible is no more phenomenal than any of the other "holy" books. Your problem, again stemming from wilful ignorance, is that you've read nothing else. Third, any first-year social anthropology student can provide you with answers concerning the origins of what we consider justice and morality--and these have nothing to do with Christianity and the antideluvian work which "supports" it.

      "It" happened, not by chance, but by natural physical laws. Perhaps if you cracked open a science textbook you would find some answers which you won't find on some creationist website.

      The phrase "more likely" implies that you have enumerated the alternatives and THROUGH HARD EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS THEREOF, picked out the most PROBABLE explanation. From your posts, it's obvious that you're relied merely on your own ignorance (read faith), rendering your statement as worthless as all of your others.

    46. Pederas
      1. so you believe in jesus. here is where your argument goes off the rails for me. you start with a circular argument. god is real because the bible said so and the bible is right because god is real. that is not proof of anything. the bible has been edited, translated, contradicts itself/logic/history and is written by unknown authors(many long after the claimed events) and are hearsay. you dismiss the other gods without any reason other than they didn't "God would probably survive the entire age of man" but the bible started long after the beginning of man and we have no reason to assert it will survive forever.

      2. you assume that complexity cannot be produced through natural causes and then inject your god into the perceived complexity. does god have "Omniscience"? if so free will is not true. if not he is not all powerful.
      when you state "This is one of hundreds of revelations come from studying the Word " do you also include such gems as slavery, murder.incest.infanticide and so on.

      3. human evolution has nothing to do with chance. it is a guided process (natural selection)

      4. again who claims " it came out of nothing" anyone who supports the big bang,abiogenesis or evolution would be wrong and misinformed to say that " it came out of nothing"

    47. Well. If you think the Bible contradicts it self. Fine. If you dont believe the materials the Bible is based on. Fine. It is old. Yes. much of it is written long after Jesus. Yes. But so is all materials we have from ancient time.
      You asked a question. Sorry if it didn't satisfied your standards. What more can i do. When you call it herasy you are stumbling. Thats a claim. Not a fact. Why would so many people who could write at that time choose to write about Jesus if it was a fairytale? They wasnt all unknown. thats wrong. I believe that if it is a God, He would survive the time. God have survived all that time we know. At least the time intelligent humans, as we know them today, have lived on the planet.
      The last you write about slavery etc. is something I could teach you about if you don`t understand the meaning of it, but that would need more then a simple forum like this. Recomended reading is prof. J.P. Morland, Beyond death.

      This is why I prefer to clear out the first things first.

      What do you believe in? What do you base your life upon? What defines your view of life and how to live your life?

      3: Guided process? Who is the guide?

      4: If it was not nothing; what was it?

      Looking forward to hear from you!!

    48. The bible does contradict itself. For a textbook example of disparity, compare the accounts of the crucifixtion and the events leading up to it in all four gospels after that, try working on the nativity. Then perhaps you might want to ponder why the sermon on the mount appears only in the Gospel of Matthew. So it's not a matter of believing the materials, but rather of trying to figure out what to believe--and when it comes to scriptures, this is impossible.

      "Yes. much of it [apparently the New Testament] is written long after Jesus. Yes. But so is all materials we have from ancient time." Just which materials and periods of time are you referring to?

      Among the other subjects you have yet to read up on, please add the definition of hearsay to your list. I'll start you off: Hearsay is when party A tells party C what party B said or did. As party C bases his "information" on what party A communicates to him, but has no independent basis for its truth, this is flimsy evidence. Now, try applying this to your limited knowledge of the bible.

      "Why would so many people who could write at that time choose to write about Jesus if it was a fairytale?" At which time does this non sequitur refer? You can add simple logic to the subjects you have yet to read up on.

      So your god "survived all that time we know. At least the time intelligent humans, as we know them today, have lived on the planet." Here, your ignorance of anthropology comes into play: hominids of which homo sapiens (in your terms, "us") is one are a serotinous additament. From your statement, your god wasn't around before them. So which god was?

    49. Pederas
      you state "If you think the Bible contradicts it self. Fine" no i do not say i THINK that. i say that it is a FACT it contradicts itself. usually when i point out some of these contradictions i get "interpretations" or "context" back. so i will ask who was in charge at the birth of jesus Herod or Quirinius? was the rustication before or after the passover meal?

      i said hearsay not herasy. you then ask " Why would so many people who could write at that time choose to write about Jesus if it was a fairytale? " again we have no writings from that time at best we have copies of copies of copies.... we also still have writings of the Greek gods and they are older. does that make them true? what about Hindu or Muslim god(s)? we have many writings and believers in those religions.

      i understand about slavery. but please explain your understanding of the bibles take on it. can you beat your slaves if they survive for a while before dying? are they property? what are the rules on slavery if they are from foreign lands?

      "Guided process? Who is the guide? " there is no who. there is a what. and that is natural selection. it is not chance

      "If it was not nothing; what was it?" first off i must state again this is not my area of study. while i have a basic knowledge of the big bang. i have to say "i don't know" to many questions concerning the theory. with that said the theory states a singularity not nothing. now if you wish to ask where the singularity came from i will give my standard answer(i don't know) and i am not stating that the BB is right.

    50. Anyway, whose to say you're right?
      Jesus promised peace on earth, Odin promised to kill all the ice giants.
      I don't know about you, but i don't see any peace on earth, or Ice giants...Which means there's more evidence for Odin than there is the christian god!

    51. Jesus never promised peace on earth. But that is a theological question.
      Jesus promised us trials, resistance from our self, from others and from the world.

      I believe we first have to handle the question of a designed universe or a cold and dead universe, before jumping into the theology.

    52. No, we must first handle the question of your wilful lack of education.

    53. I have an education:) Going to work in less then 3 hours;)

    54. That's like saying the bible is true because it says it is true.

    55. You want me to scan and send you the documentation? Whats your point here? Do you have an education? Usually people who talk so much of lack of education usually have a complex for theire own education. People with education also learned enough manner to not use innsults in every second sentence they write.

    56. And just what type of documentation is this? If it's off some creationist website, forget it. I get enough ignorance just by going through your posts.

      You're a fine one to talk about what people with education do or don't do, as you obviously have none yourself.

    57. robertallen1
      i finished Bart Ehrman. i thought it was great and certainly sharpened my arguments. thanks again for the suggestion.

    58. Actually, it was you who suggested it. It was one of his books that I hand't read and so I remedied the situation. I think it should be mandatory reading for every relignoramus, don't you?

    59. It's amazing how you lot manage to weasle around answering any direct question...technically the bible promises us i've previously said there isn't much evidence suggesting Jesus ever actually existed, so lets not go putting words in mouths that might not be there eh?

      There is no question. There is one side which has evidence supporting it's claims, and there's another side waving a book about saying we'll all go to hell if we don't believe everything it says.

    60. I am still waiting for a direct answer for my questions, questions from you or an evidence for whatever you rely your atheism in.
      Isn`t there much evidence Jesus existence? In that case it is far less evidence of Platon, Socrates existence. But if you doubt their existence. Fine. I can`t bring them back to life for you.

      The questions of my education is quite boring.

    61. Considering the nonsense you write, the question of your education is quite relevant.

    62. You cant even answer the simplest question. Whats your agenda of being here? Others then insults and spreading your hate towards anyone with different opinions then your self?

      I remember why I usually don`t go into these Internet discussions.

      Good bye.

    63. Wrong as usual. It's hatred directed not towards differing opinions, but towards those as ignorant as you are who profess to know things they don't.

    64. lol, i have been answering your questions.

      To me the questioning of your education is hat's really interesting...because you seem to have been taught history by a crazy person!
      Less evidence for socrates than Jesus...i've never heard such an absurd suggestion!

    65. In a way, he's right. All we know about Socrates comes from Aristotle and at least there are some secular albeit later sources for Jesus such as Suetonius, Lucian, Pliny the Elder and Josephus (sort of).

      But your questioning of his education is without question.

    66. gah...alright I suppose put like that I can grudgingly give you that one...either way though it's strayed far from the initial point which was It still doesn't change the fact that Evolution is unquestionably the truth of our origins!

    67. If you mean by "our origins" hominids or all living things, I don't think anything better is going to come along, for not only does evolution employ concrete evidence to explain how life forms change, but it comes complete with practical applications such as currently used in immunology. Can't beat that.

    68. which just goes to show what amazing things people are capable of if they can only let go of the childish superstitions that hold them back!

    69. Tell that to Kent Hovind (Eric will do).

    70. soon as he get's out of jail i'll get right onto it!

    71. At least he won't be complaining about evolution being taught in public schools on his tax dollar.

    72. lol, no i imagine he's got much more pressing matters to concern himself with.

    73. What a shame one of them is not education. Have you seen his debate with Genie Scott?

    74. no, can't say that i have.

    75. It's on You Tube. You might want to take the time to watch it. If I recall, it's only about an hour long.

    76. @robertallen1

      Most of what we know about Socrates actually comes from Plato, backed up by the writings Xenophon and a play by Aristophanes. Yes Aristotle made a few remarks about him but he is not the main source that your post suggests.

    77. I meant to write Plato. Sorry, my error.

    78. Yes, we can be more than just reasonably certain about evolution, as it is based on hard evidence, not the idiotic faith which you espouse.

      There is no such thing as concise evidence.

      How many times do you have to be told that evolution has nothing to do with how life started; that's abiogenesis. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

      As usual you have it backwards: to say that the universe is made by an intelligent source without offering any proof other than your speculations and conjectures is illogical.

      Once again, it takes no faith to be an atheist, for atheism is the lack of faith.

      And yet you claim to have a education.

    79. And yes. I have an education. What sort of education do you have?

    80. It's obvious from your posts that you don't have anything approaching an education, your inability to grasp the difference between evolution and abiogenesis being one of the highlights. It is apparent that all your "information" comes from creationist websites and the like and that you haven't the least idea what anything's about, including your bible. You haven't pulled the wool over anyone's eyes.

    81. @Pederas...Why are you putting yourself across as someone who actually knows anything about religions in general and anything about all the bibles, which are just a collection of basically inaccurate bunch of hand written manuscripts that are not even mostly contemporaneous to the times.

      The books/bibles in themselves do not constitute any proof of events that they portray, as they say "(money/proof)-talks, bull$h1te walks."

    82. Which documentation of the bible and the history of "Jesus" are you referring to? From your statements, it's obvious that you know nothing about the history of the bible, much less anything about biblical scholarship.

      By definition, nothing can exist outside the universe and what science does not know now, it has a good chance of learning more about in the future which is more than can be said of the wilful ignorance born from your stagnant religion.

      Beyond the big bang, I don't know how the universe came to be or how life "started" and you don't either. The difference is that I admit when I don't know; I don't claim to know something of which I am ignorant and I don't resort to ignorance and superstition to explain what I don't know. So don't go about claiming you have an education when you really don't.

  27. I applaud you, robertallen1. Well said sir!

    1. Thank you. Happy oil.

  28. Robertallen1 I applaud you.

  29. I wonder if the maker of this documentary purchased Dutko's material. If yes, he played right into Dutko's hands, for Dutko and those like him couldn't care less about the quality of the material they hawk only their success in hawking it.

  30. Booooring... The documentary has completely failed. And of course; The proofs for the opposite answer, materialism, is even weeker then the religious ones. But all of this documentary is based upon "the fact" that the creasionists are wrong and the documentary possess the right answer to everything and base theire judgement on this fact. That is extremely arrogant attitude and he falls in his own trap; the "Argument for authority".
    And besides, which apologist have ever used this argument?
    The documentary is first drawing its own enemies like it want the enemy to look a like and then defeating them... Waaaay to simple method for the biggest question in history.

    If you want a real documentary, check out Lennox vs Dawkins etc. They at least get to challange each other a bit.

    Good luck

    1. You have said absolutely nothing--and creationists such as Bob Dutko are not only wrong, but fraudulent.

      P.S. And yes, I've watched the debate between Lennox and Dawkins--and what's amazing is that a man of Lennox' education believes in the fairty tale tripe in the Bible. Dawkins is clearly the winner.

    2. Thank you for a great and objective analyses of what I pointed out (You have said absolutely nothing).

      And well-taught of analyses of Lennox/Dawkins debate (Dawkins is clearly the winner.)

      I just wonder; Why are you so angry? Where does it come from? Has it blinded you totally? Are you to blind to see your own arrogance?
      Your calling the bible a fairytale. What if it is not? What if it is true and your wrong? You have to ask the right questions.
      -Why is this such a important book? How could one person, without political, military or economic capacity, change the entire world for the next 2000 years? And he just worked for 3 years before he died. And today we have more written material about Jesus then we have about the cesar. Why? Can you tell me that?
      The fact that a smart man as Lennox is christian just show us that your answer, whatever it is, need a component of belief.

      If you calm down and leave your anger you might unerstood something as well.

      Sleep tight;)

    3. My anger comes from people like you who post their religious rot on sites like this and elsewhere and try to bring others down to their level of ignorance and stupidity.

      If you had anything amounting to an education, you might not post such tripe, especially about the bible (and it's not a matter of IF it's a fairy tale, it IS a fairy tale) and "Jesus" which you know nothing about.

      Dr. Dawkins is intelligent, well-educated and credentialed. Compared to him, you are a mere peasant.

  31. First of all, I need to thank you for this video. It's safe to say that it always makes our day, hearing out a fellow atheist. Faith is the same word as ignorance. But the former is just celebrated and respected. Religious nut-cases will be proven wrong when their genes will not be passed down to future generations. I'm studying law, and you have no idea how many cases of gross negligence I have encountered, where people place their faith in a higher power, instead of taking their child to a doctor when it's sick, even today. Let's leave evolution take it's course, I say.

    1. Are religious nut-cases genetic in nature?

    2. There seems to be a psychological profile and brain activity that makes it more likely, but the number one culprit is lack of proper education and improper thinking.

  32. So on Mr Dutko's radio show web site I quote "Christianity, he discovered, is the only religious belief system that doesnt crumble under intellectual scrutiny and investigation. Bob's mission is to now show people that if you examine the Bible with logic, evidence, facts, science, reason, intellect and history, you will see that Evolution really is false, the Bible really is true"... WELL aahem...? ....what to say...? ...after listening to the above 10 proofs I thought to myself, why go to so much work refuting this guy-clearly, he destroys himself at every turn, no one would take him seriously would they? So. I looked him up, and wow one of his radio shows is National and lots of people listen. Have to say that just made me sad. Then I read his bio - from the above quote I just want to say that I agree absolutely- let us all please encourage those who seek to gain some intellectual curiosity, learn to discern, do research and look through many sources using the scientific method, apply reason and accept only verifiable evidence - Learn, in other words to think for yourself. As for Mr Dutko his bio noted some great tragedies in his life; I am disconcerted that he 'needs' to try to convince others of his imaginings, however, I would not deny his or anyones right to find whatever comfort they can for them selves.

  33. WTF is a creationist scientist. There is no science in creationism.

  34. @Harry, Just studying biology right now and I thought I'd Chime in. The eye color thing you're talking about in regards to you and your siblings is not actually a mutation... It just means that you and your siblings are homozygous recessive for the blue eye allele. Which in plain English means that you have carry only the recessive blue eye allele. For this to happen both of your parents must be carrying the recessive blue eye allele, but they are heterozygous (carry both brown and blue alleles) in which case the brown (dominant) is displayed. This means that you and your siblings have by chance all received 2 blue eye alleles each and zero brown eye alleles, which is why you all display blue eyes. It's statistically unlikely, but not a mutation.

  35. An effect is produced by a cause, and similarly, the universe must also have a cause. Causes The active cause of the world must have an absolute knowledge of all the material of creation, and hence it must be God. Hence from the creation, the existence of the Creator is proved..........Hindu philosophy

    1. anuragawasthi
      you state "An effect is produced by a cause" and i agree. sort of. within the scientific laws that our universe is governed you are right. but this "creation" brought in to existence these laws so my question is. at a time that these laws did not exist how can you apply them?

      you also state "The active cause of the world must have an absolute knowledge" why? if a cause does or did exist how do you know it had/has this or any particular attributes?

    2. Hi "over the edge"

      Just to clarify, are you suggesting that "cause-effect" laws may not have existed before "the creation" ?

    3. Emanouel
      i am asking not suggesting. i have no idea of what the conditions were . also if there was no time how do you judge "before". all i am asking is if this "creator" made everything it would include the laws of science. when it comes to the origins of the universe i have to claim insufficient knowledge on my part as i haven't studied the subject thoroughly enough to make an informed declaration of knowledge.

    4. over the edge

      should I have asked,

      are you suggesting that "cause-effect" laws may not have existed at the point of creation ?

      Hey, I claim absolutely no knowledge on my part... am only interested in your viewpoint.

    5. Emanouel
      i am basing the question on what i have been told in the past concerning creation. maybe you or anuragawasthi have a better or different answer and i am open to it. when i apply the cause and effect argument to the creator and ask "who created the creator" i am told that the creator exists outside of our reality and the laws of science do not apply. so if for the sake of argument i accept that claim (and i don't) then creation comes from a place that cause and effect do not exist. am i wrong? if so please explain?

    6. over the edge

      I cannot say you are wrong.
      As you stated, you applied the cause and effect argument to the creator(if one does exist).
      My initial query was in relation to our physical universe and whether a cause is necessary.

    7. Emanouel
      "My initial query was in relation to our physical universe and whether a cause is necessary." and to that i have to say "i do not know". my response was to try to get the poster to understand that the argument he presented requires more explanation/understanding before it can be used to justify a position.

    8. I agree with your point.

    9. How do you know that an effect is produced by a cause? Unless you can prove it, the rest of your post is sheer nonsense.

    10. "The universe must also have a cause"? Don't know about that? My own "thoughts only" the universe came about from an imperfection from what was the perfect void/oblivion, so everything including us humans are imperfections, therefore the only cause that I can see for the universe is imperfection trying to perfect itself, by mutations etc: But can never happen because of the laws of entropy.

    11. I have been reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and he goes into the laws of entropy, but the one thing he doesn't cover is how to tell high entropy from low entropy. When I ponder one of his analogies, water compared with ice, I begin to wonder which is which. When looked at chemically, water can be considered of low entropy, but when viewed in terms of ice, it could be considered of high entropy. Can you bring any enlightenment?

    12. Ice cubes the more that they melt the more entropy they have "second law"

      But in entropy there is a double headed arrow of time, a paradox, toward the future time line and toward the past time line would be the same.

      Would be very hard to explain on these posts, suggest you go over his ice analogy carefully.

      This is sitting on the fence of being on topic, since we have "argument of improbability" on the doc.

    13. You are the one who brought up entropy so I thought I would ask. Yes, I understand the double-headed arrow of time although Dr. Greene admits that the back arrow can be hard to justify (argument of improbability), e.g., Humpty Dumpty being put back together again. I don't feel qualified to posit anything. I'm simply asking how the difference between low and high entropy is determined or as in the case of water, from which vantage point? This Dr. Greene does not go into.

    14. How entropy is determined from what vantage point? that I do not know. Maybe others like @Waldo, Epic, or Vlatko can answer that.

  36. re: the assertion that "mutation is always detrimental". there are 3 videos on this site that poke very large holes in that theory. one relates to a subset of female humans who show signs of visually detecting infrared light without artificial aid. another relates to the child with an incredibly muscular physique due to a hormonal mutation. the third relates to the family with "abnormally" dense bones. blue eyes are a "neutral" mutation. both animal husbandry and agricultural selective breeding produce desired traits in offspring of those efforts. would those traits not be "subjectively beneficial mutation"? even the most cursory examination of the world we live in completely debunks the "always detrimental" argument, assuming one is honest enough to admit preconceptions are not facts carved in stone.

    1. Right and this is evolution at work.

    2. or at the very least the mechanism of evolution at work. i wouldn't presume to state that any of the traits i listed demonstrate "advantage" as of yet. in theory, the young man with the hormonal mutation could well end up with the signature shrunken testes that are a symptom of steroid abuse (i dont believe he has hit puberty as of yet). the other 2 seem decidedly "neutral at worst". i just felt a need to chime in as i have heard that obviously erroneous claim about mutation all too many times. both of my parents posess hazel eyes. my sibs and myself all have blue eyes. we are all 4 examples of "mutants" in that respect, lol. so far, with half a century under my belt, i really havent noticed any detrimental effect from said mutation.

    3. Fine, the mechanism of evolution at work. And you're right, it's too early to discern the overall effects of any of the traits you've mentioned. The way I see it (and I'm not a biologist) for success, two things must happen: the mutation must be beneficial in terms of the environment and it must replicate (i.e., be passed along).

      Whether a mutation is beneficial, detrimental or neutral depends on the environment. So terming a mutation as point-blank detrimental is meaningless and terming all mutations as detrimental is one of the acmes of ignorance (and hence a mainstay of creationist websites), for if all mutations were deterimental we wouldn't be here.

    4. absolutely agreed, though a case can be made for some mutations being undoubtedly detrimental (sterility or functional sterility due to physical malformation, sickle cell anemia, and such environmentally induced deformities as the "thalidimide babies" of the 50s and 60s, as a few examples among we of human ancestry). but, aside from such examples, you pretty much have hit the nail squarely. another caveat would be a functional advantage that makes the "mutant" unappealing to potential mates for any of a number of reasons.

    5. Perhaps I should have said genetic mutations as opposed to epigenetic mutations--remember I'm not a biologist--of which I understand sickle cell anemia (one cell being a protection against malaria, two being lethal) and Down's syndrome are examples. I regard thalidimide babies and the like as artificially induced mutations.

  37. The focus on the human race is sadly distorted by pathetic fear projecting preachers further distorting mankinds path using many different religions to achieve their desired distortion. All various lables/kinds of religion and religious beliefs lie on being told what to believe. Which causes restrictions of truth and any advanced knowledge.
    All this stuff simply exists on a seeded planet, which became able to sustain life. Seeded on Earth is mankind + womankind= Humankind. Man and wo-man (man with a womb) Masculine and feminine. Any other combination works against the course of humanity. but I'm no expert.

  38. Robert your responses seem to come across very angry, the reason behind this anger is because you are going against the whole purpose for your creation. You do believe in a creator but you try to convince yourself there isn't one and when you go against your own nature then it generates friction and heat is generated.

    If you want to have peace in your life then fulfil the reason behind your creation. Worship your creator and thank him.

    If I offered you a trillion dollars for both your eyes you would not sell them to me because they are priceless. If I handed you 10 million dollars with no strings attached you would thank me.

    Why don't you thank the one who designed and created you? You did not create yourself.

    1. Salahuddin Patel
      you are free to argue your position but do not preach to others or try to convert others. you have been warned twice now

    2. Don't you ever try to tell me what I believe! Don't you ever try to tell me about my nature! Don't you ever try to lecture to me about the purpose of my creation? You have neither the intelligence nor the education to do so. And before you go any further, I advise that you read the comment policy about preaching. This is not your personal pulpit.

      You're right I'm angry. I'm angry that there are so many ignoramuses like you in this world who think they know something when they don't.

  39. My intention was not to offend anyone and if I did I would like to apologise. Like I clearly stated we need to come to conclusions using logic, rationale, common sense and human experience. If we just use conjecture then there can be infinite number of theories but that does not lead us to the truth of our existence.

    You said chemical reactions but where did these chemicals originate from?

    1. The chemicals created themselves
    2. The chemicals came from nothing
    3. Something created the chemicals - Most Rational Answer

    In Biology we know mutations harm living organisms not improve them. We know from science DNA is made up of information and there is no known process in living organisms where the information pool increases either from evolution or mutation.

    You asked about multiple big bangs again this is no proof for this theory so this is just conjecture. The big bang theory states that before the big bang there was no space, time or materials present and therefore no existence again very rational answer.

    If the creator sits outside of creation then by logical deduction he is eternal unlike the creation. The evidence for a creator is design, you do not have to see the designer to know it was created. The laptop you are using was designed but will you say there is no designer of the laptop because you never seen him - Very illogical. Did you ever meet your great grandfather? Does this mean he never existed? The fact you exist is proof that he existed.

    The Quran gives you a definition of this creator.

    He is the one and only creator.
    He is eternal and absolute.
    He is uncreated and does not give birth
    The creator is unlike his creation

    Using logic, reason and common sense this definition makes the most sense.

    1. You ignore the fourth possibility which, based on scientific knowledge, is the most probable, that chemicals form from natural processes--nothing fancier than that, nothing more fanciful than that.

      Why do you write on subjects of which you know nothing, such as biology? Is it that you feel that the ignorance you have gleaned off of creationist websites endues you with a knowledge which in reality you don't posssess? For your information, there are all sorts of mutations with all sorts of effects. The last clause of this paragraph is a complete a piece of gibberish as your assertions about the big bang. It's probably those creationist websites again.

      Like a typical uneducated creationist, you confound synthetic objects such as laptops with natural processes and assume that because the former has a creator (designer), so must the latter--and what does all this have to do with one's avatars?

      When it comes to science, to hell with your Quran and every other religious book.

    2. Salahuddin Patel
      first you ask for an explanation of where we came from then when an answer is given you change the question to where did the chemicals come from. are you going to extrapolate to infinity or change the questions til an answer cannot be given? let me save some time. at some point the answer will be "we don't know" (yet). that is the most logical and honest answer. you state "The evidence for a creator is design" then create a loophole for your creator to sit outside of the very perimeters you set without providing any proof at all. why can't the designer be one of the other 28,000,000 gods? if complex things need a designer then who designed the creator? or are you going to make another exception for your creator? do you have any actual proof for your creator other than leaps of faith,false loci c or a book that contradicts itself, logic, history and condones brutal actions? you also state "In Biology we know mutations harm living organisms not improve them." can you back that up? there are advantageous,disadvantageous and neutral mutations. "there is no known process in living organisms where the information pool increases either from evolution or mutation." really can you back that up? you still have provided no proof for your god . all you arguments can be used to justify all gods.

  40. If there is an all loving god! Then why does he allow his children to kill each other in his name? Allow millions of innocent people to die? Surely a true loving and caring creator would be more responsible for the children it created.
    My ignorance is that I have lived on the so called creators earth for 45 years, seen great tragedy, countless and pointless wars, innocent children dyeing because of the greed and selfishness of the world’s wealthily.
    Religious organisations throughout the world are wealthy and have a great deal of power, yet millions children needlessly die.
    If all the worlds religious institutions lived by their teachings, there would be no poverty throughout the world, less wars and Compassion and Tolerance between faiths.
    Science does not claim to have all the answers or proof, it offers current day evidence backed by research. Religion has in the past persecuted scientist for their findings and teachings. Amazingly years latter the findings and teaching have been proven correct, Rest in peace Galileo.

    1. Exactly, God is a contradiction to him/itself/herself if it existed at all. Why theist can't see this is the same reason why they fail to see that Evolution is a Fact.

  41. Re drafted

  42. Mechanical pocket watches are intricate but before them there were pendulum-paced grandfather clocks, sundials, waterclocks, burning graduated candles, etc. Modern time keeping is the product of design evolution.
    How and where would an intelligent designer develop the skills to manufacture(?) complex creatures. Would the designer practice on previous worlds in previous times and there by evolve the design skills? Try instead the principles of artificial selection and in the absence of artificial selection there is Natural Selection. Natural Selection.

  43. i believe that god exist becouse i am a shiite and our proofs of god existance have not been failed for example we believe that god created time and space and 1400 yeaRS AGO our prophit told us that god created universe by a big explosion and he had made another 1000000 other explosions
    and told us many facts about our planet that we at that time could not discover on our own
    please excuse my crapy english for i am an iraqi

    1. So you believe that god exists because you are a Shiite? Well I believe that god doesn't exist because I am a rational person who has not been presented with any compelling evidence. If I'm presented with some (and I don't mean "our proofs of god existance have not been failed" or "our prohit told us . . . ")

      I'll excuse your crappy English, but I can't excuse your crappy beliefs.

  44. If we stick to logic reason and common sense there are only 3 possibilities for our existence.

    1. We Created ourselves -Illogical
    2. We Came from Nothing - Never ever seen or experienced in human history
    3. Something Created Us - Most Logical

    We know from science that the Universe had a beginning therefore not eternal.

    If Evolution is the truth where are the cross breeds today? Evolution is supposed to be a continuous system therefore they should be existence today. Where is the half man half monkey? They do not exist.

    Why cannot you see the creator? Because he is outside of creation if he was inside then by definition he would no longer be the creator. - Very Logical and Simple.

    Why do we exist? Human live a very short life, 80 years if you are lucky. Most of the humans that have existed have been in the ground longer than they have been above ground. When something is manufactured like a mobile phone it has been created for a particular purpose. You can use the mobile as a door stop but it will be not fulfilling its purpose. The reason you are unhappy in your life is because you are not fulfilling your purpose.

    The purpose of your existence is to worship your creator, only then can you be happy, if you do not you have lived a pointless life and will be held accountable for your actions.


    1. Wallah you made me happy my friend!

    2. Salahuddin Patel
      i am extremely offended that you state that i am depressed and i have no purpose. do not preach to me sir or offer your veiled threats they will not be tolerated (please read comment policy)

      why do these have to be the only three possibilities? i can think of a fourth (and possibly more) we could have originated through a series of chemical reactions under the right conditions that allowed the first living cell to form and replicate. followed by a long series of mutations acted upon by natural selection leading to us.

      when you state "science that the Universe had a beginning therefore not eternal" you mean the universe we live in now? why couldn't there be a series of big bang/big crunch events that is eternal? also doesn't eternal mean "for all time" and as the big bang theory states that there was no time before this event so hasn't our universe existed "for all time"

      where in the theory of evolution does it state that we evolved from anything living today? also asking " Where is the half man half monkey? " is like asking where is the half German half European?

      you state "Why cannot you see the creator? Because he is outside of creation " . are you claiming that this creator does not manifest itself within creation ever? if so where is the evidence for this? if not how do you know he/she exists?

      do you have any proof for your god? did you watch the doc this conversation is based upon? do you have any positive proof for this god or are you only going to attack theories you clearly do not understand? why should i believe in your imaginary friend and not one of the other 28,000,000 gods?

    3. Oh I see, so now unless we live and breathe the Koran we are not happy? Please, Comedy Central is another site, surely not this one. All religious bunnies please, do us a favor, and move to an island, and fight out your racist differences there, and let the rest of us peaceful, intelligent, educated humans, live on in peace, without the cancer that is religion attached to our daily existences. That is my perfect world, and it could be yours too, if you could let go of the make believe sky fairies agendas. Most of them are racist, but I guess that is not important.

    4. Long time, no hear.

      You know, reading this garbage just makes you appreciate Cayley's theorem more and more--as a matter of fact, it makes you appreciate education even more. Did you read the latest on Congressman Paul Broun? If not, I would appreciate your thoughts.

    5. This is also a fourth possibility, that creation simply follows the natural laws of physics, but again you obviously don't know enough about science to appreciate this.

      Your statements about what evolution is supposed to be and half-man, half-money are not not only patently false, but profoundly ignorant of evolution and biology in general.

      You're asserting that because the existence of a creator cannot be proved through scientific means, we have to take your word for its existence which is no more than a cop-out to cover up your inability to prove one exists.

      I suggest that you read the comment policy about preaching. This is not your personal pulpit and your exhortation (in caps) to read the quran before it's too late is an insult to the intelligence.

    6. You are jumping into conclusions. Seems to me the only thing you are sticking on is your imagination or let me say the imagination of that book you read all day. You cant read the bible or quran and say thats all there is. Imagine the whole world believing in that book, we would still be in stone age. Let me try to explain my point of view. Yes i think there is a God but not in a way you think. We were all grown from this earth in the same way as an apple grew from a tree.So I think universe was not created it was simply grown. To believe that there is some sort of entity behind god is totaly ignorant. Im sorry i dont mean no dissrespect but really? are comparing my purpose with a phone? You think you know purpose of life? You think you know God? You dont know the half of it....

    7. @nebra:

      You sort of piqued my interest, what is the other half of it?

    8. I knew it that would came out wrong. What i meant was we as a species are still learning and as you can see we still have a lot to learn.

    9. I'm hesitant to pidgeon-hole people's beliefs, but would you consider yourself a theistic evolutionist?

  45. /gets some coffee and settles in.

  46. "There is simply too much contradiction among accounts and too many gaps"

    I understand your stance now and appreciate the feedback.
    Yes, it is hard to be objective about events that occurred 2000 years ago.

  47. This is a pointless cyclic discussion. You either believe in God or you don't.
    I do. I think Atheism is a political philosophy.

  48. to stupid for science, try religon.

  49. If I may say something about the videos.

    I heard really nothing from Mr. Dutko which would convince anyone of anything and his proofs for the existence of the christian version of god struck me as mostly superficial and a bit thin on logic, especially when it came to his use of the laws of thermodynamics. Substituting the christian god for our ignorance of the natural universe does not improve our situation or grow our knowledge in any meaningful way and appears to be an attempt to have his own personal views become that of everyone else which again, does nothing for humanity as a whole.
    It is not the role of science to establish or disprove the existence of any super-natural entity or being, it is the role of science to aid humankind in its growth and maturation through the use of reasonable inferences and observable data. Faith is a personal matter anyway : )

  50. Yamaan, I suggest you stop believing in fairy tales. It amazes me that in the 21st century, with all the scientific knowledge that has been gained over the past 50-100 years, people are still living their lives based solely on blind faith. It's very sad if you take a step back and look at the big picture, as a lot atheists do.

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do...When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephan Roberts

    1. Fairy tales eh? Well this life you're living now, this is supposed to be impossible and yet here you are on this Earth also living a fairy tale. You will eventually die, this is a fact, no fairy tale. Tell me, if you came to life once who is to say you will not come again? Never think that you are too arrogant for God. God is still here, there, everywhere. Science will never disprove God's existence. Science will only continue to Prove God's existence. Open your eyes. You were not a product of chance. If you believe that then you are the blind one.

    2. It would seem to me and many others perfectly obvious that another life inevitably follows death, for we are all masks and incarnations of that which you call "god". The player of all the parts, so that all the world is a stage. Once you realize a connection with that which people ascribe to as the "divine", you'll laugh and realize what a fool you were making of yourself ^_^

    3. And where is your proof of this. "It would seem to me and many others perfectly obvious . . . " doesn't cut it.

    4. Human laughter, the hope that fills a child's eyes, the warmth of sunlight, romantic notions to most, certainly, but its the proof I have for my personal belief.

      I have none, at least none that would convince you or anyone else for that matter if we're talking hard facts. It was a mystical experience which made me realize what a fool I'd been and that all that was left to be done was to laugh and wait for others to get it in their own due course. From that time until now I've looked into people's eyes and I've seen the divine looking back out, even if the expression on the face is one of utter disbelief. It really is the funniest thing ^_^

      I'm not going to try to convince anyone I'm right because at the end of the day it doesn't matter, we're all here playing out our own essential roles in this marvelous cosmic drama. The fundamental belief's we carry with us is purely beside the point and when discussing the metaphysical (which religion and gods largely are) there is no physical proof that can be shown, I know this quite well.

    5. And this is proof of your personal belief of what?

    6. Ah, my apologizes, I suppose I did come across as pretty cagey just now didn't I? xD

      Go back to my first comment to Yamaan Farhat and you'll see what my personal belief is, or at least the short-hand of it is : )

    7. Hi rob

      According to the cosmological argument, IF God exists, it would not be able to be proved scientifically in any case, since God 'exists' outside our physical universe. From what I understand, science cannot detect anything outside our physical universe so asking for scientific proof is a futile exercise.
      I think most Christians believe in the existence of Jesus and all the accounts of his miracles as 'proof' of God's existence. I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in the story of Jesus. If you choose to disbelieve the story, given the events occurred 2000 years ago, who can definitively say you are right or wrong ?

    8. If you can't prove that a supreme being exists, don't state that one does and claiming that its existence is "perfectly obvious" doesn't cut it. It is also not a matter of what someone "chooses to believe." It's the intelligence and education behind that belief. If you "choose to believe" the creation story of Genesis, you've made an ignorant, unintelligent choice. In this light, which story of Jesus do you "choose to believe?"

      P.S. My name is Robert.

    9. Hi Robert

      1. Where did I state that "God" definitely existed ?

      I said that, if "God" existed (hypothetically), science would not be able to prove this existence anyway.

      2. You said, "It's the intelligence and education behind that belief."

      Well, in case you hadn't realised, there are many people much more intelligent and educated than yourself who just happen to believe in "God." But I won't use quotations from authority.

      3. Do you presume to know the "correct" version of the story of Jesus ?
      Where did I state I chose to believe the "creation story of Jesus?"
      I think you need to read my post again. You have made many assumptions.

    10. In other words, you were stating arguments simply as arguments, not as personal beliefs. Well, that's fine.

      My whole point is that no one knows the "correct" version of the story of Jesus. There is simply too much contracdiction among accounts and too many gaps.

      I meant to write the creation story "of Genesis." I have now corrected this. My emphasis is on the phrase "Choose to believe."

    11. Saying that if someone believes he was a product of chance he is the blind one? How about some good, concrete, scientific proof of this?

    12. Yamaan, I am not too "arrogant for god" I am too informed and way too intelligent.

      "Well this life you're living now, this is supposed to be impossible and yet here you are on this Earth also living a fairy tale"

      Say what? Who or what told you that life was impossible? I think your a little brainwashed there buddy.

      "Science will never disprove God's existence. Science will only continue to Prove God's existence."

      That is ignorance at it's best. Give me one solid example of science proving God's existence. Remember science deals in FACTS. Religion deals in faith. For one to have faith in god he must deny certain FACTS. And there are more and more of these FACTS every year.

    13. Life is impossible. With no divine being behind the existence of the world as we know it, it wouldn't have existed and we wouldn't be here. If something supposedly happened by chance millions of years ago that resulted in the first living cell (I hope you know how complex a cell is) and then for that cell to survive and reproduce by itself and grow into something INCREDIBLE with nothing other than nature and its surroundings is absurd. It is madness. It has no proof whatsoever. Scientists with all their technology and intervention cannot do this, and yet it will happen by itself? Are you sure you are an educated person? It sounds like you have been reading too many fairy tales. One solid example? You, in person. Another? how about the soul Jason? Even though people may remain in a coma for years, and all their organs are functioning quite well, you cannot explain what gives an organism life, or in this case, the soul. Religion deals in faith. Yes it does. God asks us to believe in Him, Hell, and Paradise without seeing Him or Hell or Paradise based on the signs of life, such as that i have explained. Where does he tell us? In the Qu'ran of course. And don't tell me Muhammad forged it, there is so much knowledge and wisdom in the Qu'ran, it even contains scientific information. I think you are in way over your head. As far as i can tell, your life has no purpose for being. Why are you alive? to enjoy life? to what end? No Jason, you need to understand that the purpose of your existence is much bigger here than what you want it to be. Death will come upon you in a blink of an eye, just like it did to Hitler, John F. Kennedy, and all of our ancestors. Don't make the same mistake they did. Believe and do righteous deeds, for that is the true reason for your existence.

    14. 1. "Life is impossible. With no divine being behind the existence of the world as we know it, it wouldn't have existed and we wouldn't be here." How do you know this? The fact is that you don't and it is patently silly to place a supernatural third party about whom no one knows a thing into the creation equation.

      2. A "first living cell" points to a deep-seated ignorance of the workings of nature (evolution), resulting in uninformed and idiotic judgments on the conclusions of your intellectual betters, drawn from overwhelming evidence, not from religion.

      3. Stating that everything happened by chance is admitting your ignorance of cosmology, physics and biology. As everything comes together in accordance with NATURAL laws, an unprovable creator is at best extraneous to the equation.

      4. Offering catatonia, a physical (medical) phenomenon, as proof of the existence of the soul is patently vacuous.

      5. The Qu'ran contains as much "scientific" information as the bible. Its author reflects only what was known at the time of its writing. Claiming that it states anything else is a complete and unconscionable distortion.

      6. Things happen and cosmic purpose is not needed to explain the process, except perhaps to those who need a teething ring.

    15. I think that you sir, are in denial. Some people need no fake God to make us happy, have purpose and be a good person. The fact you say science continues to prove God exists about covers it all. You need a shrink, not a thing else. We can leave it at that. As for us being blind, my eyes work quite fine, and so do others who oppose sky fairy's and the people who believe in them.

  51. He makes it all rather boring and seemed to be talking some nonsense. He says atheists have no faith but they cannot prove there is no god so believing there isn't one is a faith (as in trust or confidence). Indeed, I would suggest it takes a lot more faith to believe there is no intelligent design behind our existence!

    1. No, he doesn't. What he says is that most atheists indicate that they do not believe in a supreme being because they haven't been presented with any compelling proof. So you are creating a strawman based on a distortion of what was presented and this makes you dishonest.

      Now, if you're asserting that there is intelligent design behind our existence, you present the proof, otherwise it's faith and that makes it worthless.

  52. Quebecois were extremely indoctrinated for years, when they released, "all hell broke loose". People of all ages have turned their back to catholism doesn't mean they don't believe in a higher force (no right words), they just hate religions.

    1. Well, that's certainly a step in the right direction. Now, let's see those churches taxed.

    2. This is one subject i agree wholeheartedly with you...taxing the church...perhaps retroactively for 100yrs at least.

    3. I agree with retroactively, but legally it won't fly. The only drawback is that if churches are taxed, other more beneficial institions would have to be as well. However, after wrestling with this, I think it's a small price to pay, especially if the money goes towards science education, including teaching evolution. If you want to see something disgusting, clink on the link contained in Vlatko's latest post.

  53. What a waste of time,just too stupid!

    1. And just why?

  54. Sometimes I think this creationist/atheist debate is very much like the interaction between celebrities and The Natonal Enquirer.
    Celebrities create a scene infront of the National Enquirer reporter. The reporter gets his paying report, the National Ehnquirer gets something to sell, and the celebrity gets their name mentioned publicly. As long as each participant keeps up the game, everyone makes money....except the hapless idiot who wastes their money to finance this scheme.

    1. That's one way of looking at this type of debate KsDevil ; )

      However, I feel online debates are wonderful as I usually learn a great deal of info while pondering everyones opinions.? For me there is something cathartic as I write down my personal questions and/or feelings as well.^^ Another aspect to online debates is that (drum roll please) the option of simply turning off my computer and walking away anytime I wish! = D

      But the most important aspect is the fact that I don't even have to wear any makeup or worry about my hair being a mess. Hmmmm, actually... I don't even have to bother wearing any clothes at all!
      I'm pretty sure that my 2 wee Chihuahua's won't mind how I look typing away at my pc. (grin) Maaaaybe I will do just that! Bleh... nevermind...tooo damn cold here in NE. (heh)

  55. Excellent documentary - thank you Brett Palmer!

  56. Of the thousands of God's created and yet to be created and causing all Wars we have had and still to have< i wonder who created God/s?

  57. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

    Sartre was an atheist and I agree. Freewill has no other option but to exist. Despite what others tell you meaning was meant to be chosen and not preselected. Meaning gives something validation.

    1. The preclude to existentialism was Kierkegaard and the only validation to being christian was not to be born into it but out of choice.

    2. And your point is?

  58. “God does not play dice with the universe.”
    -Albert Einstein

    God as in balance and order not as an avatar but as the grand sum of the universe. Something to contemplate. Something Einstein liked to do.

    1. This was simply part of an ongoing joke between Einstein and Niels Bohr. I suggest your read up on it before further misusing it.

    2. Here is the full unadulterated quote. Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but it hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice."

    3. You still don't get it. You need to read about the entire long-term correspondence between Einstein and Neils Bohr on the subject of quantum mechanics--by the way, Bohr eventually won out (though posthumously) THROUGH EMPIRICAL TESTING. What you are trying to prove by this is beyond me.

    4. Did you ever talk to Einstein to know "exactly" what he thought when that was said? Even him could have changed his mind about what he thought along the way.

    5. Before you ask such a silly question, why don't you read the correspondence between Einstein and Neils Bohr anent quantum mechanics which is readily available to everyone.

    6. One of the most sensible clues regarding Albert Einstein's "exact" thoughts may be found in his quote: "Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance." This quote is especially appropriate regarding religious debates. (grin)

      I feel that Einstein did change his mind publicly along the way...if only to appease the religious folks. I have a hunch that even Einstein was restricted in sharing his true feelings about religion. He couldn't risk too much public sheeple outrage during his time. However, he may of found "God" the older he got? We all understand the aphrism of "no atheists in foxholes" (heh)

      I actually believe in the "God/Goddess" aspect. BUT I do not believe in all of the silly tripe written within the Bible. Perhaps Einstein believed in some type of entity starting creation as I do?

    7. If you read Einstein's comments chronologically, he seems to be going the other way. In two of my posts from yesterday, I quoted one quote from 1950 and two from 1954. You might want to look them over.

    8. Nope, no need to look up the dates as I have "faith" in you that you're telling me the truth. (grin) My point regarding the Albert Einstein's quote "Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance." makes no difference to me when Einstein said it. For I simply "believe" that its a good rule of thumb to follow for both belivers and nonbelivers.

      Oh wow! I just looked up the "rule of thumb" meaning and origin: "A means of estimation made according to a rough and ready practical rule, not based on science or exact measurement."

      Origin: "The 'rule of thumb' has been said to derive from the belief of a 'possible' English law that allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick so long as it is was no thicker than his thumb. In 1782, Judge Sir Francis Buller is reported as having made this legal ruling." (ack!)

      I always learn something new during a good debate.^^
      (Memo to self: Wont use the "rule of thumb" phrase anymore! (hah)

      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein<-- I really like this quote as well. (smiles)

    9. Can you think of any type of investigation other than an empirical one? How do you think Einstein would have reacted if someone had seriously told him that fairies created the second and third laws of thermodynamics? My guess is he would have summarily dismissed such a claim. Taking the quote literally implies that every cockamammie idea, such as the existence of fairies, should be investigated rather than condemned outright which is complete nonsense, especially when there is no way to conduct a scientific investigation into the matter.

      As for your concluding quote, I wonder what Einstein meant by religion, not that I'm seriously concerned, for all that matters are his contributions to science, not his forays into theology.

    10. Why the universe is the way it is. Was it just a probability chance or a purpose? Einstein believed in an order and balance to the universe. Quantum physics is not order and balance but proven to be true and fascinating yet we don't have a unifying theory for both. Why do I bring up Einstein? I really can share his perspective of riding a line of his inherited theism and breaking new ground in science. The last sentence is my favorite:

      “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. ”

    11. And your point is?

    12. The most fervent antitheists on TDF have (almost) all said how they had to free themself from the indoctrination of religion at one time in their life and most can quote the bible by memory.
      As for the rest most remain agnostics waiting for proofs.
      The most of the mostest.
      I was always free, the only proofs i'll accept have to come from me and even then i doubt. As in Achems's test I am in between.
      My point is a dot on my i.


    13. That's pretty good stuff oQ. Question everything. Doubt God. Be suspicious of your education. I believe this is what humans need to do. Otherwise why do we have an evolved brain with all this cerebral cortex.

    14. Why don't you show us how it's done by practicing what you preach?

    15. I also subscribe to Kierkegaard who to me rings true. Doubt God's existence and deny your inherited religions because the only legitimacy in believing is if you choose it rather than forced or manipulated into it. To me, accepting something that doesn't have proof is childish but accepting only things that can be proven is sophomoric. Go one step past that and we come back to accepting something you personally believe in, but knowing right well that it is a belief and not masked as a universal truth.

      With personal experiences no one cannot deny or take away not even scientists. There isn't this literal concept of a god outside of you, judging and paternal, but to me it is coming in terms to a higher consciousness within.

    16. "To me, accepting something that doesn't have proof is childish but accepting only things that can be proven is sophmoric." Well, which way is it?

      Just who do you expect to benefit from your little pearls of alleged wisdom?

    17. I do not think so, name some "fervent antitheists on TDF" who had to "free themselves" from religion, it ain't me babe! Never did believe in any religion.

      And I am not an anti-theist, am an unbeliever. Unless in all the unlimited probabilities in the sea of unrealized potentialities in the quantum foam there is one probable action that coalesces from the peaks of the quantum jitters that becomes a reality of a God, I rest my case.

    18. Good for you. Like Jake freedom runs in your vein.
      Do i need to bring out names? They know themselves as they have expressed it freely at one time.

    19. See there Blue, that last paragraph verges on poetry. Is that the beauty of science shining through or maybe your soft centre? Very pretty. :)

    20. Name some?! ME, for one, and well you know it, you arrogant little know-it-all. How fortunate for you, Achems, that the tremendous difficulty, the sometimes years-long work, of having to free oneself from relentless childhood indoctrination (which can make a big difference, despite whatever one's native intelligence) is yet another subject that you have very little real idea, and, quite obviously, concern about. Not everyone is born an "old soul," an all-knowing genius straight out of the womb, preening his spectacular feathers for all us lesser beings to marvel over, with no need of instruction on probably any subject whatsoever, and certainly not any on the big questions that people have asked for thousands of years. Most of us are born with a tabula rasa, and an evolved disposition to trust in whatever our caretakers teach us. You look on these fervent theists that come on here with nothing but disdain and condescension, whereas I sometimes sense in them something very different, something almost deserving of PITY, or, at the very least, some understanding. I see, sometimes, based on my own experiences, a mind I suspect that, for whatever precise reasons, has been unable to free itself from its first instructions and impressions to accommodate and broaden any other intellectual and (especially) emotional view, a mind riddled with perhaps lifelong fear and guilt, and I find that something to mourn over and even be SAD about, as much as anything else, rather than, in all likelihood, to reinforce with nothing BUT vitriol and derision.

      And that is one difference between you and me and many others. Now... go ahead and do your little predictable tack about how I'm "boo-hooing," or am "butthurt," since you seem to have the very mistaken idea I'm some overly sensitive, effeminate creature, and all of the rest of that patented tough guy bullsh-t of yours, which has gotten to be so insufferably boring, I must tell you, to so many over the years. From your lofty, superior perch as one of "the big boys," I'm sure you'll see no benefit whatsoever in the point of view I must take about a mind afflicted with a very religious upbringing, when that mind has finally developed enough to see the incompatibility with what it was taught, and the way things are.

    21. I feel your pain and i know i am lucky to not have been born in such religious family atmosphere even though in those days catholism was almost more influential that the government in Quebec.
      My mom decided she wasn't gonna have 10 kids like a lot of people during that period even though the church required confession in such situation. We were very young when the choice was offered Church or not?

    22. That's just one reason I would love to see that church destroyed.

    23. Not painful at this point, oQ, though I do appreciate your support. Just the knowledge, and pride, of how hard-won that victory had to be in my case, and which I'll take offense at anyone belittling... as though we should all be able to shake off any kind of bad instruction without any difficulty at all, despite the emotional investment one may have had, and despite that it can be made to appear that by doing so, you're also turning your back on your loved ones, etc... All that sort of thing. The fact that my much loved maternal grandfather was also a Pentecostal preacher didn't help matters any, either.

    24. @Pysmythe:

      I am not insensitive to your plight, just do not use me as your scapegoat with all your personal ad hominem, and being the kind person that I am will let it all go, no further discussion forthcoming! And to let you know I knew nothing of your past or present religious affiliations.

    25. Although I never went through anything even approaching the gehenna you described, I can certainly congratulate you for having come out of it as you have. Whatever "joy" these creatures bring is fraudulent and ignorant.

    26. @Pysmythe,

      I'm sorry about what happened to you, but I think @Achems didn't mean any harm with his words. At least I didn't see any harm.

    27. I agree with ya Mark1667. I'm full of many questions myself! Since we are on quotes today...I'm leaving one of my favorite quotes by Mother Teresa here as well. "If we have NO PEACE, it is because we have forgotten that we BELONG TO EACH OTHER." <--- Soooo true!
      I feel that we are not only connected to each other...we are connected to everything in the universe!

      Hey, are you familiar with Cleve Backster biocommunications? Proof that our thoughts/intentions can be transfered to plant and animal cells? That plants are sentient beings,and experience pain, pleasure, or emotions such as fear and affection? Its said they have the ability to communicate with humans and other forms of life in a recognizable manner?! I was I first read this information! Soooo much info that we don't understand along with soooo much info that's being withheld from us as well.(phifft)
      Hmmmm, perhaps we are all mini-gods that have forgotten this fact?

    28. Thanks Katnea. I have read a book “The Secret Life of Plants” a long time ago. I think he is mentioned as that sounds very familiar.

    29. Hey Mark,

      Did you happen to see the documentary called "Excavating the Empty Tomb" a few months back? Its a wonderful documentary on how religion was based on Greek mythology! I'm sure many of the Christian community wouldn't dare watch such a video that questions their faith facts? (phifft) Oh well.....

      Btw --This is a lil off topic but I wanted to ask you your opinion regarding the religious communites being aware that aliens are indeed real and how this information would impact their God belief system?

      What do you think is the approximate percent of religious communities that are actually inform of this truth?

      What would be the reason that this information is not easily shared?Afterall...God created our "space brothers" so this type of information should not effect their belief in God...right. (hah)

      I would think religious leaders would want to keep this truthful shock factor under control by being the ones to enlighten their congregational flock firsthand? Perhaps the religious communities should show the video called "The Disclosure Project" that was presented(about 5 yrs ago) in front of the National Press Club?
      Maybe they could also offer informational handouts of all the astronauts and presidents who confirmed aliens are indeed real as well? ; P

      I've read that while the pope has confirmed aliens are real... the Catholics believe that the aliens must accept Jesus as their Savior, confess their sins,and be baptized in order to escape Hell. (laughs)

      "According to an article by Erik Van Datiken in the "Weekly World News," two dozen Roman Catholic Priests took a top secret program to train them to be ready to be missionaries in outer space, intensive training in approaches and techniques to be used in spreading the gospel in space. The article further stated that they are ready to go at a moment's notice when ordered by Pope." <---- I would love to be a fly on the wall just to hear all the intensive training the priest were bombarded with! (grin)

      STEP ONE: Offer alien their very own Gideon pop up Bible along with a hunk of Cheddar cheese, a few crackers and a beverage of their choice such as Squirt, V-8 juice, milk, Tang, regular or diet pepsi.
      Do use caution while offering a diet soda! Aliens may misunderstand gesture of offering the added poison chemicals within the diet beverages! While Its important to act calm and smile at all times....remember to keep the palms of your hands facing outward! (haha..sorry but Its all just sooooo ridiculous!)

      I just now thought of another famous quote that fits this whole God topic. Its the quote given by Jack Nicholson - "You can't handle the truth!" Indeed for many religious people...this is true. Imagine their shock when they learn that the aliens have been changing mankinds DNA from the get go?! I actually feel sorry for all the misinformed sheeple thats been kept in the dark! Okay, nuff of my prattle for now... ; )

  59. For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment.
    Victor Frankl

    Meaning and purpose is a personal truth but gives validity to life. It is not something you find but its something you give to. Existentialism has opened me up to that.

    1. "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
      -Albert Einstein
      Even Einstein was more humble than today's atheists.

    2. And just what do Einstein's theological views which are as valid as anyone else's have to do with anything?

  60. Again my replies seem to be blocked.....
    Why does it have to be an absolute right or wrong? And apparently what is right here becomes pretty subjective pretty quickly. Personally I like the gray area of life that is not so on or off. and there is no need to warn me about “taking someone to task” or need any tips about that. I know you share the same opinion with that robertallen but don't be an apologist for him. I think he acted in an abhorrent manner and against the codes of this site which I am reminded of every time I see “Comment Policy.” Also there is no need to lecture me about the difference of opinion and fact. I am not claiming facts. Many times I have said “I believe” and I can tell you why so in a way I am backing it up.

    1. mark1667
      "Again my replies seem to be blocked" i have not blocked anything of yours,there is nothing awaiting moderation nor have i deleted any of your posts lately, sometimes dicqus is slow and on occasion it loses a post. the best i can tell you is wait a while and if it doesn't appear post again. again my post was honestly meant to help and no offense was intended. but i am not apologizing for anyone and please do not lecture me on how to perform my tasks. it is late so i will leave it at that.

    2. I guess we both don't like lecturers. Well if you are comfortable with people supposedly, “bringing people to task” why can't you be brought to task?

    3. mark1667
      where did you take me to task? you have made a series of recent assumptions backed by nothing but opinion and you consider that bringing me to task? lets see shall we? you started with assuming without evidence that you were banned followed by assuming that your comments were blocked with nothing to back that up either. but more on topic you stated " don't choose to believe in a universe that is a product of pure chance." and when i called you on it instead of admitting your error you changed the statement to "What happened before? What initiated it? what's it like to have no time?" a completely different question but seeing as you asked. how can you have a "before" time? as for taking me to task you stated "I know you share the same opinion with that robertallen but don't be an apologist for him" where did i apologize for him? did i not state that my response was my opinion only and i will not answer for others? was my original warning to keep it civil directed at anyone in particular? was it only your comments removed? so where exactly was i taken to task by you? you made an assumption backed by nothing of substance and don't try to play victim your first post here was "I find atheism souless, sterile and quite boring" so don't accuse others of subtle insults when you without provocation put that in your initial post.

    4. whoa whoa time out...take it easy. One thing at a time. What I was commenting on was “you don't like to be told how to moderate the blog.” I said that well, I see situations that break that policy that wasn't being enforced. Now if that is me involved doing the breaking then so be it, I will take the brunt but please be fair because there are other people involved. Maybe instead of giving me a lecture about backing myself up you can remind your friend robertallen the civility policy of this site.

      So my comments weren't going I questioned why. maybe banned wasn't the right term for it but idk blocked? forbidden? restricted? I just wanted to know what gives.

      And why is it an error to think of a universe of chance? I think most theists believe of a universe of purpose which comes to a conclusion of a purpose giver. I am assuming this isn't your position? Maybe it is? What would be a better term for it then? A non purposeful universe?
      An accidental universe? or simply a universe instead of thee universe.

      And yes that was my first post. I do find atheism boring but that is different from saying I find atheists ignorant, stupid, repugnant and many other things which I have been called what seems dozens of times by robertallen simply because I believe in something he doesn't.
      If that continues I think I will remind him and you and take everyone to task about the policy, moderator.

    5. Just my 2c worth but "bringing (or taking) someone to task" and "tasking someone with proof" are two different concepts.

      The first is a chastisement of the person being 'brought (taken) to task'; the second is assigning a duty or, well, task.

    6. I sort of agree I guess with that yes.

  61. /Sigh

    Really? Another debate between Atheists and Creationists?
    These kinds of things are funny because both sides try to prove their point. But they aren't using the same rule book.

    Creationists use Faith.
    Atheists use logic and reason.

    Creationists like Bob will warp science around his faith
    Atheists on the other hand will try to use logic and reason (science) to warp someones faith.

    Now both will argue what is the so called Truth. But all truth is subjective, and whether one thinks one is more correct than the other, take out all the reasoning and evidence. Nobody I feel will convince the other that their way of viewing the world is correct because of the different mentalities.

    I'm reminded of the saying, This is what happens when "An immovable object encounters an irresistible force"

    1. And I'm reminded of the validity of hard evidence as opposed to superstition, conjecture, wishful thinking and dogma.

    2. I'm sure your reminded of these things, and that's good!
      Listen I'm not against Science, evolution etc... What I'm saying is that people approach this with different mentalities.

      You might say "And I'm reminded of the validity of hard evidence as opposed to superstition, conjecture, wishful thinking and dogma."

      And your Polar opposite would retort
      "Hard Evidence and reason are good, But they can't explain what I just KNOW as being truth."

      My point was that its a circular argument.
      Those with strong faith will never let it be changed my voices of reason.
      And those with strong reason will never be persuaded by faith.

      This is the dialectic that I'm highlighting. I'm not taking a side in the debate, just making an observation.

      Here let it put it another way, Bishops can get together and argue and come up with a Good Belief system on God, like the Construction of the Bible.

      Alternatively, Phd Academics like in the field of Physics can write papers, use research evidence, scientific equations (reason and logic) to construct the Standard Model, or Laws of Thermodynamics :p

      Within their own world mentality and amongst likeminded people, they can push arguments through and come to amicable agreements. But I don't feel that any productive action can be taken when these two mentalities debate each other.

    3. And that's what makes faith the despicable thing that it is. What could be more the product of a lower mentality than "I believe because I believe" or "I believe because it gives my life meaning to do so" or "I believe because the bible [substitute any religious work] tells me so?"

      The accomplishments of science (hard evidence and reason) are unquestionable. Can you say the same for its opposite?

    4. How can you disbelieve in God when you were dead (before birth) and then he gave you life, and then you will surely return to the grave, and then he will resurrect you on the Day of Judgement?

    5. Where's your proof?

    6. My proof is my existence, the existence of the sun and moon, all the miracles of life and extraordinary abilities of animals. I must say it is disappointing to find people like you hide behind 2 things: Evolution, and millions of years of Evolution. Scientists have not been able to create life from nothing, and they never will. And beneficial mutations have not been observed in the wild. Humans are so complex, how can you say we are a product of chance? Its is a blind assertion because you refuse to believe in an omnipotent being who might have imposed rules on the way you live your life. How could our DNA have changed and suddenly "evolved" to have a heart, lungs, eyes, liver, etc, and make them work all together efficiently? Don't tell me millions of years of evolution time doesn't change nothing species don't change, only micro-evolution occurs. That's like saying an iphone 5 was formed by the interaction of all the right materials nearby, or the Space Needle was formed by a tornado or whatever. Its not that hard to see for yourself. Unless you think your body is super simple i don't see why atheism persists in this world...

    7. So what if scientists have not yet been able to create life from nothing (just give them time), so what if the workings of life (existence) are complex, that doesn't prove the existence of a supreme being --except to someone who confounds a ridiculous leap of faith with a logical step because he does not know the first thing about elementary biology or physics.

    8. Why does it not prove the existence of a Supreme being? Its logic Robert, laptops and electronic gadgets didn't come around by chance with humans living in caves. Its the same thing with life, you can't possibly have a single celled organism continue to evolve and eventually become an extremely complex eukaryote (humans), not in one year and not in millions of years. And another thing, all explosions lead to chaos, scientists agree that this is true. Except the big bang...... Why? Why is it that not one single observed explosion (such as the detonation of the atomic bomb) resulted in lets say, an incredibly complex fortress with cannons on every side and superior technology? Why is life different? Why is the big bang the only exception? I believe the big bang was a controlled explosion by God which with his will was formed into the galaxy and universe as we know it. Even Issac Newton believed in a monotheistic God, and was a most definitely influential scientist.

    9. 1. You can't compare electronic gadgets (synthetic manufacture) with the workings of nature. They are two different animals.

      2. Don't tell me or anyone else that single-celled organisms cannot evolve into extremely complex entities when the evidence that they do is overwhelming, as any first-year biology student can tell you.

      3. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of a load of dynamite, but rather, as any first-year physics student can tell you, an expansion--and there's more to entropy than any simplistic statement you make out of the air. What you believe about the big bang is worthless, as you don't know the first thing about it.

      4. "Why is life different? " Different from what?

      5. Newton's theological views have nothing to do with his science or with science in general. So your appeal to authority is as ill-taken as your comparison of electronics gadgets to the workings of nature.

      In short, the big bang of nonsense which permeates your post demonstrates nothing except your ignorance of basic biology (evolution), physics and cosmology.

    10. 1. How are they different?
      2. What evidence?
      3. Clearly, you use my "ignorance" to avoid answering questions.
      4. Don't hurt yourself.
      5. Newton was greater than you will ever be.
      6. Again, atheists love to think of themselves as highly educated, intelligent, and superior beings. While creationists are just plain stupid, uneducated, and don't know anything.

    11. " Again, atheists love to think of themselves as highly educated, intelligent, and superior beings. While creationists are just plain stupid, uneducated, and don't know anything."

      That's the first thing you typed that I actually agree with.

    12. Then you are a racist.

    13. And you are a mo*on.

    14. No, you are an ***** for believing such religious conundrums... idiocy isn't a is a face..and you have it.

    15. I could not have agreed more with this as well Jak.

      " Again, atheists love to think of themselves as highly educated, intelligent, and superior beings. While creationists are just plain stupid, uneducated, and don't know anything."

      Yeah thats right, suck it up buttercup, we are exactly that. Educated, intelligent and able to cope with our own mortality, unlike the sky fairy bunnies that cannot. The onus is not on us to prove anything, it is the faithful that cannot meet their own obligations to prove their fantastic claims. This has always been the case, and so far, the bunnies have failed miserably to prove anything, but that they are good at excuses, insults and nonsensical and illogical debate.

    16. You forgot lying, distortion and deception.

    17. 1. One is synthetic or man-made, the other is natural--and this makes all the difference in the world.

      2. There'a fine article about evolution on wikipedia which will certainly get you started, not that you will read it because from all your opsts, it is obvious that you would rather remain ignorant.

      3. There's a fine article on the big bang on wikipedia which will certainly get you started, not that you will read it, because from all your posts, it is obvious that you would rather remain ignorant.

      4. Unresponsive, but this is to be expected from someone of your ilk.

      5. Unresponsive, but this is to be expected from someone of your ilk.

      6. Agreed and all your posts support this.

    18. All dumb questions based on needless and misinformed arguments.

    19. Argument from Design is an inferred argument from don't know how things got started so it is "obvious" to you that some anthropomorphic God/Gods/gods must have done it. Now that is weak and pathetic and lazy.

    20. He has no proof but his subjective arguments...he knows nothing about Science or how it works...very obvious.

    21. This is exactly the type of illogical and uniformed ideas that make up Faith Claims. It is without any grounds to stand upon but mere speculation and Strawman /Red Herring really is pathetic.

    22. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so"- Mark Twain

      I say that Faith is a hole to hide in when you have no evidence to back a belief system.

    23. Creation also lies in the logic and reasonable section.

    24. What are you talking about?

    25. God of course.

    26. not at all... i've turned a lot of my christian friends and wife to atheists.. it took a long time, patience, and a kind of humor, not so much serious, just let them come to it on their own terms... while i slowly nudge em with strong points and sparse comments.. logic and reasoning work

      all truth is not subjective.. that's nonsense also.
      our individual experiences may be subjective, but when we meet minds and try to share concepts and discuss the world.. there has to be an objective standard.

      neither atheists or theists are immovable.. i was a christian once, jehovahs witness at that pounding the pavement preaching to others.. i was converted with reason and evidence.. and i feel the first time i heard the arguments I switched . same as my brother and a few friends of mine. we (atheists) just have to learn to communicate without turning off the opposition by our often condescending tone and ridicule of their beliefs.

    27. That opposition generally wants its ignorance made part of public school curriculum and government.

    28. You are awesome, keep up the good work of spreading Reason and Logic and Humanitarianism.

    29. This is a weird thing to brag about. It's kind of like saying, "I've turned several of my vegen friends into meat eaters". It doesn't make a difference if someone wants to be a vegen or not...Here's my question for you though...Why, as an atheist, does it matter to you what people believe? Christianity gives a reason to convert others. Christianity preaches eternal life in paradise or hell after death, so therein lies the motivation to tell & disciple others in christianity & other religions alike, but I just don't see why atheists are so adamant about getting people to "think more logically" about their beliefs. Why does it matter? What do you gain from converting your friends? I'm guessing not a lot. Just something to think about.

    30. Let's see, why would it matter if my neighbors were (fundamentalist) christians?

      Why do christians send missionaries around the world to convert others to their way of thinking?

      Why do christians fund lawsuits to shoehorn theology into science classrooms?

      Why do christians build mega-parks that purport to teach "science" that show humans and dinosaurs cavorting together?

      If you religious people would quit spreading lies and interfering in everyone else's lives, atheists/agnostics wouldn't have to speak out.

      But you do. So we do. In self-defense. Get it?

    31. "Christianity gives a reason to convert others. Christianity preaches eternal life in paradise or hell after death, so therein lies the motivation to tell & disciple others in christianity & other religions alike." So Christianity gives a reason to convert others because of what it preaches. What an illogical and pernicious juxtaposition. Your words encapsulate everything despicable about Christianity, its missionaries and its proselytizers.

    32. Atheists are the only ones in this debate that logic and reason are the only tool applied yet people who believe in the magic man consistently use faith as their only weapon. Science can only aid people searching for the truth, not some one believing they have found the truth as the people who believe in the magic man always do,

    33. This is so correct, the onus of proof is upon Theists and they have not once proven the existence of any god or that the claims of the Bible or Qu'ran are is such silliness that modern human beings would believe in such fables...but then again people are just plain weird nowadays.
      May EDUCATION bless America!

    34. There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize. No one can travel back in time to when "everything started" and find out the truth. There is only faith. Either faith in newer discoveries in science (new as being discovered these past few hundred years), or a faith in a historical text (whatever religion you may believe in personally). Also, science will never be able to prove or disprove a "God" because that same science can just as easily show that there was a creator. Evolution does not disprove a creator, it just may show that creation has changed over millions of years. Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either. The main argument for atheists against the bible is from genesis. The Bible declares that creation only lasted 6 days, while science & geology shows that the earth must be billions of years old. Here's the thing again...NO ONE CAN GO AND FIND OUT WHO'S RIGHT! Like I said...there is only faith in your belief in either a creator, or a completely lucky universe, where we all just happened to exist on a planet that, luckily for us, provides everything we need in order to survive. I believe that it actually takes more faith to believe that everything was random. There are so many variables in our universe as a whole, that are just so perfectly set in place, for us to exist & have cognitive thought on this planet, for me to believe that it was just random. This may or may not be an argument that's been overdone, but seriously, saying that everything that exists is just a lucky happenstance, is like putting all the pieces of a watch in a box and shaking it for billions of billions of years. No matter how much, or how long you shake that box, the watch will NEVER put itself together. I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense. Of course, those who are closed minded to a divine creator will refute this logic completely. I believe the best way of being a logical thinker is to keep an open mind & test everything. Don't just make bold statements without having any proof for, or against something. This is the main reason why atheists & creationists argue. They are, for the most part, very closed minded people. May EDUCATION bless the world!

    35. I hope education blesses you. You really need some.

      For starters, learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

      Then learn the 'watchmaker fallacy'. (Yes, that shtick is so old--and wrong!--that they named a fallacy after it!)

      Variables have a way of actually 'coming together' when you give them a few billion years or so to mix it up.

      And, err, something you missed--once a given process starts,no matter how accidentally--the normal (scientifically-proven) processes of the universe take over.

      No magic required.

      The real point is, you can't prove there *is* a god.

    36. The "watch" and all, you have basically used all the ten (failed ) proof of gods existence in your meandering simpleton post of trying to prove your gods existence, mere words coming from your misunderstanding of science in general, and you probably ain't that good in bible scholarship either. Crack open some science books.

    37. Let me see then Moderator––––you are "good" in biblical scholarship [your emphasis] right? Not that such scholarship would make any difference here. But given you are making a derogatory comment to another member, it seems entirely reasonable to ask the question! What is the summary of your knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments? What do you believe or have you learned about the Hebrew religion & the Messianic faith? Here's a starting point for you which may help. They are not divisible in substance, just in time and space.

    38. "They [Hebrew religion and the Messianic faith] are not divisible in substance, just in time and space." Just what is supposed to mean or is it simply more of your boeotian gibberish.

    39. I assumed that everyone would know that Israel rejected Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. I can see why this would give rise to an understanding that Jesus was therefore a liar. Actually some of the people in Israel at that time thought He was mad. Its really surprising how us moderns think we have invented all the techniques. Nietzsche is credited with far too much. Nothing really original in claiming "religee's" are mad like the madman. I suppose he just read lots of books. Oh yes back to the question at hand. Just after Jesus was resurrected from the dead, something even the disciples themselves found impossible to believe in at first, amazingly Thomas even demanded empirical evidence, fancy that. Then not only did the disciples believe in the Risen Christ, but some weeks later three thousand Jews also believed in just one instant of time. In fact over a period of approximately 40 years a great many Jews believed in Jerusalem alone. Of course the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD brought it all to an end and Israel was dispersed into the surrounding provinces of the Roman Empire. Over a million Jews perished at the hands of Rome as well. In the end Christ' disciples continued to share about Christ with both Jews and Gentiles. Actually they still are doing to this very day.

      I suppose that this sort of gives the impression that there was a lack of faith in Christ as far as Israel was concerned. Also that somehow this "Jesus" had nothing to do with Israel after all. The thing is Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfilment of many Old Covenant prophecies, he was the centrality in meaning of the Law of Moses and the subject and purpose of all of the Old Testament prophets. It begins in Genesis with the words:

      And I will put enmity
      Between you and the woman,
      And between your seed and her seed;
      He shall bruise you on the head,
      And you shall bruise him on the heel.
      Genesis 3:15

      The "seed" here is the first promise of Christ in the scriptures. Think of the Virgin Birth and move on from there if its easier than trying to follow the history of Israel and the beginning of the Messianic believer, as recored in the Scriptures.

    40. Time and space? "spacetime" getting scientific are you? What is the summary of your knowledge of time and space? without falling back to your crutch of unscientific bible parables.

    41. Well I don't mean "spacetime" continuum thats for certain. Though a quick wiki peak would no doubt inform me as to what that term might mean in the context of relativity. I meant what I said, "in time and space". I could have just said chronologically but perhaps I was trying to be too scientific after all.

      Edit Addition:

      Just could not resist. Sorry.

      "God isn’t late with his promise as some measure lateness. He is restraining himself on account of you, holding back the End because he doesn’t want anyone lost. He’s giving everyone space and time to change"

      Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: The Bible in contemporary language (2 Pe 3:9). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

      By the way I can't believe that I have had to resort to the Message Bible. But that is the nature of desperation.

      As for the science of the special theory of relativity I have no understanding of it at all. I never did fully get the need to learn it in view of the fact that with my God a thousand years is as a day.

      This the real translation.

      8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
      9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

      New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (2 Pe 3:8–9). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

    42. "I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense." Just what do you know about science which you ignorantly abase to the level of idiotic faith? However, let's see you put your money where you mouth is and provide a scientific proof for the existence (or non-existence) of a creator and while you're at it, furnish a list of those scientists who claim that the creation of the universe was random. And by the way, there is no controversy about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) just as there is no controversy about evolution which in your ignorance of science you confound with abiogenesis--and to hell with what your bible says; it is not a science book.

      "Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either." What about Genesis 1. The entire creation story (with the possible exception of the sabbath) is scientifically wrong. The story of the flood is scientifically impossible. These are just for starters.

      "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize." Well there's not been a single theist who has shown any evidence proving the existence of a divine creator--and theists do worse than theorize; they try to convert; they start religious wars; they engage in persecution of those who don't believe as they do.

      "No one can travel back in time to when 'everything started' and find out the truth." Do you believe mastodons existed? As you can't travel back in time, how do you know?

      In short, you are no more than a typical religious ignoramus who claims to employ science as the basis for his misbegotten and ignorant beliefs when he does not know the first thing about it.

      "May EDUCATION bless the world!" It certainly hasn't blessed you.

    43. "I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense." Just what do you know about science which you ignorantly abase to the level of idiotic faith? However, let's see you put your money where you mouth is and provide a scientific proof for the existence (or non-existence) of a creator and while you're at it, furnish a list of those scientists who claim that the creation of the universe was random. And by the way, there is no controversy about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) just as there is no controversy about evolution which in your ignorance of science you confound with abiogenesis--and to hell with what your bible says; it is not a science book.

      "Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either." What about Genesis 1. The entire creation story (with the possible exception of the sabbath) is scientifically wrong. The story of the flood is scientifically impossible. These are just for starters.

      "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize." Well there's not been a single theist who has shown any evidence proving the existence of a divine creator--and theists do worse than theorize; they try to convert; they start religious wars; they engage in persecution of those who don't believe as they do.

      "No one can travel back in time to when 'everything started' and find out the truth." Do you believe mastodons existed? As you can't travel back in time, how do you know?

      In short, you are no more than a typical religious ignoramus who claims to employ science as the basis for his misbegotten and ignorant beliefs when he does not know the first thing about it.

      "May EDUCATION bless the world!" It certainly hasn't blessed you.

    44. "I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense." Just what do you know about science which you ignorantly abase to the level of idiotic faith? However, let's see you put your money where you mouth is and provide a scientific proof for the existence (or non-existence) of a creator and while you're at it, furnish a list of those scientists who claim that the creation of the universe was random. And by the way, there is no controversy about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) just as there is no controversy about evolution which in your ignorance of science you confound with abiogenesis--and to hell with what your bible says; it is not a science book.

      "Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either." What about Genesis 1. The entire creation story (with the possible exception of the sabbath) is scientifically wrong. The story of the flood is scientifically impossible. These are just for starters.

      "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize." Well there's not been a single theist who has shown any evidence proving the existence of a divine creator--and theists do worse than theorize; they try to convert; they start religious wars; they engage in persecution of those who don't believe as they do.

      "No one can travel back in time to when 'everything started' and find out the truth." Do you believe mastodons existed? As you can't travel back in time, how do you know?

      In short, you are no more than a typical religious ignoramus who claims to employ science as the basis for his misbegotten and ignorant beliefs when he does not know the first thing about it.

      "May EDUCATION bless the world!" It certainly hasn't blessed you.

    45. Sorry but the word of the Quran is true! And it is so strange that u don't believe in God. The simple fact that human can distinguished right from wrong tells us that someone gave us this sense. The fact that we feel guilty when we lie demonstrate that someone gave us this feelings. Just look around and reflect and u will see that there is one God. Education and science just further proofs the existence of Almighty God. The people who don't want to be accountable are the ones that deny God. Everyone actually calls upon God when they need him but forget it after they are in good situation. And why do you think we are here in this world and don't you believe that justice will be served one day? You don't have to use rocket science to understand that there has to be one God.

    46. "Sorry but the word of the Quran is true!" Sorry, but you have no way of knowing this? And does this mean that all works prior to the Quran (there are quite a few, you know) were false? "And it is so strange that u don't believe in God." And what's stranger still is the almost impossible extent to which you are mentally challenged to posit such tripe.

      "The simple fact that human can distinguished [sic] right from wrong tells us that someone gave us this sense." This is known as a non sequitur, Latin for "it does not follow." This is also known as a statement arising from profound ignorance of history and culture.
      "Education and science just further proofs the existence of Almighty God." This is known as a claim without substance or a groundless assertion--by the way, which god are you talking about? I thought all gods were almighty or they just simply wouldn't be gods, now would they?.

      "Everyone actually calls upon God when they need him but forget it after they are in good situation." I trust you have considerable experience with everyone. I also trust that you've met Him and know for a fact that it's a he and not a she. You're sure you weren't fooled by a clever piece of cross-dressing. After all god, that is your god, is omnipotent.

      "You don't have to use rocket science to understand that there has to be one God." Now, this is known as a groundless affirmation, but good news. It can be y be fixed. To wit: "You certainly don't have to use an appreciable amount of brain power to understand all the imbecility and ignorance which went into your post."

    47. Your response is circular logic...especially your claims that the Quran is true when it has been shown to be full of flat out lies, insane doctrine, and intentionally violent verses meant to promote Islam in any and all ways. Your Quran fails, as does the Bible. There is no proof of God.

  62. Robertallen.. whats your motivation for your aggressive deniance of God? I think everyone here has a right to know. Its one thing to state some facts and move on, but your persistance is interesting.

    1. Because you and those like you claim things they cannot possibly know.

  63. has ever someone considered that consciousness is god ?nothing more & nothing less!a spectator grasping whatever the spectacle has to deliver seems to fit the quantum reality & that should put us back into place.
    be humble & prosper........................................'thy humble one !'

    1. Has someone ever considered that lack of consciousness is god?

    2. enjoying dialectic,mmh?

    3. I do believe that or ummmm something like that yes.

    4. you,sir,are a very wise man !

  64. You don't know D'Souza like I know D'Souza. although I do not agree with his political views oof.

  65. I'm amazed by the way christians (in U.S.) come up with 'scientific facts' to try and convince non-believers god exists. Well, here's one for christians that are not even slightly willing to consider evolution theory might be true:
    Christians (like Bob Dutko) are living evidence of DE-evolution! Christians seem to be getting dumber and more ignorant every year......

    Proving de-evolution, automatically proves evolution.

  66. Does everybody say A-bio-genesis? I always pronounce it abby-o-genesis. Sounds better my way ;)

  67. I found two items I think are worth listening to:
    Primacy of Consciousness
    Has Science Refuted Religion?

  68. Please, prove beyond an shed of doubt that your mom loves you. Your you love your children. What proof do we have of time? How can I prove to you that there was a painter for a painting? Baker for some bread? Please, take this loaf of bread, and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt it had a baker? Where is the empirical evidence??

    First, how do you define "god"? We obvious define that quite differently, or it holds a very difference significance in our minds.

    Second, something happened to cause all of this. Since our small monkey brains are likely to not learn that info in our life time, I'll call it "god" happened. I'll also reevaluate when science learns more. In my experience, every answer science finds leads me to at least 5 new questions.

    1. Call it whatever you want, but don't worship it or inflict it on others.

    2. I cannot prove beyond a shred of doubt that my mom loves me or that I love my children. However, it is a reasonable statement and has been demonstrated countless times in our society and a reasonable person has no reason to disbelieve me. That God loves me cannot be demonstrated. I can't ask him. I cannot coax anyone to ask for me because they may have a personal agenda when giving me an answer. I have no proof of his existence. The closest I can come is the belief that he loves me. Belief is not fact. It is faith. Faith has no basis in fact and can be quite irrational.

      That is the beauty of science. Knowledge leads to more questions which leads to more research which leads to more knowledge....etc. The belief in a God requires you stop the investigation because you may not like what you find and when you find the something you don't like the religious try to fit into their own belief system. They won't let the facts speak for themselves.

    3. Jack1952 just got his ass whooped in literary terms! Booyah!

    4. And when did that happen? Demonstrate the failure in my comment or better yet prove to me that God exists. Either will do.

  69. Yeah, you are correct there is unfortunately no requirement that to be an atheist you also practice rational skepticism. As a result there are atheist that believe in all kinds of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and new age woo.

  70. There is no proof that the Higgs Boson particle exists either, according to scientists. But if it doesn't, then neither can solids or hard substances. And they have built the Hadron Collider at millions of tax payer bucks, in order to find it. But it has not yet been found. So there is no such thing as solidity-right? And who can tell us there are not more than three dimensions that are visible to the human experience? You? Well cough it up! I'm listening.......?

    1. Mom
      just so i know how many time do posters here have to explain to you that you are wrong where the Higgs is concerned? also your statement in no way provides proof for a god. do you have any?

    2. There's a fine article on Higgs Boson on Wikipedia. Read it before posting your nonsense.

  71. You people who actually CHOOSE to believe these lies are beyond my comprehension. You say "ob but we are so intelligent!"...when in the end you are fools.

    Folly and Wickedness of Men:
    "The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
    There is no one who does good.
    The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
    To see if there are any who understand,
    Who seek after God.
    They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
    There is no one who does good, not even one. {Psalm 14:1-3 (NASB)}

    1. @4Christ:

      I won't take your comment off so I can reply to you, (no preaching allowed)! Anymore will be deleted!

    2. And just what lies are these? How about going through them one by one, as did the narrator. Quoting from the bible doesn't cut it.

    3. I've always found the below quote...interesting to ponder. Perhaps "4Christ" can answer this 341-270 BCE Greek Philospher's questions?

      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
      Then he is not omnipotent.
      Is he able, but not willing?
      then he is malevolent.
      Is he both able and willing?
      Then whence cometh evil?
      Is he neither able nor willing?
      Then why call him God?" -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

    4. But then when someone writes: "Not a being persay but the collective consciousness that makes up the connection of human kind." (Mark 1667) then your philosopher's question can be classified with the rest of all old thoughts, scientific or theologic.

      Many theists have dropped a god Being in the sky, so much that they should not be called theist any longer. It may not be that they imagine (think, hypothetise, sense) a designer but that they allow a design to have always been, always will be.
      Does that makes them stupid? more than those who imagine that a design is not. They interpret the mystery of life that has NOT been answered by anyone (yet) and quite possibly never will be with what fits their present concept of life.
      The "word" God is not about to dissapear off the face of the earth, off all the books, off all the minds...but it may be reinvented.
      The classic or old or past or inadequate definitions of the word god has to be dropped not only by the theists but by all atheists alike.

    5. It sure does when they have no evidence for design except their subjectivity and their current inability to provide a distinction between design and non-design.

      And by "mystery of life," do you mean how life began? Science is certainly making a lot more headway in this area than intelligent design (creationism).

      " . . . the word god has to be dropped not only by the theists but by all atheists alike." Who are you to say?

    6. Who are you to think what you write, say or think (i have only read you)?
      I suppose you are you.
      Life may not have begun as life may never end. Read "may".

    7. "Has to be dropped" implies dictation. So who are you to dictate?

    8. I am not sure of if my stance is old or even within the definition of theism itself. It is just simply my perspective.

    9. I don't fit in any denomination myself. What fits me is mine only and is constantly transformable.

    10. I myself have embraced the term Universalism.

    11. I like how these words all end with ism....mine is just iism, no one can deny that relegion as i am the only one that follows it....or does it follow me?

    12. @oQ,

      More than 50% of Americans have a "negative" or "highly negative" view of people who don’t believe in God. 70% think it important for presidential candidates to be "strongly religious."

      44% of Americans think Jesus Christ will return in the next 50 years. (22% are "certain" that he will, another 22% think he "probably" will.)

      Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution (and two-thirds of these believe evolution was "guided by God"). 53% are actually creationists.

      87% of Americans say they "never doubt the existence of God."

      28% of Americans believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. 49% believe that it is the "inspired word" of God.

      80% of Americans expect to be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for their sins. 90% believe in heaven. 77% rate their chances of going to heaven as "excellent" or "good."

      65% of Americans believe in the literal existence of Satan. 73% believe in Hell.

      83% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. (11% disbelieve. 6% don’t know.)

      Quotes extracted from "Letter To A Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.

      Similar questions in the Islamic world would probably yield percentages near 100%.

      So by saying "many theists have dropped a god Being in the sky" you probably mean "many Canadian theists."

      And here is one more beautiful statement by Sam Harris which, all theists, deists, universalists and spiritualists should read it aloud and understand what is actually an atheism:

      "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

    13. Of the US citizens questionned.
      I wonder if the poll was taken at universities across the US what result they would get.
      And by the way what poll was that, no sign of it on my google search other that Harris quoting it. I am curious to see how the questions were phrased.

    14. @oQ,

      I know, looking at those figures makes you think: How is that even possible? This can't be true. But it is.

      Imagine, 240 million people south of you, think that the Bible is word of God (literal or inspired). Or, 250 million of them think that will face God on Judgment Day.

      More than 150 million think that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. (Harris 2006)

      Also the president of the United States (the former one) has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. (Harris 2006)

      On the other side we have nations (1 billion strong) that can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that they will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise.

    15. Good point. I suggested to over_the_edge that he look up the latest news on Paul Broun, Representative of the Tenth District of Georgia. I would appreciate it if you would read about him and then explain how he got on the Committee of Science and Technology.

    16. Thank you Katnea.

    17. God is able to do all things. Evil on Earth you say? Mankind is the main source of evil on this Earth, as God has placed man on Earth as a substitute for Himself to test which one of us is the best in deeds.

    18. How do you know this?

    19. How do i know this? I researched religion because i believe in God. I don't think we created us for nothing with no purpose to just live and die. After some time of reading on the major world religions, i have come to realize that God's message has always been the same throughout time. Judaism, was a product of the Torah of Moses. Christianity, was the product of the teachings of Jesus. Islam, was the product of the Quran. And yet Islam teaches that Moses and Jesus and Muhammad were all prophets of Islam. But the Jews and Christians changed their scriptures so God Almighty protected the Quran from corruption. We are brought on Earth to be tested. We will be asked about our deeds and belief on the Day of Judgement. Do i believe this? With all my heart. I was brought to life once (Earth) and i believe it will happen again as God stated in the Quran. Then comes either Hell or Paradise. I hope to be from the People of paradise because no one is safe from God's wrath except those believe an do righteous deeds on this Earth.

    20. So you researched religion because you believe in god. In other words, if you didn't believe in god, you wouldn't have researched religion. Let's face it. You didn't want to learn about religion; you wanted a simplistic supernatural peg to hang your hat on.

      So God Almighty protected the Quran from corruption? So we are brought on Earth to be tested? So we will be asked about our deeds and belief on the Day of Judgment. So how do you know these things? Surely, it can't be because you read them in some book whose author tries to pass himself off as knowing more about god than anyone else and you take him at his word. It's really hard to believe that you're a grown-up.

    21. If God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient etc etc etc....then why in the heck does he need to test the human species? You say that God wants to know which human does the best deeds while on Earth?! But, God already knows this answer....right? Since God has complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things and virtually unlimited authority or influence over everything....ask yourself if we (humans) are nothing but a toy?

      Is God so bored with its existence, that he needs homeosapians to entertain this enitity? If mankind is evil...then God allowed it to be so...right? Oh yes...he wants to "test" each of us? That sounds silly to me. Maybe you need to reword your answer to something like:

      Perhaps mankind is on a sort of trial to evolve onto the next level. Extreme pressure is bombarded upon our species to see if we have what it takes to either make it or break it. If we make it...we all pull it together to break the bonds of oppression and realize that we are all connected to each other and to everything within the universe. Only then will we evolve into a higher level of species and become more God like. If not...we destroy ourselves and start over (reincarnate) upon another planet until we get it right?

      I hope you do understand that we are not alone in this universe...right? I feel there are multi universal species at various levels of enlightenment who are all striving to become Godlike. I think God wants us to realize exactly who and what we are!

    22. The test is for you, not for God. It is the fact that you and I have a choice to make, and we are accountable for that choice. That is what matters. God knows everything but that is not the point. The point is do you have what it takes to pass the test of God? If you do, then you will succeed with Paradise. If you don't, then Hell is the only other option. I suggest you choose wisely.

    23. /popcorn

    24. God knows everything? How do you know this, especially when you can't even prove there is a god. I suggest you get an education.

    25. Furthermore, you know who I am accountable to? Myself, above all. My children. My wife. My family, my friends. Not some fake deity. God knows everything? Prove it? You state some pretty wild things here, and not one iota, not one shred, not one microscopic piece of evidence, other than your words. Hence, once again, you people need to get over yourselves. You prove nothing, but speak many words. Nothing new, just blind faith, no proof, same old BS words. You can prove 0, and that is where it ends.

    26. If god is omnipotent, can he square a circle? If god is omnipresent, does he also exist in the quantum world? If god is omniscient, of what use is prayer for he already knows that everyone wants? So asking him for anything is a waste of time. When it comes to a supreme being, why can't most people realize that they don't know what they're talking about because by definition, they dan't know what they are talking about?

    27. I agree with you! I was responding to Yamaan Farhat. I'm being generous when I say that humans only know a teeny tiny percent about anything....let alone how or what a God thinks!

  72. If there is a one God (still not convinced) who's looking down, seeing all this suffering in the world and knowing that a lot of it is in his name, I would feel so sorry for him. What a burden all this would be! So let's all have compassion for each other and then whether there is a god or not won't be an issue.

    1. Amen. But to me that IS the God. Not a being persay but the collective consciousness that makes up the connection of human kind. I think we got caught up in literal translations which become easily dismissed. But whatever I am not here to try to convince anyone one way or the other.

    2. And just what is this "collective consciousness" and how do you know that it exists or is it only wishful thinking?

  73. bottom line there is no evidence of god like there is no evidence of aliens but i do think that they are one in the same just missinturpreted

  74. god is an alien if he is real.. if some being comes down from the sky and is named jesus i would call him an alien

  75. Who finds it odd that God used to present himself regularly in front of multitudes of people, but decides to be completely evasive in the modern era?

    Why does God go around to different peoples and declare himself different titles (Yahweh, Allah, God, El, Elohim, Zeus, Ra, Brahma, etc.), and also tell different people different things?

    Here's a theory. If science cannot disprove God perhaps we can all agree that the worlds various religions actually worship the devil. Afterall, who is the clever, maleficent being who tricks people into needless wars and ridiculous sacrificial rituals?

    Surely, whether theist or atheist, we can all agree that the God of the bible killed multitudes more than Satan. Since God cannot be disproven, I challenge that every believer unknowingly worships Satan... or Hades... or Mara... or...

    Why? Because in historical context it makes a lot more sense than a God who constantly changes his name, tells every culture different things, and magically disappeared after pre-historical times (except for Mormanism...).

    1. "Surely, whether theist or atheist, we can all agree that the God of the bible killed multitudes more than Satan"

      I tend to agree, here is a link on that subject.

    2. Actually, I think God just had a bad childhood as a result of growing up in a terrible neighborhood (the cosmos). Maybe he was sexually abused by matter and energy. Now, he's too ashamed to appear before modern man because of all those horrible things he did in the Old Testament--but remember it was his upbringing.

      Nice to hear from you after so long.

    3. What a douchey thing to say.

    4. I didn't say it. I wrote it or I keyboarded it, but one way or the other, I meant every word of it.

    5. What a douchey thing to type? think? post? reply? Either one of those will work.

  76. Moderators:
    The comments have disappeared from "The Thinking Atheist."

  77. Be careful anti-God concept-ors, that the driving force of your clearly passionate beliefs isn't a desire to not be held accountable for your actions. For that is the function of belief in a Diety, that one day we will all be held accountable for our choices, that this whole life is really more then it appears to be. For if it is, I fear there will be a day come when I will be asked to take account of MY choices. Regardless of the small minded men and women pushing God for their own justifications, there is clearly something bigger at work here, there is intelligence and design in all things. I am no fool, and although I see science as the investigation of these greater things which we really don't understand, I wouldn't be foolish enough to argue towards the atheist end of the spectrum and close my mind to the concept of accountability. Just a thought.

    1. A person is responsible only to himself and those close to him. Installing a deity is as puerile as your belief in celestial accountability.

    2. If it is so clear that there is something bigger at work here, why is it not so clear to me? I have a desire to get at the truth of everything but I just don't see the intelligence and design that you claim is there. I do the right thing because it is the right thing to do not out of fear of retribution or the expectation of reward. Accountability is a poor reason to be a decent human being and an even poorer reason to believe in God.

    3. so you respect science it seems, have you any evidence on which you base your warning? Frankly, I'm gonna need a bit more than what comes over as a mildly paranoid.

    4. Mildly?

  78. good job! while I do believe in a creator, I accept that it is an unscientific belief and applaud your keeping the record straight between science and "superstition"

  79. Besides I know a lot of theists and I don't see them trying to convince anyone there is a God or supposedly all the atheists have to go on “the defense.” If anything the trend I find is atheism and much of the science world is going on the offense in an attempt to refute religion.
    Whatever. I still like atheists and I love science. And I will back up any atheist group that reminds us of the separation of church and state. But I think this God/no God argument becomes pointless.

    1. I don't remember any atheists knocking on my door and disturbing my dinner. I do however recall theists doing this on a regular basis.

      I don't remember athiests standing on a soap box in the middle of the high street threatening those who won't listen with eternal punishment. I do however see theists doing this on a regular basis.

    2. I recall atheists standing on soap boxes many times trying to convince people in the absurdity of God. It is almost as if they have a dogma of their own. There are plenty on this doc site and in the talks/lectures section.

      Yes, there will always be someone trying to convince us of something. I am a theist and get that on occasion as well. I just say no thanks.

    3. There's a world of difference between placing a video on You Tube and standing on a soap box IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET (this part apparently went past you) or going door-to-door proseylitizing.

    4. There certainly is! On youtube you can reach more people!

    5. There was this dogma about the earth being round some centuries ago. Most people said no thanks back then as well.

    6. Nice! Who were they? Because most people, theists and monotheists philosophers and even athieists knew that from the beginning.

    7. Are you bothered by those pesky proseylytizers? The next time they come around, try to obtain their names and their affiliations (I know this is a tall order, but these people are almost always passing out something), then file a complaint and whatever you do, don't hesitate to press charges.

      As for soapbox preachers in the middle of the street, ask to see the speaker's license and if he can't produce one, call the cops and once again, don't hesitate to press charges.

    8. I'm irritated by their passive aggression. The threats of violence if I don't believe in THEIR particular god. And it is a threat of violence, the worst kind of violence. They damn the unbeliever into a pit of pain forever. Its the spiritual equivalent of the mafia boss threatening to send the boys round if you don't pay up.

      Nevertheless, I guess mild irritation is the price we pay for a free society. In the end I am a secularist and that means the right for all citizens to believe what they want without interference. Even if people believe stupid things. As long as I am not forced to share or indulge their fallacious beliefs of course.

      So no, I don't believe in prosecuting them or denying them their freedom of speech. They can knock my door or preach their arrogant certainties in the street if they wish. I merely reserve the right to think they are deluded

    9. The ones in my neighborhood know better than to invade my privacy. I will call the police and I will prosecute.

    10. Yes...choose your own adventure I say. The same freedom that allows delusion can allow enlightenment.

    11. So you've missed the ID lawsuits?

      You also (fortunately for you) missed the guy standing outside the Camden, NJ, downtown bus station with a sound system cranked on high (as in, audible for several blocks away even with car windows rolled up). Proselytizing at the top of his lungs. In detail. Gory, damned to hell detail. At length.

      Did I mention he never shut up the entire 2 hours I was waiting to pick someone up? At full volume?

    12. And he didn't charge you? I just think that's just good ol fashion street theater to me and highly entertaining.

    13. If only it had been anything other than painful...not remotely entertaining, just loud and obnoxious. Did I mention it could be heard 4 blocks away with windows rolled up?

      Edit--I could have appreciated a real sermon...

    14. I hear you. Sounds like a bad infomercial which has been done also in the name of science.

    15. When was the last time you saw a scientist, or for that matter an atheist, blaring with his loudspeaker in the middle of the street so loudly that you could hear it four blocks away?

    16. Does Richard Dawkins count?

    17. And just when was Dr. Dawkins in the middle of a street with a PA system blasting out for all to hear for blocks away like some religious freak? And don't insult my intelligence by citing some outdoor gathering authorized by the local authorities.

    18. And when was Dr. Dawkins out in the middle of the street blasing with a PA system for all to hear like a demented religee? And don't insult my intelligence by citing some authorized gathering.

    19. It has to be a loudspeaker and not a microphone? Microphones are connected to PA systems right? What about the electrical output? Do they have to match as well?

    20. Don't try to weasel out of it. You haven't cited a single instance.

    21. ooooh thats right. Proper gatherings listed would hurt your sensibilities. So sorry. The deranged guy with a loudspeaker doesn't have books out to sell so he couldn't afford a proper gathering.....and a captive audience.....and something to protect him called science.

    22. I like wrestling with you! This is fun. Just for that I am going to say a rosary in your behalf. It will cut some of your time in hell or at least make it bearable. I'll convince God he aint all bad and you'll eventually get probation. In heaven, everyone is agreeable and not at all insulting to intelligencias.

    23. So you believe in heaven, hell and damnation. Jack1952 got your number right away. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and the sandman?

    24. Are you just copying and pasting shitck? Sounds like you have addressed this bit a number of times to various people but I don't want to insult your intelligence or your comedy routine.

    25. The guy with a loudspeaker also probably doesn't have a permit. The guy with the loudspeaker is also invading the privacy of others. The guy with a loudspeaker has no business doing what he's doing or being where he's at--and this is what you're defending? Sure says a lot about you.

      Now, you've stated that atheists are also guilty of getting on loudspeakers and blaring their messages at intersections just like the demented religee Kateye described. Let's see your evidence or do you regard yourself as so far above empiricism that you don't have to provide it?

    26. The 'guy assumptions' you just made...are you sure of all those things there? No permit. Maybe he does. How do you know for sure? shouldn't you be all sciency and collect data before you come to such a conclusion? Also it's hard to invade the privacy of others when the others are in a public space.

      If atheists only proselytized at intersections I would find it quite amusing and entertaining and I would listen for its entertainment value. No, they pick more comfortable and proper gathering situations with PA systems and microphones instead of loudspeakers. And video recorders that make them into proper documentaries to try to reiterate what other atheists already believe. No, they are far more effective at proselytizing than a religee as you say on a soapbox at an intersection. They do it properly like turning them into books and calling it science.

    27. In case you didn't notice it, I used the word probably. So get it right. I didn't assume anything. And when you can hear someone from four blocks away, that's a clear invasion of privacy.

      Your demeaning of atheists for being law-abiding, proper and respectable in their presentations, coupled with your support for a piece of religious garbage blasting with his PA system on a street corner says a lot all too much about what you stand for--and it's despicable.

    28. ummmm saying probably is a form of assuming and making loud noises in public falls under disturbing the peace not invasion of privacy but whatever....should I continue the rosary?

    29. Can I say check mate now or will your head explode?

    30. No, it leaves open the possibility of the opposite, however remote. In this case, how likely is it that a permit would be issued allowing someone to set up a loudspeaker in the middle of the street and blast so loudly he can be heard four blocks away?

      If I live within the four-block radius and this religious garbage is being blasted through my residence, my privacy is being invaded plain and simple. Keep the goddam religion in church.

    31. So you are admitting that you don't know for sure although you have a hunch? That's the basis of a hypothesis so you are on the right track. I don't know about you but I run into all kinds of weird wild loud public events that could surpass that guy. For instance we have a large population of Portuguese people and they have religious feasts periodically. They have processions carrying the Mother Mary, stopping traffic with a marching band in the back.

      Your privacy is limited to what the collective society agrees what is acceptable and non acceptable. If your town agrees to allow a church to march down the street with a tuba band, sorry pal you have to put up with it for a while.

    32. It's not collective society, it's those in authority. For your information, allowing a religious procession on city streets might subject the municipality to a lawsuit regarding separation of church and state and if the municipality loses, the damages could be considerable.

      P.S. I am not your pal.

    33. Complete nonsense. It is allowed because they have these sacred things called permits. Just like we got a permit to have a street festival that blocked traffic. Just like the church got a permit to occupy this spot for a given amount of time just like a private party has a permit to hold a party, wedding reception, etc.

      The separation of church and state is different from the eradication of religion.

    34. And just who issues the permits? Those in authority. I hope lawsuits are filed allowing the Supreme Court determine whether a municipality has exceeded its authority by issuing permits to religious-based organizations.

      Although this country would be better with the eradication of religion and partisan politics, our Constitution guarantees religious freedom which also implies freedom from religion. Just keep religion in the church and the home and everything will be fine.

    35. Authority? Oh God don't tell me we reverted back to monarchies. Those authority figures no matter how despotic they may seem from time to time, are employed by us the collective groups who also elect so called authorities by us the collective who deem what is tolerated and what isn't.

    36. No, it doesn't work that way. With municipalities, some of the authority figures are elected and some selected. It's merely the winning side, not some collective determination.

    37. Almost right. People that are selected still are consequential to their decisions and actions which are pre determined and deemed by some sort of original collective determination in some form or another.
      Good example: Let's all stop at stop signs. Police take notice
      Bad example: Let's put fluoride in the drinking water. I don't remember everyone in my community agreeing to that!

    38. Nonsense. It's election resulting in selection--and it's no more than the winning side, not a collective determination.
      Good example: The Department of Traffic Control, a civil service body, mandates that a stop light be installed on this corner. No one in the community agreed to that.
      Good example: The FDA orders drug X to be taken off the market. No voter in the United States agreed to that.

    39. oooh you are so close but miss the point. In theory we select these people called experts. Maybe we elect a person that selects or we select directly. Either way we entrust these people to do a good job. need a traffic light there ok. Personally I wouldn't but what do I know, we entrusted you to benefit society. Now when they don't we react and hold someone accountable. Maybe the person that hired the expert or the expert themselves. Either way in public life you are consequential for your actions. If not there is corruption.

    40. Who is "we?"

    41. we the people in order to form a more perfect union.....

    42. If you believe this, you're a fool. It's simply the winning side.

    43. Perhaps I am but it is much better than believing in some dubious “winning side.” Whatever that means.

    44. In an election, the side garnering the most votes. What's dubious about that?

    45. election as in the majority of the vote from the collective group in a community?

    46. Yes, which means it's not total collectivity.

    47. and why is total collectivity important?

    48. "Your privacy is limited to what COLLECTIVE society agrees what is acceptable and non-acceptable. [emphasis added]" The implies total collectivity. Had you meant something else, you should have stated it. One way or the other its not collective society; it's those in power, an oligarchy if you will.

    49. That doesn't imply anything and that doesn't really make much sense.
      How you define total collectivity is very strange.

    50. Collective means as a whole. The winning party does not constitute a whole.

    51. ...and your point is?

    52. Representational democracy does not need a unanimous vote. The collective means that everyone gets a say in how they life.
      That is not oligarchy.

    53. Had this occurred in my neighborhood, I would have had the cops there and insisted that charges be filed.

      P.S. I hate sermons.

    54. Well, like I said, it was in the middle of downtown Camden, NJ, on the plaza outside the bus terminal, and not only the police station but county and federal court buildings are in the same area...apparently it was "ok" for him to be doing this. Didn't stop the obnoxious factor.

    55. Had I been in your shoes, I would have gone to the police station and inquired as to whether a permit had been issued to this individual. If it had, I would have reported the matter not only to city hall but to the ACLU as well. If it hadn't, I would have insisted that this person be removed and charges filed against him. You don't find atheists engaging in this execrable conduct.

    56. ...

      It was downtown Camden, NJ. Not exactly a safe place to leave one's car even to walk to the police station. The state has taken over after they fired the entire city police force because the city's budget is, well, non-existent...

    57. Now that I think about it, I was traveling in Puerto Rico a couple of years ago, and the same situation...Guy with a sound system in a public square (apparently all ok with local authorities), decibels maxxed out to the painful level, proselytizing in Spanish to all the tourists (I know enough Spanish to have understood the gist of his rant). I know public speech is a good thing, but it should be limited to unassisted vocal cords, IMHO.

      Honestly, I haven't come across nonbelievers of any ilk carrying on like this in public, much less knocking on my door to find out if I've been 'saved.'

      I live in a neighborhood of small-scale homes, very convenient at Halloween for parents of small children (we have an awesome parade of costumes!) and also for religious groups to train their young 'uns into the joys of spreading the word whether or not the target audience is interested or not. Sometimes amusing, other times downright intrusive. This is my home, after all. None of my friends or relatives stop by unannounced; it's considered rude.

    58. You're absolutely right, it is rude. There is the telephone.

      P.S. And I doubt if you're going to find any non-believers doing this either.

    59. The science world does not accept any assertion without the empirical data as evidence to back it up. Accepting the existence of a being without the proof sets a precedence in science that cannot be allowed because it would then set the stage for any claim to become fact without the necessary legwork to support it. It goes to the heart of science and nullifies the scientific method.

    60. Thank you Jack. Couldn't have said it better myself!

    61. This is correct. The scientific method does not have to be philosophically naturalistic. Individual scientists can believe in gods if they wish. It does however have to be methodologically naturalistic and only accept assertions that can be tested, repeated and most of all refuted. Supernatural claims by definition can not be tested or refuted and so therefore, can never be considered scientific. Science and the scientific method must be neutral about questions it can not test.

    62. Which is why we shouldn't appeal to science [Methodological Naturalism] as an authority on the non-existence of God. The assertion made by Atheists that God does not exist needs empirical data and evidence to back up such an assertion. And science [Methodological Naturalism] is humble enough and wise enough to not make such an assertion atthis time, knowing that it cannot provide such empirical data and evidence. Such empirical data and evidence would require a thorough search of all space/time to be able to produce. Humans are no-where near such an undertaking and must resign to ignorance on the matter.

      The best science can say about such a being as "God" is; "If an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, creator being exists we haven't found such a being in the space/time that we've examined so either such a being is in a part of space/time that we haven't discovered yet...or such a being does not exist in space/time as we understand it."

      Interestingly, this scientifically objective observation about God not being a part of our space/time is what Theists have subjectively observed and been asserting for millennia...that God is not a part of nature.

      Also don't confuse Evidentialism with "science" (Methodological Naturalism). We modern humans and Atheists use Evidendialism way more than Methodological Naturalism aka "science" and apply it and other modes of information organizing to many things that "science" (Methodological Naturalism) can not...such as Consciousness, Art, Concepts, Mathematics, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Relationships, the Future, Music, Language, Love etc.

    63. How many times does it have to be repeated to you that in general, modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, but rather the lack of convincing proof. This strawman of yours is becoming quite annoying.

      An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator/being is a logical impossibility. If he's omnipotent, can he trisect an angle with a compass and straightedge? Can he change pi into a rational number? If he is omnipresent, will we find him in the quantum world as well as the macroworld, will we find him in every fece we drop, in every ounce of vomit we expectorate, in every miligram of mucous we cough up? If he is omniscient, does he know the outcome of every blackjack game in Las Vegas before it is played out? Does he know the thoughts of every human and animal even before these pop into mind? Why do people both to pray to him, for he knows what everyone wants? If you answer affirmative to any of these, I want your proof and not a screenful of sophistry.

      Now, once again, what more objective way than science (methodoical naturalism) is there to ascertain whether there is a supreme being?

  80. I find atheism correct in the empirical sense but my intuition tells me otherwise. Regardless, I find atheism souless, sterile and quite boring.

    1. Atheism has no soul, therefore there must be a god.

      Atheism bores you, therefore there must be a god.

      Atheism is sterile, therefore there must be a god.

      So your god is the god of desparation, born of your preference for intuition over facts.

    2. I find theism smug with their knowledge of eternal reward for themselves and retribution for all others. Smug to the point of being hateful.

    3. That's funny you would say that because I'm sure many of them feel the same way about atheists.

    4. Yeah, but modern atheists have some logic behind their atheism.

    5. Just some? I think all atheists have great logic and many non atheists too. But only logic can be a bully. Am I the only one who saw the original Star Trek for Christ's Sake?

    6. I have yet to meet a non-atheist with great logic; the leap of faith militates against it.

    7. I understand. It's just because of you're subjective biases against them. There are plenty of logical theists, but we as humans are fallible and fall easily to only seeing what we choose to believe. There doesn't have to be a conflict of logic and faith, just as long as you put faith and logic in it's proper categories and not do silly things like attempt to use scientific method to prove or disprove Gods.

    8. Nonsense. What's more objective (evidentiary) than the scientific method, especially for proving the existence/non-existence of a supreme being? Now, show me your logical theists. You shouldn't have any trouble; there are plenty of them.

    9. Thank you! Nonsense! Exactly or what would be more accurate. 'beyond sense.' God is unprovable because the idea in its very nature is beyond human comprehension. If God was provable, it would just become another thing in the world. If God was provable then a reasonable theist would say to you then there is no need for faith.
      Evidence however is another matter. Many people have had experiences in which they claim to be connected to a higher power of some form or another. Now you may say hogwash and doubt it immediately which is perfectly rational, but can't we doubt almost everything in reality? What is reality? Decarte thought so, and the only thing completely certain Decarte and all of us can agree with is that we are conscious beings, “Experiencing.” So in a sense the experience cannot be denied whether virtual, analogue, etc. So with that said who is anyone to say that person did not experience such and such just because the naysayer doesn't have the same belief system?

    10. Your entire post is simply a pathetic justification for the irrational, the superstitious and the ignorant, in other words faith which is simply the copulation of ignorance with stupidity to create a false virtue. What's worse, your post seems to stand for the abrogation of intelligence by accepting without proof or even seriously considering some of the idiotic things people claim, such as communication with the supernatural of which there has never been any concrete evidence. Your post is as insulting to the intelligence as your appeal to authority (Descarte, please note spelling). And spare me the crap about different belief systems. I, for one, don't buy it--either something is tenable or it's not.

    11. Now who is being smug. Sounds like the very thing you point out in others is the very thing that exists within. I think you completely missed my point again because you aren't able to see through your own biases. My justification is not for the irrational but emphasizes consciousness and experience on its own which by the way, cannot be measured in the sacred scientific method but all agree we have it. How tenable is that? You “don't buy it” because again your can't come to terms that you are only one very fallible and limited point of view that doesn't have a divine right to the absolute truth. Trust me, just like the charlatans that claim to talk to supernatural beings that you decided to represent all things “supernatural and religious” there are plenty of examples that also represent very very bad science. I think they call that marketing.

    12. First of all, I never complained of anyone being smug, so get your facts straight.

      You're right, I'm biassed--towards hard evidence and the inferences therefrom. Anything beyond that e.g., anecdotal experience, the supernatural, the religious, the faith-based, is a much an insult to the intelligence and to science as your last two sentences which make no sense.

    13. Makes no sense as in I don't understand? Got it. Maybe someday grasshopper.

      Good. I am glad to insult science and this so called uppity intelligence (Is this your god? Should I use a capital “I?”). It needs to be taken down a few pegs like someone who thinks everything can be explained through empiricism.

    14. Makes no sense as in unintelligible. Being glad to insult science says reams about the quality of your intellect.

    15. unintelligible as in the form of projection? ( please look that up. I don't want to have to explain it to you..ok hint Carl Jung) I love science. But your science is a douche that spends way too much time and energy trying to dispel mythology.

    16. Try re-reading the sentence beginning with "Trust me." No one who writes, "I am glad to insult science" loves science.

    17. Nothing needed to reread. And sure they do. I love science but it is not the end all of everything. What!? (aka consciousness remember?) And when it goes on the offense like trying to dispel gods then its a waste of time and energy. Down a few pegs. You silly goose.

    18. So without your gods science is a waste of time and energy. In other words, your gods come first. Again this says reams about the level of your intellect.

    19. Thank you! How many reams? What comes first or second are assumptions on your part and sort of sophomoric. Why does everything have to be black and white? They coexist. You silly goose.

    20. No, they are based on your posts which clearly indicate that you place your religion before science, a clear sign of intellectual deficiency.

      I'm waiting for you to back up your statement about Dr. Dawkins and other atheists? I'm sure I'll be waiting a long time.

    21. Prove that I indicate anything over anything science boy.

      Other atheists? Let me ask you something, if you don't witness something do you say it doesn't exist? Someone said “I have never witnessed” well I have.

    22. I should send images of athesists proselytizing on city streets.

    23. Yes, you should along with information as to whether they have a permit to do so.

    24. "Someone said “I have never witnessed” well I have."
      Well good for you I am glad you got to have this experience, But unless you have some kind of evidence in support for it. what good does that do me?

      I have a friend with schizophrenia and he thinks that he has microchips under his skin and speakers in his walls. There are people who say they were abducted by aliens, swear they have seen big foot and people that think a race of lizardmen are plotting for world dominance. Should I also believe these claims? Why not? if personal experience is the only requirement for believing something, then all of these things are just as valid a claim as any.

    25. In the larger context, personal experience is no better than anecdotal evidence--worthless. If I tell you that I had pancakes for breakfast, although you didn't witness my eating breakfast, you'll probably accept my claim because it seems reasonable and certainly does not stretch the laws of nature. However, if I tell you that last night, I was abducted by the Brothers Grimm---no one claim is not as valid as another.

    26. Sure, I was simply highlighting for another poster why accepting their personal experience with their god is insufficient. They were not talking about some mundane run of the mill claim. So elaborating further on the levels of evidence required for the type of claim was in this instance unnecessary.

    27. True. We have no proof but one thing we cannot deny is that these people if they are being truthful with you are 'experiencing' and it happens to be true to them. Now you were talking about two different things...
      big foot and people that think a race of lizardmen are plotting for world dominance. That is mistaken identity, they saw 'something' and the lizards that's a part of the genre “conspiracy theories” and is not what I am talking about.
      Now you don't have to believe them in face I encourage that you don't and keep a skeptical mind. But I wouldn't deny then outright either as a knee jerk reaction. Even to me, that isn't scientific.

      Experiences as phenomena, individually and in the collective shouldn't be denied as nonexisting if empirical evidence isn't given.
      For instance, how to you measure consciousness to begin with?

    28. Complete nonsense! Lack of empirical evidence is every reason to deny these outrageous claims outright. They are not worth being bothered with--except on television.

      And just how do you define consciousness to begin with?

    29. If you read my post you will notice that I didn't write it off completely, I just stated why their personal experience is insufficient for me to be able to believe. I actually have no doubt they experienced something and I have no reason to suspect they are being dishonest. But I have no way of knowing that what they actually experienced is even close to what they thought they experienced.

    30. yep. no way of knowing for sure.

    31. "I'm glad to insult science."

      As long as it's natural, no.

    32. mark1667
      the only time i have witnessed science trying to dispel religion is when religion tries to masquerade as something else (creationism/ID) in order to corrupt school children and science itself. protecting children and science is not "waste of time and energy". if religion was kept out of these areas (and a few more that i doesn't belong in) there would be no opposition from science and in my opinion most atheists would walk away from the fight (myself included).

    33. Actually I do agree with you. Religion by no means should get in the way of science. And science has every right to defend itself. Politics too. Religious fanatics do get in the way from time to time but I imagine that these people are easy to defeat. I think Richard Dawkins and the rest however are obsessed with trying to refute the existence of God which I think is a waste of time and energy for scientists.

      Maybe it isn't a waste on second thought because it does seem like he makes a lot of money on these books. A friend got one of his books for her birthday. She is an atheist but I said to her, “Are you still not convinced?” Why do you have to keep convincing yourself there is no God if you already came to that conclusion?

    34. Right. Kitzmiller v. Dover Unified School District was one example of how easy it is to defeat those who attempt to impose their ignorant religion on education in general and into biology classes in particular. So your imagination plays you false.

      And no, Dr. Dawkins is not obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of god, but rather with keeping religion in its place which is out of the public classroom, out of the government and out of the bedroom.

      And Bob Dutko, Benny Hinn, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and the filthy like make no money off their trashy books and videos.

      Apparently, you cut off your anecdote to suit your purpose. Now, just what was her answer?

    35. I wish it was that easy, in many cases it is not. There was one high school case in RI that was given a really hard time despite that she eventually won in court. Not without a lot of vicious behavior. I also imagine that it isn't very easy within the bible belt of america.

      If that's all Dawkins did he wouldn't be as well known as he is or as wealthy. The book was The God Delusion and he does go on the offense and claims that believing in a religion is based on a fixed false belief. I don't blame him on his strategy really or his train of thought about it. It's logical but that's more than just defending science.

      She laughed.

    36. I would like to learn more about the Rhode Island case. Do you recall its name?

      Now, on what do you base your knowledge of Dr. Dawkins' personal wealth. As I understand it, the lion's share of the proceeds from his books goes to the Richard Dawkins Foundation, an educational entity in every sense of the word and not some sham created for tax purposes.

      You're right, it's more than defending science; it's defending knowledge against the encroachment of ignorance (i.e., religion).

    37. Oh good..let's both take a look at his income tax forms so we both can come to a conclusion of what percentage he gets from sales and speaking engagements and from the foundation and then we can come to some synopsis of what is meant by capitalizing.

      Ignorance is no ones friend and theists and atheists alike fight that. There is plenty of non religious based ignorance and hatred you and the rest of science also should be worried about but again Dawkins and his henchmen look to dispel 'ghosts from the machine' as an offensive tactic. I don't blame him really because it isn't a bad one. It is similar in chess when you counter an attack with an attack.

    38. In other words, you made a statement about Dr. Dawkins which you can't back up. That doesn't say much for you and your diversion to the issue of capitalization says even less.

      Now, please provide me with some examples of non-religious-based (i.e., scientific) ignorance, and by this I don't mean something which science freely admits either to not knowing or not knowing enough about at present.

    39. Sure but you can't either because you and I both do not have the data. Please show me the hard data that he doesn't capitalize on his fame and I for once might agree with you. I least I have circumstantial evidence.

      OK which one do you want, ignorance or hatred?

    40. You made an assertion concerning Dr. Dawkins' personal wealth with no supporting evidence. On the other hand, I prefaced mine with "It is my understanding that." There is a world of difference between the two. As you made the assertion, it is up to you, not me, to provide the proof. Don't try that tack, it won't work. And now you admit that you have only circumstantial evidence which means that your statement was not honest in the first place--and once again, this says a lot about you.

      As to your last paragraph, I'll take both.

    41. You mean an assertion like you made with that the guy with the loudspeaker not having a permit? Please provide proof. That tactic is your tactic and that says a lot about you. circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Through observation I make a hypotheses that Dawkins capitalizes on his fame.

    42. You're either completely dense or playing at it. How many times do I have to bring it to your attention that I used the qualifier PROBABLY, which despite what you think, is far from a bald-faced assertion. In a later post I explained why he PROBABLY did not have a permit. One way or the other, don't distort what I wrote.

      With respect to your statement concerning Dr. Dawkins, " . . . it does seem that he [Dr.Dawkins] makes a lot of money on these books." Now you claim that your evidence is circumstantial when the best evidence is actual. However, you have not yet provided this circumstantial evidence.

    43. PROBABLY as in believably as in assuming by filling in the gaps because you don't have the data? I can also argue the case that he PROBABLY DID have a permit.

    44. You could because I did not make a definite statement and the reason I did not make a definite statement was because, as you so sagely pointed out, I didn't have the data.

    45. Ah there you go.

    46. mark1667
      you stated "fanatics do get in the way from time to time but I imagine that these people are easy to defeat" no they are not. their arguments are easy to debunk but that has little effect on their lies/quote mining/greed/hate and so on from continuing on in the minds of those who choose to either ignore the logical arguments or those who never seek another answer. they elect their own and try to pass dishonest laws,they fund large organizations (discovery institute), they take over local school boards and if a concerted effort to oppose them and educate the public wasn't put forward they would take over and corrupt the most successful/reliable method to ensure that most accurate results.

      to answer the question you asked your friend (my answer i am not assuming hers would be the same) you stated " Why do you have to keep convincing yourself there is no God if you already came to that conclusion?". i in no way have to keep convincing myself (and i do not claim that there is no god only a lack of evidence for one) but keeping up on the latest evidences and arguments for and against an argument from both sides is the only way to ensure that i can form an opinion based on the most data possible. if i made a decision on the god question and stopped looking for answers i would be no better than those i oppose. also the tatics of the religious are getting more and more difficult to see and following every new attack in real time would be impossible so i rely on others to help sift through the noise.

    47. I really agree with this. Maybe as a theist I don't see the other side often and underestimate the power and influence institutional religion still has in this modern day has over public life and science. To me that is a damn shame and personally religion has always been private, philosophical and contemplative. If atheists are defending science's right to exist fully, then I support them wholeheartedly. That includes the separation of church and state as well. But I am offended when someone is telling me I am wrong, lacking, ignorant, inferior for relying on faith or thinking outside of empiricism. It reminds me of what religion did to nonbelievers and it makes me sick.

    48. It's really quite simple. As a theist I don't choose to believe in a universe that is a product of pure chance. I entertain the mystery of something coming from nothing. But I acknowledge that this is a belief and it doesn't make it an empirical truth simply because I believe it. Only something that is true to me, a subjective belief that gives me meaning and purpose.

    49. In other words, your beliefs are simply founded on what seems to provide you with meaning and purpose, not on their validity. For example, if belief in unicorns seems to give your life meaning and purpose, you'll believe in them, despite lack of evidence for their existence. So you do not believe in a universe that is a product of pure chance, not on scientific grounds, but simply because you choose not to do so. And you complain about being regarded as intellectually lacking.

    50. mark1667
      not to be picky but nowhere in science that i know of does it claim that the " universe that is a product of pure chance" it is a result of a combination of the laws of physics,chemistry,quantum mechanics and so on very little if anything around us is the product of "pure chance"

    51. Great, welcome to my world. Of course all those laws of the natural world we observe and measure...physics, quantum mechanics, etc are from just after the genesis of the universe to the present day. What happened before? What initiated it? what's it like to have no time? Great mysteries to contemplate on and science has no explanation.

    52. No, not contemplate on, investigate--and by that I mean through science which is far better equipped for this than anything else.

    53. mark1667
      first off i can only speak for myself and i feel you want me to explain the posts of others and i am not willing to do that. i am glad we agree at least in part when it comes to the control of unwarranted and unwelcome influence of religion. as for the last part of your post again i will speak for myself only. when someone tells me i am wrong i ask them for proof of my error and try to provide proof that i am right. if i am proven wrong then i thank the person who corrected me and/or apologize for my mistake (yes i have done that here on occasion) if they can't prove me wrong then i expect the same in return. i have exposed others ignorance on certain subjects and i feel no shame in calling someone that if that is what they are displaying. this is an honest tip meant to help and no insult is intended. this site has many knowledgeable people on almost every subject. while i hope you continue to visit and post please be warned that you will be tasked to back up assertions and very few are shy on calling people on their views. if you cannot back something up then state it as an opinion or belief not a fact. the preceding was posted as a fellow poster not a moderator as i try to separate the two. as a moderator all i can say is that i try to be as unobtrusive as possible and allow posters to work through their issues before intervening. if i jumped in at the first sign or a slight or perceived slight there would be few posts at all. again this is all off topic so i will be deleting this soon (my post only)

    54. Well you have yet to meet me.

    55. For what it matters, the only one on this thread who thinks you have great logic is you.

    56. I have never heard an atheist use the threat of eternal damnation in the fires of hell for all those who do not conform to their beliefs. Nothing that an atheist can say or do can compare to the implications of eternal torture. That a Christian could condone this punishment of another human being, and that would include his family, would indicate to me a very hateful person. To make this attitude even worse is the joy expressed in the knowledge that he will be spared this horrific retribution. I see nothing joyful about it. How a Christian could be joyful when his mother, father, spouse or child is potentially in God's torture chamber is beyond my comprehension.

    57. Oh I agree and the majority don't particularly care for those people that proclaim such things. People like that sound like psychopaths and if that is true then they would use religion or some other medium to give everyone a hard time (nationalism for instance?) Many theists or anyone that believes in an afterlife don't agree to manipulation tactics or institutionalized religions. The majority of theists I know could care less what others think or believe in. Anyone proselytizing about heaven and hell I think of it as bad dinner theater. Today I have my own thoughts of some kind of a transreality and about God so I don't care what others think or believe But I also don't align myself to a sterile and empty oblivion either.

      If religious extremists try to obstruct politics and science again, I am right there to fight against them as well. Otherwise I say live and let live.

    58. That's a straw man argument.

    59. Nothing strawman about it. This is what they do.

    60. This was a response to a comment. It is not a straw man argument. The comment claimed that theists feel atheists can be quite smug about their beliefs. I argued back by using my feeling about how horrified I am by the thoughts of my loved ones being punished eternally. There is no redirection in either of our comments and is on topic with the conversation I was having with this specific individual.

    61. Strong that of Communism...was no less smug and hateful with it's retrubution for all other non-Atheists....

    62. Sheer crap which I've heard before. Stalin simply massacred--atheism had nothing to do with it. No mass murder has ever occurred in the name of atheism.

    63. Communists hated religion not because of atheism but they felt it was another form of population control by the money classes. Atheism did not drive them. The belief that a person must show loyalty only to the state and nothing else was the prime motivation.

  81. no wonder, Made in USA

  82. Haven't watched the documentary yet...will though (when have time and not distracted by writing stuff on TDF...I love rhetoric and the Theist/Atheist debate!).

    Anyways...the same top 10 failed proofs for God also fail to prove Atheism (and are used by Atheists alike)...check it out.

    Top 10 Failed proofs for Atheism (well not really...there's probably better...just using the same top 10 list...)

    1.Shifting the Burden of Proof – God does not exist. Prove he exists!

    2.Argument from Popularity – The vast majority of the Scientists believe there is no God!

    3.The Non-Transcendental Argument – Almost all Humans seem to have a kind of "programmed" belief...pre-disposition one could say...of the concept of a "God"/Creator being...which is quite the peculiarity in Humans...naturally selected to be drawn to such a delusion.

    4.Argument from Coercion – You must believe there is no God. It's the only hope humanity has against the corruption of religion.

    5.No First Cause Argument – The universe is in an infinite regress with regards to "first causes"...or there are simply an infinite number of Universes...either way...neither needs a Creator/"God" being for there to be a "first cause" (because with infinity there is no beginning).

    6.Argument from Authority – A lot of smart people believe there is no God.

    7.Argument from Personal Experience – I haven't experienced "God" to the degree that I was personally satisfied with...if at all.

    8.Argument from Improbability – It's highly improbable that with all the infinite Universes out there we'd need a Creator/"God" to kick start ours (which by random chance happens to be a Universe governed by Entropy).

    9.Pascal’s Wager – It's safe to be an Atheist. If we're right it doesn't matter. If we're wrong we can contend with God why he/she/it/them could be angry at us for not "discovering" he/she/it/them when he/she/it/them were so hard to find in the first place.

    10.Argument from No Design – Our universe came into being by pure chance and only appears designed.

    1. actually for #1, if no one claims that god exists, then atheists have nothing to make a negative claim about. atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists, not a positive statement unto itself that god does not exist.

      for logical arguments, the burden of proof is always on the person that is making the positive claim.

    2. Sieben Stern, even if no one were to claim that there is a God that in no way means that there is no would only mean that we are being ignorant or silent on the matter.

      Atheism is not the rejection of the claim that there is a God. That is Skepticism (and Skepticism can be applied to any claim). Atheism is the positive assertion that one is currently convinced that there is no God. And that assertion is a positive claim. And the burden of proof applies.

      Perhaps you're confusing the very hard task of proving the absence of a being like God in our universe with the burden of proof about a claim of absence. A claim of absence like, "There is no Dog in my room" is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on me to prove it (search my room, find no Dog, show that my evidence of absence is not absence of evidence). For me to expect you to believe that there is no dog in my room simply because you haven't proven otherwise is what's called an Appeal To Ignorance.

      And it is no different about claims that God does not exist. It's just that we all know it's virtually impossible to prove such a claim. And we all know it's easier to go about proving God exists. So we shortcut just about every conversation on the subject and go right into trying to have the other person prove God exists (because everyone knows we can't prove God does not exist). But this is an Appeal To Ignorance.

      The best we have is "I'm not convinced by the evidence I've seen so far that God exists." Anything more is claiming God does not exist and that they should prove otherwise...because we as hell sure can't prove God does not exit (which sadly leaves us Appealing to Ignorance).

    3. I am a skeptic first and an atheist second. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic. So you can make a sweeping generalization about what atheism is and what atheists believe to better suit your argument,but it is no more grounded in reality than saying all theist believe Jesus was the son of god.

      As someone who cares about what is actually true, I only believe what can be objectively verified and consistently shown to be evidently accurate. So until a God/s or the dog in your bedroom can meet even a minimal standard of evidence, I will maintain the default position; Disbelief.

    4. You don't believe in Love? Or Art? Or Music? or your Mind? or Mathamatics? or History? or the Future? I'm sure you need to get all Evid3nc3 on me...we all do...there's more to reality than what can be objectively verified and consistently shown to be evidently accurate. I too also care about what is true. Which is why I do not accept Atheist fallacies as actual claims (nor do I accept Theist claims). Fallacies like "There is no God. Prove me otherwise" (this is switching the burden of proof and appealing to ignorance) or "There is a God. Prove me otherwise" (same fallacy).

    5. If you claim there is a dog in the room and I look and find that there is no dog, I now have the proof that there is no dog in the room. You counter with the claim that the dog is invisible. I would, quite reasonably, ask how you could know that the invisible dog exists. You say that it is there because you know it is. I ask you to prove it but you counter with the argument that I can't prove that it doesn't exist. I can't and we walk away with the belief that there is an invisible dog in the room because it is virtually impossible to prove otherwise.

      If that is how logic is to be applied, it is no wonder we have so many crackpot claims floating about.

    6. No...I claimed there is NO dog in my room. My point is/was that a claim about an absence is a positive claim and therefore the burden of proof is on me to prove it even though what I am claiming is absence (and no, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). It's very difficult to prove there is no Dog in my room. But I used that anaolgoy so show that if I make a claim about absence I have to prove it and do due diligence to show I've avoided the Fallacy of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." And by no means is my claim validated if I Appeal to Ignorance and say "Well prove me otherwise."

      Your analogy doesn't work on me. It is you who is claiming you've examined a portion of the room and found no dog and now asking me to believe like you that there is no dog in the room. I come and ask for evidence of your examining. We both agree the whole room was not examined. We both agree no dog was found in the area of the room that was examined. We both can conclude that either the dog exists in a different part of the room that hasn't been examined or that the dog might not be in this room (and perhaps is in a different room or even house altogether).

      Your fairy tale of an invisible dog I just "know" exists wasn't created by me (and most definately does NOT represent me).

    7. That is the most convoluted logic that I have ever heard. I'm glad our court system doesn't work this way.

    8. No, this is great logic. TopDocRocks says so.

    9. TopDocRocks writes: "The best we have is 'I'm not convinced by the evidence I've seen so far that God exists.'"

      That IS atheism! The person "not convinced" does not believe in the existence of a God (is not a theist, at least not yet), but is NOT making any "positive assertion" about what does or does not exist. Admitting that you don't know means you're an atheist, since belief in something's existence is obviously withheld until some form of evidence/reason exists, the very same sense in which you are probably an "atheist" with respect to the existence of fairies or the loch Ness monster: you do not need to make a positive assertion that you believe those creatures definitely do not exist (you could do that, but don't need to), but your belief in their existence is (quite properly) withheld until some credible evidence emerges.

    10. The Loch Ness monster is not a good example, for it was a hoax, hence falsifiable, but the rest of your post is on point.

    11. Buzza that is Weak Atheism. Strong Atheism claims there is no God. I have no issues with Weak Atheism. Let one choose their own adventure and may they find what they're looking for. But Strong Atheism, just like every other claim of truth, has the Burden Of Proof. And just because it's well nigh impossible to prove God does not exist doesn't mean Strong Atheism is off the hook.

    12. Just so we're clear, then TopDocRocks, "Weak Atheism" is still Atheism, right? So your statement that "Atheism is the positive assertion that one is currently convinced that there is no God" is incorrect. We agree that anyone making a positive claim bears a burden of proof, but one can quite comfortably exist as an atheist without ever asserting a positive claim if no convincing evidence of the existence of God is ever produced. In fact, all humans are born and thrive quite well (at least initially) as exactly this brand of atheist!

    13. I am proud of you and your ability to tell the truth as it is....yet, they will still keep on believing in the fairy tales and lies.

    14. @TopDocRocks,

      In reality the arguments you've just made up either don't exist or they're logically not sound, thus wrong. They're hypothetical because atheists don't usually use those arguments to justify their position. On the other hand, the original ones are regularly used by theists, therefore prone to dissection.

    15. Well I made up some of them to corrollate to the same point. But they are mostly what Atheists claim (in some form or another). And yes they are not logically sound. Which is why I created the list. We can't go about patting ourselves on the back for exposing Theist failed proofs when we have similar Atheist failed proofs.

      That the Theist failed proofs appear to be used regularly is probably more because Atheists typically resist and reject the burden of proof when it is expected of them (vs Theists take up and relish the challenge), and probably because 8/10 times Theists don't often expect the burden of proof from Atheists (since most Theists are not interested in understanding that there is no God and are much more eager to answer why they are convinced there is...I on the otherhand am interested to know that there is no God...if that is really the I do expect Atheists to provide the burden of proof...which is why I do not put up with Atheist fallacies as these fallacies do not lead me to knowing that God does not exist...if in fact that is the truth).

    16. @TopDocRocks,

      So do you have any proof for your God?

  83. I'M a sceptic of nature. but i'm a believer. no proofs, just face it. the "Seigneur Dieu" needs no proof to be there for us to believe in Him. I skip this doc.

    1. And just what do you have to support this abrogation of the intelligence?

  84. Live and let live, would be a fair way off allowing all to profess their belief or none.

  85. One day, hopefully, we will outgrow our imaginary friends and stop inventing more of them. You'd think that, given the history of religions, we'd have figured that out already.

    1. Is god an imaginary FRIEND?

  86. I just want to get settled in, got a drink and a puff ready. This ought to be a good thread. Albeit, it brings out the worst in human beings, this topic, but entertainment? Oh yeah...the best kind. Vlatko once again, good job, love this place, the topic never gets old, only the bunny's endless drivel does.

    1. Nice to hear from you. I wish it were more often. Any strong feelings about the divergence theorem?

  87. This could perhaps have been done a little better. I'm a non-believer, but this didn't work well for me as the average viewer would need a fair amount of science to understand the refutations of Dutko's proofs of God's existence.

  88. The problem lies in the word 'believing'. People can either expierence god NOW or don't experience him, the mental abstractions called 'believing' surves no purpuse at all. Furthermore, it has been proven that rigid believes of the mind make the brain work less effective, efficient and reliable.

  89. this is immensely stupid... No matter which side you take you will never reach consensus simply because religious people and atheists live in to different realms of reality... God is an experience, if you haven't had it, you don't really believe it..

    1. @Jacob Skovsbøll Knudsen,

      Of course, but your comment is one fine fine example of argument from personal experience.

    2. so atheism is a experience aswell, if you havent had it, you would start to believe in god

    3. At least atheism has rational thought behind it.

    4. thanks for the laugh.

    5. Leave your blinders on

    6. How do you know god is an experience?

    7. Delusion is an experience and there you go...that explains it. Your argument is illogical as it BEGS THE QUESTION.