There is abounding evidence for a Creator God. If you're familiar with Geometry, an indirect proof is when you prove something by proving what it's not. To start this indirect proof, the given information I'm using is the universe and all it contains; I'm trying to prove that there's a God. First, I will assume temporarily that there is no God. So that means that there is no-one or nothing to create the universe and all it contains. But that conflicts the given that there is a universe. Therefore, there is a God that created the universe because there's not not a God.

Tim wrote:
"I'm trying to prove that there's a God."

There is. I have the proof. And god is an invisible purple rhinoceros.

Tim wrote:
"I will assume temporarily that there is no God. So that means that there is no-one or nothing to create the universe and all it contains. But that conflicts the given that there is a universe."

Wow you are really really smart. Let me try it now.

I will assume temporarily that there are no stupid people. So that means there are no stupid people from which stupid people can be created. But that conflicts with the given that there are stupid pepole in the universe.

Thanks. I feel better now.

(be gentle now moderators ... I didn't call any specific person stupid. Feel free to substitute the noun of your preference).

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan

" But that conflicts the given that there is a universe."

We assume there's a creator, because their must have been a creator. That's not logic.

science cant explain what happened in the first few split seconds after the "big bang". our science is not good enough yet to theorize what happen at the zero instant. how can anyone claim they know what there was before that instant. some say it was a singularity. if so that means that the material for that singularity came from somewhere. If this highly speculative theory is correct, then that means there was a big crunch before that. which means there was a universe and all before that too. In other words, if this theory (and many others) are correct, there was no creation because the everything has existed before and will never be completely destroyed. If anyone of these theories is correct, there is no need for god as infinity is the time in which all possibilities can exist. this is just as likely as god creating the universe and everything in 6 days.

dehammer wrote:
"science cant explain what happened in the first few split seconds after the "big bang"

Actually we can. Our physics doesn't break down until one gets within a microscopic fraction of the first second.

"Physics allows us to trace the matter and radiation of the Big Bang back to about 10^-43 seconds before time zero, but no further."

Reference:
http://www.open2.net/science/finalfrontier/messages/geoff_booth.htm

Tim:

Your assumed logic is faulty.
It reminds me of some scientific conclusions we find published. Some academic on the discovery channel has been given a grant and the opportunity to provide a tour of the great pyramid because some not so smart rich guy gave him a donation to enlighten the world on the subject. Our genius decides that the builders made three errors in their plans because they made three burial chambers before they settled on the kings chamber as a final choice. This is the same kind of genius that will argue against your views. You can not prevail with conclusions any more than they can. You must take it down to the basics. If you can not, then take a break.
jjw

that is the first few split seconds i was refering to. I was trying to keep everything as simple as possible, so therefore i did not use any numbers.

Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you.

"Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you."

I have a master's in engineering math and computer science - and I've taken many extra math courses - total of maybe 45 credits in math and stats (not including all the physics, EE, and CS courses that used it). Almost half were at the graduate level. I also stay sharp because I tutor geometry every year at the high school level. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that I'm familiar with indirect proofs.

In order to prove something by proven what it is not, you have to disprove all possiblity of it being something else. so far all you have done is given an opinion that one thing does not exist, which does not preclude other things.

what about the possiblity that the universe had always existed, therefore did not need to be created.

if its possible that god has always existed, then its also possible that the universe has always existed, with new variations being recreated every so many billions or perhaps trillions of years. we already have two theories about that that i know of.

Tim wrote:
"Do any of you know about indirect proofs like what I used in this thread. If you've never heard of it, I can show you."

A bit of perspective here Tim. And again not to insult you but you are 16 years old and you are in email exchanges not with your peers but with people more than twice your age and at least one with a PhD, several with university degrees, and one that teaches at a university.

I think a bit of humility might be appropriate. Perhaps there are things we could teach you. Though having raised to 16 year olds myself (though the youngest is now 21) I expect you don't believe that is possible. She didn't either at the time. But here we are 5 years later and all of a sudden I am not the dumbest person on the planet. Go figure.

Yes, I admit that you would know more than me. I can tell by everyone on the forums' arguments against my religion. I went on this website to learn because that is what I like to do. I never said you were the dumbest person on the planet. But there is scientific evidence for a God. Now to dehammer; if you're talking about Hawking's theory on an infite universe, that couldn't be possible. I don't know if either of you are familiar with the kalam argument. It states that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist [evidence from the Big Bang]. Therefore the universe has a cause," as William Craig, Ph.D., THD said.
Our universe was created for a cause. Contrary to what atheist Quentin Smith said that, "The most reasonalbe belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." There is evidence that the universe isn't eternal. Because an infite past would "involve an actually infinite number of events, then the past simply can't be infinite," as Craig said. The evidence of what scientists call the Big Bang is astounding; background radiation at the right temperature it would have been as a remnant of it, dating, etc. For more information on the kalam argument, read one of Craig's books or "The Case for a Creator," by Lee Strobel. That is solid evidence.

Craig is not a scientist. He is a theologian.

Craig's argument is an argument from ignorance.

Religious "philosophy" is anathema to discovery.

Craig tells you what you want to hear. Many creationists dispute The Big Bang.

Craig's argument relies on a comic book understanding of The Big Bang.

Tim wrote:
"I went on this website to learn because that is what I like to do."

Then stop your preaching and use this forum to ask questions, share interesting science stories, and to learn.

So far I've seen a lot of evidence of you wanted to prosletyze. Little evidence of a desire to entertain a new idea or to consider that anything you think is correct ... perhaps isn't.

actually ive not read Hawking's theory on an infite universe, but i have read of several theories on how the universe could be destroyed and recreated by its own laws, in according to the laws that have existed since before the universe did. I have also read of the kalam argument, but they have one assumption. that is that the universe was created out of nothing. Take away that assumption and the arguement falls to peices. there is no evidence of that assumption having any validity.

show me the evidence that the universe was created by for a cause.

Tim,

If you come here because you have an interest in science, then talk science. If you need to explore your faith then go to somewhere like www.godandscience.org and discuss issues there. You will not find an audience here and will only antagonize people.

Your above argument is absolutely worthless and is a form of logic chopping that is used by people who don't really understand logic. You are inviting people to rip you up by posting it here.

Don't embarrass yourself and your faith by trolling here amongst people who just wish to discuss science. No one has invited you here to discuss religion so why are you taking such a liberty in a science forum? I made the same mistake and regretted it - you should learn from other's mistakes.

It's scienceagogo not faithagogo.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Or demonstrate any evidence that people are here for any purpose whatsoever: There is none.

I may choose to believe there is to help me get through my day if I am an unhappy sort who needs an excuse to do the right thing. But some of us are capable of not stealing and committing murder and coveting our neighbors wife without someone threatening us with eternal darnation.

Tim, i have to side with Blacknad here.

Tim,

What you tried to do here is a logical fallacy. It's called "missing hypothesis".

Your argument may stand as long as you admit that the Universe has been created. However, that is not the only possibility.

Translated, what you said was: "Let us presume that the cats were not born with the urge to eat mice. Yet, the cats eat mice, therefore they have been born with the urge to eat mice." It is not the only possibility. Perhaps cats only eat mice because they don't want to starve. Therefore they do not necessarily have an instinct to eat mice. (PS: this was a presumption for the sake of example)

Try to think over your arguments before posting them. Trust me, you're NOT the first NOR the last that attempts or has attempted to prove God. And it takes a lot more than a logical argument.

Let me give you a logical argument:
- omnipotence: the power to shape reality the way you want it, when you want it
- omniscience: the power to know all things that have been, are and will be

Is God omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? If he is omnipotent, then he has the capacity of shapind reality the way he wants to, thus denying the existence of a fixed future, therefore he cannot know the future, and is not omniscient. If he is omniscient, he knows what his actions are, and his future is already decided for himself too, by his power of omniscience. Therefore he has to follow a fixed path, and cannot do anything outside of it. Therefore he is not omnipotent.

So... logic that one out.

You are mixing things here:

"whatever begins to exist has a cause" IS NOT THE SAME as "our universe was created for a cause"

Completely different things that make your statement nonsensical.

et (1091),
I like your analysis of the above statement.
I don't want to get into a discussion about creation, but I'd appreciate a similar critique of another thread on this forum, God & Science. Start on page one and follow through to the nit-picking parts about the word "fact."
I think many misunderstandings occur because of the way 'fact' is used in discussions about God, reality and science. Your input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
~samwik

OK Tim. It looks as though you believe God started the whole thing off and then left the universe to get on with things. Is this correct?

From the short time I have spent with Muslims I see a logical problem for believers. The central idea of Islam is submission to the will of God. But if God already knows everything he knows in advance what is going to happen. Therefore everything we can possibly do is actually Allah's will. As a Muslim cleric said regarding the Twin Towers, "God did it". Can you see the logic in his statement?

G'day Tim,

Belief in God is a faith. When I was 16 I had a friend who used maths to prove that God did not exist. It was extremely good maths and there wasn't anyone where we were at the time, and we were in a college with some very very good minds, that could dispute his maths. Was he right or was he just extremely good at maths?

Actually I think Mr Morgan, underestimated the number of graduates, PhDs and teachers here but that doesn't make your argument less likely to be correct. Funnily enough most of the greatest discoveries were made by people in their teens or early twenties. Einstein didn't do anything except some refinement on his basic ideas and some truly silly ideas after the age of 30. Experience isn't everything but it does mean you can often argue better, although not necessarily more politely. Actually age sometimes means that you have far less tolerance for ideas seen many times before.

How about this thought to let you ponder for a while. If you require proof that God exists then, by definition you lack faith in God. If you use your faith in God's existence in an attempt to prove his or her or its existence then you are starting from a position of extreme bias that may prevent you from ever agreeing that your "proofs" are not infallible. So which is it Tim? Do you have no faith in God and you therefore must require proof? Or do you have faith in God and therefore should require no proof?

I do hope you do learn on this website, even in this discussion where the topic is faith based. If you hold the position that God does not exist then really that is a faith in itself. Faith is after all a belief in the absence of absolute proof for that belief. The weight of evidence may or may not be with you in your belief but its still a belief in the end, not an absolute.

The Big Bang is a theory and one that does not fit all the current observations of this universe. It does fit a great deal of them so it is as good as science can get currently until something better comes along. I don't think arguing about the Big Bang really proves God because it is just a theory to explain the observations of the universe as we currently understand it. Since we don't understand all of it, the bit we don't understand, no matter how small provides a gap that anyone can exploit to argue God's existence or lack thereof, imho.

I personally do not accept that you can prove the existence of God by starting with the premises that he does not exist and because you cannot prove that, hey presto, he must exist. But others have already pointed this out.


Regards


Richard

Hi samwik. I went through that thread as far as I could, but these guys make me sick really. Any discussion about what "fact" means and how scientists use the word "fact" is a waste of time with people like trilobyte and tim because they are not being honest interlocutors.

I'm not a great writer so I won't be able to make a profound analysis fo the meaning of "fact" as good as yours, but I don't think it is necessary to go so deep. We all know what we mean for fact.

They consider something as a fact just because the bible says so, but for them to accept a fact from science, 10,000 millions of experiments are not enough.

that is unfortuantely what faith is all about. accepting something just because its part of the religious doctorine and refusal to accept anything that goes against it.

Ive always believed that an unquestioned faith is not worth the paper its not written on.

~my wife's gonna kill me for "wasting" more time on here, but....

et, Cool!
Very good point about the small amount of evidence vs. a large amount of repeatable, independent, etc. evidence.

My focus on the 5th definition (which I contend scientists must use in reference to the fundamental, basic assumptions in ANY theory) is to point out that kind of "fact" is no different than "unquestioned faith." It is "presumed as" true; a speculative assumption (that works incredibly well). However, just because it works so well, there should not be a "refusal to accept anything that goes against it." -de
I'm not saying we should accept anything that "goes against it," just that if you don't want to accept it, one shouldn't be judgmental. In the end, who's to say who's right? Fortunately, before the end, science is a lot more fun and practical.

As you say "We all know what we mean for fact." -et
But, THEY don't know what we mean (sometimes) by "fact" def.#5. Clearing that up early will prevent a lot of misunderstandings and heated debate.
I'm like a dog witha bone, eh?
Thanks again,

~~Samwik

did i lose a post?:
I meant to say I was copying my above reply (4:02PM) over onto the God & Science thread. Seems more on topic there and not here.

Please respond to the 4:02PM post over on God & sci.

Sorry,
~S

Trilobye, you don't know anything about science. You keep posting stuff relevant to your wholly babble. No science. Just babble.

That's not too bad. What is VERY bad is that he doesn't want to know.

"What is VERY bad is that he doesn't want to know."
Agreed.

Let me, if I may, take it one step further.

If one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that TB was correct. That there was a Judeo-Christian god as defined by theology. And that this deity had, in fact, created the universe in six days exactly as defined in Genesis.

Can you imagine how ugly would be TB's welcome at the pearly gates. He is not exactly living his life in the model of anyone that deity would wish to associate with. In fact given his willful and wanton violation of scripture he would likely find himself taking a very short trip to Hades.

Reminds me very much of a quote from William Penn.

"Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders, than from the arguments of it opposers."

If the Judeo-Chrisitan deity needs the likes of TB to defend him ... he is in a very sorry state.

DA. In spite of beliefs to the contrary it seems we cannot possibly know what type of person any deity would wish to associate with. It always makes me laugh when I hear a preacher say, "God doesn't want us to be (fill in this space)". How the F... would he know?

I agree with you TNZ ... but TB thinks he does.

Alsy what you quoted is without a doubt one of the most pathetic attempts at setting up a straw horse and knocking it over with self-deception I have ever seen.

Very simply put the fact that there is a universe is indicative only of the fact that there is a universe. It contains no value judgement as to what or how or when it did or did not begin to exist.

Tim

scientist only "believe" things after someone else proves that something is or isnt.

most are followers - not leaders.

most hide behind the known because its a safe place for them to be.

until leaders come along and use their brains thought capacity to think beyond what can be seen or felt or heard such as a simple atom for example and "prove" its existance the followers
continue to do the safe thing --> follow.

sad part is that many leaders devote their lives to the unseen and accomplish more than any or all of the followers only to be ridiculed by the followers until they have proven the unseen by seeing hearing or feeling it.

how many years passed between the time that atoms were just a theory. and now there are pictures taken of them.

ever heard of quarks ... ever seen one?

scientist believe they exist but where is the proof they ask of you?

in my own personal opinion and belief there is most certainly a GOD , although I cannot see him , I know he is there.

I suppose that when god has found a reason to let us see him then all will know he exist , until then it is the leaders like yourself that GOD reveals himself to in unseen ways.

Well Paul I've no doubt you are sincere in your belief. So let me refer you to a book I think you may enjoy. One that actually does a decent job of examining the foundation of your belief system in a reasonably scientific manner.

The author is Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. And lest you think him some rabid Dawkins-type religion basher ... he is chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. NCCH is part of America's so-called bible belt and hardly a hotbed for revisionist thinking. The book is titled "Misquoting Jesus" and is published by Harper (ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4).

After you have read it come on back to the "Not Quite Science" forum and lets examine how much you thought you knew ... you actually knew.

Paul wrote:

"I suppose that when god has found a reason to let us see him then all will know he exists."

It's unbelieveable that after all this time he is yet to show us he exists. I'm no Methusalah but I seem to remeber JC saying the people alive in his day would not pass away before he reappeared. Perhaps he did come back and introduce the kingdom of heaven. It's just that nobody noticed.

TNZ wrote:
"but I seem to remeber JC saying ...."

Read the book I reference above. It is essentially proven that he never actually said it. And that he never actually said much that is attributed to him.

Thus the book's title: "Misquoting Jesus."

It is a truly fascinating read.

Thanks DA. I'll try for it at local library. My friends would also be interested.

I've now read reviews and note committed Christians maintain he's biased (in spite of degree in theology) and the agnostic cheer. Nothing unusual in that. Presumably says not much I am not already aware of.

I've just finished "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman (ISBN 1-4000-4085-X). Like Edward Gibbon he regards the rise of Christianity to have been responsible for holding back the development of science. I've now moved back to a book "The Story of Civilization- man's own show" by a George A. Dorsey who I'd never heard of. Short biography at:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/dorsey_george.html

The book was written in 1931, the year of his death. The first page of the bit I have come back to (p.455) contains the passage:

"That civilization reached its culmination with pagan Imperial Rome; with Christian Rome it went into a thousand years' sleep. No other event in human history worked such havoc with man's handiwork, such momentous change in his outlook."

The idea was obviously accepted by at least some people 75 years ago. How come we hear so little of it yet?

The idea was actually rather commonly held by America's founding father's long before that. Here are a few short quotes to illustrate the point:

John Adams 2nd President of the United States:
labeled Christianity the "most bloody religion that ever existed." The Senate, during Adams presidency, ratified the Treaty of Tripoli that proclaimed, "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
~ John Adams, letter to F.A. Vander Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816.
~ Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Article 11

Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of the United States:
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."
~ letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

Jefferson also wrote:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

James Madison 4th President of the United States:
proclaimed Christianity to cause "pride and indolence in the
clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
~ "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.

Ethan Allen stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that "God" referred to the God of Nature and not to the God of the Bible.
~ Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc.,
p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press)

James Monroe 5th President of the United States
"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."
~ letter to William Bradford, January 24, 1774

Interestingly enough the two most prominent Christians in the pantheon of the US's founding fathers were George Washington and Alexander Hamilton: Both military men. Perhaps there is something about the type of mind that enjoys war that also requires a justification for the horror they so relish.

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Perhaps the country's history is not being properly taught in the US today? You may have hit on something with your idea:

"Perhaps there is something about the type of mind that enjoys war that also requires a justification for the horror they so relish."

That would certainly account for the attitude of Tony B-liar, Gorse W. Bush and John Coward.

TNZ wrote:
"Perhaps the country's history is not being properly taught in the US today?"

Perhaps? ROFLOL!

To the point that it should be considered a felony punishable by public whipping.

It is not coincidence that those leading these preposterous militaristic forays have never actually been in combat. This bunch thinks in terms of John Wayne movies.

More from my new acquaintance George Dorsey:

"Religion is a disease. It is born of fear; it compensates through hate in the guise of authority, revelation. Religion, enthroned in a powerful organization, can become incredibly sadistic. No religion has been more cruel than the Christian. Again and again it has raised its hands in protest against atrocities - but has it ever turned a hand to put an end to any one atrocity or social injustice? Has it diminished a crime, stayed a war; does it rate sincerity above hypocrisy, respect the conscientious objector, insist that treaties be kept in spirit and in truth, or hesitate to be the servile slave of any avaricious ruler or despotic power? To what church could a single oppressed minority today appeal for sympathy and understanding?"

Why do you even need evidence of the existence of God,when all you need is faith and belief in His existence? You cannot prove either. If you have need of an invisible friend to help you on your way through life and scare you into reasonable behaviour so be it. I can accept your faith and belief in this entity. All I ask is that you allow me my unbelief. You cannot prove God exists-- neither can I prove he/she/it does not. I do know that however much good is done in the name of the particular supreme being that a person believes in it will be amply couterbalanced by the bad things also done in its name. This is particularly true as people try to prove the superiority of their particular invisible friend over that of another equally inscrutable invisible friend. Craziness indeed!

I am of course pointing out the vagaries of Religion, which is sometimes different to belief. Religion codifies belief- but both still need the invisible friend on side somewhere!!

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Ellis wrote:
"If you have need of an invisible friend to help you on your way through life and scare you into reasonable behaviour so be it."

You know I once thought that way too: Then I got older, studied more of history, and realized how much horror and atrocity is committed by those who use religion as a tool to control the behaviour of others.

I've no objection to someone worshiping the invisible purple rhinoceros in the privacy of their own house so long as they don't harass me, as long as they don't ask me to subsidize their insanity with my tax dollars, and as long as they don't get involved in matters of state and science.

I can not think of a single religious group, save the Quakers and the Pennsylvania Dutch, that have ever done so.

Gods etc can only exist in the presence of faith and /or belief. There is no god if you do not believe in it and, in fact,it is very presumptous of you to ask for proof of his/ her/ its existence. The acceptance of gods is done as an act of blind faith - sometimes to ensure that he/she/it will reward you by giving you Eternal Life and possibly a few favours on the way. I do not believe in a Supreme Being-- and if I did my first question would be, 'Where have you you BEEN?"

Whilst I have no belief, I am interested in the welfare of others, helpful to the unfortunate and compassionate those who need it because I am a human being, not because I am racking up points for the hereafter or afraid of a lightning bolt from the sky! Living by the Golden Rule (the basis of all religions- do unto others as you would have them do unto you) will get you through most situations.

Ellis wrote:
"in fact,it is very presumptous of you to ask for proof of his/ her/ its existence."

Not at all. If that little entity truly exists it has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble to put me into the position where it is natural to ask. You don't give a cat a toy if you don't want it to play with it. In this case, if the presumption is that I am going to let some entity decide for me what is right and wrong, good and bad, the least it can do is sit down at Starbucks and let me buy it a latte'.

Ellis wrote:
"in fact,it is very presumptous of you to ask for proof of his/ her/ its existence."

Not at all. If that little entity truly exists it has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble to put me into the position where it is natural to ask the question. You don't give a cat a toy if you don't want it to play with it.

At least then you'd get a drinkable coffee at Starbucks-- truly a miracle!

Drinkable at Starbucks is easy. Affordable? Now that would be a miracle.

Terry,

I hope that as the scientific type you are, you will expect your new acquaintance to back up his assertions with some evidence, and not allow him to get away with making emotionally driven statements such as ?Religion is a disease?. In what sense is it a disease? And how does he demonstrate that with evidence?

My personal experience is that most Christians I know have some involvement in charitable work, or sustained and substantial charitable giving. Add to this the fact that it is something most Christians do privately, ?Do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing?, then I suspect that I have no idea of the true scale of such activity.

But don?t take my word for it ? what about bringing a little scientific research to the debate:

?The Church Connection

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

See the full study here:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1


Here it is proved the idea that the non-religious care more about others is nothing but blind and unsupportable faith. When one actually applies science to the question and experiments to obtain real data, the empirical evidence clearly shows that the non-religious are twice as indifferent to others as the faithful.

How does this stack up with George Dorsey?s unbalanced contention that religion is [entirely] sadistic, hateful, cruel and unsympathetic?

At times, certainly, but does he approach the subject with any balance? Hardly.

If any philosophy is judged by its abuse, then by the same claims levelled against religion then even atheism will be found to be dangerous and problematic for humanity's future.

It?s also a question of what?s news-worthy. Millions of Christians doing good on a daily basis isn?t. Christian terrorists clearly ignoring Jesus? words is news-worthy. So guess which one you are going to be aware of.



I have posted the following before. It clearly shows that in the 20th century the non-religious dwarfed the religious in their blood letting, despite the fact that more than half the planets population were religious in one form or another.

?The worst blood lettings of the 20th century.

1. 55,000,000 Second World War (Some overlap w/Stalin. Includes Sino-Japanese War and Holocaust. Doesn't incl. post-war German expulsions) 1937/39-1945

2. 40,000,000 China: Mao Zedong's regime. (incl. famine) 1949-76

3. 20,000,000 USSR: Stalin's regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 1924-53

4. 15,000,000 First World War (incl. Armenian massacres) 1914-18

5. 8,800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21

6. 4,000,000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-37

7. 3,000,000 Congo Free State [n.1] (1900)-08

All SECULAR

For a Grand Total of 145,000,000 dead bodies chalked up to the non-religious, and I could go on. In 80 years non-religious managed to dwarf anything the religious had done in millennia.?

The religious are less to be feared than the irreligious. Most Christians will believe that if they commit an atrocity they will be accountable to God. There doesn't seem to be this check in place for Atheists like Stalin etc.

Christianity's Weakness

As for: ?Has it diminished a crime? Or hesitate to be the servile slave of any avaricious ruler or despotic power? Or To what church could a single oppressed minority today appeal for sympathy and understanding?

How about the 50,000 polish Christians that were executed for helping Jews during the war?

So 50 thousand Christians were executed in Poland for helping Jews, despite clearly knowing that the penalty for helping them was death.

Didn?t the Jews count as an oppressed minority? Was it not a crime against humanity that was diminished by hiding many Jews? Was the Church here the servile slave of a despotic power?

If you want me to trawl for more examples, I will. There are more than you could know. And obviously more than your acquaintance knows about.

But obviously that doesn?t stop him spouting his unsupported contentions in his book.

He asks, ??but has it ever turned a hand to put an end to any one atrocity or social injustice??

Two powerful examples:

?William Wilberforce was born in 1759. An evangelical Christian and Member of Parliament, he carried on a battle against slavery for many years and finally succeeded in having it abolished throughout the British Empire.?

?Lord Shaftsbury was another man of clear Christian conviction and conscience, who recognized that it was inherently wrong to send the children of the poor down mines when they were eight or nine years old and make them work there 12, 13 or 14 hours a day and started that whole social revolution that ensured a decent equality for all. It was all a product of Christian conscience in our culture.?

And now to the born of fear:

No Christian I know became one to escape Hell or Damnation. Not one. They were all attracted one way or another to the positive aspects of Christianity. More is made of this 'subjecting gullible people to the fear of God's wrath' than can be accounted for. It's largely in the mind of the Atheist.

And what does science say about religion and fear:

?Religiosity and the socioemotional adjustment of adolescent mothers and their children.Carothers SS, Borkowski JG, Lefever JB, Whitman TL.
J Fam Psychol. 2005 Jun;19(2):263-75.

This study assessed the impact of religiosity on the socioemotional and behavioral outcomes of 91 adolescent mothers and their offspring over 10 years. Religiosity was defined as involvement in church and contact with and dependence on church officials and members. Mothers classified as high in religious involvement had significantly higher self-esteem and lower depression scores, exhibited less child abuse potential, and had higher occupational and educational attainment than mothers classified as low in religious involvement; differences remained when multiple factors, such as stress and grandmother support, were held constant. Children with more religious mothers had fewer internalizing and externalizing problems at 10 years of age, with maternal adjustment mediating this relationship. Religiosity, through increased social support, served as a protective factor for teenaged mothers and their children.?

Does it sound as if fear has anything to do with these people?

See the full article (link below), and a scathing beating of Richard Dawkin's assertion that teaching children about religion is akin to child abuse ? another scientist who conveniently forgets science when he wants to spout his bigotry. He did exactly the same with his assertions about suicide terrorists, which were shot to bits by the science.

It's ironic and telling that someone who is responsible for the 'Public Understanding of Science', is more than willing to completely chuck science out of the window when he wants to rant about religion and assert all sorts of rubbish.

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=1104


I have read scientific studies that talk about the socio-economic gains of those who turn to religion, the health benefits and increased life expectancy ? lower incidence of schizophrenia (for those who spout the ?religious are delusional types? line).

But of course according to George and at least one member of SAGG, there is nothing positive about religion.

You are welcome to keep posting unsupportable statements about Christianity and I will look to the science, because it appears in many places to be in conflict with the widely held views of the anti-religious.

Blacknad.

Blacknad. My new aquaintance died in 1931. He was an anthropologist, very respected one at the time evidently but seems little known these days. I'm reading his book which I mentioned some time back on this thread. What makes the book particularly interesting is that it was obviously written before most of the events you list. Consequently he is fairly optimistic about the future. His book is actually about the development of Western thought so his comments mainly relate to the two thousand year old established church and its treatment of early scientists. Thanks for pointing those facts out though.

Blacknad ... You wrote:
"Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation."

I want to take a "Jaws" sized bite out of much of what has been written about religious people and their generosity: So I will.

First lets separate the money "donated" to the church itself as that money, to a great extent, goes down a rathole to paying for buildings, utilities, clergy, employees, and other accouterments of the church. I'd like to see the value of those charitable donations that excludes money given to the church. Bet those numbers would change dramatically.

If one wishes to examine the vast majority of charitable giving in my country, the US, one quickly discovers that the primary motivator is income taxes and public adulation.

I've yet to see the news story about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet going to church.

And to quote Mr. Gates:
"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
~ TIME magazine Vol. 149, No. 2 (13 January 1997)

You might want to check out this website.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257812.htm
with respect to Mr. Buffet and others.

In summary: I've heard the claim before. I don't believe it.

Addendum:

According to the Charitable Choices
http://www.charitablechoices.org/chargive.asp
Americans give a lot to charity: $260.3 billion in 2005.

They also state:
Individuals give away most of this money: $199 billion in 2005, or 76.5% of all giving.

Further down the page it says:
"People who give to churches and religious groups give more than other people, according to a 2002 survey done by Independent Sector. They give an average of $1391 to their religious institution and $958 to other charities. Those who give only to nonreligious charities contributed $623 on average."

So lets do the math:
86% (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html) of the US's 217,800,000 contributes, on average $958 to non-religious institutions and $1391 to religious institutions.

0.86 * 217,800,000 * 1391 = 260,545,428,000
0.86 * 217,800,000 * 958 = 179,441,064,000
---------------
Total 439,986,492,000

But they stated total giving, religious and non-religious, was only 199,000,000,000. They are only off more than 221%. I guess that's close enough when one is trying to sell relgion.

After which we might, of course, ask how much of the money, donated to charity, is being used to patch up the lives of those destroyed by religious conflicts and religious intolerance.

Blacknad. I sincerely hope I have not offended you too much with Dorsey's comments about religion. To show what he's really getting at I quote more in relation to what he writes regarding the influence of religion:

"The one we inherited, I need not repeat, was a curious mixture of Oriental and Classical speculation. While both Mosaic and Classical cosmogonies contain some shrewd guesses and are not entirely unworthy of respect, they came to be barriers to further speculation or even to frank, open-eyed curiosity. After all, why should anyone be curious about the earth if it was made in a week and is not our home anyway?"

Regarding Wilberforce and Shaftsbury. I'll concede they were probably devout Christians but they fought the established Church for years before their ideas were more generally adopted. I'll leave DA to cover the matter of generosity.

Dan,

You obviously didn?t read the full study. Or if you did you have no interest in the facts. I suggest you have another look.

As for the above quote, it seems quite simple, and concatenating stats from adherents.com to get an acceptable result is hardly playing cricket.

The facts from Charitable Choices (I presume as you linked there, you consider it a reliable source):

Those who give $1391 to religious institutions also give $958 to non-religious institutions.

Those who give only to non-religious institutions give $623 on average.

Isn?t this clear enough?

The religious give $335 more on average to non-religious causes.

PLUS they then give an extra $1391 to religious institutions (MANY OF WHICH ARE RELIGIOUS CHARITIES DOING, SAY, DISASTER RELIEF OR WORK WITH THE HOMELESS ETC.).

A massive percentage of the money given to our church goes to our work with Romanian orphans and other causes we are involved with in places like Botswana.

The rest goes to the upkeep of the building which is used as a community centre, a day-care centre for pensioners, a day-care centre for those with learning difficulties and so on? It also supports a full-time community worker who supports and represents those who live in a deprived area.

What is not factored in is volunteer work, which in the UK is more than likely to be done by Christians.

So it appears that the religious give in total $2349 on average.

The non-religious give $623.

So as the study said, the religious outgive by 4 times

It?s nice to have some facts to support a proposition that I have made before.

But of course, don?t let facts stand in the way of giving the religious a good rubbishing.

As for your assertion that religious giving is only to fix problems we have caused ? support the statement, and show that the religious have caused as much as, or more of societies problems than atheists.

Blacknad.

Terry,

Not at all. I enjoy a bit of spirited debate, as does Dan. And for the record Dan was recently over in the UK and bought my wife and I dinner and was the most charming company you could want to meet and has a great sense of humour that doesn't always come across on this medium.

I thought I'd use the opportunity to set the record straight, as he is sometimes critisized for coming across a touch sharp. (And maybe I can soften him up and make him take it easy on me when he responds to my last post)

Blacknad.

Dan,

Surprised you linked to this meaningless straw-man argument. I never claimed that atheists don't do charity.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
Isn?t this clear enough?

Perfectly clear. Surely you didn't think I could be caught so easily?

I took that into account. Take another look at what I wrote:

0.86 * 217,800,000 * 1391 = 260,545,428,000
0.86 * 217,800,000 * 958 = 179,441,064,000
---------------
Total 439,986,492,000

The first line is the $1391B, the second line the $958B, and the third the total. I then compared that total to the $199B claimed to be their total giving.

PS: The use of adherents.com was only for purposes of getting a rough idea of the percentage of Americans who report themselves as having a religious affiliation.

Want to take another shot at it? <g>

If I wanted to rubbish religious giving I could easily do so. My purpose was only to point out, with published numbers from my country, that the claim of more non-religious giving by persons who self-identify with a religion is suspect.

How's your reading of "Misquoting Jesus" coming? Perhaps I should get Nadine a copy as a belated Christmas present. <g>

DA
ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written.

I read your reply about the book you sudgested that I read in
order to gain knowledge about jesus.

if there were a room full of republican writters how many of these writters would write good things about democrats?

GOD gave man a brain to reason with and a heart to feel with
and eyes to see with.

It is each individual mans choice to believe in that which he believes in.

if he chooses wrongly then he has chosen wrongly.
if he is led to choose wrongly then he has still chosen wrongly.

if he questions his beliefs then he is using what GOD gave him to reason with , he is not simply following what others have written , he is reasoning what he feels in his heart to be correct.

no matter what men write about be it ufo's or the lock ness monster or quarks or why there are cosmic rays comming from all
directions in the universe any or all of them could be wrong.

it may be that GOD writes on the heart the things he wants you to know.

Paul wrote:
"ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

Assuming you are correct. Take away all of the words men have written. Heck even take away the one's women have written. You've nothing left.

Paul wrote:
"if there were a room full of republican writters how many of these writters would write good things about democrats?"

I would like to respond but I've not a clue what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could be less obscure.

If your assumption is that the person who wrote "Misquoting Jesus" is an agnostic or atheist you could not be further removed from reality. Here's the man's CV.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.htm
I challenge you to find anyone more qualified to have written a credible book on the subject.

Paul wrote:
"GOD gave man a brain to reason with and a heart to feel with
and eyes to see with."

No he didn't. We received our hearts and eyes from the invisible purple rhinoceros. Something revealed to me by the big guy himself.

Paul wrote:
"it may be that GOD writes on the heart the things he wants you to know."

You mean like my knowledge that you have been brain-washed by a religious cult?

Paul wrote:

"one's belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

Unfortunately, Paul, research has shown the Bible itself is actually the words that men have written. So your own belief in God is too. It is doubtful that any of the Bible was written in anything like its present form until at least as recently as 1000 BC. It received a massive editing and rewrite during Josiah's rule, 639-609 BC. So even if God originally zapped a piece of rock his words have been completely mutilated by now.

I think that Paul said what I was trying to say. God only exists if you believe in him/her/it. You cannot be MADE to believe, possibly you can be brianwashed, but that is the imposition of someone else's belief, not your own. Your own vision of the supreme 'whatever' will be different to anyone else's. Religions attempt to rectify this and have all sorts of initiations to ensure exclusivity, and fight wars about it. Still do.

Reigions have little to do with faith and belief and all to do with power. On the other hand belief in gods exist in the presence of Faith--but are not present without it. That is why I feel it presumptuous to demand proof of the existence (or not) of the divine. It can't be done. Faith is untestable, illogical and (for some) worth dying for. It's impossible to argue against that fervour--but it does not prove the truth of anything.

Ellis wrote:
"God only exists if you believe in him/her/it."

Well then on that basis the invisible purple rhinoceros exists too.
He will be pleased to know that.

Ellis wrote:
"You cannot be MADE to believe"

Wholesale nonsense. I can make anyone believe anything I wish just like I can turn anything made of carbon into a diamond. It is just a matter of time and pressure.

Ellis wrote:
"Reigions have little to do with faith and belief and all to do with power."

On this ... we agree.

Paul wrote:
"ones belief in GOD should not be based on the words that men
have written."

I never sudgested that there were not writtings by men. did I?

if you place a child in an environment where only 1 of the many diverse religions are taught , then that child will most likely grow up to believe in that particular religion.

if at a later date he begins to reason with his teachings and finds that 1 of the other of the many religions seem to him to
be a more correct religion to him then he has used his reasoning
ability to choose a new religion for himself.

if he feels in his heart that the new religion is a more correct
religion then he is not simply following what he was originally taught as a child.

just as you chose to believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros
he has chosen to believe , not made to believe in any certain religion.

Paul wrote:

"If he feels in his heart that the new religion is a more correct religion then he is not simply following what he was originally taught as a child."

Perhaps not, but I would maintain his need to follow any sort of religion is a result of the conception of the universe he developed during his childhood.

Dan,

I remember you refusing to take on board what was said by the leading American expert on Egyptian manuscripts regarding the Gospel of Judas, because it didn't suit your existing notions.

So what makes someone qualified to write a book on a subject seems to be whether they are in agreement with you or not.

Here is a look at Bart Ehrman's book by Professor Ben Witherington:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

This is interesting for a fuller refutation of his work:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogs...g-jesus_31.html

I have seen many of the points Ehrman makes solidly challenged -
example (from comments):

"The claim that reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 radically changes the picture of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark doesn't stand up to close examination. Ehrman's project to deconstruct evangelicalism, starting with the doctrine of scripture, relies on exaggerations like this one.

The idea that evangelicals should be scandalized by ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is without merit. Both Lane (Mark NICNT 1974) and France (Mark NIGTC 2002) argue for reading ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41. No scandal here.

Ehrman has chosen as his target for attack, a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. This sort of target is very easy to attack."

An aquaintance of his, Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. has written a pretty devastating critique on both Ehrman's general approach and also on his specific points.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000


There always seem to be two views and both of them are subjective. So how does one choose.

"I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him," says Darrell Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Like many Christian scholars who have studied the ancient scrolls, Bock says his faith was strengthened by the same process that destroyed Ehrman's.

Bart was a part of Fundamentalist Christianity and he was enrolled in the Moody Bible Institute, "an austere interdenominational institution in Chicago that forbade students to go to movies, play cards, dance, or have physical contact with the opposite sex", and eventually became disenchanted with it (rightly so), and this disenchantment may have lead to him taking opposite views to people like Bock.

Anyway, I've read enough solid criticisms of Ehrman's work to be convinced that I won't be convinced, but I would expect someone holding your views would entertain no doubts about his book.

Blacknad.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Has anyone checked this out?

Blacknad wrote:
"I remember you refusing to take on board what was said by the leading American expert on Egyptian manuscripts regarding the Gospel of Judas, because it didn't suit your existing notions."

I don't. I have no such recollection. Can you point me to the specifics?

Blacknad wrote:
"So what makes someone qualified to write a book on a subject seems to be whether they are in agreement with you or not."

I didn't say he was correct. I said he was an expert on the subject. And I didn't say I agreed with him once. Nor, of course, did I say I disagreed. Just that he is a subject matter expert.
Though you might note that a huge percentage of his lectures are for very conservative religious institutions at their request.

Blacknad wrote:
"but I would expect someone holding your views would entertain no doubts about his book."

Then you don't understand me well. See you in November. I'll try again to convince you I don't have 666 tattooed on my tail.

You really must stop assuming that just because I post something I agree with it. Really!

Roadkillguam asks:
Has anyone checked this out: "http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/"

The US federal courts has. The decisions, to put it mildly, were scathing. Here's a reference to one of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

The creationscience website is just the product of a cult with zero science content. It is the ethical equivalent of the tobacco industry trying to convince people smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Of course the invisible purple whatsit can exist as an objest of veneration if you wish it to. That is the nature of belief. There was a group of people convinced that they would be taken up by a flying saucer in the tail of a comet...and they died together ( and probably happy) to achieve their destiny. They had total faith in the veracity of their belief. Incidentally, often if you are brought up in a belief system it is possible to break from it. Converts to a cause are usually its most passionate believers not those raised in it.

You cannot make people believe unless they cooperate, and you never really know what people relly believe in.

To express my understanding of the concept of God, I use the symbol, G?D
I first used this symbol in 2005 in
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16227
where I have been involved for some time.
I call the theology 'unitheism', similar to panentheism.
===========================================================
Although I have participated in other forums since 1997, this is my first post in this forum, so go easy on me, please!

Though I have some training in theology/philsophy/psychology and pneumatology--using an integrated approach--I prefer to take the child-like approach to knowledge. I am very curious, open-minded and willing to agree to disagree agreeably. I love exploring the claims of the New Physics--talk about having to have faith in the unknown--and other sciences. In my humble opinion--an expression I will use often using the acronym, IMHO--no one I know of is infallible.

Above all, I love it when we do not have take ourselves and our opinions too seriously. I love a good joke, even about religion.
I like the saying: We should not be so heavenly minded that we are of no heavenly good.

I will begin by saying that I was raised in a fairly open-minded kind of theist religion--The United Church of Canada--based on the Old and New Testaments and we were expected to believe, in a liberal (freedom-based) sort of way, in God as an almighty, all-knowing, everwhere-present and loving Heavenly Father who hears and answers our prayers.

As a child I was taught to speak to God, in prayer, as if he is a person. I have always found this a difficult concept to accept as a fact. For awhile in my youth, as I began the serious study of science am mathematics, I became an agnostic, if not almost an atheist.

I am still agnostic--I hope a very curious one--about many things, however, because, in my university years, I was encouraged to bring reason, science and faith in harmony with one another I began to explore the history of beliefs. The led me to new ways of theological thinking and I stopped trying to igagine that God is a three-dimensional and personal being separate and apart from the Cosmos--IMHO, the all that is physically, mentally and spiritually.

Inspired by the fact that Orthodox Jewism scholars, to avoid making God and objective being, write the divine name thus: G-d.
I devised the symbol, G ? D. I will parse it in a later post.

BTW, as you write to me in response to what I write, feel free to tell me where you stand, theologically. I respect all sincerely held beliefs, including agnosticsm and atheism. I will do my best to avoid attacking people, personally, and tell me if it appears that way. However, I hope you don't mind me challenging your beliefs.

I repeat: In all this, let us do our best to agree to disagree, agreeably--even lovingly.

Revlgking wrote:
"as you write to me in response to what I write, feel free to tell me where you stand, theologically."

You asked us to play nicely so I will respect your wish.

Which part of the name of this site, SCIENCEagogo.com do you think makes it acceptable to invite people to write about where they stand on matters of theology?

Surely there must be at least one website where you can engage in discussing religion and be a troll. One where you don't need to push the c?ntrivance d'jure.

I am glad you are here. I hope you stay and contribute. But if you are not discussing science ... the gloves come off.

Ah... but I think that there is a objective scientific point raised in Rev's post here. Is the belief in God (note the capitalisation) a suitable topic for scientific discussion? How do you propose to prove/disprove a belief? This topic has already strayed into the areas of philosophy, if not theology.

Good point, Ellis, thanks! If the "gloves are off", as suggested by DAM, perhaps it's now a wrestling match. How would you like to join my tag-team? :lol:

BTW, I think of theology and pneumatology as soft sciences--somewhat like psychology and sociology--and open to philosophical exploration--not a lot of hard evidence. Interestingly, 'pneumatology' is an archaic term for 'psychology' (World Book Dictionary).

IMO, there is no such a thing as ONE psychology, or ONE sociology. For example, there are several broad schools of psychology: There are the materialistic psychoanalysts (Freud, et al); the equally materialistic behaviourists (Watson), who eschew the analysts, and the more spiritually inclined analysts such as Jung and Rogers, the humanists (William James, Abraham Maslow) and the logo therapists (Victor Frankl). All, in their own way, have made valuable contributions to the understanding of human nature.

BTW 2, when I ask respondents to "feel free" to state their position, keep in mind that this is not a demand, just a suggestion. Currently, I think of myself as a unitheist/panentheist. It is similar to that advocated by the process theologians and philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead.

ABOUT PANENTHEISM/UNITHEISM:

http://www.panentheism.com/
http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

BTW, Brain/Meta allows more space for signature: Here is what I use there: For me, G?D (Love) is the Cosmos (the order of things)--physically, mentally, and spiritually, past, present and future. I look for G?D in persons, including myself. The results: I express compassionate love to ALL that is, and to expect others to do likewise. Together, we will bring order out of chaos. http://www.flfcanada.comhttp://www.unitheist.org/whatis.html

there are languages not created by man that man found to further its advance technologically: math, physics,biology and so on. Did men invent these languages? or were they already here used by some force to build our system of things?

to think that there is nothing behind our marvelous world and universe is to deny your own existence. Everything within it follows laws and languages that men have jus started to understand and some that we might never come to understand. We breath air, we see its force move things, we see it give life, yet we dont see it do we? does that mean it is not there?

Its funny because men "create" things in this world to survive in it, we dont simply live out of the nothingness, we must create our own food we must create our children we must create our tools to create our buildings.
To think life just simply appeared out of some chance is to be starving and waiting for food to simply pop out of knowhere in the same form. It is not plausable.

Sounds as if you have invented your own religion. If so, does it make sense that throughout human history no one has been able to understand the truth - that is until you came along?

Blacknad.

Revlgking wrote:
"I think of theology and pneumatology as soft sciences"

You can think that if you wish. But you won't find support for that idea. Science is a well defined word. Trying to change the word's definition is an exercise in spin control ... not reality.

Blacknad wrote:
"Sounds as if you have invented your own religion. If so, does it make sense that throughout human history no one has been able to understand the truth - that is until you came along?"

I makes perfect sense to me. Religion has always been about humans claiming that the religion's founder had knowledge that others don't have.

It was that way with tribal medicine men/witch doctors/shamman
It was that way with Moses
It was that way with the apostles
The more things change the more they stay the same.

Heck I'm trying to get people to worship the one true god: The invisible purple rhinoceros. ;-)

Nothing wrong with having your very own personal religion/belief. Going back to the dawn of time humans have attempted to explain ther own existence by inventing a god as their creator. Life as it is observable is obviously too complex for us to understand so, the argument goes,there something we cannot understand which has created it---that's the whole argument. I think it's rubbish but I can't prove it wrong..and you are right DA it works as well for the purple supreme being as it does for the Lord God of Hosts.

Accept we are the children of choas. There is no designer, life is what we make of it, if we can accept that we will not need to blame the Invisible Friend for misfortune. Instead we will take responsibility ourselves, stop wasting time with religious observance and cooperate with each other instead of fighting! Ah the simplicity.

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Now I am cross!! The display said that it couldn't find the page. So I hit the submit button again and there are 2 posts!! Now- even I do not think what I have to say needs to be repeated twice!!

Ellis writes Ellis, I presume that by saying this you are telling us that you are a moral/ethical and positive atheist. Right? You admit that you cannot prove there is no god, therefore, you have the BELIEF/FAITH that there is no god.

Incidentally, I feel you are advocating what is called the Golden Rule. And yes, I accept it is possible for atheists to keep it.

Practically speaking, panentheism/unitheism--that is, process theology--is on the same track. However, process theology focusses on, believes in, and is willing to ACT on the positive possibility that the Cosmos, in its mysterious totality, is G?D. If we approach G?D, with faith, hope and love, we can create a Garden of Eden; if we appraoch it with cynicism, fear, doubt and despair, we make it a Hell.

IMHO, G?D stands for moral/GOODNESS, mathematical/ORDER and artistic/DESIGN. By the way, about evidence for G?D:

1. With the help of my physical senses, I am fairly certain that the physical Cosmos is there. Therefore, I have physical evidence for G?D.

2. With the help of the sciences, I am finding out more and more about the nature and function of the Cosmos, daily.Therefore, I have mental evidence for G?D.

3. Inspired by what Kant called, "the moral imperative" I have a strong feeling that, as St. Paul puts it in Romans 8: "G?D in and through all things works together for good". This gives me moral evidence for G?D.

I may not be free to DO all the good I ought to do, but I do have the power to make the choice to do them. And I have the feeling that, if I willingly make that choice, I will be given the power, from the Spirit of G?D within me. In others words, I will be given the power to choose to be loving--towards my world, my fellow human beings, and myself.

I NEED TO BE AWARE OF IDOLATRY
IMHO, I always need to be careful. Whether I create a god out of wood or stone, or with my imagination, it is still idolatry. G?D, for me, must not a personal or objective being which I can create, even with my mind. G?D in not one who exists in time and space. G?D, as total universal and all-encompassing, physical, mental and spiritual existence, itself, is the ineffable, the unimagineable.

BTW, I am not preaching a religion, or a dogma, here, which I expect others to accept without question, or else. I am simply proposing the free and open discussion of the philosophy/psychology, doctrines, rituals, and policies of all religions, including what I believe.

If your theism, or atheism, is helping you have faith, hope and love, and helping you bring some order (cosmos) out of the physical, moral and ethical chaos of life, well and good. This is what unitheism is doing for me.

Revlgking wrote:
"You have the BELIEF/FAITH that there is no god."

This is a science site or did you miss that fact somehow? Do you think it appropriate to walk into a conversation someone else is having and interrupt and talk about the fact that your dog has fleas? Your behavior is rude, your nonsense totally inappropriate and you have been fairly warned. Were I the moderator of this forum I would take blunt instrument to your hijacking of this thread. But alas I am not the moderator and as the moderators are willing to let this sickness fester ... here's what you've earned.

We do not BELIEVE that there is no god as a matter of faith. We know that there is no god because there is not a single byte of credible evidence supporting the proposition that one does exist and neither do you.

Do you need evidence to know you are not your own great great grandfather? Do you need evidence to know that there isn't a invisible purple rhinoceros under your bed? If you believe god gave you your brain ... however misguided ... at least do your creator the honor of using it.

You wrote: "BTW, I am not preaching a religion, or a dogma" and that is true. What you are doing is being a troll.

Please don't insult us with your condescending new age woo-wooism: It is not appreciated. Either talk science or have the courtesy of getting lost.

Ellis, thank you for your comment: I concur. I am a great believer in the art of dialoguing untill some kind of understanding--not necessarily agreement--or even consesus is reached. IMHO, sincere differences are okay and can be enriching.

In my last post, which I addressed to YOU, as part of the dialogue I made a presumption and asked you a sincere question. I will leave it to YOU to decide whether or not you feel comfortable answering my question.

As I choose not to dialogue with posters, like DAM, who seem to prefer using rhetorical questions and argumentum ad hominems to cover up their apparent lack of substance, I will leave it YOU to tell me whether or not you want me to "get lost". If you say so, I am out of here.

Revlgking
Your topic is not of science. I suggest you take it to some other forum where it might be more welcome. This board exists for the discussion of Science and Science-related topics, and your topic is neither.

Amaranth Rose
Moderator

I have NO belief that there is no god. I know there isn't--just can't prove it!!! Ha1 Ha1

My topic? This is not MY topic. It was started by Tim. And the vast majority of posts are not mine. IMHO, at 727 clicks it is a mighty popular one.

BTW 1, what constitutes a "Not-Quite-Science"?

I like to think that all science began as a philosophy and can become an art--the art of moral and ethical living.

BTW 2: Using the traditional word, God, I have a strong feeling that God and the total mysterious Cosmos are one and the same. This means that the "Evidence for God" is overwhelming.

Isaac Newton, Sir James Jeans, Einstein, A.N. Whithead, William James, Carl Jung, the Menningers of the famous clinic, Stephen Hawking, and many other brilliant scientists--certainly no atheists--held a similar concept. I use the special symbol simply in my signature to call attention to this--Goodness, Order and Design in all that is.

Maybe, with the number of brainy scientists, who believe that God is the One (unitheism), all discussion about theology should be in a hard-science section.

Ellis, if you have no proof, all you have in an opinion, which I respect, and having an opinion is not unlike having a belief, which is okay in that it does help us get to know, eventually.:)

BTW, Ellis, I always ask atheists: "When you hear me say, 'I know there is GOD'--and this IS what I say--what kind of god do you imagine that I have in mind?" If you will accept my right to define GOD as I understand GOD to be, I can prove that GOD is.

Revltroll wrote:
"I am a great believer in the art of dialoguing"

Dialoguing is NOT a word. It is just more new-age woo-woo imbecility. And what you are posting is not science.

Rose ... please kill this thread ... all of it ... without mercy. This isn't science. This isn't even "not-quite science." This is a malignant troll.

Excellent stuff follows, from Stephen Hawking: What a great mind.
======================================================
I am not sure what to call the following. It sounds like a DAM rant, without any substance, calling for CENSORSHIP--In the Land of the Free?:


Rose, I got the same kind of rant when I dared to write what I write, here, in a forum set up by "Christian Heritage" fundamentalists.

This should tell us something about human nature. Out of fear that they had to protect The "TRUTH", I was censored. Surely, brave agnostics and atheists do not fear dialogue.

I am interested in knowing: What kind of fearful fundamentalism do we have here?

WE NEED A POLL: WHO IS IN FAVOUR OF CENSORSHIP?
DAM it, Rose...please don't kill this thread, without giving a warning. At least not until I have had the opporunity to put the content of it into my file. I need a few "good" examples of the way extremists think and behave, for a book I plan to write.

I am in favor of censoring people who are off-topic

I am in favor of censoring people who abuse this forum by having by not disucssing science.

I am in favor of censoring people who abuse this forum by hijacking it to discuss the fact that their dog has fleas or to discuss cookie recipes or to promote on imbecilic nonsense.

I am not in favor of censoring you. I am in favor of removing all off-topic postings and trolls. You have chosen to post things that have no relationship with science. You have chosen to be off-topic. You have chosen to be a troll. Please don't add hypocrisy to your other sins by whining about the fact that someone doesn't like the fact that you are rude and inconsiderate of others.

I repeat and, I feel, right on topic:
==========================================
How many, here, would vote to censor the great scientist, Stephen Hawking? Would you say that what he has to say about God/G?D is off topic, and non-scientific? If so, then I am wasting my time, here.

BTW, I came here out of curiosity, when someone in BrainMeta referred to it. If my comments are not welcome, I am humble enough to know when I it is time to leave.

I have much yet to write in other forums and other forums to visit. For example, I have been with BrainMeta.com since it started, nearly a decade ago.
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?sho...=all&st=120

One thread, there, has over 22,000 clicks. It has hundreds of intelligent and non-censoring responses.

I also like what is happening in

http://www.pantheism.net/?gclid=COn7hfTC7YkCFSBTPgodaDcaJw
It is always a sad day when the ranters and the censors win. But if that meets the approval of the moderator, guided by the majority, so be it. We know what happens when the few are allowed to run things...

BTW, dialoguing IS a word. So says:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dialoguing

THE GREAT INVENTOR AND GENIUS, NICLA TESLA
I forgot to mention the work of Nicola Tesla--the son of a Serbian Christian Orthodox priest.
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

He was a highly spiritual person, but not being a narrow Orthodox Christian, he struggled with the rather narrow idea of God as taught by his religion.

Keep in mind that polytheism, and later, monotheism, came about when even the wisest people believed the earth was a flat disc with heaven above and hell below. We need not blame them for this, if they really believed in a flat earth, but surely when the Christian monk, Copernicus brought new knowledge to the west he should have been honored, not censored and threatened with death by the knowledge Luddites? For over a hundred years knowledge was held back by the obscurants.

OBSCURANTISM
Ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance, obscurantism--the active opposition to progress and and the spread of knowledge, is something else. It is, IMHO, a great evil.

COSMOTHEISM
Back to Tesla, interestingly, he finally came to the conclusion that what is needed is a combination of Christianity and Buddhism. Interestingly, Buddhists are non-theists. I think of them as cosmotheists. Yes, new ideas need new words.

BTW, Christianity is already a mixture of Judaism and Christianity. I would even add the positive forms of Islam, Sikhism and Brahmanism to the mix. IMHO, in all this orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy.

JESUS ADVOCATED ORTHOPRAXY. That is he called us to loving actions, deeds not just creeds--follow me, he said. Perhaps this is why he never wrote a book. Books tend to make us fixed-position thinkers--" IT'S IN THE BOOK!!!! (BTW, I am not opposed to felxible creeds, nor books.)

He told stories, or parables, which are stories of actions. His parable of the Good Samaritan--who, BTW, was not a Jew--in Luke 10 is about orthopraxy. I love the last sentence of his teaching: "GO then, and DO the same!"

THAT ALL MAY BE ONE
The same kind of teaching is found in John 10 and 17:20-26. His basic prayer is that "all may be one"--he called on all humanity to act as one.

The over-all philosophical term for this approach is, pragmatism--the doing of that which is morally valuable and good--which was advocated by the great Christian philosopher/psychologist, William James of Harvard.

One final thought: "The secret of true unity is the love of variety." Does anyone know who said it?

This is going farther and farther afield. Please bring your conversation to Science or a Science-related topic or face the consequences.

Amaranth Rose

Moderator

Please, for all of us posters to this popular thread, define what the "field" is, and what is a "not-quite-science". Who makes this decision, anyway? I am very curious.

BTW, how much do you know about Nicola Tesla? Originally, an orthodox Christian, he was a great scientist who had a strong opinion about science and religion. Are you aware of this?

BTW, if I am expected to cater to a defined and certain "party line" I will be happy to be out of here. You will not need to fire me, I quit, willingly, if this is your wish.

Keep in mind that the WWW has many opportunites for the FREEDOM of expression. Thank G?D!

This is the start of a common line of poor reasoning. The writer then defines God as a thing whose existence could hardly be questioned by anyone, and then goes on to suggest that this object which obviously exists has all of the qualities of a God that is defined in some other way.

There's another form of poor reasoning that goes: such and such was a famous scientist and he believed in God; therefore, God is a scientific concept.

There are many places on the net to promote religion, under the pretense of doing science or being scientific. The Net is a big place and there's room for everyone. Perhaps you would be happier over at a place like Uncommon Descent.

So, I give you the same opportunity: Give all of us your definition of God. What is it?

BTW, I am not a dogmatist--in any way, shape, or form. I love to dialogue. If you do too, I like your style. Okay?

All this silly stuff proves what I said at the beginning--this topic is not a scientific one --because it examines belief, which is based on faith and neither are capable of proof under examination. It's a shame, but any attempt to discuss this topic will always be hijacked by a fervent "believer" who will tell you that what they think is right and the only truth because God told them. There is no reasoning with them. They have heard their god and sometimes that takes them to war--in Iraq perhaps.

I was enjoying the earlier discussion too!

i agree with you
but in my search for truth, i have found that Christianity is the only explainable answer to the phenomenon of life, and of the universe
for science comes from the latin word "scire" meaning "to know; to discern" which is as best as i could translate
so technically science is the act of someone trying to know; implying their own search for truth

CHRISTIANITY. IS IT THE ONLY ANSWER?
Tim, first of all, I was raised a Christian and I have a great deal of respect for the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels.

I also love his teachings about the fact that we must act on what we say we believe. Otherwise, we are hyocrites. I especially like what John who says when he writes: "God is love."

As I write the following, please free to correct me, if I misquote and/or misunderstand you. In the light of what you wrote, may I ask:

1. Is it truly your opinion that Christianity is THE one and only true religion? If so, what do we do with all the other major religions--Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Do we have to say that they are all false and that all followers of other sincere faiths are doomed to hell?

2. Do you reallhy believe that all non-Christians are doomed, even if they live moral and ethical lives while sincerely following their faith?

3. When you say "Christianity" which one of the many forms of it do you mean? Roman Catholicism? Old Catholics? The Anglo Catholics? Protestantism? And there are hundreds of different kinds of Protestants. Which of the Orthodoxies are the true ones?
It is a problem, right?

4. If science is all about knowing the truth, what do we really know about the nature and function of religion?

Personally speaking, I respect all sincere forms of religion as valid, which contribute to the public good. I even include the many good people who choose to be secularists--that is, the ones who live without any form of formal or organized religion.

Let us not forget that Jesus said: "Where two or more are gathered together..." He did not say that it had to be hundreds and more.

Tim wrote:
"but in my search for truth, i have found that Christianity is the only explainable answer to the phenomenon of life, and of the universe"

Really Tim ... tell us about your search for truth. And while you are at it why don't you explain to us you understanding of the following formula:

e^(i pi) = -1

BTW: If you can't explain it then maybe you would understand why someone might conclude you've insufficient information upon which to render an opinion on the subject.

Come on Kate and Rose and Rusty? What does it take to convince you that this is pure unadulterated and pathetic nonsense posted by religious trolls?

God is a tuna. Tunas exist. Therefore God exists. Therefore all the other pseudointellectual baggage that people associate with God are also true characteristics of it.

Here's the biggest problem with religious people - despite anything they say, they're more interested in defining the truth than in discovering it.

Yes. A friend of mine in Australia used to say "God is just another name for all there is". We always used to ask him why he needed a name for that. Anyway, if in fact God is just another name for all there is Islam is the only sensible religion. Submission to God's will is the only option we have. Surely if God is all-knowing whatever we do will be his/her/its will.

DA. This is actually the not quite science forum. OK we might have moved further away than not quite.

And, while you are at it, Kate, Rusty and Rose, keep in mind that there is such a thing as PSYCHOLOGY of religion: The serious and objective study of what is it about human nature which makes the vast majority of us want to believe in something beyond the gods of materialism?

Then there is a certain few--very few, actually--who believe in the many gods--for example, money, power, sex and other unconscious drives--of materialism, as the ultimate power?

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

AND DON'T FORGET COMPARATIVE RELIGION, please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion

Revlking,

I'll explore one of your questions. As you used to be a Minister I would think you probably know about the mainstream stance on this issue.

Think about Heliocentrism. One group of people thought the sun revolved around the earth whilst others thought it was the other way round. Only ONE group was right. So we shouldn't have a problem believing that many can be mistaken and some can have truth.

Christians in the UK evangelical tradition, along with many others, believe that people who have never encoutered Christ will of course not be called to account on the basis of how they responded to him. So a Muslim who has never been given a realistic representation of Christ will be judged upon how they have responded to their conscience. This is the case with all Old Testament characters and with tribal peoples etc.

Regarding what is false - both sides on the Heliocentrism debate understood a fair amount of the truth. They understood that heavenly bodies revolved in defined ways etc. There is truth found in all faiths, and most thinking Christians would recognise that we have no basis for claiming absolute knowledge of truth. In the words of St. Paul - 'We see through a glass darkly. We know now in part - but then we shall know in full(upon death)'. Other faiths also see through a glass darkly. As does science when it turns its head to an examination of similar ideas. But even Sam Harris, America's Atheist Bulldog, has his share of truth.

There is much to be learnt from sincere people of different faiths.

It is incorrect to talk of Christians believing that anyone who does not pursue a dogged theological line will end up being rejected by God.

From http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/heavenhell.html

" The standard Christian position is that anyone who rejects Christ will end up in hell. Does this mean that only Christians can be saved? The Catholic church and many Protestant churches don't think so. They believe it is possible that Christ can come to someone in an inward and spiritual way, even if they've never heard of Christ. Thus someone can be an "anonymous Christian." That is, they can know Christ spiritually without realizing it it Christ.

Most Christians also believe that God's judgement will take into account the sorts of opportunities a person had to learn the truth. A person who has never heard the Gospel can't be said to have rejected Christ. An even worse situation occurs when Christians have persecuted other groups. A person who sees Christ as a persecutor has hardly had a real exposure to the Gospel.

[Historical note: It's worth noting that two major classical Protestant writers thought it was possible for non-Christians to be saved: Zwingli and Wesley. Calvin did not.] "

Blacknad.

Revlgking wrote:

"And, while you are at it, Kate, Rusty and Rose, keep in mind that there is such a thing as PSYCHOLOGY of religion: The serious and objective study of what is it about human nature which makes the vast majority of us want to believe in something beyond the gods of materialism?"

There is the quite reasonable idea that selection led to the human need for a religion. It provided an evolutionary advantage to groups that had it. At some stage, and possibly mtEve's line has got something to do with it, it became an advantage to live in groups larger than simply the ape-type family group. Bands that developed a tribal conciousness out-competed those without. Therefore there is nothing inherently true about religion, it's just that it's been hard-wired into our instincts, whatever they are.

Blacknad, there is much wisdom in what you write.

It is always a pleasure to dialogue with posters who are gracious and polite.

Though I am retired from the active pastoral ministry (1953-1994), I still think of myself as being "in the ministry"--that is, ministering to people and the community, being of service in any way I can--physically, mentally and spiritually--to people who need and ask for help.

Because, currently, the only pills I take are vitamins, minerals, enzymes and structured/oxygenated water I may be around for a few years yet.

Many years ago, I spent to years at Boston University--founded by the Methodists--studying the lives of liberal thinkers such as Wesley. I did a series of studies and a thesis on, "The Story of Ideas". Very interesting.

BTW, Martin Luther King, a Baptist, graduated from BU, as a minister, just as I entered to do postgrad work. At the time, there were over 500 students in the School of Theology.

What issues are there, close to your heart, about which you would like to dailogue? And not just with me, okay?

Very valuable observation, TNZ.

Okay, let us assume that you have a point: Where do we go from here? Do you think that in order to dicuss this we need to start a new thread? I did start one called, COSMOTHEISM.... If you have a better idea, I'm easy, okay?

You're next.

BTW, I love discussing the philosophy and psychology of religions with anyone willing to do so--plural intended. The dogma of religions is something else such as....Well, where do we go from here?

Blacknad wrote:
" [Historical note: It's worth noting that two major classical Protestant writers thought it was possible for non-Christians to be saved: Zwingli and Wesley. Calvin did not.] "

Your post brings up an interesting fact that is rarely discussed.

The writings about what god intends to do with his flock of sheep has all been written by people that not only never met or heard Jesus Christ but also, for the most part, never once read an accurate account what what he said.

Essentially all Christian writings, like those you reference, are by people (however well meaning) appointing themselves to interpret something of which they have only third hand knowledge. Which is not different from those who presume to tell us what is really happening between in international affairs and they can't even get that right.

So why would anyone put any value on these opinions? At their root they are grounded in smoke and mirrors.

And speaking of the one true religion ... consider once again:
"Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
~ Ambrose Bierce

And given my disgust with this thread which is as relevant to science as a bottle of American beer ... here's something equally relevant to this thread but far more enjoyable.

"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters."
~ Genghis Khan, 1226

This thread looks like it's in the right place - The Not Quite Science Forum. People wanting to discuss SCIENCE should flip on over to the General Science section or Physics or Whatever. Hope that clarifies things for those debating the worthiness of this thread.

Revlgking wrote:

"The dogma of religions is something else such as....Well, where do we go from here?"

I suspect it is the dogma of a religion that is the most important aspect of that religion. But it's the dogma of religions that is dangerous. Religious dogma is often used to gain support for imperialist expansions, not just in the distant past I might add. Presumably religious dogma has been used in tribal warfare since the idea of tribal warfare emerged. Members of other tribes would be regarded as inferior therefore it was doing the world a favour to get rid of them. I wonder if chimpanzees use the same justifications when they go to war with other tribes?

Anyway after twelve pages no-one has yet provided any evidence for God. Or evidence against I suppose.

Thanks for the clarification Kate. The gloves are off and the invisible purple rhino is set to charge into the fray.

Absolutely correct TNZ. Essentially all religions, especially Christianity, are primarily political movements intended to control the beliefs and behaviors of people based upon brainwashing children based on ritual and dogma. Of course, as always, accompanied by the threat that if you don't do what we say you are going to burn for eternity in hell.

Witness above, Black posting "Does this mean that only Christians can be saved?" which goes to the heart of the threat. We, not one of whom ever actually heard a single word spoken by god or Jesus Christ or the devil or the snake or Moses or Joe the Bartender, presume upon ourselves to determine who is and who is not going to make it into the mythical place of eternal damnation. Talk about self-delusion and self-aggrandizement.

What ever happened to living a decent life and that respect for oneself and from one's peers being sufficient? Well that doesn't give some minister appropriate control of his or her tribe.

And speaking of the tribal nature of self-righteous Christian clergymen here's a newsflash from my area. We have the leader of a congregation here who, in the name of his saviour Jesus Christ has decided to introduce a law to deprive some people of their lawfully granted civil rights. Read all about it:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/222495_hutcherson02.html

Jesus could consort with the poor and prostitutes. But the good reverend can only consort with the wealthy and the neo-fascist.
I'll bet this guy is as twisted as a whirlpool.

Dan,

Point 1. The answer, clearly, amongst the majority of Christendom is that not everyone who rejects Christianity has in fact rejected God.

Not exactly 'Control and Command' here, and again is part of the mythical view of Christianity whereby its failures define its entirety. Which leads to your second point...

Point 2. There are 500,000 priests, minister, pastors in the USA. Amongst that lot will be some nuts, some people trying to escape their own personal failings (etc. Paedophiles), and even those who are simply in it for their own needs - personal recognition, use it as a career and so on. There are also many faithful people who are trying their hardest to live a good life and to do good in their community and further a field.

It comes as no surprise then that some of these half a million leaders will fall from grace because of their own personal issues or even fall prey to the temptations of power.

You are arguing from the specific to the general and it just doesn't wash with someone who is actually much closer to the church than you are, and has a much better view of what goes on 'on the ground'.

Your sample group is statistically unsound and in your normal scientific endeavours you would never dream of drawing conclusions based upon such flimsy evidence.

But this is something I see all the time. Rational scientists throwing out scientific discipline when they want to support their irrational dislike of religion. Sam Harris does it - Richard Dawkins does it - and here it is again.

Blacknad.

Thank you Kate for writing Spoken like someone who knows what it means to be a 'moderator'--one who not only chairs, but who mediates. Moderators are not 'censors'.

Interestingly, even in physics there are moderators. For example, graphite can be used in a reactor to slow down nuclear fission.

BTW, the head of of the United Church of Canada--and other democratically-governed churches--is called The Moderator, and can be male or female. Moderators are not the infallible sources of truth.

Poor reasoning, is it? Since when is it poor reasoning to try and establish and understand what it is that we are talking about. Have you ever heard the joke about the W.C.--the British short-form for water-closet, or toilette?

There is funny essay in which a writer uses this short-form to describe a public W.C. out in the country. Read this essay in front of Brits and Canadians and every sentence will probably get laughs. The biggest laugh usually comes at the end, when the reader announces that he is talking about a Wayside Chapel.

What scientist worth his test tubes and beakers would waste his time researching something if he had no idea of what it is he is looking for. A good theory, like a rational faith must be based on a concept, or an idea, of what could possibly be true.

By the way, I am not a traditional theist because I cannot accept what many theists presume to be true. For example, I do not believe that there is a God who is an objective and man-like being who exists separate and apart from us in some place called Heaven.

Nonsense! I object when this kind of spin is put on my words.

This is not what I have in mind when I write GOD--GOD, for me, is not JUST the sum of all things, unless this includes that metaphysical, spiritual, something which interpenetrates and surrounds all things.

More spin

I am not interested in promoting any one kind of religion. I am calling for ongoing research as to the nature and function of religions, theologies, etc. If objective research finds that religion is of little or no value--some argue that all religions are evil--I am all in favour of finding out, one way or the other. Let the facts tell us what is socially valuable and useful.

Rev: "What scientist worth his test tubes and beakers would waste his time researching something if he had no idea of what it is he is looking for. A good theory, like a rational faith must be based on a concept, or an idea, of what could possibly be true."

1. God is not a subject that is subject to scientific investigation. Anyone who says otherwise is selling snake oil.

2. More to the point, the logical error is not in the defining - it's in the logically unjustifiable extension of properties that invariably follows.


Rev: "Nonsense! I object when this kind of spin is put on my words. "

If God is just the sum total of all physical laws (or some variant of that), then why use such a laden term like "god" to describe it.

"This is not what I have in mind when I write GOD--GOD, for me, is not JUST the sum of all things, unless this includes that metaphysical, spiritual, something which interpenetrates and surrounds all things."

Science can't do metaphysical or spiritual. Already you're putting more into your concept of God than what is warranted.


"I am not interested in promoting any one kind of religion."
I didn't say you were promoting any one kind of religion. I hinted that you were promoting "religion" and not "science." Full stop.

"I am calling for ongoing research as to the nature and function of religions, theologies, etc."
There is a branch of science that researches beliefs. It's called psychology. It studies, among other things, why people believe irrational things. However, no branch of science can study what is not a part of nature. Science doesn't do the supernatural. If, as you suggest, god is some spiritual thing, then God is beyond what science can handle. That why we have philosophers - for people who are not satisfied with science.

"If objective research finds that religion is of little or no value"
The question of whether religion has value is entirely different from the question of whether it is scientific or whether it is true.

"--some argue that all religions are evil--I am all in favour of finding out, one way or the other. Let the facts tell us what is socially valuable and useful."
Socially valuable is not the same thing as scientific.

Revlgking you are truly an amazing creature. You attempt to engage in a discussion of a topic upon which you seem totally ignorant of either fact or theory.

You wrote:
"will accept my right to define GOD as I understand GOD to be, I can prove that GOD is."

And if you will accept my right to do so then I can prove that god is an invisible purple rhinoceros. Or that water ice doesn't melt at zero degrees celsius. Or that soccer is the most popular sport in the US. Or anything else I wish.

For you to propose that we use your definition demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking skills or a willful and wanton disregard for intellectual integrity. Which is it?

Thank you! as is each creature of
G?D.

I am unaware of ever having met you, or of ever having being your student. What makes you think that you really know well enough to be so...????

Of course you have the right to define your concept of god. I think you mentioned "His" name, even before I arrived. Now, have PR give me a call. Perhaps we will have a nice chat.



I proposed no such nonsense. If you wish to judge my integrity, the choice is your. My definition is my definition. Yours is yours. If you get my drift.

BTW, if you wish to play the my-argument-ad-hominem is better than your AAH--I presume you know the meaning of the term--we are off topic, here.

To conclude this point, if you wish to start an AAH game, I am all in favour of it. We COULD have a little fun. Now open a new thread. But you will have to agree to tell us your life-story and I agree to do the same. I, for one, am very interested, and I have many questions.

Revlgking wrote:
"My definition is my definition"

Wonderful. But my definition is an invisible purple rhinoceros so I am both as correct as you and as incorrect as you and thus nothing of substance is proven.

Now I realize the fact that this is a science forum, where people use critical thinking skills rather than just accepting the gibberish d'jour may be unusual for you, but please try to abide by the scientific method while here instead of pontification.

Here is the scientific method:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Which part of what you just read allows you to have a personal definition?

If you want to discuss religion I'll gladly do so as Kate seems to be willing to tolerate such nonsense. But if you are going to use words like "prove" then I intend to hold you to a standard of integrity that likely is foreign to the pulpit.

DAM, having made a small revision to my last post, I move on after reading your last post.

BTW, after I was ordained, in 1953, my wife and I (both 23)spent some time in the north, Labrador. Then I got a scholarship to Boston University.

Having spent some time at Boston University, in the mid 1950's, doing some postgraduate studies in epistemology--dealing with the origins, nature and limits of knowledge--right up front I affirm my faith in the value of scientific enquiry: I am 100% in favour of the scientific method, whenever it can be appropriately applied.

Even back then, I came the same conclusion which is made in the Site which you give us--thanks, BTW--:

I find myself continually irritated by the poor excuse for teaching for which my taxes are paying. One area that is particularly weak, IMO, is evolution education. Another is philosophy of science. However, last year during a visit to my (then) 7th grader's life science classroom, I saw printed in big letters a sign that read:

"Science isn't about what you can prove. It's about what you can disprove."

My gosh! A teacher who actually gets it. Furthermore, my eldest (now 17), has said she learnt the same thing in 7th grade. I have several issues with the science program at my kids' school. But generally, I think they're on track - much better than some of the other programs at the school.

Explain that, FF
i want to know what you mean by that,
because i seem to beleive it, but im not sure
that science is about what you can disprove

I'm not sure I can agree with what IFF wrote but I do understand the point-of-view.

It is impossible to prove that the invisible purple rhinoceros doesn't exist. And I'm not sure I would want to prove that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius by proving that it doesn't boil at any other temperature between absolute zero and infinite.

Science, and proof, are about verifiability. Let me give you an example I've used here before.

Lets put an atheist, an agnostic, an animist, a Shia Moslem, a Sunni Moslem, a Buddhist, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, an Orthodox Jew, and a member of Scientology in a room (not to exclude any other theology).

Now can you get them to agree that Jesus Christ is part of a trinity? Not a prayer? How about that the Old Testament story of Noah is true? Not without a loaded firearm. How about that the universe was created in 7 days or that Jesus died on a cross? Zero, nada, zilch, nyet.

Can I get the same group to agree that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? You betcha. And that is science!

One is objectively verifiable the other is mythology.

Tim. Science is about what we can't prove because it's nearly impossible to actually prove anything. People argue over whether it's possible to prove you're actually even here. Scientifically, therefore, it is really only possible for us to prove no such thing as a god exists, however we might define that.

Science is about what you can disprove, not what you can prove.

In order for a general theory to be scientific, it must be amenable to the scientific method. This means that it must generate hypotheses which could hypothetically prove that the theory is false, IF IT TRULY IS FALSE.

Google the term falsificationism and popper and ignore any nonsense you find on a creationism or ID site, because they get it wrong. The evolutionists get it right, but ignore them too. Instead, try to get it from a philosophy of science site.
(And not some religious site masquerading as a science site.)

No amount of evidence can prove that a general theory is true - which is to say that no amount of evidence can prove induction. (Bear in mind that what you might have learned as "method of induction" in algebra really isn't induction - try not to get confused here. I know the terms are a little messed up.)

Example, no matter how many times you see a crow that turns out to be black, that does not disprove the existence of white crows. However, the existence of only black crows is not really a theory with a lot of predictive power. That theory is too specific.

However, there are theories that are pretty general. For example, the theory of gravity (not to be confused with the fact of gravity) is pretty general. We can easily generate hypotheses from this theory that might disprove it, if it weren't true.

G?D=ALL SCIENCE, ALL PHILOSOPHY AND ALL ART
Certain truths are self-evident
=============================================
G?D IN THE SCIENCES
Somatologically, that, is physically speaking, I am getting to know and experience God with every physical sense I possess. As we invent better and better technologies I will get to know God in physical nature, including space, better. I leave this in the hands of the many moral and ethical people of science. This is the physical universe which scientists, bless them all, explore daily. I experience God with every breath I take. No wonder our word 'spirit' in the languages of the Bible is the same as air, wind and breath.

G?D IN PHILOSOPHY
Philosophically and psychologically, that is mentally speaking, I know God with my mind, intellect and every thought I think. The older I grow, the more I learn, and the more I experience of God in this mental sense. I love philosophy and its children, pneumatology and psychology, especially in its humanistic form.

Theologians speak of God in the awe-filled imminent-being sense of the word--as acknowledged by great scientists like Newton, Einstein and Hawking, Tesla, Edison, Suzuki and many others--male and female.

G?D AS TRANSCENDENT BEING
Best of all, IMHO, I know God pneumatologically, spiritually--that is, God beyond measurement or proof. God, in this sense is ineffable.

As finite beings, even our top scientists admit that human beings can't measure the infinity of space, or the eternity of time--the cosmos, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, but we can have a strong feeling that it is there and, at the same time in every atom of our physical being.

Just as the universe is governed, physically, by physical laws, I believe that there are moral and ethical laws which govern us mentally and spiritually. Getting to know these laws and learning how to live by them will make all the difference whether or not the future will be a hell, or a heaven.

And by the way, I happen to believe that death is THE GREAT illusion, which true science will, eventually, help us to overcome. More on my opion of death, later.

Here's a thought: Anything that is self-evident and true can be rejected; but it cannot be denied without consequences.

For example, life itself. Stop breathing and the consequence is physical death; stop thinking and the mind will die; stop having faith and hope, and stop being loving, so will the spirit. The old addage is true: if you stop using it, you will lose it.

Revlgking wrote:

"Somatologically, that, is physically speaking, I am getting to know and experience God with every physical sense I possess."

Yes. I've smoked stuff that gives me that feeling as well.

Dare I suggest it: If you're not joking, keep on smoking But watch out for the carbon monoxide, etc.

But seriously, some people can get high simply pondering the awesome nature of things.

BTW, this brings up the whole question of religion and addictions. To what extent is smoking, drinking, whatever, sins against God and humanity? Mormons even eschew, avoid, coffee and tea. I certainly agree that, psychologically, religion can be addictive.

Currently, I take a drink or two a day, not to get high, but the opposite: I take a drink--usually a gin, or a wine--to relax, to come down, as it were. If I ever find myself getting addicted to the point of having to have it, constantly, I pray that I will have the moral strength to kick the habit as I did pipe and cigar smoking.

NOW, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY ADDICTION
When I was growing up--in the thirties, and forties--smoking, at it worst, was just considered a dirty habit and manly habit. Non-smokers, mostly women, were rare. My sisters and mother didn't smoke. It was only considered a sin by certain of the smaller religions like the Salvation Army, the Mormons and the Pentecostals.

The mainline religions did not preach about "demon rum" or the sin of smoking, as long as it was done in moderation. Even some clergy in the mainline churches smoked and drank. Later, in life, I worked with a senior colleague who smoked the pipe, and he was raised in the Salvation Army. He told me, half serious: "I left it so I could smoke without sinning".

My father smoked the pipe, and all my older brothers smoked home-mades.

After all, even doctors and nurses smoked, especially in the movies. And the movie stars. Humphrey Bogart, in most of his movies, was never without a cigarette in his hand. The tobacco companies recruited actors, doctors, nurses and other scientifically trained professionals as part of their advertising programs.

Looking back, I am amazed that it wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually took up the habit. Feeling the need to do something to relax me, I took up smoking the pipe, and cigars. I believed what I saw in the movies; I believed the advertising that smoking was the relaxing and cool thing to do. And, after all, the Bible did not condemn it, so it must be okay with God, right?

At the time, I had the idea that the tobacco industry was just another industry doing honest business. It never occurred to me that the owners of the tobacco industry--they are all probably all very addicted to wealth and power--who, even when they became aware of the dangers of smoking, were willing to sell poison, if necessary, in order to get wealth and power.

Boy! did I ever find out what a pack of lies it was that they told about the "relaxing" habit of smoking. Smoking did not relax me, it addicted me. As time went by I had a feeling that it was actually affecting my health.

It was around that time that certain serious, moral and ethical scientists began to blow the whistle on what tobacco smoke was actually doing to public health; and that it was killing people. They were condemned, at first, as alarmists given to preaching nonsense.

One of the things that really inspired me to look into the science of what inhaling smoke does to the lungs and the body was the way it affected my young daughter's health. Her doptors at Sick Childrens' Hospital daignosed that she was extremely allergic to tobacco smoke, among other things. It, and other things, almost killed her.

Quite a story about how she got well. Because of this, even though it wasn't easy for me, I decided to quit smoking. With the consent of my GP, on myself and my daughter, I used what I call PNEUMATHERAPY--a prayer-like form of self-hypnosis without the hocus pocus associated with the stage brand of hypnosis.

Looking back, I Thank GOD I did not get addicted to cigarettes, which addiction. I understand, is a most difficult addiction to quit.

So here is the point of my sermon: Even when serious scientists demonstrated the deadly effect that tobacco smoke has on all people who inhale it, the wealthy and powerful heads of the tobacco industry campaigned, with the help of their "scientists", against any ban on smoking.

They fervently preached that, in moderation, tobacco does no real harm and only provides many people with much pleasure. And look at the employment it creates, and the money we give to sports and the arts. So "what's the problem?" they pleaded. Let us get on with our honest business.

One final point here: In the light of this, if we have a problem believing in gods we need have no problem believing in devils--people who are willing to make, sell and do anything for personal gain, regardless of who gets hurt, or even killed.

Maybe we should think about this and--using the sciences--take as sharp look at many of the things we do to one another in our search for wealth and power.

For example, How about the looking, scientifically, into our food, energy transportation and WAR industries with the same kind of moral and ethical concern?

How many other human beings are we--the wealthy and powerful few of the world--willing to keep in poverty and bad health, and destroy in war, in order to maintain our wealth and power?

To paraphrase the Christian and Russian writer, Dostoevsky: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/dostoevskybio.html
Food, health and wealth for myself is a physical question; but food, health and wealth for my fellow human beings in all the earth is a spiritual (religious) moral and ethical one.

Think about it.

This post is a personal testimony. It's not evidence of a God. Given that god possesses all of the physical qualities you ascribe to it, there is no reason whatever to believe that it possesses spiritual, or unworldly qualities.

Let me be clear: I acknowledge "spiritual" as an emotional state. That's not the same thing as acknowledging a "spiritual world."
Even though I acknowledge "spiritual" in the aforementioned sense, I do not like the term, because of the baggage that it carries.

'Even when serious scienctists demonstrated the deadly effect tobacco smoke has on all people who inhale it, the wealthy and powerful heads of the tobacco industry campaigned, with the help of their "scientists", against any ban on smoking. '

Yes, there are entities who abuse science. Thankfully, the entities you mention are mere corporations and not religious agencies. Otherwise, it would have taken far longer to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.

Here's the thing with science: it's not necessarily about "The Truth." That's not to say there isn't any truth in science. That is to say that for much of science, our knowledge is approximate. The central purpose of The Method and The Philosophy of Science is error-recovery. Eventually, the real science won out. And you may say, "BUT IT TOOK DECADES!" to which I reply, "Yes. It ONLY took decades!"

Man is essentially a creative animal. We are pattern-matchers and pattern discoverers and pattern creators. Creativity is an essential part of humanity - and an essential part of science. But it's not the ONLY part of science. We generate theories (and hypotheses) - and then we test them.

"Maybe we should think about this and--using the sciences--take as sharp look at many of the things we do to one another in our search for wealth and power."

With preordained conclusions? One of the things that good scientists need to do is not tint their findings by social concerns. By this I mean, they should not state their findings more powerfully than what is warranted by the evidence. That's not to say that science should ignore social concerns - or that there aren't already scientists who are doing a poor job: creating socially relevant, but essentially incorrect science. It just means that it's going to take us a lot longer to sort things out in the long run.

That is not to say, while I am an atheist, that I think an atheist world is a better one. That is not a question about science, though. I promote a non-theistic science, not an atheist world. In fact, non-theistic science is a redundancy.

I used to think that scientists were impartial and would simply go where the evidence leads them. I placed them in direct contrast to politicians who will distort and bend the truth as it suits their needs. The 'scientific discipline', I thought, is a wonderful, logical, unemotional endeavor, and I admired it.

I have to say that the more I now read about science, the less I believe this.

Example:

"And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

Full story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

Blacknad.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

The following from today's THE GLOBE AND MAIL--Canada's national daily sums up the problem we are talking about, above:

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. [I LGK presume that we could add: and the very bright.] They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views, which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." -- Doctor Who, suggested by reader Yves Saint-Cyr
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/socialstudies
MKesterton@globeandmail.com

By the way, I happen to believe and am hopeful that moral, ethical, and loving scientists, in cooperation with rational and scientific philosophers and theologians, are capable of creating the kind of world we all need. I also have some suggestions.

Keep in mind that the root meaning of the word 'devil'--from it we get diabolic, diameter, divide--is, literally, that which splits and/or divides us from ourselves and from one another.

BTW 2: In reading all of the above we need to be careful not to over generalize. It tends to split us into opposing camps--we against them.

"I used to think that scientists were impartial "

I've never held that view. However, I've always believed - and still do - that good scientists do try to put their personal feelings on the back burner, but none of us fails to be influenced by the world around us. We do not cease to be human beings when we go about our jobs and daily lives. The fact that we are imperfect is no reason to throw out the attempt at integrity.

To move it to a different realm -
Just because some catholic priests rape children, doesn't mean they all do.

Just because Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker had affairs doesn't mean that faithfulness is not a virtue.

Blacknad the fact that you can point to a handful of problems with humans behaving as humans is laughable from the standpoint of what you are trying to put forward as a postulate.

Now if one looks at politicians ... you might find the polar opposite ... a handful that are not deceitful.

I find it disingenuous for you to make the claim you did while using electricity, using the internet, taking antibiotics, drinking safe water, taking the train, and otherwise fully embracing the benefits that science brings.

The day you can show me an example of a religious organization curing a disease with prayer lets start with malaria or polio or AIDS please let me know.

Or the day you can discern whether lifeforms exist on Europa by reading scripture let me know that too.

Perhaps you would like a different scientific discipline. Can you use some methodology other than science to predict earthquakes? Monitor volcanoes? Predict hurricanes? Keep bacteria out of our food supply? Deliver babies with near 100% success? Keep the lights turned on? Build a bridge? Fly to Paris? The list is endless.

For you to write as you did "I used to think that scientists were impartial" strikes me as being intellectually dishonest as I know you are far too intelligent a person not to be able to distinguish a bad apple from the tree from which it fell.

Relgking wrote:
"By the way, I happen to believe and am hopeful that moral, ethical, and loving scientists, in cooperation with rational and scientific philosophers and theologians, are capable of creating the kind of world we all need. I also have some suggestions."

Well if you can find a rational theologian it might be possible. So far the history of theology demonstrates this creature to be extinct.

It is more likely that a polar bear, under an appropriate coordinate transformation, would become a rectangular bear than that you can demonstrate theology to be anything other than irrational.

DAM, Albert Schweitzer is dead, but I think there are many young doctors who still follow his model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1952/schweitzer-bio.html

NORMAN COUSINS, who did a book on Schweitzer has also left us a wonderful legacy which he writes about in his book: HEAD FIRST--THE BIOLOGY OF HOPE (1989). The book is really about SPIRIT FIRST--the biology of faith hope and love.

ANATOMY ON AN ILLNESS--the book
Because of his own recovery--using the power of his mind--laughter and nutrients, not drugs--and spirit--though he was not an MD he was recruited by UCLA's great medical school as an adjunct professor. There he spent ten years teaching young doctors how to heal the whole person, not just be body mechanics. His book tells the story of those ten years.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/cousins.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Cousins
http://www.npi.ucla.edu/center/cousins/index.html

BTW, DAM, where did you learn how to write in such an interesting and provocative style? Tell me, maybe I could go there and take a course. Did Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale go to that school too? Or did it come in your genes?
Seriously, gadflies do serve a purpose, I think!!! But it would be helpful if your criticisms were balanced, once in a while.

Dan,

I apologise for having doubts, but heck, you are the one that introduced me to doubt in the first place.

Reading my post again - it doesn't represent my thinking accurately. I know where we would be without science, and it ain't a pretty place.

But I have still been somewhat surprised to see how many times people find it hard to speak against the consensus and current paradigm (which may well be subject to change anyway).

Black -eyed- nad. (Go a bit easier on me)

Blacknad wrote:
"But it would be helpful if your criticisms were balanced, once in a while."

I thought I did a remarkably good job when I stated what I believe to be the truth: "I know you are far too intelligent a person ...."

Now where did I learn to write this way? Next time I'm in B'ham I'll tell you. That is not a subject to the web.

But please do not blame scientists for being human. We are. We make the same mistakes. The same errors in judgement. And have the exact same weaknesses as do mortals.

What distinguishes us, I believe, is what distinguished the Founding Father's of America from those that came before. We believe in a system of checks-and-balances. We readily acknowledge the errors of Einstein, Bohr, Darwin, and others that some would like to put up in a Pantheon. We demand that authors subject themselves to peer review. Not even a Hawking or a Gell Mann or a Feynman can publish without being put into the cross-hairs. In short ... we do our best to be intellectually honest. And when we find someone like that biologist in Korea who faked his results ... we rather quickly catapult them into the moat. We're not perfect but we're not barristers or politicians or used car salesmen either.

Blacknad wrote:
"I apologise for having doubts, but heck, you are the one that introduced me to doubt in the first place."

No apology required. I'd rather have you doubt and question than accept at face value.

Blacknad wrote:
"Reading my post again - it doesn't represent my thinking accurately."

I had a pretty strong indication of that or I'd have never used the word "disingenuous." That is a word I don't use without carefully consideration. Oh heck then I just throw in a litre of petrol to make sure.

I wish you'd been at the AAS meeting here in Seattle. The number of times undergrads challenged the accepted norm was refreshing. Sure they will have their feet put to the fire and be expected to provide further proof. But when they do ... they will be honored ... not scorned.

DAM, no real harm done; but when you said you were quoting me, LGK, not Blacknad. It is kinda nice to know that we can all be fallible, at times, eh?

You go on commenting and adding to your list of misplaced quotes Now this is I will make a clear note of and file away for future use. You sound like an agnostic theologian.

And you go on, and on And are you implying that all philosophers and theologians do not? Oh, Come now!!! With two postgraduates degrees in theology, I demand a little more respect, here!! And please, leave the BSing to me.

I think I know why the cynics and the nihilists love to dismiss and kill new ideas and new ways of doing things for the greater good of all of us. It is oh so easy!

It is takes energy, real effort, curiosity, intellgence, imagination and loving concern for anyone to take the time to grasp, really critique, to explore the new, and then take action.

BTW, I noticed that the work of the great work of the doctor, theologian and musician, Albert Schweitzer at al was totally ignored.

Schweitzer once said"It is supposed to be a professional secret, but I will tell you anyway. We doctors do little. We only help and encourage the doctor within."

http://www.allspiritual.com/MultiFaith.php3
http://www.slbmi.com/psychology_religion/psychology_religion_team.htm
http://www.healingmusic.org/Library/Articles/MusicAndSoundInHealingFromCancer.asp
http://www.aasianst.org/absts/1995abst/inter/inter54.htm

Dan,

Just as Revlgking said - it wasn't me that said this. I know your criticisms are balanced more than 'once in a while'.

Thanks for your response though.

I have seen you do this before on a few occasions, (attribute a quote to the wrong person). Is it a peculiar form of dyslexia you have - weblexia? Or are you always in a hurry?

Blacknad.

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

DIALOGUING TO COMMUNICATE
Correction: I should have written: I think I know why the cynics and the nihilists love to dismiss and kill most new ideas, and even new ways of doing things, which could be of value and for the greater good of all of us. It is oh so easy to knock!

It takes energy, real effort, curiosity, intelligence, imagination, faith, hope and loving concern for anyone to take the time to grasp, to really critique, to explore the new, and then take creative action--beginning with taking the time to understand another.

COMMUNICATING
For example, some atheists confuse PANTHEISM and PanENtheism. I asked one atheisT about PanENtheism and he answered:"There are different kinds of atheists and different approaches they take. My view is that I don't see the value of a pantheistic approach to god."

To clarify the important difference let me put the question this way to atheists: Are you aware of the work of the mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead? If so, are you aware of the difference between PANTHEISM AND panENtheism? Are you willing to find out?

Though I am easy, as you know, I like using the symbol G?D, rather than god, or God.

Why?

Because it helps me to think of the 'ground of all being'--a term for 'God' used by the great theologian, Paul Tillich--as more than a personal and Superbeing. How many have ever you heard of Paul Tillich?

If we are truly serious about the art of communication we MUST dialogue until we really understand what the other person is really saying--even if we end up disagreeing all the more.

THE CONVERSION OF A REAL ATHEIST
By the way, I once baptised a former atheist. He was my age--we were both in our twenties, at the time. Later, he actually became a successful minister.

In preparation for his baptism I asked him: What changed your mind?

But first, let me tell you how we met:

Interestingly HM's first greeting to me was: "Good to meet you, Rev. I am a devout agnostic, if not an atheist. Since you are running the only show in towm, and there is nothing else to do on Sunday, anyway, I will come and hear you...if you promise to keep me awake...." [Folowed by a loud laugh.] The rest is history.

His answer to my question, above, went something like this:

"As you know I have been coming to church for nearly six months. Needless to say, your sermons have kept me awake. Not only that, they have made me think.

And your wife's home-made bread is delicious. I should add: Your cutting my hair now and then is appreciated too. [BIG laugh!!! Before I started to cut HM's hair he had to travel to the Goosebay Air Base, seven miles up the road. He mentioned the home-made bread because we often had food and fellowship together, after church] Then he went on:

Because you gave me a definition of God which does not insult my intelligence and my imagination. I discovered that the male-like God I was raised and expected to believe in was too small.

What I was raised to believe in bordered on--more than that, it was, a mental form of idolatry. I was expected to create God in the image of my father.

Your definition of God as that which is in and through the Cosmos; as all that encompasses and inter-penetrates it, physically, mentally and spiritually...how can I deny that, and go on thinking that life has any kind of meaning?

I began to see materialism and its atheist atheology for what it is. The problem with atheism is that it is a faith in things as they appear to be. Therefore, it is without any kind of hopeful or eternal meaning. The best atheism has to offer is a good life for the fortunate few in the material now until death do us part. At the end of all our striving there is nothing but the hope of a quick and painless death when our soul-less bodies--together with all our works of engineering and art, mixed with detritus and other kinds glacial debris--will be dumped into the abyss of unconscious nothingness, there to remain, forever.

Your definition gave me the freedom to think bold new thoughts. I now see the earth, the planets, the galaxies--whatever is out there and in here (he pointed to his and brain and heart)--as truly AWE-full. [He was an avid reader of astronomy, and other things, I found out.]

I liked your sermon on what Paul wrote in Romans 8:28.
In God, all things can--I'll change that to WILL--work together for good...as we put into positive action our faith, our hope and our love".

Needless to say, the Rev. H.M. went on to become a colourful and dynamic minister. He served out his whole ministry way up in the sub-arctic north, which he loved.

When I met HM, he was a young manager with the Hudson Bay Company, the only store in Happy Valley-Goosebay, Labrador, at the time. IN 1953, there were 115 families, all squatters--living on Department of National Defense land.

As the leader of the only church in the shack town, with the help of the Church Council, I started the move to make the community into a regular municipality. This gave the people the right to own the land they lived on. They had already been up-rooted from their original shacks, which were too near the landing field. I was there when the Americans first became involved in the Viet Nam War. What a massive force of planes took of and flew over the arctic to Nam. It was a very historic moment. I had no idea, at time, of what a moment it was.

Today, there are about 9,000 people in the area. Things have changed. They even have their own radio station. Yes, the story of Happy Valley, yet to be fully documented show the role churches play in the development of communities. It also show that church people are interested is the social well-being of communities.

I do not wish to be snarky but may I ask: I wonder where the athiests were? Maybe some were among the silent adherents of my church, and were just afraid to speak up. If so, they had no need to fear; they were more than welcome.

Or were they coming to get caught up on their sleep?

Revlgking wrote:
" And are you implying that all philosophers and theologians do not?"

Implying nothing. I am insisting, stating as fact, and putting it forward as a statement cast in osmiridium.

And if you think otherwise tell me the last time in which the leader of any Christian church submitted his theological doctrine to peer review. I want the name of the Imam and the Rabbi that conducted that review. Please don't descend into the depths of hypocrisy by claiming that the Pope submitting a statement to his Cardinals and Bishops is peer review.

Revlgking wrote:
"I think I know why the cynics and the nihilists love to dismiss and kill new ideas and new ways of doing things for the greater good of all of us. It is oh so easy!"

Actually you are clueless. We don't dismiss and kill new ideas. We thrive on new ideas. We embrace dark energy and axions and methane on Titan. There is difference between a "new idea" and repackaging fluff and using it to brainwash children.

Here's a quote that I think pretty much sums up my attitude toward the clergy:
"Ministers say that they teach charity.
That is natural.
They live on hand-outs.
All beggars teach that others should give."
~ Robert Ingersoll

So far you have yet to engage in a single sentence of science. What you have done is create a new meaningless spelling of the word god (G?D) as though the deity that created the entire universe would be impressed. You have linked to purely religious websites indicating an inability to converse at a science site in the language of science. You have referenced Albert Schweitzer as though using his name had some relevance to anything.: It does not.

As one of the founders of The Family Life Foundation dedicated to promoting goodness why don't you try promoting goodness here by not being an intellectually dishonest troll?

If poverty is the face of ignorance then, sir, I will send you a penny for more surely do you need one than almost anyone else on the planet.

Relgking wrote:
"DIALOGUING TO COMMUNICATE"

Dialoguing is not a word. Are you capable of communicating in English or must everything be new-age spin-doctored woo-woo off-topic trolling?

Relgking asks:
"I wonder where the athiests were"

Discovering antibiotics, learning to harness electricity, building the internet, exploring the universe, and paying the taxes to support tax-exempt self-righteous parasites.

How many dollars did you contribute to the fight against AIDS today?

It isn't? Tell that to http://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=dialoguing
and to the publishers of the World Book Two-Volume Dictionary.

It seems that my American counsins--and I have many--sometimes spell English in their own way. Do me a F A V O U R and the HONOUR of making a note of this, please.

BTW, this is the second time you pointed out my "mistake". I am getting concerned. And how about those misquotes?

How many dollars did I contribute to the fight against AIDS, etc?

The King family supports 20 charities. Thanks for the opportunity to boast.

ABOUT THE FAMILY LIFE FOUNDATION--http://www,flfcanada,com I head up this charity I helped found in 1974, run entirely by volunteers, of which I am the chair. One group that I attend meets weekly with several seniors we help.
ANYONE WANT TO HELP? WE ARE EASY TO FIND. BTW, I have even counseled with people using my PC.

Not too long ago, we in the FLF rescued a senior--a well-educated engineer, by the way, and totally non-addicted. He had been ripped off by non-caring family. He was living out of his car. Certain business leaders plotted and had him evicted and tried to sell his home from out under him.

Said they had a power-of-sale court order. They were lying, we found. He has been back in his home for over three years, now. His pension, which we helped him get, covers his costs.

BTW, DAM, I don't derive much pleasure d i a l o g u i n g with people who ... Well, I will leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

Neither pantheism nor panentheism is susceptible to scientific understanding. That Whitehead was a panENtheist is no recommendation for it.

Not every thought that every scientist or mathematician had was scientific or mathematical.

I'm glad that you have devoted so much effort to making the world a better place. Thank you. I mean that sincerely.

None of it has one iota to do with science, but I'm happy to know of it nonetheless.

Revlgking ... you aren't dialoguing or discussing or communicating anything other than your total contempt for science and the scientific method. Not once have you, since arriving uninvited upon our doorstep, even attempted to discuss science or shown any interest in the topic.

I do not share IFF's joy in your presence. You are incapable of engaging in a discussion of science and you are seemingly ignorant of the facts with respect to the religion to which you claim adherence. The only thing you have accomplished here is to demonstrate that even a person with a Doctor of Divinity (if you even have one because there is no evidence of it on your website) is capable of ignoring the tenants of his religion.

What would it take to get you to stop being a troll and engage in a discussion of science? Money? How much?

I tried to put this little thought on the site a few days ago but everything went spastic and I couldn't even log out. Here goes another attempt.

No one here has yet even come up with a definition of "God" let alone offered any proof for the existence of such an entity. But I read a description of "religion" that said it is the personal beliefs we hold but cannot prove that we each use to give meaning to our lives. We all have them, even atheists.

I've mentioned on this thread that it is sort of impossible to actually prove anything. Did Newton really prove that every action always has an equal and opposite reaction? Many cultures were using the basic idea before his time: What is hateful to you do not do to others, karma, utu, consciousness and energy creates reality, yin and yang, as you sow so shall you reap, hubris, what goes round comes round, etc. There may be some point along this continuum beyond which we can have no proof. The belief then becomes religion.

I think there is a universally accepted definition of the word 'god' in monotheistic societies as they all are off-shoots of a single source of inspiration.

Whether you are talking about Judiasm, Islam, or Christianity you are talking about religions that claim to be the true authority on the religion founded by Abraham/Ibrahim.

There may be some dispute if one is trying to incorporate polytheistic beliefs but so far no one here has proselytized for any religion other than Christianity. Apparently Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, animists, etc. being more polite.

Hang on DA. I thought there was debate in the USA at the time of 9/11 as to whether the God of Islam was the same as the Christian one. Seems the citizens of USA can agree the Jewish one is the same. But I have certainly never seen any definition by any religion of what God actually is. Perhaps someone who believes he, she or it exists may be prepared to enlighten me? We would then have a sounder basis for looking for evidence for such an entity's existence.

Another point. When did Abraham live if, in fact, he lived at all?

Not wanting to contaminate Kate's site with this let me direct you to: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/06/in-defense-of-hatred.html and suggest you read the FireSign Theatre lyric posted under "What makes America great?"

Most Americans have forgotten who they were in the '60s. And now the planet suffers our hypocrisy and and conveniently short memory.

I've no doubt Abraham actually existed as the story has a ring of truth to it. If you don't want to kill your kid what better solution than to come back down off the mountain and claim god told you not to do it? And based on the following link it seems no one would dare to.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rellis10.htm

You might also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion

My sincere thanks for your gracious attitude, and words, free from personal attacks, TFF. Now in the spirit of dialogue, How do you define science? Is it just about maths, electronics, chemistry and physics? Or what?

BTW, talking about electronics, has the discussion forum been hors de combat, for awhile? Or was it my 'puter.

Science is not just about "sciences." Science is a method applied to a domain.

Neither the method nor the domain are are infinite in extent.

Karl Popper wrote a book called "Objective Knowledge" in which he outlined his solution to the problem of induction and simultaneously solved "the demarcation problem." That is, how do you distinguish what is a scientific theory from what is not?

A scientific theory must generate hypotheses which, if tested, could disprove the theory as a general principle, IF INDEED IT IS FALSE.

The domain of science is the natural world - nothing more or less. Science doesn't deny gods or spirits. It simply doesn't acknowledge them. If they exist, they are outside the purview of science. There's no logical reason to conclude "god did it" rather than "we just don't understand."

Revlgking,
The forum was out of service for a couple of days, It is now in service again. Try not to break it.

Amaranth

The definition of science:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

And thank you revlgking for actually demonstrating some interest in the topic. The polar opposite of science is faith whether expressed as religion, theology, new-age woo-woo brain-dead nonsense, or as described here:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I wonder if you are sincerely trying to join our community or just pandering. Time will tell.

BTW: Reverend ... where, exactly, did you earn your DD?

As one who is found of the Golden Rule, I am more interested in dialogue than in I am in debate.

BTW, I am not a fan of blind, or irrational faith. Faith may go beyond reason, sometimes, but one that goes contrary to reason is not for me.

For those interested, my bio is found on my Website, http://www.flfcanada.com

DA. A couple of good links. I especially enjoyed the one on faith. Have you followed the link in that one to "That's just contradiction, not an argument."? The Monty Python script. Ah, it was great reading that again. "You want to complain ... look at these shoes ... I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through."

Re Abraham. Again interesting link but it raises the question yet again of what his God was. Perhaps it was Seth, or Amun, Ra? Seems too early to be Aten. Anyway, what were these gods? I believe we still need to define the subject before we can dialogue over "Evidence for God".

Revlgking. For that reason we don't need to define science on this thread. You're changing the subject.

TNZ, am I correct in saying that when you say to me, "You're changing the subject" that you are making me the subject?
Just Joe-king . BTW, my oldest brother's name was Joe. This year, had he lived he would be 101. I have the feeling that he doesn't mind me usuing his name, joe-kingly.

Okay, what is the subject?

IMHO--and it is an opinion--there is no direct, reductionistic, concrete evidence for a personal God--in the monotheist sense of the word; there is only indirect evidence as the result of faith and opinion. As I understand it, the God of theism is beyond existence, as we think of it. Therefore, He is, if anything, ineffable.

"IMHO--and it is an opinion--there is no direct, reductionistic, concrete evidence for a personal God--in the monotheist sense of the word; there is only indirect evidence as the result of faith and opinion. As I understand it, the God of theism is beyond existence, as we think of it. Therefore, He is, if anything, ineffable."

1. I don't think this "indirect evidence" is evidence in the scientific sense at all.
2. What is the purpose in effing the ineffable?
3. The problem with pantheistic or panENtheistic views of god (from a scientific view, if not a philosophical one) is that invariably they end up associating a lot of extra baggage with whatever physical definition they apply to god. This is a situation that's bound to be confused when you start out using a baggage-laden term like "god" to describe something physical.

Science does not do God. I don't think I can state it any plainer than that.

Not everything, OTOH, has to be scientific. Lots of very important things are not scientific or science, per se. Moreover, science is not a panacea for solving all of our problems or making us happier. It's a tool with a specific purpose.

Technology helps and hurts. The world gets to be a better place when individuals step up to the plate, take some responsibility, and DO things - participate, help each other, get involved with their communities, etc. Science might provide some insight into how we might do this, but it's not actually a scientific problem, per se.

What science CAN do is give people a feel for what the problems are and how we might solve them. It can give people a sense of awe at the natural world. It can help us to understand that many problems are solvable. But the issue of getting people off their behinds? It's not science. It's altruism; it's good intentions; it's responsibility. Take your pick.

And sorry about your brother. I hope he had a long and good life.

TNZ the question about that god is, again, reasonably easy to answer as it is, without question, the god of the Judaic Old Testament and the Qran.

It is an entity that created the entire universe and all within it both good and evil.

It is an entity that has demonstrated the personality of a spoiled child with a habit of smashing things.

It is an entity that has a remarkably short memory as it contradicts itself.

And it is an entity that doesn't play fair with creatures it both created and can destroy in that it often sets them up with tests it knows they can not win and destroys them in the most painful ways inducing unnecessary suffering when none is required.

Lets get real here ... who was it who was being worshipped when Abraham went up the mountain with the kid? Why stop it then? Why not the day before? The week before? The year before? Why let it ever start? It is just a bad story gone horribly awry.

Revlgking ... why the pathological inability to discuss science on a science website?

Got the troll gene in your chromosomes or just plain rude?

DAM, are you talking to yourself, again? And why are you so hard on yourself? And remember what the moderator said about this section of the forum; it is not about hard science, okay?

Sorry, about that posters, forgive me. I promised myself that I would just dialogue, but I just couldn't resist!

I agree it isn't about science. But would you be willing to accept that it is about some aspect of science? Would you be willing to accept that not once have you been on topic?

Hope so. Because I intend to bite at your heels all the way to heck if you can't contribute something with more substance than aerogel.

Revlgking wrote:

"Okay, what is the subject?"

At the top left of each posting is the heading for that thread. This one happens to be "Re: Evidence for God". We have a problem. Before we can find evidence for anything we have to have some idea of what we are looking for. DA's definition of God as being an entity responsible for a whole list of things is inadequate. Besides, to say we are looking for the God of Abraham opens a whole new can of worms. Was his God of Semitic, Egyptian or Mesopotamian origin? or a hybrid of all three, perhaps with others as well?

Possibly God is just an idea. An idea moreover that has been evolving along with humans for tens of thousands of years. We can certainly find evidence of the idea's evolution. But the thread is "Evidence for God" not "Evidence for God's Evolution".

God is defined by His attributes. This may be an acceptable start point:

A) Eternal
B) Omnipresent
C) Omniscient
D) Omnipotent
E) Immutable
F) Sovereign

Blacknad

Not immutable, Blacknad. We know he evolves, like everything else.

Revlgking ... we discuss science here. Lets say, for example as with this thread, there is a reference to god. People interested in science ask for the terms to be defined. We do that ... you post fluff. People interested in science reference documents that supply verifiable information ... you post inaccurate quotes from an authorless book whose providence you can't support. People interested in science utilize critical thinking skills and consider the possibility that there is something they don't know ... You as the self-proclaimed moral compass slather us with woo-woo new-age feel-good proclamations that accomplish no more than did the woo-woo new-age feel-good Ramtha loving nonsense from a generation ago. Pay attention to Blacknad. Even when I don't agree with him ... which can be often if you check the archives ... he gives evidence of having gray matter between his ears and using it.

Blacknad's list is a good one though I would suggest that some people would waffle on the definition of these words too. If "D" then why not destroy the devil? Because you sanction evil? If "E" then ... heck I'm not sure what that means. It sure doesn't mean never changes its mind. And "F" perhaps that has some special meaning in a country with a sovereign but here in the States that word has no meaning as we have a kleptocrat.

Got to go with TNZ. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't evolve. Especially the god of Abraham who seems to have evolved rather suddenly about 2000 years ago.

---------------THE THEOLOGY OF ORTHODOX JUDAISM-----------------
Because Orthodox Jews want to avoid committing idolatry with the mind--that is, by objectifying divine mind in anyway--when Jewish theologians write about what Christian monototheists call 'God', they write it 'G-d'.

I think they have a point, and I respect it.

However, I have no such fear. Like pantheists, using my subjective mind, I am not afraid to objectify that part of divine mind which I experience, and know, with my senses. In this sense, I do not just believe there is divine mind, I know there is.

I know this in the same way that I know that I live on a global earth, made of minerals, water, air, whatever, even though I have only visited a small part of it.

However, like the poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892), I believe there is a

-----------------THE HIGHER PANTHEISM--------------------

The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains,-

Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns?

Is not the Vision He, tho' He be not that which He seems?

Dreams are true while they last, and do we not live in dreams?

Earth, these solid stars, this weight of body and limb,

Are they not sign and symbol of thy division from Him?

Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,

For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?

Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,

Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.

Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-

Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.

God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,

For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.

Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,

For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;

And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;

But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?

--------------------------00000------------------------
The symbol I like to use to name divine mind is, G?D.

BTW, I, too, have problems with traditional theism. This is why I prefer what the poet Tennyson called "Higher Pantheism". I also like the theological philosophy of Spinoza and Einstein.

Meanwhile, do not lay people have to take, on faith, much of what professional scientists tells us.

How much direct evidence, understandable by laity, do astronomers have when they tell us there are billions and billions of galaxies?

You say, "Science does not do God." I agree. And with much of what you say as follows: Interestingly, the literal meaning of 'devil' is, that which divides, or splits, us.
The Greek is 'diabolos', slanderer. Slander destroys community. This is why I try to avoid it. From 'diabolos' we get diabolic, diameter, perhaps divide.

Yah! I would like to know the kind of god atheists are NOT looking for, or trying to avoid.

I agree. Each of us is entitled to have our idea of 'god', IMHO.

Revlgking wrote:
"I do not just believe there is divine mind, I know there is."

I do not believe there is an invisible purple rhinoceros. I know there is."

Revlgking wrote:
"The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains,-
Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns?"

Well if that isn't on-topic science I don't know what is. No doubt your next great feat will be to cure malaria.

Revlgking wrote:
"The symbol I like to use to name divine mind is, G?D.

Because it is really kool. Really neato. Really new-age. And it is mine ... all mine. Bwaaahaaahaaa!.

Revlgking wrote:
"I also like the theological philosophy of Spinoza and Einstein."

Wonderful. God = Reality. Well that certainly ought to stop global warming, build a moon base, cure cancer, and take out the garbage. And, of course this supports your new-age nonsense that there is no difference between good and evil explaining why you feel justified in being a troll. Trolling is good. Going to a science forum and discussing science is evil. I've got it.

Thanks for, again, demonstrating your disdain and contempt for science.

IS THIS TOPIC ABOUT HARD SCIENCE?
If I understand things correctly, it is more about philosophy--and perhaps the art of communicating--than about science.

BTW, if it is about science, I would like to see the concrete evidence that I have, "disdain and contempt for science."

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND ART
I think it was Will R. Durant--of French-Canadian ancestry, by the way--who said. Ever since I read his Story of Philosophy, he has been one of my favourite philosophers and historians. Also, I frequently dip into his vast STORY OF CIVILIZATION, which, with the help of his beloved wife, Ariel, it took him fifty years to write.

For a wonderful outline of the story of his life check out the following essay by the editors of Wisdom Magazine:

http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm

I especially like the way the essay ends:

I would also love to know more about the, "...invisible purple rhinoceros" Of which DAM writes, "I know there is." Facinating!

BTW, DAM, I hope you do keep your promise that you will...How did you put it? "keep on my heels". I find you are a worthy protagonist, so far, and, when you are on, your critique does help to stimulate thinking. I hope that we can encourage other posters, pro and con to get involved.

Lurkers, we encourge you to make comments and/or just ask questions.

BTW, pneumatology, epistimology, theology and the like, IMHO, are still pretty much at the philosophy stage.

Revlgking,

This topic is about Evidence for God. It has swayed well off the beaten track, but your posts seem to me to be about proselytising and little else. They also seem to be rather vague and fuzzy.

I have spent quite a bit of time on your web site and it seems that you have simply invented another cult without any real evidence to back it up.

At least Christianity has historical and textual evidence at its centre (of course their reliability and authenticity is entirely debatable, but at least there is something to debate and subject to a reasoned scrutiny). Your worldview seems to be something you have plucked from the ether that feels nice and warm for you ? something that Christianity certainly is not for me.

Your long posts are currently dominating this thread.

I would be interested to see this debate ask real questions about the ability to make falsifiable predictions about a universe that was created by a god.

I think it would be better to examine evidence for naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

Blacknad.

Evidence for God?

Then, let those who believe in the god of theism, present their evidence.

On the other hand, let the atheists present their evidence, that there is no God.

Otherwise, as a new poster, what can I say?


In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept.

With this in mind, is it okay for me to set up a new thread to clarify what I feel this forum is all about? The communication of new ideas.

I you have no interest in this, I will go elsewhere.

Yes Revlgking ... to quote Blacknad about your posts ... "They also seem to be rather vague and fuzzy."

In fact I think it would take a drug induced stupor to be more vague, more fuzzy headed, and less capable of sentient thought.

Not once have I seen you evidence any critical thinking skills: Just contempt for science and the scientific method while rolling in the fruits of other's labors.

You are just the leader of another cult using new-age imbecilities to extract money from the gullible because you are, it would seem, too lazy to get a real job, do real work, and contribute anything of substance.

Turner wrote:
"On the other hand, let the atheists present their evidence, that there is no God."

That is not the way science works and you seem both old enough and intelligent enough to know that. Let me paraphrase what you wrote in a manner that may clarify it for you.

Statement 1:
"let those who believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros, present their evidence."

Statement 2:
"let those who don't believe present their evidence, that there is no in the invisible purple rhinoceros."

You can not prove the non-existence of something that does not exist. You can only state that there is no evidence for its existence which is the case with god. Let me show you why that is demonstratably true.

How would the universe in which we live be different if created by purely natural processes rather than by a sentient entity?

And since you can't answer that ... and neither can anyone else ... you have an absence of evidence for that deity's existence.

Turner writes:
"In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept."

He may well have a point about that. But this is a science forum and he should stop being a rude troll and go to theologyagogo.com and ask the question. Or he could actually go to a seminary and ask the question. Or he could stop prosletyzing and being a parasite on the gullible and ask that question.

Humans have had a concept of what god or gods is/are for more than 10,000 years. The phony reverend doesn't know a single thing that my cat doesn't know. The difference is that my cat has the good manners to not pretend otherwise.

I, personally, have a lot of interest in the topic or I wouldn't be here. I have no interest in parasite. I have no interest in people pushing out fuzzy concepts and pretending they have substance, and I have no tolerance for trolls.

Discuss the topic using your own thoughts, your own words, and the gray matter between your ears and your contributions will be appreciated. Which doesn't mean we will agree with you but we will respect you for being sentient.

Turner writes: "In my opinion, the good Rev. has a point. What we need is: a better definition of the god-concept."

Morgan, you respond, "He may well have a point about that."

Morgan, thank you for conceding this point.

By the way, I am in my forties. And I am one of those many post-readers--how do you describe them, lurkers?--who has held back because I don't like being jumped on by, what I have heard referred to as "verbal bullies".

Mr. Morgan, keep; this in mind, will you, please?

You write: "But this is a science forum and he (the Rev) should stop being a rude troll and go to theologyagogo.com and ask the question."

May I be so bold as to suggest: You are wrong! This thread is not about hard science; it is about...well,ask Kate what she has already said it is.

Further, The Rev is not...how do you say it...prosletyzing and being a parasite on the gullible...

Give us ONE example where The Rev says: You must believe ME and follow what I tell you to follow.

Careful when you write:

"The phony reverend doesn't know a single thing that my cat doesn't know. The difference is that my cat has the good manners to not pretend otherwise."

Would you be prepared, in a court of law, to defend such libelous slander?

I await your answer, please.

The Reverend as he calls himself is not. He is a hypnotherapist who has self-annointed himself an expert on things no one alive understands.

Should I respect that? Should you? Should anyone older than 12? Are you a member of his cult? He is as likely to sue anyone as he is to have read the original text of Genesis.

And please don't make me laugh so hard by throwing out phrases such as "libelous slander." I have a few years of law school under my belt and know the law well enough to know where I stand when posting in an open public internet forum operated in Australia and responding to someone in Canada from the United States. No doubt he'll have no problem finding a court of original jurisdiction in Namibia. But before he does he might wish to read:

United States Supreme Court
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
403 U.S. 29
Argued December 7-8, 1970
Decided June 7, 1971

It is the law of the land.
At least the one in which I live.
And that is the only one that matters.

ROFLOL!

WHAT A FLURRY OF INTEREST
I have been away from my 'puter for awhile. Well, well!! What an interesting flury of activity there has been. Over 1,700 clicks! WOW!!! This topic has sure stirred up a lot of interest. I wonder why!

Turner, thanks for your input.

In addition, thanks for introducing a new thread title. IMHO, it solves one problem, at least: I will feel free to talk about the philosophy and art of religion without being overly concerned about the science factor. I repeat, thanks!

The new thread may slow things down somewhat, but that's okay with me. I am busy enough as it is with things going on in http://pathwayschurch.ca --a regularly constituted congregation of the national church--the United Church of Canada--to be very concerned about too many other things.

BTW, if at all possible, I like to deal with personhal conflicts on a moral and ethical level, not on a legal one. But thanks for your concern, anyway. I will leave the demeaning comments to those who are good at it.

BTW 2, I find it very difficult to speak badly about people, especially when I don't know what it is that make them feel so miserable that they feel that they have to lash out at others. Sad, isn't it?

Miserable? Hardly!. And I do so love condescension from someone seemingly incapable of engaging in critical thinking on any subject other than how to find a larger flock to fleece while enjoying a tax-free lifestyle subsidized by one's hardworking fellow countrymen.

Still incapable of discussing science in a science forum eh?

"Larger flock"? What are you talking about? I use my mouth to--among other things--ask questions, not as a place to keep my feet.

For the record:

Both my wife and I--we are of the same age--have been retired from active duty since 1994. Thank G?D I had the good fortune to marry a successful teacher. It is her pension, not mine, which enables us to live in relative security. Our good health keeps us active helping others. And we are willing to share info on how this is done, too.

BTW, is it a crime to have a successful retirement? Or, because of our good fortune, should we turn ourselves in?

Meanwhile, because of our FAT pension we take the opportunity to do tons of volunteer work. If you would care to join us, we will be happy to tell you how you can do the same--in your area--okay?

Keep in mind: ON OUR INCOME, AND ON THE PROPERTY WHERE WE NOW LIVE, WE PAY ALL PROPER TAXES.

IS THIS CLEAR? IF NOT, LET ME KNOW!!!!!!!

Last time I checked you were claiming to be a man of the cloth. A little research of course showed something different ... a self-anointed hypnotist. The religion I imagine being used to fleece that taxpayers by claiming tax exempt status and to fleece the gullible by leading them to believe you have a DD degree.

For years here at SAGG I have railed against the clergy for their hypocrisy. How I have been blessed to have an example to discuss for years to come.

And still no ability to discuss science, eh?

Blacknad wrote:

"I think it would be better to examine evidence for naturalism vs. supernaturalism."

Not a bad idea, Blacknad. At least we might then know what we are supposed to be looking for. I would be the first to admit that certain things have happened to me that are hard to explain as just coincidence. But is this evidence of the supernatural, or perhaps the power of the human mind? (Sounds new age doesn't it, sorry DA).

By the way I don't actually think religion is necessarily all bad. It has served us well, probably for far longer than the 10,000 years DA Morgan suggests. I've also seen many people change their lives for the better through it. It's just that it occasionally leads to decisions that may not be in humanity's best interest, however we might define that. And of course it is usually used simply to justify politically expedient actions.

But any religion has to accomodate the facts as they are understood at the time. I've yet to hear of any religion that takes it as a given we have evolved over the last few million years from apes, and will continue evolving.

TNZ wrote:
"Sounds new age doesn't it, sorry DA)"

Yes but I actually agree with you. I think it is, in fact, the power of the human mind but not the power you may be thinking.

It has been proven, repeatedly, that human memories are not a tape recording of events that can be played back at will. They are easily constructed to match events as one wishes to believe them. Take, for example, the research done with a clown, or whatever, walking across the court during the middle of a basketball game or the law school exercise in which an event is staged in the class and students are asked to testify as to what happened. Those who wish to believe woo-woo feel-good fuzzy nonsense have no problem doing so. That is the way the mind is wired. And memories are constructed to match the predisposition.

I don't think belief systems are all bad but I do think that contemporary religion has far more to apologize for than to smile about. No matter what value it may have had in the past it now serves the purpose of picking pockets and to my feeling is best summed up by a oft repeated quote attributed to H.L. Mencken:

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to
mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."

Not to mention genocide, war, and a bomb that murdered more than 120 people in Baghdad within the last 24 hours.

DA wrote:

"It has been proven, repeatedly, that human memories are not a tape recording of events that can be played back at will. They are easily constructed to match events as one wishes to believe them."

Yes. I was talking about fate with a friend some years ago. Of course it's only fate after the event. If some other option had materialised this option would now be regarded as fate. But where does that leave us in our search for evidence for God?

I would say that the fact that our universe exists, or came into existence, is not necessarily evidence of a creator, or God. Science is science and spirit is spirit and, for me, never the twain shall meet; the spiritual is no way dependent upon scientific knowledge or historical data. I'm a theist, by the way.

Redewenur: You say your are a theist. As there are several kinds of theism, please be more specific. I hope we can have an interesting dialogue, have different opinions and still keep the basic Golden Rule, eh?

I state the GR this way: Because GOD is Spirit and Love; let us love and respect one another as we need to be loved.

Love is not just sentimentality or even friendship. It is the offerring of good will, to self and others, regardless of how we feel.

Please excuse me, Revlgking, for not expanding on my use of the word theist. I stated it simply in order to indicate that, for me, there's more to existence than physics can get a handle on. My theism may be called 'non-specific'. I don't 'belong' to any theistic group.

Your response: "I don't 'belong' to any theistic group." indicates to me that you are very open to new ideas. So am I. It is always refreshing to meet people with open minds.

Well, Revlgking, I'm probably not as open minded as you might think. I don't fall into line with the billions who 'belong' to the worlds major religions. I think they are all wrong in one way or another. My evidence for *** (God, if you prefer), seems to be built into me. I have great respect for the views of people like Richard Dawkins - it seems that, for them, the evidence is not built in, and they refuse to commit intellectual (or spiritual) treason. Good for them.

Rede: Let me clarify that I do not mind anyone knowing that I am Lindsay G. King--anyone is free to google on my name. You will come up with some basic information about me: I am a retired--I prefer being called "re-directed"--minister of the United Church of Canada--more interested in deeds than creeds. I was born in 1930.

In 1953, I became an ordained minister. That is, I was ordained to be a servant, of people. Now, don't laugh! I am serious. Well, I will allow you to laugh, if you agree to explain to me, why?

Currently (since 1994), I am living off a BIG FAT pension equal to less than that of a school teacher, police officer, fireman, etc. During what is left of my life, I plan to enjoy myself writing, counseling (I am involved in three weekly programs) painting and whatever comes along. Let me know if I can be of help.

BTW, feel free to call me LGK, Rev, Linds, whatever.

Do I take it that you DO accept the category of spirituality?
Do you think of yourself as a "spiritual" being?
If so, what do you think, believe, hope will happen when you die, physically?

Meanwhile, keep in mind that when I use the symbol G?D, I am not thinking of G?D as a person, a persn like you and I. If you really want to know what I think, you will have to ask me.

Yes, I do have a personal, private concept of 'spirituality' and experience it as 'real'.
I do think of myself as a spiritual being, but not in any sense that distinguishes me from any other being in the universe.
One observes that bodies decompose after death. What happens to me after death is of no consequence whatever. My death will not subtract one iota from ***.

Red'E' when UR writes What does this '***' symbolize?
It would be interesting to know the story of what led you to this not-very-specific kind of belief. It poses so many questions. For example, I would be interested in knowing what you really mean when you use the word 'spiritual'. How does being spiritual affect our moral and ethical behaviour?

Rev, I think that you can best answer those questions based on your own intuitions.

I prefer chatting, not reading minds.

I credit you with persistence, Rev, but it's an inner experience; it's not my mind that I ask you to read, but your own. That's where the answers lie.

In this case, telepathy would be useful but chatting will not.

Red 'E', I enjoy playing fun games, now and then, but I hasten to suggest that I feel that this thread, "Evidence for God", is not the place for such games.

G?D, properly defined
Meanwhile, compared with the evidence that there is NO G?D--properly defined--the evidence for G?D, properly defined, abounds.

LET OTHERS THINK FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR ME
I prove the reality of G?D for me, as I understand G?D, as follows:

LET THERE BE LIGHT
which Genesis tells us helped bring order out of chaos.
G?D is the light (of many colours); I experience light as a fact.
G?D is sound (many sounds). I feel and enjoy the positive effects of all that beautiful sounds.
G?D is all philosophy. This means that
G?D is all science (knowledge, wisdom and truth).
As such. I experience and enjoy all of them. Philosophy and science lead to
G?D as art.
Thus I enjoy all the creative arts, including the art of living.

Getting practical:
G?D is Spirit (breath), so I breathe.
G?D is the one, powerful and good idea, in which I live, move and have my being.
Thus I think positive and powerful thoughts.
G?D is Love, so I love.

Humbly, I ask atheists: What do you have to offer?
My senses are alert to receive your answers, really.

If you have NO-THING to offer, I admire your FAITH!!!

But I refuse to embrace your faith, until you come up with better evidence, and value, than you now have.

BTW, if your battle is against superstition, false religious faith, I agree to join you.

With no intention of being insulting ...
G?D is feces, so I defecate.
G?D is stupidity, so I ramble.
G?D is hate, so I hate.

G?D is everything that exists.
Why use a loaded term like G?D to describe what already has a name?

Thanks for your insight. G?D is also in pain, suffering and crucifixion--redeeming them. Do you write as any kind of theist? Or an atheist? Perhaps you are an agnostic--a word coined by Julian Huxley.

Ask Orthodox Jews why they write G-d. I have. Their answer makes sense to me. The word I coined suits my purposes. I don't know of any law which prohibits this. Others are free to use, or not use it, as they wish.

Revlgking said: "ReRed 'E', I enjoy playing fun games, now and then, but I hasten to suggest that I feel that this thread, "Evidence for God", is not the place for such games."

How offensive. Our dialogue is closed.

G?d is everything that exists or G?d is everything that is good? Is everything good? Is this the best of all possible universes?

Do orthodox jews share your view that G?d is everything?

I'm not saying that you can't coin, borrow, or otherwise use whatever term you wish. What I don't understand is what is the value of it? Typically words are used to clarify communication and understanding. I do not see how G?D clarifies either.

I consider myself an agnostic of the atheist persuasion. I believe that the question of god's existence is unanswerable, EXCEPT BY DIRECT REVELATION from that god and even then the person to whom this knowledge is revealed cannot discern his knowledge from insanity. This is one of several reasons I think the entire concept of God is useless. In all my actions I assume there is no god, not because I'm trying to reject a god, but simply because I cannot do otherwise.

Neither my opinion nor yours is actually science.

Thanks TFF! Excellent comments for a dialogue as you ask
In my humble opinion (IMHO), yes, this IS the best of all possible universes. In addition, each one of us has a personal share in creating it. IMHO, collectively speaking, we are G?D

You ask, "Do orthodox jews share your view that G?D is everything?"

It is my understanding that Orthodox Jews think of G-d as ineffable--that is, beyond objectification. Orthodox Jews abhor mental idolatry--that is, thinking of G-d in any kind of mental form.

TFF, you ask, wisely It may not have value to you, yet. But if you have the patience to listen, the word 'G?D' has value to me.

"In what way?" you may ask. Because it expresses a new theological concept, which is as follows:

G?D, for me, symbolizes, and includes, ALL that is objective and subjective--total, universal and all-encompassing.

For me, G?D is not a super or personal being--one called God--separate and apart from persons and the cosmos. The physical cosmos, including us personal beings, has its being within G?D--the eternal and the infinite--which is beyond anything I can comprehend.

You write If you are willing to keep an open mind, give me time to explain what I really mean.

Thanks for honestly stating I agree. However, I want to say more in answer to your sincere comments.

Keep in mind that I write as one who was an agnostic, if not an atheist. Also, keep in mind that I am not talking about A god, or even A god called God.

G?D is not a being of any kind
G?D is the symbol I use to designate all that we know and experience, with the help of philosophy, science, and the arts, in the now. I also use it to designate all that we hope to know as we process into the future. I do not believe in a God of dogma and ritual. I experience G?D in toto, now, in all that I morally and ethically do.

G?D is totally, and absolutely, beyond all forms of sectarianism.

As the Gospel of St. John puts it: God is Spirit; God is Love, NOW.

BTW, it is a pleasure to dialogue with an atheist who I perceive to be one who is moral, ethical, loving and more interested in finding that which is truly of social value than in being self-righteously correct.

Sure I want to be free to express what I believe, at this point. But Feel free to correct me if I try to impose my beliefs on you or others.

G?d is all that we know and experience, but you seem to apply it to only the good things, e.g. "God is love." Is God also hate? Is god suffering?

Lindsay you write:

"LET THERE BE LIGHT
which Genesis tells us helped bring order out of chaos."

Now this tells me that your theology is fundamentally Christian. Your God is Old testament. You may have studied other religions but you have trouble escaping your upbringing, as we all do.

Think of a doughnut. Without the hole there is no doughnut; but I focus on the food, not the hole.

G?D in us, is that which enables us to transform the holes of hatred into loving food; that which helps us redeem suffering.

I prefer not to concretize the concept of G?D at all, by simply saying G?D is...whatever makes for good--from which we get our word God. My special word, G?D, helps me with this.

BTW, when we say "goodbye" it means, "God be with you". "Adieu" in French=to God. It is "adeo" in Italian, "adeos" in Spanish. The Spanish often say, "Via con Deos"=go with God.

Ask a fundamentalist Christian if he actually thinks of God as a white human-like being with human-like limbs and organs. Most will say, "No". Then they will go on to talk about the mystery of the personhood of God.

Terry, Genesis, is part of the Jewish scriptures. I respectfully use it as such. When I preached, regularly, I often quoted from outside the Bible. I make no conscious attempt to escape...I do make an attempt to grow. This is why I like using new terms, like G?D.

Many years ago I saw Sufi Dervishes spinning in the Grand Bazaar in Tehran. I later learned that this was a form of meditation, that mild anoxia brought on by the physical exhaustion of the spinning caused them to have "visions". Intigued, I approached a cult of Sufis in a remote area of British Columbia. I filled in all the paperwork needed to join the cult, but was rejected. I clearly remember the Guru saying, "Sorry, Wolfman, but you just don't have enough Worldly Wealth" to renounce."

Wolfman. I wonder if you have hit on something there?

Revlgking, I've reconsidered your position, and can understand how it may occur that you take my posts for a foolish game. Since I cannot think of anything else to contribute that might not be misconstrued as game-playing, here's a quote from Freeman Dyson that comes as close as I can find to my own view. It may cast some light on my earlier comments:

"I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension..."

Freeman Dyson, May 16, 2000

(Unable to edit the above, hence second post)

Revlgking, I choose my words carefully through respect for your advanced age, but please make an effort to temper your overbearing condescension and unsubtle self-glorification. Many of your posted remarks are incompatible with your implied claims of righteousness.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would waste their time even wanting to dialogue with others who they feel are filled with "overbearing condescension and unsubtle self-glorification" and whose "posted remarks are incompatible with (their) implied claims of righteousness".

Because I choose never to offend people, deliberately, I am always more than willing to withdraw any "offensive" remarks, once I know what they are, and if there is a general consensus that such is the case--once they are pointed out to me.

Or, If there is general consensus that my presence is "offensive", I can always simply move on and dialogue with those who find my comments relatively okay. I am happily involved in other sites--I even do some moderating at Brainmeta. The Net is filled with such opportunities. I am easy .

BTW, I just took a peak. Judging by the posts, 221 and the hits, 2821 This is a very popular thread. So is the one on "philosophy of Religion"--a theme which is very popular in other forums.

Rev. Let's get back to the topic: Evidence for God. The only evidence anyone has offered so far relies totally on the theory of negativity: The world could not have developed the complexity it displays if some sort of god hadn't created it.

As evidence against the existence of an omnipotent god we could point to the many conflicting ideas of what god actually is. In fact there are so many different ideas that wars are fought between groups of people who all believe they have the support of this god. If anyone had any actual evidence surely we wouldn't have that problem, unless god is one hell of a bloodthirsty critter and we are simply sacrificing to it.

G'day Revigking,

I'm interested in why you think this is the best of all possible universes. From a human perspective, this universe is a cruel, terrible place.

Humans started out on earth having a brutal, short and painful life. Civilization started up with the end of the last glaciation and life really started to suck. Farming around the Mediterranean involved mind numbing, hard work for much more hours than a hunter gatherer needed to sustain life. Children worked just as hard and life was short and close to worthless. Most children didn't make it to adulthood and died of diseases that caused terrible pain and anguish for those that had to stand by and could do nothing much but provide opium, if it was available in their little patch.

As we "progressed", the vast majority of humans lived worst than slaves. Our idea of childhood and children actually didn't even start until a bit more than a 100 years ago. Children, where there to work or for sexual gratification when old enough. Woman were treated appallingly.

On top of all this we have religious obligations for the people, that imposed terrible conditions (and in some cases still do) and wars, the first recorded major being almost 5,000 years ago. Torture, rape, brutilisation was commonplace in all societies until quite recently for western civilisation and is still pretty bad for probably half the world.

You don't have to go back even in the US more than a few years, to find appalling conditions for a very large number of citizens, whether they be black, hispanic or poor white. But the conditions for black citizens has been appalling. I really wonder how the US can be so proud of a nation that treasures fairness, yet treated so many people so badly systematically.

Go back to the 60s in the US and the conditions for women were not at all good. Statistically if you were a woman you had a better than 24% chance of being raped and a much higher chance of being the subject to violence, with pretty much no chance of obtaining any justice or protection.

Go back 100 years and those that worked in the Industrial revolution lived so badly it is quite difficult to image. Minors that worked 14 hour days and died of lung diseases that killed you horribly. Women that carted the coal for their men while popping out babies, with a good chance of dying in childbirth or the child dying. Children that were put to work at six or seven and worked pretty much the whole time they were awake.

Even today four million or so people die each year from malaria, a preventable disease and untold millions more die agonising death from AIDs.

This is not to say that humans cannot show great compassion for others, love that transends the tragedies of life or that I don't believe that the average person is more good than bad, just that I couldn't in my wildest dreams suggest we live in the best possible of universes. It does seem to be improving, I must admit for humans but the chances that it will last, probably aren't all that high. At some point a glaciation is likely to occur or we will run out of natural resources or mass starvation is likely to occur simply because of the massively stupid explosion in population that is still going to bulge up to about 10 or 12 billion before the population even has a remote chance of plateauing.

Richard

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Richard, to eliminate the double post--this software IS a bit nutty--just go back to edit and delete one of your posts. Okay? Try it, and see if works for you.

Richard, you make some very realistic and helpful comments.

Keep in mind that, while I admit that I could be wrong, I do not accept that there is an objective SUPER being called "God" who operates separate and from us who does things to and for us.

Here is what I meant by my comment:
Physically speaking, G?D is gravity, which acts in and through us--for good or ill.
Mentally speaking, G?D is information, knowledge, which, also, works for good or ill, in and through us.
Spiritually speaking, G?D is the power we have to will, or
to choose. It too works for good or ill.

On the whole, we have the world you describe because WE--collectively speaking--have chosen it.

If we want something different, it is up to US to make that choice.

G?D works, in and through US.
MORE ON THIS, LATER.

This is my first contribution to this thread. Let me make it clear that my sister and I were raised by our parents take a critical analytical approach to all religion.

I hasten to add that they are still very much involved in the church. However, it is not the kind of church led by clergy who say: You must not ask questions; you are here to obey, pray and pay.

Let me see If I can understand what you are saying, RevLGK: I understand that you think of God--you say G?D--as having a physical, mental and spiritual components all rolled into one. I think you are on to something that makes sense to me. Please give us more details of your unique way of thinking.

Hold it, Turner; there's something wrong with the good Reverend's Keyboard. He means to punch in "G$D".

Good idea, Wolfman. could I use it when I write in the thread on economics? G?D is all about us having all the wealth we need. Remember, if you want to be a Sufi you will need enough to matter, right?
BTW, my only daughter-in-law is a Sufi Muslim.

RicS, a few comments ago, "From a human perspective, this universe is a cruel, terrible place."
I would agree with that, as well as his explanation that he wrote.
from the narrow view of man, life would seem unfair, and cruel. with the many evils in this world, our frequent failings and stumblings. this is because sin has entered this frail and desolate world. yet, through the midst of this storm, there is hope. light is available to those who seek it. and it is available to all who accept it. this can come through writing, playing golf, or anything one does that sustains him in his life. it might be his lively friends, or -in my case- religion. just know that though the skies are grey, the blue strokes have yet to be painted. excuse me for my tanget, looking at where my post has gone.
in that sense, religion could be good for an individual, just as science would help another. by saying that, i am somewhat of a universalist. but it is not for those who do not accept religion to condemn others who do. i yet again have tangented.
i go through my day thinking, "Wow, look at the handiwork of the Creator," or, "What a wonder this is, that of my existence!" while another says, "Wow, look at how our race has progressed through the ages!"
for that reason, i put my faith in a God. A loving, compassionate, omnipotent God, which is a beacon of light to me in this dark life.

Tim wrote:
"this is because sin has entered this frail and desolate world"

Sin? What sin? There is no sin I've ever encountered.
Desolate? I don't see any desolation.

All I see is people making excuses and I'd suggest that they stop looking for excuses, stop looking for scapegoats, and stop looking for someone else to blame. Shoulder your share of the responsibility and do something about it.

Tim wrote:
i go through my day thinking, "Wow, look at the handiwork of the Creator"

"The Creat?r" gave you nipples. Expecting your to breast-feed children some day?

Funny though: I go through my day wondering how so many people, after so much education, and so many thousands of years of history, can still believe in the invisible purple rhin?cer?s.

KEEP IN MIND: My response is in the blue colour.


Having read your valuable posts, which contain many ideas, I ask: In what way can we demonstrate to skeptics that "God" is truly omnipotent, loving, compassionate and a beacon of light in a dark world?

Keep in mind: About all this, I have many questions, okay? How do you feel about my signature?

'In what way can we demonstrate to skeptics that "God" is truly omnipotent, loving, compassionate and a beacon of light in a dark world? '

I see the chair; I have touched the chair; I have heard the chair as it slid across the room; I have smelt the varnish on it. I know this chair to exist. This chair I call G?D. This god-chair is omnipotent and compassionate.

The problem continues: you start with a feeble redefinition of a word that has a lot of baggage and then - without any reason other than it 'feels good' - you begin to borrow qualities of the more common definition of the word. You use the baggage.

That you claim that you do not believe in a personal god is utterly irrelevant to the point. That you don't believe in a god in a beard and sandals is irrelevant. That you reject other religions is irrelevant. What is relevant to the atheist, and what coincidentally is the reason a clear-thinking atheist will not be convinced by your argument, despite your best intentions, is that what you are saying is nonsensical.

TFF: I have told you the kind of concept of G?D in which I do believe and which gives meaning and purpose to my life--which, BTW is similar to that of Einstein, Sagan and many others.
BTW, I believe the G?D is personal, IN persons, not as a separate being all by "himself"--which is what Jesus meant in John 17:20 and following--when he said, "That all (people) may be one..." Do you own a Bible? John 10:34 is very interesting: Jesus said, "I have said you are gods..."

The infinite and eternal COSMOS is very real to me; and it makes a lot of sense, to me. We can all use our senses to experience it. Or do you deny that this is possible? If you are a nihilist just say so. That is your right.

Now, tell me the kind of god, God, whatever, in which you do NOT believe. What, for you, is the value, meaning and purpose of your life? For you, does all existence end with the end of your existence?

BTW, you have every right to be an atheist. If this helps you to be a happy, moral, ethical, of service to others and a law-abiding human being, good on you!

Um ... I'm pretty sure Sagan was an atheist. It's also not clear to me that Einstein believed in any sort of God that you are advocating.

An eternal Cosmos makes a lot of sense to a lot of people - that's not what you're talking about. You're taking cosmos and imputing properties to it that there is no reason to believe it has. Moreover, btw, it's important to distinguish the idea of something being 'possible' from it being 'likely.'

Everyone, including me, has whatever purpose to their life that they ascribe to it. In short, I agree with Spinoza (a theist with whom Einstein agreed) who said, 'to be what we are and to become what we are capable of becoming is the only end of life.' It's a non sequitur to insinuate that I think the world ends with my existence. No idea how that popped into the discussion.

We're not talking about what rights people have. People have no control over what they believe. Only what they assert. The only question is whether a person professes those beliefs which he actually holds. So I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe that martian mole-men will revive me after I am dead and take me to Nirvana.

I'm answering a question that you asked, namely how can you convince atheists? The answer is - think clearly, write clearly and cogently, and make sense. "Well isn't that nice!" and "Love is wonderful!" aren't arguments.

It seems to me that real communication is always a challenge, isn't it. This is the value of sincere dialogue; it helps to create consensus.

PRAYER, FOR ME, BEGINS WITH AN INTERNAL DIALOGUE
IT IS A KIND OF PNEUMA-PSYCHO-CYBERNETIC ACTIVITY
I am continually involved in having an internal dialogue with the Spirit within myself.
It is the way I "pray".
I begin by asking myself questions.
Then I set goals as to what I need to do with my life;
the circumstanceS in which I find myself.
Then I visualize that which I would like to accomplish;
that which I would like to see happen;
that which helps the situation and harms no one.

How do you know what I am really thinking until you ask me?

IMHO, the Cosmos has a lot of properties about which I am learning more and more each day. I have no problem with the term 'agnostic'. I am very agnostic about many things. It is possible that there are all kinds of God-like beings scattered throughout the billions of galaxies.
(BTW, I just not knowing how they looked, I just tried some of the features of the UBB code. Interesting.)

You write I love much of the teachings of Spinoza, who, BTW, was condemned by his fellow Jews, in Amsterdam, as a heretic and atheist.

This illustrates a point I made above. I should have asked you questions. Now, do you believe that it is rational to think that life, in one form or another, is eternal?

I feel that I do have some control. I know that I have changed my beliefs, deliberately, over the decades. This is one of the reasons I have had to come up with new ways of writing them down.

G?D is not the same as god, or God
For example, when I write my special word for 'god' as G?D I can give it the baggage I imagine. Orthodox Jews do the same when they write G-d.

Thank you for making this clear. Now you tell us what you would like to see happen, after you are dead.

Let me be clear: I do not want to convince atheists--and, I presume, not all atheists think alike--of
anything. I want to know what they believe, or don't believe. And certainly I want atheists to stop twisting the sincerely held beliefs of believers so as to ridicule them for their sincerely held beliefs. BTW, I have never believed in "Martian mole-men".

"Now, do you believe that it is rational to think that life, in one form or another, is eternal?"

The question is ambiguous. Does it mean a single life, or life in general? The answer to both interpretations I immediately see is, "No."

" I feel that I do have some control. I know that I have changed my beliefs, deliberately, over the decades. This is one of the reasons I have had to come up with new ways of writing them down. "

I suspect you have not analyzed the situation correctly. What I think that you had a belief, but reality perhaps made you question that belief. The fact that you are curious made you more open to other ideas. But the fundamental act of changing your belief was not voluntary. The new belief either made sense to you or it did not.

If you don't believe in Martian mole-men, then I'll never make it to Nirvana.

I do not believe that I am twisting the sincerely held beliefs of believers. To some extent, I'm sure I do ridicule on occasion, but I don't think I've ridiculed you on here. I've teased you a little and I've prodded you.

With seven questions, GORDON SINCLAIR IN CHURCH, BUT DISBELIEF STILL FIRM This headline appeared in the TORONTO STAR, Monday, April 13, 1964.

In 1964, I was 34. That was 43 years ago. I am now 77. Imagine!!!. I find it hard to believe: I AM 77. WOW! 77. My mother died when she was just 55; my father when he was 64.
I wonder: Where are they now? Where are the deceased members of your family? Ever the philosopher, I wonder?

At the time, Gordon Sinclair was a well-known, journalist, broadcaster, skeptic and professed-non Christian. He was known across Canada.

Later, because of a pro-American editorial he did--well done, BTW--he became a well-known darling in the USA, for more that 15 minutes.

The following Wednesday, I wrote to Gordon. I offered him a positive criticism of his point of view. Because I did not attack him, he and I kept writing each other, for over a year. For me, it was a great learning experience in the art of dialogue.

We became friends. After this, he was instrumental in getting me on several media programs.

Sometime later, I was the member of a CTV (across Canada) panel with him which was broadcast, nationally.

On that program he said to me: "Rev. King, as I have told you in conversations with you: I believe that death is the end of life...That's it. After death, there is just nothing else for all members of the human race. When you're dead, you're dead, period!"

I responded as follows:

"Gordon, you know, If that is what you BELIEVE, you could be right. However, if you ARE right, you will never have the opportunity to kidd me about my belief.

However, If I am right, think of the fun I am going to have with you..."

Gordon got the point. Graciously, and broke out into loud laughter. So did the panel, and the audience. We all had fun.

If you are interested, in my next post I will reveal Gordon's
SEVEN QUESTIONS, okay?

I forgot, you wrote, "I do not want to convince atheists"

I was confused in this because previously you had written "In what way can we demonstrate to skeptics that "God" is truly omnipotent, loving, compassionate and a beacon of light in a dark world? "

Admittedly "demonstrate" and "convince" are not the same words, but as "demonstrate" can mean "show" or "prove" ... if you have a proof that the other side accepts as sound, you are will probably convince them. It's seems a bit like verbal trickery to cavil given the context.

Regarding Revlgking directed towards me:
SIN: Sin can refer to a broad category. It is both conscious and sub-conscious, I think. Suffering is brought forth by it. And all are under its spell. It is why we are imperfect beings. I will not say more due to moral and ethical debates that would open from my answer, for this, in fact, this is a scientific discussion.

Yes, I do believe that God is sovereign over His creation. He did allow sin, yes, although not in that definition. For His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts, as it says. There were two prominentpeople in history that tried to distance the Creator from His creation: John Milton, the writer of Paradise Lost, and Darwin (there are obviously others). In fact, Darwin brought aboard a copy of Paradise Lost aboard the HMS Beagle, on his journey to the Galapagos (Cornelius Hunter; Darwin?s God, I forget the page). They both picture a Creator independent of His creation, therefore not bringing the guilt of this degraded society upon Him; although in two different ways.
Again, my opinion is that He let sin enter, out of necessity. True love requires a choice. By giving them a temporary -this life is barely a blink on the geological clock- pain and suffering, they will eventually inherit an eternal world of blamelessness.

I said that I am somewhat of a universalist. In that different people would find different ways of peace. Now I would not agree w/ the Comparative Religions 101 teacher on this, but I am somewhat of one. Similar to C.S. Lewis, where in the Last Battle, he records Aslan coming to a man named Emereth (or is it Emeth, I forget exactly), who worshipped Tash, who was his culture?s god (Tash turned out to be similar to the Devil). Because Emerth never knew Aslan, but though that Tash was the true god, Aslan let him enter the doorway, into the ?heaven? of Narnia. Now do I think that all religions lead to God? No, but some people who aren?t Christians, as well as all denominations could. Through that, I am somewhat of a universalist, but not too much of one.

Religion; by that I mean people who believe that there is a God, and that He is in control of their lives. Right off the bat, I would consider some ?religions? religions. If those who believe in God do, then they should not be criticized of believing false information, and that ?there is no God!? (yes, I know that not all evolutionist are atheists, but for those who are). Most -but not all, mind you- religious people live moral and ethical lives. (Although you do hear of tele-evangelists living posh lifestyles, and priests accused of embalmment, but that is a select few, what you don?t hear about in the news is those who don?t, which far outnumber them). For me, religion sustains me, and without it, I would probably be living an immoral life; that is the truth, because I would have no basis for my life.

God is omnipotent, and omnipresent, and all-loving. There is probably no ?scientific? way to prove that. The only way I would think such a thing, is because
1. I find no other way (which in itself is not a valid argument)
2. That is what my heart tells me (again, not a valid argument)
3. I know that this world is but a temporal place
4. When I worship my God, I find comfort (again, not a rational argument)
5. He has been good to me, even given me the opportunity to share His actions to you
6. Morally, it would seem plausible.
7. It creates a natural order to this universe. He controls everything, form the ticking of the clock, to flight 93?s trajectory.
8. How else would I be here, without Someone to create me? For we know that every building has a builder, but the builder of all things is God (Hebrews 3, I think)
9. Through this, I know that my Redeemer lives
10. If the universe has no meaning, then why would we think that we could? (think hard about that; at first glance, that would seem to make no sense whatsoever)
11. What keeps every atom in line and in place?
12. Rationally, it is the only logical choice
I could probably name 100, but I have to write a Spanish essay right now, so I have to cut it short. My reasoning is of rationally and irrationaly, there would be a Creator.

Tim,


Some of those would put up that a good argument. One other i would like to add -or rather, put up as an idea- is, where did the idea of a God(s) come from?

Thinker. My guess would be the idea of gods developed during the early Upper Paleoloithic as as the improved hunting technology spread and large animals died out. It became advantageous to combine into larger groups than just small family bands. In other words it helped organise society. Still used for that purpose, or to influence large elements in society to support particular political programs.

Tim wrote:
"Sin can refer to a broad category. It is both conscious and sub-conscious, I think. Suffering is brought forth by it. And all are under its spell. It is why we are imperfect beings."

To quote H.L. Mencken "Morality is the theory that every human act must either be right or wrong, and that 99% of them are wrong."

If you are an adult, or hope to soon be one, you need to get over blaming things on the devil, or evil, or the number 666, or your subconscious, or the inhalation of bad vapours.

To quote Hypatia: "Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy
can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth --- often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."

If you have personal demons see a psychologist or your family physician. If you are perfectly normal then it is time to give up the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Tim, DA M's post makes several good points. Think about them, deeply.

The following site has a lot of information about the origins of religion. Take a look:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm

The main page is at http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm

BTW, simply doing a google using the topic "origin of religions" brings up a ton of information.

Good luck with your studies.

did i ever blame "the devil, or evil, or the number 666, or your subconscious, or the inhalation of bad vapours"? as DAM thinks I did? i must not have made myself clear.
what i was saying, was that it is each and every one of our faults. man cannot be expected to make right choices all the time. he fails. we all do; have you ever failed in your life? made a bad desiscion? thats what i thought. we are all under the curse, and are in a fallen -and sad- state. DA's quote by Mencken, i agree 100% with (or is it 99?).
i will take this chance, to ask all of you here:
1. DO YOU BELEIVE IN A GOD?
2. IF YOU DO, IS HE OMNIPOTENT? OMNIPRESENT? ETC.?
3. IF YOU DONT, THEN WHY?
4. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE, THEN WHAT WOULD CONVINCE YOU?
5. GOD LONGS FOR HIS CHILDREN TO COME BACK TO HIM, LAY DOWN THEIR PRIDE, AND BECOME HIS PRODIGAL SONS, AND TASTE OF HIS GOODNESS; FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR, IS TO WORSHIP HIM

Tim ( know I should ignore this but here goes)

In answer to (1)....NO.

So the other questions not relevant.

Tim: Perhaps you have noticed? I write "G?D" as my translation of the Hebrew Elohim, which, BTW, is the plural form. The singular is Eloh (The highest Power). The Arabic form is Allah. The Greek form is Theos (the highest idea). Every language has it own form. Our word is related to the German, Gott.

Modern Orthodox Jews use G-d. It is my opinion that our word "God"--or as I prefer G?D--simply means the "highest good". For example, "goodbye" is Old English. It is a contraction of "God be with you". The French say adieu--to God. The Spanish say adeos--also via con deos, go with God.

Now, let me ask you: How do you conceive of God.
Do you think of God as an objective being?
Do you think of Him as a male, human-like being with eyes, ears, arms,legs and bodily organs like us human beings? One who lives in a certain place in outer space?

MY BELIEF, AS BEST AS I CAN STATE IT IS AS FOLLOWS
I believe in G?D as--the one, powerful and highest good idea, which is total, universal and all-encompassing, beyond my mind to conceive in any objective form. G?D, for me, is not confined to space, time or gravity. In my humble opinion, G?D IS space, time and gravity--physically speaking.

Like orthodox Jews, I refuse to objectify G?D, mentally, because that, for me, means making of G?D an idol, for bidden in Deuteronomy and Exodus. How do you respond to this comment?

Interestingly, the Hebrew word for "God" in Genesis 2:4, which we translate "Lord God" is not Elohim, it is Yahweh, which literally means, I AM WHO I AM AND WHO WILL BE. It is the essence of the verb "to Be"

To Orthodox Jews, it is a mysterious concept which they refuse to pronounce, to write and to concretize.

From the site on origins of religion mentioned by the Rev:

"However there is considerable historical evidence from ancient times that religions in the area from India to the Middle East shared many religious beliefs."

The reason for this is mind-numbingly obvious. Religions evolve like everything else. They are human constructs and ideas move around, just like genes. For example Buddha and Pythagoras were virtually contemporaries. The connection was presumably via the Persian Empire. They lived at opposite ends. That there are two completely different words for god in the Old Testament shows that the Hebrew religion was itself a hybrid.

Anyway, I stand by my posting earlier regarding the origin of religion in the early Upper Paleolithic. It evolved to explain the unknown and a priesthood that could make a comfortable living by hoodwinking the population was a natural development. Religions needn't have anything to do with reality. In fact usually the less so the better. All the easier for the priesthood to claim the single route of communication to whatever higher power they have convinced the population to believe in.

Terry, I presume that you and I can agree that people who philosophize about the nature and value of religion--include me in as one of them, and, I assume, you too--also evolve.

I like the cliches about the dougnut and the glass that is half full of water: Some of us evolve to pay attention to the delicious doughnut. We enjoy its taste treat and that we have a half glass of water to wash it down; others concentrate on the hole and the half-empty glass. What is the focus of your attention?

BTW, I just remembered another metaphor for G?D: THE SOURCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_(novel)
http://www.hobotraveler.com/103br_thesource.shtml

Tim asks:
"did i ever blame "the devil, or evil, or the number 666, or your subconscious, or the inhalation of bad vapours"? as DAM thinks I did?"

Yes you did. You believe in things for which you've not a shred of supporting evidence. That is precisely the same thing.

Whether you cloak it as a deity or via some contrivance such as "?" it is still the same thing. They are all just forms of the invisible purple rhinoceros.

There is no such thing as evil.
There are only things you don't like.
Time to get over it and accept the universe as it is.

DAM writes, "There is no such thing as evil."
That is the farthest thing from the truth that i have ever heard!
Yes, there is such thing as evil: moral evil.
There are many philosophers who would agree with me, now of course there are many who dont, including Nietszhe (or however his name is spelt)
and of course i accept the universe as how it is: under the hand of the Creator and divine Watchmaker.
let me ask you this:
have you ever done something that you knew was wrong? but did it anyways? how did you feel after-wards? did you feel something telling you not to do it, but didnt listen? (like jimmity cricket). that is your conscious. why would you have such a thing if you are a far-distant relative to a rat? (very far off, but nevertheless related in some way, as evolutionists would beleive, unless that is they beleive in seperate macro-evolution trees, i can never keep up with such things)

Tim, DA said, "There is no such thing as evil". In that sentence, the word 'evil' is a noun. I think, therefore, that DA denies the existence of evil - as a noun - in the sense it being a cosmic force (do correct me if I'm wrong, DA). The use of ?evil? as an adjective is, of course, merely synonymous with 'morally bad', 'wicked' or ?malicious?. I would suggest that the word does, however, tend to confer a religious context, and is probably used far more commonly by those who are religious than by those who aren't, the latter very often preferring to use an alternative word.

The existence of EVIL makes as much sense as going to war against an an emotion ie TERROR.

TIM, ABOUT NIETZSCHE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
BTW, fellow posters, for the next 16 days, my wife an I will be on a vacation in sunny and warm (we hope) Florida. Today, it is sunny in Toronto, but would you believe the temperature was -32 C. That is below zero on the old F scale. For March, that is very low.

TREAT EACH OTHER WITH TLC WHILE I AM AWAY, OKAY?

TIM, you did not answer my question about how you conceptualize God. For example, how would you explain the concept of God to children who are still in the stage where they still believe that Santa Claus is a real person?

Interestingly, Nietzsche was the son of an Evangelical Christian minister. So were others of his family. For example, his grandparent and uncles.

Also, Charles Darwin took his only degree, in theology, from Cambridge. He actually intended to be a minister. He, too, came from a family with lots of clergy in it. His grandfather was a well respected minister and intellect.
I don't think that Darwin ever said that he was an atheist, but he sure came to quite a different view than the literal stories--there are two--in the Bible. He probably also had a different concept of God.

If God is in personal control of all things, why would he arrange things as just stated?

How come much of the world is under the control of those who are either stupid, or outright evil--greedy, oppressive and power hungry?

USING MY FREE WILL
Doing sincere experiments in prayer, I have asked God, more than once, "Reveal to me, O God, how you would like all believers, like me, to think of you?" I also used and still practice meditation.

I heard no real answer telling me to go back to the traditional way.

All I get is the intuition to search deeper and to be open to progressive possibilities such as are found in: http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/

It was after some deep meditation that I discovered progressinve thinkers like Bisop John Shelby Spong, former Dominican priest Matthew Fox, etc. We now have a church-- http://www.pathwayschurch.ca --
in my area.
It follows this progressive model.
My mediations also led me to speak of God as I do in my signature. How come?

Philosophy is as useful to humanity as feathers on a fish. I personally enjoy philosophy as an intellectual exercise but is a discussion about nothing of substance. Were it otherwise ... one could test a correct philosophy from an incorrect one. And at least one philosophical issue would have been resolved completely as has been the melting point of water or the question of how far away the moon is.

Tim, Ellis is correct as is red, there is no such thing as evil: Let me prove it to you.

Is it evil to lie? Always?
Is it evil to kill someone? Always?
Is it evil to steal something? Always?

And the answer is clearly, unless you are younger than 13 or brainwashed, not always.

So what we lie about, who we kill, and when and what we steal is situational. Evil is truly ONLY in the eye of the beholder and thus, objectively, does not exist.

What is evil to me, Darfur, is clearly not evil to the rulers of the Sudan. What is evil to me, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is clearly not evil to Exxon Mobil. What is evil to me, self-serving arrogant condescending posters at SAGG, is clearly not evil to them. And what is evil to me, preachers and self-annointed religious zealots (of any persuasion) brainwashing children, is clearly not evil to the majority of people on this planet.

Again, Tim, evil does not exist.

So now, no doubt, you think me as evil as I think the people who have brain washed you about religion. Consider that for a moment.

Tim wrote:

"Yes, there is such thing as evil:"

Now, presuming you are refering to evil in the sense Redewenur suggested you were, we can actually easily find the origin of the concept. The idea there were two conflicting supernatural forces begins, as far as we know, with the Zoroastrians. They believed the forces "Good" (light and the truth) and "Evil" (darkness and the lie) were headed for a great final battle.
The idea was carried by King Cyrus into Babylon and from there was adopted by the Jews. It came into Christianity from them.

The Rev asked:

"how would you explain the concept of God to children who are still in the stage where they still believe that Santa Claus is a real person?"

I'm sure there are many people who have contributed to this thread who would suggest the two ideas are at the same level.

I agree TNZ. There is almost no difference between telling children stories about the Eastern Bunny or the Tooth Fairy and telling them about a god or gods.

The only difference is that the Eastern Bunny never drowned all of the children on the planet (except one family's). The Tooth Fairy never murdered every first-born child in an entire country. And Santa Claus never sat back and watched his son nailed to a cross.

There is no crime I can think of substantially worse than the child abuse of threatening children with eternal torture to gain their compliance. That crime has kept humanity from growing up and behaving in a mature manner for millenniums.

What is implicit in the brain washing Tim has been subjected to is that there is someone in his life who will tell him what is evil and what is not. What is important to the self-anointed is power and control.

Hi Dan.

Is it evil to be in sound mind and rape a two year old child? Always?

Blacknad

Unfortunately Blacknad there are some who do not regard such a totally repugnant act as evil, so the answer to your question is no. Obviously this is an act which we can try to legislate against, but to the perpetrator it may not be not evil.

Good and Evil are not absolutes. They cannot exist without someone's opinion. As I asked Rev when he asked me if I ever joined a group to do good works, my reply was-good for whom? What one sees as good another may abhor, and similarly with evil.

In fact, if the human race were to vanish from the planet tomorrow there would be no good- or evil either because the concept of good/evil is a human construct.

In my opinion no it is not. But, unfortunately from my perspective, there appear to be people that do not agree. And the jails should have room for them all.

Here's my personal feeling about it ... and thank you for using an extreme example as it is often the best way to illuminate a point.

I would personally condemn such a person to death and be willing to pull the switch were I 100% sure they were the perpetrator. Given my lack of certainty I will commute that sentence to life in prison without possibility of release.

But is it evil? I would have to say no. My personal opinion, and again it is only personal opinion, is that some two-legged semi-sentient entities on this planet are damaged goods. Some are damaged by being born with a birth defect and some damaged by virtue of having brains that function in a manner in which they commit acts inconsistent with civility and civilization. We can coexist with and help those with some forms of damage. We are not obligated to help those whose defects are so severe that they hurt others.

Civilization has a right to protect itself from child rapists, bombers, some politicians, and other bad actors. But we should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that this is someone that is (don't care why or how) damaged.

And let me now throw back your way a question equally intended to emphasize the extreme.

My country has a President, and yours a PM, who I believe have done far more damage to far more innocent children than all of the child rapists in your country combined. Why is it that we can all agree that child rape is a crime ... and blowing the arms and legs off a child, killing its parents, and burning its home and family to the ground, a matter where intelligent men might differ and not a single person has been put behind bars? Nor will any be.

So to return to your original question ... I would disagree with your assumption that child rapists, or my President, are of sound mind. Their actions, in and of themselves, indicate otherwise.

Blacknad asked:

"Is it evil to be in sound mind and rape a two year old child? Always?"

I think most of us would agree (and DA certainly seems to) it is impossible that anyone who would rape a two year old child could be in sound mind. They would have to have had a very strange upbringing. I used to know a person who was charged with molesting his child. I spoke to him shortly before his case came up and was absolutely stunned as he came up with all sorts of justifications for it. Turns out his family had always done it. I suppose we could say the family was evil but it's more likely they were just very strange.

By the way, good to hear from you again Blacky.

I wish I could agree that people who commit such ghastly acts are sub-normal and look weird. I can assure you that this is not so. There may be some aberrant behaviour, but think about it for a moment, is a small child going to trust a slavering monster or a friendly person who shows them concern and care? Luckily this is, in spite of the news media's hysterics, a very unusual crime, and I can only say that in my opinion such a dreadful act is probably not viewed as evil by the person who commits it. Do you remember seeing the awful footage on the CCTV of 2 boys leading a little toddler through a Shopping Centre as he trustingly held their hands. They then brutally murdered him, for a thrill. Maybe later they saw it as evil, but at the time they were seeking excitement and would have tried to justify their actions. terry is right, some people just don't think it's wrong.

Some people think Christianity is wrong ... others Islam ... other Judiasm. I think they are all wrong. But no matter your perspective it is all just a point-of-view.

Some people think what is happening to Shiites in Iraq is wrong. Some think what is happening to the Suni's wrong. I think it is all wrong. But no matter your perspective it is just a point-of-view.

I think dropping bombs on children as horrible as raping them. Apparently the President of my country disagrees. And I think his moronic rationalisations as value-less as those of a child-rapist claiming he was abused as a child. Does civilized society need either? Should it tolerate either?

What is the lesson of Nazi Germany: Is that "normal" people can commit extraordinarily horrible acts or that those who commit those acts are sick and twisted individuals?

I don't think it matters. I think society has the right and the responsibility to rid itself of the maggots. Using buzzwords like "evil" is no more valuable than using any other four-letter word. It is intended to replace reason and judgment with emotion.

Your post brings to mind Bush's 'axis of evil' remark, in which he combined the image of the Rome-Berlin Axis Powers of WWII with that of the devil as a way raising public support for his own warmongering ambitions. That man recognises that he is the leader of a broadly religious nation, and he is able and willing to exploit the fact.

It's grotesque that among the people from whom he manages to gain support for his death and destruction campaign are a very large number who claim to have evidence for God.

It is a fascinating, horrifying, and grotesque fact that those who are most religious are more easily able to rationalize what they have done.

In country after country, without regard to the prevailing religion, calls to commit or justify horrible acts are couched in the terms of god and nation.

To ask an atheist to do something horrible requires you to convince that person to override their personal moral compass. To ask a religious person to do so only requires that you convince them that what you are asking is god's will. And it isn't possible for them to ask that god if the interpretation is correct.

I think, also, there is a definite difference between religious people and non-religious people with respect to their willingness to challenge authority and to resist being led.

If you are one of those who goes to your Sunday morning seat to have someone tell you what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is evil, and ask you to bow down and worship your lord (and lets not forget that words like lord and king and kingdom are not exactly neutral words) then you are far more likely to follow King George or King Tony or King Adolph.

Anarchy isn't a picnic and I am not advocating it. But blindly following the self-anointed is a proven recipe for war and destruction.

DA, i am somewhat confused when you said, "Anarchy isn't a picnic and I am not advocating it. But blindly following the self-anointed is a proven recipe for war and destruction. "
i dont get how that relates to anything you were saying before that....
well its good, at least, that youre not advocating anarchy.
redewener said, "It's grotesque that among the people from whom he [Bush] manages to gain support for his death and destruction campaign are a very large number who claim to have evidence for God."
yes, conservatives support the war effort because they support their country. now dont get me wrong, im not one to discuss politics, but you brought it up. we support a free world, apart from dictatorships, and equality for all people. it is necessary to end this threat, and we support our troops, and our country.

Tim asks:
"DA, i am somewhat confused when you said, "Anarchy isn't a picnic and I am not advocating it. But blindly following the self-anointed is a proven recipe for war and destruction. "
i dont get how that relates to anything you were saying before that...."

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I didn't want anyone to misinterpret my remarks to mean that there should be no authority, ie anarchy, because authority is a known evil. I think both authoritarianism and anarchy equally likely to lead to bad acts.

Tim wrote:
"yes, conservatives support the war effort because they support their country."

What you wrote is absolutely true and absolutely grotesque. You are essentially saying, as I did, that god and country is the way to inspire normal people to commit or support horrific acts.

Tim wrote:
"we support a free world, apart from dictatorships, and equality for all people."

We do not. That may be the operative line in public relations releases and propaganda but it is clearly and easily proven to be untrue. Here is just one example among many.

In the 1950's Iran, by democratic election, put into its presidency a gentleman by the name of Dr. Mohammad Mosadek. Do you know what happened to the leader of their democracy? The CIA did him in. That isn't political propaganda. The United States proudly announced and took credit for his demise. Who did the US replace him with? A totalitarian dictator. And why you might ask would the beacon of democracy have overthrown the elected leader of another democracy? He tried to give his impoverished people a larger share of oil revenues. I hope this gives you pause to think about why I revile blind nationalistic jingoism. It usually is intended to hide an ugly truth. We care more about oil company profits than equality or freedom and the rest.

There is no threat in Iraq other than the one we, ourselves, created. It is time for you to stop repeating empty public relations slogans and use those neurons between your ears.

Your first homework assignment is to answer this question:

Given that we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran ... why should anyone in that region believe us when we say we are killing people to bring them democracy?

Start your education here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/History
read the section following:
"United States and the Shah"
Then use google, yahoo, etc. to learn more of the truth.

You have been lied to. Plain and simple. If you accept the truth you can do something to change it and make the world a better place. If you mindlessly repeat the public relations slogan more bad things will happen and you will be guilty of supporting them.

Unfortunately, politics has a way of creeping into most aspects of life. DA has answered your post so there's no point in repeating what he's said. I will add this, though -

My reasons for introducing politics to the subject:

(a) Its closely related to religion
(b) Its agendas and decisions are very often strongly influenced by the prevailing national religion
(c) Politicians can and do manipulate populations via their religions
(d) It has a direct bearing on the matter under discussion, i.e. 'Evidence for God'

To repeat my point: People who claim to believe in God - presumably because they have evidence, intuitive or otherwise - have found themselves supporting a war in which their countries (U.K. included) have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of men women and children, and maimed untold numbers of others.

Their leaders told them it was right. Does their God also tell them it was right?

DA wrote:
To ask an atheist to do something horrible requires you to convince that person to override their personal moral compass. To ask a religious person to do so only requires that you convince them that what you are asking is god's will. And it isn't possible for them to ask that god if the interpretation is correct.


Well said. There is also the point suggested by that argument that the old excuse---"The devil made me do it " has to be personally valid if that person believes in the personification of evil in supernatural form, or indeed if they believe in Evil as a force in the world. This allows someone to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions in a way not possible to those who feel that deeds and actions are our own responsibilities.

The issue of punishment or such crimes should carry some thought of rehabilitation but this is often not possible. Whist I agree that people whose actions are so foul and disgusting that they need punishment should receive it, I cannot be sure that such punishment is always going to lead to repentance or redemption. In fact I feel that punishment is often imposed to allow the victim to feel valued by their society. Having said that I think that it may in fact be a very good reason and a valid argument for punishment. However sometimes the mores of a society will differ from our own personal ideals, and this is often difficult for religious people (or , to be fair anyone with rigid rules of conduct) to understand. The prospect of rehabilitation of such sociopaths mentioned in the previous posts is always unlikely but I think that the possibility of it happening for me, negates the use of capital punishment for anyone. Punishing someone for murder by 'killing them back' is just revenge I think.

As for the atrocities of war-- well that has always been OK as long as your side wins. The other side are barbarians and butchers, and eventually get tried for war crimes!

DA wrote:

"It is a fascinating, horrifying, and grotesque fact that those who are most religious are more easily able to rationalize what they have done."

I'd say they are more easily fooled. Some friends and I were discussing this some years ago and decided it's because they have to fool themselved every single day. They have to convince themselves that a god made them for some purpose.

Tim wrote:

"we support a free world, apart from dictatorships, and equality for all people. it is necessary to end this threat, and we support our troops, and our country."

When George W. Caesar originally announced he was invading Iraq to bring them "freedom and democracy" I had to chuckle. I knew at the time they were the last two things the Us administration wanted for them.

Redewenur. I'd start with (a) Politics is life, and adjust the others accordingly.

Ellis wrote:
"The issue of punishment or such crimes should carry some thought of rehabilitation but this is often not possible."

I believe in rehabilitation. And I believe in making a sincere effort toward it when it is reasonable and possible. But in many cases, for example someone that commits multiple offenses, it is just plain preposterous and delusional to think this person has any ability, or interest, in reforming.

And, in what way, is it a sign of civilization that we let these predators return, again and again, to hurt innocent people. If think at 5 felony convictions, for example, a line should be drawn in the sand.

Cross the line and you get a telephone and 30 days to find a country that wants you? Find one and you get a plane ticket. Don't find one and you get a parachute, a pocket knife, a box of matches, and a one-way flight to Baffin Island to match wits with the polar bears.

There's only one true Freedom, all other freedoms stem from this one true Freedom.

It's not about having a religion, or being religious, or following this belief
or that one over there or none at all. It's about knowing the truth because
ultimately THAT is what sets people (and therefore, Nations) Free.

Here's a simple example of that truth I refer to that will set people and Nations free:

[From Wikipedia.com]
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions
for the development and functioning of living organisms.

That's an acceptable and simple scientific definition of DNA, is it not?

Can it be accepted here as clear and accurate? I say, why of coarse.
It's simple enough even for a child to understand.

ok then, here's the question:

who wrote the code for DNA? Who wrote the set of instructions?

It takes intellegence for man to write code. I'm most certain we will all readily
agree on that one. Yet it's obvious to all intellegent human beings that man
didn't write the DNA code. Yet someone had to - it's code and that takes an
intellegent being to create.

It's the truth, and so is this ... Jesus Christ wrote the code.

It sometimes seems that way, but I'm referring to the politics of governments, with particular reference to manipulation of populations. In this case, the politician was very aware of how to manipulate his population.

glubrani, would you call yourself a believer in 'Intelligent Design' or a Creationist?

I would call myself a truth seeker. That there is a Creator is apparent to all, whether they will admit it or not. Don't believe that's true? ok, fair enough, here's the proof :

For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities ? his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

read this part again:

" God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts."

Whose hearts? Every human who ever lived. That includes you and me.

Well, glubrani, if you say that's the way it is, who am I to argue? No point, really, is there?

"Jesus Christ wrote the code"
Lots of things are obvious if you don't think about them too hard. Lots of very ignorant people are convinced of a lot of nonsensical things. Things are true just because someone says them. Things aren't true just because ancient scrolls claim they are true. Lots of ancient books claim to hold the truth. "Just believe" is not a proof.


"I would call myself a truth seeker."
I wouldn't call you a truth seeker.

Doesn't take any inteligence to write code
Just take a look at Microsoft, you can clearly see it's all trial and error...




/Everything that is, still is and always will be
/That is the truth of the eternal now

glubrani wrote:
"I would call myself a truth seeker. That there is a Creator is apparent to all, whether they will admit it or not."

I would call you quite something else and the invisible purple rhinoceros thinks you full of horse feathers.

It isn't a question of admitting or not. It is a question of making decisions and reaching conclusions based on rational and critical thought processes.

You have not a single shred of information upon which to support the derivation of your conclusion. This is less information than my cat has when deciding I have access to an infinite source of cat food.

Well said MrBiGG.

glubrani wrote:
"For the truth about God is known to them instinctively."

Sure it is. That explains why it is that for millenniums those who "instinctively" believe in god have been murdering, torturing, and raping each other to demonstrate that they are the true believers.

This is scienceagogo ... not hardofthinkingreligionprosletyzersagogo. Get on topic. Last time I checked the help-wanted advertisements we hadn't listed a position for replacement troll.

You guys will make no headway here. glubrani 'knows' he's right. End of story.

- At least it would be, except that he wants to tell you he's right, and get you into a pointless dispute.

You are likely correct but I think he should be given a fair chance to either get on-topic, use a synapse or two, or find his way to the door.

If he can not then I think we should put "Project Troll" into effect yet again.

Lets give him a day or two to see whether he can use the brain he thinks his lord and master gave him.

Fair warning glubrani ... use it or lose it.

Dan,

It is exactly the same things. Atheists have always been convinced that horrible things need to be done for one reason or another. Hitler would never have got anywhere without people who were convinced they were doing horrible things for the right reasons.

If you were making a point then your distinction is invalid and meaningless.

Ellis,

'The Devil made me do it' is an incredibly clumsy over-simplification. I have never heard any Christian make such a claim (except in jest) and in fact Christianity clearly teaches us that we are solely responsible for our deeds, and able to rise above our more base actions. I think it's important to understand in more depth that which you want to comment upon. Also, we would not state that evil is in any sense a 'force', but is simply a departure from that which is good.

Blacknad.

Ellis, are you saying we would define something as evil only if no one dissents? On the same basis, could we only say that the Nazi pogroms against the Jews were wrong only if all agreed? I met many people in Lebanon who thought it was a good act. Clearly it makes no sense to decide what is evil by a system of unanimous acceptance.



The problem with this argument is that in human experience we must therefore say that many things do not exist: beauty, justice, truth, good, mercy, love? the list goes on. They are all someone?s opinion and again, as per your first point we can not define something as beautiful if anyone dissents. Now I know I am using Argumentum ad Consequentium, but unless you are willing to say that all of the above qualities are non-existent or meaningless then why is evil different? Maybe you are (like Sarte) willing to go that far ? in which case your thinking is consistent, but I would disagree with you.
It also begs the question, ?If those things are entirely non-existent, why are they so useful or even essential for human understanding or discourse?? Because try your best, but you will never dispense with them.



The concept of good/evil as a human construct is based upon your prior materialistic assumptions and is therefore open to debate.

Blacknad.

Dan, this appears to be a somewhat self serving distinction. You are in effect saying (along with Dawkins) that when an action crosses over into the repugnant you can simply attribute it to a damaged mind and do not see a continuum of human behaviour along a scale of ever increasing departure from what we would consider acceptable. Where is the point where we suddenly stop being bad (and responsible) and suddenly become damaged (and not responsible)? Or would you go as far as Dawkins and say we are never responsible for our actions but we are simply broken and need fixing?

We are having a conversation about evil but I don?t know if anyone has previously defined what we mean by evil.

Some definitions from Wiki:

?morally objectionable aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings?

?those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction?

?the absence of a good which could and should be present?

?unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group?

I am sure you would have no difficulty with some of those definitions of evil, but how would you define it for the purposes of this conversation?


For Blair, whether I could define his actions as evil would depend on the definition of evil we are happy with. If it was ?unprovoked hatred against and coupled with an aggressive impulse to cause harm to another person or group? then I would not classify his actions as evil. It may appear that it sums his actions up very well, but I would not be convinced that he has an aggressive impulse to harm the Iraqi people. He is under the impression he is doing the right thing ? ?The Greater Good? and all that. I disagree with him and would be happy to see him in The Hague.

As for Bush ? He?s simply a breathtakingly ignorant buffoon and it should be the voters who are guilty for giving a chimp such power ? twice ? ?nuff said.

But you make a very interesting point about our cognitive dissonance. Raping = Evil / Blanket Bombing = Expedient.

Blacknad

Blacknad wrote:
"It is exactly the same things. Atheists have always been convinced that horrible things need to be done for one reason or another. Hitler would never have got anywhere without people who were convinced they were doing horrible things for the right reasons."

You are absolutely correct. If you reread my post you will find that I repeated juxtapose "religion" and "nationalism" in these discussions. My doing so is not a coincidence.

Blacknad wrote:
"'The Devil made me do it' is an incredibly clumsy over-simplification. I have never heard any Christian make such a claim (except in jest)"

Stay in the UK then. I have heard it ... not in the exact words of comedian Eddie Murphy ... but in essence ... yes it is said.

If you subscribe the belief system that there evil is a noun ... then you are not totally responsible for your actions. If you subscribe to the belief that you were born with original sin then you are not totally responsible for your actions.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell a young child that they are sinners who need to beg for forgiveness, even though they've truly done nothing wrong, and then expect them to accept responsibility for their own actions. Heck they were already guilty.

Terry, I have kind of addressed this above.



Terry, in just ten small words you have made me smile and feel good.

Synapses in your brain fired and made you decide what you wanted to say ? more synapses fired and electrical impulses travelled down your arm and contracted and relaxed muscles to enable you to type ? again electrical signals moved from keyboard to processor and now become binary ? eventually converted into electrical signal again and travel along copper wire to the exchange ? eventually converted into radio waves and bounced off satellite to my mobile provider ? back to electrical impulses ? then radio waves again ? sent to mast ? picked up by my mobile phone and back to electrical signals ? then binary ? then electrical signals to screen ? then converted to photons ? converted back to electrical signals by my eye ? along optic nerve to visual cortex ? then distributed to various parts of brain to produce endorphins (and warm glow) etc. ? electrical signals again to facial muscles to contract into smile ? also laid down as memory ? also more synapses firing to enable me to think ?that Terry?s a nice friendly guy? and so on?

I?ve probably just displayed my ignorance of everything from brain structure/chemistry/biology to telecommunications/physics, but how clever the illusion that I am a discreet entity when it would appear that I am really just a bundle of disparate chemical reactions. I have a problem with materialistic reductionism.

And also I am not back ? I never went ? I just now prefer to read and learn the science instead of wading in all the time with my own opinion. Also the ?Not quite science? has become tedious with all this baseless new age nonsense about G?D.

Blacknad.

My apologies to Ellis then. Always good to be set straight by you Dan. I need to always figure in the asinine qualities of what seems to be a large portion of US Christians.

Blacknad.

Blacknad writes:
"You are in effect saying (along with Dawkins) that when an action crosses over into the repugnant you can simply attribute it to a damaged mind and do not see a continuum of human behaviour along a scale of ever increasing departure from what we would consider acceptable."

I would beg to differ.

Blacknad writes:
"Where is the point where we suddenly stop being bad (and responsible) and suddenly become damaged (and not responsible)? Or would you go as far as Dawkins and say we are never responsible for our actions but we are simply broken and need fixing?"

That is for society to decide. From my standpoint it would be where the actions are such that a jury of their peers conclude that the intent was to damage another entity.

You can't pull the wings off a butterfly and say you didn't know you were hurting it. You can't steal someone's wallet and say you were just trying to help them across the street by lightening their load. You can't strap a bomb to yourself and walk into a crowded shopping center and claim your intent was to aid and comfort the homeless. It really isn't all that ambiguous.

I would define evil as a label people attach to things when they want others to react emotionally rather than rationally. Evil is a word intimately entangled with religious and theological teachings. Great white sharks are not evil. A human that does the same thing is. To the victim it doesn't matter.

Blacknad wrote:
"For Blair, whether I could define his actions as evil would depend on the definition of evil we are happy with."

I don't think Blair is evil. I am absolutely sure that Blair has no problem waking up in the morning and looking at himself in the mirror. And no doubt is confused as to why there are so many misguided souls that would like to put him in the dock. He's not evil. He'd never pull the trigger himself. But I doubt he's ever once lost a nights sleep because of a 500 pound bomb dropped on a mud hut either.

I think you absolutely correct when you state: "He is under the impression he is doing the right thing ? ?The Greater Good? and all that."

Exactly. Nationalism and patriotism and god. How easy to justify bad acts when it is for the greater good and the glory.

Blacknad wrote:
"As for Bush ? He?s simply a breathtakingly ignorant buffoon"

Not simply. While he is definitely a world-class moron he is also damaged goods.

DA wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You can't tell a young child that they are sinners who need to beg for forgiveness, even though they've truly done nothing wrong, and then expect them to accept responsibility for their own actions. Heck they were already guilty.


A child brought up to believe that they were born in sin and made to confess to imagined sin, will easily adapt to the concept of evil hovering around them always. Such a person will need constant reassurance that they will reach Heaven/ Paradise for it really is hell for them on Earth. They may even feel that this gives them permission to kill, burn and wage war on the 'enemy' in the name of their god, because s/he is good, whilst their foes, and their god, are evil.

DA wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You can't tell a young child that they are sinners who need to beg for forgiveness, even though they've truly done nothing wrong, and then expect them to accept responsibility for their own actions. Heck they were already guilty.


A child brought up to believe that they were born in sin and made to confess to imagined sin, will easily adapt to the concept of evil hovering around them always. Such a person will need constant reassurance that they will reach Heaven/ Paradise for it really is hell for them on Earth. They may even feel that this gives them permission to kill, burn and wage war on the 'enemy' in the name of their god, because s/he is good, whilst their foes, and their god, are evil.

Inasmuch as the chemical reactions cannot be truly 'disparate' - all things being interconnected - there can be said to be only one discrete entity, i.e. the cosmos, with all it's dimensions, multiverses, energies and consciousness, subjective experiences and whatever. To wax artistic, it may turn out that music is being played on your (M)Strings as part of the one symphony of all existence.

OK. I built it. You demolish it.

Redewenur wrote:

"Inasmuch as the chemical reactions cannot be truly 'disparate' - all things being interconnected - there can be said to be only one discrete entity, i.e. the cosmos, with all it's dimensions, multiverses, energies and consciousness, subjective experiences and whatever."

That sounds like you are a Giordanista, a supporter of Giordano Bruno. He believed the universe is of infinite size, consists of many suns and many planets, it's all interconnected, there is just one universal soul and that space and time can only be conceived of in relation to fixed points. Of course he was tortured for many years and finally burned at the stake in 1600 AD.

And some contributers to this thread wonder why others of us mistrust religion so much.

Blacknad, I'm sure your version of religion is not as dangerous to the rest of the world as is that of the fundys. I also personally know many people who have become what I would consider to be much more reasonable human beings once converted to some religion. If that's what it takes for some people I'm all in favour actually. But any belief surely must take into account what science tells us about our origin. To me this seems inconsistent with any idea we are a special creation.

After 30 pages of contributions to this thread the best evidence for God anyone has come up with is to merely point out that we are here. They consider this proves there is a God. This is not sufficient evidence to convince me.

Well, 'Giordanista' does have a nice ring to it. Actually, I have to confess ignorance - I'd never heard of the wonderful, courageous fellow. My assumption about 'all things being interconnected? is based solely on my scientifically primitive evaluation of all that I can make head or tail of. For me, it's a view not inconsistent with our current knowledge, and I happen find it extraordinarily beautiful. It has nothing to do with 'Evidence for God', but then I'm not among those who seek it.

terrytnewzealand wrote:

"After 30 pages of contributions to this thread the best evidence for God anyone has come up with is to merely point out that we are here. They consider this proves there is a God. This is not sufficient evidence to convince me. "

Why would you need convincing? Do you feel a need to beleive in something supernatural?

I think this tendancy for humans to be pulled towards religion is purely a psychological one. We, as humans, tend to seek for reasoning in any situation. Even more in situations where science can't explain the situation. Religion is the result of a lack of scientific knowledge. Ages ago, there was no knowledge of gravitational forces so people made up Gods has an hypotisis to explain how stars and other celestial bodies hold in the sky. One hypotisis spreads out from one person to others, people start holding this hypotisis as truth.

It is a know fact that unanswered questions can cause an increase in stress on the mind. The more the stress lelvel is high the more readily someone will accept any answer as the truth. Stress, anxiety and depression, which are all somewhat related, is known by psychologists to make people more vulnerable to suggestions. This is even the basis of some religion or not most relegion. Scientology is probably the best example of a relegion using this to their advantage.

The process is quite simple... bombard someone with a ton of questions that can't be answered easily putting some level of doubt in his mind. This also increases the mind stress level trying to answer these questions. With proper questioning of a subject the stress can lead to anxiety and depression. When the subject is in such a state, fill him with answers and he will gladly accept these answers as the truth.

Relativism can also be viewed as a religion. Einstein made an hypotisis, or theory if you prefer, and people hold that theory as the one and only truth. Beilieving somthing to be true doesn't make it true and infallible.

On another hand, I have personnaly had an experience that could be described as religious and I did believe at one point that it was of religious nature. But that beliefs, just like any other beliefs was not backed by any empirical knowledge. It was only later when I started reading on brain functions and psychology that I found out about drug induced religious experience and the fact that naturaly produced drugs in the brain can cause such experiences. The artificial drug DMT and also the natural drug melantonin produced by the pineal gland are known to cause halucinations closely resembling a near death experience and this is due to misfiring neurons or a power surge in the brain if you prefer.

Here is a couple interesting reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine



//What was, still is, and always will be
//that is the truth of the eternal now

Hi Redwener,

I am really talking about the traditional understanding that a person has a seat of consciousness - an 'I' that somehow looks out from behind your eyes. Neuroscience has clearly scotched that myth. Thought processes, perceptions, feelings etc. occur in different parts of the brain and do not, it appears, feed into one central 'processing unit' that then responds and ponders upon what actions it will take. The super-connectedness that we feel about ourselves is simply an illusion. There are just separate parts of the brain, (operating in concert only where needed) that simply manage to do what is needed to help us survive.

Blacknad.

Consciousness is a wonderful enigma. I maintain that we still don't know what it is. Certainly, we can say that activity in a particular brain area corresponds to a particular mental phenomenon; however, that doesn't really answer the question to my satisfaction.

OK, we're off topic, but you have to admit that it's interesting.
_______

MrBiGG, you said:

"Relativism can also be viewed as a religion. Einstein made an hypotisis, or theory if you prefer, and people hold that theory as the one and only truth."

I disagree. If you think about it, you might change your mind. A relativist or scientist worthy of the title would hold GR as only a limited 'truth' - the kind of pragmatic truth that may one day be modified, as was Newton's. In science there can be no absolute truth.

Ellis your bring up an excellent point when you write:
"They may even feel that this gives them permission to kill, burn and wage war on the 'enemy' in the name of their god, because s/he is good, whilst their foes, and their god, are evil."

I don't mean for this example to be prejudicial with respect to Moslems as at a different time and place it would apply equally to all. But the reason many become suicide bombers is to go to heaven.

If they thought they were already going there ... could they be persuaded to blow themselves and innocents up in their quest for personal glory? I doubt it.

I think a prerequisite is that you get someone who believes that their only path to heaven is the horrific act they are being asked to commit. One chance to get there ... don't blow it.

This thread has morphed from a troll post with zero intellectual content into one of the most mentally stimulating we have had here at SAGG in a very long time. Congratulations all. Thank you blacknad, redewenur, ellis, MrBigg78, TNZ.

Well done!
=================================================================

Moving on ...

To prove that there is a god ... one would need to show how things would be different if no such entity existed. Would Pi equal 3.00000000? The Planck length be shorter? Cubes have 7 sides? Male mammals no longer have nipples?

I recently saw a mathematical calculation based on the number of species Noah would have had to put into his ark and the number he would have been required to save: two of each. Working 24 hours a day with forklifts he and his family could have loaded it in about 30 years.

Poor Noah...though maybe it was Mrs Noah who did the cleaning up.
-------------

DA wrote:
I don't mean for this example to be prejudicial with respect to Moslems as at a different time and place it would apply equally to all.

When I wrote the post was actually thinking about the absurd situation with the burning at the stake thing, where Christian burned Christian--- and in WW1 & WW2 where chaplains blessed their sides in the name of their God, and it was one and the same diety- What on earth was going on there? It's just absurd. And now, once again, we are finding out that inflexible dogma is as dangerous as bombs.

The Christian Bible tells us that God created Man. I believe that Man "created God" to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. If we can't explain, say Thunder for example, we dismiss it as "The Will of God". Or G$D. As we ourselves fill in those gaps in our knowledge, the concept of "God" or Kulkulkan or Ra or Thor or other dieties become less and less relevant. If only we can make it for another 300 years, I really think that we'll be alright.

Hi Blacknad.

Returning to your comments on counsciousness, this is from STEVEN PINKER, professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT; director of the McDonnell-Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at MIT:

"...we are learning more and more every day about the neural basis of consciousness?what goes on in the brain when you have a conscious experience?down to itty bitty details: why one thing looks redder or tastes saltier than another, and countless other details of perception, memory and emotion. The part that remains a mystery is why the purely subjective aspect of experience should exist at all...?

rede--My very old mother (96) was doing well until about a year ago. One thing I have noticed recently is that what I think you mean by "subjective aspect of experience" has completely disappeared for her. It is as though someone has pressed the delete button and the whole experinence has vanished. It is most distressing to watch but she seems unaware of it unless her attention is drawn to it when she gets cross and argues it never hasppened. This is not the same as forgetting, it just wasn't there to remember. The odd part of it is that she enjoys life in the present, there seems to be participation and enjoyment---just NO recall whatsoever.

Ellis, I can empathise regarding the distress. My father underwent a similar process. Most commonly, memory for recent events becomes very poor, whereas events from one's earlier life can be recalled in detail. For your mother, the important thing is, of course, that she is able find enjoyment in the present. If she has the faculties to do so, then evidently her "subjective aspect of experience" is intact.

By "subjective aspect of experience", I take Professor Pinker to mean "the phenomena of awareness", including our emotional status, our perceptions arising from the senses and so on, rather than the coincident physics and chemistry.

Here's a possible analogy to think about (maybe you can think of a better one):

Q. What is consciousness?
A. It's the chemistry and physics of the brain.

is similar to

Q. What is light?
A. It's the chemistry and physics of a battery, a piece of wire and a filament.

I personally think memory actually plays a big role in the "subjective aspect of experience". Every new experience is compared to previous experiences stored in memory. Experiences are always better and more exciting the first time. The first jump off an airplane, the first ski ride, etc... But with time, the brain adapts through memory and knows what to expect of events to come. Thus the passage from thrills to a more serene life.

Don't you think the taste of chocolate would be better if you didn't remember tasting it ever before?

So, MrBIGG, there's something to be said for amnesia after all! Seriously, though, you're right. Memory forms a major part of our subjective "here and now". The Pavlov's dog experiment was simple proof of that, and we know well enough that, for better or worse, we can "relive" experiences while either awake or asleep.

Wolfman wrote:

"The Christian Bible tells us that God created Man. I believe that Man "created God" to fill in the gaps in his knowledge."

I think I was still a teenager when I first heard the statement, "man created God in his own image." I still think it's very true. I mean what would a dog's image of its god look like?

You're right DA, this has turned into an interesting thread. I think some of us may be forgetting that all animals, espaecially mammals and birds, rely on memory for survival. If a bird forgot that a cat is dangerous it wouldn't survive long.

I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster.

The universe leads only to an agnostic position. When I say this I am actually saying, ?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?.

For our understanding and interpretation of the makeup of the universe is achieved through scientific methods. All else is philosophy, emotion and wishful thinking. It seems to me that theist and atheist alike use the last three to come to a conclusion and then view the scientific evidence in the light of that. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??

There appears to be nothing that would allow science to adjudicate on the question. So if the most rational process of decision making available to humanity is unable to answer the question, then what are we left with?

Subjective opinion.

The problem with subjective opinion is that it will use the facts available in any way it wants. An example being that in the UK we often see politicians arguing over a particular societal problem or incident. The Conservative will see it one way; the Labourite will see it differently. In fact, they will see the same thing and will describe it differently, attribute opposing causes and then want to apply wildly different solutions. Each supremely confident in their understanding of the issue. More than that, they will each see the issue as vindicating their political dogmas and will trace the cause of the problem back to the dogmas of their opponents.

Similar things can be said of the Global Warming debate. Both advocates and sceptics are viewing the same planet, the same effect, and have access to the same data. But in some cases their conclusions could not be further apart. An example being that I always thought there was going to be a price to pay for the rubbish we have been putting into the atmosphere ? so GW hits the scene and I grab onto it happily because it fits my preconceptions and then seems to be fairly robust when I examine it further. Others - anyone connected with Oil ? will view it differently.
Now something may come up that will make the GW position incontrovertible, but my point about subjective perception informing our view of the evidence is illustrated.

So in the end, theists will look at the universe?s fine tuning and say that it is exactly what they would expect to see in a universe resulting from design by a prior intelligence. Atheists will see the same thing and say, it could have been no other way, it simply occurred and does not need a prior intelligence to explain it, or it is explained neatly by the Multiverse, or even Peter Lynds ideas will lead us to an entirely naturalistic explanation.

The theist will say that God has revealed himself and is available for you to experience if you make yourself open to him. The atheist will say that of course I could experience God if I opened myself up to him, just as I experienced an imaginary childhood friend. The theist will say that it is a fallacious argument, because children grow out of experiencing imaginary friends but experience of God seems different, and also just because something can be explained in terms of one phenomena it does not necessarily follow that it is actually the same phenomena. The atheist will say that we don?t need to go any further than understanding the psychological mechanisms involved with producing dreams and other imaginary experiences.

And so on?

In my opinion, there can be no conclusive proof. All of the philosophical proofs such as Anselm?s and Plantinga?s ontological arguments are unconvincing. The Cosmological Arguments are better, and I find them more convincing especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument framed by William Lane Craig, but they obviously do not convince sceptics and are certainly not therefore incontrovertible proofs.

Likewise with disproofs, they will not convince the believer. Dan has posited the fact that ?this universe is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no creator? or something along those lines.
Again this is not convincing for two reasons:

1. There are no control universes to compare against that would allow us to define exactly what we should expect to see in a designed universe and an entirely naturalistic universe. The question could be asked, how do you know that a universe can actually occur at all without a first intelligent cause ? especially a universe so adept at producing consciousness from chemicals?

2. It is again a subjective belief. How can it be proved that any of the assumptions that are made to come to that conclusion are valid?

I find this particular argument interesting and would be happy to debate it further.

CONCLUSION

The reason there are no serious proofs after 30 pages is that there are no proofs that would be universally accepted ? there are no proofs for God?s existence, empirical or logical. The only proofs are experiential and have no value for anyone but the individual who experiences them for they cannot reliably be conveyed from one person to another.

I think a big part of the issue here is semantics...

Would we be talking about the existence of a God if human kind never would have used it's vast imagination to come up with concepts such as spirits, souls, fairies, ghosts, etc.... Ans all the other supernatural mombo jombo...

Hi there MrBiGG,

Your tautological question presupposes the non-existence of God and uses a common mistake of putting belief in God within the same subset as belief in fairies or some other equally ridiculous idea - it's a sort of strawman effect. Belief in God is clearly not the same as believing in fairies, for all sorts of reasons.

You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino.

Blacknad.

It isn't any better to assign physical and metaphysical qualities on an hypothetical God which is likely to be outside our universe and therefore cannot be observed from within the universe.

"You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino."

Would these interaction/revelation still had been interpreted as a manifestation of God if these people didn't already have any predisposed belief/knowledge about this hypothetical God or would they have investigated further for other posibilities?

...the same reason there are no proofs after several millennia. The domain of science is the physical. The domain of the spiritual is the metaphysical. It's folly for either to attempt to trespass into the domain of the other. Unfortunately for scientists past and present, their domain has been constantly invaded.


I agree with that 100%. Well said.

A problem that religions tend to have is a heavy dependence on events in the physical world. There has to be concrete proof in the form of various artifacts and historical events such as a virgin birth. All this paraphernalia is likely, eventually, to be exposed as fictitious, and such exposure, as we know, has lead to the persecution of scientists. This would not occur if it were sufficient to say "I experience within me the God of Love - I should live accordingly".

blacknad wrote:
"Belief in God is clearly not the same as believing in fairies, for all sorts of reasons."

A challenge if I may. Point-by-point ... state your reasons. They are far from obvious.

I suspect it will be extremely difficult and that the harder you think about it ... the more difficult it will become. In the end ... what we believe based upon faith is done because we can not believe in it due to objective evidence.

blacknad wrote:
"You also discount any kind of historical/comtemporary accounts of God's interaction/revelation in human affairs which far outweighs (in both amount and sophistication) any evidence for the existence of fairies or the Invisible Pink Rhino."

I don't think there truly is any historical accounts of any god's interaction with humans. STOP! I know you are going to point to anecdotal accounts. We all know them. There was Moses and the burning bush. There was Joan d'Arc. There are thousands others. But then there are also people who have worshiped the image of the Virgin Mary on stop signs and burnt toast. How do we objectively determine which are real and which are not? We can't even, objectively, determine whether Iran wants to make enriched uranium for weapons and we have a benefit or two when it comes to verification.

The best possible way to objectively falsify there being a god is to seriously consider the following quotes:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."
~ Stephen Roberts

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours."
~ Stephen Roberts

"God made man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor."
~ anonymous

Scriptures: the sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
~ Ambrose Bierce

The planet earth has approximately ~6.7 billion inhabitants and approximately ~4,200 separate religions.

Sources:
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/classicalreligionlist.html

Of these the two with the largest number of adherents are Christianity and Islam with 2 billion and 1.3 billion believer's respectively. The remaining 3.4 billion people are divided among the other ~4,198 religions. Given that the Christians and Moslems agree on almost nothing of substance (Jesus Christ and Mohammed) ... we can conclude that either:

1. One of them is right and the other wrong
or
2. They are both wrong
because they can't both be right.

Which leaves us with a simple objective question:

If there was truly a deity that created the entire universe ... could it also be so inept as to create such staggering ambiguity with respect to its existence? Could it "design" something as complex as cellular biology and stub its toe on something as simple as a single declarative sentence? Or ... should we presume that part of that deity's plan is to be ambiguous and fuel warfare, hatred, rape, and the inevitability that the majority of mankind will be born in the wrong country, to the wrong family, with the wrong belief system, and go straight to hell.

Blacnad wrote:

"I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster."

I'm sure you're pleased at the number of us who read the whole thing. You've inspired some interesting comments from it.

Redewenur wrote:

"Actually, I have to confess ignorance - I'd never heard of the wonderful, courageous fellow." So her's an introduction to said courageous fellow for those who don't already know him (and can't be bothered looking it up themselves). I think most of us on SAGG would be happy to be called Giordanistas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

As a touch of humour. My 7 year old nephew mentioned to his father a book at school that talks about two worlds, one that had the dinosaurs and a more recent one God created for humans. Does anyone know of such a book? My nephew wondered who had made trees because they were around with the dinosaurs. He concluded that god's mum and dad must have made them. Any ideas as whether this is likely?

I will present a few reasons why belief in God is different from belief in fairies. That is the only point I will address. I am not here interested in whether God exists, or even if belief in God is justified. I am simply pointing out the differences. The differences would be more pronounced if I were to compare belief in God with belief in an IPR.

1. The amount of people who say they have experienced fairies is in keeping with the amount of people that we know are suffering from one or another form of mental illness. The subset of people who claim experience of fairies fits easily into the set of those who are certified delusional.
On the other hand those who claim to have experienced God or claim to have had any experience of the divine, far exceeds the delusional set. In fact those who claim to experience God are less likely to be included in the delusional set. For instance, studies have shown that Christians are psychologically healthier than those who have no belief. See the ?Handbook of Religion and Mental Health? by Harold G. Koenig and a wealth of other studies.


This is clearly a difference that sets apart belief in God from belief in fairies.

2. The accounts of the nation of Israel?s history are steeped in the experience of God. People hundreds of years apart wrote about encounters with God and despite often not having access to other?s writings, still managed to present a remarkably consistent account of God?s character and dealings.

Regardless of whether we believe the accounts or not, people writing about their experience of God from ancient history through to contemporary writings, far exceeds any supposedly factual accounts about fairies. There is far more anecdotal evidence for God?s existence than for fairies.

This volume of evidence does not validate God, but certainly places belief in God in a different league.

3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and other cosmological arguments including arguments from fine tuning are certainly not proofs, but would be expected in a universe that is the result of design. This still would not point to Theism, but ties in with the existence of a god of some type far better than any facts would tie in with the existence of fairies.

There is a good summary of the KCA here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.




Dan, I don?t know what has happened to the standards you would apply to objectively falsify something, but apparently we can now chuck subjective quotes at something and thereby prove it false. Obviously science isn?t quite what it used to be. Einstein would turn in his grave (well he might but we would never know unless we opened his coffin and collapsed the wave function, bum bum).

Quotes 1 and 2. Presuppose there is no god. But, if there is a god then it is entirely reasonable to believe in one god and choose the one that seems most reasonable or has revealed its existence to you. If there is a god then at least one of the 4,200 religions is right. I could go further to tell you why I would see the Christian god as being the most reasonable, but I want to get to bed tonight.

Quote 3. Seriously not worth commenting upon. Certainly doesn?t objectively falsify anything.

Quote 4. Again, only good when we presuppose that there is no god and therefore no written revelation of him. So a nice quote for atheists but far too weak to be capable of impacting a believer. It is the logical equivalent of looking at two opposing scientific theories and saying that when you understand why you reject each other?s theory you will understand why I reject all of your competing theories.



If we go with the Christian understanding of life?

We are here to choose whether we want to co-exist with God or whether we want to reject him. It is therefore necessary that we live in a world that presents that opportunity to us. Most people on this planet are presented with the possibility of God and choose either to reject or to explore further and then go on to accept or reject.

If that is accomplished, by whatever means, then that is what God set out to do and many theologians believe that it is essential that we experience evil in some form so that we can know what we are making a choice for and against. Now most Christians I have talked to about this believe that this choice is accomplished, throughout world history, either by people accepting what Christ did, or where they have not known about him or have had an inaccurate picture, then they make the choice by listening to their conscience however it may express itself. So Muslims are not born in the wrong place or family and will not be rejected by God simply because they believed in their prevailing worldview ? they will be judged on their willingness to do what is right by their conscience (even if their conscience is culturally conditioned). Christians on the whole believe that other religions will be fairly judged, as will those who have been persecuted by Christians and therefore see Christ in the role of persecutor ? it would be entirely unfair to judge these people for rejecting what they rightfully should reject.

I know that you will rip the above apart, but it is an indication that in Christian theology it is not essential for God to be in your face, but can accomplish what he wants through subtle as well as draconian means. In fact, Christians believe that God?s pervasive presence is simply not enough to make people choose not to reject him, because the story of God travelling through the desert with the Jews whilst presenting a physical manifestation ended with half of them building idols and rejecting him.

Penicillin.
You have asked many times why God never revealed penicillin. The above hints at the answer. Christians believe that God expects a choice while we are on this earth. He is interested in the choice we make and whilst we may expect him to behave like a cuddly teddy-bear and make sure we don?t get hurt or experience any kind of suffering, we are simply here to make a choice. We cannot hold God up to some ideal standard that we have of what it means to be loving and expect him to be constrained by it and accuse him of failure when he doesn?t meet our standard. God?s love may be justifiably framed as a concern for our eternal welfare and not particularly for our temporal welfare. Theologists believe that God is love, but also engenders many other qualities at the same time, unlike humans who can only really exist in one emotional state at any given moment. This may mean that Love does not always trump other qualities such as? ? we just don?t really know. Which goes to answer quote 3 ? God is certainly not created in the image of man, but is largely recognised to be incomprehensible. Look at the Greek Gods, very comprehensible and very human in their aspirations. Anyone who says the God of Christianity is created in man?s image has a limited understanding of theology.

Blacknad.

Well I certainly would as he was a man of science with a deep faith. And I am sure the church would have also put me to the stake for some of my beliefs.

Blacknad.

Well backnad you've written a lot so I will respond in three sections hoping to keep some semblance of sanity to this.

Response 1:

Blacknad wrote:
"I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster."

I wouldn't miss it for the world.

You write:
"?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?."

I think you are making a classic error here. We, fallible humans, don't know it all and don't pretend to know it all. That we haven't reached some ultimate destination with respect to wisdom and knowledge does not reflect on the methodology ... the methodology, scientific, is clearly filling in the gaps and an ever increasing pace. Which, as you can clearly see, is reducing the viability of belief systems.

and asks:
"Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??"

You are incorrect. I could easily accept that some god or goddess made an arbitrary decision with respect to the speed of light if there were evidence that (A) a decision had been made, that (B) any entity existed that might have made that decision, and/or that (C) that had the decision not been made things would be different.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of a decision maker and no evidence that a decision was made.

I have yet to see any events not bound by the laws of physics and causality. And as far as I know, there is no fully recorded event where causality has been broken. Humans tend to make up stories to make life more colorfull. Same reason why so many people play phantasy role playing game. TO get out of the ordinary. There is no reason why the bible wouldn't be the same kind of fiction litterature. (can't wait till they make a big-screen adaptation of the whole bible)
Jesus, if he ever walked this earth, was nothing more then a good willed visionary.

Response 2:

blacknad writes:
"1. The amount of people who say they have experienced fairies is in keeping with the amount of people that we know are suffering from one or another form of mental illness."

I would disagree and challenge you to point to any double-blind independent study, anywhere, that confirms the statement. I've no doubt you believe it but a bit of research on my part indicates it to not be the case. On the other hand I can find you very substantial populations that believe in astrology, UFOs, bigfoot, and crop circles. Would you cart them off the the insane asylum?

By definition everyone that is not Christian considers visions of the Virgin Mary delusional. In short the vast majority of the population of the planet. By definition everyone not a Shiite Moslem would consider a pilgrimage to Karballa to ask for blessings an act of lunacy. In short the vast majority of the population of the planet.

I think you need to seriously reconsider your statement in light of the fact that, as a Christian, the other 2/3 of the inhabitants of this planet think you are deluded in one manner or another.

But we both know the existence of a delusion is not subject to popular vote. Now if you could demonstrate your point of view using a Nikon I might be persuaded.

Your second point was:
"2. The accounts of the nation of Israel?s history are steeped in the experience of God. People hundreds of years apart wrote about encounters with God and despite often not having access to other?s writings, still managed to present a remarkably consistent account of God?s character and dealings."

And again it is extremely weak. The history of Israel, if anything, demonstrates that god's chosen people would have been better off if he had chosen someone else. And if this is the best he can do for them ... they should seriously reconsider their decision.

You need to step back from your prejudice and look at the planet from a distance of 500,000km. What does it look like? Where are you going to land? Why?

Why do we find Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed all walking on the same little postage stamp? Magic?

Why not China or India or Indonesia or Finland?

If you start from the point-of-view that X, Y, and Z are true you can always marshal evidence to support it. If you start from the position that all people on the planet are equal, all languages equal, all real estate equal. Then you have to start asking yourself what toxic substance is in the water in the middle east that leads these people to murder, mayhem, and religious delusions.

Response 3:

blacknad ... reread what I said about the 4 quotes ... you misunderstood my intent.

and to continue you write:
"We are here to choose whether we want to co-exist with God or whether we want to reject him."

You can't have it both ways blacknad. If we go with the Christian understanding it does, by definition, support the Christian belief system. Why is that any more credible than the Alawite belief system or the Jewish belief system or the Arapahoe belief system?

Is it believable that a god, a REAL god, would be so hopelessly muddled and incompetent that the best he could do is ambiguity and that the souls of those who "should believe" are left to the happenstance of which fallible human preacher shows up on their little island in Indonesia and tells them to change their belief system? That's a joke: Right? They go to hell because the nutcase that showed up to show them the way to redemption was unable to speak their language.

Do you truly believe that an entity ultimately able to create the entire universe couldn't have his son born, simultaneously, in every nation, town, and village, a member of every race, and speaking every language to spread what you believe is the single most important fact there is? Preposterous. Winston Churchill knew how to disseminate important information to his people. The Christian god, instead, chooses a one-shot approach in a country with a small and largely uneducated population. Even with a bottle of scotch in you you could do better.

I'm calling rotten on this one blacknad. You write:
"You have asked many times why God never revealed penicillin. The above hints at the answer. Christians believe that God expects a choice while we are on this earth."

Penicillin is most valuable in saving the lives of newborn infants and children. You are saying that your benevolent god put the cure to the suffering and death of innocent children out there where it would be hard to find and said ... "my children have been bad so their children can suffer horrible painful deaths for milleniums until they figure it out themselves."

Nonsense unless your god is a monster. Which brings us full circle. If your god is a monster ... then so be it. It explains why the Jews have been so blessed and penicillin was hidden from children. If your god is a loving, benevolent, and forgiving entity then you have painted yourself into a corner from which there is no escape. You can not claim to be nice and deny children penicillin because of the sins of their parents.

And Christians don't have an answer for that any more than do Jews or Moslems or anybody else. They just ... hey how about Manchester United. <g>

MrBiGG78 wrote:
"Jesus, if he ever walked this earth, was nothing more then a good willed visionary."

I think there is very little doubt he walked on earth.

One of the best witnesses to this is the Q'ran which discusses both Jesus and his mother and spends more time discussing his mother than all of the original Christian writings combined.

Ultimately the saddest fact about Christianity is that there is not a single living person that has actually ever read the original manuscripts of Mark, Matthew, Luke, etc. but a huge amount of evidence that the texts that have made it to our current era are flawed by both accident and intent.

Thus there isn't a single Christian that can actually quote a single word ever actually spoken by Jesus Christ. It is all just make-believe. It is all just delusion.

I suggested some time back that those here in the forum read a book titled "Misquoting Jesus." It appears no one had the $10 required ... or was it just a lack of real interest. Hmmmmmm.

Here are the author's credentials if anyone is interested:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/BartDEhrman/BartCV.htm

There are an awful lot of far less knowledgeable and educated people making statements that are laughable when viewed in the context of what the experts say.

In 1972 I saw Man U at White Hart Lane playing the Tottenham Hotspurs. Georgie Best and Bobby Charlton were playing. Best was right at the height of his popularity, people called him "The Fifth Beatle". Charlton was at the twilight of his great career, but he made one play, a "donkey kick" delection of somebody else's shot that was incredible to watch. Man U was a team in disarry at the time. In 1974 they were relegated to the Second Division. And the Spurs were at the top of their game. They won the UEFA Cup that year. Martin Peters, the English World Cup Team Captain was on the team, as was Martin Chivers I played Football in School; I remember seeing the Spurs defenders sitting on the grass during play when Tottenham was on the attack. I couldn't believe it. Do that in American Football, you're history. The fans, the "Cockneys" of North London, used to sing some song about the Spurs that went to the tune of "Glory, Glory, Halleluyah." I could never make out the words. We, the fans, would STAND UP the entire game. Fist fights everywhere. I was twenty. Oh, those were some glorius Autumn afternoons! I haven't thought of that in years. Thanks, DA.

Dan,

'Misquoting Jesus' is a difficult one. Ehrman is one of a number of experts who take an extreme view that is certainly not mainstream to Biblical Critiscism. Professor Bock, who held his seat before him and was equally as brilliant, studied the same texts in similar fashion and came to an opposing position. Goes back to my illustration of politicians seeing the same thing and understanding it in contrary ways.

William Lane Craig had a very interesting debate with Ehrman. See here:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm

You will read it and see merit in Ehrman's position - I read it and see merit in Craig's.

In the end, we make a subjective decision that suits us.

Blacknad.

I've read multiple authors. I invite you to do the same.

When all you read is what you agree with ... well you'll likely end up feeling really good and learning little. And if you don't pursue something just because there is disagreement ... well you know what I'm going to say so I'll skip the lecture.

But my suspicion here is that you are making far more of the disagreements than is actually there. On many many points they all agree. And one point of agreement, clearly stated, is that there are indeed more versions (variations) of the Christian Bible than it contains words. They may argue with respect to what is or is not more or less authentic/original. But they do not disagree on most of what Ehrman writes.

I think a bit of intellectual honesty is required here ... wouldn't you would be shaken in many respects were Ehrman correct. Which makes me wonder how you reacted to this:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html
And yes it too is controversial. And no the work done doesn't meet my criteria for real science. But it is still quite likely real.

Now about the clock ... my take on this is that you posted at around 3:00am your time. Isn't there something else you should be doing right now?

Thus there isn't a single Christian that can actually quote a single word ever actually spoken by Jesus Christ. It is all just make-believe. It is all just delusion.

I myself have never made it to the "Holy Land", but, over the years, I have met several people that have. One thing I find quite humorous is the fact that, if you take ten "Birthplace of Jesus" Tourist Trips in Bethlehem, you'll hit ten different sites. And these are Jews, Christians and Baha'i people I know.

These guys (Religous Zealots) don't know what they're talking about. Let's talk about Killer Asteroids or something.

You want to talk about killer asteroids come on over to the Physics ... we do astroPhysics forum and lets mix it up.

I, for one, think we are going to get a good bashing. I'm just not sure whether the asteroid will do as much damage as the hypocritical whining after-the-fact about why nothing was done to stop it.

What an "Act of God" THAT would be! Cool if it hit smack on Mecca.

Consider the following ethical dilemma.

Suppose every "true believer" were to pray that no asteroid hit the earth and one did. What would be the result.

1. They would all rationally realize prayer doesn't do it.

2. They would all get mad at their god for ignoring them.

3. They would all blame other people for not being as true a
believer as they are.

4. Some people would try to take advantage of the suffering and
misery by claiming they know why god did it.

Feel free to add to my list ... but rest assured the correct answer is not number 1.

Dear Dad,

Sorry for staying up past my bedtime but it was 1:30 and not 3:00 and I wasn't working until the afternoon. I won't do it again. Am I grounded now?

Blacknad.

I don't believe God is a monster. I believe that some of his acts appear monstrous from a human perspective.

The gulf in assumptions between a believer and atheist prevent any meaningful discussion on this topic.

I understand how an atheist will see the utterly blind, inconsistent irrationality of the believer on this issue.

I also see that with the believer's differing set of base assumptions about the nature of existence, suffering, and the short-term temporal nature of life in comparison to the eternal, then the conclusions will be starkly different, but entirely self-consistent within their worldview.

It is almost the same as two people speaking different languages. I say almost, because the theist can understand both the self-consistency of your position and why you may be horrified at their position. You, however, will always fail to see the self-consistency of the theist's position within their framework of assumptions.

Sorry - a bit convoluted there.

We need to understand that this conversation can never be resolved and that the real debate lies at the heart of the basic assumptions we have about the nature of the universe:

Materialism or Supernaturalism?

Blacknad.

This is an ethical dilemma only if you believe that prayer works like a vending machine - you put your prayer in one slot and get your diverted asteroid out of another.

It only works if we posit a god that has no mind of its own and is simply at the beck and call of its followers, and could have no possible reason not to intervene when asked.

Blacknad.

Blacknad. I'm prepared to concede there are elements of our existence we cannot explain and there may be some intergalactic connection we could call God. But! I have a great deal of trouble imagining any such entity has anything in common with the Old Testament view of God. It makes no sense that such an entity would favour one group of humans simply because they happen to have ancestors that lived in a particular small region of the earth. I fail to see any distinction between a "chosen people" and a "master race". Besides, the group in question is indistinguishable genetically from their neighbours. Their only distinction is their religion.

Many stories in the Old Testament are obviously concocted to justify political perspectives dating back to about 600 to 700 BC. It's highly unlikely the stories of Abraham for example refer to anyone who lived as long ago as 2000 BC. There's no way he could have met Hittites, Philistines or Aramaeans that long ago. It's also highly unlikely the Israelites emerged from Egypt as a refugee group. Perhaps as a retreating Hyksos army though.

As for Noah's ark, the less said the better. Likewise Adam and Eve, the tower of Babel, the sun stopping still etc.

Any God is not the God of the Old testament.

Not grounded. But without mentioning names, or violating any confidences, I'm wondering how "someone" felt about you being in front of the computer at 1:30 in the morning.

Purely rhetorical ... so if you feel compelled to respond do it off-line. <g>

blacknad wrote:
"I believe that some of his acts appear monstrous from a human perspective."

An interesting statement as it is the only perspective allowed to those of us that are.

blacknad wrote:
"I also see that with the believer's differing set of base assumptions about the nature of existence, suffering,"

I'll accept that with the caveat that not all monotheistic religions have made saints out of those that flog themselves. But if you think, from your perspective, that there is value in the suffering of newborn children I cannot argue with that being your belief system. Though it does bring to mind your statement that those who "believe" are not mentally ill. I can't think of any other life form on the planet that puts value in the suffering of children.

I'll accept your statement that the differences in our thinking are not resolvable unless one of us does at 180. But when you walk into that other bedroom at 10:00pm and look at that child sleeping peacefully. What would be your reaction if when you went to the chemist he refused to give you a prescription because he had a different perspective than your own? Would you say "well that's what god did for 100,000 years so it must be Ok and walk away?

I don't think so.

No matter how easily you may be able to rationalize the fact that "god's" acts seem monstrous to us but they are ok because god did them ... you have to be willing to accept:

1. Killing every man, woman, and child on the entire planet with the sole exception being members of a single family (Noah).

2. Killing every first-born son in an entire country (Exodus).

3. Creating and intentionally withholding information about penicillin, tetracycline, rabies vaccine, tetanus vaccine, and a cure for malaria until some imperfect human scientist figures it out by means that never once include picking up a bible or praying for divine guidance.

Can you really do that? I tried once upon a time. I was about 15 years old. I failed miserably. And I've never been able to rationalize it since.

Monstrous acts are committed by monsters.

And if he/she/it doesn't like that statement then he/she/it may chose to force me to my knees but I will no sooner bow voluntarily than I will pull the wings from a butterfly.

blacknad wrote:
"This is an ethical dilemma only if you believe that prayer works like a vending machine - you put your prayer in one slot and get your diverted asteroid out of another.

It only works if we posit a god that has no mind of its own and is simply at the beck and call of its followers, and could have no possible reason not to intervene when asked."

Lets take your perspective. Lets assume that prayer may or may not work. Ok ... why? Here are all the possible explanations assuming the one doing the praying is a devout true believer.

1. God listens occasionally (playing golf the rest of the time?)

2. God listens but uses a roll of the dice to determine when to respond to a prayer

3. God listens and has a firmly written set of rules that we humans, in 100,000+ years have failed to grasp but to which we are held accountable (sounds like the US's Homeland Security)

4. God has a sense of humor that involves letting churches and their congregations be burned, bombed, blown apart by tornadoes, or devastated by earthquakes.

Feel free to add to my list.

I am going, again, to challenge you to reconsider the basis upon which you believe what you believe. I am not offering you anything reassuring in exchange for stepping off the edge of the cliff. What I am offering is just a strong dose of reality.

Two people are walking across the street.
One gets hit by a car driven the a drunk driver.
The victim is as likely to be the priest as the sinner.

How, if there is a god, how if there is justice, how if "good things happen to good people," can it be shown again and again that it makes no difference to any aspect of objective reality.

Here's are the words from a song I used to sing back when I was young. I've never forgotten them and they should haunt you too.

Oh my name it ain't nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I was taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When gods on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

Ive learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
Its them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on our side.

But now we've got weapons
Of chemical dust
If fire them were forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When gods on your side.

In many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as Im leavin'
I'm weary as hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If god's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
~ Bob Dylan

Belt buckles issued to German Soldiers during WWII carried the phrase, "God Is With Us".

DA. This thread has suddenly become magnificent. Bob Dylan songs. That was one of the first of his I heard. It's probably because of him I am a fulltime musician and teacher these days.

Musician goes to heaven and sees a man with a long white beard strumming a guitar and singing badly. "Don't worry about him" says Saint Peter. "It's God. Thinks he's Bob Dylan".

God is living. He lives amongst us. His glance pierces our inmost being. His rays of hope are caught upon our thirsting lips. His peace surpasses all understanding. His power is more than that of the water?s crushing waves. His voices speaks forth truth. Yet men reject Him and His words. Man who is so easily corruptible; swaying in the deep recesses of the ocean! Man whose glory is as the flower; fragrant for a season, and withering the next. His time on this green earth is but a blink of an eye. And yet he is prideful, and vain. Not knowing that he is but a temporal creature, under the watchful eyes of his Creator. O, vanity of man, casting aside all reason! Why must you abandon reason, and place unreason in its stead; and calling it such blasphemous names as reason, and progress! Man, know that you are but dust, withering away in the storm of life. All is vanity under this harsh sun, all grass withers. Turn now to your Maker, and He will give you that which is not perishable. He alone knows the inner workings of this universe, and He alone is the divine watchmaker, and He alone is our universal truth, and He alone is God. Those who would follow him will mount up on the wings of eagles, and the wings of the dawn. They will surely renew their strength, and not remain arrogant; for they know that their plight is but for a moment, and they remain humble. O, Man, follow your infinite Creator! Turn to Him, and confess your deeds; for He alone is worthy!

I wrote this poem, to my Creator and Lord, for I like poetry.

Tim. Nice poem and may be true. But how can we know how to "follow your infinite Creator! Turn to Him, and confess your deeds;"

There are so many groups who claim to know the true path how can we decide which is correct? They can't all be. Note my post at the top of the page (#18929 - March 14). For those reasons we can be sure the Creator you talk about is not the god of the Old Testament.

Tim. Nice poem and may be true. But how can we know how to "follow your infinite Creator! Turn to Him, and confess your deeds;"

There are so many groups who claim to know the true path how can we decide which is correct? They can't all be. Note my post at the top of the page (#18929 - March 14). For those reasons we can be sure the Creator you talk about is not the god of the Old Testament.

Tim wrote:
"God is living. He lives amongst us. His glance pierces our inmost being."

Tim ... on the chance that you are serious and over 15 years old please see your family physician. There is treatment available for people who see things that are not there. And yes I am being serious not sarcastic. You seem like a very troubled young man and with treatment modern medicine I've no doubt you can lead a normal life.

If your post is just another troll from a prosletyzer then please feel free to believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Invisible Purple Rhinoceros as that is your right and you are welcome to the self-deception of your choice. But if you are going to post at a science website statements that are irrational you will be treated as a troll.

While you are deciding whether you are a troubled young man or a troll ... and we will be awaiting your answer ... please humor us by explaining to us why male mammals have nipples. Thanks.

I am not a troulbed young man or a troll
and why wouldn?t male mammals have nipples?
y would it be irrational to beleive in God or a god?
on the contrary, beleiving that you just happened to exist due to millions of unexplained phenomenas that happened in just the right order is irrational
thinking that there is Something who created this frail existence is rational

Tim Wrote:-

on the contrary, beleiving that you just happened to exist due to millions of unexplained phenomenas that happened in just the right order is irrational
**************************************
Why is it more irrational to believe that as a result of marvellous chaotic events this planet, indeed this universe, has become what it was, what it is and what it will be? What is rational about believing that some one or some thing did it all?

I find that much easier to believe in a random beginning than that anything could plan it all, if only because there is so much to be fixed up- if it had been planned it's not a good job.

PS... Tim.. Male mammals shouldn't have nipples because they don't need them. Nipples are for feeding babies, girls need them (the human race needs them to need them!) boys don't need them. It's part of the bad planning I was on about!

Tim, you must be aware that a vast number of previously unexplained phenomena have been explained during the past few centuries. The number of unexplained phenomena continues to decrease with the accelerating advance of scientific knowledge. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it seems to me pretty certain that it never will - answers tend to open doors to new questions - but science moves forward continually. The proof of it's success is all around you. Historically, the response of the Christian church to scientific advancement has been, at best foot-dragging, at worst violent and hateful persecution of so-called heretics. I would ask you, in the friendliest way I can, please read about the scientific method. Argue about it if you like - that's one way to learn. If you can understand it well, then that's a first step through the door from ignorance to enlightenment.

Here's a sample from a very long list of links on the scientific method:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

Good Luck.

Males, in some circumstances can produce milk for their young and supplement that of the Mother's. Male lactation is well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

Why should male nipples present a problem to the theist?

It probably presents a problem to 'Six Day Creationists', but then so does everything else.

As for Ellis statement:

..............................................................

"Why is it more irrational to believe that as a result of marvellous chaotic events this planet, indeed this universe, has become what it was, what it is and what it will be? What is rational about believing that some one or some thing did it all?"

...............................................................

It interests me that you include the word 'marvellous'. Try as materialists might, they cannot get away from invoking such words when they talk about the universe. It interests me that when talking about random, meaningless actions we can barely restrain ourselves from using words associated with meaning.

"marvellous: being or having the character of a miracle "

Because of the degree of fine tuning involved in the universe, we can easily ask the question, "has some form of intelligence ordered it in such an improbable way?"

Because as the Theoretical Physicist, Professor Paul Davis says, "it is as if the universe knew we were coming," then why should it be irrational to ask the question, "is there something that has set this all up?"

So the idea that there is some previously existing entity that has created and precisely ordered all of this to achieve the eventual rise of sentient creatures does not seem out of the bounds of possibility.

The alternative is that this universe appeared from nothing and fortuitously came about with just the right balance of fundamental forces etc. involving odds of 10-120 that when combined with the odds of other properties occurring, rockets up to astronomic proportions of improbability. We then have further chance occurrences that result in life appearing, and all the while the laws of the universe work in just such a way that we obtain mind from base chemicals and suddenly the universe has produced something that is able to examine the nature of itself and even re-order the universe for its own ends, and seemingly break free of determinism and exert itself on its surroundings by free-will.

The material universe produces minds of almost unfathomable complexity by accident.

Believe that if you want, but then don't call the religious irrational.

Surely the only intellectually honest position is agnostic - following in the footsteps of the great Atheist Professor Anthony Flew who, after decades of aggressive atheism, renounced it all and said that advances in the understanding of cosmology and genetics made it clear that there was AN OVERWHELMING ARGUMENT TO DESIGN.

It is clearly not irrational to believe in a creator. I would concede that this in no way leads us to the Christian God. But I feel it takes an equally giant step of faith to jump to Atheism.


Blacknad.

Hi, Blacknad. Some bones to pick with you:

You said:

"It interests me that you include the word 'marvellous'. Try as materialists might, they cannot get away from invoking such words when they talk about the universe"

and

"marvellous: being or having the character of a miracle "

I found three definitions of marvellous (below). It's no coincidence that you chose No.2 is it? - when it's quite obvious that Ellis chose No.1. I, also, am inclined to use such words from time to time with reference to the cosmos or, equally, to it's more miniscule contents. Is there a problem with that, or must such words be reserved for religious experience?

1 : causing wonder : astonishing
2 : miraculous, supernatural ?Gothic tales of the marvellous and the bizarre?
3 : of the highest kind or quality : notably superior ?has a marvellous way with children?

You said:

"...Atheist Professor Anthony Flew who, after decades of aggressive atheism, renounced it all and said that advances in the understanding of cosmology and genetics made it clear that there was AN OVERWHELMING ARGUMENT TO DESIGN"

Given an hour or so, I could give a long list of links to the views of other professors who make it clear that there is AN OVERWHELMING ARGUMENT AGAINST [intelligent] DESIGN.

As for rationality, Intelligent Design adherents might be harmless enough if they didn't propagate opposition to rational scientific research. Unfortunately that?s exactly what they do.

Tim and Blacknad with respect to male mammals having nipples ... lets get serious here.

If a perfect, all knowing, sentient entity created nipples on males it had to be for a reason: god's don't make mistakes do they?

So when was the last time you saw a male dog nursing pups? or a male horse a foal? or a male wombat? shall I continue or do you get the point? Male polar bears are not nursing pups. Get real.

What you are clinging to is an anachronism. A belief system that only exists because of your upbringing. Had you been born in a different country to different parents in a different culture your belief system would be different. You have a book that has no author, that was cobbled together for political reasons, and a faith that demands of you that you disavow reason, disavow evidence, disavow rationality and put your life into the hands of someone who it would appear drowned every living being on this planet save the members of one family.

I thought England made major progress with the Magna Carta and the implementation of Parliament and the rule of law. Is there really still a need to bow to and worship and pray for foregiveness at the feet of the lord of the manor?

Redwenur,

You have jumped on the particular and you are right - I used a definition to suit me, but only because it illustrates my point - no dishonesty intended. I was, however, pointing to the general use of these types of words.

Evolutionists (for the record, I am one) cannot help but talk in terms of 'purpose' no matter how much they try.

Einstein talked of 'God not playing dice' - it has to be asked (as the philosopher Mary Midgley rightly does), why would such a great man find the need to use such words to describe a purely material phenomena? He would not have uttered them without choosing them carefully and would have been well aware of their connotations.

I concede that it is overall a weak point but it does interest me. We cannot describe objective existence without these words with their subjective overtones.

1. If we knocked over some tins of paint and it accidently formed a beautiful painting then we might be surprised.

2. When we look at a painting by one of the great masters we are awed and moved emotionally. This is more akin to the religious experience of worshipping the designer behind the design.

When we look at the universe we experience number 2. We think in hyperbolic terms.



As for the professors you mention - of course they would state in the strongest terms that there is no evidence of design. This is partially because of the war of paradigms. Why would they allow an inch of ground to be offered to the religious who would be all over it like a rash? But I do not see how they can objectify this yet. Can they really objectively rule out design behind the makeup of the universe?

How?

Anyway, that was not my point and I am not looking for a democratic vote on the subject - one side wins because it has more believers and therefore Anthony Flew is irrational by democratic decree.

Ellis asked - "What is rational about believing that some one or some thing did it all?"

I pointed to two rational Professors and could list many more, who either belive that there is design in the universe (and it therefore follows 'a designer'), or just accept that it looks very much like it could be the case.

I could list many many more.

I submit that it is clearly not irrational to believe in a designer.

Blacknad.

Dan,

You really need to drop the male nipple thing. It just shouts out an inability to think widely enough to get the fact that the reason the theist would give for there being male nipples is exactly the same as the evolutionist would give.

And it has nothing to do with poor design.

Scientists marvel at the incredible process of evolution, but then scoff that it's not good enough when someone posits an intelligent entity that kicked it into action by creating laws that would accomplish intelligent life.

The poor design accusations made by atheists as proof of the lack of a god fails logically.

It assumes that anything that this god does should appear perfect in our eyes.

It is logically consistent that a creator could create something that is far from perfect but is still fit for the creator's purposes. Proove otherwise.

Blacknad.