religious debate

[Guest]

No, just fewer people are posting on this thread. Some people are even saying that they are leaving the debate permanently.

The problem is, most of what needs to be said has been said, there is little more to say. The only way for this thread to keep going is for the theists to come up with better evidence and reasons for their opinion, and that doesn't seem ike it will happen.

[Guest]

Working on it ... but you guys sure don't make it easy.

[Guest]

Working on it ... but you guys sure don't make it easy.

Don't blame us. We didn't make it hard. God did it!

[akaslickster]

Okay, I can make it simple. 69 pages and what does it mean? Either you are religious and have a faith or you do not. If you are in between then, after you pass away, you will find out maybe. Yapping about it does not prove diddly pie.

[Guest]

Okay, I can make it simple. 69 pages and what does it mean? Either you are religious and have a faith or you do not. If you are in between then, after you pass away, you will find out maybe. Yapping about it does not prove diddly pie.

Proof of diddly pie isn't really what we're after (though it's easily derived from the Cottleston Pie Theorem). It's the in-betweeners that matter. Appreciating the erosion of rationality caused by faith and the abdication of moral responsibility (for war and the environment in particular) that belief in God engenders is really important. Humankind needs to move on and shake off superstition, its taking our species in a very bad direction. If all that is accomplished is encouraging athiests to speak out without apology, then that's worthwhile. If a few people can get a better perspective on why so many people fervently believe stuff that makes no sense, even better.

Personally I've had a lot of fun with this, and it's been an education in human nature.

[akaslickster]

Proof of diddly pie isn't really what we're after (though it's easily derived from the Cottleston Pie Theorem). It's the in-betweeners that matter. Appreciating the erosion of rationality caused by faith and the abdication of moral responsibility (for war and the environment in particular) that belief in God engenders is really important. Humankind needs to move on and shake off superstition, its taking our species in a very bad direction. If all that is accomplished is encouraging athiests to speak out without apology, then that's worthwhile. If a few people can get a better perspective on why so many people fervently believe stuff that makes no sense, even better.

Personally I've had a lot of fun with this, and it's been an education in human nature.

Yes, that sounds more like it. I won't pull out any written shinola unless I can back it up with living proof. I guess I lost my belief yet, I don't feel any the more naked. An old adage I stay with, " To each their own and peace throughout the entire world" , as bickering over right and wrong was never helpful for a solution to the absolute truth of why humans even exist. Who gives a crud what is correct if it does'nt hinder our well being. We only live here for a short time and then it is up to the next generation to do the exact same thing. In conclusion of this paragraph, I will add that it is not who you are, it is what you do on this earth while you are alive. Be it religion or not. Peace out!

[Guest]

Yes, that sounds more like it. I won't pull out any written shinola unless I can back it up with living proof. I guess I lost my belief yet, I don't feel any the more naked. An old adage I stay with, " To each their own and peace throughout the entire world" , as bickering over right and wrong was never helpful for a solution to the absolute truth of why humans even exist. Who gives a crud what is correct if it does'nt hinder our well being. We only live here for a short time and then it is up to the next generation to do the exact same thing. In conclusion of this paragraph, I will add that it is not who you are, it is what you do on this earth while you are alive. Be it religion or not. Peace out!

im just as bored with this... although some of their reactions are quite insulting, some are just as amusing as those are insulting lol, i'm staying in unless anyone's against it!

[Guest]

Weeoow

What is this "God" you speak of? I have seen no evidence of any such thing existing.

On the highest what? The Highest Magic Mushroom trip perhaps?

He Pours!

He's Imaginary, He reigns over magical pixie land.

Daddy Issues?

Sounds a tad incest like - "Incest the game the whole family can play" (okay, that was pretty bad.)

I fail to see the worthiness of something that you lot can't even provide a shred of evidence or reasoning to make it worthy of deeming its existence even remotely plausible.

Any evidence for this wild claim?

No? Okay then, buh bye.

We have much better explanations of all those things now - religion (yours included) was just our species first and worst attempt, it failed. Why not check out it's successors; Philosophy and Science. Careful though they might be a bit different to what you are used to - they actually make sense, and value reason and critical assessment.

Oh, I do!

No, I don't think your imaginary friend is the reason, sorry

Well that was a nice bit of preaching nonsense right thegirlyouneverknew. Thanks for that timely example of just how irrational and senseless real religious indoctrination can make one.

Do you actually have anything remotely rational to say, or was it just the religious rant then?

(By the way, why do Faith-Heads always have these grammar issues - in this case excessive CAPITALISATION?)

Oh what the heck

Glory to The Flying Spaghetti Monster on the HIGHEST!

HE REIGNS!

Worthy is the Great pasta above!

He created the heavens and Earth, the sun and the rain!

Who here believes in coincidence?

EVERYTHING happens for a reason. the reason is THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Ramen.

lol. just felt like blurting out something for a reaction... WOO HOO it worked... and um first response... on the highest and in the highest... different things but i did mean to say on instead of in so that's for that... hmmm, on page 51 is it? i think... just a side note, i am not proud of the Catholic religion. It actually pisses me off because it makes people stupid and it makes them hate the Lord, and what is UP with the chanting? wtf? did you ever hear of chanting for the Lord in the bible? no. there is music for the Lord, and you dance for the Lord, and you do watever you do for the Lord... i don't know ANYONE who actually enjoys chanting. it's stupid.

besides that, i am NOT disregarding Catholics, just stating my opinion. you should never just be in a religion to please yr parents or watever. it should be based on belief.

grr. okay, as for this response. you remind me of my friend josh. the magical pixie land you say? you sound a bit insane there lol. does there HAVE to be evidence to EVERY BLESSED THING?!?!? nope. sometimes there is no evidence and there are things you can't explain. mystery is a gift in life, and your laughing at that "a gift from WHO?!?!" ... "this GOD of yours?"

lol. yes. lol. and you know what, I just felt like randomly capitalizing things. i'm random, so sew me. and also i'm surprised at the Faith-Heads remark... you non-faith-brain. lol. don't take offense! i don't get "He Pours"

hmmm. wat else... oh... wat is this Magic Mushroom? dude, I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about creation... tell me again, wat made the Earth... a dust speck or explosion... well... where did THAT come from, huh?

answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain.

p.m. me to talk in private if you wish. or start it up again and have all these "Faith-Heads" join in. hopefully this gets somewhere. lol. your funny btw. lol.

Edited July 8, 2008 by ADParker

[Guest]

lol. just felt like blurting out something for a reaction... WOO HOO it worked... and um first response... on the highest and in the highest... different things but i did mean to say on instead of in so that's for that... hmmm, on page 51 is it?

lol (smilie edited, cause there was 1 too many) That's okay, works either way.

i think... just a side note, i am not proud of the Catholic religion. It actually pisses me off because it makes people stupid and it makes them hate the Lord, and what is UP with the chanting? wtf? did you ever hear of chanting for the Lord in the bible? no. there is music for the Lord, and you dance for the Lord, and you do watever you do for the Lord... i don't know ANYONE who actually enjoys chanting. it's stupid.

besides that, i am NOT disregarding Catholics, just stating my opinion. you should never just be in a religion to please yr parents or watever. it should be based on belief.

Okay, whatever. You shouldn't be in a religion or not based on if they chant or not either - shouldn't it be based on what they claim is true, and how they back those claims up? Surely.

grr. okay, as for this response. you remind me of my friend josh. the magical pixie land you say? you sound a bit insane there lol.

It's an allusion to God being imaginary and thus anything he can be said to reign over is likewise imaginary (like a magical pixie land.) The only insanity would be in believing it is real.

does there HAVE to be evidence to EVERY BLESSED THING?!?!? nope. sometimes there is no evidence and there are things you can't explain. mystery is a gift in life, and your laughing at that "a gift from WHO?!?!" ... "this GOD of yours?"

Yes there should rightly be evidence for anything that one believes in. It doesn't have to be complete (thus Known), but enough to make it at least reasonable to think, believe or accept that it is real.

Yes there are things we can't explain; a grown up would simply accept that - that is not to say accept it as unknowable and forget about it; heavens no; by all means try to find an explanation - but until such evidence is found, accept that you simply do not know the answer. No need to believe any old offered answer just to be comforted in your illusion of knowledge.

I hate this ridiculous religion born concept: Mystery is a Gift?! No it is most definitely not. "Mystery" is just a way of saying "something we are ignorant of". That is not a gift, that is simply something we don't know or understand.

You think ignorance is a gift?! Says a lot about your religion. I hope you don't go to that atrocious extreme of believing that it is somehow admirable and virtuous to try to maintain something as a Mystery! - that is; to attempt to keep it from getting explained.

The only good thing about "Mystery", the only thing I like about it, is the opportunity it presents to uncovering the mystery, to undoing it and making it a mystery no more. But to say therefore mystery is a good thing is like saying A murder is a good thing if you are a police detective, because you get to try to solve it. Or being illiterate is a "gift" because you get to learn to read

No, I laugh at those who say things like you just did, but it's a sad laugh indeed.

Are you suggesting I thank your God for all this wealth of ignorance he has given me?!

lol. yes. lol. and you know what, I just felt like randomly capitalizing things. i'm random, so sew me. and also i'm surprised at the Faith-Heads remark... you non-faith-brain. lol. don't take offense! i don't get "He Pours"

I don't take offense unless one personally attacks me; when offense is clearly intended.

The Faith-Head remark is a way of stipulating that I mean the real in deep religious types, who take it to the extreme - there are religious believers and then there are Faith-Heads. The more people seem to lean toward that extreme, the more notable these kinds of oddities tend to come to the fore. The main three are (found individually or combined):

1. a complete lack of capitalisation, i (and many others) find it most annoying when they can't even capitalise the word "i".

2. EXTREME capitalisation of CERTAIN words, like GOD, but often innumerable others as well, some SEEMINGLY for no reason AT ALL.

3. The odd way of cutting sentences

into little pieces, much

like the religious rant you just gave, to which this

is all about. In other words much like many of

their scriptures and hymns etc. are written.

The "He Pours" crack is in response to your "HE REIGNS!"

"He Reigns, he pours." Like "It rains, it pours." Get it?

hmmm. wat else... oh... wat is this Magic Mushroom? dude, I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about creation... tell me again, wat made the Earth... a dust speck or explosion... well... where did THAT come from, huh?

This is funny because that particular reference to "magic" wasn't about real magic at all:

"Magic Mushroom" is the popular name for a type of mushroom that when ingested produces a hallucinatory effect; they are a natural recreational drug. Like marijuana. So I was referring to God being "High" as you said, as being High in the drug taking sense of the word.

Creation in this sense of a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time, is evoking magic. (although I lump "magic" in with "mystery"; another cover word for "the unknown, that which we are ignorant of".)

What made the earth? Natural forces, the fundamental ones: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong Nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. All acting on matter that resulted from the big bang, star formation, star destruction and new star formations...There is a whole bunch of science behind that one, just look on YouTube for some nice little vids on it (easier than reading through the science.)

If you want to read how the earth (and much more, like most of the rest of the universe) formed then I suggest you read Origins by Neil deGrasse Tyson. But for a start you can watch the documantary he made based on it:

Here's the first one of the series on YouTube.

"a dust speck or explosion." Are you perhaps alluding to the origin of the Universe and not the Earth at all?! Why do so many theists have such trouble with that distinction? I mean the Earth is a single planet with a radius of about 6,371 km (0.0000000007 ly) , while the universe is an immense thing containing billions of stars and planets (and more) whose observable radius is about 47.5 billion light years (450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km)

And the big bang theory eh? And how did the universe first come to be? Well the answer is.... I don't know. There are numerous theories and astrophysicists, cosmologists, quantum physicists etc. are working on it. But unlike many people I don't feel the need to fill that gap in my understanding with some primitive myth, to comfort me. I can quite happily accept that I am ignorant in that area at present (and may well always be so). There is no reason, none whatsoever, to even consider it at all plausible that it was created by a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time. Largely because there is no evidence or reason to assume that there is any such thing.

And as you brought it up. Might I enquire what needs the greater explanation for it's existence:

1. This "Speck", or

2. This "Supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time"?

Once again; Ignorance, not having the answer, in no way improves the plausibility of the God-Hypothesis!

answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain.

Wow you've got it bad!

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We and modern monkeys (which actually form two families; old and new world monkeys) share a common ancestor.

But first; once again personal igorance on how something happened does not infer; therfore GODDIDIT. All it infers is what it is "I don't know", ignorance.

But as it is an interesting subject: There is a hel of a lot of evidence for our common ancestry with our fellow primates as it happens. the two branches of monkey are somewhat more distant, but our closer cousins esp. the two surviving species of Chimpanzee, show remarkable connections! Again check out some YouTube videos for a crash course.

This for a start:

And there are plenty more.

If you are willing to actually read something on it:

Chimps are human, gene study implies

Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry

Monkeys turning into humans is nothing more than a ridiculously childish strawman caricature of the real science, offered by Religious Creationists apologetics alone! You have been duped by "Liars for Jesus." (unless you are one of them of course, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.)

p.m. me to talk in private if you wish. or start it up again and have all these "Faith-Heads" join in. hopefully this gets somewhere. lol. your funny btw. lol.

I am more than happy to take this onto the public forum, and would have posted the above there, if not for your response being in this private manner. I am more than willing to repost this on the forum proper, if you are not opposed to it. As your PM post (as quoted by me here) would therefore be displayed there as well.

lol. oooo. good one! lately i have no time to write that long of a message, being an author and scientist, and other things, i have no time for much. i feel that it's important to take time for people who would leave such a long message for what they believe in. i'll leave you just as long of a message as soon as i have the time.

you can post my response on the forum... i'd be oblidged since lately my computer doesn't seem to want that to work for me... lol

besides all of that, id like to know... what is the common ancestor and no need for the benefit of the doubt... i don't need that because i'm sure that I'm not lying for Jesus. I'm am just trying to keep a fair fight and not give the other advantage (or myself an unfair advantage) please educate me, and I will, in return, answer any questions. lol thank you.

[Guest]

you can post my response on the forum... i'd be oblidged since lately my computer doesn't seem to want that to work for me... lol

Done

And now that we are back in "forum land":

besides all of that, id like to know... what is the common ancestor and no need for the benefit of the doubt... i don't need that because i'm sure that I'm not lying for Jesus. I'm am just trying to keep a fair fight and not give the other advantage (or myself an unfair advantage) please educate me, and I will, in return, answer any questions. lol thank you.

The "common ancestor" of what?

Common Ancestor is not a single thing you know, it's a general concept.

The common ancestor of my brother and I for example is our mother and father

The common ancestor of all the mitochondria living in every human being alive today is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (because Mitochondria are only passed through the female line, via the Ova) who she is or exactly when she lived is a big question mark. And who she is changes as the current body of living humans shifts.

The common ancestor of we Humans (Homo sapiens) and our closest living 'cousins', the Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)and Bonobo (Pan paniscus).

What exactly it was is in question, as one would expect, the fossil record only gives us so much, and when you get down to the details of within a few million years it gets sketchy. Our Most recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is thought to have lived about 6,000,000 years ago (best estimate: 5.4 to 6.3 million years ago). It was most definitely a Primate, as we and Chimpanzees are both primates, other similarities suggest the features of that MRCA.

In fact here are our Scientific classifications:

Domain:				 Eukaryota

Kingdom:				Animalia

Phylum:				 Chordata

Class:				  Mammalia

Order:				  Primates

Suborder:			   Haplorrhini

Infraorder:			 Simiiformes

Parvorder:			  Catarrhini

Superfamily:			Hominoidea

Family:				 Hominidae

Subfamily:			  Homininae

Tribe:				  Hominini

Subtribe:	Hominina			   Panina

Genus:	   Homo				   Pan

Species:	 H. sapiens			 P. troglodytes

Here are some family trees to help:

These guys lived around the time of that split, so if not the actual MRCA of humans and chimpanzees, they are pretty close to it:

Orrorin tugenensis ( 6.1 and 5.8 million years ago)

Sahelanthropus tchadensis (~7 million years ago)

[Guest]

Hello,anybody there? Is this thing on? Have I finally been released from the Troll cage?

[Guest]

Hello,anybody there? Is this thing on? Have I finally been released from the Troll cage?

Hej, been a while (over a month) - well I'm still here, don't know about anyone else.

[Guest]

I was looking at the info you provided and I have to admit that you've got some learnin in you. That being said your proof still shows that evolution has not by any means been proven to the point that every living creature came from the same common ancestor. At some point shouldn't all life on this planet be traced back to sponge bob or some other aquatic life form? Wheres that evidence.

Monkeys turning into humans is nothing more than a ridiculously childish strawman caricature of the real science, offered by Religious Creationists apologetics alone! You have been duped by "Liars for Jesus." (unless you are one of them of course, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.)

I don't know why you attribute this to liars for jesus. This is common to theists and atheists alike. I'm willing to bet that a majority of people posting on this debate can only give a cursory third grade definition of what the theory of evolution is all about. Even then most would have to look it up.

BTW since I was deemed a Troll by the referee I want to make it clear that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I have many christian beliefs but I am not a christian. I am probably closer to being an atheist than I am to a theist but I suppose I still believe in God. In some ways I have to. I've had a few personal experiences that almost require I believe but unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ,I still doubt those beliefs. I won't get specific but let me put it this way, if one day God walked up and kicked you square in the nuts and left a boot heel tattoo on your scrotum that said "Believe or die". What would you do? Ignore it or embrace it.(The warning not the nut sack.)

What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to qualify as proof that God exists. Does a person have to drag Gods bloody carcass in and lay it at your feet or will just the head suffice? How about his right hand or maybe just a finger off his right hand? How about the finger nail off the pinky of his right hand? The fear of God was put in to me long ago and wether it was drug induced,a mental disorder or too much pizza its hard not to believe.

Proof that there isn't a God is what I'm looking for. So far the insults, ridicule, and sheer smugness of some of the people that post on this thread hasn't done much to bolster the atheist view point of this quasi-theist. If being like them is what it is to be atheist then no thanks. Theres a few of you atheist that have some good things to ponder and if nothing else keep things interesting and entertaining( adparker and unreality to name a couple.) Which of course shows a little higher class of intelligence.

Oops times up. Gotta go

[Guest]

I was looking at the info you provided and I have to admit that you've got some learnin in you. That being said your proof still shows that evolution has not by any means been proven to the point that every living creature came from the same common ancestor.

As I said, its been a while, can’t even remember what I wrote (yeah I could just read it again )

It wasn't "proof" - I you are looking for Proof try Mathematics, or Alcohol. What it was was a small representation of the overwhelming evidence. And only for one certain aspect of evolution, the common ancestry of humans and Chimpanzees - a minuscule slice of the whole "pie."

The simple fact of the matter is that Evolution is a fact - that is; it happens, all the process are known to occur. The Theory of Evolution (ToE)deals with what those facts lead too. This is your "living creature came from the same common ancestor" and much else besides. The weight of the evidence for the various theories therein (ToE is an umbrella term for innumerable theories of course) varies from highly speculative to pretty much beyond all reasonable doubt. The common ancestry of all life on this planet is a strong theory indeed, supported by evidence in genetics, embryology, morphology, comparative anatomy, fossils, homology, distribution (chronological and geological)...

Not only does each of these provide impressive evidence themselves, more important is that they, while coming from often completely different directions, match up so perfectly.

A personal favourite point is that:

When one examines a gene of an existing organism we can plot an evolutionary tree for that single gene.

Then when we can do the same for another (same organism or completely different kind of critter, it doesn't matter) we get the exact same tree.

And we do this over and over with more and more genes - same result!

If we then look at something else, like the fossil record which shows when and where certain organisms lived? They fit that same tree perfectly. And on it goes! It is simply staggering!

The upshot is simply this Evolution of all life from a common origin - a "universal common ancestor" if you will - is quite simply not only the best theory for how life came to be as it is, came to be in all its forms over all if its history, but the only remotely viable theory we have. It is the only direction that all the evidence we have ever found points!

Now, you can believe the any of the little religious fairy tales pat answers if you so choose, I can't stop you. But if you value reason and evidence at all you must concede that Evolution is the only viable answer we have. Leaving you the choice to Accept it (not "believe" I', not asking you to bow down to a doctrine here - and thus take it on Faith that it is the one and only truth or whatever, just accept a powerful scientific theory) or choose to take the position that it is "not good enough", or more honestly that you are not convinced - Which leaves you with "I don't know" as the only real answer to the origin of life question. Because if you are going to rely on evidence and reason that is your only real option.

Either was is fine to be honest. But I feel strongly that if one were to take that "Rational" path, they would conclude that Evolution is a highly probable, incredibly well supported by the evidence, theory indeed.

(Man I am hanging out for Richard Dawkins new book, coming out next year! The topic is just this; the Evidence for Evolution - And he is a top evolutionary biologist, and a bloody good science appreciation writer as too boot.)

At some point shouldn't all life on this planet be traced back to sponge bob or some other aquatic life form? Wheres that evidence.

All over the place, there are screeds and screeds of it. Much of it tied up in scientific papers and the like, designed to the eyes of scientists, so would probably make you brain hurt to read them (That's not an insult; the few I have read make mine hurt ) and you would get little out of them. But out of general interest: over 18,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution were published last year alone!

There are good websites out there on this stuff, just surf the web. Most give the results of the evidence more than the evidence itself however, as it is far easier to digest and present to the general public. (That's why I'm hanging out for that book)

I would suggest, if you are really interested in learning abut the actual evidence (as opposed to just declaring it not good enough because it contradicts your particular beliefs or whatever.)

A good start (it was mine, but then I had already taken my God-Goggles off by then) was the books by Richard Dawkins; The Selfish Gene being his first. Ones I would suggest are:

The Blind Watchmaker

Climbing Mount Improbable

The Ancestor's Tale (That's a long one though)

As for online resources, generally not quite as good to be honest, but how about:

Evolution Resources (Updated 7th June 2008 ): This is A forum linking to a lot of such resources unearthed by members of The Richard Dawkins forum - a lot of good stuff there.

Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

The Evolution Evidence Page

Another step won; Videos - easy to just sit back and take in, but generally even lighter on detail and quantity of information:

Growing Up in the Universe: A lecture series Richard Dawkins gave way back in 1991.

He's got a bunch of other good videos as well, go have a look.

- he too has a bunch of good videos, this one is part 7 of a series of various bits of science (origin of universe etc.)

And I am sure you could find a hel of a lot more it you just looked.

I don't know why you attribute this to liars for jesus. This is common to theists and atheists alike. I'm willing to bet that a majority of people posting on this debate can only give a cursory third grade definition of what the theory of evolution is all about. Even then most would have to look it up.

I was speaking of a certain well organised group of religious apologetics, who go out of there way to spin the truth, and spin outright lies, to further their "holy" agenda.

It was in response to this:

"answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain."

as you might recall

There’s Ignorance (which is fine and quite understandable) then there is wilful ignorance, pride in ones ignorance, and the Argument from Ignorance (Its a form of Logical Fallacy.)

I have had people ask me questions like that many times, sometimes they come off (or I give them the benefit of the doubt) as simply ignorant of the subject matter, and/or have been mislead by certain people (creationist preachers or whatnot) into thinking in this way. So I quite patiently and calmly explain it to them. But if they come off as hostile, if it is clear that their question is not so much a genuine enquiry but rather a challenge, a slap across the face, then I react as I did then. Which if you look at it was still giving the benefit of the doubt that she was simply a victim of others who led her to believe these lies.

Oh and as too "Even then most would have to look it up" you know what? Good for them (I look up stuff all the time, even when I think I could get by without doing so), but she came off as one who was convinced, and thus felt no need to look it up, she was right and I was wrong, that's all there is to it.

BTW since I was deemed a Troll by the referee I want to make it clear that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I have many christian beliefs but I am not a christian. I am probably closer to being an atheist than I am to a theist but I suppose I still believe in God.

<Shrug> I just argue the reasoning - I would call myself a Reasonist more than anything.

You would be a Theist - as you believe in a god, which is what theism means; "belief in gods." But that that's just a technicality, call yourself as you will.

In some ways I have to. I've had a few personal experiences that almost require I believe but unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ,I still doubt those beliefs.

Fortunately - Doubt is always good, always!

The problem with personal experiences is that they are largely non-transferable. That you had them offers us no reason to believe as you do, because we haven't. At best you could describe them, but depending of the details, and how well you could convey them, it might be hard for anyone else to fully assess their truth value.

I have heard of a few such personal experiences that were rather easy to demonstrate that they simply did not rationally lead to the belief the experiencer got from them, but they were rather trivial examples.

I won't get specific but let me put it this way, if one day God walked up and kicked you square in the nuts and left a boot heel tattoo on your scrotum that said "Believe or die". What would you do? Ignore it or embrace it.(The warning not the nut sack.)

Well you are assuming that I would somehow know that this assaulting arsehole was indeed God, but I do have a couple of responses to that:

1. If it was such that I knew that it was god, then of course I would believe that God existed (in as much as I could ascertain about him) that is simply the rational response - give me evidence and I wil accept it for what it is.

2. I would believe that God is a complete and utter wanker.

3. As too "Believe or Die" well I would be highly offended at such a atrocious Appeal to Consequences (Logical Fallacy) One should never believe something simply because bad consequences will arise (or at least be threatened to arise) if you don't (or the reverse believe something because good consequences will come if you do) - one should only believe (or better yet; accept) something because there is Reason to believe that thing. An analogy to push home the problem with this fallacy is: I "believe" that the Nazi's killed ~12,000,000 people during their reign of terror - Now I would very much prefer it if they hadn't, and if I didn't have to believe it was true; but the evidence supports it no matter the consequences of it being true.

It is of course much like being told to believe in Santa Claws, because if you don’t you won't get any presents. It's the old Carrot / Stick ploy. Argument through wishful thinking or fear - reward and punishment. Something used in brainwashing techniques as it happens.

If not for by valuing of reason (which would force me to believe in him, cause he's right there) I would be sorely tempted to refuse to "Believe" just to spite such an arsehole that world make such a threat.

As it happens I am under just such a thing at the moment - My employer (big faceless company) has made it that we must do this silly, worthless task (to us, them, anyone) a number of times over the year in order to receive our annual "bonus" (it's not really a bonus at all, its a contracted part of our pay). This is quite simply a bribe: do this task and receive this prize (carrot) or conversely a threat: Don't do it and no bonus for you (Stick). Ethically and Rationally I can simply not bring myself to do it. And as I said last year; if we cave in they will just come up with something worse this year - I didn't cave but every one else did and covered my short fall (we got the bonus). And I was right it's even more inane this year (And it looks like everyone will cave once again - but this time it is done on an individual basis.)

But anyway – back on track: I would believe if given reason to do so, but in this situation It is pretty clear that I would go from one who has no belief in any gods, to someone who realises (is it really "belief" when you know it's true?) that this god does exist, and is a complete Logical fallacy spinning, physically assaulting complete and utter wanker! As a result I certainly wouldn't worship the prick or any such thing. And might well lead a charge to convince everyone that God is real and someone to be avoided and fought against, a real threat, basically that God exists but that he is to be shunned and most definitely not one to follow at all.

What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to qualify as proof that God exists.

Proof? Well that's easy - 100%

But then that is what proof means.

But what would be sufficient evidence to conclude that god most probably does exist? I don't know. But I would like to see some actual evidence, any at all - it would be a start; enough to render the God-Hypothesis something worth considering at least. As much as I have tries, and as often as I have asked; I have yet to see a single shred of it.

Oh don't get me wrong' many many attempts, just none that held up to the slightest scrutiny.

Does a person have to drag Gods bloody carcass in and lay it at your feet or will just the head suffice? How about his right hand or maybe just a finger off his right hand? How about the finger nail off the pinky of his right hand?

Well actual physical evidence of his actual body parts would clinch it if it could be confirmed as his (not as easy as one might think though is that?) - not that he would have to be dead for that - in fact living tissue is better of course.

The fear of God was put in to me long ago and wether it was drug induced,a mental disorder or too much pizza its hard not to believe.

Wow, that’s quite an admission on your part there. I would suggest pondering on that one a good while.

It is actually some realisation like that in me that lead me escape from my own religious indoctrination. I too only believed through logical fallacy laden causes - mine was more appeal to Authority than your Appeal to Consequences Logical Fallacy - perhaps that is why it was easier for me.

You believe because you have been made to fear God? To fear the consequences of not believing as wel I would guess (hell and all that). That is simply horrible - It is one of the things I really hate about Organised religion (my Grandmother was one of those hellfire types - scared the s*** out of me) teaching (no; indoctrinating) impressionable minds (esp. kids) to fear God, Non-belief (this is the belief in belief crap), or even doubting the "one true faith", through (unsubstantiated) threats of eternal pain and suffering - it is just vile. And as I already mentioned; a tried and true brainwashing technique.

I know it's a hard thing to break free of, but it is important to realise and remember this: Fear is not a reason to believe anything - that is a wholly irrational idea!

Grr.. Too many quotes again. Oh well rather than mangle my post I will simply cut it in two.

[Guest]

Continuing on:

Proof that there isn't a God is what I'm looking for.

Well that's pointless for a number of reasons:

1. The Burden of proof is on the one with the positive claim.

2. You are asking the wrong guy - I make no claim that god does not exist, merely that there is no reason to believe this ridiculous God-hypothesis is at all true. There is simply no evidence of Reason to believe it.

3. There is a saying, a cliché: You can't prove a negative. Perhaps not strictly true, but it has real truth value. Proving God exists should be relatively easy - produce him. But proving he doesn't exist would be much more difficult - how could one do it? Show he is not to be found in every single corner of the entire universe? (We know even that, which is pretty much impossible anyway, wouldn't suffice)

So far the insults, ridicule, and sheer smugness of some of the people that post on this thread hasn't done much to bolster the atheist view point of this quasi-theist.

<shrug> Can't speak for anyone else.

There is no "Atheist view point" Atheism is simply not-theism. To call one an atheist is simply ti say that they are not a theist - not a god believer. It is not that I as an Atheist have any particular beliefs or viewpoints, but simply that I do not absribe, accept as true, one particlaur type of belief - God-belief.

To get this point across I should also mentionthat I am also an Afairyist, and Anelfist, and Agoblinist, and Aracist, and Asexist... They all describe certain beliefs or view points that I DON'T HAVE.

If being like them is what it is to be atheist then no thanks.

(This forum is a proportionately yong one remember) No, being an Atheist simply entails not having a positive belief in any Magical Sky Fairies

Theres a few of you atheist that have some good things to ponder and if nothing else keep things interesting and entertaining( adparker and unreality to name a couple.) Which of course shows a little higher class of intelligence.

Oops times up. Gotta go

Hey, just because someone has not brought into any of the pre-scientific, pre-philosophical Fairy tales of our intellectual infancy (religiousone that is) doesn't mean they can't still be complete idiots (although most studies show a negative correlation between religious belief and intellect - this is a proprtions scale type deal, meaning that even so, there ar geniuses and morons in both camps)

[Guest]

(tawanna @ Aug 10 2008, 09:43 PM) *

So far the insults, ridicule, and sheer smugness of some of the people that post on this thread hasn't done much to bolster the atheist view point of this quasi-theist.

adparker

<shrug> Can't speak for anyone else.

There is no "Atheist view point" Atheism is simply not-theism. To call one an atheist is simply ti say that they are not a theist - not a god believer. It is not that I as an Atheist have any particular beliefs or viewpoints, but simply that I do not absribe, accept as true, one particlaur type of belief - God-belief.

I agree. My only point was that being a jack a** doesn't help win an arguement and that it tends to be counter productive. I know atheism is a general term but it still categorizes a common point of veiw. Its not much different than the term theist. Theists fall into half a billion different categories but are still labeled under one banner.

1. The Burden of proof is on the one with the positive claim.

2. You are asking the wrong guy - I make no claim that god does not exist, merely that there is no reason to believe this ridiculous God-hypothesis is at all true. There is simply no evidence of Reason to believe it.

3. There is a saying, a cliché: You can't prove a negative. Perhaps not strictly true, but it has real truth value. Proving God exists should be relatively easy - produce him. But proving he doesn't exist would be much more difficult - how could one do it? Show he is not to be found in every single corner of the entire universe? (We know even that, which is pretty much impossible anyway, wouldn't suffice)

I tend to use the word proof and evidence interchangeably. My mistake. I have never tried to prove there is a god because it pointless same as proving theres not. I'm all about logic but one mans logic is another mans fallacy.

I find it ironic that alot of people that don't believe in God don't hesitate to have their chakras aligned, will move chairs because the feng shuei is off or plan their day around the movement of stars.

For many people science is their religion and too many aspects of it are based on feelings and speculation and not on facts. Y2K for example was based on a plausible theory and then taken over by psuedo science and turn into a mokery. The majority of experts agreed that the sky was falling and beat the same drum day after day. They were wrong. Any remotely intelligent person should have known it was a fraud but the"experts" said it was true and therefor no amount of proof or logic would change their mind. There are countless examples of science leading people astray every bit as much as religion has.

I know two wrongs don't make a right but thats my basis for being as skeptical about science as I am about religion. Too much has to be accepted with out independant verification and hence blind faith.

I will go to each and every link you posted and look at the info provided. Chances are I'll learn something new.

My prpose of being on this thread is to find points to ponder and you've given me a few.

[unreality]

I agree that some of the atheists that post here are real jack@sses and it doesn't help the atheist image. But don't judge us by that, please- you've probably met 1% of the world's atheists, and most are awesome people

Edited August 10, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

OK this is probably going to screw with some of your heads but I am an atheist that goes to a United Church of Christ. I am an active member.

This is the same group that Oprah and Obama are members of. Each church is its own entity and makes its own decisions. The congregation rules

and runs everything. We are Open and affirming which means we have many out lgbtq members, staff, leaders. We are very liberal and take a strong stance on social justice as well.

Our pastor questions that there is a god but knows there was a man named Jesus. We are a group of seekers that include christians, buddists, recovering catholics, jews, and zoroastrians.

How bout them apples?

[Guest]

I agree. My only point was that being a jack a** doesn't help win an arguement and that it tends to be counter productive. I know atheism is a general term but it still categorizes a common point of veiw. Its not much different than the term theist. Theists fall into half a billion different categories but are still labeled under one banner.

Well atheists are people like anyone else - Charming intelligent people, jackasses and so on, this of course is because ones nature has little to do with their position on this one topic - unless of course it is the fundamental aspect of their being - (Total Faith-heads usually) and they are almost all jackasses.

I tend to use the word proof and evidence interchangeably. My mistake. I have never tried to prove there is a god because it pointless same as proving theres not. I'm all about logic but one mans logic is another mans fallacy.

It is a mistake when talking science, it has a clear meaning. I agree that the existence of god is probably pretty much improvable, but the point I was trying to drive home is that proving a negative (gods do not exist for instance) is by its very nature of being a negative, far harder. And this is one reason the burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the holder of the positive claim. For me it it enough to show the lack of evidence FOR. Given that; there is no need for evidence AGAINST.

That quote comes to mind once again:

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present." - Calilasseia (RichardDawkins.net forum)

I'm all about logic (even studied in uni) - And most emphatically NO! Logic is Logic; that's the whole point - it transcends personal opinion. If something is a Logical Fallacy; it is a fundamental error in reasoning. It is not a matter of personal opinion - If something is seen by one man as Logic and another as a Logical Fallacy, then one of them is quite simply factually wrong.

I find it ironic that alot of people that don't believe in God don't hesitate to have their chakras aligned, will move chairs because the feng shuei is off or plan their day around the movement of stars.

I once used to as well, but came to realise that it represents a replacement of one crutch for another. Both religion and all that "new Age" stuff (to put it all under one banner) are not really focused on truth and the search thereof, but on comfort and wishful thinking; the desire to feel in control, to have purpose (generally the kind of external given purpose as from a father figure, rather than facing the reality of having to forge ones one.) As such when one looses one comforter (for whatever reason) they may well seek a replacement, or in their vulnerable state be susceptible to be sucked in by any one that comes along. Sad but true

It is not as if all atheists (non-theists) get there in the same way, many of us did come here through a valuing of Reason, and as such tend to be less susceptible to such things, but not everyone is so fortunate.

For many people science is their religion and too many aspects of it are based on feelings and speculation and not on facts.

Science as a Religion - That is called Sciencism (well it should be ) - and it is as irrational as any emotion and feeling based belief system. The problem being that it is not based on reason, as science itself is. People who treat Science as if it were a religion are:

1. Seeking the same crutch as I just mentioned.

2. Engaging in the same kind of fallacious thinking as those who espouse Social Darwinism. <_<

I hope you were saying that Sciencism is based on "feelings and speculation and not on facts" and not science itself. I really do.

Because yes Sciencism is, no Science is not - Feelings and "not facts", absolutely not, speculation - of course it is there (speculation is what progressive thinking is all about) but the science is all about what one does with those speculations.

Y2K for example was based on a plausible theory and then taken over by psuedo science and turn into a mokery.

Well you would have top be more specific:

Y2K was just a date (Well a catchy moniker for a date, of course.)

There was very real concern borne out of the fact that Computers when first developed (1940s-50s) were very short of memory space, so software generally shortened dates to a two digit number (1963 was just "63") saving two whole digits! As hard as it might be to imagine it now (we now can get home PCs with a Terabyte of memory or more!!) that was a big deal back then. The problem was that the computer software designers just assumed that by 2000 CE their software woul dbe entirely replaced by new ones that (due to the increased capacity) would be using the full dates. Unfortunately there were two problems with this:

1. Conventions - for some it was just traditional, they way it was done, to use the 2 digit system. Others simply didn’t think about it and just copied the old methods - and copied the program facets wholesale (common practice; why write a date function when you can just copy an old one?)

2. Many programs are not so much replaced entirely, as repeatedly updated. perhaps such "trivial" changes as the date function would just be ignored.

The second problem led to a lot of speculation and doubt - people simply did not know if their software (and hardware- in some machines this stuff is hardwired in physically) had been updated in this manner or not.

There was, of course a lot of scare mongering, which is all too typical. Getting people into a frenzy that was quite frankly way over the top - national power failures, planes falling out of the sky, the apocalypse....

And not surprisingly numerous religious nutters (some seen as mild mannered moderate theologians included - before and since) jumped on that bandwagon. The amount of Y2K is the end times rubbish was crazy (Of course the same was true in Y1K as well, typical numerology crap)

There were some real concerns however. And a hel of a lot of work was done, especially on major, old, computer systems (and other machinery that use dates) and a fair number of such problems were found and corrected. So some real catastrophes were averted. So it is a mistake to look back and say "See it was never anything to worry about anyway." That's like seeing a major fire (shipwreck, road accident...), watching the rescue workers valiantly spend hours to rescue every body, and saying at the end of it "well that was lucky, there was no real danger after all."

Hey what can I say, I know a bit, and had reason to be interested in that one; I was studying for a BSc in Information Systems at the time.

Yes there was much panic borne out of Pseudo-Science. BUT real science made every effort to remain calm and stick to the real facts, and ensure everyone of this fact. I heard it, but also noted how it was being drowned out by all the claptrap from New agers, and religious inane insanity. I'm afraid too many people prefer the more spectacular and far fetched, the "fantastic" and sensational, to listening to common sense (that's just boring.)

But have you really thought about where all that pseudo-Science was coming from? Not real science or dedicated scientists, that’s for sure.

By the way the only thing I heard coming of Y2K here in New Zealand was that one guy got a nasty overdue charge when he returned his rented video on New Years Day - "Sorry this is 36,524 days over due, you owe us $$$$ in late fees" (Actually the cause was immediately recognised, he owed nothing, and they all had a good laugh about it.)

The majority of experts agreed that the sky was falling and beat the same drum day after day. They were wrong.

No, what you were being subjected to was the Media spin on things - of course the sensationalists (the end is Nigh the end is Nigh) got the most air time. Including every damn pseudo-intellectual who always crawl out of the wood work at times like this ("trust me I'm a Scientist" ) - they are like bloody cockroaches, only not as likable. The real experts (I as one studying that particular field at the time, heard them) where that faint buzz you might have heard in the background now and then - the ones trying to spoil everyone’s fun.

"They" were not at all the majority, but they were most certainly the LOUDEST, perhaps that is why you thought them as "legion."

Any remotely intelligent person should have known it was a fraud but the"experts" said it was true and therefor no amount of proof or logic would change their mind.

I think you summed up my response to this by putting Experts in scare quotes It was not a fraud, they were.

There are countless examples of science leading people astray every bit as much as religion has.

This was not one of them. Science does not lead people astray, but people certainly can. Religion on the other hand is leading people astray, by its very nature - even if any of them did happen to be ultimately correct, that would be just dumb luck. And in my opinion coming to the right conclusion via the wrong reasons, isn't much better than coming to a bullsh*t conclusion (it's like adding 3x2 and thinking well 2x2 is 5, add one and that equals 6 - right answer - really bad working)

<Sigh> Two posts needed again...

[Guest]

Continuing on...

I know two wrongs don't make a right but thats my basis for being as skeptical about science as I am about religion.

If that is your basis, then you have a problem, because it is so very flawed indeed. You seem to a large extent, be confusing dishonest individuals (often agenda or dogma driven) misusing real science, abusing and misrepresenting it, for the real thing - Don't. The real problem is not the science (just look what it has brought us - the wealth of information and level of understanding we now enjoy!) butpeoples failure to pay it any heed, or the offer it the respect it deserves. Plus the willingness to listen and accept blindly the words of any old fool who shouts loud enough (which real scientists are generally loathed to do - they aren't preachers and proselytisers, they don't make bold claims of ultimate Truth and wisdom from on high) as the real authority.

Too much has to be accepted with out independant verification and hence blind faith.

Yes it has - it's called religion (It had to be said, but of course it is not just in what we recognise as religion ) - But this is not the case in science. People unfortunately make such claims as you mention (unverified, blind Faith derived) and try to dress it up, to impress the masses, as science, when it is the very opposite of science - it flies directly in the face of the Scientific Method.

I will go to each and every link you posted and look at the info provided. Chances are I'll learn something new.

My prpose of being on this thread is to find points to ponder and you've given me a few.

Good for you

[Guest]

Well atheists are people like anyone else - Charming intelligent people, jackasses and so on, this of course is because ones nature has little to do with their position on this one topic - unless of course it is the fundamental aspect of their being - (Total Faith-heads usually) and they are almost all jackasses.

Atheist aren't people their evolutionary monkey hybreds. Only Christians are people. People are created not morphed. I'm joking. Really I am. In my experience christians that have actually read the bible and practice what they preach tend to be very good people. The ones that become christian to further a cause or think it some how makes them better than everyone else are indeed assholes. The same goes for science. Most atheists I've met have been jerks but the only reason I knew they were atheists in the first place is because they were so militant about it.

It is a mistake when talking science, it has a clear meaning. I agree that the existence of god is probably pretty much improvable, but the point I was trying to drive home is that proving a negative (gods do not exist for instance) is by its very nature of being a negative, far harder. And this is one reason the burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the holder of the positive claim. For me it it enough to show the lack of evidence FOR. Given that; there is no need for evidence AGAINST.

and i agree, in principle but I'm on the other side of that fence. To me its kind of like trying to prove an emotion. You could tell me all day long that theres no such thing as,dare I say , Love but with out something to back your claim it would fall on deaf ears. I know it exists, I've experienced it but I can't in any way prove it. That doesn't mean its doesn't exist. I would assume its an emotion every one has felt and therefor it shouldn't have to be proven. Thats kind of were I'm at with the whole God thing. Logic and reason are the monkey wrenches in my quest for blissful ignorance.

I'm all about logic (even studied in uni) - And most emphatically NO! Logic is Logic; that's the whole point - it transcends personal opinion. If something is a Logical Fallacy; it is a fundamental error in reasoning. It is not a matter of personal opinion - If something is seen by one man as Logic and another as a Logical Fallacy, then one of them is quite simply factually wrong.

Thats kind of my point. For example, and I make it ridiculous on purpose, I know that 45% of traffic accidents involve alchohol. I know the other 55% are caused by sober drivers. Logically I can deduce that I am 5% safer riding with some one thats drunk over someone thats sober.

I once used to as well, but came to realise that it represents a replacement of one crutch for another. Both religion and all that "new Age" stuff (to put it all under one banner) are not really focused on truth and the search thereof, but on comfort and wishful thinking; the desire to feel in control, to have purpose (generally the kind of external given purpose as from a father figure, rather than facing the reality of having to forge ones one.) As such when one looses one comforter (for whatever reason) they may well seek a replacement, or in their vulnerable state be susceptible to be sucked in by any one that comes along. Sad but true

If you take away some ones crutch they fall down unless they never needed the crutch in the first place.

I hope you were saying that Sciencism is based on "feelings and speculation and not on facts" and not science itself. I really do.

Thats what I meant. Too much of what is accepted as science is sciencism. Kind of like the whale with legs thing.

There were some real concerns however. And a hel of a lot of work was done, especially on major, old, computer systems (and other machinery that use dates) and a fair number of such problems were found and corrected. So some real catastrophes were averted. So it is a mistake to look back and say "See it was never anything to worry about anyway." That's like seeing a major fire (shipwreck, road accident...), watching the rescue workers valiantly spend hours to rescue every body, and saying at the end of it "well that was lucky, there was no real danger after all."

Your whole Y2K disortation was going so well and then you ended it with that. No where on the planet was there any significant problems caused by the Y2K "bug". Whether the computers were "cured" or not. I'm not looking back and saying it wasn't a problem I said it from the 1st day the press got involved. I made a substantiall amount of money "immunizing"

peoples vehicles and computers from the Y2K virus by doing absolutely nothing. OK, I did update a program. I had a lot to lose if it turned out there was anything to the scare and guess what? No problems. I shouted from the highest roof tops that it was a scam and no one cared. The science was in and it was final. I even explained to the customers that they were throwing their money away but they felt it was worth it for there piece of mind. So its more like seeing a bunch of rescue workers standing around scratching there heads wondering were all the mayhem is and sayin" I tried to tell you".

But have you really thought about where all that pseudo-Science was coming from? Not real science or dedicated scientists, that’s for sure.

How do I tell the difference?

I've read some of the sites you referenced and noticed several magical fairies peeking out from behind some of the alleged facts. I'd be more specific but this is probably already getting too far off thread. It was a catatonic thread and shouldn't matter but who knows.

Is there an old Zealand?

[Guest]

Atheist aren't people their evolutionary monkey hybreds. Only Christians are people. People are created not morphed. I'm joking. Really I am.

Careful though, there is a thing called Poe's Law you know.

I for one am an African Ape and quite happy to accept that fact!

In my experience christians that have actually read the bible and practice what they preach tend to be very good people.

Many are, but in my experience the niceness or otherwise tends to come from the nature of the person to begin with (Nature and/or Nurture - separate issue). People can interpret the bible (like anything else - good example; people read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and interpreted it such a way that he reacted by declaring "I am not a Marxist" based on the way they were acting as a result) and be the nicest people, although if too serious about it (in my opinion) rather deluded with the feeling they need to "save" the rest of us - Nice can still be annoying and insulting. Or they can be right wankers. It all depends.

The ones that become christian to further a cause or think it some how makes them better than everyone else are indeed assholes. The same goes for science. Most atheists I've met have been jerks but the only reason I knew they were atheists in the first place is because they were so militant about it.

Not all of us though, eh?

There's militant and there's militant, and it depends what you are militant, or passionate, about, and why. Me; I am passionate about Reason, and thus feel the need to stand up to abuses of, and attempts (realised or not) to undermine its value and proper usage. Religion comes directly under fire because it tends to commit this attack against Reason far too much. That religious people can be perfectly nice and wonderful people is beside the point, but not ignored entirely or forgotten. Some theists I have talked to, even though they are making many of the same outrageous claims as the worst zealots, I tend to feel sorry for rather than at all "militant" again personally; I see that they are victims of indoctrination, and do not, can not, see the harm they are doing.

That sounded harsh, so a few nice words: Not all theists and religious folks do this though, most probably do not, they simply believe what they believe and try to live their lives, letting everyone else do the same. I may disagree with the reasons they believe as they do, and will gladly say so if (and only if) the conversation comes up, but will only become "militant" if they "fire the first shot."

AS it happens; mine and my wife's best friends just happen to be Catholics. And yes, they know my position on the matter, even had the odd conversation on it (and I never pretend to be any less emphatic than I truly feel) and friends we remain.

One more word on this: I frequent the Richard Dawkins forum (Just became a "Veteran Member" actually,) in fact it is from there that I was "poached" to engage you lot here. And they are by in large the nicest group of people I have had the pleasure to meet and get to know - almost all of them atheists. And sadly it is the theists (not all, but I would say a slight majority) are the ones who tend to be the most abusive and insulting, at least when their Faith gets pushed too far - Its an emotional response, not a rational one; Cognitive Dissonance responses are all too common. Most often you find them accusing us atheists of being mean, insulting etc. when we argue against their claims and arguments. But that is what the forum is for; Rigorous rational debate. That can get uncomfortable for some people at times, especially when they are not used to their cherished belief coming under such uncensored critical scrutiny. Their belief has been protected by Faith, and been protected from reason, not subjected to it, it has gotten far too much of a free ride. A few theists love it though, they to relish the cut and thrust of heated, but rational and fair, debate.

and i agree, in principle but I'm on the other side of that fence. To me its kind of like trying to prove an emotion. You could tell me all day long that theres no such thing as,dare I say , Love but with out something to back your claim it would fall on deaf ears. I know it exists, I've experienced it but I can't in any way prove it. That doesn't mean its doesn't exist. I would assume its an emotion every one has felt and therefor it shouldn't have to be proven. Thats kind of were I'm at with the whole God thing.

Actually Love is quite testable and open to investigation. Just because it is not a physical thing does not change that. Although there is a nature to it that many miss; they call it "love," and interpret this as it sounds, a Noun - and actual thing. Which it is not; it’s an experience, a function of things. You can not "experience" love as such (although we use that very term) instead we experience things (other people, things...) in a particular way, the way of love.

We could go on all day about this, big subject.

But the evidence for love can be discovered - that's how we know (or think we know, because evidence doesn't equal proof) that someone loves us for instance. How? Magic? A mystical connection? Sounds poetic, but hardly. We can tell by the evidence of our senses; the way the talk to us, their body behaviour, their scent even (if we weren’t so busy disguising that with spays and perfumes) things like that. With out such evidence we would never know. Something I heard recently:

There is a term for Knowing someone loves us without any evidence (like that above): Its called Stalking

By the same token, if someone told you that they loved you, would you just believe them? I wouldn't; not without some sign - Evidence, to confirm it.

This is a common analogy for theists defending their belief in god(s) sans evidence - sometimes this is clearly a dishonest tactic (seen a few of those) at other times they truly believe it, as you no doubt do. But is simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now I am happy to admit that perhaps there is no evidence for god(s), no way to get evidence for him - Yes, even if he/she/it does truly exist - but the burden of proof (or evidence or reasoning) is still on the one making the positive claim. Especially when in my case, and that of most (but not all) atheists, my position and claim is not "there are no gods" but rather "I do not accept your claim that there are gods." the latter is an entirely different ballgame than the former.

Since we are at this point I might as well add this: Those who make the claim that there are no gods, do take on (effectively accepting it with the claim) a certain burden of proof. Basically in saying that they are claiming that there is some positive reason to believe as they do and they have it. They are claiming to have a reason to believe as they do, thus have the duty to present this reasoning (evidence or whatever it might entail) before anyone can be expected to accept their claim. This, of course, is the exact same burden as the one on the theist who claims there is a god or gods.

You will however find that many such atheists (who are in something of a minority in my experience) when pushed, reveal that their real claim is that there is no reason to believe in gods, so they reject that claim. They are making a mistake in making claims beyond their actual belief/view/opinions in my opinion.

This quote (again):

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present." - Calilasseia (RichardDawkins.net forum)

Sums up my view on the matter, at least to a certain degree. For me; I see no evidence or reason to believe in any gods, nothing that points to the plausibility of any such thing. As such I see it as irrational to believe in such things. For me, most definitely, most irrational for me to believe in them, as I have in my possession no Reason (no supportive reasoning or evidence) to do so. And as far as I can tell, no one else has either - many have claimed that they do of course. But if so, then why have they failed to provide it? Or worse, provided claims and arguments that fall apart under the most cursory rational examination?

Logic and reason are the monkey wrenches in my quest for blissful ignorance.

I know what you are saying. And that I have found is an all too common thread in religion through the ages - "Ignorance is bliss, reason and logic are hard."

I'm afraid that that is why so many people fall for religious rhetoric and New Age type fantasies as well - the desire for easy answers, or an excuse to avoid facing them. Fine by me, to a degree, exept when they try to force or push it on others: especially their children - children are natural scientists, eager to learn, religious indoctrination can stifle that curiosity - even turn the naturally inquisitive (the next Darwin or Newton perhaps?) into lovers of Blissful Ignorance.

I am glad that I for one abhor wilful ignorance and love Reason and Logic with a passion To me Ignorance is not bliss - It is an opportunity to learn and dispel that ignorance. And I find no discomfort in being ignorant and wholly perplexed about anything. I love it as a matter of fact – not the perplexity, but the potential opportunity it promises; to learn something new!

For some Ignorance is a blessing, something to enjoy, for me (and many others, scientists especially) it is a challenge to try to over come. And for many of us that challenge is not a thing to fear and dread, some something to savour and enjoy.

Thats kind of my point. For example, and I make it ridiculous on purpose, I know that 45% of traffic accidents involve alchohol. I know the other 55% are caused by sober drivers. Logically I can deduce that I am 5% safer riding with some one thats drunk over someone thats sober.

(By the way, I'm enjoying this pleasant conversation, so realise that when I come down hard on anything, it is not in anger or in attack, Just driving the point home and displaying how serious I take it. I am not one to pull my punches - even in the most pleasant of conversations.)

I get your point; people can misuse (abuse) the tools of reason. It is the duty of the Reasonist (lover of Reason) to stand up and let it be known when such transgressions occur. Otherwise this rubbish only spreads.

Your example send me back to my studying of Statistics (it was my minor before switching to Philosophy actually.) There is a saying in Statistics"

"You can Prove anything with Statistics!"

It is of course a Warning, not a boast; a warning that people can all too readily use the tools and various results of statistics and twist them to their own desired conclusions. A warning to be on the look out, and be prepared for it, and not to be to ready to just accept it at face value.

A life lesson for us all.

If you take away some ones crutch they fall down unless they never needed the crutch in the first place.

Right, so they scramble for the nearest available replacement. And there are so very many people ready and waiting to hand them a new crutch to lean on. What is needed is they need to be taught how to walk without one at all.

This is one of my real passions - Education: Children need to be taught, and as early as possible, the fundamentals of philosophy. This is the tools and techniques of argument, reasoning and critical thinking.

Not only will this give an unimaginable boost to their subsequent education (kids are simply not taught, at least not adequately, how to learn - then we get upset that they aren't learning anything in school?! Facts and figures aren’t much good if you haven't learned how to process and use them) but to their day to day lives. Including the "inoculation" against the woolly thinking to be found in all those cults, religions, and all that "new age" (although so much of it is very old indeed) woo like numerology, Crystal healing, astrology, and the list goes on....and on....

And the benefits to them, and society as a whole, would be simply astounding! Well, compared to the way things stand at present.

But sadly so many parents (and not just them of course) feel, and have been indoctrinated themselves to feel and pass on that feeling (viral meme), that they feel the must indoctrinate their children to believe just as they do. How does that achieve anything but the stifling of progress?!

It be hooves me here to point out that I most adamantly agree with Richard Dawkins stance against the Labelling as children by the religion of their parents. And how this is something that should get the same type of recognition as the similar efforts of The Women's Lib movement against the masculinisation of words in common language - referring to our "common man", or :one man one vote" - What about bloody women, don't they count?!

One should feel the same kind of twinge of guilt or discomfort when one hears of a 4 year old being referred to as a protestant child, as one does (or should ) in hearing such male biased language.

Thats what I meant. Too much of what is accepted as science is sciencism. Kind of like the whale with legs thing.

Good. Uh, but what about "the whale legs thing"?

They did use to have 'em you know - they were kind of little horse like land mammals ya know. No (rational scientific) doubt about it - The best evidence for this has only been uncovered in the last 15 years or so - cool stuff too.

Your whole Y2K disortation was going so well and then you ended it with that. No where on the planet was there any significant problems caused by the Y2K "bug". Whether the computers were "cured" or not.

That's the point, they were "cured" (metaphors are cool - like computer virus - cured. Random fact - they were initially called computer bugs - because the first computers were huge machines and real bugs (moths and stuff) got caught in the gates etc. and cause the machines to go haywire )If they hadn't been cured there would have been more problems. As I said, I was studying Information Science in university when this was going on (1999-2000) so we were kept abreast of the developments, and from the Information systems/technology side. Bill Gates and Microsoft (for all their other flaws) were really on top of the ball on this one (others as well of course) running around checking and fixing stuff, had teams of software and hardware engineers deducted to just this one issue. It was really a huge impressive effort. Sure there was over the top media hype, but these guys should be recognised for what they did. The problem is after the fact everyone just went "Oh it wasn't a big deal after all!" failing to notice the exhausted sweat dripping of the computer nerds (can ya picture it?) in the background, collapsing in exhaustion and relief its all over. Again its like my Rescue worker analogy (hey, I was a medic and my father was a fireman - I sue what I know) You see that no lives were lost, but fail to realise that this is only due to the dedicated efforts of a few good men. (We cheered them in our classes though )

I'm not looking back and saying it wasn't a problem I said it from the 1st day the press got involved. I made a substantiall amount of money "immunizing"

peoples vehicles and computers from the Y2K virus by doing absolutely nothing. OK, I did update a program. I had a lot to lose if it turned out there was anything to the scare and guess what? No problems. I shouted from the highest roof tops that it was a scam and no one cared. The science was in and it was final. I even explained to the customers that they were throwing their money away but they felt it was worth it for there piece of mind. So its more like seeing a bunch of rescue workers standing around scratching there heads wondering were all the mayhem is and sayin" I tried to tell you".

Oh absolutely there was a load of crap flying around - personal computers and modern systems indeed! Modern "1st world" built Planes falling out of the sky and all that ridiculous jazz. And sure, people got all freaked out, not just the silly End times crap, but the "No you gotta fix my computer, make it Y2K compliant". And Big business and capitalism being what it is; many unscrupulous people capitalised on it. That's typical, sad but typical.

Even those who were engaged in the big jobs (airlines, big financial firms, government and hospitals that had long histories, and thus possibly systems that relied on the old method) tried to assure people that the risks were relatively minor. No one listened, they never do - children the bloody lot of 'em.

There were things fixed that would have caused, what those involved would have called, major hassles. But they generally amounted to major headaches in records - not planes crashing or respirators shutting down or any of that rubbish. Major administrative hassles with figures (like bills and payments due etc.) getting all screwed up. That's largely due to the fact that everyone relies on whatever the computers spew out, to be honest. Remember the example I gave of the "overdue" video? - an example that the Y2K problem wasn't entirely fictitious; they weren't Y2K compliant, but luckily that was no big deal in their case - What's the bet that if that had been a major finance company or The U.S. Stock exchange or something big like that, that it would have caused chaos? And many of those big business clowns wouldn't have responded like the video store guy did (laugh it off and wipe it) - "I don't care the computer says you owe us 99 years in interest - pay up or we take your house!"

Again with the"too many quotes" - to be contiued.

[Guest]

Continuing on...

How do I tell the difference?

I've read some of the sites you referenced and noticed several magical fairies peeking out from behind some of the alleged facts. I'd be more specific but this is probably already getting too far off thread. It was a catatonic thread and shouldn't matter but who knows.

Really, magical fairies? There might be, people make mistakes. Point them out, sounds interesting - If you are right I might even, if I can, point them out to the site people themselves.

How do you tell the difference? It's not easy, don't just take the word of one guy - "Trust me I'm a scientist!" Study, learn what you can, it wil make you better prepared to spot erroneous methodologies and work - even if you know little about the subject matter at times (I just totally rebutted an article on Snake species from a creation science thing, about some experiments and so forth, and I know squat about snakes. Because it was the reasoning that was flawed, and that I could spot.) Look for what the "scientific community" is saying, not the "scientist" on the teevee,or with the biggest voice. Basically it comes don to critical assessment of everything. You may not get it right every time. The prevailing theories and ideas may not even be the correct ones - that's science, but it should help weed the chaff from the wheat.

Hey, no one said it would be easy.

Is there an old Zealand?

Yup - Well it's called Zealand (just Like New York has its York, New England its England, and New Mexico its Mexico)

Here you go: Zealand

As it happens I live in the City of Palmerston North, New Zeland. Nad yes, there is, down in the South Island (I'm in the North Island) is a small town called Palmerston.

There ya go; more than you asked for.

[Guest]

whoah... someone posted in religious debate again..

huh

[Guest]

whoah... someone posted in religious debate again..

huh

I know!! Been a while eh?! (About a month gap.)

Join the party if you like, it's been just the two of us so far, which is kind of cool - one on one discussion and all that. But the more the merrier.