Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[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?