Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

I'm tired of getting into a discussion and being accused of derailing the thread, of ignoring the topic. So I want to start this new thread, where anyone can say anything either for or against any religion, agnosticism or atheism, or anything which even tangentially applies. Basically a free-for-all (within the guidelines of the Library Forum, of course.)

I'm going to respond to some comments made in another thread, just to redirect it here so we can leave that thread to its original topic.


LMAO
It's not the aethiests that are nessesarally so flawed Thorne, but the idea of aethism itself.
Tell me which gods you DON'T believe in, denuseri. Do you believe in Zeus? Jupiter? Thor? How about Kali? Maybe Venus? Aphrodite? Or shall we go back to Baal, Jehovah, Yahweh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you accept all of these gods as real, along with all the thousands of gods which have ever been invented?

Unless you can accept every god ever dreamed up, major or minor, in every religion, as being real then I cannot understand how you can say atheism is flawed simply because it rejects all of them. So explain to me how not believing in polka dotted unicorns is flawed.

[Thorne]

I know lots and lots of people who express a belief in angels, ghosts and what have you, and not a one of them is in any danger of being dragged off to the mental ward.
No, simply believing in them is not justification for a diagnosis of mental illness. But what about those who hold conversations with them? Those who base their actions on a voice in their head? Are they sane? The Son of Sam serial killer didn't really want to kill anyone. He was just following the commands of his dog, wasn't he? How is he any less sane than someone who believes he is talking with a god and who acts on that belief? Should such a person not be held responsible because it happened to be God's voice he was following?

[Thorne]

Read up on the Communists and get back to us on that one, it was their idea to have state funded, state promoted, religious persecution. Which all the more just proves my point made way back before, about how its not the religions doing the bad stuff...its bad people doing bad stuff and misussing the "ideas" presented in any given philosophy, religion, creedo, etc.
I've read about Communism, and they weren't persecuting religion to promote atheism, but to promote Communism. ANY religious organization represents an authority not controlled by the state, and that was anathema to the Communists. Sure, they were atheists, some of them. But that had nothing to do with what they were doing to religious groups. They wanted ALL authority to reside within the Supreme Soviet. Worship of the state, and not of gods. It's still a religion, not atheism.

[Thorne]

In fact, from the very beginning Christianity has co-existed peacefully with other religions, including religions that opposed it.
I'm not sure if you're quoting someone here or if these are your own ideas. Either way I'm absolutely stunned! Look up the Crusades. Read about the Inquisition. The Blood Libel. Learn about Martin Luther's ravings about the Jews. What about the missionaries sent to the New World to convert the pagan natives? The destruction of religious texts, both Christian and non-Christian? I cannot believe that someone can actually make that statement with a straight face!


For example, the leaders of the Jewish religion considered the truth claims of Christianity blasphemous; and, as a result, the leaders attempted to kill those who followed it whenever they could. Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 9) persecuted Christians. But the Christians did not therefore view it as their duty to revenge their persecutors. Rather, Christians are instructed by Holy Scripture to "live at peace with all men" (Romans 12:18, see also Hebrews 12:14), including those with whom we disagree.
Christians are instructed by scripture to do a lot of things which would get them quickly persecuted into extinction if they tried to actually do them.
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." -- Matthew 5:28-30
"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." -- 2 Chronicles 15:13
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:16


(Sadly, it must be acknowledged that not all Christians have truly followed the teachings of the Bible in this respect.)
[INDENT]And when they do commit acts of agression and violence against one another, they are in fact breaking the tennents of their respected faiths.
Yes, the "No True Christian" fallacy. Anyone claiming to be a Christian who does something which I don't think is right must not be a true Christian.

All the foundation religions are base on a vision of an angels or a dream. It is up to each man to believe it or reject it.
So then why are those who reject it reviled by those who accept it?


So why make such a fuss.
Because these so-called "good" Christians are trying to force their religion into the schools, they are denying women the right to control their own bodies, and they are trying their damndest to make sure that only "good" Christians (as they define them) can legally be elected to public office. (Anyone care to take a guess as to how many Black, Latino, Asian, Gay, Lesbian or Catholic politicians would be considered "good" Christians?)

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne

I have no desire to derail the original thread where you took my comments from by responding to them here out of context.

Respectfully,

denuseri

[Thorne]

I have no desire to derail the original thread where you took my comments from by responding to them here out of context.
And yet, if I'd answered them there I would have been, already have been, accused of derailing the thread.

[TantricSoul]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

[thir]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

And yet, when one tries to move a thread so as not to derail the original thread, it hardly ever works. Don't ask me why.

[Thorne]

And yet, when one tries to move a thread so as not to derail the original thread, it hardly ever works.
As seems to be the case here.

[thir]

As seems to be the case here.

There you go. I would like to hear people's opnion on this, because it has happened enough that I believe it is a pattern..

Maybe you could consider making a new post, summing up what you want to discuss instead of basing it on Denuseris answers? Make a fresh start?

[Thorne]

Maybe you could consider making a new post, summing up what you want to discuss instead of basing it on Denuseris answers? Make a fresh start?
Might be a good idea. I'll have to think about it, anyway. I'm not usually comfortable with initiating a discussion, though.

[domaster]

well to be clear about god...
there is only one god & Mohammad & Jesus Christ & Moses & David & Solomon & Ibrahim & Isaac & Ismail & Noah & Adam ...
And all The Prophet : (Prayers and peace be upon them is god Messengers)
And there Religion its god Religion its only one Religion and it the same Religion & it was getting updated every time god send a prophet & its Islam mean "Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law"
And it was getting updated every time god send a prophet Because of the changes & Evolution
that was happening in human being life’s or every time the human being Stap away from god or from his
True Religion

You keep saying … which god I will Worship & which one it’s the real god
Guess what … “ it’s the Reason of your existence “ you are here to find the way to your Creator between all those Claims it’s the truth god using your Mind and Awareness and when you find your god you Finish your life Worshiping your god

“So as not to bother yourself looking for god let’s just stop believing on god it’s easier … :) ”

[Thorne]

well to be clear about god...
For anyone who's interested, I responded to this here (http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php/25143-the-story-of-Our-Lady-quot-the-Virgin-Mary-quot-in-the-muslims-holly-book-(quran)?p=929550&viewfull=1#post929550), in domaster's thread. I don't think I need to copy it over here as well.

[Thorne]

I've just read this article (http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-inquisition.html?spref=tw), written by Maryam Namazie, a rights activist and ex-Muslim. While her talk was primarily about Islam, it can be just as easily applied to any fundamentalist, dogmatic religion. It's well worth the read, believe me.

She equates modern Islam with the Catholic Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Among other things, she says that, "A ‘personal’ religion is impossible under an inquisition. You can’t pick and choose as you’d like.", and "One of the characteristics of an inquisition is a total ban on freethinking and policing of thought." According to Ms. Namazie, modern Islam is another Inquisition.

Of particular note is this: "The distinction between humans and their beliefs and regressive political movements is of crucial significance here.
It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them.
It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.
The problem is that religion sees things the other way around.
And this is the main reason why religion must be relegated to being a private matter."

While her primary point involves stopping the current spread of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, many of her points could just as easily apply to the current surge of fundamentalist Christianity occurring in the US. When we allow religions to force their laws into the laws of nations, we force all people, regardless of their beliefs, to submit to that one religion. Allowing the teaching of religious doctrine in science classes turns those classes into pulpits, spoon-feeding dogma to our children rather than teaching them to think.

Please, read Ms. Namazie's article, and think about what she is saying. She is far more eloquent than I am, and far more knowledgeable about the evils of dogmatic, fundamentalist religions. She is on the front lines of the battle to save humanity from it's gods.

[thir]

Please, read Ms. Namazie's article, and think about what she is saying. She is far more eloquent than I am, and far more knowledgeable about the evils of dogmatic, fundamentalist religions. She is on the front lines of the battle to save humanity from it's gods.

She certainly knows her own mind, that one, and is not shy of saying what's on it. I salute her for that.

I read her as being against religion period. Banning of all religious symbols in jewellery or clothing, no religious schools etc.

I fear such a policy will backfire. I totally agree that religion is and should be a private matter, and that religious fundamentalists should be stopped as all other fundamentalists, have no impact in law, or schools, and that any attempt at violence should be handled by the police as any other violence. Democracy is our lifestyle, and that is and should mean freedom under responsibility and influence on your own life. You cannot have that if others try to set the rules outside of the elected law-makers.

But starting to dictate how others should dress is impacting on their democratic rights. Exceptions are special jobs, where you have to dress neutral and where your face must be seen.

[Thorne]

But starting to dictate how others should dress is impacting on their democratic rights. Exceptions are special jobs, where you have to dress neutral and where your face must be seen.
I agree with you to a point, but where does one draw the line between those who truly want to dress a certain way and those who are forced to by their religious leaders? Especially in Islam, but in other religions as well, women especially are required to dress to satisfy some arbitrary religious tenet, and trying to go against those tenets can get women seriously injured, even killed. Generally by their own husbands, or even sons!

I think her primary point, as is mine, is that any religion which FORCES its followers to remain true to the faith under penalty of death is nothing more than a cult. Banning of Sharia law in England, for example, would give those who want to leave the faith the opportunity to do so, with less fear of retaliation. It's important that all religious organizations, and those who run them (priests, imams, rabbis, etc.) should be held accountable to the secular law first, and then to their religious laws where applicable. Allowing them to escape from secular punishment because of religious beliefs is stupid and dangerous.

I also agree with her statement that religious organizations should be treated like any other business and be subject to standard tax laws of all countries. Allow them to take deductions for any charitable work they perform or donate to, but they don't deserve to be treated any differently than any other business.

[thir]

I agree with you to a point, but where does one draw the line between those who truly want to dress a certain way and those who are forced to by their religious leaders?


I wish I knew. But I imagine that if a society becomes more equal (women can earn their own money) and less religious, the pressure on people from their religious backgruond will become less. Maybe that is the only way for that problem.



Especially in Islam, but in other religions as well, women especially are required to dress to satisfy some arbitrary religious tenet, and trying to go against those tenets can get women seriously injured, even killed. Generally by their own husbands, or even sons!


That is in fundamentalistic societies, and they are rebelling - thank all the gods large and small whether here or not and good for them! I salute their courage.



I think her primary point, as is mine, is that any religion which FORCES its followers to remain true to the faith under penalty of death is nothing more than a cult.


Whatever expression, it has no place in a democracatic society.



Banning of Sharia law in England, for example, would give those who want to leave the faith the opportunity to do so, with less fear of retaliation.


I don't understand. What Sharia law? Surely it is the secular law here?



It's important that all religious organizations, and those who run them (priests, imams, rabbis, etc.) should be held accountable to the secular law first, and then to their religious laws where applicable.


You lost me again. All are accountable to the laws, (theoretically anyway) right? As for religious laws, that would be a matter between the members of those congregations. But if they harass or threathen their members they answer to the secular law. At least here, where threats are not considered fredoom of speech.



Allowing them to escape from secular punishment because of religious beliefs is stupid and dangerous.


Who are doing that? Are you thinking of a specific case?




Well, yes, obviously, if they have income.

[quote]
Allow them to take deductions for any charitable work they perform or donate to, but they don't deserve to be treated any differently than any other business.

True. The medieval church was tax-free, and it was a terrible rival to other buisnesses.

[MMI]

So ... this thread is a religiously-themed free-for-all, is it? May I join in? Thorne and I have often disagreed about the truth of atheism, even though we both claim to be atheists. I maintain I simply believe there is no god: Thorne appears to me to insist that the fact that there is no god is the only possible truth.

Well, here's my credo:

No-one can prove that God exists: no-one can prove He does not.

I don't think the religious are interested in the idea that there is no God, and they certainly do not look for proof that he doesn't exist, but atheists say, If you claim that God exists, you must prove it; but you can't. They claim exemption from any like obligation to prove atheism is true because, You can't prove a negative.

Given that there are very clearly two bodies of opinion on this point, the question has to remain open.

There may be no proof, but the existence of the universe and of life is evidence that God exists/does not exist

To my mind, it is just as much a matter of faith that there is no God as it is that there is one (or more), and neither body of opinion can be said to be truer than the other. Maybe science will one day be able to demonstrate that everything happened by itself, without any external cause. Maybe God will one day reveal himself. Until then, a spontaneous creation of the universe by itself out of nothing seems as preposterous an idea as supernatural creation, if not more so.

Unless, as a current line of enquiry seems to suggest, we are all just an illusion: http://www.gizmag.com/fermilab-holometer-examines-spacetime/16829/ (I hasten to add, I do not understand what that article describes, or if it is even half credible. I am simply headline-grabbing to illustrate my point).


If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.


If God exists and influences events in the world, he cannot be other than evil because no benevolent entity would allow so many bad things to happen to the innocent, yet shower so much wealth and privilege on the undeserving.

If God is perfect, and He created us, He would never "test" us, because that would be pointless

If we have free will, only an evil God would punish us for exercising it

... even if we committed mass genocide. If He is perfect and punishes us, he purposely created the fault for which we are being punished.

Well, that'll do for now. I could go on, but the above demonstrates that atheism is not a certain fact, and for an atheist to decry religion is as bad as the religions denouncing unbelief. Zealotry among the faithless is as bad as the zealots of religion.

[Thorne]

I don't understand. What Sharia law? Surely it is the secular law here?

You lost me again. All are accountable to the laws, (theoretically anyway) right? As for religious laws, that would be a matter between the members of those congregations. But if they harass or threathen their members they answer to the secular law. At least here, where threats are not considered fredoom of speech.
Apparently the Muslim community in England is running a campaign to make Sharia law the primary law for Muslims in England. They would be held accountable only to the Sharia court, and not the British court. Basically, two separate, and unequal, legal systems. I know there is opposition, but I believe there is some support for making Muslims subject to BOTH sets of laws. This would allow the Sharia courts to prevent Muslims from leaving the faith, for example.


True. The medieval church was tax-free, and it was a terrible rival to other buisnesses.
In the US, at least, all religious organizations are tax-free. Even those businesses and properties they own which are not strictly connected to religious activity are still exempt from taxation.

[Thorne]

So ... this thread is a religiously-themed free-for-all, is it? May I join in?
Please do! You know I always look forward to having discussions with you.


Thorne and I have often disagreed about the truth of atheism, even though we both claim to be atheists. I maintain I simply believe there is no god: Thorne appears to me to insist that the fact that there is no god is the only possible truth.
No, that's not what I claim. My stand is that, since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to think that they exist, therefore I do not believe in any gods. (I suppose, if you really want to stretch it, you could say that I believe that I'm right in this, but the only claim I can truthfully make is that there is no evidence for gods.)


atheists say, If you claim that God exists, you must prove it; but you can't.
Rather than saying "you can't", I would say, "you haven't." Once again, we cannot make the definitive statement "you can't" because we don't know for certain whether someday someone just might!

There may be no proof, but the existence of the universe and of life is evidence that God exists/does not exist
I don't believe this is accurate, either. The existence of the universe, or of life, is not evidence for either argument. IF you could prove a god exists you would then still have to prove that he created the universe and was not, himself, a creation of it!


To my mind, it is just as much a matter of faith that there is no God as it is that there is one (or more), and neither body of opinion can be said to be truer than the other.
I don't see how you can place both positions at the same level. Claiming that there something exists, without evidence, is vastly different than claiming that something probably doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it. You are claiming that believing in Leprechauns is just as valid and rational as NOT believing in Leprechauns.


Maybe science will one day be able to demonstrate that everything happened by itself, without any external cause.
They've come pretty close to that already. Not quite there, certainly, but they can certainly explain the existence of just about everything in the universe from the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang on up to the present. Granted, we don't know what happened in that first tiny fraction of a second, or what happened before that, and we may never know. But saying, "We can't know, therefore God!" is silly.


Maybe God will one day reveal himself.
If He does, He'll have a lot to answer for!


Until then, a spontaneous creation of the universe by itself out of nothing seems as preposterous an idea as supernatural creation, if not more so.
Personally, I find the spontaneous creation far more rational than the supernatural creation. For then you have to explain the existence of the supernatural agent. Where did God come from? How was HE created?


Unless, as a current line of enquiry seems to suggest, we are all just an illusion: http://www.gizmag.com/fermilab-holometer-examines-spacetime/16829/ (I hasten to add, I do not understand what that article describes, or if it is even half credible. I am simply headline-grabbing to illustrate my point).
Yeah, I don't understand it either. I didn't see anything in the article which explains how we could all be an illusion.

If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.
I don't see benevolence in this stance. I see indifference.


If God exists and influences events in the world, he cannot be other than evil because no benevolent entity would allow so many bad things to happen to the innocent, yet shower so much wealth and privilege on the undeserving.
This I can go along with. In fact, this claim is a very good argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, Yahweh.


If God is perfect, and He created us, He would never "test" us, because that would be pointless
Agreed. He would already know the outcome of any test.


If we have free will, only an evil God would punish us for exercising it
... even if we committed mass genocide. If He is perfect and punishes us, he purposely created the fault for which we are being punished.
Also true, as far as it goes. Of course, you would still have to prove that God does indeed punish, or reward, anyone.


atheism is not a certain fact, and for an atheist to decry religion is as bad as the religions denouncing unbelief. Zealotry among the faithless is as bad as the zealots of religion.
I agree, atheism is not a certain fact. It's simply a statement of position. As an atheist, I do not believe that gods exist! What I denounce about religion is not the fact that they believe, but the fact that they seem to want to FORCE everyone else to believe, just as they do. They want to brainwash MY children and grandchildren, not just their own. They want to STOP the science which disproves so much of their beliefs, claiming that the only necessary answer is God.

I don't claim to know everything, either. I don't want to destroy faith. I think a little faith can be good for people. But religion is not about faith. It's about control. Let religious people keep their faith, and their religion, in their churches and out of the real world and I'll be quite content.

[MMI]

My stand is that, since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to think that they exist, therefore I do not believe in any gods.

You reject blind faith and/or revelation, although all religious faith is based on either or both of those.



Rather than saying "you can't", I would say, "you haven't." Once again, we cannot make the definitive statement "you can't" because we don't know for certain whether someday someone just might!

My point exactly



The existence of the universe, or of life, is not evidence for either argument. IF you could prove a god exists you would then still have to prove that he created the universe and was not, himself, a creation of it!

A god who is not supernatural is not what we are debating, although I agree that a supernatural god might not be the Creator. But existence implies a creator to our feeble intellects and the only possible candidates are a supernatural creator or spontaneous creation. As I've said before, an eternal creator who is not bound by the laws of science seems more plausible (!) than an inconceivably large amount of energy and mass erupting out of nothing at all at some point in the past, for no evident reason, when that flies in the face of all laws of science as we know them. If an atheist claims rational analysis as the bedrock of his position, how does he explain spontaneous creation?

Of course, he could fall back on the Steady State theory, but that's fantastic too!




Claiming that there something exists, without evidence, is vastly different than claiming that something probably doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it.

We're back to the faith/revelation v evidence argument again.


They've come pretty close to that already. Not quite there, certainly, but they can certainly explain the existence of just about everything in the universe from the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang on up to the present. Granted, we don't know what happened in that first tiny fraction of a second, or what happened before that, and we may never know. But saying, "We can't know, therefore God!" is silly.

Theories! Thought experiments and maths only. What is more, the religions have a complete answer!



Personally, I find the spontaneous creation far more rational than the supernatural creation. For then you have to explain the existence of the supernatural agent. Where did God come from? How was HE created?

God is eternal - came from nowhere we can comprehend, and not created. If an atheist can accept an uncaused cause leading to the creation of the universe, why can not a god also be uncaused?


Yeah, I don't understand it either. I didn't see anything in the article which explains how we could all be an illusion.

Maybe it was a nod in the direction of Plato's Cave




If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.

I don't see benevolence in this stance. I see indifference.

Yes, indifference. Otherwise he would be unjustly favouring individuals, and we all know, God is just.


What I denounce about religion is not the fact that they believe, but the fact that they seem to want to FORCE everyone else to believe, just as they do. They want to brainwash MY children and grandchildren, not just their own. They want to STOP the science which disproves so much of their beliefs, claiming that the only necessary answer is God.

That view, which I see as a mixture of paranoia and exaggeration worthy of a tipsy Orangeman on 12th July can be turned on its head; if you stop religions proselytising, you cut of their life blood and will kill them all off.

Only the extreme religions deny the value and validity of science. Most religions embrace science, knowing it is limited to describing the natural world. Proof of god goes beyond science.


But religion is not about faith. It's about control.

In a different discussion, I'd be inclined to agree, but, in fact, religion is about explaining life and giving it meaning. Cynical individuals have bent religion to their own agendas, and they cannot be regarded as religious at all. They do not deny god, as we do, but they clearly have no fear of him.

[Thorne]

You reject blind faith and/or revelation, although all religious faith is based on either or both of those.
Yes, I do. Without evidence, neither of them is worth the paper they are printed on.


an eternal creator who is not bound by the laws of science seems more plausible (!) than an inconceivably large amount of energy and mass erupting out of nothing at all at some point in the past, for no evident reason, when that flies in the face of all laws of science as we know them.
Just HOW is it more plausible? If you cannot imagine an infinite universe, which obeys all the laws of nature, how can postulating an infinite being, who does NOT obey all the laws of nature, seem more plausible? And just because we don't know how the universe began doesn't mean that some supernatural being did it.


If an atheist claims rational analysis as the bedrock of his position, how does he explain spontaneous creation?
I don't explain it. I leave that to the scientists who study the universe. They are constantly coming up with new theories, and testing them, seeking data to support, or deny, them. How much testing can we do on a god? Where is the data to support that hypothesis? Again, a lack of knowledge or understanding does not automatically mean god.


We're back to the faith/revelation v evidence argument again.
It's the only real argument, after all. Science has evidence. Faith does not.


Theories! Thought experiments and maths only. What is more, the religions have a complete answer!
No! Theories are more than just thought experiments. Sure, you can hypothesize just about anything, and claim it to be true. But without data to support it, without evidence to show it explains the universe as we know it, it's nothing more than ... religion. Any answer that religion can provide is only imaginary. They have no evidence for an afterlife, they have no evidence for their gods, they have no evidence for heavens or hells. Anyone can make claims, for anything at all. They can answer all the questions in the world if they wish. Without proof, without evidence, it's no better than fiction. Hell, it IS fiction.


God is eternal - came from nowhere we can comprehend, and not created. If an atheist can accept an uncaused cause leading to the creation of the universe, why can not a god also be uncaused?
I do not accept an uncaused cause, but an unknown cause. We know the universe exists, though. We can see it, measure it, feel it around us. Not so gods.

And if a theist can accept an eternal god, why can't he accept an eternal universe? Why do you assume the universe had a beginning? Yes, our minds are more comfortable thinking that there is a beginning and an end, and it's quite probable that the universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end. Perhaps, some umpteen quadrillion eons from now all of the universe as we know it will be dark and dead, slowly mixing, gradually coming together, until it ultimately collapses back into a singularity and explodes once again. After all, as far as we know energy cannot be destroyed, so all of the energy being dispersed throughout the universe will exist forever, as near as we can tell. Who can say that this energy won't eventually combine back to form matter once again? All without gods.


Yes, indifference. Otherwise he would be unjustly favouring individuals, and we all know, God is just.
And yet God, as defined in the holy books of the theists, always seems to favor a particular group. The Hebrew God favored the Jews. The Islamic God favors the Muslims. The Christian God(s) favors (a particular brand of) Christians.


That view, which I see as a mixture of paranoia and exaggeration worthy of a tipsy Orangeman on 12th July can be turned on its head;
I suggest you look into what's currently happening in American politics, thanks to religious fanatics. Abortion laws being gutted (because women really aren't smart enough to control their own bodies, don't you know), creationism being touted as a science, and one superior to evolution. Elected officials openly promoting Christianity over any other religion! ("On the day of his swearing-in, Alabama Republican Gov. Robert J. Bentley raised concern among the state's non-Christians by declaring that people who had not accepted Jesus Christ were not his brothers and sisters (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/19/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119).") Does that sound like paranoia or exaggeration to you?


if you stop religions proselytising, you cut of their life blood and will kill them all off.
That works for me! But I didn't SAY stop them from proselytizing. But it has no place in schools, no place in the science class, and no place in politics.


Only the extreme religions deny the value and validity of science. Most religions embrace science, knowing it is limited to describing the natural world. Proof of god goes beyond science.
Granted. I agree that it is currently the extremists who are the major offenders. But it's taken the Catholic Church nearly 2000 years to admit that. It took them 600 years before they finally admitted that Galileo was right. The Church has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the real world, but don't for one minute think that they wouldn't gladly return us to the dark ages when the Church was paramount, ruling over kings and peasants alike. And Islam is right there with them. The only science they will ever truly accept is that science which doesn't contradict their dogma and holy books.


in fact, religion is about explaining life and giving it meaning.
I disagree. Religion is about explaining the unknown and making people feel better about it. If the priest tells you that throwing your virgin daughter into the volcano will keep it from erupting and destroying the village's crops, you'll tend to feel better when the volcano doesn't erupt. Until it finally does, of course. And when you are staggering away from the devastation, clinging to the few meager possessions you have saved, would you mourn the wasted life you tossed down the hole? Or will you listen to that priest as he "explains" that some promiscuous slut is a witch and has to be burned at the stake to appease the god?

And this is why religion and science cannot mix. Because science helps to remove the mystery. The erupting volcano is no longer a sign of an angry god, but a simple, natural event that happens for no reason at all. But the priests will manage to come up with some new reason to keep donating your money, to keep sacrificing those virgins, to keep your wives barefoot and pregnant, because they're only women and they deserve it.


Cynical individuals have bent religion to their own agendas, and they cannot be regarded as religious at all.
What is religion if not the teachings of those self-same individuals? I hear that excuse all the time: "It's not religion that's wrong, it's the people who pervert it." But a religion does not exist independent of people. When the last human disappears from the planet, there will not be some great, ugly lump of religion left behind, moldering, waiting for someone to come along and kick it back to life.

The people who make up a religious organization, from the top man down to the lowest parishioner, ARE that religion. It's the top men (it almost always seems to be men, after all) who espouse the dogma, who send down their pronouncements, revealed to them by God. And it's the little men and women who accept these pronouncements, believing that some posturing con artist is really in communication with God. THAT is religion.

So yes, it can be, and has been, twisted and broken by selfish, greedy men. But the parishioner goes right on believing those men! Oh, some will call bullshit and leave that Church. Most will likely latch onto another Church, one which is more in line with their own beliefs. Some may, like me, realize that they are all alike down deep, promising everything but delivering nothing but lies and fables.

Look into the horrific damage done by the Catholic Church in Africa with it's stand against condoms. They even lied, claiming that condoms do NOT protect against AIDS. Look at the devastation being wrought on gays in Nigeria(?), supported by homophobic preachers in the US. Are the followers of these men walking away and taking their money with them? Not hardly! They go right on donating to the collection plates, while shaking their heads at those poor misguided souls in Africa.

So don't tell me it's not religion that is bad. Religion is only what its people make it.

[Lion]

I believe in a god. It gives me comfort, especially in bad times. I don't spend my day thinking about doing the right thing to go to heaven, I try to do the right thing because I feel sick in my gut to be bad. There are some things I won't do because of my religion, but I don't judge anyone who does (like eating pork). My best friend has been agnostic since I've known her, and now wants to explore religion more. I've asked her if I can share mine with her, but I have not criticized her choice for going to church despite being a different religion then mine. My previous room mate was staunchly atheist, and while we touched on the topic of religion, I've never asserted she was wrong and that I am right. I've never used my religion's beliefs to take away the rights of others (gays), or promoted it other then talk about it if someone seems to show a bit of interest.

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster. I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side. Unlike political, economic and other issues, where science, philosophy and experience can help with the solution, only death can answer this question.

Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.

kthxbai

[Thorne]

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster.
I agree with you, Lion. It's not my intention to force anyone to give up their faith, or to force anyone to accept someone else's faith. My problem is with those people, people who are becoming increasingly more powerful in the US, who expect everyone to live their lives by what THEY say is right. That is what I argue against. If theists would be willing to keep their religions in their own homes and churches, and keep it out of the public schools and governments, I'd be fine with it.


I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side.
No, that's not my purpose. My purpose is to have a relatively open thread where these issues can be discussed freely, wandering down various pathways, venturing far and wide from the OP, or sticking close to it, without anyone claiming that the topic is not being discussed. As long as people show respect for one another, that's all I care about. But that does not necessarily mean showing respect for someone's belief system. If you can present your arguments rationally, then I have no problem with someone saying my ideas are crazy. Just show me the proof.


Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.
Again, I agree with you. Eliminating religion won't stop any evil. What it would do would be to keep people from using their religion as moral justification for the evil that they do. Claiming the moral high ground while actively hiding the evil acts of religious leaders is nearly as bad as the evil done in the first place. Yet this is what religious organizations, and their leaders, are doing every day.

[MMI]

OK, let's try again from another angle.

God[s] is/are supernatural, subject to no rule of nature, and wholly unconstrained. His/their "existence" is not the kind of everyday existence you and I can comprehend, but something other entirely. To try to use science, or even rationality, to support a view that there is no god is utterly pointless. Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods. Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it. And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

[MMI]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

I, for one, wish TS would join in the thread. He has made several enlightening and thought-provoking comments in topics like this in the past, and I would enjoy more.

[Thorne]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.
I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.


Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.
Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.


If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.
Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.


As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.
They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.

And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.


According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is
"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.


Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?
I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".

[Thorne]

I, for one, wish TS would join in the thread. He has made several enlightening and thought-provoking comments in topics like this in the past, and I would enjoy more.
I agree whole-heartedly!

[denuseri]

MMI:

I dont know why Tantric doesnt post more often, it could be becuase he is the mod for this section or it could be that like myself he sees no point in it. We have after all went over this subject to death in I dont know how many other threads with Thorne to no avail.

In my case I've found that its of no use to try and have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic unless it supports his own position.

Be well, nice to see you around again!

denuseri

[Thorne]

In my case I've found that its of no use to try and have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic unless it supports his own position.
I'm hurt, denuseri! I'm willing to accept logical arguments, I think. But they have to have some basis in reality. And I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people.

[thir]

Apparently the Muslim community in England is running a campaign to make Sharia law the primary law for Muslims in England. They would be held accountable only to the Sharia court, and not the British court. Basically, two separate, and unequal, legal systems. I know there is opposition, but I believe there is some support for making Muslims subject to BOTH sets of laws. This would allow the Sharia courts to prevent Muslims from leaving the faith, for example.


I haven't heard about this discussion for a long time, I think it has died, or at least died down.

I do not see who you can prevent anyone from leaving a faith?



In the US, at least, all religious organizations are tax-free. Even those businesses and properties they own which are not strictly connected to religious activity are still exempt from taxation.

Ok. I was not familiar with the problem because in DK churches are upheld by the state (while being largely ignored by the people who pay for them.)
I actually have no idea how it is here in UK.

[thir]

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster. I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side. Unlike political, economic and other issues, where science, philosophy and experience can help with the solution, only death can answer this question.


Some here enjoy fencing with each other, that is not a problem as I see it. Apart from that, it is a very interesting topic, and has a bearing on so many things.



Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.
kthxbai

I believe you are right :-(
Maybe it is in the structures in society, and the more equal and thriving they are, the more peaceful too, regardless.

[Thorne]

I do not see (how) you can prevent anyone from leaving a faith?
It's my understanding that leaving Islam is punishable by death. It's only used by the more radical Islamic sects, but I believe it's technically a part of Islamic law.

[MMI]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.



I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.


There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.



Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.



Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.


And your point is what, exactly? The only "knowledge" believers claim is the "certainty of faith". Where believers witness an intervention by god, they see a miracle. Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.



If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.



Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.


That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.



As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.



They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.


I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.

But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"




And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.


I refer you again to the concept of inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29). Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang
the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.

Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed". How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis? At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.



According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is



"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.


So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?

If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.

I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.



Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?



I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".


Didn't we just see you saying that scientists made stuff up? Yes, here it is:


"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there.

I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.

[Thorne]

There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.
Perhaps not, but there would be a burned bush to investigate, wouldn't there? In fact, scientists have not been able to even confirm the existence of Moses or the Exodus, outside of the Bible. One would think that several million, or even several hundred thousand, people trekking across the Sinai peninsula for 40 years would have left a mark.


Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.
Interesting that you would place these intangibles above science, rather than beneath it. I see science as having evolved from religious thought, finding realistic, natural explanations for those things which religion claim to be supernatural. And as long as faith and belief are kept in the churches and minds of theists they are irrelevant to science.


That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.
But how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith? It is neither. One can believe anything he wishes, can have faith in anything he desires. If he does NOT believe in gods, he is an atheist.


I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.
An affirmation of trust rather than faith. I trust that science will continue to advance and get ever closer to the answers. I suppose in this connotation the two terms are almost synonymous, but 'faith' has a religious connotation which does not apply. A handicap of the English language, I guess.


But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"
"God did it" is a statement of fact, not of faith. As such, the proper response would be, "Prove it." That seems to me to be the biggest chasm between science and religion. When scientists are unable to explain something, they say, "We don't know," and hopefully add, "but we're working on it." The theist's response, though, is generally, "God," which leaves no reason to investigate further.


Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.
Yeah, I skimmed that. Sadly I don't have the math to understand it completely, but from what I can gather it's not all that different from what I said in my last post. And Einstein's equations do not prevent particles from traveling faster than the speed of light, only from traveling AT the speed of light. FTL travel is mathematically plausible. And remember, inflation theory is not proven, but only strongly suggested. Scientists are not saying, "This is how it happened." They are saying, "This is one possibility."


Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed".
That's not what the article said. The theory "makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation." That's how theories work. You make a proposal, you make predictions based upon that proposal, then you observe/perform experiments to determine how accurate your predictions are.


How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis?
Well obviously, to me, it is far more likely to have happened naturally than supernaturally.


At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.
Ahh, but the universe has taken nearly 14 billion years to reach this point in time, and it isn't finished yet! What's a week compared to that? And why would a supposedly omnipotent being require a full week to do it? Why not just wish it all into existence in one blink? And just how did God manage to illuminate the world with light BEFORE making the sun? A supernatural flashlight, perhaps?


So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?
Not quite so blatant as that, but in essence that's how science works! From the beginning of civilization people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But too many discrepancies in observations occurred, and the "fixes" which had to be made became too cumbersome. So Copernicus "invented" the heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center. He then used this theory to make predictions regarding the orbits of the planets, and observations proved them to be accurate. Kepler improved the theory, determining that the planets revolved around the Sun in elliptical rather than circular orbits. Fact built upon fact, all confirming the invented hypotheses. So what scientists are saying with dark matter is that certain measurements of the expansion of the universe are not consistent with the current cosmological theory. They could, of course, just scrap the current theory and start all over. But current theory does explain so much else about the observed universe so they "invent" a possible, or several possible, explanations for the discrepancy and then seek to find evidence, through observation, for or against those explanations. In one case, there is a need for there to be more matter in the universe. It's a POSSIBLE explanation, not a confirmed one. Only further observations will determine how accurately that hypothesis works.


If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.
Again, I do not say that gods are necessarily a fiction, only that there is no evidence to show that they are real. Certainly, though, the gods currently worshiped by people are fictitious. Of course, it is possible that ONE of them could be accurate, but since they generally contradict one another it's not possible that they can ALL be real.


I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.
Which I have agreed to multiple times!


I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it implies that someone could possibly make up a much more believable story which would convince you, even without proof.

Scientology anyone?

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne:

(or to whom it may consern)

Sometimes to have a debate one must be willing to use terms that we can all accept as common...thankfully the english language has a number of dictionaries to choose from, and 99% of them have a consensus when it comes to definitions of the words used within them even if 99% of them have more or less words contained within them. My faviorte dictionaries are the "unabridged" variety becuase they ussually have the largest number of words and definitions.

According to allmost every dictionary I have looked in:

An atheist: is one who believes that there is no deity or takes a position that a deity (or deities) does not exist.

One can say its not a belief all they wish becuase they cant stand the word belief becuase they believe it to be a religious word in and of itself or they wish to somehow change what the word believe means via sophistry for the purpose of twisting things in a discussion...but that doesnt change what the word actually means in the slightest....at least not in so far as the commonly accepted standards of the english language are agreed upon to be by the experts who wrote the dictionaries we all use.

Again according to the same dictionary:

To Believe: is to have a firm conviction of somethiing, to hold an opinion on something, to consider something to be true or someone to be honest, to accept the word or evidence of someone or something, to have faith that what one believes is true and right.

Here are some examples of the word believe when used correctly in a sentence:




Some scientists believed the reports of their peers considering climate change without double checking the data.
Many people seem to believe that theory, but I find it hard to believe.
You shouldn't believe everything you read.
He says he'll help us, but I don't believe what he says.
They were tricked into believing that he was a doctor.
He says he'll help us, but I don't believe him.
She went to church because her family expected it, but she didn't really believe in God. (Probabely becuase she was an atheist imho lol)
I have watched the many ways that teachers demonstrate pleasure in what students have said or done. I used to believe that teachers needed to present a stoic face for fear of losing control—as if smiling caused bad behavior. —Nancy Mack, English Journal, September 2008

Philosophical or otherwise...points of view..or thoughts of an individual on any given subject are by definition beliefs.

They may or may not have believable evidence supporting them which can be a determining factor as to how much faith one puts in the beliefs of another on a given topic.

But a lot of times (as with the "scientists who had faith in their peers status...and didnt bother to double check the data) prestigue of the bearer of the message precludes one to have more or less faith in the expoused beliefs conserning a given thing.

That they are provable or not has very little to do with the fact that they are still beliefs with varying degrees of faith in said beliefs all the same.

If you Thorne can acept these above facts conserning the english languange then we can perhaps procced to have an actual logical conversation conserning this topic in so far as our respected beliefs and our faith in them may apply.

Hopefully without resorting to calling one side or the other full of doo hickie, or being purposfully insulting (which btw calling anyone who believes in god an idiot by defualt or associating their belief with that of fairy tales and spagetti monsters is in fact very deliberatly "insulting" I might add.)

Otherwise it will be just as pointless as it has been in the past to continue with you again or for that matter any further.

Respectfully,

denuseri

[Thorne]

An atheist: is one who believes that there is no deity or takes a position that a deity (or deities) does not exist.
Note that second part, denuseri. There are two possibilities here, not just one. There are atheists who proclaim the first definition, they believe there are no gods. But I have repeatedly stated that this is NOT my position.


One can say its not a belief all they wish becuase they cant stand the word belief becuase they believe it to be a religious word in and of itself
When speaking of doorbells or puppies or almost anything else, the word belief is relatively innocuous. No one is going to claim you're a "puppiest" because you believe puppies are cute.

However, when you are involved in religious discussions, "belief" automatically assumes a religious connotation. Unfortunately the English language does not have a simple word that implies "belief" based on evidence and trust, especially in religious discussions. Therefore I try to avoid the use of the word, preferring to say that something is my opinion, based on learned trust of the evidence.


To Believe: is to have a firm conviction of somethiing, to hold an opinion on something, to consider something to be true or someone to be honest, to accept the word or evidence of someone or something, to have faith that what one believes is true and right.
And your definition just confirms my statement. The last part of the definition brings the word "faith" into the definition, which is another word fraught with religious overtones in any argument over religion, or atheism.


That they are provable or not has very little to do with the fact that they are still beliefs with varying degrees of faith in said beliefs all the same.
This comment underlines my contentions exactly. Saying "I believe the Earth is flat" does not have the same credence as saying "I believe the Earth is round." There is tremendous evidence for the latter, and none at all for the former. So I am saying that I KNOW the Earth is round, and you are claiming that this is a belief system.


If you Thorne can acept these above facts conserning the english languange then we can perhaps procced to have an actual logical conversation conserning this topic in so far as our respected beliefs and our faith in them may apply.
I can accept the definitions as you have described them, but that does not mean that every part of those definitions applies to everyone who "believes" something. So if you are willing to concede that the words "belief" and "believe" used in these discussions does NOT necessarily imply a religious-like, or faith-like, system then yes, I can go along with that. I "believe" that all religions are fiction, based on the lack of any evidence for the existence of the gods those religions worship. Show me good and proper evidence and I will renounce my belief and admit that yes, there just might be gods after all.

What would it take for you to renounce YOUR beliefs?


Hopefully without resorting to calling one side or the other full of doo hickie, or being purposfully insulting (which btw calling anyone who believes in god an idiot by defualt or associating their belief with that of fairy tales and spagetti monsters is in fact very deliberatly "insulting" I might add.)
I do try not to call anyone an idiot just because of their beliefs. But if someone says something idiotic, I will call them on it.

As for fairy tales, Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fairy-tale) says:
fairy tale
–noun
1. a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.
2. an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.
(Emphasis mine)

So if someone has incredible beliefs, they would qualify as a fairy tale. And by MY definition, belief without evidence is not credible! The above mentioned story of being a millionaire is NOT a fairy tale if he can show you his bank statements.

[TwistedTails]

If there were a God it would be laughing at all the pitiful humans claiming to know the "Truth and the Way". It would have no more intrest in us than we do in ants. Let abrahamic religion die. It is nothing more than a discredited and obsolete form of Government.

[denuseri]

Note that second part, denuseri. There are two possibilities here, not just one. There are atheists who proclaim the first definition, they believe there are no gods. But I have repeatedly stated that this is NOT my position.

Both are still beliefs all the same.


When speaking of doorbells or puppies or almost anything else, the word belief is relatively innocuous. No one is going to claim you're a "puppiest" because you believe puppies are cute.

We are not talking about puppies though are we.

However, when you are involved in religious discussions, "belief" automatically assumes a religious connotation.

No it doesnt, you just want it too.

Unfortunately the English language does not have a simple word that implies "belief" based on evidence and trust, especially in religious discussions. Therefore I try to avoid the use of the word, preferring to say that something is my opinion, based on learned trust of the evidence.

Same difference.

And your definition just confirms my statement. The last part of the definition brings the word "faith" into the definition, which is another word fraught with religious overtones in any argument over religion, or atheism.

Only becuase your choosing to see it that way. Faith and belief do not nessesarally = ashereance to any religious doctrine.


This comment underlines my contentions exactly. Saying "I believe the Earth is flat" does not have the same credence as saying "I believe the Earth is round." There is tremendous evidence for the latter, and none at all for the former. So I am saying that I KNOW the Earth is round, and you are claiming that this is a belief system.

I didnt say anything about systems. And the analogy your using isnt applicable to a discussion conserning beliefs conserning weather or not there is or is not a god or gods.


I can accept the definitions as you have described them, but that does not mean that every part of those definitions applies to everyone who "believes" something. So if you are willing to concede that the words "belief" and "believe" used in these discussions does NOT necessarily imply a religious-like, or faith-like, system then yes, I can go along with that. Im not the one who keeps insisting that they do. I "believe" that all religions are fiction, based on the lack of any evidence for the existence of the gods those religions worship. Show me good and proper evidence and I will renounce my belief and admit that yes, there just might be gods after all.

Show me good and proper evidence that there are no gods or a god and perhaps I will renounce my own beliefs conserning this topic. See the catch 22 yet?


I do try not to call anyone an idiot just because of their beliefs. Really...you could have fooled me, you know exactly how insulting your being when you do it, its been pointed out to you numerous times and yet you keep on.

But if someone says something idiotic, I will call them on it.

And when someone is useing sophistry and hypocricy in their arguments I will do the same.

As for fairy tales, Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fairy-tale) says:
fairy tale
–noun
1. a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.
2. an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.
(Emphasis mine)

So if someone has incredible beliefs, they would qualify as a fairy tale. And by MY definition, belief without evidence is not credible! The above mentioned story of being a millionaire is NOT a fairy tale if he can show you his bank statements.

So your willing to conclude that atheism is just as much a fairy tale? Just as lacking in credibility? Since there is no good and proper evidence, no bank statements per say to prove it correct? I mean by your own difinition belief without evidence is not credible.

You will note no where in the definition of a fairy tale does the word religion come into play. Still wonder why making analogies of that kind are insulting?

[Thorne]

Both are still beliefs all the same.
And here is where we seem to disagree. They are NOT both beliefs. Just like KNOWING that the Earth is round is not a belief. Just like KNOWING that the planets revolve around the Sun is not a belief.


Faith and belief do not nessesarally = ashereance to any religious doctrine.
I didn't say anything about religious doctrine, only religious overtones.


Show me good and proper evidence that there are no gods or a god and perhaps I will renounce my own beliefs conserning this topic. See the catch 22 yet?
The only evidence is negative, a lack of evidence. EVERY action or event ever attributed to a god has been shown to have a natural explanation: lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, disease. All of these, and so much more, were once claimed to be judgements from gods. And every time they were shown to be natural events, theists retreated to some other event of as-yet-unknown cause. Even so-called demonic possessions have been shown to be mental illnesses, made worse by theistic treatments of shunning and prayer rather than medicine. NO explanations/excuses for gods have ever been shown to have any basis in fact. But you will just retreat into "supernatural", "beyond science", "unable to be understood by human minds" excuses. People nowadays tend to forget that at one time the gods were quite personal, having almost daily interactions with their disciples, causing all kinds of miraculous events for all to see. Where are those gods now?


So your willing to conclude that atheism is just as much a fairy tale?
Here again, you are implying that atheism is something more than a simple statement of non-belief. There are no stories of magical creations, no walking on water, no miracles. Just four simple words: "I do not believe." That's it.


You will note no where in the definition of a fairy tale does the word religion come into play.
No, but the word "belief" does! Can you define a religion WITHOUT belief? A religion is just a codification of beliefs, an organizing of people with common beliefs into a community.


Still wonder why making analogies of that kind are insulting?
No, I know why it's insulting. Whenever you poke fun at someone's beliefs they tend to get a bit touchy. Especially when they have nothing to support those beliefs other than "it feels good to me."

So let me ask you this. Assuming that you don't accept the ancient Roman, Greek and Egyptian religions as being true (or perhaps, even if you do), can you honestly claim that the stories of those ancient gods and goddesses are anything more than myths and fairy tales? And if not, how are your own beliefs any different?

[denuseri]

So you do not agree even with your own past statements conserning the english language then?

Are we back to beating a dead horse?

Do you agree that atheism is an idea?

That the idea is...there are no god/s? (which is exactly the same as having the idea of "your idea that there is a god/s is a false one". Basic english 101 here remember.

See when you say your trying to say that aethism is nothing more than a statement of dis-belief just becuase you dont like the word belief...I see that what your actually doing is trying to avoid the use of logic...just like a sophist to be occlusive when logic gets in the way of your argument or anyone wants to peg you down with it.

...when to be able to make said statement you have to have a working thought proccess and functioning nervous system at work.

You have to have formed an opinion on what your speaking about when you make a statement conserning something like that about believing in something or not...you dont just up and blather the sounds that corolate to I dont believe such and such...without holding a belief (an idea) one way or the other on the topic in your head!

Thats what language is all about...the exchange of ideas.

In other words...a statement of dis-belief is in effect: a belief in and of itself; in that: its a belief in "not believing" what ever it was that it was made against. Again this is basic english word usage.


If you wont agree to at least abide by the rules of the english language than there really isnt much point in continueing you know.

Aethism is just as much an idea (belief) ~ whatever other applicable word in the thesarus you wish to use~ as any other idea or belief etc.

In that regard...your idea that there are no gods (athiesm) and my idea that there perhaps are (theism) are both ideas, they are both beliefs that we hold, they are both concepts that we hold in our minds etc!

You have zero direct credible evidence to support your idea.

The people who have the idea that your idea is in opposition too, in your opinion also have zero direct and or credible evidence.

So there is nothing to support eaither side in the matter that can be consider scientifically credible (something in and of itself that requires faith in ones peers findings unless everyone everywhere is going to be running around trying to disprove /prove eveything all the time for confirmation) other than how they each feel about the topic.

How much faith one side or other has (ie how much merit eaither side holds in it) in their idea is really a moot point as well.

So ...nieather idea has anything to back it up and both ideas are in direct opposition...which one is right?

Which one is right should only matter to the theist yes?

Since it is the theists that say there may be something after death or that our actions on this world may have consequences in the next?

And that idea only matters if the idea of paticular theists is the correct one (since the athiest idea concludes that one is just as dead after death and doesnt transend into anthing or get punnished/rewareded etc)...and even then only if certian sub-sections of some theists ideas prove to be correct in so far as whats waiting one after death. (cuase not every theist believes in the same afterlife if at all).

But outside of that consideration whats the point to blathering on and on about it?

Unless an athiest is on some kind of psudeo religious crusade or trying to make his or her idea somehow mean more? I mean are you trying to be just as zealous as the people whose ideas your trying to replace once were?Whats the point when it doesnt matter after your dead anyways as an athiest? Shouldnt the athiest if they are sooooo enlightened be content to just be silent and not care one way or the other since in their mind it must not really matter?

And since it doesnt matter to them...whats wrong with allowing people who have ideas that are equally credible by any test of science or logic of being the right ones to continue to have those ideas etc so long as they are not harming each other?

Whats wrong with being tolerant and respectful of each others ideas when it comes to this topic?

[MMI]

As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.

You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?

In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.

Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.

[Thorne]

Do you agree that atheism is an idea?
<sigh> Okay, yes, atheism is an idea.


That the idea is...there are no god/s? (which is exactly the same as having the idea of "your idea that there is a god/s is a false one". Basic english 101 here remember.
But I've never claimed that your idea is a false one, only that you have no evidence to support your idea, either positive OR negative.


See when you say your trying to say that aethism is nothing more than a statement of dis-belief just becuase you dont like the word belief...I see that what your actually doing is trying to avoid the use of logic
<deeper sigh> Okay, okay, you want to call a non-belief a belief, fine, go right ahead. If you want to be pedantic about word usage, after I have already admitted the lack of flexibility in English, be my guest. I don't see how it helps your argument anyway.


you dont just up and blather the sounds that corolate to I dont believe such and such...without holding a belief (an idea) one way or the other on the topic in your head!
Wait, now. Are you saying that an idea is equivalent to a belief? So if I have an idea to, say, separate people from their money by scaring them about, oh, say life after death, then it's the same as my believing in life after death?


Thats what language is all about...the exchange of ideas.
Not quite, but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion. Still doesn't equate to belief, though. A person can argue about any topic, from either side, without necessarily believing in it.


In other words...a statement of dis-belief is in effect: a belief in and of itself; in that: its a belief in "not believing" what ever it was that it was made against. Again this is basic english word usage.
I think you're taking a torturous route to try to establish your "idea", but for the sake of discussion, sure, go ahead. I believe in atheism. Whatever that means.


Aethism is just as much an idea (belief) ~ whatever other applicable word in the thesarus you wish to use~ as any other idea or belief etc.
You're again equating an idea to a belief. I don't see the correlation.


In that regard...your idea that there are no gods (athiesm) and my idea that there perhaps are (theism) are both ideas, they are both beliefs that we hold, they are both concepts that we hold in our minds etc!
And again you misrepresent my position. I don't claim that there are no gods, only that there is no credible evidence FOR the existence of gods. So using your torturous rules of language you can say that I believe there is no evidence of gods, therefor no reason to believe in them.


You have zero direct credible evidence to support your idea.
I've already admitted that. All the evidence is indirect. Just like all the evidence against the existence of pink unicorns is indirect. Just as all the evidence against an invisible planet orbiting on the other side of the sun from Earth is indirect. There is no evidence for ANY of these things, and all evidence we collect says that these things cannot exist. Of course, evidence could turn up tomorrow FOR any or all of them. I won't hold my breath.


So there is nothing to support eaither side in the matter that can be consider scientifically credible (something in and of itself that requires faith in ones peers findings unless everyone everywhere is going to be running around trying to disprove /prove eveything all the time for confirmation) other than how they each feel about the topic.
Again, I disagree. The evidence which denies the existence of gods IS scientifically credible:

"Lightning is God's punishment for sin."
Uh, no, sorry. Lightning is a discharge of static electricity. It strikes saints as often as sinners. In fact, more churches than brothels are struck by lightning . No god.

"Well, volcanoes are Gods punishment for sin."
Uh, no, sorry again. Volcanoes are natural emissions of molten rock, steam and gases from deep underground. They harm everyone, indiscriminately, good or bad. No god.

"Well, at least praying to God can help us get better."
Actually, in the largest study ever done on prayer, people recovering from heart surgery who knew they were being prayed for did markedly worse than those who weren't prayed for. No god.

"You damned atheists just hate God!"


Which one is right should only matter to the theist yes?
. . .
But outside of that consideration whats the point to blathering on and on about it?
. . .
Shouldnt the athiest if they are sooooo enlightened be content to just be silent and not care one way or the other since in their mind it must not really matter?
. . .
Whats wrong with being tolerant and respectful of each others ideas when it comes to this topic?
That depends on what the theist is trying to do with his beliefs. If he is trying to force his beliefs on others then it matters to me, too. If it harms others, then it matters to me. If it could affect the lives of my grandchildren, it matters to me!

In this country today, we have people denying the validity of global warming not based on science but on the premise that, "God will protect us."

In this country today, there are children dying of curable illnesses because their parents think praying for them will work better than medicine.

In this country today, there are loving couples who are being persecuted just because they happen to be the same sex, and "the Bible says that's wrong."

In this country today, a gay man lies dead, beaten to death by a young man who claims, "The Bible says we should stone homosexuals to death."

In this country today, there are people who want to strip away all of science and return us to the Dark Ages, because "God loves us."

In this country today, I would be considered a pariah, a demon, unable to be elected (if I wanted to be), and in some places targeted for death, just because I don't believe in their gods.

Those reasons, and so many more, is why it matters to me.

[Thorne]

As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.
So you're saying I should accept some lunatic's word that he spoke with God? Why should I? At least if there were ashes I would know that there was a burning bush. Wouldn't mean God did it, though.


You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.
But if a god were to intervene in the natural world, science DOES become involved. That would be something we could measure, classify, study. And if the gods do NOT intervene in the natural world, then their existence doesn't matter to us anyway, does it?


You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?
Yes, you can hold negative beliefs. The question then becomes, is NOT believing something the same as believing something is NOT? I contend (though denuseri denies it) that claiming, "I do NOT believe in gods" is very different from saying "I believe there are no gods."


In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.
Scientists invent explanations to describe how things work, then search for evidence to support those explanations. If they find evidence against the explanations then they have to either change or scrap the explanations. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations. Religions provide explanations, yes. But where is the evidence? And how many of those explanations have been shown to be false? (Hint: Damned near all of them!)


Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.
I was saying that your comment implied that, yes. And that's where we differ. I can accept that someone could make up a more believable story, but without proof, or at least confirming evidence, it's just another fiction.

Maybe, as a start, we could ask God to heal a couple amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm)

[denuseri]

Without your all convincing evidence Thorne, the position of the atheist holds no more actual bearing of validity over any of this than that of any given theist.

And its not just me who thinks dis-believing in something is in and of itself a belief honey...I didnt create the english language, or philosophy and ethics, or the very basic logic that draws that very conclussion.

Sounds pretty high and mighty fanciful to me that an atheist minority having no evidence what so ever to support it's claims expects a religious majority to up and abandon their own long standing assumptions on said topic.

Im also not the one who made anything up when it came to what a state run by atheists looks like btw we have allready seen that happen in not one but in several countries...as much as you wish to deny it, which does in deed prove that alltough religions can be twisted by individuals to bad ends...so can any idea or belief system or lack there of.

I am glad however I live in a country were we dont have to do as any one person says and that we are all free to believe what we wish so long as its not hurting anyone else.

I just wish you could do the same and respect the beliefs of others in the same way you wish for them to respect your own.

[Thorne]

Without your all convincing evidence Thorne, the position of the atheist holds no more actual bearing of validity over any of this than that of any given theist.
Agreed, at least in principle. I disagree about the lack of evidence, though. I think (or, as you would claim, "believe") the amount of negative evidence, AGAINST the existence of gods is overwhelming, while the amount of positive evidence, FOR the existence of gods, is non-existent.


And its not just me who thinks dis-believing in something is in and of itself a belief honey...I didnt create the english language, or philosophy and ethics, or the very basic logic that draws that very conclussion.
Well, I have already spoken of the inadequacies of the English language to formulate this idea. And it's still my contention that, based on logic, your conclusions are wrong.


Sounds pretty high and mighty fanciful to me that an atheist minority having no evidence what so ever to support it's claims expects a religious majority to up and abandon their own long standing assumptions on said topic.
Again, misreading what I have claimed. I do NOT expect anyone to "up and abandon" their faith. I DO expect them to keep it private, among themselves and their fellow theists. Keep it in church, where it belongs, and not in politics or the law.


Im also not the one who made anything up when it came to what a state run by atheists looks like btw we have allready seen that happen in not one but in several countries...as much as you wish to deny it, which does in deed prove that alltough religions can be twisted by individuals to bad ends...so can any idea or belief system or lack there of.
These so-called "atheist states" were no worse than many of the so-called "Christian states" or "Islamic states" that exist, and have existed, over the centuries. Surprisingly, they were run by people, just like any other political entity.


I am glad however I live in a country were we dont have to do as any one person says and that we are all free to believe what we wish so long as its not hurting anyone else.
Yeah? Tell that to the children dying from religious ignorance. Tell that to the gays being denied their rights, and killed, because of religious intolerance. Tell that to the abortion doctors being killed because of religious fanaticism. Tell that to the children who's minds are being turned into jello by religious education.


I just wish you could do the same and respect the beliefs of others in the same way you wish for them to respect your own.
By this rationale, I must give the same respect to the hateful Westboro nuts as I would to yours. I would have to stop laughing at the hysterical idiocy of the science fiction cult of Scientology. Must I give respect to the hick Baptist down the road who spouts badly misquoted biblical texts to support his blatant hatreds?

Sorry, but I won't do that. I give respect where it has been earned. I certainly respect your beliefs, for example, since in my view
it's obvious you have given a lot of thought to what you believe, and why you believe it. I may not agree with it, but I respect your understanding of it.

I honestly don't care whether anyone respects my disbelief. I only complain about those who misrepresent that disbelief, because of a dogmatic belief that everyone MUST believe something.

[denuseri]

If your contention was that you dont believe in something that no one has mentioned, per say a hypothetical thing that is beyound the horizon as yet to even be formented as a posibility...then a statement of dis-belief is in and of itself simply that, and not and idea that something specifically does not exist.

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...that suposition is not possible in so far as a simple statement of dis-belief would be conserned, (at least not for anyone having knowledge of the possibility) for the idea it'self is in opposition too an allready known factor...however hypothetical it may be in your opinion.

I am glad your finally coming to the understanding that its not any given belief system itself thats at fualt so much as the evil acts of individuals who distorte such systems for their own gain over others or misinterpet their meaing to poorly consieved ends or to fuffil a less than inclusive agenda.

Like Goreans or Headonists or Communists, or Capitalists or Enviromentalists or Scientists or Buddists or adherents of the "actual tenents" any of the majior faiths or philosophies that promote good virtures over bad ones for instance.

I would postulate then conserning "respect" that the atheists if they wish to earn any then must not fall into becoming exactly like that which they claim to oppose...for if as has been shown in the past with state sponsered atheism turns out to become a situation thats overall no different than state sponsered theism...we again have no reason to abandon the one for the other.

[MMI]

Moses and the Burning Bush

You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith? Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

Try a little harder.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Actually, according to the story, the bush was unharmed, so they would not be able to say why the bush burned at all. Likewise, scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?


Is Not Believing Something the Same as Believing Something is Not?

An interesting question, and I'm not sure I know. My instinct tells me it's a distinction without a difference.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

What I think you are trying to suggest is a difference between someone who has an opinion, and someone who has not formulated one. That is an easy distinction to make, however. The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."


Evolving Science: Evolving Religion

You say scientists invent explanations to describe how things work. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations.

I don't believe that is quite accurate. Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one. How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception. Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

[thir]

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.


However, there are scientists -believers as well as non-believers - searching for proof of what is said in the bible. Mostly, I think, archeologists, but also other kinds.



If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?


The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.



Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.


Religions are not generally 'shown to be false'. This is not possible, as you pointed out earlier.


Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

What has that got to do with evolution?

[MMI]

@ thir

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source. Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can. Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.



What has [tossing virgins into volcanoes] got to do with evolution?

I simply meant that religions change. Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

[Thorne]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...that suposition is not possible in so far as a simple statement of dis-belief would be conserned, (at least not for anyone having knowledge of the possibility) for the idea it'self is in opposition too an allready known factor...however hypothetical it may be in your opinion.
Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?


I am glad your finally coming to the understanding that its not any given belief system itself thats at fualt so much as the evil acts of individuals who distorte such systems for their own gain over others or misinterpet their meaing to poorly consieved ends or to fuffil a less than inclusive agenda.
It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with! We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!) L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.


Like Goreans or Headonists or Communists, or Capitalists or Enviromentalists or Scientists or Buddists or adherents of the "actual tenents" any of the majior faiths or philosophies that promote good virtures over bad ones for instance.
Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy? A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!


I would postulate then conserning "respect" that the atheists if they wish to earn any then must not fall into becoming exactly like that which they claim to oppose...for if as has been shown in the past with state sponsered atheism turns out to become a situation thats overall no different than state sponsered theism...we again have no reason to abandon the one for the other.
Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

[Thorne]

Moses and the Burning Bush
You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith?
Not because of his faith, but because of his claims. Outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence that Moses even existed. All the evidence shows that the Jews were NOT slaves in Egypt, and that there was no Biblical Exodus. As far as I can tell, Moses was a fiction. And if he were alive today and claimed to be speaking with God, who took the form of a burning bush, where do you think he would end up?


Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."
I don't think a fictional character would be upset by being called a lunatic.


I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.
Then by the same token, religious belief has no business in science classrooms. But look into what they are doing, and trying to do, in the Texas school system.


Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.
Who knows what they might have found, if indeed it had been God. If nothing else, as I said, you have the ashes, which at least tells you that Moses saw SOMETHING. Doesn't necessarily mean God, of course, but at least it is something. Even if this event had taken place, however, there were no witnesses except Moses! And we are to accept his word, without reservation? Why?


scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?
But also according to the story, the pharaohs priests were able to duplicate at least some of Moses' "tricks", which doesn't say much for the power of God.


The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."
And what of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so." Not a matter of indecision, but a statement of fact.



Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one.
Only if the current explanation successfully explained observed phenomena.


How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.
If a theory has withstood the test of time, because it explained observations and made predictions which were shown to be accurate, it would naturally take a lot of pressure to have scientists just toss it aside. They would want proof that the new theory is better at explaining reality than the old one did. And sometimes, the old one is not tossed aside but only modified.

A good example is Newton's laws of gravity. For a long time these laws were accepted by scientists because they worked. They described the motions of the planets almost perfectly, and at least one planet (Neptune) was discovered because of discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. But some perturbations in the orbit of Mercury could NOT be explained by Newton's laws, and scientist were going absolutely nuts over it! Until Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, which accounted for Mercury's perturbations. So instead of scrapping Newton's laws, which worked perfectly well in almost all circumstances, it was modified to exclude its use in high gravity/high energy areas, such as near a star!


Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.
The difference is that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. They are handed down as dogma, something you MUST believe in, and questioning that dogma is a religious crime. It's only when change is FORCED upon them, from the outside, that they reluctantly change. And historically, they were far more likely to suppress the reality in favor of the fantasy.


Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.
But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!


Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.
I don't get this one. Geology is why we don't toss virgins into volcanoes.

[Thorne]

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.
Exactly! And in these kinds of discussions it always seems to lean far more heavily to the side or religion than logic. Which is why I try to avoid using it in that manner.

[Thorne]

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source.
The problem is that it is also a religious document, and it has been shown that sometimes the history has been skewed to agree with the religion.


Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.
Depends on the archaeologist. Certainly up until the last hundred years or so they were almost universally trying to reconcile the Bible with history. Not so much anymore, but there are some who still try.


I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can.
But what they teach can be taught without the religious trappings far more effectively.


Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.
At least not physically. Theologically? I think that might be a different story.


Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.
And science, not religion, is the reason we know better.

[denuseri]

Sorry, but atheism has existed since the first shaman invented gods. There have ALWAYS been non-believers, and there always WILL BE non-believers.

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.

So what you're saying here, if I understand correctly, is that it is possible to NOT believe something that nobody has ever thought of, but when a lot of people already believe in something, you can't NOT believe in it? That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from this statement. Please elaborate?

In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".


It's not only those who distort the systems, but those who INVENT the systems to begin with!

So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?

We have seen this happen. Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. (He translated golden tablets which only he could see, right? Yeah, I'll believe that one!)

No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.

L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology, as a spoof of religions! Jim Jones, David Koresh, all manner of glib, fast-talking frauds who take advantage of vulnerable people. The apostles and Mohammed weren't any different, either. Just because they've lasted as long as they have doesn't make them any less of a cult.

So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?


Goreans? Are you actually going to claim that as a faith, or the foundation of a philosophy?

Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.


A rather badly written series of psycho-sexual science fiction? That's almost as bad as Scientology!

Oh and nice way to be directly insulting of my favored lifestyle philosophy btw. (Im also a practicing tantric and zen buddist as well as an adherent of several different other philosophies, not to mention my religious adhereance to the Bahai faith...if your wishing to insult those directly nows the time to get it out of your system.

If you really wanna discuss Gorean Philosophy however and the OLD school Master /Slave interactions and philosophies that influenced much of Dr Langes work that he chose to imbed into a fictional medium though I have a whole other thread for that in which you are more than welcome to participate. Here is a link for it..its in the very same section of the forums as this one too.

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php/17006-Gorean-Philosophies


Why do you keep harping on the evils of "state-sponsored atheism?" No one is advocating that! All we want is for the government to adhere to the separation of church and state. Keep religion out of government, out of the public schools and off of public property. That is NOT an atheist state!

Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.

So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.

[Thorne]

You dont actually know that...you were not there...there is no written evidence to support any such claim, its pure speculation on your part.
Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Try applying the "you were not there" argument to your religious beliefs. That knife cuts both ways.


In the case of a pre-established idea, or belief or what ever you wish to call it, where you the thinker allready have a preconcieved knowledge thereof in common standing with the other individual...your stating a counter belief when you make a statement of dis-belief. The counter belief may be "I just dont believe that" or it may containt all sorts of stipulations like: "I dont believe that becuase of this and that and this other thing" etc; but, it is still a statement of "counter belief".
Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.


So you have a beef with anyone coming with an idea for any system of religion or philosophy of anykind?
Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.


No one said you had too...last time I checked the Mormons were not running around doing evil things in the name of their faith eaither.
LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?


So once again, you have zero respect for the beliefs of others? Just becuase you disagee with the premise upon which they are founded?
No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.


Why yes I do claim it as a philosophy of virtue ethics, if you havent noticed by now honey I am a real life practiconer of Gorean Philosophy. I dont call myself a kajira for roleplaying purposes or shits and giggles hon. I guess you forgot I was a Gorean? You did participate in the thread I linked bellow wher I pretty clearly stated my beliefs on Gor if I recall.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I have no problem with that. But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones. Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion? And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?


Oh dear have I perhaps struck a nerve...Im so sorry if thats the case..I was simply pointing out that religions in and of themselves are not whats wrong with the world 'As evidenced by the behavior" of those who abolished said religions from their own countires.
Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard.


So why not let them and the people who "choose" to believe in them be as they wish so long as they arent hurting you. A secular state , where we ALL have the freedom to practice our given beliefs without fear of reprisal or interfereance or disrespect ffrom people of differeing beliefs is far more desierable imho.
That's what I've been saying all along! The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one. Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

[denuseri]

Really? That's the extent of your argument? Okay, then. For as far back as records go, there have been non-believers. Usually they were the more educated, or the priests themselves. But they have always been there. And when discovered they were usually persecuted.

Really? Where is your "evidence" of such? Of all these ancient atheists that is?


Sorry, I must be dense. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that NOT believing in something is just a different way of believing in something.

Well if thats what you wish to leave it at thats fine by me. lol


Nope. Not at all. I only have a problem when they try to tell me that their idea is absolutely true when they have no evidence for it whatsoever.

How ironic...thats just what the atheists are doing with their own ideas.

LOL! No? Look up the story of gay marriage, especially in California. The Mormon church pumped millions of dollars into the campaign to fight that. Since when did denying people basic rights NOT become evil?

Since when did preserving the traditional rites of marriage become evil? Your really grasping at straws here you know.


No. I have zero respect for those who BLINDLY follow a charlatan because it makes them feel good, or because that's who their parents worshiped. If someone has studied, and researched, and come to a belief despite the lack of evidence, I don't have a problem. I can respect them for their honesty. I don't have to respect their beliefs.

You do realize that sounds like your automatically assuming as a defualt setting that everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes until proven otherwise in your personal estimation.

Which sounds like your being exactly like all those zealous people of different faiths who think that any non-believers in their paticular belief system must need their help to be brought into the light.


Yes, I'm aware of that.

Realy seems like you forgot altogether your own participation in said thread on the topic.

I have no problem with that.

Then why be so insulting when you attacked it?

But this is a perfect example of the kinds of things I'm talking about. You are, I'm sure, aware that this "philosophy" is based on a series of stories. Fictional stories. Very recent ones.

You apparently are not aware of any of the facts surrounding the authorship of the books or that the fictional stories were used dileberately by the author as the only way of expressing and shareing his philosophy with others, which was a direct result of his philosophical ideas being shoved out of academia by the pro-feminist zealots who had taken over his field at the time and refused to allow any agenda but theirs to prevail in the area. A classic example of how scientists act just like sophistic theocrats when it suits them.

Now, project this philosophy into the future, say 2000 years, when the very beginnings of it are hidden or lost. Can't you see how this could become a religion?

You mean all those philosophies invented by the ancient greeks over 2400 years ago are now majically religious?

And doesn't that give you at least some insight into how other religions can be formed based on absolute fiction?

Your again working under the assumption that all religion is derived by an individual hood winking a group of people with nothing more that baseless assumption. When not only the recorded history of such things but all contemporary scientific schools of thought on the study of physcology, theocracy and anthropology (the only evidence we have of said origens conserning any given faiths beginings) in fact directly countridicts your assumption.

Yeah, you struck a nerve. Just like someone repeating the same phrase, over and over. "Evil atheist state", "not believing is believing". "Religion isn't evil, it's the people who abuse it who are evil." The same things over and over. Like chalk screeching on a blackboard. << another example of what Im talking about...things like that dont do you any credit in your arguments.

I only kept repeating the primary idea becuase you kept trying to use sophistry to ignore it.

That idea being: " its people..not "ideas" that do harm"

That trying to blame "religion" for all the worlds ills...is a silly as blaming "science" or "Santa Cluas" or in a more mechanical sence...blaming the gun or the bullet as opposed to who pulls the trigger.


The problem is that the religious don't really WANT a secular state, they want a theocratic one.

Really? So I must then want a non-secular state huh? I mean I am a religious follower after all.?

The reality is however: just becuse one has a religion that they wish to follow it does not automatically mean their agenda is world domination or even anything remotely like it.



I will however grant you that there are some people out there who may have had dreams of making their own religion or philosophy or governmental or economic ideals the only one's practiced in the world. (atheist are in that little group too, more than once)

But I also think that those people's dreams have very little actual chance of reaching futition.


Those individuals and those who share their ideas have failed so far every time they attempted such a thing (both the theists and atheist variety -though the theists ussually had more success in such endeavors until modern times ...I atribute that to being better educated and in general more organized, but actual history will show you it was the theists that were inclussive of other peoples faiths who had the highest level of success overall ) at least in taking over the world or a paticular area of it and holding dominion over it...and I dont see them making much headway in the modern world on even a local level.

The only logical conclussion then must be secularism for all.

Freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything blasphemous about THEIR religion. Freedom of expression, as long as you don't express discontent with THEIR religion. Freedom of worship, as long as you only worship THEIR religion. THAT is what I see happening in this country! THAT is what I'm fighting against!

By insulting anyone who doesnt believe as you do? By using the same things you accuse them off yourself?

Think I'm wrong? Try walking into a school board meeting, or a town council meeting, where they open each session with a prayer. Try asking them to open that session with a Bahai prayer, or an Islamic prayer, or a Jewish prayer. See just how "tolerant" they are. I would especially recommend trying this in the deep south or the midwest. I think you'd get a real eye-opening experience.

Actually...unless as in the case of my niece who attended a private lutheran school, when any local town meetings or school related things conviened where I have been in attendence...I havent seen too many people wanting a prayer to begin with...secondly..when they do its allmost allways a silent moment where each is allowed to pray in their heads to whoever they wish.

Which shouldnt bother the atheists since they shouldnt care eaither way if their being logical about things and truely accepting that other people are indeed entitled to hold their own beliefs.

And truth be told as a Bahai...or as a member of any of the other religious faiths I held before it, even during the period where I was breifly atheist myself...it still didnt bother me...even when it was one faiths prayer and out loud. Why should I care if the people in a paticular gathering decide they all wish to have a prayer or some such ritual preformed. Its not hurting me or anyone else.

In those cases of when Ive been in areas where one faith predominated over the others (such as when I was in living in the middle east, or in my local community here -which for your information is in the deepest of the deep southern usa bible belt) I would adapt as nessesary to the cultural requirments of the people in the paticular area I was staying in. They live the way they wish..its not my place to try and force them to do otherwise. "When in Rome" as the old saying goes I have found to be excellent advice to live by.

[Thorne]

Really? Where is your "evidence" of such? Of all these ancient atheists that is?
From Wikipedia:
"In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods"."
And:
"The spontaneous proposition that there may be no gods after all is logically as old as theism itself (and the proposition that there may be no God as old as the beginnings of monotheism or henotheism)."

Since when did preserving the traditional rites of marriage become evil? Your really grasping at straws here you know.
When did the tradition of keeping slaves become evil? When did the idea of polytheism become evil? When did polygamy become evil? Even the "rite" of marriage is very different throughout the world, and has changed drastically throughout history. The only reasons not to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, whether you want to call it marriage or not, are religious.


You do realize that sounds like your automatically assuming as a defualt setting that everyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes until proven otherwise in your personal estimation.
Well, when people are willing to accept a supernatural being as their overlord, are willing to drop to their knees in terror of offending this being, in hopes of a promised reward which no one has ever seen, then yeah, in my estimation they are being duped.


You mean all those philosophies invented by the ancient greeks over 2400 years ago are now majically religious?
More or less. Most of the religious dogma which exist today are based on very early myths from all over the Middle East, including the virgin birth, the flood, the resurrection, and many more. Those myths, previously told as stories of other ancient gods, were incorporated into Judaism and from there into Christianity and Islam.


Which shouldnt bother the atheists since they shouldnt care eaither way if their being logical about things and truely accepting that other people are indeed entitled to hold their own beliefs.
What bothers me is when the theists don't reciprocate that idea. Read up on the atheist bus campaign, and see how much resistance has been shown not only by religious groups but by businesses and governments as well.


Why should I care if the people in a paticular gathering decide they all wish to have a prayer or some such ritual preformed. Its not hurting me or anyone else.
Sorry, but I have to believe it hurts everyone who doesn't hold the same faith as the praying group. Especially children, who will emulate their parents and grow up believing just what the parent want them to believe, without learning to think about such things for themselves.

Want to see how "tolerant" religious people are? Suggest that instead of sending their kids to Sunday School they send them to study comparative religions and religious history. I doubt you'd get many takers.


"When in Rome" as the old saying goes I have found to be excellent advice to live by.
I find that it only encourages people to believe that they must be right. Sometimes you need to show them another way.

Obviously you have done a lot of searching to establish your particular philosophy. I admire you for that. I still think you're wrong, but that's your right. My arguments aren't aimed so much at you as at those who may be on the fence about religion, leaning one way or the other, not believing but not sure what to do about it. Sometimes just knowing there is someone out there who thinks along the same lines as yourself can be a big help. Religion is so endemic to our society that it is very unusual for someone to grow up without being immersed in some form of religious ideology from birth. That's changing, though. Hopefully it will keep changing.

[denuseri]

From Wikipedia:
"The spontaneous proposition that there may be no gods after all is logically as old as theism itself (and the proposition that there may be no God as old as the beginnings of monotheism or henotheism)."

I guess you forgot the part about when the term Atheist took on its current meaning; from the same article in Wiki...."The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.

The term wasnt used in the same context back in 500bc...other than to refer to impiety.

The theists had been around for 4000 years before that according to written history...with zero evidence of any Atheists.

When did the tradition of keeping slaves become evil?

For the most part historically speaking the idea that slavery was somehow evil didnt develope until the abolistionist movment (a highly religiously driven movement I might add) came to become socially acceptable amongst the populace in the 1700's.

When did the idea of polytheism become evil?

Become evil to whom? Different societies viewed it as unnessesary or wrong at differing times in history and some have since reversed their positions on the topic.

When did polygamy become evil?

Im not so sure polygamy has ever been viewed as "evil" per say at least not outside of some small minded groups in general.

Even the "rite" of marriage is very different throughout the world, lol...seriously? Its actually one of those things thats allmost a commonality between allmost all people on the planet outside of a few small and isolated cultures.

and has changed drastically throughout history.

Not really all that much at all...not until modern times that is.

The only reasons not to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, whether you want to call it marriage or not, are religious.

What a narrow minded opinion to hold. I can see all sorts of reasons why a society wouldnt want to promote this kind of thing that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural preservation (though its my personal opinion that it should be allowed here in the USA...I even started a thread on it outlining my personal position in detail if youd like the link)

All I was saying is that it wasnt "evil" in and of itself for people to wish to have an opinion about it and or express that opinion in our democracy.

Well, when people are willing to accept a supernatural being as their overlord, are willing to drop to their knees in terror of offending this being, in hopes of a promised reward which no one has ever seen, then yeah, in my estimation they are being duped.

No more duped than they are when they accept the word of some other guy with equally lacking evidence that there is no god for them to do all this kneeling too?

More or less. Most of the religious dogma which exist today are based on very early myths from all over the Middle East, including the virgin birth, the flood, the resurrection, and many more. Those myths, previously told as stories of other ancient gods, were incorporated into Judaism and from there into Christianity and Islam.

You may wish to read up on some of this in greater detail. Or perhaps your confusing the works of the philosophers with the works of much earlier theologians idk:

The Philosophers didnt even exist until 2400 years ago (roughly 500bce) give or take a couple hundred years...they were mainly Greek...their philosophies btw are today still just that...philosophies...and never turned for even a moment into any religion that I am aware of.

As for the religious mythologies of different cultures in the mesopotamian region...thats a whole different ball of religious wax...not philosophical. It was steeped in religion from its advent to its fall in some cases and to its evolution into further theological thoughts some of which do have trappings held over to modern times...but never lost its theist conotation.


What bothers me is when the theists don't reciprocate that idea.

Really...Im a theist...I brought up secularism and toleration and aceptance in this thread and others where weve discussed this , (long before you I might add) even pleaded with you to at least consider it...and every time until the past couple posts here youve sidesteped or refused to acknowledge or simply tried to re-brand your position and kept on insulting people of faith etc. In fact...90% of the people I know who are religious adherents also believe secularism is preferable to strife over religious ideals and if you look at 99% of the secular movments in the world you will see them being lead by groups of theists from different faiths as well.


Sorry, but I have to believe it hurts everyone who doesn't hold the same faith as the praying group. Especially children, who will emulate their parents and grow up believing just what the parent want them to believe, without learning to think about such things for themselves.

So now you would have children not be raised by their parents? Who then shall raise them...the state? Gee that sounds awfully familiar for some reason...hummm...ohh thats right the "communists in south east asia promoted that ideal".

Want to see how "tolerant" religious people are? Suggest that instead of sending their kids to Sunday School they send them to study comparative religions and religious history. I doubt you'd get many takers.

Actually growing up as a Lutheran...we studdied all sorts of religions other than our own and were activly encouraged to study religious history.

I find that it only encourages people to believe that they must be right. Sometimes you need to show them another way.

So basically you wish to replace everyone elses beliefs...with your own?

Obviously you have done a lot of searching to establish your particular philosophy. I admire you for that. I still think you're wrong, but that's your right. My arguments aren't aimed so much at you as at those who may be on the fence about religion, leaning one way or the other, not believing but not sure what to do about it. Sometimes just knowing there is someone out there who thinks along the same lines as yourself can be a big help. Religion is so endemic to our society that it is very unusual for someone to grow up without being immersed in some form of religious ideology from birth. That's changing, though. Hopefully it will keep changing.

I see no reason that any kind of evolutionary movement away from God should be looked upon as a good thing...though from everything Ive seen on this subject..people having faith in something other than atheism doesnt change so much as adherence to organzed religious efforts declines in cerrtian urbanized conditions of prosperity where individualism is promoted over obligation to the group.

As for respect...well I would certiantly respect you more if, you practiced what you preached...

...instead of acting with the same self rightious attitude of the very people you wish to declaim for their faith in their own ways of thought as being automatically wrong, deluded, or in need of repair or not as valid as your own for them ...especially since you have zero evidence to point to something different as an alternative.

If you really believe in secularism...than practice it... instead of preaching atheism over all others.

[Thorne]

I guess you forgot the part about when the term Atheist took on its current meaning; from the same article in Wiki...."The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. The term wasnt used in the same context back in 500bc...other than to refer to impiety.
Oh come on! I don't care what you call it: atheism, non-theism, religiously challenged. The point is that there have been non-believers for as long as their have been believers. The problem is that you keep insisting that atheism is just another belief system, rather than a simple statement of fact.


For the most part historically speaking the idea that slavery was somehow evil didnt develope until the abolistionist movment
Which makes my point. Culture's views on things change over time. Something which was acceptable, even commendable, only a few hundred years ago is now considered abominable, at least by "civilized" society. The same is true for homosexuality. There have been times when it has been acceptable, even admired in some cultures. It's only recently that it has come to be tolerated in this culture. Yet the "tolerant" Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are fighting tenaciously against equal rights for homosexuals. And their only reasons for that are based on their religious teachings.


What a narrow minded opinion to hold. I can see all sorts of reasons why a society wouldnt want to promote this kind of thing that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with cultural preservation
And you could say the same thing about slavery. Or interracial marriages. Or interfaith marriages. There are some parts of culture that aren't worth preserving. But please, I'd love to hear some cultural arguments, which aren't ultimately based in religion, against giving everyone the same rights.


All I was saying is that it wasnt "evil" in and of itself for people to wish to have an opinion about it and or express that opinion in our democracy.
I agree, everyone has the right to their own opinion. But they do not have the right to deny others that same right. And denying any group of people the rights which you already have, by law, just because you don't like those people, or because a book of shepherds tales from thousands of years ago doesn't like them, is IMO evil.


So now you would have children not be raised by their parents?
That's not what I said, and you know it! I just think it's bad enough that parents stuff their kids heads full of mythology, we don't need to have the schools doing it too. Just teach kids to think critically. Teach them not to believe everything someone tells them. Regardless of who it is.


Actually growing up as a Lutheran...we studdied all sorts of religions other than our own and were activly encouraged to study religious history.
Which probably explains why you have changed religions so much. A good thing in my view. As I've said, I can respect your search, because you are obviously thinking deeply about it. My only criticism, in your case, is that it seems to me you are always searching based on the premise that a god, or gods, exists. I don't know what you are searching for, but perhaps you might try searching from the premise that gods probably do NOT exist. See where that search leads you.


So basically you wish to replace everyone elses beliefs...with your own?
Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Since I have no religious beliefs there's nothing to replace other's beliefs with.


I see no reason that any kind of evolutionary movement away from God should be looked upon as a good thing
Don't think of it as a movement away from gods, but as a movement away from superstition. Humans once had multiple gods, for everything. Eventually they whittled that down to just one god (for the most part) although everyone has different opinions about what that one god is and what he wants. Perhaps now it is time to put aside that security blanket and accept that WE are responsible for what we do and only WE can make it right. Gods, Santa Clause, fairies and leprechauns have no place in our lives except as sometimes amusing stories for children.


especially since you have zero evidence to point to something different as an alternative.
Maybe this is where the real disagreement arises, and why religious people cling so hard to their gods. I am not offering anyone an alternative. I don't have anything that replaces religion or gods or faith. That would be like teaching you can lose weight by switching from Angel Food cake to Devil's Food cake. (Yeah, I did that on purpose! So sue me!) It isn't going to help. I'm saying eliminate the cake completely.

Eliminate the superstitions completely. You don't need gods to do the right thing. You don't need gods to love other people. You don't need preachers to tell you to help your neighbor. Do it because it's the right thing to do, because it's the human thing to do.

[denuseri]

Oh come on! I don't care what you call it: atheism, non-theism, religiously challenged. The point is that there have been non-believers for as long as their have been believers. The problem is that you keep insisting that atheism is just another belief system, rather than a simple statement of fact.

I said nothing about "systems", atheism is a "belief" though, I cant help it if your deliberately being ..how did you put it earlier in the thread...oh yes.."dense".


Which makes my point. Culture's views on things change over time. Something which was acceptable, even commendable, only a few hundred years ago is now considered abominable, at least by "civilized" society. The same is true for homosexuality. There have been times when it has been acceptable, even admired in some cultures. It's only recently that it has come to be tolerated in this culture. Yet the "tolerant" Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are fighting tenaciously against equal rights for homosexuals. And their only reasons for that are based on their religious teachings.

So are tolerant Capitalists, democrats, republicans, and yes...atheists. Being against homo-sexuals is not a religious only thing.

I agree, everyone has the right to their own opinion. But they do not have the right to deny others that same right.

Actually in a democracy everyone has the right to speak out, period...which way the country ends up going though isnt a "right" its how the majority decided it would turn out...in so far as actually denying anyone anything...well thats for the legal system to sort out once something is indeed made a right by law.


That's not what I said, and you know it!

It isnt?...Well who then gets to decide what children are allowed to be taught by their parents then?

I just think it's bad enough that parents stuff their kids heads full of mythology, we don't need to have the schools doing it too. Just teach kids to think critically. Teach them not to believe everything someone tells them. Regardless of who it is.

They dont see it as "mythology"...your still talking about taking even more parents "rights" away.


Which probably explains why you have changed religions so much.

Not at all...though I can understand why you would wish to make such a presumption.

A good thing in my view. As I've said, I can respect your search, (I wasnt on some kind of religious scavenger hunt silly) and I still go to Lutheran Church because you are obviously thinking deeply about it. My only criticism, in your case, is that it seems to me you are always searching based on the premise that a god, or gods, exists.

No I studied atheism at length and rejected it as being an unlikely and illogical conclussion to make about the universe.


Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Since I have no religious beliefs there's nothing to replace other's beliefs with.

So you offer "nothing". Now there is even "less" of a reason to listen too you.


Don't think of it as a movement away from gods, but as a movement away from superstition.

That however isnt how believers in a paticular religion feel...I hope you can one day respect that.

Humans once had multiple gods, for everything.

They still do in many cultures.

Eventually they whittled that down to just one god (for the most part) although everyone has different opinions about what that one god is and what he wants.

They even whittled it down to no gods in some movments (like the Communist ones) and we all know how that turned out.

Perhaps now it is time to put aside that security blanket and accept that WE are responsible for what we do and only WE can make it right.

Ive never heard anywhere during any of my time here on this earth of any religion that promotes an idea of anything less than self responsibility for ones actions. Not one.

Gods, Santa Clause, fairies and leprechauns have no place in our lives except as sometimes amusing stories for children.

And equating religious adherence to being a child or having faith in a God or Gods as being a belief in a Santa or fairies and leprechauns has no place in a debate about atheism and religion. Not if you expect the faithful to have any respect for what you saying. Insulting all people of faith is not the best way to influence them.

Maybe this is where the real disagreement arises, and why religious people cling so hard to their gods. I am not offering anyone an alternative. I don't have anything that replaces religion or gods or faith. That would be like teaching you can lose weight by switching from Angel Food cake to Devil's Food cake. (Yeah, I did that on purpose! So sue me!) It isn't going to help. I'm saying eliminate the cake completely.

You have to eat somthing...or you starve to death eventually.

See and you said you didnt have a belief system...yet here you are defining the tenents of your faith:

"Eliminate the superstitions completely. You don't need gods to do the right thing. You don't need gods to love other people. You don't need preachers to tell you to help your neighbor. Do it because it's the right thing to do, because it's the human thing to do".

Just like the theists, telling other people "what" to believe.

[Thorne]

atheism is a "belief" though
Only by your interpretation, not by mine.


So are tolerant Capitalists, democrats, republicans, and yes...atheists. Being against homo-sexuals is not a religious only thing.
Yes, but the others don't claim to be the true arbiters of morality, the way theists do.


well thats for the legal system to sort out once something is indeed made a right by law.
Those rights have already been established by law. The law doesn't specify that you don't get those rights if you're homosexual, or if you're black, or if you're atheist, or if you're theist. The law applies to ALL. If any are given those rights, ALL must be given those rights. Which includes the right to worship (or not) as one wishes. NOT as someone else declares.


They dont see it as "mythology"...your still talking about taking even more parents "rights" away.
Nope, not even close. I'm talking about NOT teaching wishful thinking IN SCHOOLS. I never said anything about what parents should, or should not, be able to teach their kids.

That being said, however, do you think parents should have the "right" to deny their children medical care when the children are ill, just because of their own religious beliefs? Should parents have the "right" to brutally beat their children because the Bible tells them not to spare the rod? Do you not agree that there are certain limits society, and the law, MUST place on parents when dealing with the health and welfare of their children?


No I studied atheism at length and rejected it as being an unlikely and illogical conclussion to make about the universe.
Just out of curiosity, how does one "study" atheism? Are their classes on it? Atheist seminaries? Are we atheists supposed to send our kids to Monday School or something?

I am an atheist NOT because of what I believe, but because of what I do NOT believe. That's it. My views on science, evolution, cosmology, history, society, etc., have nothing to do with being an atheist. Yes, my understanding of those things probably influenced my non-belief, but is not defined by it.


So you offer "nothing". Now there is even "less" of a reason to listen too you.
You haven't been listening anyway, so what's the difference?:)


That however isnt how believers in a paticular religion feel...I hope you can one day respect that.
Respect it, no. Understand it, yes. But where does one draw the line between, "If I have sex outside of marriage I'll be sent to Hell," and "If I break a mirror I'll have seven years bad luck." Each of these statements have their believers. Neither are provable.


Ive never heard anywhere during any of my time here on this earth of any religion that promotes an idea of anything less than self responsibility for ones actions.
But if you pray hard enough, believe hard enough, send Pat Robertson enough money, God will forgive you!


And equating religious adherence to being a child or having faith in a God or Gods as being a belief in a Santa or fairies and leprechauns has no place in a debate about atheism and religion.
Why not? Show me how they are different. How is the idea that Santa Clause knows if you've been bad or good any different from the idea that God knows if you've been bad or good? How is writing a letter to Santa asking for gifts any different from praying to God asking for gifts?

Sure, theist don't like those kinds of arguments, and will get all upset by them. Just as I get upset by your dogmatic insistence that atheism is a belief. Oh, well. Guess they'll have to learn to live with it, just like me.

[thir]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...t

I hve been wondering a bit what is meant by 'the advent of atheism'? Surely some people have not belived in gods through the ages?

[thir]

Ive never heard anywhere during any of my time here on this earth of any religion that promotes an idea of anything less than self responsibility for ones actions.


What about 'I must act like this because it is in the bible'? Or whatever religious book you have.

I kill gays because they are an abomination in the eyes of god. I blow up planes because my god tells me to. I kill women if they do not wear the clothes (I think) my book says they should.

Do these people feel responsible for their actions? No, their excuse is that it is the will of god!

I am totally in agreement with you D that people have a right to have their religion in peace, and totally in agreement with T that it must be a private matter and must not impose on anyone else.

[denuseri]

In the case of a God, or Gods in the manner in which they are commonly held to exist by many different countless people before the advent of athiesm...t

I hve been wondering a bit what is meant by 'the advent of atheism'? Surely some people have not belived in gods through the ages?

If they did, they sure didnt leave any evidence behind of such a belief.

[denuseri]

Only by your interpretation, not by mine.

Not only by my interpetation, but that of the experts who defined the terminology and its meanings.


Yes, but the others don't claim to be the true arbiters of morality, the way theists do.

Or the way Atheists do?


Those rights have already been established by law. The law doesn't specify that you don't get those rights if you're homosexual, or if you're black, or if you're atheist, or if you're theist. The law applies to ALL. If any are given those rights, ALL must be given those rights. Which includes the right to worship (or not) as one wishes. NOT as someone else declares.

If that was the case there wouldnt be a schism in society right now between the proponents of gay marriage and the proponents against it. The law would allready have it covered.

Nope, not even close. I'm talking about NOT teaching wishful thinking IN SCHOOLS. I never said anything about what parents should, or should not, be able to teach their kids.

Really? Sure doesnt look that way.

That being said, however, do you think parents should have the "right" to deny their children medical care when the children are ill, just because of their own religious beliefs? Should parents have the "right" to brutally beat their children because the Bible tells them not to spare the rod? Do you not agree that there are certain limits society, and the law, MUST place on parents when dealing with the health and welfare of their children?

Last time I checked we have laws in place allready that cover all that.


Just out of curiosity, how does one "study" atheism? Are their classes on it? Atheist seminaries? Are we atheists supposed to send our kids to Monday School or something?

Its real simple, you can take a class in theology, or philosophy, or any history course that covers those time periods (where they will teach you about it.) or you can read any number of books and other things written on it in self study...just like anything else.

I am an atheist NOT because of what I believe, but because of what I do NOT believe.

Then why spend so much time telling us what your lack of belief entails...if its got nothing in it, it shouldnt need to be expounded upon at all.

That's it. My views on science, evolution, cosmology, history, society, etc., have nothing to do with being an atheist. Yes, my understanding of those things probably influenced my non-belief, but is not defined by it.

Just as a theists religious adherence does not nessesary have anything to do with any of that eaither.


You haven't been listening anyway, so what's the difference?:)

Oh Ive been listening....the real question is have you been listening to yourself?

Respect it, no. That much is obvious...so much for all your clap trap conserning secularism. Understand it, yes. If you really understood it, you wouldnt be so adamantely set against its contemporary practice within the letter of the laws of our society today. But where does one draw the line between, "If I have sex outside of marriage I'll be sent to Hell," and "If I break a mirror I'll have seven years bad luck." Each of these statements have their believers. Neither are provable. You dont have to draw any line save for yourself and leave the lines other wish to draw for themselves.



But if you pray hard enough, believe hard enough, send Pat Robertson enough money, God will forgive you!

Ive never sent Pat a single dime...and truth be told I dont actually know anyone else who has...why people send their money to places though I believe is their own business in any event.


Why not? Show me how they are different. How is the idea that Santa Clause knows if you've been bad or good any different from the idea that God knows if you've been bad or good? How is writing a letter to Santa asking for gifts any different from praying to God asking for gifts?

Becuase one is a commonly acepted fairytale, where as the other is someone's belief system and as such is deserving of the same mutual respect you claim atheism deserves.

Sure, theist don't like those kinds of arguments, and will get all upset by them. Just as I get upset by your dogmatic insistence that atheism is a belief. Oh, well. Guess they'll have to learn to live with it, just like me.

Theists, like all people I am guessing dont like being insulted in such manner, that should be a given, and if you truely believed in secularism and wished to actual influence anyone one way or the other you wouldnt use inflamatory sophistry to accomplish the task. Youd practice what you claim to preach.

[denuseri]

What about 'I must act like this because it is in the bible'? Or whatever religious book you have.

Well, let me see, last time I checked, the Bible, in paticular the new testament has Jesus make a little statement about such things that pretty much excludes all the old testament hard core laws that are by all rights no longer applicable even to the most fundamentalist of followers, with a simple..."Love thy nieghbor as theyself" commandment. Similar "words" and conditions are set forth in all the major faiths. So effectively anyone useing violence to achiev their ends, in all of the majior faiths is basically going directly against the major tennents of their own faith. Especially if one is taking a litteral interpetation of said tennents.

I kill gays because they are an abomination in the eyes of god. I blow up planes because my god tells me to. I kill women if they do not wear the clothes (I think) my book says they should.

Do these people feel responsible for their actions? No, their excuse is that it is the will of god!

And their "excuse" as explained above is not jusification in the eyes of their god at all but a sin against him.

I am totally in agreement with you D that people have a right to have their religion in peace, and totally in agreement with T that it must be a private matter and must not impose on anyone else.

Secularism doesnt require privacy to function...just mutual respect and understanding.

[Thorne]

That being said, however, do you think parents should have the "right" to deny their children medical care when the children are ill, just because of their own religious beliefs? Should parents have the "right" to brutally beat their children because the Bible tells them not to spare the rod? Do you not agree that there are certain limits society, and the law, MUST place on parents when dealing with the health and welfare of their children?

Last time I checked we have laws in place allready that cover all that.
Yes, we do. And why do we have those laws? To prevent the abuse of the children. But isn't telling a child that she will go to hell and burn for eternity if she touches herself also abuse? Isn't it abuse to tell a child that God will throw him into a pit of burning brimstone to be tortured by demons abuse? Should there not be laws to protect against that kind of abuse as well?


But where does one draw the line between, "If I have sex outside of marriage I'll be sent to Hell," and "If I break a mirror I'll have seven years bad luck." Each of these statements have their believers. Neither are provable.
You dont have to draw any line save for yourself and leave the lines other wish to draw for themselves.
I would love to, but it's the theists who want to make premarital sex illegal, not me.


Becuase one is a commonly acepted fairytale, where as the other is someone's belief system and as such is deserving of the same mutual respect you claim atheism deserves.
So if children believe it it's a fairy tale, but if adults believe it it's a religion? Sorry, I don't buy it. If you compare them they sound pretty much alike.


in paticular the new testament has Jesus make a little statement about such things that pretty much excludes all the old testament hard core laws that are by all rights no longer applicable even to the most fundamentalist of followers,
Sorry, but that's not true.

Matthew 5:17-20 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

[Thorne]

And their "excuse" as explained above is not jusification in the eyes of their god at all but a sin against him.
I find it interesting that theists who do evil things in the name of their god are considered to be sinners and not really doing what their god wants. How do you know what their god wants? How can you know that their god is not speaking to them and actually telling them what to do? Just because it offends you?

That's the great fallacy of religions. Once you accept the concept of a supernatural being who controls the universe and who can do anything He wishes, you can no longer claim that someone else is not doing His bidding. What that person does may be offensive to you, but how can you know that you are right and he is wrong? Maybe God DID tell him to do those things. After all, God did tell Joshua, on more than one occasion, to kill all the inhabitants of towns he conquered, down to the last man, woman, child and cow! Who's to say that God wouldn't tell someone to kill an abortion doctor, or a gay man, or anyone else, for that matter. I know, you don't want to believe that God would do such a thing, but HOW-CAN-YOU-KNOW?

[denuseri]

Sorry, but that's not true.

Sorry, but it is:

" Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. "

[Thorne]

Sorry, but it is:
All of those may ADD to the law, but Jesus specifically stated that he was not abolishing Mosaic Law, or the law of the Prophets.

[denuseri]

All of those may ADD to the law, but Jesus specifically stated that he was not abolishing Mosaic Law, or the law of the Prophets.

No!.. none of them add to the law...they just explain the law allready in existance.

You are trying to use sophistry yet again to twist what was written. When Jesus told them that he wasnt here to change the Law...its becuase it didnt need changing...becuase Love...loving thy nieghbor as thyself...was allready the law!

[MMI]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction. Clearly, he feels that is a stronger line of attack against believers. I do agree with his contention that religion has no place in science classes, however. Religion should be taught in religious education classes - which should be compulsory - as it is here (or was when I went to school).

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I enjoyed you explanation of how Newton's laws have been replaced to some extent by the Relativity Theories. And these in turn are under critical scrutiny now . You make the point that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. Yet there have been countless of conversions - both individual and en masse People believed in other gods before they began to worship Jehovah. Christianity started out among Jews who felt that their old religion has been superseded by the new one, and millions of pagans of different hues embraced it too. Mithraism is said by some to have been a "rehearsal" for Christianity. Islam also grew up from Judaism, Christianity and sundry pagan beliefs. Religions evolved and changed to reflect changing beliefs. Human sacrifice, for example, no longer occurs, because volcanoes no longer hold gods who need to be bought off. The Mormons represent a more recent evolution; Scientology another.

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

And finally,


But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang, a supremely massive singularity came into existence from nowhere by bursting into equally massive amounts of matter and anti-matter (and, presumably, energy and an equivalent amount of anti-energy). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a magician's conjuring trick - there would have had to be a magician and an anti-magician, of course) lots of the anti-matter disappeared so that, after it had all been annihilated again by collisions with matter, there was still enough matter and energy left behind to form the universe.

What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found. It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own. That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

[Thorne]

No!.. none of them add to the law...they just explain the law allready in existance.
You are trying to use sophistry yet again to twist what was written. When Jesus told them that he wasnt here to change the Law...its becuase it didnt need changing...becuase Love...loving thy nieghbor as thyself...was allready the law!
No sophistry involved at all. Mosaic law was far more involved than just that one statement, however noble it may be. Mosaic law also involved the preparation of foods, what kinds of clothes were permitted, how to treat one's bond-servants (slaves), and much more. The context of the Biblical text there makes it quite clear that Jesus was assuring the Jewish priests that he was not changing or discarding Mosaic Law.

[Thorne]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.
Have no fear, my friend. One reason I started this thread, which I stated at the first, was so no one could claim thread drift or relevance. It's all relevant as long as it deals with religion or atheism, preferably both in comparison.


Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction.
If you were describing the novel, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and talked about Randle Patrick McMurphy, the lead character, would you need to tell anyone that he was a fiction? No, because most people would know that the book was fiction. You would, however, describe him as some sort of lunatic or other.


As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.
Assuming that they WERE marvels and not a story made up to illustrate a point of religious belief. One would expect that, if all of the miracles and plagues which were inflicted upon Egypt by Moses had truly occurred there would be SOME mention of SOME of them at the appropriate time. Yet, despite fanatical searching by religious archeologists, not ONE of these has been confirmed.


You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.
I do understand that, MMI, believe me. Where I have difficulty is understanding why people, even some scientists, would accept these things purely on faith. To me it makes no sense.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other
I agree completely, unless you are asking for absolute proof. In science there are no absolute proofs, only evidence compounded upon evidence which all points to a probable truth.

And I think you mean scientific theories, not postulates. A postulate is a proposal which is assumed to be true as a basis for the formation of a logical chain of events. These usually occur in mathematics, such as in geometry. Euclid proposed five postulates which he used as the foundation for geometry. All of the other rules of geometry must be proven in accordance with these postulates. (I don't think I'm explaining it well. It's been a long day.)


Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.
The difference is that religious changes still involve invoking the untestable and unprovable. Scientific changes do not. Replacing the evil, death-dealing God of the Old Testament with the more loving God of the New Testament does nothing to prove the existence of either. In fact, if anything, it shows how man has made the gods in HIS image, rather than the reverse.


And finally,
... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang . . .
What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?
The point is that this is ONE explanation for what MIGHT have happened, based upon the observed results. No one claims that it is absolutely true, only that it is possible. WE DON'T KNOW. We may never know. How does one see beyond the beginning of time?

With the religious creation myths, whichever brand you prefer, the only answer for how did it start is, God did it! And they KNOW! They aren't searching for evidence to prove it, they aren't trying to devise other theories, they simply accept God without reservation.


So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found.
You make the same mistake here that I've been fighting all along: you assert, or at least imply, that atheism is a religious idea. It's not. It's simply saying, "I do not believe."


It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own.
Not when those others are trying to force those opinions down your throat.


That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged.
In their proper places: religion in the churches, science in the schools.


Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.
I agree, there can be no natural proof of the supernatural. And there can be no interaction between the supernatural and the natural, because once that happens, the supernatural becomes natural! It leaves a mark on the real world, one which can be seen, studied, learned from. Or, as is almost always the case, shown to be not supernatural at all, but only an unexpected natural phenomenon. (I say "almost" because there are, occasionally, some things which might not be explainable with the scientific understanding at the time. But there is also nothing that shows these things to be supernatural in origin.)

What theists need to understand is that science regards supernatural explanations as extraordinary claims, and thus they require extraordinary evidence. God did it just doesn't work.

[denuseri]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction. Clearly, he feels that is a stronger line of attack against believers. I do agree with his contention that religion has no place in science classes, however. Religion should be taught in religious education classes - which should be compulsory - as it is here (or was when I went to school).

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I enjoyed you explanation of how Newton's laws have been replaced to some extent by the Relativity Theories. And these in turn are under critical scrutiny now . You make the point that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. Yet there have been countless of conversions - both individual and en masse People believed in other gods before they began to worship Jehovah. Christianity started out among Jews who felt that their old religion has been superseded by the new one, and millions of pagans of different hues embraced it too. Mithraism is said by some to have been a "rehearsal" for Christianity. Islam also grew up from Judaism, Christianity and sundry pagan beliefs. Religions evolved and changed to reflect changing beliefs. Human sacrifice, for example, no longer occurs, because volcanoes no longer hold gods who need to be bought off. The Mormons represent a more recent evolution; Scientology another.

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

And finally,



... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang, a supremely massive singularity came into existence from nowhere by bursting into equally massive amounts of matter and anti-matter (and, presumably, energy and an equivalent amount of anti-energy). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a magician's conjuring trick - there would have had to be a magician and an anti-magician, of course) lots of the anti-matter disappeared so that, after it had all been annihilated again by collisions with matter, there was still enough matter and energy left behind to form the universe.

What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found. It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own. That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

I couldnt have said it better myself MMI thank you for this wonderful post...especially the last part!

[denuseri]

No sophistry involved at all. Mosaic law was far more involved than just that one statement, however noble it may be. Mosaic law also involved the preparation of foods, what kinds of clothes were permitted, how to treat one's bond-servants (slaves), and much more. The context of the Biblical text there makes it quite clear that Jesus was assuring the Jewish priests that he was not changing or discarding Mosaic Law.

Actually, it doesnt make anything clear other than...he is out right telling them that they were misinterpeted the Law if they didnt keep the law the way he called for it to be kept. Which means not throwing stones if you have any sin and loving thy nieghbor as one's self. Love is the basis for all of it.

[Thorne]

Actually, it doesnt make anything clear other than...he is out right telling them that they were misinterpeted the Law if they didnt keep the law the way he called for it to be kept. Which means not throwing stones if you have any sin and loving thy nieghbor as one's self. Love is the basis for all of it.

That's your interpretation. Which is fine. Others interpret it differently. Which is also fine. Some, the real hardcore fundamentalists, say the Bible is the literal word of God, not subject to interpretation but is absolutely true in every word and phrase.

The interesting part is that none of you can gainsay the others, since none of you have any evidence that your particular interpretation is any more right than the others. You each interpret according to your own feelings and beliefs. Many have those beliefs instilled in them from birth by their parents and priests. They believe they are right because they've been TOLD that they're right by others. They don't question, they don't think about it, they just parrot their elders.

The sad part is that many of them have no real clue as to what they are advocating, especially the literalists. They figure the Law is just the Ten Commandments, and that's all they worry about. In fact, Mosaic law involved hundreds of requirements, at almost every level of life. The most common answer I've heard from these literalists when confronted by this fact is, "Oh, those laws were nailed to the cross. They don't apply to Christians." Yet they have no basis for this claim other than they don't want to follow them.

Sadly, that's religion in America.

[denuseri]

I see that more along the lines of your interpetation of religion in America.



Especially considering I am not at all alone in my views conserning this paticular belief of the Christians, its basically part of the Lutheran Cannon.

Its obvious you have no real desire for actual secularism of any kind and are still refusing to acept any logic that doesnt fit your beliefs..so I guess we have reached the dead horse part of this discussion...yet again anyways.

I could pull like you did, quotes made out of context that perhaps show your true colors on the subject..stuff about "tossing us all out" and such, but what would be the point.

Instead Im going to pray that you one day find enough inner peace that you can one day see how you sound exactly like the fundamentalist people of faith you declaim.

[Thorne]

Especially considering I am not at all alone in my views conserning this paticular belief of the Christians, its basically part of the Lutheran Cannon.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was ONLY your interpretation. I'm aware that many provide the same, or similar, interpretation as you have stated.


Its obvious you have no real desire for actual secularism of any kind and are still refusing to acept any logic that doesnt fit your beliefs
I haven't seen any logical arguments that refute my comments. All I've seen is fairly typical religious dogma.


I could pull like you did, quotes made out of context that perhaps show your true colors on the subject..stuff about "tossing us all out" and such, but what would be the point.
I'm sure you're aware that the particular comment you note was not intended to be taken seriously. It was a light-hearted response to a light-hearted comment.


Instead Im going to pray that you one day find enough inner peace that you can one day see how you sound exactly like the fundamentalist people of faith you declaim.
LOL! Yeah, pray for the atheist. That works, doesn't it? But I do have inner peace. I don't have to worry that the act of admiring a woman's bottom is going to get me sent to hell to be tortured for eternity. What could be more peaceful?

[MMI]

At the moment, I don't think there is any more that can usefully be said. We are like a NFL team lining up against a soccer team. Both teams say it is they that play football, but neither will recognise the rules by which the other plays. The soccer team says, We play football because we are not allowed to use our hands. The gridiron teams say, We play football because ... actually I'm not sure why they think they play football, but they do.

Until there is acceptance that both sides have a valid set of rules, the competition cannot really begin.

[Thorne]

Until there is acceptance that both sides have a valid set of rules, the competition cannot really begin.
The rules are very simple, really. Provide compelling, testable evidence for your beliefs. That's it.

I'll go first. I don't believe. Therefore, no evidence needed.

Why do I not believe? Because there has never been any compelling, testable evidence for the existence of gods. I don't claim that there are no gods, just that there is no evidence for them. So prove me wrong! Show me the evidence.

And claiming that the gods cannot be measured because they are beyond the scope of science is just a cop out. If that were true then there would be no mechanism whereby people could even know that they exist, or what they want. If they interact at all with the natural world then they are not outside the scope of science. If they do not interact with the real word then they may as well not exist.

[MMI]

Those are your rules. A believer says, if you have faith, no evidence is necessary.

Then you say you don't believe. You claim no evidence is necessary to support your position. Likewise, I don't believe in capitalism: no justification of my stance is needed.

You say there is no evidence, but that is only because you reject what is offered. Yet you trot that same evidence out as tending to support the naturalist position. What? Hard proof for religions, but only evidence "tending to support" science (and that's only in your opinion). By the way, when did you verify Einstein's theories, or attend the CERN experiments? You must have seen them ... unless you are simply relying on what you have heard. How do you know I am real, scientifically, or that you are?

It is not a cop out to claim god is beyond science. That is what a god, by definition, is. At the very least, the uncaused cause, and what is your basis for saying the supernatural cannot interact with the natural. How can you prove that?

[Thorne]

Those are your rules. A believer says, if you have faith, no evidence is necessary.
Yeah, that's why they're called believers!


Then you say you don't believe. You claim no evidence is necessary to support your position. Likewise, I don't believe in capitalism: no justification of my stance is needed.
Justification is not evidence. But in fact you don't need either. It is quite possible to believe, or not believe, without either evidence or justification. That's what they call 'faith'.

If you elect NOT to believe in capitalism, it would be foolish of me to require you to prove non-capitalism. It would be impossible for you to prove that capitalism does not exist. You could provide all kinds of evidence which SUGGESTS that it does not exist, but that would not constitute proof. I, on the other hand, could provide a lot of data which shows that it DOES exist, and works to one degree or another. I could show documentation, make predictions based on capitalist principles, provide testable evidence for you to examine. I cannot prove it exists, since it is basically an intangible construct, but I can show that it is very probable that SOMETHING which we define as 'capitalism' seems to be there.


You say there is no evidence, but that is only because you reject what is offered.
I haven't been offered any evidence! I've heard anecdotes of believers, but that's not evidence. That's still just faith. I've heard claims that someone cannot conceive of the universe just blossoming into existence without some sort of Creator, but that's not evidence either. I've seen claims which says, "Look, we did this experiment, over and over, and it always comes out with this result, and the only possible conclusion is God," but in every case I've heard about the results were tainted by pre-existing bias, or by a lack of understanding of science. I don't reject claims of evidence out of hand, I try to explain WHY it does not constitute evidence for what is claimed.


Hard proof for religions, but only evidence "tending to support" science.
I never asked for hard proof of religion. Just testable evidence.


By the way, when did you verify Einstein's theories, or attend the CERN experiments?
I have done some study of some of Einsteins theories, those that I could understand, and I have seen data which supports them. Read about the history of the precession of Mercury, and the story of the planet Vulcan, for example. (Yes, it was once hypothesized, by scientists, that a large planet orbited inside the orbit of Mercury. It was named Vulcan, after the Roman God, not Spock's home planet.)

As for CERN, no, that stuff is WAY beyond my understanding. But it is NOT beyond the understanding of other scientists who are NOT involved in those experiments. THOSE scientists are reviewing the data, repeating experiments where feasible, and in general confirming or denying the results coming out of CERN. Yes, I have to trust the scientists on this, I admit that. BUT these scientists have hard data, actual evidence which undergoes rigorous testing. What evidence do the priests have?


How do you know I am real, scientifically, or that you are?
Actually, I don't know for certain that you ARE real. To me you're simply words and letters that appear on a screen. But I'm willing to take you on faith. ;)

As for myself, I can test myself, stick myself with pins to see if I'm there. Study myself in a mirror. So yeah, I'd have to say that I exist. But you'd have to come over to visit if you want to see the evidence. I warn you, it won't be pretty!


It is not a cop out to claim god is beyond science. That is what a god, by definition, is. At the very least, the uncaused cause, and what is your basis for saying the supernatural cannot interact with the natural. How can you prove that?
I didn't say that the supernatural CANNOT interact with the natural world, but that if it DOES interact it should leave evidence. What I did say was that IF the supernatural cannot, or does not, interact with the natural world, then its existence is moot. It has no bearing on our existence or our lives. If you claim that there is some kind of supernatural component which is a part of us (a soul, for example) then I would ask for evidence of this component. If it is within us, a part of us, then it is interacting with the natural world and there should be evidence for it.

[denuseri]

I think the problem here is Thorne is wishing to re-define the rules of logic, the rules of grammer, create whole new definitions for the words in use or not use but a portion of a definition etc....simply to avoid having to make any consession that his view has no more validity that that of any given theists; and instead of swallowing his pride when he is called on it...he decides to do the sophistry two step.

Which in effect makes any attempt to actually disscuss the subject with him...not worth the effort.

[MMI]

Ok - I'll try to offer something "testable":

1. A little girl, bright-eyed and vivacious, and a lump of meat and bone.

2. A finely balanced and highly complex cosmos, and a chaotic mass of gas and energy swirling in a lifeless void.

3. The miracles of the saints or inexplicable and random unnatural events

Believers will say that God gives life, created all things and is able to work miracles, of which there is much documentary evidence, by himself or through others.

I know what you will say, but you will not be able to justify any assertion that non-belief is a more rational consequence than faith. All you can do is say you consider it to be such: opinion not fact.

As for testabilty, you can test your own existence, but only to your own satisfaction, not to mine. Furthermore, you cannot test my existence because you do not know if I am a real entity or a figment of your own imagination. If you can't tell the difference between reality and imagination, you are hopelessly ill equipped to distinguish between supernatural and natural events.

I would be grateful, therefore if you would stop demanding proof of the unprovable, knowing that it cannot be provided, while hiding behind the argument that it is not possible to prove a negative when your own belief is questioned. Admit that your position is based on instinct alone, just as believers admit their position is based on faith. once we can do that, we might be able to make progress.

I'm impressed that you have studied Einstein: he's far too complicated for me - to be honest, I don't even understand the implications of e=mc^2. What does Einstein say about the causes of the Big Bang? What evidence did he produce?

You don't have to answer that: I notice you admit you take on trust the scientific explanations of people who have a vested interest in working out how the Big Bang happened, and as that is no different from believing the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or the leading rabbis or mullahs, you position has no better validity than the position of the faithful.

Your criticism of the faithful for unquestioning belief is looking pretty thin by now, so it doesn't seem to matter that you distinguish between "justification" (as I used the term in connection with capitalism) and "evidence" as you use it in your demand for evidence of the supernatural. If there is a difference, I contend that justification is a stricter requirement than evidence tending to support. But I think you missed my point (or ignored it). I was suggesting that a negative belief is, nevertheless, a belief.

Your response is that capitalism is a demonstrable phenomenon: my answer to that is, capitalism is, in fact, no more than the absence of any other economic system: it is, in fact, economic anarchy.

(I perceive a weakness in this analogy: capitalism has produced a workable economy, not the chaos I predicted for a natural cosmos produced by a Big Bang (but consider the economic meltdown around the western nations since 2008). But before you ask me to deal with that, you must show that my rejection of capitalism without any reason to do so is a sensible position to take, just like, as you said, "I don't believe [in god], therefore, no evidence needed."

It seems to me that you are still behaving like the soccer team which says to the gridiron team lined up against it: "We play the 'real football', so you must play by our rules. Your rules are not valid because we say so."

When we have resolved whether matters of faith are best considered in terms of evidence or belief, then we can consider them and "test" the faith of the believers against the denials of the non-believers.

[Thorne]

1. A little girl, bright-eyed and vivacious, and a lump of meat and bone.
Actually, I have two young granddaughters, both bright-eyed and vivacious. They are wonderful, beautiful, and made of matter which was once buried deep inside of stars. Ultimately, however, like all of us, they will one day be nothing but meat and bones, no life remaining in them. I hope that day will be a very, very long time coming, but I see nothing "testable" about their existence as relates to gods.


2. A finely balanced and highly complex cosmos, and a chaotic mass of gas and energy swirling in a lifeless void.
Finely balanced? Perhaps. There is some evidence which shows that certain universal constants are at just the values necessary to build this universe. So what? How many times did the universe come into existence without those values so tuned, leaving barren and empty space to await the birth of another universe, with slightly different values? Again, nothing testable to show evidence of gods.


3. The miracles of the saints or inexplicable and random unnatural events
Ever noticed how, as science has learned more and more about the universe the numbers of "miracles" have declined? Don't you wonder why that is? But at least this would be testable. Except that, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, every 'miracle' which has been tested has been shown to be coincidence, placebo effects, mass hysteria or fraud. Not one has been shown to defy the laws of nature.


Believers will say that God gives life, created all things and is able to work miracles, of which there is much documentary evidence, by himself or through others.
There is much anecdotal evidence, certainly. But testable? Not so much.


I know what you will say, but you will not be able to justify any assertion that non-belief is a more rational consequence than faith. All you can do is say you consider it to be such: opinion not fact.
I agree, it is my opinion. Based upon evidence, not wishful thinking.


As for testabilty, you can test your own existence, but only to your own satisfaction, not to mine. Furthermore, you cannot test my existence because you do not know if I am a real entity or a figment of your own imagination. If you can't tell the difference between reality and imagination, you are hopelessly ill equipped to distinguish between supernatural and natural events.
I'm not going to argue psychological hocus-pocus. I don't know enough about it, in the first place. But in effect I agree: we do have to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination. Which is why I am an atheist.


I would be grateful, therefore if you would stop demanding proof of the unprovable, knowing that it cannot be provided, while hiding behind the argument that it is not possible to prove a negative when your own belief is questioned.
I'm not demanding proof, just testable evidence. As for proving a negative, we are talking about proving that something does not exist. One can provide evidence that makes it unlikely that something exists, and even evidence which makes it probably that something does not exist. But absolute proof? Can't be done.


Admit that your position is based on instinct alone, just as believers admit their position is based on faith.
Not sure what you mean by "instinct" here. My position is based on my understanding of the evidence.


I'm impressed that you have studied Einstein: he's far too complicated for me - to be honest, I don't even understand the implications of e=mc^2.
Sadly, he's far too complicated for me, though I do understand at least SOME of the implications of his famous equation.


What does Einstein say about the causes of the Big Bang? What evidence did he produce?
I don't know that Einstein had anything to say about the cause of the Big Bang. I have heard many hypotheses about possible causes, each more fantastic than the last, but to my knowledge there is no evidence for any of them. I don't know that we will ever be able to delve that far back into time so as to answer that question. It is just as fair to claim that God caused it as anything else. There is no evidence for any of the speculations.


you position has no better validity than the position of the faithful.
Except, again, that my position is based on testable evidence. Their positions are, generally, contradictory and based upon... What?


I was suggesting that a negative belief is, nevertheless, a belief.
I understand that. But I still claim that a negative belief is not the same as a LACK of belief.


Your response is that capitalism is a demonstrable phenomenon: my answer to that is, capitalism is, in fact, no more than the absence of any other economic system: it is, in fact, economic anarchy.
I'm not an economist, but isn't it true that we can measure the effects of capitalism? And that a capitalist economy can co-exist with other economies around the world? We can measure the effects of all of these economies, and even the effects of interactions between these economies.


But before you ask me to deal with that, you must show that my rejection of capitalism without any reason to do so is a sensible position to take, just like, as you said, "I don't believe [in god], therefore, no evidence needed."
I must have misunderstood. You're rejecting it without reason? I don't think that's sensible at all! You cannot claim it does not exist, as there is ample evidence for it. You can, perhaps, make the case that it is a failed system, providing evidence for that position, but you cannot provide evidence that it does not exist! Even if it didn't exist you could not provide any such evidence.


When we have resolved whether matters of faith are best considered in terms of evidence or belief, then we can consider them and "test" the faith of the believers against the denials of the non-believers.
Of course matters of faith can only be considered in terms of belief! If we could find evidence to justify and test them, then they would no longer be matters of faith but of reality. It's why we no longer consider the Earth to be the center of the universe. We've tested it and found reality.

[denuseri]

What did I tell ya...the sophistry two step in effect.

Where is all your evidence Thorne? You just said you had some... yet again...I would love to see it..Ive asked for it every time you mentioned it and the best you have is you cant prove anything...or that you refuse to.

Well?

[Thorne]

Where is all your evidence Thorne? You just said you had some... yet again...I would love to see it..Ive asked for it every time you mentioned it and the best you have is you cant prove anything...or that you refuse to.
Well?
I've given plenty of evidence, but just for you:
- Virtually every supernatural explanation for events in the world has been explained as being NATURAL events.
- There are hundreds of different religious sects around the world, perhaps thousands through history. ALL of them differ among themselves as to the nature of God.
- Despite thousands of years of trying, theists have not been able to provide a single compelling bit of evidence FOR the existence of gods. Lots of stories, many claims of visions, but no hard evidence. And even many of the stories (Noah, Moses, even Jesus, for example) are eerily similar to stories from earlier religions.
- Descriptions of God have become weaker. The Biblical God used to destroy blasphemers, villages, cities, whole nations, with a single word. Hell, he supposedly destroyed the whole world in a fit of pique. Now? "Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church." - Ebon Muse

All of these, and many more, provide pretty compelling (to me, anyway) evidence that God, as defined by his believers, not only does not but CAN NOT exist. Whether or not some form of supernatural deity DOES exist is, of course, impossible to determine. As many have said, such a thing is beyond our ability to determine. What CAN be determined is that such a being does NOT interact with our world in any measurable, meaningful way.

[denuseri]

I've given plenty of evidence, but just for you:
- Virtually every supernatural explanation for events in the world has been explained as being NATURAL events.

According to who? And what says that it wasn't "god" who cuased the event using natural means?

- There are hundreds of different religious sects around the world, perhaps thousands through history. ALL of them differ among themselves as to the nature of God.

If anything it looks to me as if more and more they move to one day coming to a consensus as too the "nature" of god. And what "god" wants us to do as a species. So thats not evidence of anything other than many different people having different opinions and perspectives and has zero to do with weather or not a god or gods exists...so much as what that god/s is and says we are to do. If anything its much more compelling evidence for the existance of such rather than against it.

- Despite thousands of years of trying, theists have not been able to provide a single compelling bit of evidence FOR the existence of gods. Lots of stories, many claims of visions, but no hard evidence. And even many of the stories (Noah, Moses, even Jesus, for example) are eerily similar to stories from earlier religions.

If your refering to Genisis and the Tale of Giglimesh that makes sence sence Abraham was from the city of Ur, so its quite natural those people and the jews have similar stories for the creation and flood...not too mention, the flood tale in one form or another is pretty much an allmost world wide ppenomena which only makes it more compelling. And your leaving out all the eyewitness testemonies made by countless people that were recorded sometimes directly by the people themselves (like Paul in the Bible) etc. We historians and anthropologists often have even less evidence to go on than things such as that which were written by people and left behind or preserved. Additonally there are Biblical scholars and scientiests who would flat out say your wrong and that many such things have been found (like the temple of solomon) confirming eneough in their learned opinions to be just as valid as any other assumptions conserning mans past made by non-biblical scientiests...like where Troy was or how Julias Ceaser died.

- Descriptions of God have become weaker. The Biblical God used to destroy blasphemers, villages, cities, whole nations, with a single word. Hell, he supposedly destroyed the whole world in a fit of pique. Now? "Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church." - Ebon Muse

Back to trying to insult people again I see. Your also leaving out the very strong descriptions of God that go on every day according to many other peoples viewpoints...so strong infact that billions of people world wide feel compelled to believe them. Again your evidence is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. A rather blasie paper tiger of sophistry with no "real" teeth.

All of these, and many more, provide pretty compelling (to me, anyway) evidence that God, as defined by his believers, not only does not but CAN NOT exist. Whether or not some form of supernatural deity DOES exist is, of course, impossible to determine. As many have said, such a thing is beyond our ability to determine. What CAN be determined is that such a being does NOT interact with our world in any measurable, meaningful way.

So as perviously stated...you have no real evidence only theory and conjecture based on nothing more than your own opinion and the opinion of those few who share your beliefs, whose assumptions one can say are equally empty in the evidence department. So what makes you any defferent from a thesist...what makes your opinion the only right one?

[Thorne]

According to who? And what says that it wasn't "god" who cuased the event using natural means?
According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.


So thats not evidence of anything other than many different people having different opinions and perspectives and has zero to do with weather or not a god or gods exists
No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.


If your refering to Genisis and the Tale of Giglimesh
No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.


the flood tale in one form or another is pretty much an allmost world wide ppenomena
Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.


And your leaving out all the eyewitness testemonies
No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands.


like Paul in the Bible
Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?


Additonally there are Biblical scholars and scientiests who would flat out say your wrong and that many such things have been found
Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ.


billions of people world wide feel compelled to believe them.
So if billions of people believe them they must be true? How about only one billion? Would that make something true? Well, according to this site (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) there are about 1.1 billion "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" people. I guess we have enough numbers to satisfy your requirements?

The numbers of people who may or may not believe something is irrelevant to the truth of that belief. How many people actually believed the Second Coming was going to happen last month? Didn't happen. How many people still claim to believe the world will end in 2012 because of the Mayan Calendar? Doesn't mean it's true.


So what makes you any defferent from a thesist...what makes your opinion the only right one?
I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

[denuseri]

According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

Science? What science has proved god doesnt exist? Hummm? I didnt think so. Sounds like your using just as much wishful thinking as any thesist. My point is...your making an assumption too and one that has no more basis in fact than anyone elses in so far as the topic is conserned.


No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

Its not compelling to the thiests now is it. Again...its a matter of opinion...not fact.


No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.


Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

That doesnt mean it didnt happen in so far as the thiests are conserned...and you have no evidence to say it didnt happen anyways.


No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. (to you) To the thiests they are all the evidence they need apparently. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands. Many scholars on this subject disagree with your interpetation of their findings however.


Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Again...thats a matter of opinion...and not part of written history...its your belief...but not the belief of the theists. And its no more valid than theirs eaither.


Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ. Again...when you pick and choose your evidence as you see fit without bothering to really see if there is any validity too it and exclude all evidence that supports the theists...you take much on faith...your faith apparently mainly lays with those who hate religion, any religion, becuase it isnt atheism.


So if billions of people believe them they must be true?


I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

And yet again more insults.

I didnt say anything about true or that one had to have a certian number of people who share their beliefs...just that people should be allowed to believe what they wish on the matter since no proof exists to the contrary. If I bring up numbers its to simply point out that the "atheists" are not in the majority...you lumped a whole bunch of people who are not "atheists" into the same pice of the pie chart in an attempt to bolster your sides appeareance.

When you make use of sophistry and avoid all logic and continue to take at position full of belicose rehtoric thats no different from the religious zealotry you claim to be against you look exactly like the opposite side of the same fundamentalist coin from my perspective.

And when you call everyone who doesnt share your beliefs hoodwinked, or a dummy...you sure are not preaching tolerance or secularism...you are indeed saying if its not your way...its wrong.

[Thorne]

Well, denuseri, as usual we are running around in circles here. I ask you for evidence that gods exist and you give me nothing but pleas for respect. When I show you evidence which conflicts with religious belief you deny it, in favor of belief. And you want me to show evidence that something does NOT exist, without you providing evidence that it does!

Well, lets try this, then. I believe there is an invisible pink unicorn living in your living room. You can't see it, feel it or touch it. You can't smell it or hear it. It doesn't eat, and doesn't eliminate wastes. But it IS there! And it want's you to pray to it.

Now, PROVE to me that the unicorn does NOT exist! You might also want to look up Russell's Teapot while your at it.

The problem with faith is that you are not arguing from a rational position. You make grandiose claims based on little other than what feels good. You hide under a blanket of respect and tolerance, then get upset when someone comes along and doesn't show respect or tolerance for your beliefs. Your world view is so steeped in your religious beliefs that you cannot comprehend someone NOT having religious beliefs. So you constantly misrepresent my position as a belief rather than non-belief.

I'm beginning to think that you might be afraid to accept even the idea that there MIGHT not be any gods. So any evidence, any logical constructs, which threaten your beliefs are summarily discarded as "opinions". You will not, or can not, provide any evidence other than "billions of people believe" to support your god stories, yet you demand absolute proof that the pink unicorn doesn't exist.

One of the complaints I've heard from other atheists regarding arguing with Creationists is that the Creationists continuously throw out claim after claim, without evidence or citation, demanding that scientists prove this or that. Then, when scientists start to show them evidence, they quickly jump off to another topic altogether, again tossing out multiple claims without taking a breath, and demanding answers immediately. Then, when the scientists start to answer, the Creationists go back to their original questions, as if they hadn't already been answered. (It's called the "Gish Gallop" and you might want to look that up, too.) I feel like I'm getting a better understanding of the process.

So I'm going to make a simple request. Show me YOUR proofs of gods. ANY gods. Make sure it is testable proof, something which can be examined and studied and which has no other possible explanation. If you can do that I will gladly admit that I was wrong, and that there are indeed gods.

(For the record, the "invisible pink unicorn" is not my creation. It's a challenge given to kids attending Camp Quest, a summer camp for the children of non-theist parents.)

[denuseri]

I dont have to provide anything...Im not the one saying that Gods do not exist or that it has to be something scientifically provable for someone to respect someone elses beliefs. Im not the one bucking the majority belief or who is trying to bring in a new viewpoint or make any such claim that God exists or does not.

We both know the only reason you dont wish to call your viewpoint a belief or you deny that you yourself dont have any faith (ie trust) in something you personally havent proved via science (probabely becuase you cant since your not a physicist or cosmologist etc :so you have no recourse but to have faith that what such scientists are telling you in laymans terms is correct etc) is becuase you know according to the rules of the english language and the current definitions of said word usage and its definitions...that you would outright loose any argument according to the coresponding way that rehtoric functions with logic of any kind under the Scrutiny of the Socratic method. ( which means your basically arguing useing pure sophistry 101) Becuase your view point is by defualt... of equatible value (all else considered when no proof of validity is capable of being provided by eaither side in a argument of ideals) as the theist's own views in any such discussion. Yet your own position is one that theirs is inheriently wrong...so you simpley cant abide any such distinguishment as a possiblitity...which is why to overcome the paradox...you basically make things up and try to have them sound favorably to you. Since such onesided positions between equally valid positions have only one solution absent verifiable proof you dont wish to appear as the bad guy you hence obscure any attempts to point out this fact. You may or may not be consiously aware of this (despite many attempts to point it out to you) but thats becuase its human nature 101 to act that way...something Socrates and Plato found to be really unproductive for the purposes of actual intelectual exchanges which is why they campaigned so ardhently against the position of the sophists.

And again your making a lot of assumptions conserning my personal beliefs...most of them are dead wrong btw.

The main reason I come out in defence of the theists in these threads isnt to expouse a personal belief in god on my part. It is to point out the hypocricy of the atheists position when it is presented in the manner in which you have been doing.

Its oneseided, its uses sophistry, its belicose, it shows an extreme lack of respect for the beliefs of others if they do not coincide with their own and it appeares to be mired in the exact same kind of zealotry as any fundamentalist religion that it wishes to de-claim; all without a single shread of any proof that it's claims are any better than anyone elses.

The only logically conclussion then would be to promote secularism.

But for that to work it requires that all parties recognize the fact that no side is the only right side or in lue of that that their belief in the other side being wrong is no reason to try and take away their right to hold their viewpoints and pracrice their belief system whatever it may be within their dominion as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting anyone else what does it matter anyway.

Thankfully I live in a country that does that very thing.

[Thorne]

Thankfully I live in a country that does that very thing.
Yeah, for now (http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm)!

[denuseri]

Sorry I dont personally give see any veracity from unreputable scources regardless of which side presents them.

[Thorne]

From what I've seen you don't put much faith in reputable sources, either. But don't trust me, don't trust my links. Look it up yourself. Hell, just watch the news, especially the news of some of the political candidates. They are all but demanding we pull back from the guaranteed separation of church and state in order to set up a "biblically correct" government. If that should happen it would only be a short step before dissenters like me are arrested as heretics, and possibly executed, in accordance with "God's will." Jews and Muslims, I'm sure, wouldn't be far behind, and even those of the Baha'i faith wouldn't be likely to escape.

THAT is what I'm arguing against, the establishment of a legal system based on ancient mythology instead of on rational science. We've seen the horrific results of such a theistic government in the Taliban. We don't need that kind of terror and hatred here. Yet if we do NOT oppose the fundamentalists, do not show their beliefs to be fallacious and evil, we will all to soon have that same kind of repression in the US. And it will, of course, all be according to "God's will." THEIR God, not yours.

[denuseri]

Oh I am well versed in differentiating between reputable sources and their counterparts...even had formal trainning on making such distinctions in college, you dont get far there without making good use of that skill set.

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.

Such an attitude and approach doesnt support a secular state and only fans the flames against it, breeding intolerance.

And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.

And regardless of your wishes to the contrary, atheism when used in such fashion is in every way defined as system of belief. It may not be religious in nature, one may call it a philosophy, but it is a belief system all the same since it takes on all the qualities there of.

And based upon how the athiests comport themselves in expression of thought, word, and deed its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious, that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography in support there of until all religions everywhere are abolished and replaced by what the athiests want in its stead.

Which I can only imagine will resemble something like what happened in all other states who adopted such a poliecy...religious persecution, fear, and terrorism of the poulace...mass punnishment...all for what one believes as opposed to what they do.

Which is imho quite ironically hypocritical of the atheists all things considered.

I base my position soley on what I have witnessed not only here from you but via direct observation in many other venues including books written by pomiment atheists and other academics about the subject.

When one says they want seculaism our of one side of their mouth while they then do everything intheir power to oppose it, one in effect becomes imho just as bad as any religious zealot since it appears then that what one wants in actually practice is something based upon their own system as opposed to secularism to become dominat.


Which is why I personally take a dislike to such zealotry becuase it makes them in every way the same as the worst of those they take their views against, it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.


And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner, especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it...I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.

[Thorne]

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.
You are absolutely right. But it also doesn't require me to respect everyone's beliefs just because they have them. I can respect a person for himself, can respect another person's rights, without having to respect a belief which I find ridiculous.


And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.
Don't paint me with that brush! I have never proposed a state with only one belief system. Like the founders of the US seem to have intended, I have always proposed where everyone's beliefs, or non-belief, are given fair and equal treatment within the law. Personally, I wouldn't be dismayed by the eventual decline and disappearance of religious thought, but it's not something I would want to force upon anyone.


its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious,
No, that's not what I've said. Just keep it in its place, where it belongs. Religion belongs in church, or in the homes of believers, or in the hearts of believers, NOT in the science class, or the government.


that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith
Again, that's not what I've claimed. All I've said is that parents do NOT have the right to force OTHER children to be taught what they believe by forcing those beliefs into the school system. Again, while I think parents may be harming their children by NOT teaching them to be critical thinkers about everything, including religion, I don't say they shouldn't be permitted to raise their children religiously.


or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography
They are free to display any iconography they wish, as long as it is not on property owned by the City/State/Country. Those properties belong to EVERYONE, not just one religion. And even there, I would pull back from some of the more radical elements and say that I don't see any problem with, for example, a Church putting up a Christmas display, provided they get the necessary permits, pay for all of the labor and materials, and properly remove the display when the season ends. And that would also include the rights of a Temple to mount a Hanukkah display, and the rights of the local Mosque to put up a Ramadan display. EVERYONE has the same rights, or none can. THAT is where most communities run into trouble. They want their manger scene, but don't want an equivalent Muslim, or Hindu, or non-christian themed display.

I have to run now. I'll try to get to the rest of the post later. In short, though, I don't think we're that far apart. You just don't like my tone.

[Thorne]

it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.
You are aware, I'm sure, that those colonists who were fleeing religious persecution were being persecuted by other religions? Even other Christians? And I'm sure you'll agree that the vast majority of those who fled Communism did so for political and economic reasons, not for religious reasons, or at least not ONLY for religious reasons.


And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner,
You have to admit that I'm fair, though! I treat all religious beliefs which are based on faith instead of evidence the same way. I don't discriminate.


especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it.
I'm sure I've posted this link (http://whatstheharm.net/)before. It shows some of the harmful effects of different kinds of actions, or inaction. There's a whole section on religions. I'm not saying that ALL beliefs are harmful, only that some are, so claiming they won't hurt anyone is wrong.


..I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.
I will also defend people's rights to have a belief, and to express it within the constraints of the law (you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless there really IS a fire!) And, because I don't see any humane way to prevent it, I would even defend the rights of parents to teach their faith to their children, at home or in church or in parochial schools. But there have to be lines drawn, if for no other reason than to protect children from being harmed in the name of religion. Read some of the stories from that link to understand what I'm talking about.

[Thorne]

I want to speak to the idea that religious ideas are deserving of respect. Those here who have read my posts know my views, and that I have no respect for any idea which not only flies in the face of reality but does so without any real, testable evidence. Every claim I've ever heard from theists start with the assumption that God exists, and any evidence which might deny that existence must be wrong. Science starts with the question, "Does God exist?" If you assume that he does, the next question must be, "How do we prove it."

Yes, you can claim that the existence of God is a matter of faith, not science, and therefore doesn't require evidence. Which is fine. But if God cannot be proven through scientific means then God has no place in a science classroom. Without evidence you cannot claim that a hurricane, or tornado, or a flood, are God's punishment for something you don't happen to like. Without evidence God has to be withdrawn from our concept of the natural world and placed into the supernatural world.

Again, this is fine as far as it goes. I wouldn't deride someone just for believing. But when someone tries to tell me that the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other theological text, is absolutely true and must be accepted as the Word of God, I'll laugh and poke fun. Not because THEY accept it as such, but because they are trying to tell me that I must accept it as well.

And then there are the REAL kooks: (Note - to keep from having to many hyperlinks I'll post the URL's without the links.)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 - This first is Dr. William Lane Craig. When asked how he can reconcile the concept of a just and loving god with the idea that God commanded the Israelite army to destroy the Canaanites then living in the Promised Land, "every man, woman, and child". After a rather long and rambling statement about the inerrancy of the Bible and the justice an love of his God, he comes to this lovely gem:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
Say what? He feels no sympathy for the "evil" Canaanite adults who watched their children being slaughtered, or for the innocent children who may have witnessed their mothers and sisters being raped and killed. No, his concern is for the soldiers who had to do the killing! Is this deserving of my respect? Absolutely not!

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9554506 - The second is Pat Robinson, speaking about the Haitian earthquake last year. Watch the video, if you haven't seen it already. Basically, he claims that the Haitian people made a deal with Satan to help them get out from under French oppression, and they've been cursed ever since. Apparently God wasn't helping them, so they had to go for number two. Is this kind of thinking deserving of respect? I think not.

The last, for now, involves the recent End Times Prophecy of Harold Camping.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/robert-fitzpatrick_n_861529.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1083045,b=facebook - This man, who happens to be my age, spent his entire life savings on an ad campaign for this. I truly feel sorry for the guy, but seriously, what the hell was he thinking?
There were others (I can't find the links now.) Like the couple who sold their home and are staying in a motel in Florida with their child, with one on the way. They had budgeted their money so they would spend their last dollar on May 21. Wonder what they were doing on the 22nd?
Or the couple who depleted their daughters' college funds, to send to Camping, on the premise that they wouldn't need it. This despite the objections of the two daughters.

Anyone think those things are deserving of respect? Anyone believe no one was harmed by Camping's religion?

[denuseri]

I think your still trying to paint all religious adherents with the same brush however. And that brush is dripping with all the things I mentioned that you hate most about religions...atheist dogma that doesnt support secularism but speaks against it which only ever points to the bad, and allways overlooks the overwhelming ammount of good religions have brought us.

As for the anti religious movement of the Soviets...People who were stuanchly communist in every other ideological way outside of their religious faith had to leave, hide or die. I' m married to a man whose elders on his fathers side had to flee Russia for places abroad for no other reason than they believed in a god and the atheist goverment wouldnt tollerate it.

Just like some of the realitives on my greatgrandfathers side had to flee the Pale for palistine and my mother and I when too little to understand it all had to flee lebanon, that we all had to flee or be killed for our beliefs or that we were born jewish etc was far more of an issue I can assure you than what the beliefs were of the people who made us flee. Athesist or religious or as in the case of my moms mother in WW2 "racial purity" were all equally hateful and intollerant idologies to us.

I could care less about what religions or atheists have done in the past however...this isnt back then...this is now. I only point to the past to show what happened and what could happen if intollerant ideologies are supported. We live in a secular society today, most nations in the weastrn world have learned thats prefferable to abolishment of personal beliefs or exclusion of all others save the one and is in fact a human right.

I also see nothing wrong with people in a community teaching their children what they wish to teach them in the schools that they pay for with their local taxes so long as they also teach respect and tollerance and do so in an objective fashion. Like this is the "theory" of evolution and it entails this... etc etc...here is the evidence some scientists have gathered for it etc etc...and this is the theory of the creationists...most creationists explanations express belief in a god or gods to be envolved with the making of our world via some form of intellegent design etc etc....and this is the theory of some of the early philosophers in greece who believed that the world was made of a subtance called ether.... etc etc you get the picture.

Above all that though...I believe that the children in any school, private or state funded, should be tuaght to be objective and tollerant and respectful of everyone's beliefs, theories, ideologies etc etc whatever they may be, becuase when they are not...they are indeed being shown its ok to be intolerant and not to respect others...they are in effect being groomed for the very thing that tears secularism down in a place...as it was in the country of my birth.

[Thorne]

I think your still trying to paint all religious adherents with the same brush however.
No, I'm not. I've specifically said that I don't believe all theists are evil. Or even that all religions are evil. I just think there are evil things done in the name of religion which are far less likely to occur under other circumstances.


[B][COLOR="pink"]atheist dogma
LOL! There's an atheist dogma? Why haven't I been told about this? I guess you have to attend the atheist church before they let you in on the secret.


which only ever points to the bad, and allways overlooks the overwhelming ammount of good religions have brought us.
I've never denied that religious organizations can do good. Mostly because they are made up of people who want to do good things for their communities. And yes, religious groups generally are more tolerant of outsiders (with a few notable exceptions) than in the past. This has more to do with adjusting to the mores of their constituents, mores which come from outside the Church, than from any inner workings of the religious establishment. I point out the bad things to do with religion because all too often those things are hushed up by religious organizations, like the RCC's protection of pedophile priests, or of priests raping nuns in some 3rd world countries. And these things happen in other religious organizations, too. We seldom hear about them because the parents of those children who were harmed are so besotted with their religion that they either refuse to believe a priest could do such a thing, or because they are forced by the Church to sign confidentiality agreements or risk excommunication.

But none of that stuff is exclusive to religion, I agree. It happens everywhere. The difference is that religious organizations and leaders attempt to take the moral high ground, claiming to speak for God, to do God's work, while performing unspeakable evils, or covering up those evils.


As for the anti religious movement of the Soviets...People who were stuanchly communist in every other ideological way outside of their religious faith had to leave, hide or die. I' m married to a man whose elders on his fathers side had to flee Russia for places abroad for no other reason than they believed in a god and the atheist goverment wouldnt tollerate it.
I'm sure you know more about these things than I do. But the Soviet model was not so much atheist as Stalinist, replacing God with the supreme Soviet. Just like Chinese Communism replaced God with Mao, and Cuban communism replacing God with Castro. While these states were not religious, and even anti-religious, they were far from any kind of atheist ideal.


We live in a secular society today, most nations in the weastrn world have learned thats prefferable to abolishment of personal beliefs or exclusion of all others save the one and is in fact a human right.
I agree with all of that! But in the US right now there is a movement to make this country a theocracy! This movement has captured the right wing of the Republican party, and is threatening to take control of the government. THAT is what I am fighting against. I do not, and most atheists I know do not, advocate abolishing religion. We only want to keep religions, ALL religions, where they belong!


I also see nothing wrong with people in a community teaching their children what they wish to teach them in the schools that they pay for with their local taxes so long as they also teach respect and tollerance and do so in an objective fashion.
This is fine as long as you have a unified community. All Christian, or all Muslim, or all atheist. Muslim citizens pay taxes to support schools and governments, too. Why should they and their children be forced to endure Christian ideology? Atheists pay taxes, and don't want their children inundated with ANY theology.


Like this is the "theory" of evolution and it entails this... etc etc...here is the evidence some scientists have gathered for it etc etc...and this is the theory of the creationists...most creationists explanations express belief in a god or gods to be envolved with the making of our world via some form of intellegent design etc etc....
Except that Creationism is NOT a theory. It is an ideology. It makes no testable claims, has no evidence for the claims it does make, and presupposes a God without any evidence for such a being. Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed up in science-like terms. I listened to a debate about teaching ID in schools and the ID proponent admitted that ID has no real theory to base their "science" on! As the science proponent said (paraphrasing), What are you going to teach? Some people believe a god or gods created the universe 6000 years ago. Then what? You have no evidence to review, no experiments to run, no discoveries to make. Sure, a teacher could take 5 minutes at the beginning of the term to spout out all the different creation beliefs, saying for each one, "This is not science." But what's the point?


Above all that though...I believe that the children in any school, private or state funded, should be tuaght to be objective and tollerant and respectful of everyone's beliefs, theories, ideologies etc etc whatever they may be,
Objective and tolerant, yes. And teach them to think critically, to question everything and everyone, regardless of position. And teach them to respect other people in general, of course. Treat others as you would like to be treated. But I don't extend that respect to beliefs which I consider to be silly: like the 'thetans' of Scientology, or the inscribed golden plates which only Joseph Smith could read, or the global flood of the Judeo/Christian mythology. If you are going to base your life on silly stories, how are you any different from the ridiculous 'trekkies' who live in their own fantasy world.

[Thorne]

denuseri, just ran across this quotation and thought it rather apropos. Lest you think that I'm the only asshole around!

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
[Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991]

[Thorne]

Another quote I ran across just now. (Honest, I'm not searching for these, just coming across them in my reading. I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!)

"…once a person admits to not believing in God, this raises the question of whether or not that person believes in America . . ."
[Chief spokesman for National office of the Boy Scouts]

Is this the kind of tolerance and respect that we can expect from theists? It's certainly typical of what I've seen for myself.

[denuseri]

No, I'm not. I've specifically said that I don't believe all theists are evil. Or even that all religions are evil. I just think there are evil things done in the name of religion which are far less likely to occur under other circumstances.

And history has shown that you are wrong...that evil is done regardless of if a religion is being practiced or not, that when one relpaces religion with something else...such as atheism, evil still gets done, in fact... by some perspectives it seems to get done even easier than before.


LOL! There's an atheist dogma? Why haven't I been told about this? I guess you have to attend the atheist church before they let you in on the secret.

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.

I've never denied that religious organizations can do good.

No you just pointedly overlook it or blandize it as being becuase of something other than the having to do with the poeples faith involved with it as a sophistic tatctic to agrandize the position of the atheists over that of all others. As evidenced by your statement imediately following this one above where you procceed to do that very thing:

Mostly because they are made up of people who want to do good things for their communities. And yes, religious groups generally are more tolerant of outsiders (with a few notable exceptions) than in the past. This has more to do with adjusting to the mores of their constituents, mores which come from outside the Church, than from any inner workings of the religious establishment. I point out the bad things to do with religion because all too often those things are hushed up by religious organizations, like the RCC's protection of pedophile priests, or of priests raping nuns in some 3rd world countries. And these things happen in other religious organizations, too. We seldom hear about them because the parents of those children who were harmed are so besotted with their religion that they either refuse to believe a priest could do such a thing, or because they are forced by the Church to sign confidentiality agreements or risk excommunication.

But none of that stuff is exclusive to religion, I agree. It happens everywhere. The difference is that religious organizations and leaders attempt to take the moral high ground, claiming to speak for God, to do God's work, while performing unspeakable evils, or covering up those evils.

Atheists try to take the same exact high ground only basing their suposition on that of man himself and his ability to reason or by replacing it with "science" or belief in a philosophical dogma of some kind. All while commiting equally unspeakable evil acts or covering them up!

I'm sure you know more about these things than I do.

Which is why I correct you when you try to seperate the atheists from the communists in such manner as you do bellow. such a distinction is not something the communists themselves do:

But the Soviet model was not so much atheist as Stalinist, replacing God with the supreme Soviet. Just like Chinese Communism replaced God with Mao, and Cuban communism replacing God with Castro. While these states were not religious, and even anti-religious, they were far from any kind of atheist ideal.

Really? They fit the ideal of the atheists in those regions just fine. There are you are aware of different kinds of atheist sects just like their are differnt political, scientific, philosophical and religious factions. The communists were plain and simple atheists...they never advocated the "whoreship" of any of the things you just described they made no religion around them, they started no churches, etc etc. They are a prime example of what a communist state that embraces atheism ends up looking like.

I agree with all of that! But in the US right now there is a movement to make this country a theocracy!

Its not a right now thing anymore than it was back when we founded the country. The current evangelical movement lost most of the wind in its sails amongst the GOP back when Bush Jr left office...he basically ruined that approach for a long time to come for anyone who would follow...a much more non-religious affiliated canidate was chosen to run in the next primary who did not recieve the evangelicals advocacy so much as the more moderate portion of the parties support...much to the chagrin of the evangelicals I might add since we came out in droves against them... which evidenced this lack of influence in even the far right of the party which has traditionally been orientated twoards being fiscally conservative as well as politically conservative...which means not changeing a good thing like freedom of religion. Being republican in other words does not = being a theist or an evangelical, unlike the communists who only embraced one non-secular replacement for all religions (ie atheism) the republicans in general believe in freedom of religion in the manner in which the founding fathers intended it. You will also note that during Bush's administration no one took over the government and made the usa into a anything even remotely rsembling a theocracy...we still have our freedom of religion intact in full. And not becuase some valient athiest stood on the steps of the capital with a gun and a flag in each hand eaither...but becuase the republicans themselves would never support any such measure.

This movement has captured the right wing of the Republican party, and is threatening to take control of the government.

No it hasnt the right wing of the party has way more non-evangelicals in its ranks than you wish to give us credit for.

THAT is what I am fighting against.

Then fight against that instead of attacking all religions in general.

I do not, and most atheists I know do not, advocate abolishing religion. We only want to keep religions, ALL religions, where they belong!

Which I can only assume from the actual dogma of said atheists isnt ussually what they want one to think it is, since most of the rehtoric I see them use is anything other than secular.


This is fine as long as you have a unified community. All Christian, or all Muslim, or all atheist. Muslim citizens pay taxes to support schools and governments, too. Why should they and their children be forced to endure Christian ideology? Atheists pay taxes, and don't want their children inundated with ANY theology.

And in those areas where people dont want it they have changed the laws to accomadate them despite their minority status in said areas. God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.

Except that Creationism is NOT a theory.

I have a theory that your just trying to use sophistry again.

It is an ideology.

I am testing it each and every time you try to twist the meanings of words and how they are used or avoid actual logic becuase your so affriad of anything religious of any kind being given equal status with atheism (which btw is just a theory like any other too and one thats soley based on untestable assumptioms and ideology). Which is not at all supporting anything secular as you "claim" it to be when you do this.

It makes no testable claims, has no evidence for the claims it does make, and presupposes a God without any evidence for such a being.


Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed up in science-like terms. I listened to a debate about teaching ID in schools and the ID proponent admitted that ID has no real theory to base their "science" on! As the science proponent said (paraphrasing), What are you going to teach? Some people believe a god or gods created the universe 6000 years ago. Then what? You have no evidence to review, no experiments to run, no discoveries to make. Sure, a teacher could take 5 minutes at the beginning of the term to spout out all the different creation beliefs, saying for each one, "This is not science." Butwhat's the point?

The point is: A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon and you should really know better than to use such sophistry in a debate with me if you expect me to take you seriously or recognize what your saying as having any veracity to it.

Objective and tolerant, yes.

And respectful...without all three what you end up with isnt any kind of secularism that will work...I should know was born in a country where we neglected to have all three essential components and look what happened there.

And teach them to think critically, to question everything and everyone, regardless of position. And teach them to respect other people in general, of course. (and the validity of their beliefs...otherwise your just going to be promoting intolerance anyways.)

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day. How ironic.

But I don't extend that respect to beliefs which I consider to be silly: like the 'thetans' of Scientology, or the inscribed golden plates which only Joseph Smith could read, or the global flood of the Judeo/Christian mythology. If you are going to base your life on silly stories, how are you any different from the ridiculous 'trekkies' who live in their own fantasy world.
(And again with the insults...keep them coming...I should have a lot of statistics gathered to test my theory as if it were a scientifc hypothisies soon.)



Which explains a lot imho as to why you want to sound tollerant...but you preach intolerance all the same...since you are lacking in respect for the beliefs of others.


PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned, based in conjunction with the results of my testing of my soon to be hypotheisies of weather or not your actually promoting secularism or just being a adherent to non-secular atheists dogma ..its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.

Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.

[Thorne]

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.
That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally, so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.


God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.
This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists. In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves. They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.


A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon
It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!


In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day.
I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.


PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned ... its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.
Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.


Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.[/QUOTE]
Ah, my dear, you are peerless!

[denuseri]

That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

I didnt say it had to be religious to be a system, nor does dogma = religion. Stop trying to re-define words allreadly will you.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally,so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.

You can call yourself whatever you wish, you can "say" your not doing something that you are in fact doing all you wish...it wont change who and what you are or what you do in the slightest however.


This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists.

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.

In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves.

To avoid being attacked by over zealous asshats who hate them simply becuase they are religious.

They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

Or like when the atheists bring law suits against them. The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong...not that they hold an ideology in and of itself. Yet again your trying to sidestep the real issue.


The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.

Re-painting the actual facts doesnt change things eaither.


It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!

Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method and in a science class to expound upon different theories of thought conserning the the topic that do not need have a hypotheisis or the scientific method involved....in fact, take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.

I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.

Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?


Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.


When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.

No its the people who pick up the guns and pull the triggers who actually kill people. Its a consious desicion...not something someone does against their own will. And again has zero to do with anything...since you dont have to be religious to use a gun...nor does it help one in any way. I thought you wanted to really debate here...and not just resort to the same sophistry youve used in all the other threads on the topic Thorne. Hummm what happened to that? Why keep trying to cover ground thats been covered repeatably, the outcome isnt going to change. All your doing is making your approach more evident for what it really is.


Ah, my dear, you are peerless![/QUOTE]

Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.

[Thorne]

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.
I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.


The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong
I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs. In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"


Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method
I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?


take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.
But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!


Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?
The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it. That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.


I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.
The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.


Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.
LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you! ;)

[denuseri]

I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.

I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.

In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"

Again the same claim can be equally made when it comes to the atheists. Or any ideology that preaches intolerance and dis-respect and says only my way is right and all others are unacceptable or need to be curtailed.

I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

You mean within the confines of the scientific method. Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not, and even then peer review is nessesary before anything of fact becomes a consensus or becomes acceptable as past of the scientific cannon.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?

Again you choose a far fetched example which has nothing to do with the discussion or any pre-established theories conserning the subject as an obvious attempt to use sophistry perhaps?

I think I was pretty clear, let me re-clairify for you: When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented. Especially if thats what the parents of said students have expressed a desire for whithin their own community. Yes...Even in a science class. Otherwise "science" places itself on the same pedastel of postulation as any religion.


But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!

Here we shall I am affriad have to disagree. Your missing the point as well...Im speaking specifically about teaching mutual respect, understanding, and tollerance at every level in every classroom without exception.

The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.

That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us. Just as there is no reason to think it unliekly that the reason its part of us is becuase a God desired it to be that way. Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.


The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

And those same people are just as likely to stand up and say no, thats wrong we wont do it and this is what we are going to do instead...just like they did countless times with various leaders of all kinds, theist or otherwise.

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.

Again I disagree...just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem". Its what the people do not what they think or decide for themselves to follow thats the real issue.


LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you! ;)

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.

[Thorne]

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.
Given the scenario you are presenting, I have to agree: I see no problem with her answering questions posed by her classmates, or having a civil discussion with willing classmates. To my mind it's no different than kids arguing about the relative merits of particular video games.


Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.
You may be right. I don't know squat about psychology.


Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.


When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented.
Ahh, but who decides what is plausible? Here is an "alternate theory" (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html)of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms? What about other Creation myths? Shouldn't they be given time as well? If you allow ANY non-scientific claims to be taught, you MUST allow ALL of them, and you no longer have a science class. You have the Internet. Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science? If so, such a claim does not belong in a science classroom!

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for. Should we poll the students to determine what their opinions on spelling words are? How about math problems? "How many of you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? A majority? OK, then, that's what we'll learn today!"

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)


It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.
So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?


Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.
YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.


Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.
No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."


And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us.
Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.


Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.
And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.


just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem".
And again I agree. It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.


Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.
That sounds positively ... divine!

[denuseri]

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

Poor word choice on my part then...and inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.


Ahh, but who decides what is plausible?

The community.

Here is an "alternate theory" (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html)of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms?

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do. It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

What about other Creation myths?

I never said it was supposed to be a Christianity as Thorne knows it vs The "theory" of evolution did I? No... yes relevant creation theories are acceptable...of course one will have to tailor the relevance to the student body...one doesnt have to cover anything mor than generalities.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?

No

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for.

They certiantly shouldnt be there to tell the students that they are not allowed to have thier own opinions or that their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents are stupid etc eaither. They should present the information and leave such judgments up to the individuals.

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

Cross disiplinarian approaches to learning are far more educationally valuable and inclussive however and teach one how to think for themselves and respect the beliefs of others and promotes secularism as opposed to the current system, and that applies equally to all types of classess, science or otherwise.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

Thats there decission to make, and I could care less about such speculations, especially since it equally applies I am sure to Atheist parents who are afriad their children might get even a glimpse of a cross or other holy symbol.


So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.


YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Alas you will have to at least for the time being wait, since the only way to find out for sure currently is to die. And again...the sophistry and belicosity are completely unnessesary. The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

But no evidence that eaither of those things mentioning loving thy nieghbor as thyself. Another moot sidestep, but not worth giving you anymore sophistry points.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

Which is even more of a reason to respect each others faiths since they do indeed seem to be coming from the same source.


Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Nor does it make it un-true.


And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.


And again I agree.

Yet you said just the opposite of what you said now several times as it suited you to try and sully anything religious, and that my friend is why I am in opposition to you.

It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Yes it applies to Atheism with equal zeal.

That sounds positively ... divine!

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

[MMI]

Sorry to drag this thread back, but it has moved on quite a bit since my last visit. I want to respond to the points Thorne addressed to me a while back, and I beg your indulgences, everyone.


Actually, I have two young granddaughters, both bright-eyed and vivacious. They are wonderful, beautiful, and made of matter which was once buried deep inside of stars. Ultimately, however, like all of us, they will one day be nothing but meat and bones, no life remaining in them. I hope that day will be a very, very long time coming, but I see nothing "testable" about their existence as relates to gods.

You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?

I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions. We are Stardust? At what point in the dying phases of a star's existence does self-awareness get blasted out into space, for example?


balanced? Perhaps. There is some evidence which shows that certain universal constants are at just the values necessary to build this universe. So what? How many times did the universe come into existence without those values so tuned, leaving barren and empty space to await the birth of another universe, with slightly different values? Again, nothing testable to show evidence of gods.

So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening. Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?

I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne. And I don't think that, say, comparing a winning lottery ticket with all the tickets that lose even begins to account for all the coincidences you require your theory to resolve all at once.



noticed how, as science has learned more and more about the universe the numbers of "miracles" have declined? Don't you wonder why that is? But at least this would be testable. Except that, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, every 'miracle' which has been tested has been shown to be coincidence, placebo effects, mass hysteria or fraud. Not one has been shown to defy the laws of nature.

Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.



There is much anecdotal evidence, certainly. But testable? Not so much.

Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.



I agree, it is my opinion. Based upon evidence, not wishful thinking.

What evidence? Show me this evidence: testable evidence.



I'm not going to argue psychological hocus-pocus. I don't know enough about it, in the first place. But in effect I agree: we do have to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination. Which is why I am an atheist.

I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.

(Aside: Now I've done it! He'll read up on it and tear me apart. At least I get to look like I hold the high ground for a while http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif )

It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination. I look forward to receiving your corrections, but meanwhile, I contend science cannot pronounce upon matters such as existence so it cannot pronounce upon the existence (or otherwise) of anything else.



I’m not demanding proof, just testable evidence. As for proving a negative, we are talking about proving that something does not exist. One can provide evidence that makes it unlikely that something exists, and even evidence which makes it probably that something does not exist. But absolute proof? Can't be done.

You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.



Not sure what you mean by "instinct" here. My position is based on my understanding of the evidence.

I used "instinct" to serve as a synonym for "belief".

I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.



I don't know that Einstein had anything to say about the cause of the Big Bang. I have heard many hypotheses about possible causes. [I]It is just as fair to claim that God caused it as anything else. There is no evidence for any of the speculations, each more fantastic than the last, but to my knowledge there is no evidence for any of them.I don't know that we will ever be able to delve that far back into time so as to answer that question.

I should have read this far first. I have highlighted the sentence which, I believe, shows we are, in fact, in complete agreement



, again, that my position is based on testable evidence. Their positions are, generally, contradictory and based upon... What?

And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science? Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?


I understand that. But I still claim that a negative belief is not the same as a LACK of belief.

Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.



I'm not an economist, but isn't it true that we can measure the effects of capitalism? And that a capitalist economy can co-exist with other economies around the world? We can measure the effects of all of these economies, and even the effects of interactions between these economies.

...

I must have misunderstood. You're rejecting it without reason? I don't think that's sensible at all! You cannot claim it does not exist, as there is ample evidence for it. You can, perhaps, make the case that it is a failed system, providing evidence for that position, but you cannot provide evidence that it does not exist! Even if it didn't exist you could not provide any such evidence.


You have missed my point. I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.



Of course matters of faith can only be considered in terms of belief! If we could find evidence to justify and test them, then they would no longer be matters of faith but of reality. It's why we no longer consider the Earth to be the center of the universe. We've tested it and found reality.

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

[Thorne]

inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.
And also untestable. They do not have workable theories which can be tested for evidence of their validity, nor any way that they can be falsified. And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science.


The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do.
The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans.


It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant.


Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?
No
No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how.


Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.
I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? And you can keep the disrespect in, for all I care.


The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.
The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief!


The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.
Yes, it does! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
"Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter."
and
"Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation."
and
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world."
and, most telling,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,"

Theological claims may be classified as philosophical theories, but not scientific theories.


See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.
Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

[Thorne]

You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?
This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.


I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions.
But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand at that.


So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening.
As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.


Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?
Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.


I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne.
Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.


Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.
Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

My parable for the day.


Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.
They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.


I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.
All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.


It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination.
Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.


You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.
I the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.


I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.
If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.


And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science?
Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.

Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?
I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.


Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.
I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.
I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.

I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.


You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation.
I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.

After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system.
The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.


There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other:
Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.


God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath?

[denuseri]

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

[denuseri]

And also untestable.

Just as untestable as atheist assumptions and theories.

They do not have workable theories (actually a good number of them do) which can be tested for evidence of their validity, (yet) nor any way that they can be falsified (oh lots of things can be falsified). And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. That was an assumption only made by some. not all Christians...not too mention all the other theists your leaving out of the equation in your crsade against the chirstians...and there is nothing wrong with them believing it if they wish.The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science. Apparently you havnt been keeping up with the ID theories.


The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans. Again your deliberatly trying to paint things differently...most creationsist theories say that the creator made the laws of physics to begin with...made in fact everything, so in essence science is only showing us how it was maby made and how what was made works.


Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant. Only they are not all nessesarally "inane". At least not any more or less inane than the theory of atheism.


No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how. Ive allready covered the field of noetics a long time ago in a thread far far away...additonally, since I believe that the laws of physics are part of creation, the thing is tested every day, but thats not what you said...you said outside of science...where as I say what science cant prove today doesnt mean it may not be able to prove tomarrow.


I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? Well now perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...you see, every single class Ive taken on a religion, or philosophy (even the ones held by thesists) have done that very thing. So why shouldnt science do it as well.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief! So atheism is equally out then...since it has zero evidence to support its claims?

The theory of atheism is just as much a philosophical claim as any other. Not a scientific hypotheisis. So science by your line of thought as no place whatsoever in any discussion about it...so why keep bringing it up?




Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"


Points to the clouds above those flames and then down to my virginia...oh darling...why not both?

[denuseri]

A sidebar on the origens of the Geocentric model since some may find it informative:

The geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the theory, that our planet is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it.

This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations like Greece and Egypt.

It also predates the advent of Christianity.


As such, most scientists (philosophers and astrologers etc being the early scientists) assumed that the everything circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristole and Ptolemy.

Two commonly made observations supported the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

The first observation was that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, making the Earth the center of that system. Further, every star was on a "stellar" or "celestial" sphere, of which the earth was the center, that rotated each day, using a line through the north and south pole as an axis. The stars closer the equator appeared to rise and fall the greatest distance, but each star circled back to its rising point each day. At least from the observations they were able to make at the time.

The second common notion supporting the geocentric model was that the Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth bound observer, and that it is solid, stable, and unmoving.

In other words, it is completely at rest.

The geocentric model was usually combined with a spherical earth model by ancient Greek and medieval philosophers.

It is not the same as the older belief that the earth was flat which was never widely accepted by anyone as anything other than a myth associated with the uneducated.

However, the ancient Greeks believed that the motions of the planets were circular and not elliptical, a view that was not challenged in the west before the 17th century through the synthesis of theories by Copernicus and Kepler.

The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years.

The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but was gradually replaced from the late 16th century onward by the heliocentric model.

Even though the transition between these two theories met much resistance, it did not meet it from only the Catholic Church (whose theologians I might add consulted many many learned men on the subject before deciding upon the issue) but also from those scientists who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory.

[Thorne]

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

Oh, I have no problems with that. I agree, the early astrologers could only work with the tools they had. And at first the heliocentric theory met with resistance because it was unable to predict the positions of the planets with any more accuracy than the geocentric model. Primarily this was because they still considered the planets to be moving in perfectly spherical orbits, according to divine plan. Then Galileo came along with his telescope, which showed that there were satellites orbiting Jupiter, not Earth, and that Venus showed phases just like the Moon, indicating a heliocentric system. The Church didn't like that idea, though, as it went against dogma that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was only after Kepler deduced that the orbits of the planets were, in fact, ellipses that the heliocentric theory was able to overturn the old geocentric theory. Even then there were detractors, though, who based their opposition on the teachings of the Church. If nothing else, the Church's stranglehold on education seriously delayed the advancement of science and freedom for the common man. That's evil enough for me.

[denuseri]

Only your trying to blame the Church for something it didnt do...its position conserning geocentricism wasnt founded on dogma from the Bible but on the observations made by many many people who came before the Church even existed..also traditionally in the west the Chruch acted as a preserver of knowledge and a promoter of education and if it were not for that fact we would most likely be having this conversation via hand written letters in arabic instead of on computers.

[Thorne]

I agree that geocentrism did not originate with the Church. I believe Aristotle was the first to write about it in detail, though it's likely the idea began much earlier. But the Church did declare, as part of dogma (not all of which comes from the Bible), that the world was created by God as defined by Aristotle, with crystal spheres, the dome of the sky and all those things which we now recognize as wrong. Granted, they were as close as anyone could come at the time given the tools they had to work with. But when Galileo, and others, began placing doubts upon the Aristotelian Ideal the Church actively resisted, arresting, imprisoning and even executing those who dared to blaspheme against dogma. It was only after the heliocentric model proved to be far more accurate than the geocentric model, and the rest of the world was already on board with the new idea, that the Church begrudgingly agreed and accepted the heliocentric model.

And you must be aware that the Church, while saving many documents and artifacts which supported its dogma, also destroyed many documents and artifacts which disagreed with it. It's quite possible, though impossible to prove, that the Church set back the advance of science several hundred years.

[denuseri]

Making it a completely unfounded assumption!Especially in light of the actual historical records and efforts of the clergy to preserve knowledge when it would have otherwise been lost. Yes even knowledge that wasnt part of the cannon.

[Thorne]

Here's a site which discusses this: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0780Bookburning.php#Culture

Some notable quotes:
"Christians try to deny that, when they achieved total power at the end of the fourth century, they ravaged the Pagan learning accumulated over the whole of previous history. Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is quite difficult to prove, simply because the destruction of learning meant there was little recorded evidence about it that was not written down by Christians—the few left who could write."

"Christians [claim that they] tried to preserve classical and Pagan works, and it is because they succeeded so well that we have them today. That claim is belied even in the New Testament itself where in Acts 19:19, Christian converts burn magical books worth sixty thousand pieces of silver!"

"once the church leaders got control of the publication of books, they launched an all out destruction of any literature they did not like."

"the fourth century was when the Roman branch of Christianity gained dominance over most rival branches, including the remnants of Nazarene “Christianity”. They began to persecute these rival churches and destroy their manuscripts."

There are many, many more. One thing to remember is the old proverb, history is written by the winners. Since almost all of the history of Europe we have from the founding of the Holy Roman Empire has been filtered through the Church, it is understandable that documents which conflict with Church teachings are hard to come by. But they do exist, and they have been turning up to contradict the Catholic histories.

[denuseri]

lmfao...Vandalism? Vandalism...you mean that thing we named for the Vandels?Speaking of which...it was the Goths and Vandels and Huns and others who hammered the nail in the coffin the classical world; when they looted a place it was done...Rome never recovered its former glory. And Chirsitanity in and of itself had zero to do with it, (though it had a lot to do with us getting back out of it) the latest cross disiplinary reaserch has shown that a combination of factors (including climate change and over urbanization and consentration of wealth) were the real culprits.And while your at it do try and not take all your information from a completely biased source for your "interperative history"...smh and you say the atheists dont have a dogma...you sure preach it for them a lot. It is also a complete myth that history is only written by the winners...if that were the case no one would know anything about any of the people who lost a war or who were destroyed.At this point in the disscussion you just doing more sidestepping (just like you did on the geocentric line of attack until flatly stopped in your tracks by the facts) to avoid the proverbial point...yet again.That Atheism is no more or less right or valid of a belief/assumption/philosophy/whatever you wish to call it, is based on zero evidence, has had follwers who committed just as evil of atrocities as any religion, and in allmost everyway acts just as bad as any other ideology when in the hands of intolerant individuals who have no respect for other's beliefs.

[MMI]

This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.

Call me when the work is done and a better explanation is ready.

Meanwhile, Believers can continue to believe God gives life without fear of scientific contradiction.


But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand atthat.

Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.

I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it." If that's the best hope for the future science can offer, what a bleak existence it will be - grim suffering without purpose. Have you been to East Germany, or Hungary?

Maybe self-delusion is the only sensible way to deal with it.




As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.

You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.




Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.

Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine? Numbers aren't everything.


Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.

I doubt he is willing to consider questions from this website, but why should I trust him, anyway? You don't trust the Pope.




Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

My parable for the day.

Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)? It is very difficult to conduct a debate in the face of such contempt.

Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised? Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.




They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.

Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be




All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.


Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.




If the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.

That's a moot point.

But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe. It would, of course, be unreasonable to continue to believe in what had been disproved.



If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.

But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.




Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.

If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?




I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.

There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.




I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.

Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?

I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.


I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.

I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.




I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.

The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.


Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.

I leave it to den to deal with this.

[MMI]

It was my understanding that we owed our Renaissance not to what we had done in the Dark Ages, but to the careful preservation of ancient books and ideas by the Ottomans, and the gradual re-introduction of those ideas was only made possible as Arabic translations of those ancient works reached Europe.

[Thorne]

It was my understanding that we owed our Renaissance not to what we had done in the Dark Ages, but to the careful preservation of ancient books and ideas by the Ottomans, and the gradual re-introduction of those ideas was only made possible as Arabic translations of those ancient works reached Europe.
To my knowledge you are correct. And the reason those books had to be re-introduced was because the Church had destroyed almost all of the copies they could find. (Some were kept, buried deep within the Vatican, where good Catholics would not be able to read them and get "wrong" ideas.

[denuseri]

Actually there is no clear historical break in human activities...cultural movements are defined many many years after they occur."The Renaissance was a cultural movement that profoundly affected European intellectual life in the early modern period. Beginning in Italy, and spreading to the rest of Europe by the 16th century, its influence affected literature, philosophy, art, politics, science, religion, and other aspects of intellectual inquiry. Renaissance scholars employed the humanist method in study, and searched for realism and human emotion in art.Renaissance thinkers sought out in Europe's monastic libraries and the crumbling Byzantine Empire the literary, historical, and oratorical texts of antiquity, typically written in Latin or ancient Greek, many of which had fallen into obscurity. It is in their new focus on literary and historical texts that Renaissance scholars differed so markedly from the medieval scholars of the Renaissance of the 12th century, who had focused on studying Greek and Arabic works of natural sciences, philosophy and mathematics, rather than on such cultural texts. Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronized many works of Renaissance art."In other words...if we didnt have the Church supporting it so much...we wouldnt have had a "Renaissance".99% of the anti-chirstian propaganda expoused about the church being anti-knowledge orientated or against progress is simpley a modern day tactic used by modern day atheists to promote their own dogma over that of the theists and is outright sophistry in its worst form.

[Thorne]

Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.
We search for more so that we can FIND a better answer!


I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it."
I think you've got it backwards. The theists claim that something bad happens as a part of God's plan, and all you can do is pray that God will spare you (though why He would want to spare you and destroy his plan is beyond me.) Science says, "WHY did this happen? HOW did this happen? How can we prevent it from happening again?"


You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.
Not at all. If you know a way to figure it out, please, show us the way. Just provide evidence!


Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine?
If you want it to be a contest, then my only response is, "Show your work." Scientists create models which MIGHT explain the origin of the universe, then show the evidence which that model explains. They make predictions of evidence which they should be able to find if that model is correct. If evidence turns up which contradicts the model, or they are unable to find the evidence they predict, the model is falsified.

The Christian says that God created the universe. They show no evidence to back their claim, except that the Bible says it's so. And how do they know the Bible is correct? Why simple! The Bible SAYS it's the Word of God! QED. They base their entire world view on a book of stories cobbled together from mystics and shamans, priests and rabbis, all carefully selected by the Council of Nicea some 1700 years ago. A book which frequently misrepresents events which we KNOW happened differently. A book which contradicts itself over and over again. And you claim that this approach is valid?


You don't trust the Pope.
Do you?


Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)?
That was not my intent at all, as I'm quite sure you know. The point was that scientists can keep falsifying the claims of the theists, but they will never be satisfied because they can always dream up another claim for the scientist to falsify.


Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised?
Which just illustrates my point. The initial claim of the theist in my parable was that a miracle had occurred so that only the head sides of the coins were showing. Now, when the scientist shows that this was the ONLY possible result, you change the claim to "God made the coins that way!" And if the scientist proves that the coins were minted in Denver, what will you claim then?


Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.
That's not a scientific explanation. It's a misunderstanding of the Uncertainty Principle.


Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be
That's because the fundamental ones, as you yourself have stated, are based upon the supernatural and are beyond the purview of science. It's only when the supernatural is claimed to have acted upon the natural world that science can investigate.


These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.
Philosophy is not an analytical subject. You cannot weigh and measure ideas. I am, or try to be, an analytical type person. I am not interested in building castles in the sky and devising fantastical explanations for them. I don't deny that philosophy has its place in the world, even in science to a degree. But not in an analytical, testable sense. And I don't claim to be the arbiter of what's real.


That's a moot point.
It's the WHOLE point!


But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe.
The existence of leprechauns hasn't been disproved, either. Nor unicorns, nor fairies, nor ghosts. It is scientifically impossible to prove a negative. All scientists can do is show that the likelihood for such an existence is extremely remote. So again I ask, how many times do we have to falsify the claims of believers before we can say there is virtually no likelihood for the existence of gods?


But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.
I never said that science COULD deny gods. It can only claim that there is no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. That does NOT say you cannot believe. It only says that you cannot claim that belief to be scientific!


If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?
Who am I to disallow such disagreements? But remember, scientists are generally arguing over interpretations of testable, verifiable evidence. Religious scholars are arguing over interpretations of untestable, unprovable claims.


There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.
A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.


Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?
No, they are ALL scientific claims. They all make predictions which can be tested through observation and experimentation. That doesn't mean they are all RIGHT, of course. I believe the Steady State Theory has been pretty much set aside. Too many discrepancies between the theory and the evidence. The others, as far as I know, are accepted as POSSIBLE explanations for the universe, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm them yet. But again, the fact that we may not have a real, viable, PROBABLE explanation does not mean someone can make up any claim he wishes without ANY evidence.


I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.
Do you still believe in the actual existence of Santa Claus/Kris Kringle/Father Christmas? (If you say yes then I have serious doubts about your veracity or your sanity.) Most children who once believed in Santa Claus eventually come to the realization that he's not real, just a made-up story to entertain children. It's not a case of "emptying" themselves of an idea, just coming to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I don't claim that my own evolution from theist to non-theist was smooth or without back-sliding. When you've been taught something your whole life it can be quite traumatic to realize that you've been, basically, lied to. I didn't empty myself of the idea of God. I simply came to realize that there was nothing there in which to believe. The idea of an invisible being who watches over you to make sure you behave and gives you presents when you're good, whether the present is heaven or an electric train set, just stopped being relevant. God, like Santa Claus, is just a story created to keep the children in line. (That last is my personal opinion. My "belief", if you will. It is not a scientific claim.)


I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.
I don't have to justify my change in belief of God any more than YOU have to justify your change in belief of Father Christmas!


I leave it to den to deal with this.
God, no! Not that! :)

[denuseri]

Too late Thorne look up a couple posts. lol Dealt with.

[Thorne]

So denuseri, are you claiming that the Catholic missionaries did not orchestrate the destruction of "pagan" temples and manuscripts (Mayan Codices, in particular)?
But it started long before that! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book_burning_incidents (yeah, not the best source, but at least it's not atheist!)

"The books of Arius and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325), were burned for heresy. Arius was exiled and presumably assassinated following this, and Arian books continued to be regularly burned into the 330s."

"In 364, the Christian Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt.[18] It had been heavily stocked by the aid of his non-Christian predecessor, Emperor Julian."

"Elaine Pagels claims that in 367, Athanasius ordered monks in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria in his role as bishop of Alexandria to destroy all "unacceptable writings" in Egypt, the list of writings to be saved constituting the New Testament."

And let's not leave Islam out of this! "Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been fully collected, circa 650. This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring that Uthman's version of the Quran remained authentic."

The destruction of "heretical" or "treasonous" writings has long been a staple of autocratic, and theocratic, rulers. The RCC was no exception!

As for the Renaissance, there can be no argument that the Church is responsible for vast quantities of art and architecture. Of course, there were few outside of the Church and the nobility who could afford to sponsor such art. And naturally, as the buyer, the Church had the final say on the FORM of such art. Anything which clashed with Church teachings would be unlikely to be acceptable. And the artist who created such works would be lucky to simply be banished.

But the Church also conspired to keep the common people from reading the Bible. Few outside of the nobility and the Church could read their own language, much less Latin. Yet the Church condemned to death many people who translated the Bible into languages OTHER than Latin. This is not the act of an organization which wanted to revive learning, but of one which wanted to control it. Look up John Wycliffe and William Tyndale for verification. I don't want to point you to any atheist sites.

[Thorne]

Too late Thorne look up a couple posts. lol Dealt with.

Yeah, I got that. I'm a little slow today. I've responded.

I have to say that you and MMI are really testing my research skills. And keeping my mind active. Despite our differences of agreement I'm enjoying the debate. I wish a few more people would join in, preferably on my side. I'm feeling lonely here!

[Switch_John]

Since this appears to be a free for all, I guess I shall enter my opinion.

I, myself, am an atheist. not a theist. (I always laugh when people actually think being atheist means your a theist) I, through my own research, which I will personally acknowledge as incomplete and will not be close to complete for many years. I have read the Bible and Qur'an but strongly feel the need to reread both as much as I can. I also plan on reading as many translated version of each as the translations will differ and meanings will in turn come out differently, something I believe actually harms religion. I also plan on reading the Torah. I strongly believe in making a case and taking a side, only if you have actually researched the topic. This goes heavily with religion. I have found that many atheists in my area are simply people who don't care or are to lazy to practice a religious faith. With that said I will give my reasons I have come to so far from my research for which I will focus on the Catholic Bible as it holds a very personal bond with me.

One of the reasons for my atheism is personal experience. Throughout my life I have never found there to be a reason for religion. I have only seen hypocrisy in religion. Majorly, how does an all forgiving father kill billions of people? In the book of Genesis with the story of Noah and the Ark God had decided to brutally drown the entire world only leaving 8 people alive. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Not only is this a brutal, unforgiving act of evil but it also means that, because of the rainwater for the 40 days and 40 nights (rainwater is freshwater) the rain would mix with the oceans creating a deadly water mixture that would end all marine life. This story was always told to me as a child to teach me how "just" God was. For me, and I'm sure many others, all it did was scare the living crap out of me.

There is also the matter of the faith's own hypocrisy. The Bible has many instances where it states situations of incest, child genocide, and murder. And, if I'm not mistaken one of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill". So that means killing is bad, unless its in the name of God? or is all killing bad? Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. That means that they must of had sex with each other, there children and there children had to have sex with their brothers and sisters to populate the earth. Odd, because the faith states that incest is bad and an act against God, at least the churches and schools I have gone to taught that. Also the story of Noah and the Ark promotes incest. Which the act of sex is incredible because at that time Noah was about 600 years old and his children were around 100 years old. An incredible feat if you ask me as I'm surprised no one broke a hip.

Then there is the argument "You cannot take the Bible literally". Odd considering your faith is based on taking your Holy Book literally. So as you see, I have found religion to be one of hypocrisy, outlandish fairy tales and a mass murdering all forgiving father that no one has any proof of existing.

I will end this with a few things:
1) I have nothing against people who believe in religion. Many of my good friends are religious.
2) I am not saying people who believe in religion are wrong simply putting out my findings and questions.
3) I am not saying atheism is the "right" thing.
4) A question for atheists and the religious, How did you arrive at your decision
5) A question for the religious "With 26 thousand children dying of starvation today, why should god answer your prayers?"
6) And a quote I have heard that I have fallen in love with, "Two free hands can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

[MMI]

SJ - are you saying God doesn't exist, or that he is a mass murderer?

Welcome to the debate, by the way.

[Switch_John]

Haha, I believe that God does not exist. Simply asking to those who believe in God if they know they believe in a mass murderer.

[MMI]

A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.

No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did. I ask you to remember that I spoke of two girls originally; it was you who linked them to your grandchildren. My point was that they had life, although lumps of meat and bone did not, and I suggested that the believers' claims that god gave the girls life was better than any explanation modern science can come up with.

Let's back up ... right to the beginning, because we're getting nowhere here.

You say you do not believe in god(s) because there is no satisfactory evidence to convince you. That's fine. I too am unconvinced about it.

You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence. It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings. I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?

If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.

Then I look at Bush ...

[Switch_John]

You bring up a very valid point. No one can say god(s) exist or do not exist. It is still impossible for us to do so. But will say this. Scientifically, something had to come from nothing at some point at time. Even if one says God came before everything, what came before that?

It is all simply matter of opinion. And not one atheist believes the exact same things as another atheist. Only thing we can do? Research, research, research.

Anyone know where I can get a good translated version of the Bible Qur'an and Torah? Im convinced the ones I have at home are simply crap...

[Thorne]

John, welcome. Nice to have a little moral support here.

I'm impressed that you've read both the Bible and the Qur'an. I have to admit I haven't completely read either. I have read large sections of the Bible, and scanned over many other sections, but have never had the stamina to read it cover to cover. The Qur'an I've barely scratched, but what I have read of it has done nothing to change my mind about the fallibility of holy books.

Like you, I gradually came to the conclusion that there was no real evidence for the existence of God, and my science studies showed me that there was nothing on this Earth which required the existence of gods to explain. I spent a long time as an agnostic, too apathetic to really care whether gods existed or not. It's only within the last 10 to 15 years that I finally came off the fence and decided that there probably are no gods. Additionally, my readings, both biblical and elsewhere, have convinced me that the gods of humanity, whether Yahweh, Allah, Jupiter or Ra, or any others one cares to name, cannot exist as defined by their own followers.

So jump into the discussion wherever you feel comfortable. As for the translations you seek, I generally use The Skeptic's Annotated Bible at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ . They also have translations of the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, all annotated for easy searching. They claim that, "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible attempts to remedy this imbalance. It includes the entire text of the King James Version of the Bible, but without the pro-Bible propaganda. Instead, passages are highlighted that are an embarrassment to the Bible-believer, and the parts of the Bible that are never read in any Church, Bible study group, or Sunday School class are emphasized. For it is these passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer. The contradictions and false prophecies show that the Bible is not inerrant; the cruelties, injustices, and insults to women, that it is neither good nor just." I have checked several passages with other sources and found these translations to be accurate.

[Thorne]

No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did.
I was not offended, so don't feel bad. You are right, I did put them into this discussion.


You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence.
Actually, I don't care if believers cannot provide evidence. Their faith is their own concern. It's only when they try to push their religions into the public arena, such as government and science classrooms, that I demand evidence. Especially in science classrooms, because the theists try to intimate that their "theory" of God is just as valid as any other theory of creation. But the scientific explanations are based upon an immense body of data and evidence, while the theists theories are based on nothing but holy books and wishful thinking. If they could provide evidence, then they could claim some kind of parity with science in the classroom.

Oh, and I will also ask for evidence when someone asks me to provide proof AGAINST the existence of something. If they can't prove it exists in the first place, how can I hope to prove it doesn't? All I can do is provide enough evidence to make such an existence highly unlikely. I've done that, to a degree. Scientists have done it a hell of a lot more effectively.



It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings.
That would be fine if we could find any evidence for the existence of this higher plane. We cannot, or at least we have not. But in my opinion, this is just a case of moving the target. Theists have always claimed that God interacts with the world on a physical level, creating storms, floods, plagues, all those Biblical catastrophes we've heard about. Science comes along and provides thoroughly natural explanations for such disasters, and have been able to provide pretty accurate predictions about them, all without relying on the existence of gods. So now the theists want to say that God exists in a higher plane? And what happens if, someday, science finds a way to tap into this higher plane, and there is still no God? Will the theists admit they were wrong? Or will they simply explain that God is in an even higher plane?


I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?
I've been trying to do this all along, I think. I'm a little more crude about it, comparing such beliefs to myths and fairy tales, and I've been lambasted for it. Creationists, many of them, will claim that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, and is to be taken verbatim. But when you point out the discrepancies within the Bible, they will claim that "this passage is allegorical", or "that law was nailed to the Cross." The frustrating part is that it is THEY who determine which parts of the Bible must be taken literally and which parts not. Without any justification.


If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.
This is almost exactly the kind of thing I've been arguing all along. The evidence shows that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah CANNOT exist as He is defined in the Bible/Qur'an/Torah. It is unreasonable to believe in such a god. He has been relegated to the same limbo as the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc., etc., etc. gods. He is irrelevant. Or should be.

For those who are interested, there are two books I have read in the past year which deal with this exact problem. One is "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Stenger. The second is "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. Dawkins, especially, is far more blunt and intolerant than I, and there are some things in both books which I disagree with, at least in part, but overall they explain very well what I've been fumbling to explain.

[MMI]

I think I've said all I usefully can here. I'll just watch for now.

[MMI]

OK, I know I said I'd shut up, but during a quiet moment at work, I was checking the news and browsed through to this blog :http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml

While the BBC's Nature editor clearly (but impartially, he adds) favours a "scientific" explanation for creation, he does seem to allow that, unless the debate is restricted to what can be measured scientifically, science will never be able to dislodge faith. To quote him,



Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, or that God may have once put in place all known physical laws and processes that shaped the universe and everything in it.

Science cannot challenge faith, which by its very nature, does not require evidence (many scientists are religious people who see no contradiction between their faith and work and many people of faith see no contradiction with what science can explain).

But science does require evidence, and this evidence allows us to explain, with increasing accuracy, how the world around us works.


That is what I was trying to get over to Thorne. To challenge the truth of religion, one has to deal with it on its own terms, otherwise religion will respond to any argument by saying, Your criticism might make sense in human/natural terms, but God is beyond and is not bound by any such limitations.

However, modern believers do seem to be feeling the pressure and have responded to scientific theories with theories of their own. Intelligent Design is one such theory, and, withregard to
evolution, they have formulated something called Creation Science

Matt Walker's blog discusses an attempt by Prof Paul Senter of Fayette State University NC - is that near you, Thorne? - to challenge creation science on its own terms, and it read pretty convincingly to me. However, you do have to take notice of Oliver Elphick's posts in response to the blog and the comments posted afterwards, which very clearly and stridently - not to say, defiantly - defends the religious position.

Elphick's posts are collated here,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=14330698

[Thorne]

OK, I know I said I'd shut up, but during a quiet moment at work, I was checking the news and browsed through to this blog :http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml
I'd heard of this, and find it fascinating, in a bizarre way. Undoubtedly the Creationists will disagree with his conclusions, though.


Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, or that God may have once put in place all known physical laws and processes that shaped the universe and everything in it.

Science cannot challenge faith, which by its very nature, does not require evidence (many scientists are religious people who see no contradiction between their faith and work and many people of faith see no contradiction with what science can explain).

But science does require evidence, and this evidence allows us to explain, with increasing accuracy, how the world around us works.
This is basically what I've been saying, too. Faith does not belong in the science classroom, and science does not belong in the religion classroom. Those scientists who DO retain their faith manage to separate it from their scientific work, and vice versa. They also, almost universally, accept the modern cosmology of the Big Bang and evolution of species. Their faith does not rely on accepting the Bible as literal truth.



That is what I was trying to get over to Thorne. To challenge the truth of religion, one has to deal with it on its own terms, otherwise religion will respond to any argument by saying, Your criticism might make sense in human/natural terms, but God is beyond and is not bound by any such limitations.
You make the assumption that religion has truth. But there is no scientific basis for making that assumption.So which religion is it that has truth? They can't ALL have it, since so many of them contradict one another. And since we are all human and natural, with no discernible connection to an hypothesized supernatural world, we can only deal with the natural. By your own definition God is beyond our ability to understand.


However, modern believers do seem to be feeling the pressure and have responded to scientific theories with theories of their own. Intelligent Design is one such theory, and, with regard to evolution, they have formulated something called Creation Science
The problem with both of these is that they begin with the inviolate law that God exists. Not that he might exist, and not as an assumption, but as a basic premise of their "science". And that immediately takes them out of the realm of acceptable science. "Creation Science" is even worse, in that they declare, without evidence or proof, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and they distort and warp their "science" to agree with that assertion. In other words, they are masturbating to make themselves feel better and claiming it's "science".


Matt Walker's blog discusses an attempt by Prof Paul Senter of Fayette State University NC - is that near you, Thorne?
Yes, it's about an hour up the road from me. I'm not familiar with it, though.


to challenge creation science on its own terms, and it read pretty convincingly to me. However, you do have to take notice of Oliver Elphick's posts in response to the blog and the comments posted afterwards, which very clearly and stridently - not to say, defiantly - defends the religious position.
Yes, there are some interesting comments there. And there are some problems with his comments. He says, for example, "Yes, I think the earth is near the centre of the universe. There is nothing in science to contradict that." He's wrong. Most notably, the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around, so right away that puts us off center about 93 million miles. Second, the whole Solar system revolves around the galaxy, about 27,000 light years away. To place the Earth at the center of the Universe would entail everything revolving around US. Rather unscientific, that.

He then says, "It doesn't matter how many people assert evolution; if they are wrong their opinions need to be rejected. The mechanisms for it do not exist. It is not a convincing story." The first part is right enough. If they are wrong then their opinions are worthless. But he's wrong about the mechanisms. Evolution is a fact, about as close to an absolute truth as it is possible to get in science. The mechanisms are complex, to be sure, and not fully understood even now. Darwin proposed basically one, survival of the fittest. We now know that's not exactly right. There are other mechanisms at work, and some which we may not have found yet. But regardless of HOW it works, the evidence is overwhelming that evolution does occur.

When speaking of the different accounts of Genesis, he claims, "No. There is an account from God's point of view (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and there is an account from Adam's point of view. They complement each other, they do not conflict." It's my understanding that this is a post-hoc rationalization by a theologian to "explain" the differences. There is nothing, so far as I can tell, in either account that supports this. Hell, Adam wasn't even created until the sixth day! How could he have a "point of view" of what happened before that?

There is so much else wrong there. He claims the Bible is historically accurate, yet we know that it is not. He claims that the age of the Earth can be calculated from the genealogies written down by Moses, but we have no historical evidence that Moses even existed. He makes claims about the divinity of Jesus based on theological, not historical, grounds. There ARE no historical, contemporary accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible, despite the claim that tens of thousands knew him and witnessed his miracles. If there WAS a Jesus son of Joseph around at that time, he almost certainly was NOT as described in the Bible. Those accounts were all written well after his presumed death, and probably not by eyewitnesses to his life.

Which is beside the point. As theological doctrine, the Bible is tolerable. But it's not science! And that is where the conflicts arise.