Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[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...ng.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...ning_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/wondermon...oes-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.s...serid=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/wondermon...oes-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.