Sunday, July 29, 2007

More on the same subject (is the horse dead yet?)

   Wow! Eighty comments so far on the last three entries. I can't keep up. I'd love to respond to everybody, but I'd be typing for a week solid, and somehow I can't see Mr. and Mrs. Ho letting me take a week off to blog. I do want to cherry pick some comments to address, though.

Krissy,
   Thank you for the comment. The questions you ask are ones that I have never really addressed in detail, but should have. You are correct in stating that it is impossible for either of us to know for sure if God truly exists or not. The skeptical viewpoint is one of asking for evidence to support what seem like extraordinary or highly unlikely claims.
   Consider this example: You are walking along the street and come across a twenty dollar gold coin lying on the sidewalk outside a bank. "I wonder how that got here?" you ask out loud. Two people offer you possible explanations. The first says, "I work in the bank, and I know we recently received some of those coins that a customer had specially ordered in. I don't know if that customer has been here today, but it is possible that they were, and accidentally dropped one of the coins on their way out."
   The second person says, "well, it's common knowledge that leprechauns carry around gold coins, that they get from the pots they hide at the end of the rainbow. Obviously, a leprechaun has passed this way, and dropped the coin. If I were you, I'd put it back down, before he comes back looking for it. He might be mad."
   Now, without doing any further investigation, it is impossible to say for sure which one of those scenarios is true. Personally, I don't believe in leprechauns, but I don't *know* for sure that they do not exist. However, I can examine the available evidence. I have a credible source telling me that the coin resembles those made by the US mint, and that several of those coins are know to have been in the bank. On the other hand, no one, anywhere in the world has ever presented any compelling evidence suggesting that leprechauns really exist. No, I can't know that the second person is wrong, but unless that person can produce some actual evidence, does it make sense for me to believe option number one, or number two?
   In the eyes of an atheist, the likelihood that God exists is about the same as the likelihood that a leprechaun exists. I cannot discount the possiblity, but absent any actual evidence, I have to stand on the "nay" side. I am willing to examine any evidence presented, but to date, no one has been able to do so.

(Simon,
   That answer to Krissy also touches on a comment of yours. My position is one of skepticism. That position has me defaulting to a naturalistic world view, and requiring evidence from anyone who claims to espouse a supernatural world view. I gotta say, though, that whichever early religious thinker came up with the whole 'faith is required, God will not be tested' schtick, he was a genius. He gave the perfect out to every single believer in God to follow. Evidence will not be forthcoming. That's just not the way God rolls.)

   I always get a chuckle when someone asks how human bodies could be so perfectly formed without a God. Because they really aren't very well formed at all. There are several things about the human body that work poorly, or could easily be improved upon. The human knee, for example, is suprisingly poorly designed for the task it has to do. Engineers could improve on it easily. And the appendix. What's up with that? Let me ask you a question. If you were God, designing your ultimate creation, would you put in an organ that doesn't actually do anything, that your creation could live without and never miss, and that is likely to explode and kill him completely at random? Does that sound like good design to you?
   These things do, however, make perfect sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Our knees are exactly what one would expect to see in a biped who had only recently evolved above quadropedal locomotion. And our appendix strongly resembles an organ in the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants, that helps them digest all the grass they eat. As humans no longer eat a diet of primarily cellulose, we no longer need to use that organ, and so it has atrophied and become vestigal.
   Can all this just be chance occurence? Well, no. It can't. But evolution is not a random process. It is directed by the pressure of "natural selection." It is, in fact, very strongly non-random.

   I kind of lost you when you started your second comment, Krissy. I don't consider Jesus to have been a BIG LIAR. In fact, it was always my understanding of scripture that he never actually came out and called himself the son of God.He alwayscalled himself "the son of Man." As for how he could have affected so many lives, and how his impact could still be felt so many years later, one might ask the same questions about many historical figures. How about Hitler? How about Mohammed? Surely, as a Catholic, you do not believe Mohammed was a true prophet of God, yet he took an established religion (Islaam) and competely overhauled it to the point that it no longer even remotely resembles what it began as. Jesus did no more or less.
   Why would twelve men - indeed thousands more since - be willing to be tortured and killed for one man? I don't know.Why would 19 men be willing to kill themselves and thousands of others for one man on September 11, 2001? I still don't know. But it happens.

   After that, you just got preachy. All that stuff about a God shaped hole in my heart? Sorry, Krissy, but there isn't anything like that there. My heart is full, of my son and my wife, of my family and my friends. It is the perfect shape for that. I feel no emptiness or need for a God. You must have been talking about yourself.

     ~~**~~     ~~**~~     ~~**~~     ~~**~~     ~~**~~     ~~**~~     ~~**~~    


Jenny,
 You’ve picked up on the Noah's Ark debate with Alec and Brent. Yes, there have been some people who have done some work that they claim shows a feasible ark design. The best known of these is John Woodmorappe (A.K.A. Jan Peczkis, an Illinois high school teacher). Woodmorappe claimed that the ark, as described in The Bible, could have held the animals it was claimed to. There are, however, some problems with his work.
   First of all, his interpretation of the biblical description of the animals as being "two of every kind" is questionable. You may know that animals are classified by science in a ladder format, the last three (or most specific) rungs being 'family,' 'genus,' and 'species.'  Most people, when they think of the biblical ark story naturally assume that the "kinds" of animals that were housed in pairs onboard were all the different species of animals on Earth. Not so, says Woodmorappe. There are too many species, and a boat big enough to hold them all could not physically be built. It would not float. However, he reasoned, if one were to count only the different genera of animals, it might work. So the "kinds" were not species but genera, and the calculations show that the ark, once packed with all the animals, and all the food they'd need, would be about 90% full. Which is all well and good, providing nobody moves, or has to go to the bathroom.
   Oh, wait. When questioned further, Woodmorappe admitted that his calculations depended on most of the larger animals (bigger than say, twenty pounds) being juvenile species. OK. Sure. But what about this "kind" thing? I mean, there are four or five different species of Ibex. I can see that maybe Noah took just one example. How about the Markhor, or the Caucasian Tur? The common goat? Well, all the above named animals are of the genera capra, so only one pair from among them all would be on the ark.
   Certainly, the ark contained a horse. And a donkey. Probably a zebra, too. But wait. All three of those belong to the same group. Pick one to go on the ark. The others two weren't there. There was a pair of foxes, a pair of coyotes, a pair of wolves. Did Noah have a dog? But those four are all of the genus canis, so three of them have to be left off according to Woodmorappe. Does that make any sense to you?
   So what we have is Noah, with a boatload of baby animals representing about one third of all the animal species in the world. That's not how I remember the story. And there's more. Woodmorappe completely ignored the invertebrate kingdom of animals. A group that includes over 97% of all the world's animal species. If Woodmorappe were right, there wouldn't be any insects of any kind today. They'd have all died in the flood, for there was not room for them on the ark.

   Now, as if all that wasn't bad enough...the guy got his math wrong. He made a fundamental error in his calculations of the volume of the ark taken up by animals. Even with his tight restrictions, it would have been completely impossible to fit the animals on the ark, if it was the size that was described in The Bible.

   I have included the above arguments because you were already discussing them. However, they are not the most compelling arguments against the flood story being literally true. Not even close. The biggest problem facing ark supporters is thefact that science can demonstrate, pretty darn conclusively, that there was never a universal flood. There has never been a time - at least in the last several million years - when the entire surface of the Earth was covered with water. It never happened. It's just a story.
   It's a good story. A rip-roaring tale. But a story none the less.

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Paul.
I can remember seeing several examples of literature/shows which completely discredited the possibility of the ark but had never seen or heard of anyone putting forth an explanation as how the ark was possible.
Hence my request for Jenny to supply her source(s) for her belief.

Even if you were to buy John Woodmorappe's genus plan, wouldn't that mean that from that day forward, all the other species from that genera would have to develop from that single pair of one species?
Wouldn't that be evolution?
Aren't all these Bible people arguing that evolution is a false theory?

I know, I know... evolution cannot possible have happened that quickly so in reality, either we should not (by his own theory) have all the species we have or his theory is all hot air.

Hmmm. Which one will I pick?
I chose the.... THE LEPRECHAUN!!
not.
You know I'm not buying your 'poorly designed body' theory, right?
You know I don't buy the *POOF* here's the 1st human idea either.
Why cannot God simply have guided that wonderous evolution you so nicely described? ;~)
Brent

Anonymous said...

  If God has been directing the course of evolution, He's clearly not done yet. What remarkable hubris for us to consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Hello Paul, just stopping by. Missing Jland tonight and wanted to see how everyone was doing. I enjoyed your coin toss up. Great logic...one side is a power that man can not understand and the other side, is matter, a universe that can "just" exist infinitely and all on its own....If one played the lottery, why would any skeptic assume one side is more logical than the other?....Thats my question...~Raven

Anonymous said...

I know god doesn't exist in much the same way believers claim to know that he does.

Plus, if god created me, then he obviously created me so that I wouldn't believe in him.  

I feel like Douglas Adam's humble Babel Fish.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Raven,
  Having an understanding of the science, it is obvious that one is more logical than the other. Not having an understanding of the science, it is impossible to see that.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Sorry, man.  I just can't get over that Hallmark card, "God-shaped hole in your heart" insult.  If someone said that to me, I'd probably tell them they had a Darwin shaped hole in their head.  

Yeah... I know.  "Militant Atheist."  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Paul, I think of a skeptic as this...and please correct me if I am wrong...

If a person makes a decision to analize a topic by digging through the logic, hopefully escaping society, cultural and childhood teaching, a person ends up playing the odds game. What are the chances of? Its not that it has to be 100% yes or no but more of, what is more than likely....

I feel the best first step for any skeptic is to begin to marvel. To make a decision to lay on the ground on a warm night and stare at the universe for a few hours. The marvel comes from seeing where in logic one says, "this is more than likely true" gets tested. I can marvel and DO at the existence of a God who can always exist. I feel its necessary for anyone who beleives in evolution, no God...to marvel at a universe 'just existing"....to marvel at its "starting place"...to marvel at perfection of the brillance of an infinite universe coming to be....

The two sided coin has marvel on both sides. I find it interesting how an evolutionist can just except all of its theory without feeling like a magic button isnt being pushed just as I couldnt imagine a person excepting the existence of a God without marveling as well. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to think of something really meaningful to contribute here.  But right now it all involves god-shaped holes, dead horses and a pantheon of ersatz deities.  Somewhere in there is comic gold, but it's midnight and I'm too tired to think of something.  Maybe Alec can do it.  

(See Brent, I knew we could hit 50+ on the last post!  Thanks for noticing.)

I sort of feel like we're all a bunch of house flies continually butting heads up against the clear pane of glass.  If only we could punch our way through we could guide the rest of the lowly insects to see what appears to plain to us on the other side!

Maybe it's god blocking the way.  Still, it's fun to try...

Simon
http://simianfarmer.com

Anonymous said...

Dan said,
"I know god doesn't exist in much the same way believers claim to know that he does."
So... you "believe" God does not exist.

Lets be realistic. No one can "know" for sure until we die.
Then you might end up with some kind of proof of God's existance or just take a nice long dirt nap.
Even then, does not getting proof at that point really prove anything?
For all I know (and no I don't believe in it) reincarnation happens and I still have a turn or two left as a slug or something.

Better we just do our best to enjoy this short life we have and see what happens when it happens.

Oh, and Dan, thanks for the Babel fish bit. I'd forgotten about that.
Good chuckle.
How come that doesn't work with the ID'ers? Poke a hole in their argument and *poof*, they disappear.

Brent

Anonymous said...

Hey Dan, not sure if you will stop by and read this response but here goes...

You wrote~ "God-shaped hole in your heart" insult...

My thoughts is I know plenty of so called Christians that I would never invite to dinner because of their high and mighty ways. I think its fair to say that there are more that way than not which isnt a horn to toot but being real about it.  A person feels an insult because they give off that they are better than which I have found in people of many beleifs and non beliefs. I do believe with the few Christians that I respect, you would find them a kick in the pants and far from the stereotypes that others have perpectuated by their actions. Raven

Anonymous said...

Whether God has a hand in evolution or not, evolution does not end.  Ever.  That is the point.  To me at least.

be well,
Dawn

Anonymous said...

"I'm trying to think of something really meaningful to contribute here.  But right now it all involves god-shaped holes, dead horses and a pantheon of ersatz deities.  Somewhere in there is comic gold, but it's midnight and I'm too tired to think of something.  Maybe Alec can do it."

Sorry Simon, but that's just too big and full of wonder for me to take it all in. Like Raven staring up at her universe, I can only lay back and gaze in wonder at the whole thing, wondering how it all began. ;)

-Alec
 

Anonymous said...

Wow, so like, leprechauns?  You compared my examples to leprechauns???  One of my questions of the existence of God was this: Why would twelve men be willing to live a life of torture, whippings, exile, hardships, crucifixion, and other forms of death FOR A HOAX?  Did they witness the resurrection or not?  Could you directly answer that one?  Why would they be willing to die for a hoax?

When I see your answer I will feel better, not something silly about leprechauns.  As I know you are intellectually honest, Paul, I know you will answer me!  :)

And what about the question of Jesus being a "good man" while still being a liar (saying He is the Son of God)?  Oh well, I won't ask you that one for now.  I don't guess I can expect you to answer more than one question.  Please answer the first question I asked you about why 12 men would die for a hoax.  Thank you in advance. :)

Because He lives, I remain,
Krissy :)
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink
   

Anonymous said...

Read the whole thing, Krissy.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Hi Paul.  Here are some places where Jesus called Himself the Son of God:

But when Jesus heard it, he said, ‘This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’  (John 11:4)

why do you call it blasphemy when I say, ‘I am the Son of God’? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world.  (John 10:36)

‘Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.  (John 5:25)

Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

Paul, I would appreciate that you post the above Scripture passages in your next entry, as you have stated in this entry that he "never actually came out and called himself the son of God."  Now that you see this is not correct, and can easily be confirmed by checking Scripture, I hope you correct yourself, as this is very vital.  You have an important blog with a large readership, and I know you will want to be responsible with what you post.  :)

Thanks for the interesting topic, Paul,

Krissy :)
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink

Anonymous said...

  John is interesting, isn't it? Nowhere in the other three gospels is it reported that Christ referred to himself as the "son of God," but it appears in John several times. There are a number of other ways in which John does not agree with the other three gospels as well.
  Here's an interesting project. Read the sections of the four gospels that describe the night of the last supper through to the resurrection. Reconcile the timelines. Try it. You might be surprised at what you find.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Paul,
Read the book 'Who moved the stone' i think you will find it is reconciled in there.  there is no room here to explain it all.  But this is what i meant about the lawyers before.  Lawyers have looked at the last supper to the resurrection and said that if it was evidence brought to court it would be found to be the truth. One lawyer started the exercise as a non-christian out to disprove the story but ended up a believer because he couldn't disprove the evidence and realised it was true.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

The appendix is where your SOUL is housed. If you have had yours removed, then you are going to HELL. It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. People with souls (and appendix) go to heaven; people with scars on their tummies go to hell. Remember the Dr. Suess story: the Sneeches with "scars upon thars" all went to hell.

Noah's Ark? My son's third grade teacher told him that Noah had dinosaurs on that boat, too. Why the hell was she talking about Noah's ark in a history lesson? My 8-year-old laughed at her and then took a lot of crap on the playground from his classmates who all belong to the local cult. This is one of many reasons we now homeschool.

Jesus was Jewish. He never created a new religion; he was just trying to oust some Romans. The new religion scam was the work of con man Paul. (Not Paul the Canadian Guy; Paul the Bible Guy.) Bible Guy Paul never met Jesus. He had possibly also flunked out of Pharisee "school" and had an axe to grind. If ever there was a BIG LIAR, it is BG Paul. What is the difference between BG Paul and David Koresh or Joseph Smith, etcetc?

As for feeling an "emptiness"? I have never felt so empty as when I used to sit in church and try to believe in a god. I really tried. Once I stopped trying, the world was filled with possibility. Individual potential is hampered by magical thinking. You can't build a tree house with magical, invisible tools any more than I could use the same to "fill" my heart/life. That takes real tools and real people. Heck, some of those people populating my heart are christians, too.
--Cin

Anonymous said...

"A Darwin-shaped hole in your head" ---HAHAHA. Thanks, Dan.
:) Cin

Anonymous said...


Yes.  I know.  Some milquetoast Christian will bleat "But...  but...  Dan?  Those aren't REAL Christians" as though there's some sort of difference between the lunatics and those who create the lunatics.  

Seriously.  Don't you ever wonder why the most damaged, gutter-dwelling, drug-addicted and dysfunctional dregs of humanity turn to Christianity to clean up their lives?  It's not really because they somehow want to "clean up" their lives.  They want to feel that sense of entitlement so that, rather than look upon their own failures and shortcomings, they can project these failures upon those who don't believe as they do.  It gives them a false sense of self-worth over the rational people smart enough not to make the same foolish decisions they've made in their lives.  It's how they mollify their guilt about the poor decisions they've made.  Now, they can say, "I may have pissed away my life smoking crack, but at least I've got god on my side, and that makes me better than you, you hell-bound sinner."  LOL!  

So, go ahead and call me a militant atheist if you wish.  It's not a bad thing.  It just means I'm tired of hand-holding these brainwashed window-lickers, I think.  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

(Egads!  I guess I have to post this in two parts; so, here's the first)

Hi Raven.  

I believe the arrogance inherent in Christianity is built around their false sense of entitlement.  And, Christianity (and a few other religions) seems to need non-believers and differing faiths to threaten that sense of entitlement in order to exist.  Fear is the only motivating force in Christianity.  They've literally taken this ignorance-based fear and threat to that which they believe is theirs, and they've used it to motivate themselves, not to LEARN, but to destroy and control.  

For example, how many indigenous cultures in this world have been wiped out as a result of the "good news" of Christianity?  

Unfortunately, Christians never learn, and once or twice a century, they belch out the smelly, hot gas that is their sense of entitlement, and they try to make the world respect ONLY their beliefs.  Even today, in America, they are rewriting the history of our nation's founding.  They don't care about reality (Creation "Museum," anyone?) or disrespecting the beliefs of our founders.  They believe this nation is theirs.  And, they don't really seem to care about the treason they've committed.

...

Anonymous said...

Paul, again you have made a statement of fact, (science can demonstrate, pretty darn conclusively, that there never was a universal flood).  A quick search found a variety of views and some scientists that think differently from you from sea bed finds.  I am not saying this in defence of the ark but as a 'balance and check' to what we state as fact.  The most we can say about the majority of things is that given the evidence we have looked at i have come to believe that....until such time as someone shows me new evidence then i will make a review.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

Physics alone points out the impossibility of a devastating global flood, Jenny.  Where did that much water come from, and where did the water go?

By the way, was the global temperature similar enough to where there would be neither virga nor snow during the forty days and nights?  If that's the case, well...  then some pretty impossible things would have had to have happened to both our sun and the tilt of the earth's axis to create a homogeneous climate capable of supporting such a deluge.  

Did God turn off the sun to make the world cold enough to not evaporate the rain yet somehow warm enough for the formation of rain bearing clouds?  But then, if your meddling god did that, he would have also had to figure out how to make it warm enough in say...  Norway, or Spitsbergen so that this rain wouldn't snow.    

Yes.  I know.  "With God, all things are possible...  blah blah blah," but have a little respect for reality and those who live within its comfortable framework.  
 
-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Paul, the ephinany for the disciples had a timing factor. They all knew God walked with Jesus and when Jesus told Paul that only my father in heaven revealed who I am....the disciples heard that...they ALL knew for sure....They all speak about salvation through the son....the son of God...all the gospels do. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

Dan, Christianity has a horrible history. There were probably only a handful of real Christians and many of those were the ones fighting to free the blacks during the Civil War. A "handful" in terms of the scope of the population in the United States. A "handful" in terms of the history of Chrisitianity. When Jesus died....there were probably more true Christians than in all history..many were killed by the Romans at the Coliseum,,,many died for God....After that...man and his true evil ways polluted the bible with KKK mentality, racism, superiority, etc., I believe today, there are probably a greater amount of true Christians than ever before...with the exception of the time after Jesus....When I say greater amount, I am not saying, 90% of Christians...I am saying a handful loves thy brother....a handful out of many....I am not proud of the history of Christianity nor am I proud of the history or man or any nation...Man is an ugly beast more often than not...I have lived 43 years and only know a handful of kind people and they represent many beleifs...~Raven

Anonymous said...

Dan, in terms of flooding the earth as in the times of Noah, I think one of the ways a person can look at that...is "IF" there is a God and he created the universe...he can certaintly destroy the earth and it would not follow mans logic, reason or science...God could have overflowing waters...evaporate water...do whatever he wanted....I realize if someone didnt believe God than he can do nothing but in terms of those who do believe in God..he flooding in the earth..is certaintly not a tough test of his power...~Raven

Anonymous said...

Raven,
  Absolutely, the Christian God, as he is described, could make enough water appear out of nowhere to flood the entire earth, let it sit there for a year, then make it all go away again, then erase all geological evidence that it ever happened, then make all the dinosaurs that the flood destroyed turn into bones that all appear as if they were millions of years old, and then make the very limited number of species that would fit on the ark mutate and evolve at a rate thousands of times faster than we believe it actually happens in nature, to fill in all the niches that were left empty, and hide all evidence of that too, so that all the scientific investigation in the history of man can uncover not a single shred of evidence that any of it ever happened. Yes, he could do that.
  Why? Why would he? I don't get it. Explain it to me.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

God likes lying and defrauding people, Paul.  Kind of like that funny little joke he played on Abraham.  Real laugh factory that Christian god is, huh?  He should change his name to Shecky and do Vegas.  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, this topic is getting another spin on it:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/the-atheist-who.html

Simon
http://simianfarmer.com

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I really get what Adam's is trying to say on this one, Simon.

I completely agree with him when he says "A human can’t be 100% certain about anything." It's the idea behind Descartes "I think therefore I am."  He was trying to figure out how many of his beliefs he could say are something he *knows*, without any possibility of doubt, and this was all he could come up with.

One could argue you can't even know you're actually sitting at your computer reading this right know, since there's a possibility were actually in some Matrix-type situation. Of course, that chance is so small that we'd be silly to act on such a possibility, and so, as in so many things, we go on what is most likely to be true to the best of our reason and all available evidence.

In any event, is Adams trying to claim that to be an atheist someone has to claim that they *know* there is no god? There's a huge difference between making that claim and simply saying you *believe* there is no god, or rather, lack a belief in such. I don't know many atheists that claim they *know* there is no god.

I don't get (at least I hope I don't) what Adam's is trying to say about what people should do even if there's only a tiny fraction of a chance there's a hell. Paul's already done a good job explaining the problem with Pascal's Wager, after all, and as I've said before, a person can't just make themselves believe "just in case."

I'm not trying to argue anything here really, just wondering if I'm missing some point Adams is trying to make.

-Alec (not a god...though something of a pedagogue)

Anonymous said...

  Adams is a lying sack of shit. He is neither a weak atheist, an agnostic, nor a follower of Spinoza. Scott Adams is a true blue and orange, dyed in the wool, religious believer. He's just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. He's already been called on the carpet in the atheist blogosphere numerous times for trumpeting the ideals of The Discovery Institute, and denying he's doing it all the while. All he's doing in the article Simon linked to is presenting his own wishy washy version of Pascal's wager. Lame shit from a lame wanna-be celebrity.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul, I beleive God covered the earth with water because the bible says the people had been corrupted or turned to pure evil. It was like a starting over place....(Assuming here, that God can read the heart of man is what I know to be true but he being able to do so, knows the best way)

I know some Christians who are into Creativism and I do not agree with that at all. I beleive that when God created the earth, he obviously created the layers of the earth all at the same time. He created tall trees instantly baring age. The earth was created AGED and old. Adam and Eve werent put on a barren earth. Just because land, fossiles show age doesnt mean that "aged" wasnt a birth place although there are some scientific arguements by people of many beleifs that the current carbon dating system isnt error free.

~Raven

Anonymous said...

There was a made for TV show that I think I mentioned to you before. It was with that black guy from 60 minutes but it about proving if the stories in the bible are true. In this show they had scientist going to lands to investigate the soil of where cities in the bible were destroyed. This TV program showed where Science proved that one city was destroyed by fire and another by earthquakes etc., At the end of the show, ALL of the experts said, that there was more evidence proving the biblical stories were true than not.

I also watch alot of PBS specials and the History channel. I have seen programs similiar to this and suggesting the same results. Now, the scientist didnt claim it was God who did it. They stated that the damage to the land would support the bibilical stories. I am sure you have watched some of these programs. I cant imagine I am the only one whose seen them.

Anonymous said...

As far as this Adam guy leaving comments, I obviously know nothing about him. I did want to add that NO man can disprove there is a God. None...BUT to prove there is a God requires seeking him otherewise a man wouldnt know he existed. I think its a bit arrogant for any man to feel certain of No God. He can never know until death.....I also think its amazing that the "lack of IQ" that some(not saying you Paul), would state is true for anyman who excepts a belief in God is sad. Foolishness can exist in all people in all religions. When I think of the magic in Science and I know we have discussed this before but I can only marvel at Science and what it says is true. How a person who doesnt expect a God as real can easily except an concept that the universe and its vastness can go on for eternity. That the universe created itself or always existed. Paul, these Scientific starting points are like magic. They must bring wonder to the mind something I can faith because it defys logic. If a man can easily except this than how can he question the mind of a person who excepts a God? Both belief systems, God or evolution are outside of mans grasp. Eternity, always existing, "just is", something starting from nothing(energy), etc., are concepts to marvel at. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

(Typo's in CAPS from my last comment) reposted~

How a person who doesnt EXCEPT a God as real can easily except A concept that the universe and its vastness can go on for eternity? That the universe created itself or always existed? Paul, these Scientific starting points are like magic. They must bring wonder to the mind something I CALL faith because it defys logic and reason. If a man can easily except this than how can he question the mind of a person who excepts a God? Both belief systems, God or evolution are outside of mans MIND grasp.... "Eternity", "always existing," "just is", "something starting from nothing"(energy, matter, molecules), etc., are concepts to marvel at.

~Raven

Anonymous said...

Man am I tired of people using "I believe it because Bible says so" as their reason for believing.
Anyone who truly wants to know the truth and will look at the facts can easily see that some parts of the Bible are fiction.
Many reasonable people of faith have already come to accept this and rationalize these parts as analogies meant to teach lessons. They accept that in the time the Bible was written, it was common to use exagerated and wonderous stories to make a certain point.
This is reasonable thinking to explain things from the Bible that common sense and current education tells us are impossible.

I can accept that.
My problem arises when those same people will then quote the same book as a reason something must be so.
Why?
How do we know which parts are fact and which parts are fiction?

It is this conundrum that creates the people like Jenny and Raven who are perfectly willing to ignore established science and facts, grasp at any quack who tells them the science is flawed and the Bible is ALL fact.
If it's not ALL true then they have a major reassessment to undergo and they are quite simply unprepared and unwilling to take on that journey.

Too bad too. It would probably do more to help them to deal with what life can dish out than the Bible. Life is always a little easier when you can accept the truth. Even when you don't like what it shows you.

Brent  

Anonymous said...

Jenny,
I appreciate that you are having a tough time answering some of these questions due to the constraints of the blog, but why you have not answered mine.
It's a yes or no deal.

"I'm really more interested if you acknowledge that your faith (whatever it may be) condemns millions of people to Purgatory and/or Hell simply because of "how" they believe in God.
Is this acceptable to you?"

Will you acknowledge this and is it acceptable to you?

You should be able to keep that to a reasonable size.
Brent

Anonymous said...

Brent,
  One of the reasons Christians need to believe in the literal inerrancy of The Bible is the Noah's Ark story. Sure, it could be just a story, but if it is, what is its purpose? Usually bible stories have a moral, a lesson to be learned. What is the lesson to be learned from Noah's Ark? Be good or God will destroy everything?God is really a petulant child? No, Christians have to accept Noah's Ark as "authentic history." Otherwise, there is no good reason for it to be in The Bible.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Kind off topic here, but I had to pass this along.  

So, I was bopping around Blogspot visiting my new neighbors, and I stumbled upon this guy: http://giantsforchrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/yay-for-jesus.html

He says:
"So I get back from my WALK, and start trying to pump the tires. After a bit of messing around, it doesn't seem to be working. Do I not have the pump set correctly, is it the wrong size, etc? Getting gradually more and more frustrated, I stop and just go, "Dad, can you help me out?" Start trying to get the tires pumped again, and it immediately works. Literally within 10 seconds, the pump had locked onto the tire, and I was pumping successfully. Other one pumps fine as well. Suffice to say, I was just laughing for a couple minutes because God is just so awesome."


Needless to say, I wound up laughing myself silly at this poor, dumb bastard who's too rock-stupid to operate a bicycle pump, and when he DOES eventually figure it out, rather than take credit for his discovery and feel some sense of personal accomplishment, he passes it all on to his chosen figment.  And, I'm wondering whether or not he's learned a damn thing.  I mean, the next time he has to inflate a tire, will he fumble around in the same ham-handed manner until he asks "Dad" for help?  

Seriously.  This guy has absolutely no sense of self-worth or knowledge of his abilities.  What happens when he drives a car?  Will that story be something like:"I just kept going like crazy.  I couldn't figure it out.  Then, after blowing through yet another red light, I asked 'Dad?  Can you stop this crazy car?' and before I knew it, within seconds, my foot was guided to a pedal I didn't realize was there, and I pressed it, and the car started to slow down.  Gee...  God is great, huh?"  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/    

Anonymous said...

There.  Now you have 40 comments.  

You're welcome.

Man.  OCD's a pain sometimes.  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Alec, I think the overall point Adams was trying to make in his post is that regardless of one's religious beliefs (or lack), it is impossible to know with utter certainty whether or not a god exists.  Therefore defining yourself as an atheist simply means you don't believe in a god, not that you *know* there is no god.  I found the rest of the post mostly filler.

Also, I don't hold him in the same low esteem as Paul.  The Adams on the blog is a persona, and one that he's crafted quite carefully.  He seems pretty open-minded and genuinely inquisitive to me.  But of course I can't *know* that.

Has this line of discussion jumped the shark yet?  It's still really fun to follow along!

Simon
http://simianfarmer.com

Anonymous said...

How you interpret him makes sense Simon.

I think my problem was (is) that I'm reading him as saying atheists claim to *know* there is no god, which I don't think is true, which lets him conclude "Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God."  He seemed to be saying that since we can't know there isn't a god and so always some doubt, that therefore there's no true atheists but only agnostics.

Either way, Dilbert is just too damn funny for me to ever think badly of Adams (and yes, I realize the logical fallacies in that position! ;)

-Alec

p.s.: Jump the shark? This ain't over until we jump sharks with freakin lazer beams on their freakin heads.


Anonymous said...

If that is his argument, is not everyone an agnostic, no matter what?
I mean, that's why this debate about God vrs. no God occurs.
No one can be absolutely sure because there is no actual hard proof of God.
On the other side, it is always impossible to prove the absence or lack of something.

At some point, no matter how fervently you believe (either side), it is still just a belief.
If that is what he is arguing, he should have saved his breath.

Unless of course he is religious and then of course he just knows that God exists.
Ahem. ;)
Brent

Anonymous said...

Brent,
No, my faith does not believe in purgatory, i am a protestant, it is Catholics who believe in purgatory.
No my faith condems no one to hell because of 'how' they believe in God.  If they believe in God rather than false God's and follow him through Jesus they will have eternal life with him.
But i don't think this is what you meant.  I think you were talking about 'all faiths lead to God'.  I say again, if their god says one thing and mine says the opposite they cannot both be the same god.  
We as people cannot condemn anyone to hell, we just accept and believe what Jesus tells us, and why do we accept and believe?  Because he has proved himself to be trustworthy.  
And to make it perfectly clear, yes i do believe there is a hell as well as a heaven, but i will not be sending anyone anywhere.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

bpslider45, I would love to hear your thoughts on the marvels of "AWE" moments with Science definition of the start of the universe which is generally the beliefs of most evolutions who dont accept a superpower behind the scenes...My point in bringing this up is because whether you accept the universe coming into its own on its own from "what" starting point( nothing or always existing), these concepts are outside of rational logic thought processing. I find it irritating that people who agree with these concepts do not call it what it is which is,....Its in the same category of the faith in a God concept. If your an atheist, how do you explain a universe always existing on its own without being baffled by it? How do you explain the very first drop of energy or matter or molecules that began in the universe? How do you explain that rationally? The point is, the magic of Faith is believing in what you cant see or totally understand. Science is rooted in magic and yet scientist dare to say the beleif in a God is absurd and yet infinity or a universe that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....can just exist. If we are being honest and rational, atheist and scientist SHOULD be baffled at their concepts knowing they can not explain how its possible. The bible is accurate and there are many unbiased programs on the History channel and PBS that have revealed this.
~Raven

Anonymous said...

Paul, I would like to ask a favor of you as well as other Atheists that stop by your blog. Why not write an entry explaining your concepts about the start of the universe. The questions I would lover to hear answered by you or others, is how can a universe or space always exist? Do you feel like space is nothing? Does space represent area and if so, how can that be nothing or could it be a creation? If an Atheist beleives in the concepts of BIRTH/death or starting points, what was the starting point of energy, matter, molecules? how does something just exist? How can a universe go on forever and ever? And conclude with a suggested term such as faith, theory, unexplainable, I dont know, irrational, rational and see if any concepts have boxes that look like a religious perspective. Here is what I do know 100% is true and that is a belief in no God and acceptance of Science view on the start of all life, WITHOUT a doubt, and I do mean without a doubt, the concepts are beyond mans explanation whether they are Atheist or believe in a higher power which leads to this conclusion; how can either side judge the other since both sides except concepts that are outside of how we describe life. A cell has a starting point. Energy can eventually die. All life around us had a birth a starting place and yet the concept of the Big Bang and prior to the Big Bang(the start of ALL life starting points), and the concept of a higher power defys those concepts because both concepts always "just" existed or never saw a birth. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

typo...lover in my last comment should be love...

As you know..I dont proof read,lol...~raven

Anonymous said...

Jenny, Jenny, Jenny...
Are you a politician?
Lot's of words but no answer.

I will attempt to clarify the question so there is no room for confusion.

All faiths involving Christianity follow the belief that if you are not a believer of the Saviour Jesus and the path He taught, no heaven for you.
This means that all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc., etc., etc. are denied any possibility of Heaven. (for the purpose of simplicity we'll leave atheists and agnostics out of this discussion - sorry Paul & Dan)

By your faith, this means millions of people are prevented from going to Heaven, by GOD if you want, no matter how pious they are and no matter how pure a life they lead. They could be as wonderful a human being as is possible and according to your faith, denied heaven.

I'm no longer asking if you acknowledge this fact. You are Protestant (as I was raised) and this is the way it is.

The question is... Are you comfortable with this?
Do you see not problems with this scenario?

Again, it's a YES or NO issue.
Will you answer it or not?

Brent

Anonymous said...

Raven,
Could you try to simplify your questions.
I get partway through your post and find myself wondering what you are actually asking?
Leave out all the ethereal descriptives and I might be better able to figure out what you want to know.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. I believe in God.
I just don't accept any of the religious faiths I've encountered. They are all flawed somewhere or other.
Thanks
Brent

Anonymous said...

Brent,
Yes i am comfortable with it.

Let's look at 3 pictures.
1. everyone goes to heaven, good, bad and indifferent.  If this was true then we might all just as well do what we want.  Hey, were going to heaven anyway we don't need to be good.
2.  only the good go to heaven.  So who judges the standard of good.  if you do one bad thing will that leave you out.  if you are a little bit good do you have to spend a lifetime worrying if you have been good enough.  If God is God then the standard must be perfect.  Well that counts us all out.
3.  God knows that no one can be good enough, reach the right standard, remain perfect continually.  There is a consequence for not being perfect but God is prepared to pay the price of that consequence for us and take us into heaven.  All we have do is believe that all he says about himself is true, believe that we have all fallen short of the standard and need to be saved from that consequence, follow Jesus, then he gives us the gift of heaven.  He has done all the hard work for us and we can know in this life where we are going to spend eternity.  No worrying.

Now which one do you feel comfortable with Brent.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

Jenny,
Let's address this one by one.

"Hey, were going to heaven anyway we don't need to be good."
So the only reason you are good is to get to Heaven?
Sorry, but my standards are higher than that.
It's that kind of thinking that results in very religious people committing crimes and having affairs. I can name a few of those. I'm sure you can too.

"So who judges the standard of good?" God. Who else would you think?
"If God is God then the standard must be perfect."
Why? You believe he made us, do you believe he made us perfect? Why would he suddenly expect his imperfect creation to behave perfectly. Makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Ah Brent you have a nice knack of twisting the questions but i wonder if you are going to answer me.  Which one do you feel comfortable with.
I will have to wait for tomorrow for your answer though as it is well gone midnight here and i must go to bed. Nite
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

Whoops hit save by accident.

"follow Jesus"
Why Jesus, why not Mohamed, Budha, or any of the other messengers from God.

Jenny, what makes you so sure that there is only one path?
You say Jesus said so, but were you there? Did you hear the words?
No, you are just taking someone else's word for it.
Other humans. Not God.

If God wants so many people excluded only because they don't follow the word of Jesus then he would not be something to worship.
He would then be unfair and cruel.

I have two choices. Not the ones you pick.

Either religions are man-made and as such flawed. This explains their exclusionary rules. In reality, they are based on various human experiences and interpretations of the same desire. To be with God.
God would include all who lived a life worthy of his approval.
or,
God is as you say and perfectly good people, people I love and trust, people who have committed relatively little sin cannot go to heaven.

No true God would choose to exclude so many for such pitiful reasons.

I made my choice a long time ago.
I chose to believe that God accepts all good people regardless of the path that gets them there. I cannot accept that millions would be denied simply because they did not choose one religion over another.

If that doesn't work, I'd rather not go anyhow.

Brent

Anonymous said...

Jenny,
How were my comments twisting anything?
Please clarify and I will be happy to un"twist" my response.
Brent

Anonymous said...

I can tell you Jenny, that if I did believe in heaven, I would be quite happy if everyone found there way there eventually.  I can't think of anyone so evil, or an act so bad, that an eternity of pain without chance of redemption could be considered a just and fair punishment.

And I think Brent did answer your question by pointing out that your options aren't actually the only ones (specifically how you phrase option 2).

You say:
"If this was true then we might all just as well do what we want.  Hey, were going to heaven anyway we don't need to be good."

So if you don't need to be good to get into heaven, but merely accept Jesus, etc , then why don't *you* just do whatever you want? Hey, you're going to heaven anyway, right?  Unless of course you want to say now that your actions do matter? But, according to you (the questions you bring up in your option 2), that's an impossible standard for anyone, even God, to judge someone by.

-Alec

Anonymous said...

I guess I could go with that Alec (everybody getting there) as long as some form of penalty exists for sins committed.
If Heaven includes rapists, murderers, child molesters etc. whose only penance is to confess their sins and find Jesus at some point in their life, then to me that would pretty much make a joke of the whole concept of Heaven.

One of the things that has always disgusted me is watching the number of part-time religious people.
Monday to Friday they screw the world to make a buck and then on Sunday go to church to make sure their immortal soul is safe.
They lie, cheat, have affairs and treat their own children like inconveniences, then go to church for confession and it is 50 "Hail Mary's" to absolve any and all sins.
Puleeze!

I still can't wrap my head around why so many religious people cannot accept the possibility that their particular brand of religion might not be the only one.
I mean, just to accept the POSSIBILITY that God might have sent the Chinese people another messenger, other than that white anglo-saxon Jesus guy.
(yes I know, he was probably more middle eastern looking but hopefully you get the point)
I mean, he is God!
Wouldn't he foresee that many races would need many messengers of "THE WORD?"
Makes me shake my head until it rattles. (shut up Paul)
Brent

Anonymous said...

Raven, I vaguely remember when you brought up that whole issue before.

You obviously were not content with our answers then (Paul did answer you then, by the way, and better than I'm about to), but let me try a different way.

Let's say, *for the sake of argument*, that I were to agree that I have no understanding of how the universe could come into being, no understanding of infinity, no understanding of eternity, etc.  Let us grant all this and any other question you have for now.

This is important: A skeptic is completely comfortable with simply saying "I don't know." But just because we don't know or understand something (yet) does not mean we suddenly have something akin to faith as you have it. Yes, the universe fills me with wonder.  Yes, I don't know all about it. But that can just mean "I don't know"; not that I automatically have to assume that, because my limited human mind cannot grasp the entire universe--yet. Mah ha ha--that I have to assume there is a god, afterlife, etc. I mean, people used to not understand thunder; indeed, thought there was no way we ever would! Some tested incomplete theories. Others said it was Thor.

I find it wondrous that when I flick a switch a light can come on. It's awe-inspiring really. And I don't understand all the ways and steps in which the light comes on.  But, despite my wonder and lack of understanding about all things electricity, I'm content to say "I don't know", can attempt to find answers, perhaps even make and test theories to the best of my ability and available evidence.  And if, even after all that, I completely lack evidence or an explanation for a given concept, I'll leave it blank and simply say "I don't know." But this is very different from simply following a given explanation on faith. And even scientific theories that aren't completely understood or explained are always open to change by new evidence (which they constantly and actively seek).  

Anonymous said...

Re: Explaining the universe.
Again, well said Alec. Gawd I'm really suckin' up to you these days.
I'll have to come up with a favour to ask!!

Another way to look at it is...
As a newborn we are basically without understanding of anything that life shows us.
We have no idea why anything happens or what most things "mean."
As we grow, we learn.
If we are reasonable and rational, we accept that there are many things in life we do not yet know and hence cannot explain.
Does that necessitate a supernatural answer?
No, it just means we have not as yet learned that lesson.

The human race is very much an infant at this point in time.
There are many amazing things we have yet to ponder a question for, let alone find a possible answer to.

The existence of God might be the very last question truly answered.
That's okay by me because I have no need to be joined by others in my beliefs.
They are mine. That is enough for me.
Brent

Anonymous said...

Aleclynch, your response was "I dont know." Its actually far more than that. If a skeptic is to analize a conclusion, you must also be willing to elaborate. "I dont know" isnt true. The answer is, Its an impossibility and no amount of time that I could invest could ever give me the answer. You see, Science and the no God philosophy has dead ends at the beginning of its theories. NO man can explain the "magic" of forever, infinity or something just existing. We can imagine it. We can write it down but it will always baffle and awe any man just as a God always existing, or having infinite power does awe a man who believes in this. Science can never ever be TRUE if its very roots of analytical conclusions, has a begining that man can never be able to grasp. No Atheist, No person who accepts a Universe just being able to do all that it has, all on its own or without a starting point should dare call such theories as fact or possible for they say, a God logic is impossible. Its hypocritical to change up such reasoning.

These marvels of acceptance is in the same category as a God belief. If an Athesist calls a belief in God absurd or irrational than he must call his own beleifs the same, if he is being true to his own logic.

No universe can just exist! No universe could bend on its own to create energy unless something existing created the curve in the first place thus, the force that created the curve, came into existence by some other source and so on and so on UNTIL an Atheist accepts that there is magic or impossibilities left on his lap to analize for the start of all life, can never be understood. Science has a base where all things start and all things die. Something just existing forever, creating itself from a starting place of nothing is defined as irrational by man.

"I dont know" isnt the answer and nor should you accept that unless your an Athesist who accepts that those who believe in God have a logic that is also reasonable and ration

Anonymous said...

bpslider45, my response to your human being infancy logic is simply this, at no point in time, now or in a billion years can the logic of man explain rationally the infinite existence of the universe. It will never be possible by logic. At no time, ever in the future will a man be able to say its rational that a universe can exist on its own and never have a birth. For a birth, represents something existing before that could create this birth. And, as the "something existing" before goes through a backward timeline of logic, all athesists or evolutionists or those who believe in the Big Bang, will always, ALWAYS be left with questions unanswered that sit in boxes similiar to God belief analogies.

Religion_ God has always existed and was never born.
Science_The Universe has always existed and was never born.

Religion_God has the ability to be everywhere at the same time.
Science_The vast universe goes on forever and ever and ever and never ends.

Religion_God created space, the universe and all it emcompasses.
Science_ Energy just came to be. Matter just came to be. Molecules just came to be.


Science is rooted in marvels of thought that man will never know the answers too. This is a fact.

Anonymous said...

As far as some of your questions about heaven, there is no rapists, murderors, molesters in heaven UNLESS they repent. Repent isnt saying sorry just because. Repent is "meaning" I am sorry, regretting your mistakes although no shame in your being but regret in your actions, and if you could go back, you would have done it differently.

Just as if someone hurt you and said sarcastically I am sorry or said I am sorry in a way, where you knew they were not sincere. It wouldnt benefit you and you wouldnt feel better after a bullshit apology.

In heaven, those who meant I am sorry for whatever they have done and meant it sincerely are forgiven.

Heaven is a break from the hell on earth and personally, I am looking forward to it. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

Aleclynch, my comment got caught off...so I just reposted the last part in my previous comment..

"I dont know" isnt the answer and nor should you accept that unless your an Athesist who accepts that those who believe in God have a logic that is also reasonable and rational.

~Raven

Anonymous said...

Raven,
Do you really think you will convince us of your position just by saying "because?" It's all dressed up in religious mumbo jumbo but it really is just an answer of "because".
You give no reason for your position, just rhetoric.
Sorry, no sale here. I don't let my 7 year old get away with "because" so you have no chance.
You've been offered reasonable answers to your question, your response is nothing of the sort.

As far as your rapists in heaven bit. PULEEZE!

Many criminals have said they are sorry and really meant it. Does not mean they did not commit the offense?
According to your logic, Ted Bundy could be in heaven as long as he sincerely said he was sorry.
If someone rapes my daughter and repents, I would have to share heaven with him!?!?!
Nope, doesn't fly with me.
If that's God's idea of heaven, I'll pass and go wherever these unbelievers are going.
Brent  

Anonymous said...


Religion_ God has always existed and was never born.
Science_The Universe has always existed and was never born.

Religion_God has the ability to be everywhere at the same time.
Science_The vast universe goes on forever and ever and ever and never ends.

Religion_God created space, the universe and all it emcompasses.
Science_ Energy just came to be. Matter just came to be. Molecules just came to be.

Raven, do you make this stuff up? If not who does?
There is not one thing above that you could back up in any way shape or form.
It's all rhetoric.
Try this - Religion - the belief of unsubstantiated, unprovable ideas.
          - Science - the study of facts and observable data with the hope of better understanding our world.
Brent

Anonymous said...

You've convinced me Raven.  

I may indeed never understand everything about the universe.  Therefore, naturally, I cannot believe anything science tells me. Because one aspect of one field of science is currently incomplete, I no longer believe anything science tells me. I'm no longer entirely sure how I'm typing this to you, of course, but don't worry, I'll just come up with something.

And of course, because science will not immediately reveal all the mysteries of the universe to me, and because I now see that I'm not allowed to say "I don't know" about one thing but claim that "I think I know" in any other area because of that, I will believe whatever your answer is.

In all seriousness and with all respect Raven, as you might recall from when you brought this up before, you have a very different view of what science is and how it works than most of us, and until we share a similar view on this level, I don't think we'll make any headway with the questions you're asking.
--
Brent, just so you can disagree with me somewhere ;) I can say I have a different view than you in regards to forgiveness and getting into a heaven.  I'm o.k. with the idea that someone who sincerely repents would end up in heaven.  Certainly more so than I am with the idea that there's a time limit to seeking forgiveness, or that you have to repent to a specific being in a specific way, and that failure to do so results in eternal punishment without chance of parole. But then, like you, I'd find a god odd that would rather "evil" people who believe in him than "goodly" people who don't (assuming Jenny is right that a specific belief matters more than actions, and that, though according to her god is willing to accept and "pay the price" of us being imperfect in our actions, but apparently isn't able to understand to pay the price of people not believing in him correctly).

-Alec

Anonymous said...

bpslider45, here is an addition to what I wrote but written another way..."Threads" of logic have similiar reasononing and yet the subject can be different. Threads of reasoning are similiar in terms of the concepts behind a God existing or or Big Bang beleivers with a non existance God. Your looking at the surface and not getting the roots. Of course there are similarities!! It doesnt matter if I use God logic or Athesist logic. BOTH concepts are outside of mans ability to fully conceptualize.

If your saying, that you think your wiser, smarter, more rational, more logical than I or God believers because you accept a universe always existing or coming into its own(its own birth, birthing itself from nothing), I would like to throw you a logic curve and ask that you dwell on the marvels that you cant explain today, that you accept as logical and rational and trust me, you will never be able to explain them.

I, who beleives or 'accepts' that God is real and he always existing is a "thread" of logic which is similiar to you just accepting that a universe could always exist and go on forever. Magic, my friend!  We both have faith and marvels in our beleifs when considering the start of ALL life. Its just the subject that has changed but the marvels exist in both and in my opinion, when analizing them both, a God beleif is more reasonable.  A power I can not understand is more reasonable than a universe that can create all life, all planets, all stars and yet runs on energy that will eventually die and YET, it all started from "what magical awe place?"

Atheism logic isnt so different than the faith logic. Energy vrs God and yet both just existed on its own and never saw birth. I find it funny that this concept isnt spoken of more but in time, it will be. I feel Scientist will began to rethink their concepts since the "Beginning" of all their theories is rooted in a list of impossibilities by his logic.

~Raven

Anonymous said...

p.s.: Apologies Raven.  I could have made my point in that last post without getting sarcastic.  Not a great excuse, but I'm obviously too tired to be debating civilly, so will leave off for the night (I'll blame the typos on this too while I'm at it).

Take care and see ya in the morning,

Alec

Anonymous said...

Alexlynch, when I said "I dont know" isnt true and then I also said, Science and Atheist can never conceptualize their logic in terms of the "begining" of their logic; what I mean is the "I dont know" is missing the "knowing" piece that represent's AWE, magic, impossibilities, how can it be possible?,...

The missing logic piece is outside of mans ability to conceptualize period. According to my faith, (which I realize is considered irrational by others), God said he created man with limited mind abilities. God created man to understand life, death, starting places, ending places, cause and effect, etc., Man can never understand  something always existing and never being born. He is unable. Now, according to those who do not believe in a God, they say, its also unreasonable to accept a belief that a God can just exist and yet they do NOT analize the begining of their logic. An Atheist can say, "I accept that the Universe always existed or never was born' and then think the reasoning ability of God beleivers is absurd when they say, "I accept that God has always been." I find that hypocritical or for those who didnt recognize this, its an Marvel moment for them to accept someday. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

Alexlynch, you wrote this, "Because one aspect of one field of science is currently incomplete, I no longer believe anything science tells me."

If the root of your logic has a missing piece that reason can never explain, than everything after is based on shallow ground. At least with a higher power "theory"(as some would put it), the missing piece being, "Wow, how can God be all powerful?" "Wow, how can God always exist?"...those threads of reason that I accept leaves me with, everything after logic....as... based on a higher power ground where all things are possible.

Stars die. Suns die. Energy eventually dies. Everything lives and dies in the universe and on the earth and yet it Atheism logic started with some magical awe point that had no superpower behind it.."It just is true"... as Scientist widely accept this as rational. If I was playing the lottery, and had 2 starting points that I know I will never ever conceptualize, I will go with the God logic. That is more reasonable than all powerful energy, matter or molecules, that can not keep itself from dying,lol. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

bflslider45 **** part 2

1) "Energy" just is and has always been. 2) "Energy" was born.

(logic disclaimer)>>>so therefore at some point in time Energy must have come from some nothing starting place even though nothing can NOT logically create anything, if your a rational sort of person. (****do insert all the other many Big Bang terminology or starting of life theories where the word "energy" is)

To conclude, my response to your Science description is this... Observable data of the root when Life began can never be observed or fully understood by you or ANY man ever. The mysteries of the universe will never be found by logic alone.

That is what Faith is. To accept what one can not fully understand but knows as true or accepts as true. Its a dichotomy of reason that Scientist's, Atheist's and God believer's know all too well. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

bfslider45, part 1***
You wrote, "Raven, do you make this stuff up? If not who does? There is not one thing above that you could back up in any way shape or form. It's all rhetoric.
Try this - Religion - the belief of unsubstantiated, unprovable ideas.    - Science - the study of facts and observable data with the hope of better understanding our world"

I say, Science can only explain starting points that are respected as rational that look like this, "It just is true."

When you lay at the night sky, imagine and sense what you say is rational. That night sky goes on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and NEVER EVER ENDS! That is an AWE MOMENT!

AND YET everything that the universe is made up was born and dies. Some science states that ALL life started from a place without a birth and calls this rational. And YET some Science delegates other theories where ALL LIFE had a starting place (Big Bang, dark matter, curvature of space, etc.,) but can not explain the TRUE TRUE start of life. It was before the Big Bang. It was before the curvature of space. It was before energy came to be. It was before, all of the befores, of all Science theories that should leave an Atheist to marvel and wonder at its logic full of impossibilities. Science calls it...."It just is true" but really it is this...Through their logic, "something" can just exist on its own and forever OR it can create itself from nothing where nothing had nothing to offer, towards the marvel of something finally being born and then written in Science books as "Its observable data that is true."

Anonymous said...

bfslider, you wrote, "Many criminals have said they are sorry and really meant it. Does not mean they did not commit the offense?According to your logic, Ted Bundy could be in heaven as long as he sincerely said he was sorry. If someone rapes my daughter and repents, I would have to share heaven with him!?!?!Nope, doesn't fly with me."

My question to you is if you had a son who raped a woman and he was sincerely sorry, would you want him to be in heaven?

If Ted Bundy was truly sorry for what he had done which also means he regrets it and would never do it again or try with every bit of his heart not to do it again,(True repentence), of course I would hang out with him and not at all be worried. He made it to heaven. Why would I? Have you ever had anyone you love steal from you? Eventually over time, you began to trust them again, they had apologized and would you no longer feel worried that they would rob you again? I wouldnt.

Outside of blasmpheny, there is no sin that can keep you away from God if you repent. No matter what you do. That is comforting and certaintly more forgiving than I am with a select few in my life. I am not perfect and genuinely pissed off at some people I know. I dont deny I have issues or areas to work on. I am a work in progress my dear.
~raven

Anonymous said...

With regards to your "my son's a rapist" question, the answer is... It does not matter what I want.
If my son raped someone, would I expect to see him get to heaven?
NO!!
I'm not even sure if I would then qualify, as I obviously did a piss poor job of raising him.

As far as the Ted Bundy issue...
You'd rather spend eternity with Ted than Paul or I?
After all, according to you disbelief in God or not following the right faith certainly qualifies as blasphemy.
I'm sorry but you and Ted can enjoy whatever heaven that is because I honestly don't wish to join that little club.
Raven, you might just convince me that Hell would be more fun. At least you know who you are dealing with!
I'm out.
Brent

Anonymous said...

bpslider, I use the term Science just as I use the term religion. Its just a bases for my argument. I am writing a response to you and not writing a term paper. If I have to type of every evolutionary theory or Big Bang or etc., to make my argument, I can google it for you but really, it wouldnt matter. Evolution isnt the Big Bang. They are different.  Evolution comes after the Big Bang. They are on different places on the number line among most people who accept Science arguments over a God existing. My point is simple. If you think on it, you will understand. As far as you or Ted Bundy, anyone who repents or changes, I would hang out with in heaven. ~Raven

Anonymous said...

bpslider, I did want to clarify this...I realize that not everyone who beleives in Evolution and the non existence of a God, believe in the Big Bang. Some have other theories for how the universe started without a God. Some people beleive a power was behind the scenes but didnt partake in how life evolved, etc. I can go on and on with the different beleifs that sit in the scientific realm but than we are OFF subject and that will not began to touch on what I am proposing with my arguments.  If you want to turn away from this, than fine. Let me know.

My discussion isnt about the numerous definitions involved in how man came to be because ALL of them that support a non existence God, END up at the same logic place. This place of reasoning is what I am hoping people will intellectually dig at and call it what it really is....

I am hoping to point out that the underlying logic with many scientific theories in how the Universe started are similiar to a God based logic. Whats behind what is considered rational conclusions can also be interpreted it as faith or logical impossibilities.  

I dont know if your a Big Bang beleiver. What is the theory of the universe start that you accept as rational and more than likely true? ~Raven

Anonymous said...

Dawn, you asked for empiracle data that God has always existed. I can look all around me and realize that a supernatural power was involved. I dont believe in the logic of evolutionary lottery....Its too lucky....It gets it right too often....Secondly, I have had many miracles in my spiritual walk. I havent heard God speak yet but I have seen a few visions when I was awake and experience his spirit. It is an awe experience. Its not chills. It feels like wind blowing through my blood, muscles and every part of my being. Its a mind blowing experience. I realize that someone can suggest that I am hallucinating or having a chemical imbalance, or the luck of answered prayers is just luck...Man can always find a reason for anything. I understand this.

What is the best argument for a God existing? Where the best supportive arguments for the existence of a God come from is from the arguments that say God doesnt exist!!!!!!!!!!

The same arguments that Science uses to explain how the universe began and evolved require a greater leap of faith than the acceptance of a God. There are many AWE moments all through Science theories that I am more baffled by them than a mind that accepts that a God exists.

Here is another analogy~If you were an art expert, you could look at a piece of art and by looking at the brush strokes and style, you could figure out who is the painter. Gods handprint, the DNA, the carbon based living beings, all have his imprint. Plants, animals and humans, etc., carry his imprint. He is the painter.

You may say in your mind, that this proves we all evolved from each other and some New so-called species evolved too and created their own geneology tree, etc. I would say that Gods hand created all life and its sooo observable that it appears that we are all connected in some way. I would have to agree. The creator did it all!!

~Raven

Anonymous said...

"SCIENCE!"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

. . .

Raven, we've tried to point out to you that what you think science is, is not what most people (including all scientists) view it as.  

I'm baffled by your ability to say all science is somehow flawed because it does not currently answer certain questions in one area, as if science is all somehow linear in it's workings, each piece of information gleamed from it building on top of each other from the beginning of time until now.  This is simply not true.

I mean, suppose I was a cook.  Maybe I want to try to make a new dish and I think combining a few ingredients will make something very tasty and healthy. So I whip it all together and sure enough it tastes great, so I publish the recipe in a cookbook where a bunch of other cooks try it out.  This analogy is kind of a stretch, but in a way this is "science."  I had a hypothesis, I proceeded to test the hypothesis and collected date which I then published to be further tested and examined by peer review.  And yet, basically, you'd want to say that I can't really believe my new dish tastes good because you can't understand eternity. Can't you see how unconnected the two are?

Change the example to anything more scientific you want (work in germs, motion, etc etc).  The point remains the same.

-Alec


Anonymous said...

I'm back, don't groan, and wow the debate has gone on a pace.

Brent, can i ask you some questions?
You say you believe in God.

So, How did you first find God.
What do you know about him.
Where do you get your info about God.
How do you know what he does.
How do you know his charachter.
How does he communicate.
What kind of relationship do you have with him.
What does he want you do to.
How does he feel about you.
What are his plans for the future.
If there is a God out there you cannot see and you say you believe in him, how do you know there isn't more out there.
If he didn't create everything, what purpose does he have.

I will be taking these questions to my bible study group tonight and putting them to the group.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

Raven said,
"I can look all around me and realize that a supernatural power was involved"
This is flat out an assumption. No evidence, no scientific basis what so ever.

"I dont believe in the logic of evolutionary lottery....Its too lucky....It gets it right too often."
I studied genetics in university Raven. This one sentence proves without a doubt that you don't even have a basic understanding of genetics and evolution.

"I have seen a few visions when I was awake"
This would be called a "bad trip." Even if it wasn't you cannot prove it was God.
Assumption!

"Gods handprint, the DNA, the carbon based living beings, all have his imprint"
ASSUMPTION! No proof!

"You may say in your mind, that this proves we all evolved from each other and some New so-called species evolved too and created their own geneology tree
The creator did it all!!"
Double whammy!
You don't understand what you are talking about AND making assumptions.

Sorry Raven, but this will be my last reply to you.
I could type my fingers to the nub and you still would not get it.
You refuse to even recognize that you don't really understand what science is.
It's a waste of my time.
Bye
Brent

Anonymous said...

Hi Jenny,
I'd better start by saying I believe God is a much different entity than you believe in.
I believe in God, quite simply because of the amazing details I have observed in science. I simply see complexity beyond my ability to accept as occurring by chance.
I therefore believe that God guided and shaped the creation of these processes.
And yes this is an assumption!

Not *poof* there is Adam and *poof* there is Eve as the bible says.
He guided the evolutionary process over  millions upon millions of years.
I don't believe God will save sick children if we pray and I don't believe he will deny entrance to heaven based on what faith we choose to follow.

You see, your questions aren't really relevant to my belief.
They all involve your belief that God is a hand holding father figure.

I often use this analogy.
To me, God is a science student and we are his little experiment.
He has set up all the conditions for this existence and now he is simply observing us to see what we do with it.
I don't believe he wrote the bible. I believe men did in an effort to promote what they probably honestly thought was a true path to God.
To me, all that "Hey, were going to heaven anyway we don't need to be good" stuff is just silly.
To me, men made the rules you claim that God wants you to follow.
I live my life according to standards taught to me by my parents (as does Paul).
They are very similar to yours except I have no tolerance for the "Our club is better than yours" stuff that all religions display.
To me the religion is moot. Its man-made.

Cont'd (sorry Paul)

Anonymous said...

Cont'd
"If there is a God out there you cannot see and you say you believe in him, how do you know there isn't more out there."
I don't. Why does that have to be a conflict.
Everyday, I learn something I did not know yesterday.
When my life has run its path, others will continue to learn.
If we as a race do not destroy ourselves arguing about who's God IS God, we will continue to do so as long as we chose.

"If he didn't create everything, what purpose does he have."
I have looked hard at this one and I am sorry, it really makes no sense to me.
Substitute your own name in their instead of God. Can you answer the question?
"Purpose" is what we choose it to be. Only the person involved can answer and even then it's going to sound like a line from Shakespeare.

Not sure if this is going to help your bible study. ;)
Brent

Anonymous said...

Have to answer this after B. St. got to go.
Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

I don't think I want to swipe this meme from Paul anymore.  

-Dan
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/

P.S.  Reason wins.

Anonymous said...

No kidding Dan!!
Thanks for the chuckle!
Brent

Anonymous said...

bpslider, you wrote..."I dont believe in the logic of evolutionary lottery....Its too lucky....It gets it right too often."I studied genetics in university Raven. This one sentence proves without a doubt that you don't even have a basic understanding of genetics and evolution."

Bpslider, this is a silly response. Are we going to have some huge debate tasting the delicacies of SCIENCE which will not answer the questions I proposed because I am NO expert on evolution. I DO however know more than the basics. I studied Mechanical Enginneering for 2 years and understand the math behind energy, fluids and so on. The list is LONG! I am not writing a thesis paper to you that would carry ever perfect scientific word to suffice your anal response. Do you not get the root of what I am saying? Do I need to be an expert in the field of evolution to GET that theories built on billions of years is in NO WAY ever going to be observable data?

As far as observing God, it starts off with a hope that he could exist. Call it an Agnostic initial disposition. Then as a person seeks him, he begans to reveal himself . This is how it happened for me. I have experienced frickin miracles and I hope to see more. Here is one for you, for a short season during my prayer life, every night when I began to pray I would see, what I would describe as LIT UP Fog swirling around my ceiling. I use to cry and the awe of this vision. I ended up having sex with this guy awhile later that I was dating, and shortly after that miracle ended and nor has it begun again. It was a blessing to have seen that and it was Gods discipline to remove it. Now you may say I am full of shit, or have a chemical imbalance but the list is long and you could find some reason to say it WASNT observable data by me. Such as life ~Raven

Anonymous said...

bpslider, I wrote...You may say in your mind, that this proves we all evolved from each other and some New so-called species evolved too and created their own geneology tree"

A new species is like a chain that has broken and starts again. It is infact part of the evolution reasoning for mans evolvement. I am not sure if you want to get into perfect words but if you want to be anal, than fine. I can get it for you and the sad part is...you KNOW what I am talking about. You know whaT I am describing. If a person understands the bases of a story but cant remember the exact chapter and some details...and yet you know what they are talking about and describing, than we are playing anal word games and your avoiding the topic I proposed.

I can look it up if another word other than "species" is used. At this point, my brain cant remember. I would hope you can get the "just" within this message and not respond back with particulars that need to be written in order for us to continue a debate or as you say...I know nothing..

~Raven

Anonymous said...

bpslider.....try this question, the one that most would probably avoid...

Explain to me how the universe can just exist by some theories and explain to me how the universe(so called empty space) could create energy, matter, molecules, etc.,...Explain to me these logical IMPOSSIBILITIES that many call rational thought.....Write a philosphy paper about it...You mind find yourself respecting the IQ ability of what may have once thought of as irrational God beleivers and find that you have more in common with them than you think... even if you dont accept the notion of a God.....If you truly explored the "start" of all starts behind a universe created without a God, without a doubt, I am 100% certain, it is a fact, completely accurate....THAT......The reasoning behind a universe created without a God, is a logic similiar to a universe created with a God. No rational logic can explain eterntiy, infinity, forever , always existing, etc., and yet we have math formulas that embrace them, we have theories that accept this and yet man who says there is no God,..often says, those that say there is a God, are either ignorant, stupid, irrational, etc., Some may deny this but deep down inside , I beleive many feeel this is true. I do not think that of non beleivers. I have met some exceptionally intelligent people of many beleifs BUT that doesnt mean that I agree with everything they say or what they define as rational is often up for grabs and often by their own definitions...

If you can answer these questions with more than I dont know, or one day I will know...the fact is ,,,you or any man will never know...or beable to describe the mysterious of the universe that would satisfy logic. THIS IS true. Faith comes in many forms and the so called observable data is often unobserved but just accepted.
~Raven

Anonymous said...

I rest my case.
(head shaking)
Brent

Anonymous said...

Brent,
Thank you for your honest answering of my questions i think/hope i have a clearer idea of where you are coming from.
We have a lot more in common than you think.

'I believe in God because of the amazing details....'  Change science for nature and i agree with you.  

'Religion is man made.'  I agree, religion is what you do (ritual) christianity is about what Jesus did for us.  I am not religious.

'Live my life according to standards.....'  I was not blessed with the same kind of parents as you and Paul, my standards had to come from somewhere else and whilst not a 'bad' person Jesus' teaching and the 10 commandments became my guide.

You didn't answer some questions because they were not relevant to your belief.  I am sure you thought they were silly questions but your answer or reason for not answering said an awful lot about what you believe about God probably more than you realise.
I find you like to tell me what i believe, 'handholding father like..' and phrase words in a way to make what you think i believe to sound foolish.  Again all very telling but understandable.  One thing i have learnt is that when two people disagree it doesn't always mean that one is wrong and one right, they may both be right or both wrong however sincere.  I think you have already made up your mind that anything i say must by definition be wrong.

Jenny <><

Anonymous said...

cont.
I have lived my life without God, and with him, and since i have known him life has been more excitng, rewarding, challenging, fulfilling, fun, affirming.  It is not always an easy option and at times you are stepping out in faith with no idea what is going to happen next, but it usually always ends in a wow as you see the things God can and does do.  Paul would want me to give this up, you want me to accept your reality.  I've been there, done that, there is no comparison, the life i have now beats it hands down.  No contest.  Why do i believe in the bible, because it does what it says on the tin, and i have been feeding from that tin for 25 years with no indigestion.  Your way didn't work.

Jenny <><

A couple of comments from the B. St. group about your answers.
You are making up a God that suits you, with no reference point.  You are deciding what God is like rather than him telling you.
You have a remote God who isn't interested in you.




Anonymous said...

Hi Jenny,
Just two points.

First I am not trying to convince you to give up your faith.
I would not expect to be successful and truth be told, would not want to be.
Faith is a wonderful thing that helps some people deal with burdens in their life that they might not otherwise survive. Whatever works for you is fine by me.

The second point is that, just as I am not always getting what you are saying correct, the reverse is also true.
That is the flaw in discussing these kinds of things on a blog.
There is no tone, no inflection.
Misunderstandings occur very easily.

All I have been trying to point out to you through this discourse is that all religions, be they Christian or Muslim or what ever are inherently flawed as soon as they exclude any and all other religions.
God is supposed to be all knowing and all seeing right?
Why wouldn't he foresee the strife and violence that one religion above all others would cause?
Why wouldn't he realize that this path would lead to millions upon millions of people having no access to his "Kingdom?" Believers and non-believers alike.

Large parts of these religions are probably right in line with his wishes.
The attitude "our religion is the best and only way to God!" is sheer vanity.
That's not God.
That would be man talking.

How does accepting the possibility that other religions might also be valid paths deter you from having faith in your own?

It would certainly end a lot of fighting if all took this attitude.

Be happy in your faith. I would just suggest that you open your mind to the fact that parts of it may have been less the "Will of God" and more the words of men (other than the prophets).
Take care
Brent

Anonymous said...

Done!

Anonymous said...

Brent... you have amazing patience and were really wonderful in what you wrote to Jenny, I agree with you just about point for point.

Dan... yeah, skip this one! LOL Come do my Tuesday Twelve instead!

be well,
Dawn
http://journals.aol.com/princesssaurora/CarpeDiem/

Anonymous said...

This

Anonymous said...

needs

Anonymous said...

to

Anonymous said...

reach

Anonymous said...

100,
Brent

Anonymous said...

Paul